national

Protesters in Tokyo demand end to nuclear power

43 Comments
By YURI KAGEYAMA

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

© Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

43 Comments
Login to comment

No more Nukes... go solar.. use wave energy... magnetic energy will spin a wheel and create electricity.. you must stand up .. you must march.. parade.. party in park.. in front of the Emperors Palace.. dont let these corrupt people kill your children

3 ( +6 / -4 )

maybe in 15 years. Sure! what about in the mean time???? Solar is VERY inefficient! A house covered in solar panales only supplies about 15 to 25% of the needed power. What about an apt building with 1000 apts like you have in Tokyo. Where are we going to put a solar panel filed 10 square km large???? I am 100% agree with you we need to find solutions to nuclear power, but it is naive to think we can just snap our fingers and start using a type of power that doesn't exist yet in viable forms. Wave energy? how many years will it take to build this wave energy? exactly!

Time and people energy would be better spent DEMANDING the government spend more funds into alternative energy research. This "no nuke" protest is nonsense. it is not practicle. March for GREEN POWER instead.

-1 ( +5 / -7 )

But the new prime minister elected late last year, Shinzo Abe, hailing from a conservative party that fostered the pro-nuclear policies of modernizing Japan, wants to restart the reactors, and maybe even build new ones. The protesters said they were shocked by how the government was ignoring them

Shocked? Well, ummm.. where were all you protesters during the entire election campaign then???

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Robert is exactly correct. If Japan wants eventual denuclearization, that is certainly a viable alternative in the mid to long-term future, but not now.

Let's examine the facts in comfortable as they may be. Renewable energy is certainly part of the answer, but there is no way that it alone can replace nuclear energy.

We could continue to use fossile fuels, but they have to be impoted and paid for. And let's not forget that while nuclear plants have a small risk of serious pollution, oil coal and even LNG have an absolute certatainty of environmental pollution.

And there is NO WAY that people are going to sit in the dark, freeze in the winter and melt in the summer for the next 15-20 years.

I think the only thing that Ishihara said in his term as Govenor that I ever agreed with was when he said "Immediate denuclearization marks the extinction of Japanese industry (and large scale unemployment - my addition).

Alas, like it or not, and I don't, we need nuclear power for another decade, maybe two.

2 ( +5 / -4 )

There are so many ways we waste energy. So much could be saved with just a little thought.

People snoozing in cars with the engine running because it's slightly cooler than outside. Air conditioning in buildings where a more efficient design would reduce the need for it. People discarding things that can still be used or recycled. Wasting food. Burning grass and vegetation that could be put back into the ground as compost. Tearing down concrete buildings and putting up newer ones - concrete production uses incredible amounts of energy. One person in a vehicle designed for four that would comfortably sit six. Buses that seat 50 people running around the city with one or two people in them.

There's no end to it.

And, combining new substances with old technologies, such as clockwork, could produce a whole generation of gadgets and machinery that doesn't need nuclear produced electricity. I saw a design for an electric light that didn't require a power source of any kind. You pull a string and this winds a clockwork mechanism that produces electric current to light an LED. One pull and your room is lit for one hour.

Nuclear power seems to be very convenient. And it is, cheap and fairly efficient. Except for two things:

In a country with as many fault lines and as much seismic activity as Japan, it is simply another disaster waiting to happen.

And, there is the problem of disposing of radioactive waste. However this is done, it gives a massive problem for future generations to take care of.

With some scientific minds working on this and money invested on it, rather than the astronomical figures spent "defending Japan" against some imaginary foe, alternative and far more efficient forms of energy could be found.

It can be done.

9 ( +14 / -4 )

@BertieWooster

There are so many ways we waste energy. So much could be saved with just a little thought. People snoozing in cars with the engine running because it's slightly cooler than outside. Air conditioning in buildings where a more efficient design would reduce the need for it. People discarding things that can still be used or recycled. Wasting food. Burning grass and vegetation that could be put back into the ground as compost. Tearing down concrete buildings and putting up newer ones - concrete production uses incredible amounts of energy. One person in a vehicle designed for four that would comfortably sit six. Buses that seat 50 people running around the city with one or two people in them. There's no end to it.

This is small fry stuff. Sure, a homeowner can make a go of it without changing their behavior too radically, but so what? It isn't the homeowners that need massive, massive amounts of energy. It's the industries that need that energy, and no amount of recycling or composting is going to save them enough to produce heavy machinery, robotics, or any of the hundreds of different things that are essential for the large economy.

People are acting as if the only reason to be pro-nuclear is because you are too lazy to throw your paper cup in the right bin. That's nonsense. If you are protesting nuclear energy, but don't have a solution or alternative, then you are not protesting; You are whining. These people are really not that much different from the Occupy Wall Street crowd. Cheerleaders with no team to cheer.

-3 ( +6 / -10 )

With some scientific minds working on this and money invested on it, rather than the astronomical figures spent "defending Japan" against some imaginary foe, alternative and far more efficient forms of energy could be found.

Unscientific minds always propose this, despite not knowing a single thing about what it actually means. You need energy to produce energy, you need energy to manufacture energy saving devices, and you need energy just to plan these things. Believe it or not, Japan has one of the most energy efficient industrial sectors around, and housing electrical energy is equally efficient.

Japan has zero chance of making any progress, political, economic, and health wise, without energy at the levels they had in 2010. There's only two ways, either sacrifice a thousand lives a year to keep fossil fuels at current levels, or possibly risk a thousand a century with nuclear. People can chose what they want, but they better understand the real consequences, not just the one sided pictures painted by politically active people.

-3 ( +5 / -9 )

Basroil:

housing electrical energy is equally efficient

Wrong! Boiling water remotely (could it be with gas, coil or nuke) to produce electricity that will be converted back into individual heating system is totally inefficient. Central heating generated with gas and/or trash would be much more efficient. Understood that would take time to change it. In the meantime heat pumps could help the transition. I have not seen any in Tokyo.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Japan has zero chance of making any progress, political, economic, and health wise, without energy at the levels they had in 2010

Would you please explain the political progresses that nuke energy could trigger? I do not see any link.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Open MindedMar. 09, 2013 - 10:26PM JST

Wrong! Boiling water remotely (could it be with gas, coil or nuke) to produce electricity that will be converted back into individual heating system is totally inefficient.

Looks like someone clearly didn't read... I said electrical efficiency, NOT overall efficiency. People in Japan use very little electrical energy when you remove industry from the equation.

Central heating generated with gas and/or trash would be much more efficient.

More efficient at creating CO2, and, especially with trash burning, efficient at killing people with pollution. Health wise, it is still better to just use electricity than burning anything other than pure hydrogen. People aren't against nuclear because it has a lower efficiency (in Gen 1/2) than coal, they are against it because they fear health issues. Likewise, they should fear all these "energy saving" techniques that actually have statistically significant impacts on health.

Many places in the world use power plant based residential and office heating, including NYC and Beznau. But that has nothing to do with the topic at hand now does it?

-3 ( +6 / -10 )

If anyone would like to look at a scientific appraisal of the situation, here is a paper that may interest you:

http://www.geni.org/globalenergy/research/renewable-energy-potential-of-japan/renewable_energy_potential_of_Japan_by_2020.pdf

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Basroil:

The trash burning plant exist already in the center of Tokyo for instance. But they produce only CO2, dust and ashes. I know your examples of central heating examples from NPP. But there are only a few ones. For whatever reasons I do not know, the NPP are remote from cities...

The same with gas electric plants. They already exist, but generate only electricity and CO2, while it could be thermocouple!

These are not THE solution, but technically and proven existing ones. Why not implementing them?

This has to do with the topic, because the best energy is the one that is not wasted!

3 ( +4 / -1 )

>“I can’t see what lies ahead. It looks hopeless, but if I give up now, it’s over,”

You can't see anything because burning fossil fuel has produced so much pollution!

1 ( +5 / -3 )

Ah, the old nuclear boogeyman. I'm always surprised by how much Japan would like to continue with coal plants that produce way more radiation than any nuclear power plant. And few of them seem to know that nuclear power produces 1/4000th of the deaths that coal power does per kilowatt hour.

The solar power on my house produces 75% of our energy. It can certainly take a chunk out of our footprint. Also, it would be nice if people would occasionally be okay with having something second hand. But this won't happen. Japan is penny wise and pound stupid about the environment. My in-laws chastised me for washing dishes at their house with 42 degree water, bumped it down to 32, and then put the lid on the dishrack and plugged it in to dry the dishes. Apparently air drying is too inconvenient.

Honestly, next time you hear the word "eco", try to see if it is actually about being kind to the environment or if it means "uses less power and is therefore cheaper".

I think this thing could be sidestepped if they managed their nuclear power plants up to the international safety specs. The scope of the damage is widely understood to have been preventible and largely to be due to human error.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

can someone please give me an example, were protests in Japan, has actually led to positive change in society as a whole? .. because in all sincerity, the anti-nuclear movement in Japan, largely base themselves in the Capital. Of course there are regional and local protests, but the media hardly says anything.. What is the point of proclaiming various other alternative energy sources, in discussions and debates in public forums and other, various media outlets.. when the old establishment, wishes nothing more then to continue with the status quo. ..

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Verisimilitude-san,

Of course there are regional and local protests, but the media hardly says anything

And there, you hit the nail on the head.

The media hardly says anything.

There is, however, a reason for it.

Read what David McNeill has to say:

http://www.japanfocus.org/-David-McNeill/3912

0 ( +2 / -3 )

Sleepy dog,

Luckily the only alternative to Nuclear Power is not burning fossil fuels. There are other, renewable ways that we know now. And there are ways to be discovered. There should be planning to move away from nuclear and fossil fuel power and toward renewable energy sources. Especially considering that energy required for industry has dropped considerably over the last few years. Much of Japan's manufacturing is out-sourced these days.

Industrial consumption is about 43 percent of the total. Transportation and domestic use together is about the same.

For the sake of our future generations, we must move off nuclear power and into safer and more efficient energy production methods that do not pollute or damage the Earth.

This planet is the only one we've got. By cooperating with countries around us instead of having hissy fits about which bit belongs to whom, we could solve this problem.

If affects ALL of us.

0 ( +4 / -3 )

Bertie Wooster:

I hear you. Of course better cleaner energy sources should be explored. But this protest seems to me to be about fear of the Great Nuclear Godzilla, and not a concern over environment. If it were, they'd have been protesting fossil fuels.

Let's move towards a cleaner planet, by all means, but let's first admit that nuclear is cleaner than coal, Japan's little energy darling.

1 ( +2 / -2 )

BertieWoosterMar. 10, 2013 - 12:05AM JST

Luckily the only alternative to Nuclear Power is not burning fossil fuels.

That's like saying the alternative to paying your mortgage is not paying any of your bills. One of the worst ideas ever spoken, considering that Japan has already proved it wrong by increasing fossil fuels use by 30%.

There are other, renewable ways that we know now.

I have not seen Japan implement any of these. In fact, nowhere in the world has a reduction in nuclear power not meant a sharp increase in fossil fuels use. And more interestingly, renewable energy production actually decreased in Japan since the nuclear plants went offline. Most people forget to include natural and pumped hydro into their "renewables" section.

There should be planning to move away from nuclear and fossil fuel power and toward renewable energy sources.

This takes decades at minimum, the protesters are demanding it be stopped tomorrow. While eventually nuclear fission and fossil fuels will be gone, you will likely not be alive when the last powerplants go offline. Hell, you'll probably be gone before the last plants are built! (generalized "you", since we are talking about 40-50 years out)

Especially considering that energy required for industry has dropped considerably over the last few years.

That's actually only since 2011, so while you are right, you are confusing symptoms for causes. Japan has mandated that industry cut back production due to power shortages, initially after the quake industrial output dropped to almost nothing. As more powerplants, especially mothballed killer coal plants and their less so but still dangerous oil plants, came online, the output increased, but it is still held back due to energy considerations.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

sleepy dogMar. 09, 2013 - 11:41PM JST

The solar power on my house produces 75% of our energy. It can certainly take a chunk out of our footprint.

40-80 square meters of panel (depending on 1-4 person house) is quite a large amount of money, not everyone is rich enough to drop 2 million yen or more on something like that.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

This takes decades at minimum, the protesters are demanding it be stopped tomorrow. While eventually nuclear fission and fossil fuels will be gone, you will likely not be alive when the last powerplants go offline. Hell, you'll probably be gone before the last plants are built! (generalized "you", since we are talking about 40-50 years out)

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming that some of the protestors might be thinking about the children who are going to have to live with the various consequences currently associated with nuclear power generation in Japan.

These children will certainly be around in "40-50 years out" to deal with the decisions we make today.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

I wouldn't object to China using more nuclear power and thereby cutting down on all the "PM2.5" crap that's crossing over to Kyushu.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

BertieWoosterMar. 09, 2013 - 11:04PM JST

If anyone would like to look at a scientific appraisal of the situation, here is a paper that may interest you:

http://www.geni.org/globalenergy/research/renewable-energy-potential-of-japan/renewable_energy_potential_of_Japan_by_2020.pdf

First, it is not a scientific paper. Scientific papers usually go through a peer-review process before getting published in a scientific journal. This is a self-published report.

I took a brief look - not a lot of solid stuff on their calculations, and nothing on technical feasibility. I guess this line from their conclusions says it all:

"Based on all the reasons mentioned above, Japan could manage their energy only by renewable energy. Certainly, there are many obstacles like cost, nuclear power, time, and feasibility."

Not only that, but it has a lot of charts from a fictional "Ministry of the Environment Research".

You also have to wonder why if some of the authorities they quote only see it possible to reach 30% renewable in 2030, like the "Energy and Environment Council", the "Researchers" think 100% is possible by 2020.

Finally, why, in a report on renewable energy in Japan is there no mention of power storage, or the capability of the woeful Japanese power grids to support it?

This is drivel with nice charts - nice because they were copied from someone else.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

BertieWoosterMar. 10, 2013 - 12:05AM JST

Luckily the only alternative to Nuclear Power is not burning fossil fuels. There are other, renewable ways that we know now. And there are ways to be discovered.

And what are these other ways that you seem to be so sure of?

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

BertieWoosterMar. 09, 2013 - 08:34PM JST

Nuclear power seems to be very convenient. And it is, cheap and fairly efficient. Except for two things:

In a country with as many fault lines and as much seismic activity as Japan, it is simply another disaster waiting to happen.

Better get rid of all the dams in the country too then.

And, there is the problem of disposing of radioactive waste. However this is done, it gives a massive problem for future generations to take care of.

Gen IV reactors can burn radioactive waste.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

And I think we finally have the proof of "doublespeak" 's real identity. Mods, you have forbidden his primary account from directly addressing me, and this has clearly become unacceptable stalking. Now 7 out of 7 of this troll's posts are directly quoting me asking the same thing over and over again. Please remove him.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

The protestors may be on the right side of things. But I can hardly be impressed by a movement that is rooted most of all in fear and anxiety. The Fukushima crisis threatened the one pathetic thing these sheeple hold most dear--their illusory sense of security and stability. Most had never really thought about the issue before, but now they're fixated on the one obvious and easy monster that has emerged. They don't have any alternatives or thought for the future; they just want to rid themselves of the source of insecurity and go back to complacency.

And thousands in Tokyo isn't exactly a massive ground swell. In the last election, the nation put the pro-nuclear parties back in power, not the anti-nuke ones. I doubt that those people are more informed on the issue, they just have other priorities.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Basroil:

not everyone is rich enough to drop 2 million yen or more on something like that.

That's a fair criticism. However the gov't subsidizes this as far as I know, and it's an economical investment as well (our power bills are obscenely low. But do you know what will waste a lot of energy? When we move back to my country, sell the land, and when somebody buys it they will demolish the new-ish house and build a new new one. Possibly without solar panels.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Here's another excellent suggestion for renewable energy in Asia.

It can be done:

http://www.japanfocus.org/-John_A_-Mathews/3858

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Germany is proving the whole world can go to solar right now and not give up a single convenience. The reason Japan keeps poison power is a government in bed with the profiteers, and a timid electorate desperately seeking a father figure to guide it.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

BertieWoosterMar. 10, 2013 - 11:54AM JST

Here's another excellent suggestion for renewable energy in Asia.

It can be done:

http://www.japanfocus.org/-JohnA-Mathews/3858

This guy left out two very important pieces which prove it's impossible at the current time:

1) This requires that all the countries provide at least all of their base load, and a good deal of their peak, as well as having different peaks. India, Mongolia, and southeast asian countries don't have enough for base load, let alone cover their peaks. China isn't much better, not having much left over power due to a high need for redundancy (in case another Banqiao happens and wipes out 30GW worth of production). Not to mention all of those countries use coal as primary power sources, with all that pollution going straight to Japan.

2) The cost would be ridiculous. Lets forget for a moment the bribes and lobbying you would need, and focus on engineering cost. From the look of the map, the cost would be in the 100 trillion yen range in cable costs, and then you can add about 100 billion yen per extra GW of production needed. Given that most other countries would expand significantly with electrical grid stability, you would be looking at another hundred trillion yen. And all of these assume huge discounts over the rates Europe is paying for their links.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Nuclear power appears to provide a cheap and convenient supply of energy.

But, there are two problems with it:

When disaster strikes, the damage can be huge and difficult to get rid of for a long time into the future.

Disposing of radioactive waste just gives future generations a problem.

There are other ways to deal with this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy?iframe=true&width=800&height=400

And the other is to stop wasting it.

Using modern technology to make buildings, transport, and machinery more efficient, and simply educating people to think about reuse and recycling.

Recycling is a word that has appeared only recently. When I was a child, there was very little garbage. Food waste went into compost or to feed the chickens, worn out clothes became rugs or quilts and old sheets became handkerchiefs.

Unfortunately, we have become too accustomed to using something a few times and then throwing it away.

Just escalating energy production, such as commissioning yet more nuclear reactors is NOT the only way to solve this problem.

Sure, it's not a simple problem to solve, but if we don't, our children's children are going to have a very hard time indeed.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Certainly about half of the nuclear reactors (the most dangerous ones- Oi 1,2, etc.) can be left off. The others used for a time, until other sloutions appear.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

BertieWoosterMar. 10, 2013 - 02:51PM JST

But, there are two problems with it:

When disaster strikes, the damage can be huge and difficult to get rid of for a long time into the future.

Disposing of radioactive waste just gives future generations a problem.

Interesting, if you replace "radioactive" with toxic, you have described every power source except wind and hydro (first part still applies though).

Death toll during disaster wise, hydroelectric is the most hazardous, as large dams like kurobe are built upstream of towns and cities, as well as contain enough water to wipe out nearly everything downstream for a few dozen kilometers at least. Banqiao demonstrated that it's possible, and during 3/11 several dams failed (luckily that area has few large dams). Floods and tsunamis can wipe out coal and oil plants (as well as gas boilers), and several were damaged directly by the 3/11 earthquakes, not just tsunami. Solar is the weakest of all in disasters, with large capacities of solar production capable of being destroyed in high wind alone, worse when it starts snowing after a disaster (like it did for 3/11).

As for toxic waste, coal and oil (which make up half of the fossil fuel use now) can produce acid rain, PM2.5, dioxins (carcinogen) , and methyl mercury (minamata disease) in large quantities, and ALL of that has a lifetime of forever, it doesn't decay naturally and will be here forever, not just a few generations. Natural gas causes massive global warming, and the high energy density magnets and cables used in wind poison rivers with various chemicals used to mine and refine the rare earth metals used. Solar too is horrible, since silicon production is one of the dirtiest things on the planet, using chemicals strong enough to kill the entire population of the earth several times over.

There's issues with any power source, and the entire set of safety considerations must be taken into account for each one.

-2 ( +5 / -6 )

silicon production is one of the dirtiest things on the planet, using chemicals strong enough to kill the entire population of the earth several times over.

Nuclear power is one of the dirtiest things on the planet, using chemicals strong enough to kill the entire population of the earth several times over.

The protestors mentioned in this news article are demonstrating against the unacceptable risks associated with nuclear power generation.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

I hope people are ready to pay much higher prices for their electricity

0 ( +1 / -1 )

To coin a phrase from Mr. Churchill: "Nuclear power is the worst form of power, except for all the others that have been tried."

2 ( +3 / -1 )

No more nuclear!

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The protestors mentioned in this news article are demonstrating against the unacceptable risks associated with nuclear power generation.

And yet, the one thing they are not protesting is the one thing that would easily prevent all the other risks: bad administration.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

When people protest nuclear power, and when they offer alternative energy as the...well, the alternative, there is really a rather large disconnect visible there between expectation and reality.

I think we can all agree that power, electricity, of any kind, is rather meaningless if it can't be used. Like any other product out there, electricity needs to be profitable enough to cover its own cost and make enough of a profit to attract investors. If one thinks of electricity as a product (as opposed to some odd, unlimited, vast sea of energy somewhere out there that we don't have access to because those greedy so-and-so's actively hold us back), then you begin to see where some of the more moralistic arguments begin to break down.

When you are producing your product, quantity of production tends to translate directly into profit. Let's divide them into three broad categories: Renewable energy, fossil fuel energy, and nuclear energy.

Renewable energy suffers from 3 main drawbacks: First, low production. Simply put, there isn't a lot of energy there to begin with, and an enormous quantity is lost in the processing. The reason you don't hear about disasters at renewable energy plants is because there isn't enough energy to actually cause many disasters. The problem with low production is that you end up with not enough product to make it profitable enough to be useful. The second problem is availability. You can't just plunk down a geothermal plant, a solar plant, a wind farm, wherever you like; in order to use alternative energy, there first has to be an alternate energy available. The problem there, is that most places that do have enough of these energies available tend to, due precisely to that amount of energy available, be extremely inhospitable to humans. An active volcano would be an excellent source of geothermal energy, but living next to one would have drawbacks. The third problem is reliability. Very few renewable energy resources have a base load; biomass does, arguably, as well as geothermal, although that one has several issues as well, but aside from that, being that renewable energy tends to draw its power from the elements, it is also subsequently a slave of the elements, which are random and fickle by nature (literally).

The we have fossil fuels. These are energy sources that have been around for a long, long time, and they have, through the expansive time and force it took to produce them, been refined into concentrated forms of energy that outstrip the infant renewable energy that just barely arrived on planet earth. The sheer difference in regards to energy density, as well as the relative ease and efficiency of coverting them to electricity, makes these sources the go to place for energy production. You get so many Kw out of these that, from a production perspective, it is pointless to even look at renewable energy.

And now, nuclear energy. If renewable energy is an electric scooter, and fossil fuel is an internal combustion car, nuclear is the Shinkansen leaving both behind with such a ludicrously huge margin of production that it is a wonder major energy companies didn't go out of business overnight. We are literally talking about an energy density on scale of 1 to 2 million percent of fossil fuels; or, to avoid the whole British/US/personal numbers issue, if you think of coal as averaging 25 MJ per Kg, and gasoline at around 45-50 MJ/Kg or thereabouts, a fission power plant averages 80,000,000 MJ/Kg! We are talking about energy densities we never even dreamed of before. And that's just current fission technology. Fusion promises to double that. Renewable energy..can't even be measured in these terms.

In terms of production, there is really no contest. Nuclear power doesn't just win; nuclear power is the titan striding through a pack of puppies. Renewables are barely the fleas on the puppies. These protestors can demand an end to nuclear power all they want, but ending nuclear power is not going to make the demand that prompted nuclear power to disappear. If anything, demand has grown, just like industry has grown. You can't have your cake and eat it to; if you protest nuclear power, you need to be willing to give up everything that nuclear power brought to you as well.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

telecasterplayerMar. 10, 2013 - 12:49PM JST

Germany is proving the whole world can go to solar right now and not give up a single convenience. The reason Japan keeps poison power is a government in bed with the profiteers, and a timid electorate desperately seeking a father figure to guide it.

I think the 200,000 low-income households in Germany who saw their electricity cut-off because they couldn't afford the hiked prices counts as inconvienient. http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/germany-s-nuclear-phase-out-brings-unexpected-costs-to-consumers-a-837007.html

2 ( +2 / -0 )

DoublespeakMar. 10, 2013 - 07:04PM JST

Nuclear power is one of the dirtiest things on the planet, using chemicals strong enough to kill the entire population of the earth several times over.

Sorry, you're using the wrong word: chemicals are where atoms are joined together into molecules, what you're talking about could be defined as elements or isotopes.

The protestors mentioned in this news article are demonstrating against the unacceptable risks associated with nuclear power generation.

I didn't know they had the expertise to define and assess the risks.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

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