Nuclear safety boosted to help avert another Fukushima


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

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2012.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

Login to comment

It would take at least five years to update the safety in the Japanese atomic plants and because of costs and age, some plants wouldn't be cost effective and instead need decommissiioning. The cosst of decommissioning is included in the calculation of power from nuclear energy, but recently the power companies have started to state that they don't have funds for decommissioning.

On the world stage, the situation now isn't much better than it was on 3/11.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Can anyone else smell bovine excrument? One should note that, Japan has only done minimal safety upgrades and purely for paper purposes only. Nuclear power will never be safe until the users start to adopt safety measure that ensure nothing can effect the reactors. The excuse of 'a nine magnitude quake was unprecident'' is completely unacceptable.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

A Japanese government-appointed inquiry suggested in July that safety steps taken at other reactors in Japan may not be enough to cope with a big, complex catastrophe caused by both human error and natural causes in a “disaster-prone nation”.

I doubt Japan undertook an exhaustive risk assessment study before overly diving into nuke electricity. I doubt all dangers were put on the table and thoroughly discussed. I think profits were put up and above safety and security. As we talk now, it has been reported that a huge fire may erupt anytime now at Fukushima 4, spewing dangerous radiation again!

3 ( +4 / -1 )

The Aomori prefectural government is considering refusing to accept highly radioactive waste scheduled to be returned from reprocessing overseas if the central government abolishes its nuclear fuel cycle policy.

Every prefecture with an atomic plant should also have an earthquake proof long term storage depot for the spent fuel and other nuclear waste from those plants.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Nuclear reprocessing does absolutely nothing. Don't buy into the propaganda.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Funny how the nuclear industry always talks about "progress" without detailing what it constitutes. For an industry known to hide facts most of the time, this doesn't sound very encouraging.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

A 40 year old unsafe nuclear power plant is just that! It is 40 year old unsafe nuclear power plant-like what type of upgrades make a difference ?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

kurisupisuSep. 10, 2012 - 05:52PM JST

A 40 year old unsafe nuclear power plant is just that! It is 40 year old unsafe nuclear power plant-like what type of upgrades make a difference ?

The upgrade that TEPCO and others were pushing for in early 2000s was called replacing the damn things with third gen designs that have never had serious incidents and have cooling systems far more robust than the 40 year old designs.

That said, simply adding more backup power circuits prevents issues like fukushima, as it is clear to see that the pumps there were in great working order, the backup power just didn't work. One thing people forget is that Reactor 1 was scheduled for permanent shutdown just a week after the accident, and had the accident happened two weeks after it did, they would have had enough battery power for closer to 12 hours rather than 8, enough to do something about the power issue.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

However, environmental group Greenpeace, which opposes nuclear energy on safety grounds, dismissed the upbeat assessment.

“It is painting a situation which doesn’t exist,” Jan Beranek, head of Greenpeace’s nuclear campaign, told Reuters by phone.

So they are going to ignore greenpeace's responsibility for making Fukushima and other nuclear plants stockpile spent fuel? People quickly forget that greenpeace was a large part of the reason that Japan was unable to ship it's spent fuel to France for reprocessing, and resulted in stockpiles of spent fuel several times the normal amount.

And greenpeace themselves state "Greenpeace Foundation is not "anti-nuclear" ", so why are they being portrayed as such?

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

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