Take our user survey and make your voice heard.

LDP urges government to push for nuclear return


The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2015.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

Login to comment

“We think restarting nuclear reactors and using nuclear power as a source of supply, after securing its safety, would be favorable for Japan’s energy composition,”

And you are wrong.

4 ( +10 / -6 )

"using nuclear power as a source of supply, after securing its safety,"

They can't secure its safety. It's inherently extremely dangerous.

9 ( +14 / -5 )

They were able to "live" without nuclear power for roughly 4 years.

By importing ridiculous amounts of fossil fuels at an increased cost both financially and to the environment.

-5 ( +7 / -12 )

What would really be encouraging is if some of them would relocate the residence near a NPP.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

@strangerland You could add to your list of costs the health costs and 1000's of premature deaths that will come with the shiny new coal plants being built all over Japan. All fast-tracked with environmental assessments waved, and not a peep from our fearless media about "coal villages" or "regulatory failures". Because the best way to prevent carcinogens from escaping due to easily preventable accidents is to just pump the carcinogens and other deadly toxic substances directly into the atmosphere through normal use. Then you don't have to worry about accidents, and you can pocket a few extra trillion yen while you are at it.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

NO to Nuclear power ! Who forgot what it did to Tchernobyl people and its children ? http://www.actupus.com/les-enfants-oublies-de-tchernobyl/# and what wait Japan in the future ... How much damage should be done before we realize that there are other ways ? A forgotten savior ( among so many others ) educate : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6OrMDLcCpY


and how to naturally heal people damaged by radiation : http://drsircus.com/medicine/medical-marijuana/fighting-radiation-damage-natural http://www.marijuanadoctors.com/content/ailments/index

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Linking Cher novel to Fukushima...4 years after the fact and with a plethora of information about...

Perhaps you can demonstrate the systematic poisoning of Fukushima food in the same way that the soviets did. You know...examples of highly toxic milk that was fed to children on the immediate days after the explosions and the weeks afterwards.

It's not nuclear that is destroying the Fukushima agriculture. it's ignorance.

-12 ( +2 / -14 )

Japan should open Nuclear Reactors that don't lie near shorelines and aren't directly on top of seismic faults. Nuclear Power is very dangerous but if we don't use it, fossil fuels would make tons of CO2 and we'd be like China, spewing toxic gas all over the place. :)

2 ( +4 / -2 )

this is what i find so infuriating with the japanese public. they don't favor nuclear energy, but they vote in a party that is staunchly pro-nuclear. you make your bed so now you have to lie in it.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

When they started shutting down the nuclear power plants 4 years ago and upping imports of oil, coal and gas, it was clear to me that air and other pollution would go up. Last year they released a report saying that in fact, it did. - natural conclusion.

Japan worked very hard to lower pollution from a 1960-70s level and now it is increasing again.

Nuclear power is mostly safe - Japan has a very high level of safe guards and Fukushima was an exceptional case.

Besides for pollution issues pertaining to fossil fuels, there is the import cost. trade deficit shot up drastically after reliance on fossil fuels came back. In summary I agree with the LDP - if safeguards are put in place, bring back nuclear power.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

Dirty, Dangerous and Expensive: The Truth About Nuclear Power -->> http://www.psr.org/resources/nuclear-power-factsheet.html <<---- "Nuclear power is neither safe nor clean. There is no such thing as a "safe" dose of radiation and just because nuclear pollution is invisible doesn't mean it's "clean." source: http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/nuclear/

Fukushima still an ongoing problem, to deny it it's pure ignorance. https://www.facebook.com/WriterOfFukushimaDiary?fref=ts

" Alternate energy.

By 2050, one-third of the world's energy will need to come from solar, wind, and other renewable resources. [...] Alternative energy refers to energy sources that have no undesired consequences such for example fossil fuels or nuclear energy. Alternative energy sources are renewable and are thought to be "free" energy sources. They all have lower carbon emissions, compared to conventional energy sources. These include Biomass Energy, Wind Energy, Solar Energy, Geothermal Energy, Hydroelectric Energy sources. Combined with the use of recycling, the use of clean alternative energies such as the home use of solar power systems will help ensure man's survival into the 21st century and beyond."

so,why unwisely insisting on returning to 'solutions' that that proved to be destructive ? perhaps : money ? ignorance ? political games? what else?

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Wow...-8 and not one person has tried to show that fukushima is as bad as chernobyl or will lead to simliar health problems. I guess googling milk and chernobyl answered that question.

Now here's something else that will get marked down, again because it's the truth and disagrees with everything you've heard from people with no expertise on the subject

In 2011 only 3.3% of food produced in Fukushima exceeded Japanese standards (which are substantially stricter than the rest of the world). In most cases within 5 months the contamination in vegetables was back to near normal levels.

as time goes on there is more and more evidence that the biggest health hazards caused by the nuclear disaster have been caused by fear and by the decisions to replace nuclear fuel with fossil fuels.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

I noticed that there is no mention of Sola or wind power, just think that if every building has 1 or 2 or more panels how much more electricity would be generated

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Everyone regardless of position on nuclear power should watch "pandora's promise". It is enlightening and should be a mandatory watch for anyone weighing in on this issue.

Regarding opinions that nuclear is not needed because Japan has been nuclear free for 4 years...

Some Japanese electric companies are posting profits, but the reason behind this is because they have had to rely on using once retired thermal power plants 24/7 now to cover the gap. The constant use frees up the portion of the budget naturally reserved for periodic shut down / inspection / Maintainance. So in otherwords Japan is still only getting by, they are pushing the limits of safety of old thermal plants. Sooner or later there will be an accident. Sure it's not as bad as Fukushima, but there will be people going "told you so!!" And "it was so obvious!!" Coming out of the woodwork, but are surprisingly quiet right now. Whether turning back nuclear that has passed new safety standards, or building more intergrated combined cycle thermal plants, or simply rationing electricity use again,we need to stop using these 50+ year old thermal plants because they are ticking time bombs.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Alternative energy refers to energy sources that have no undesired consequences

So that doesn't include solar and wind, right? Both require materials in their construction that cause extensive pollution and/or release significant CO2.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The fact that the LDP is making this instruction means that the decision is political, and in a Japanese context, that means the decision is opaque.

The economics of nuclear energy are hidden away. Each NPP has massive construction investments and there is no scalability. These things are at least foreseeable and the power company has nominal responsibility and charges for it. But the decommissioning responsibility is another matter. It is murky who is responsible and murky as to where the waste is supposed to go. Maybe it can all be dumped into Fukushima since that is a dead zone.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You know very well the above point is about consequences of electricity production, not the construction of plan

For wind and solar to be ramped up to the levels in the energy mix claimed possible by the various renewables fantasists and hucksters, the amount of land consumed by the large scale plants required would itself result in massive environmental destruction. Claiming that industrial scale wind and solar electricity generation has no environmental consequences is propaganda and nothing else.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Point is it has far less long term damaging consequences than nuclear

That is a claim by its proponents. Meanwhile there are many respected scientists who reach different conclusions.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

vast majority of Japanese public subscribes

And at one time a vast majority of the public believed the sun went around the earth. Sorry but I will stick with science fact and not public belief.

For all the scientists supporting N power one can easily find an equal number of ones opposing it, just as respectable ( and not supported by "research grants" from N-power companies.

Right, just supported by "research grants" from anti-N-power companies and groups.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

*Lol, you really want to compare the financial resources of anti N-power groups to those of the J power companies ?

Where did I make any comparison of the resources of either side? But nice strawman allowing you to just dismiss it with no facts or discussion.

But hey, why let such concepts as public safety and environment get in the way of J-inc. profits , right?

So you contend that Japan is no longer a democracy and that the public is denied the ability to vote their conscience?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Japan's ruling party on Tuesday urged the government to push for a return to nuclear power in deliberations on the best energy mix,

Of course they do. They are the LDP.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Indeed , and at one time the public,s wishes were reflected in policies by govt. leaders that were elected by the said public.

You stated that the govt. leaders no longer make decisions based on the wishes of the public. That would mean it is no longer a democracy. And if memory serves me, Abe ran on a platform of support for nuclear power, so if the majority of voters opposed it they could have just not voted for him.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

So the public agreed with what Abe said. And I don't care what polls say, I care how people actually voted. Polls are hypothetical questions while voting is where the hypothetical becomes real.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

majority of J-public overwhelmingly disagrees with Abe on his N-plant restart plans

Yet they still voted for him knowing his stance on N-power. So either the voters are brainless sheep (in which case the poll results mean nothing) OR the way they voted is more indicative of their desires than the poll results (in which case the poll results mean nothing).

Hence why I wrote, I don't care what polls say, I care how people actual voted. I noticed how you forgot to quote that qualifier.

Therefore he has no mandate on that particular issue

His position was known before the election and it is the same now. Sounds like the majority was OK with that position and gave him a mandate on all the issues. It doesn't get any simpler than that despite you trying to muddy the waters, period.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites