national

Restart of two reactors at Oi nuclear plant to be delayed

46 Comments

Kansai Electric Power Co, which had been hoping to restart two reactors at its Oi nuclear power plant in Fukui Prefecture, says a restart is now likely to be delayed until March 2015.

The utility has applied to the Nuclear Regulation Authority to restart its No. 3 and No. 4 reactors. But last month, the NRA decided to give priority to two reactors operated by Kyushu Electric Power Co, meaning that ongoing safety checks of Kansai Electric's reactors may fall behind.

The NRA has also said that the Fukui plant does not meet the standard for resistance to earthquakes and needs to reinforce its structure and fail-safe systems.

© Japan Today

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

46 Comments
Login to comment

"B-b-b-but we already said we'll meet the safety standards in a few years! Why can't we start NOW without meeting them??"

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Well that is about #3 and #4. I would be really glad if Oi #1 and #2 were delayed for good!

4 ( +4 / -0 )

...idefinately.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

If the situation at the Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant had been handled swiftly, efficiently, cost effectively and to the Public's satisfaction maybe there would not be such attention to strict measures to meet in terms of plant operations. I personally think that No NPP should be operating without meeting all guidelines and safety measures. No one wants another Daiichi accident. If they had installed a new system of coolant piping from a safe distance then entombed the whole Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant and surrounding areas, it would have been a start...

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Jeeesus H.

...iNdefinItely

Brain fart.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Utrack

I was nodding along until this part

then entombed the whole Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant and surrounding areas,

That would have been about the worst thing that could have been done.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

If only earthquakes were the only problem with npp s ,,,, Just because the last disaster was caused by an earthquake now everybody is talking about earthquake protection measures , to give a false impression that the issues are being dealt with , until the next accident is caused by some other reason ,, and then they will start taking measures against that . CHernobyl had no earthquake ,, or a tsunami ,, how quickly did we forget about that ?

Its just not possible to make a npp safe and the risk of an accident can only increase as the numbers of npp s increase and they get older. Even only the fact that there is no way of dealing with nuclear waste should be enough to kill nuclear energy .

4 ( +7 / -3 )

That would have been about the worst thing that could have been done.

Pandabelle Why??? Since unit1has had a temporary sarcophagi for over 2 years now. By adding a coolant system for the Core and SPF they stay at a cool temperature. Entomb land and sea surrounding Daiichi along with the NPP. A swift, efficient, cost effective and to the Public's satisfaction solution ....

0 ( +1 / -1 )

This is awful. I've said it once, and I'll say it a thousand times more: these reactors needed to be turned on yesterday. Japan can get rid of nuclear energy in the future, but Japan's economy needs to balance its trade deficit and run down fuel costs. Turning on those reactors is the only way to do that in the short term.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

mgigante That s what s been going on with nuclear energy since day one , sacrificing environment and human health for economical reasons . Your comment sums it up very well ,, it could just be the government policy on this issue for many countries . Lets just make money now and never mind about the future and about the long term effects . A perfect example of ostrich politics . Unfortunately that is exactly the mentality that brought us to this point , and that s exactly what has to change if we want to survive as a species. At some point we have to take the responsibility to think about the risks and damage to our world and stop kicking the can further , leaving bigger and bigger problems for future generations . We need to find solutions for today's problems here and now and stop hoping to solve them tomorrow .

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Johndpugh, I would think your opinion is very common. I had your opinion until I watched the documentary "Pandora's Promise". It was eye opening. Even after every nuclear disaster in the world, nuclear energy statistically is the 2nd safest energy on the planet 2nd only to wind energy. Yes, you read that right, which means solar power has killed and injured more people than nuclear. Unbelievable isn't it? Anyway, I highly recommend everyone watch this movie so that we can debate using the most accurate data instead of old rhetoric from both sides that has spun out of control.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Peter How can they claim its safe while they dont even have the technology to detect the long term damage of radiation on human body/ other living things and everyone is just making a guess :) Even the most optimistic scientist cant hide the facts anymore .

Nuclear is neither safe nor cheap ,, but that is not the main issue with it ,, its the problem of nuclear waste . Nobody knows what to do with it and no matter where they try to temporarily hide it , given the half lives of millions of years of some isotopes , they will be everywhere sooner or later , no way around it . SHort sightedness is preventing us to see that unfortunately.

We are creating unsolvable problems for the future generations by making decisions based on economical profits for here and now ,, worrying about today rather than making long term sustainable plans . We dont have the right to do that in my opinion .

Pandora s promise based on heavy pronuke propaganda by a well known main stream media network . I have stopped watching that news channel long ago and i would suggest you do the same . CHeck out some of their faill videos on how they "produce " their reports ,, its a joke of a channel .

ANyway , if you need real information you should try to follow scientific reports and experts not main stream media channels like the one you mentioned . Hope you get better informed . Peace.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

its a joke of a channel .

Yet you constantly promote the website enenews.com

if you need real information you should try to follow scientific reports and experts

Yet you disagree with any that are non anti-nuclear and dismiss all opposite thoughts be pro-nuke propaganda.

Before telling everyone else what to do, perhaps you should do it yourself? Just a thought.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

That s what s been going on with nuclear energy since day one , sacrificing environment and human health for economical reasons.

Nuclear power is the cleanest form of energy we currently have. The problem with it of course is that when things go bad, they go really bad. But fortunately we've only had three major incidents in the past 40 years.

At some point we have to take the responsibility to think about the risks and damage to our world and stop kicking the can further , leaving bigger and bigger problems for future generations . We need to find solutions for today's problems here and now and stop hoping to solve them tomorrow .

That's why we need to get off of coal power immediately, which has polluted our planet, potentially beyond all repair. Thousands of people in China alone die daily from the effects of pollution from coal power, and many more around the rest of the world.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Very interesting opinion. People disagree with your point of view so they are 'trolls'? I would certainly hope that you teach your university students to have more of an open mind than what you're displaying.

There are countless scientific articles that prove that coal is very dangerous and that nuclear is, when compared to the other options, relatively safe.

There are much fewer scientific articles that support Johndpugh's opinion. There are certainly none that support his view that millions die each year from cancer caused by nuclear power.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Peter Nozawa ThurwachterApr. 27, 2014 - 04:52PM JST Johndpugh, I would think your opinion is very common. I had your opinion until I watched the documentary "Pandora's Promise". It was eye opening. Even after every nuclear disaster in the world, nuclear energy statistically is the 2nd safest energy on the planet 2nd only to wind energy. Yes, you read that right, which means solar power has killed and injured more people than nuclear.

The simple fact is that, even if Pandora's promise wasn't a pack of lies, it still wouldn't be applicable to Japan. Japan has a lot more earthquakes, tsunami and typhoons than the vast majority of countries with nuclear power stations. What the pro-nuclear faction is saying is, "On average nuclear power is safe, so of course it is a perfectly good idea to build a nuclear power plant in the heart of an active volcano!!!". The idiocy of this position should be apparent to anyone with a functioning brain.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Simply put Please Dont do this To the Japanese people If you care about your Citizens.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

It seems for every anti-nuke comment we are getting 5 pro-nuke ones :) but somehow those don't seem to get deleted that often .

Heda Madness Yes ene is a good site ( not a channel ) with lots of reliable , correct information based on scientific research articles and latest information . Instead of just saying its bad , maybe you should try to read some of the articles on that site , and similar sites . You could learn a lot .

I am aware of main stream media ,, just as anybody else ,, i just dont believe what they are selling and i am entitled to that i think ,, although sometimes doesnt feel like that ;)

STrangerland Its a myth that nuclear is a clean source ,, its pollution is invisible and in most cases undetectable ,, that s why uninformed people believe its clean ,, just because you cant see smell touch it ,, doesn't mean its not there .. Most nuclear plants leak continuosly and poison their environment ,, but you don't hear those kinds of statistics on main stream media . Evrything is downplayed extremely and people just dont have access to correct statistics ,, the pollution is down played ,, health hazards and environmental hazards , all down played extremely . In fact it takes a lot of courage for any scientist to go against the pro-nuke lobby to come up with REAL statistcis . Most of them who dare to do that end up loosing their jobs and getting ridiculed in the best case scenarios.

About coal ; Agreed , its a messy dirty source too .

0 ( +4 / -4 )

When talking about large powerplants, two years is nothing

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I was a Research Engineer in 1979, testing parts of those GE Mark I and Mark II BWR Safety Systems. The design is insufficient, even with most of the facility to keep it from killing us. The dream of nuclear power has manifested itself as a nightmare, and one we cannot change. Pandora's Promise was really a Faustian Bargain, and now it is time to pay the price.

That price will be paid by everybody who will ever live after us, essentially forever in Human terms. The fact is, we have created a nasty substance, named for the God of the Underworld, which we have to guard for 240,000 years. Who do you trust to do that? Have you paid for it in advance? Look at what is happening in Hanford with the releases and the dam failing, then look into WIPP, and tell me they know what they are doing.

The 1979 tests? We got stopped after a few hectic weeks to look at the data, . . . and watch as Three Mile Island II melted down.

BTW, I later became a Senior Engineer for a large utility, and can tell you we do not need nuclear power, and cannot afford it.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

gkamburoff Great comment and a big thumbs plus for you . It s nice to see some people around here , who are well informed and can see the truth through all the lies. Thanks again for posting the best comment till now on this post .

We all need to get informed and inform others or nothing will change .

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

People who really understand the new Safety Law know that max. 10-12 Reactor are capable to be in Line with this Law, it will be not cheap at all and it is in a Way stupid to try it "but" Japan is in a very bad Position because we have no own Sources of Energy.

At the moment and for at least the next Decade we must have the Alternative of Nuclear Energy, we can keep them in a State of Cold Shutdown but we need it as a final Security!

We must chose the most safest NPS and i really doubt that it is Oi! Also we need to put Billions of Yen in our educational System because it is up to this Generation to find a safer Way to produce Energy, Nuclear Energy was a bad Choice but was very typical for the maniac State we was in the early Seventies!

Iwakuni: 0.145 micro-Sievert/ Hour on the Ground!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Spucky, Iwakuni: 0.145 micro-Sievert/ Hour on the Ground is equal to: 1,271.07 Microsievert per year [µSv/y]

http://www.convert-measurement-units.com/conversion-calculator-quick.php?type=radiation-dose

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I am aware of main stream media ,, just as anybody else ,, i just dont believe what they are selling and i am entitled to that i think ,, although sometimes doesnt feel like that ;)

Funny. On your beloved Enenews website it has articles from NBC, New York Times etc... but you can't believe mainstream media can you? Except when it says what you want it to say.

Most nuclear power plants leak continuously in the environment - but you don't hear those kind of statistics in the media... why? Because it's not true.

Enewnews is crap. The vast majority of their 'articles' are easily debunked. It's ironic, in fact it's beyond ironic that you think that people need to get informed and to do that, they need to read Enenews. I'm still waiting for you to provide the proof that MILLIONS are dying EVERY YEAR from cancer from nuclear. Just one link.

And you can't. Because it's simply not true.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

The disasters and deaths at Tokaimura and Monju are proof that Japan's nuke problems go well beyond seismic issues. The best solution is a ground-up overhaul, like contracting the French to run all the plants.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Study finds all Nuclear Reactors Emit Radiation When in Operation and not

Pregnant! Avoid the Nuclear Power Plants! article

http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/pregnant-avoid-the-nuclear-power-plants/

1 ( +2 / -1 )

utrack Thanks for the information but i dont think any fact or anyone can change his mind , its useless to try , god knows i did :) . Some people just dont want to see the truth. They prefer to believe in fairy tales just because it makes them feel comfortable.

Heda We got it ,, you dont like enenews , okay , forget about ene , try something else than ,,There are many sites where one can find information , ( i dont dare to give any links cause then my comment gets deleted ) its just as easy as making a search on google . Try to keep an open mind and consider the alternatvie that not everything you hear on tv is correct .

jefflee There are no safe npp s . Its impossible to make something so complex to be 100% safe . The more nuke plants there are ,, the longer they run ,, the older they get = nuclear disaster will keep happening . It s inevitable . one year it will be an earth quake and afterwards everyone will try to make nuke plants earthquake proof and turn them back on ,, , , then the next year it will be a terrorist attack and they will improve the security and trun them back on ,, then it will be a human cuase and next a volcano ,, and a solar flare and a freak accident , or a fire or just equipment failure etc etc etc . It is a myth to think it is possible to make it safe . And that is just one aspect of the problem .

The main problem is that they leak radiation continuously ,, they produce nuclear waste and there are no solutions to deal with that . No anti radiation treatment , no possibility of cleaning the isotopes from the environment ( although we keep seeing workers with soap and brushes cleaning roads and houses etc, what a joke that is : ) ) Once radioactive isotopes escape into the environment they stay there for thousands - millions of years . And even THAT is not the worse part of this story ,,

We just dont have the technology to even measure WHAT all this radiation is damaging in our bodies , in the environment in other living things. We know its harmfull , causes cancer , mutations etc etc but we can only guess how much damage it is causing .And this fact is being used by pronuke lobby to promote nuclear energy claiming that there is no proof that it causes such harm . The statistics , the numbers are extremely down played with the attitude of 'if you have no proof of it , then its not happening ' which is absolutely false and intentionally misleiding .

In short ; every nuke plant adds to the radioactivity in our environment . Every increase in radioactivity causes more and more disease and death for all living things . We know radioactivity causes certain harm like cancer , but we still dont know what other harms it causes . The statistics are intentionally extremely down played .

Internet is the only free information source we have left ,, for now ,,we should all try to get better informed.

Good luck and peace to all .

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Heda We got it ,, you dont like enenews , okay , forget about ene , try something else than ,,There are many sites where one can find information , ( i dont dare to give any links cause then my comment gets deleted ) its just as easy as making a search on google . Try to keep an open mind and consider the alternatvie that not everything you hear on tv is correct .

It is absolutely remarkable that you can conclude that the only way that anyone with an alternative view can only have that opinion because they've seen something on TV or because they've read about it in the mainstream. It is impossible for anyone (even scientists) to have any alternative opinion based on facts or science. Nope it can only come from propaganda from the tv and media.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

All readers back on topic please. Posts that do not focus on the Oi plant will be removed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Because of economical reasons many nuclear plants wil restart sooner or later . Fukushima is a big disaster so it takes a bit longer till public is desensitized / forgotten about it , the wounds are still fresh ,, but the decision makers will eventually start the nuke plants , They always do cause the insight in what the actual damage is caused by nuclear industry is lacking ,, not only by the public but also by many decision makers / politicians .

In the end we have to change our ways and start thinking about what kind of future we are leaving to the future generations and a nuclear polluted world is a problem they will have to deal with . AT the moment there is no solution to nuclear pollution and we keep producing more and more of it . How smart is that ?

Hope people get more informed and start realizing what we are loosing ,, not eur5os or dollars or yens but things much more valuable than that . Some countries are beginning to realize the damage done by this technology ( and its not the technology itself to blame )and trying to take precautions unfortunately still many countries are building new ones even .

We all need to get informed and start realizing that this technology is ruining our world .

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Solar and wind power don't produce enough energy? Oil, coal, and natural gas pollute abd release greenhouse gases. What other choics does the world have besides nuclear power?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

jeff198527 That is misinformation i am afraid . They say green sources are not enough ,just to have an excuse to invest in nuclear etc .

The only reason solar wind and other green sources are not enough at the moment is because there hasnt been enough investment in those technologies ,, and guess where the investments have been going -,,

Even just a fraction of the solar energy is enough to power the whole civilisation . Here is an interesting interview about the solar energy , i hope it helps .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rce5RZHCzLk

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

But green sources aren't readily available now are they?

I'm pretty sure that no-one says there shouldn't be investment in green technologies... however as it stands today, your options are either nuclear or fossil fuels supported by green. Hence the reason they are looking at turning on the nuclear power plants.

Fossil fuels which are guaranteed to kill thousands every year or nuclear.

It's basic risk assessment.

And stop telling people to get informed.

"We should build more nuclear power plants. I think that’s a better way to generate energy than certainly a coal power plant or a natural gas power plant. Burning hydrocarbons -- I think people now recognize is a pretty bad thing. You know over time there’s a certain limit to the CO2 capacity of the atmosphere and the oceans."

Elon Musk

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Renewable Energy in Japan -- Current Trends Show Promise and Opportunities

http://www.japanfs.org/en/news/archives/news_id034505.html

In Japan, a feed-in tariff (FIT) scheme for renewables was launched in July 2012. The total power capacity of newly operating renewable energy generation facilities reached 3.666 million kilowatts (kW) at the end of the first year of operation, the equivalent of three large-scale nuclear power plants, and generation capacity increased by more than 15 percent in one year.

Awesome Accomplishment, renewable energy generation facilities can replace nuclear power plants with enough investment.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

It depends on what one means by "readily available ". One needs to take a look outside to see if its readily available :) infact there is more energy in just one hour of sunlight than the whole world uses in a year ,, cant get more readily avilable than that . If you mean "readily available "in the sense that is it being made use of ,, the answer is ofcourse NO ,, but that is whole point of this discussion isnt it ? All we are saying is that it should be made more readily available by investing more in it .

So there is not enough investment in green sources thus they are not readily available so we should invest even more in non-green sources ???? Is that the claim :) This kind of false reasing and logic has been the main reason that we are in this mess in my opinion .(that s why i jkeep saying we should get infromed)

Answer is a clear NO ; We shouldnt invest even more in non-green sources ,, on the contrary we should invest more in solar wind and other renewable sources.

Besides the ,main concern is not even economical ,, its an environmental issue ,, concerning health of human beings and all living things ,, which can not be solved by keep thinking in tradiational cost benefit falacies . We need to change our whole approach and start seing the environment issues as JUST economical issues . CXause they are not . That is what we mean by "getting informed "a change of attitude ,, apprioach is crucial or nothing will change no where . Every disaster will have a short lived reaction from the public ,, and after a while all will be forgotten and we will go back to business as usual .

It s not only fossil fuels killing thousand but nuclear does even more persistent damage to both people and all living things ,, we just dont know it ,, cause it doesnt show in the statisctics ,, the facts are extremely down played . It is not true that nuclear doesnt kill . Its a propaganda used by pronuke supporters just to promote nuclear energy . These kinds of claims are as a result of people being uninformed . This kind of attitude has to change in the public eye or we will never achive any sustainable future . Nuclear has no place ion a sutainable future . Solar and wind does . We need to invest in those .

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Again, you avoid producing any facts to support your statements. You clearly don't have any. Anyone who has a differing opinion learned it from TV. Any facts supporting nuclear are pro-nuke propaganda.

These kinds of claims are as a result of people being uninformed . This kind of attitude has to change in the public eye or we will never achive any sustainable future . Nuclear has no place ion a sutainable future . Solar and wind does . We need to invest in those .

Yet those that know the subject in detail disagree:

As climate and energy scientists concerned with global climate change, we are writing to urge you to advocate the development and deployment of safer nuclear energy systems. We appreciate your organization’s concern about global warming, and your advocacy of renewable energy. But continued opposition to nuclear power threatens humanity’s ability to avoid dangerous climate change.

We ask you and your organization to demonstrate its real concern about risks from climate damage by calling for the development and deployment of advanced nuclear energy.

But I suppose you would dismiss that as being a lie. Pro nuke propaganda because nuclear kills millions every year

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Please do not be so hostile.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Thank you moderator for your tolerance.

Heda I dont have an organisation and i dont belong to any . Mentioning that site ( ene news) was just an example how people can get alternative infromation (if they wanted to ) from different sources on internet . Its not even an organisation ,, just some students in US trying to collect news articles from other sources for easy access (as far as i know ) . All their sources have references , and most of the articles are based on experts interviews and research . CHeck it out .

The data of the real damage by radioactivity is extremely downplayed because of lack of evidence.

An example : (this is just a hypothetical example ) Imagine you would go out for a diner and have some fish at a restaurant which would happen to buy that fish from a fisherman who caught it in front of a nuclear plant in polluted waters and lets say that the fish has radioactive isotopes in it . You would enjoy your meal and go home never even noticing anything . Now Imagine that 10-15 years later you would develop , lets say stomach cancer because of those radioactive isotopes you had 10 years ago. (again its just a hypothetical question , no body is blaming fisherman or control of fish caught etc , nothing like that )

Now a few questions , and a few answers.

Q= Would you have known that you got that cancer from that fish you ate 10 - 15 years ago ? A= No you wouldn t have the slightest idea .

Q= would your physician know about it or any specialist , any lab test ,, any hospital any expert have the slightest idea or any proof that you got that cancer from eating radioactive fish ? A= Again the answer is NO ,, nobody would know anything

Q= even if you would suffer and die from cancer . would your death show in any statistics about deaths from that nuclear plant producing those radioactive isotopes that got in that fish and caused your cancer ? A= Absolutely not ,, it wouldnt be registered in any statistics , it wouldnt show in any data and would go unnoticed. It would be just another statistic ,, just another death from cancer .

WHat does this example tell us ? A= If you do agree with the above example , that you or your doctor or any expert wouldnt have any idea about the origin of those isotopes that caused your cancer , than we can draw a few conclusions from that .

1=Its a fact that radioactvity is one of the main causes of cancer and that many people will die each year from that . 2= It s also a fact that , as shown in above example , many cases go unreported and does not show in any statistics in any data . 3= If we accept that the above example is possible , then its a "proof ' that statistics are down played ,, whatever the numbers are they are an under estimation in any case about the damage caused by raidation to humans and also to other living things 4= It is nothing but a guess about the real numbers of statistics and if the statistics are done by pronuke , they are extremely under estimated . 5= claims like fukushima didnt kill anyone ,, or just a couple of people died during the accident does not show anything even remotely close to the real danger , real damage by radioactoivity , cause the effects are not immediate . It takes long years ( 10 ,, 15 years even longer ) and impossible to track the source down. 6= Many experts believe that there are many more cases like the one above and they try to bring it out to the attention of the world ( a good example is the research book called chernobyl the consequences of the catastrophe ,,, by yablakov ) , but nuclear lobby is so powerfull that in most cases those brave people get ridiculed ,, they risk loosing their jobs , and their carreers get ruined . 7= The above example is just one aspect of just one disease caused by radiation ,, we cant even start to mention many other diseases caused by the radiation that we know of ,,and the ones that we do not even know of yet.

In short = We know radioactivty causes many diseases and can be deadly . We know it is one of the main causes of cancer .We know that some isotopes can sometimes have half lives of millions of years so they keep causing damage for such huge periods of times which as a result makes disasters like fukushima the biggest disasters ever . We do not have the technology to detect the exact damage from radioactivity / isotpes and therefore we are under estimating the real numbers. Although we know some of the damage caused by radiation ( like cancer ,, suppressed immune system etc ) we have no idea what other damage it can cause in complex systems . That s why whenever scientists notice a mass die off of certain species , they immediately suspect radiation amongst other things , but proving it is another case .

So pronuke propaganda will keep down playing down the damage , under estimating the numbers ,, manipulating the statistics ,, with claims like ( nobody died from fukushima so its safe ) or coal kills more from pollution ,, etc etc but the truth is , radiation is causing much more damage than they want to admit . And it stays around forever , and does miuch more damage then mentioned ,, then even what we know of .

This is my last attempt to try to give a bit of insight so maybe you could change your point of view. I understand it is not usual to hear antinuke view points ,, people are not used to it cause media have been doing its job as the pro nuke propaganda machine. I just hope you can consider the alternative and do not just discard us . Internet is a good free (at least for now ) source of information . Take good care Peace.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Sorry - that part was supposed to have been quoted. It came from an open letter from leading climate scientists saying that environmental policies needed to be a combination of renewable and nuclear. Now, I would argue that leading climate scientists do have an understanding about the subject and are worth listening to.

You keep saying there is a lack of evidence. And come up with hypotheticals that have no scientific basis. The world's worst nuclear disaster was Chernobyl. There was so much that went wrong their after the event, including the systematic poisoning of the local populace - especially the children. From that, at the most extreme end of the scale Greenpeace say that 93,000 people will die as a direct result. Chernobyl was 25 years before Fukushima. Less than 4000 people a year (similar to the expected deaths in Japan based on their increase in coal/gas after the shut down the nuclear power plants).

That's Greenpeace who are at the end of the scale, UNSCEAR is at the opposite and has 6000 cases of thyroid resulting in 15 deaths and a total of 62 deaths directly attributed to Chernobyl. There's a huge difference between 93,000 and 62 but what does stand out is that neither suggest that millions a year die. Neither suggest that they don't know. They've looked at the data and manipulated it in a way to come to a conclusion. They haven't said - we don't know. They haven't asked about someone eating fish in the black sea and concluded that they did get cancer from it, or didn't. They've used science and data. Your opinion is based on the fact 'we don't know' whereas if you actually read up on the subject then you would know that we do know a lot.

And what happened in Chernobyl is very, very different to what happened in Fukushima. And what happened in Onagawa is very, very different to what happened at Dai Ichi

The risks of nuclear have been proven to be acceptable. As the only alternative is an absolute guaranteed killer in coal, gas and oil. Or are you suggesting that Japan should now turn off all of their fossil fuels as well? Because they're not in that position yet. The options are fossil or nuclear. Few deaths against thousands.

Still, I'm sure if you ever get cancer you will blame it on living in Japan. Despite the plethora of evidence against it.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

/// You keep saying there is a lack of evidence. And come up with hypotheticals that have no scientific basis. /// It does have a scientific basis , it is proven that radiation causes and there is no way to trace back any cancer case caused by radiation to its origin ,, these are the facts whatever you say .

/// again your numbers are extremely down played because of lack of evidence ,, check out the source i mentioened above,, in those reasearch articles they are talking about hundreds of thousands . But ofcourse proving it is still impossible .

///And what happened in Chernobyl is very, very different to what happened in Fukushima/// You dont see the big picture ,, these aciidents did no HAPPEN ,, they are still happening and will keep on happenig forever,, every nuclear plant will add radioactivty to its environment increasing the total amount of damage .,, which gets lost in statistics,, partly deliberatley ,, partly because of lack of direct evidence,, However lack of evidence does not mean its not there ,, JUST because we cant prove it , it does not mean radioactivity is not causing harm ,, it does ,, just not proven in most cases ,, as i mentioned in above example ,,

//// The risks of nuclear have been proven to be acceptable. //// who says that ? who decides what is acceptable ? that "acceptable " is exactly what needs to be changed ,, norms made by pronuke mental;ity ,, with no insight of the real problem ,, people / politicians making decision s worrying about the next election,, acceptable is whatever they decide it is . There is nothing acceptable polluting with radioactive isotopes .

/// are you suggesting that Japan should now turn off all of their fossil fuels as well?/// No i am not ,, it cannot happen in one day ,, it takes time ,, first step is to realize what the problem is ( which we cant even seem to make that happen ,, people just dont want to hear ,, dont want to see ) then the next step is to make decisions / plans to phase out polluting sources and invest more and more into green sources,, it can happen ,, only the decision makers must make that choice ,, and to do that public need to force them to do that ,, and to do that public needs to get informed ,, and to do that we need to infrom people about the truth and the real harm by radiation ,, but i cant even seem to convince even one :) This discussion is not about japan or japanese government either ,, nuclear and green energy issue concerns all the countries and all the governments . That s why they keep meeting every year trying to determine what kind of norms and regulations they have to make to meet the pollution nomrs,, which we all know ,, they never did and never will . You never hear ,, such and such government has done such a great job in controling their pollution that their pollution is even below the estimated standards ,, it will never happen unless gets informed.

/// Still, I'm sure if you ever get cancer you will blame it on living in Japan. Despite the plethora of evidence against it./// Those are not my words but yours,, and that s not what i am trying to say ,, What i am saying is ,, that the fact is, many people in japan will get cancer because of fukushima ,, and none of them will be able to prove it ,,many will get other diseases as well and none will show up in statistics,, that is the truth whether you want to see it or not ,, that is the reality of today ,, the numbers / statistics are kept low intentionally ,, not to provoke public response against nuclear .

2 ( +4 / -2 )

it is proven that radiation causes and there is no way to trace back any cancer case caused by radiation to its origin ,, these are the facts whatever you say .

Interesting. We can safely say roughly how many people die from cancer caused by first and second hand smoking, we can say how many die from air pollution but we don't know how many die from radiation.

proving it is still impossible . - If proving it is impossible it's possible to suggest that your argument is flawed

There is nothing acceptable polluting with radioactive isotopes -

potential deaths over guaranteed deaths. It's more acceptable to remove guaranteed deaths than to include potential deaths. Basic risk assessment.

Are you suggesting that Japan should now turn off all of their fossil fuels as well?/// No i am not ,, it cannot happen in one day ,, it takes time ,

, --- indeed it does. Hence the choice of fossil fuels - guaranteed to kill thousands or nuclear. Which isn't. And hasn't. I've even seen it suggested that for every one death caused by nuclear power there are 4000 deaths caused by coal. Still, at least it's not nuclear hey.

many people in japan will get cancer because of fukushima

no they won't. Those are the words of the science community. Few people will get cancer. It won't register statistically as it will be such a small blip. As much as you want it to happen, it won't. It won't because we know a lot about nuclear. So just because you don't know. You can't prove anything. And you don't have any evidence. It does not make it true. There is simply no reality in argument

Your argument is that the science community doesn't know anything. Which shows your lack of knowledge. Not theirs.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

//Interesting. We can safely say roughly how many people die from cancer caused by first and second hand smoking, we can say how many die from air pollution but we don't know how many die from radiation. ///

We can say how many die from radiation too ,, its just nobody is believing us :) Basically a lot more than what they like to admit . Many deaths are just not reported ,, doesnt show in the statistics as deaths from cancer caused by isotopes . That s why the whole example i tried to show how it goes wrong and how the absence of proof is used by pronuke propaganda to down play the REAL numbers . Try to re-read the above example and understand how it goes in the practice . Most cancer deaths therefore does not show up as deaths from radiation .

// proving it is still impossible . - If proving it is impossible it's possible to suggest that your argument is flawed//

My argument is not flawed,, if you understand what i am trying to say . If you don't understand it , it may sound flawed. Which part you did not understand please do ask ,, i am not trying to argue just for the sake of arguing ,, i would sincerely like to explain if you don't understand about the manipulation of the statistics . My argument is very simple = Just because there is no evidence on each individual cancer case to show how it started ,, it does not mean those cancers are NOt caused by radiation ,cause some of them ARE . It s a falacy to think / argue that absence of evidence proves it s not there . . It s wrong . when people say "nobody died from fukushima so its safe " ,,it s a lie ,, it is false . Many people WILL die from fukushima , but nobody will even know about it . They will get lost in statistcis . I cant make it simpler than that .

In short ; since we do not have proof ,, we can only guess what s going on ,, and to do that we relly on statistics and the statistics are being manipulated extremely ,, hence the low numbers .

/// potential deaths over guaranteed deaths. It's more acceptable to remove guaranteed deaths than to include potential deaths. Basic risk assessment. ///

I am sorry but it is not about potential of anything , that is just false, ,, radiation DOES cause cancer and many other diseases and it does kill ,, not potentially but REALLY ,, it is known and proven by many animal experiments and scientific community knows it for almost a century , since the beginning of the nuclear age . . Infact everyone knows it ,, you get too much radiation you die ,, period ,, not potentiallhy ,, but literally . All the health workers ,, physicians ,, scientists know it . That s why they cover you with a lead shield even when they want to take an rx photo ( which is actually a low dose ) and that s why there are very strict ptrevention rules in hospitals where they are using radiation . I used to think everyone knew that , but i am beginning to realize that many people dont . That s why i keep saying people need to get better informed.. If your dentist is trying to protect you froma tiny dose you will get from a dental xaray , maybe we should stop pretending that radiation is OKE ,, and three simultaneaus melt downs at the same location would NOT do no harm . It is ridiculous to even think that , but incredibly they manage to convince so many people to these fairy tales.

/// --- indeed it does. Hence the choice of fossil fuels - guaranteed to kill thousands or nuclear. Which isn't. And hasn't. I've even seen it suggested that for every one death caused by nuclear power there are 4000 deaths caused by coal. Still, at least it's not nuclear hey.///

You make it sound like i am trying to promote fossil fuels ,, I AM NOT ,, never did ,, i am promoting green sources and there is no fossil no nuclear in green technologies.

//////// no they won't. Those are the words of the science community. Few people will get cancer. It won't register statistically as it will be such a small blip. As much as you want it to happen, it won't. It won't because we know a lot about nuclear. So just because you don't know. You can't prove anything. And you don't have any evidence. It does not make it true. There is simply no reality in argument Your argument is that the science community doesn't know anything. Which shows your lack of knowledge. Not theirs.////////

That is not true ,, it s not the scientific community who is saying that ,, its the pronuke supporters,, and again that s why we need to stop getting our information from main stream media and try to get better informed . You are claiming that pronuke supporters are the scientific community ,, but they aren´t ,, there are many scientists that claim otherwise ,, there are scientists who say nobody should be living even in 60/70 km s from the plant ,,and they are saying that it s not safe to move all those families so close to those melt down plants ,, but then again ,, it depends on what kind of scientific community you are referring to ,, i even heard of some scientist advicing people to smile so that radiation wouldn´t hurt them ,, ahh well ,, that kind of scientific community will claim its safe of course ,,

BAsically ,, i keep repeating myself here,, but we should stop believing in pronuke propaganda and start searching for alternatives,, enough information on internet if one chooses to get informed. For now at least while internet is still semi/free Good luck ,, and peace. PS ; I totally agree with the moderator that we should keep the conversations polite ,,and i want to thank him/her for tolerating us .

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Rather surprized that the probability of terrorism to nuclear plants is not considered. it only requires one plane (or even drone) going around bombing all nuclear plants overnight and Japan will come to a standstill!

4 ( +4 / -0 )

It is not possible to make any nuclear plant, or build one , 100% safe. These accidents will keep happening whatever anyone can/will do . It s a "feeling " of safety that they are selling , not the safety itself . The more nuclear plants are build ,, the older they get ,, the more the accidents will happen ,, its just a question of time .

Safe nuclear industry is like safe driving ,, no matter how safe you claim to drive ,or how good the roads or the cars are ,, traffic accidents WILL happen ,, its inevitable ,, every country has them ,,the same with nuclear accidents . As long as we have nuke plants , sooner or later we will have more accidents , no way around it . Terrorist attack is just one of those risks ,, but there are many other s as well .

However the biggest threat from nuckear plants are not even the acciudents ,, its the nuclear waste they are creating . That is a problem without any solution and we are just creating more and more of it . The plan is to leave all that highly radioactive to future generations to deal with it . I am guessing they will be very proud of us .(sarc) :)

1 ( +4 / -3 )

We can say how many die from radiation too ,, its just nobody is believing us :) Basically a lot more than what they like to admit -

again you're making claims that have no scientific background or evidence. Remember you previously claimed that MILLIONS died every year as a result of cancer caused by nuclear power. Not even close.

Which part don't I understand? That you say there's no evidence, no proof, all the information is hidden therefore nuclear kills millions. Had I come to the same reasoning on any paper at University I would have been kicked out. You know that science works with facts not imagination.

you get too much radiation you die ,, period ,, not potentiallhy

That is absolutely true. What you seem to suggest is that any radiation will kill you, but that's not true. There are guidelines based on scientific knowledge. Too much water will kill you, but you drink it every day, you breathe it every day. Too much of a lot of things will kill you. The vast majority of people in Fukushima and Japan haven't been exposed to anything like what the science community consider to be 'too much'.

You make it sound like i am trying to promote fossil fuels ,, I AM NOT ,, never did ,, i am promoting green sources and there is no fossil no nuclear in green technologies

As of today, Japan's options are continue with it's increased use of fossil fuels or turn back nuclear. Given that you are so adamant that the nuclear power plants stay turned off you are indirectly supporting the continued use of fossil fuels. Thousands will die because of this. Thousands won't die because of Fukushima. This is the simple truth.

That is not true ,, it s not the scientific community who is saying that ,, its the pronuke supporters,, and again that s why we need to stop getting our information from main stream media and try to get better informed .

Apparently the WHO is pro-nuke? I guess that's because they see nuclear as being cleaner than fossil fuels and know that few people will die because of Fukushima. At least that's what their official report said.

The mainstream media sell the fear of nuclear. They are not, nor ever have been pro-nuclear. Good news from Fukushima does not sell papers.

You keep saying get informed. I spent three years at University studying Environmental Science. I'm well informed thank you very much and I suggest you get yourself down to a library, read numerous peer reviewed publications and come to your own conclusion instead of reading every single link on Enenews and concluding that MILLIONS die each year from nuclear.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

That ends the bickering on this thread.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

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