national

Thousands rally in Tokyo against nuclear power

69 Comments

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

© 2014 AFP

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

69 Comments
Login to comment

Respect for you stance but simply not enough people.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

@roughneck

I believe this answers your question :

"Nuclear plants have been closed, so you cannot say we cannot live without nuclear energy," anti-nuclear campaigner Junichi Okano said

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Good for them.

Yet another shining example of how Japanese citizens do in fact raise their voice in opposition publicly, quite contrary to the stereotypes of all Japanese as blind 'sheeple' not wanting to speak out and go against the grain of society.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

More than 5,000 protesters gathered at Hibiya Park in downtown Tokyo to urge the government not to restart nuclear plants

I am totally against restarting Nuke Energy plants in Japan as there may be a possibility of another mega size earthquake hitting Japan is very high..

However, I would like to know how many of these 5000 protesters actually voted for the LDP.

You know the LDP was very outspoken about restarting the Nuke plants before the last election, and most amazing thing is that the LDP won the election by a majority.

I would like to know who are confused here. Voters or the LDP? What do voters want?

4 ( +10 / -6 )

I wonder there are not more people on the street for that. Resuming the HAMOKA PLANT which sits right in the center of the expected TOKAI quake is probably the worst idea ever. Already before the shutdown about 1000000 signatures were collected to shut it down - without any effect though. The nuclear lobby in japan ist just too strong. Obviously there wont be any information on TV about that. The government further tries to control the internet for such stuff. Back in 2011, a friend translated foreign news into japanese to post them in twitter and facebook. These translations then magically disappeared which made her very upset about the control that is been taken. Furher, the secret of states law makes such actions even easier in the future.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Sorry - yes 30% of the poll want an end to nuclear. 44% want some nuclear plants to close. 23% said they want to keep the remainder and 1% (I think) wanted more to be built.

In total, over 2/3 of the poll wanted nuclear power for Japan. Which is a massive sing when you consider for the past 3 years everyone on here have been saying that the majority want a total removal of nuclear.

By that logic, over 2/3 also wanted removal of nuclear power in Japan. The people in the middle group either need not to be counted, or can be counted on both sides. You can't have it both ways.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

If there was no short-term alternative, then how have they been powering the country for the past three years?

3 ( +5 / -2 )

The nuclear power debate is a tough one. Frankly I don't see how a power sucking nation like Japan can hope to maintain its economy without the use of at least some nuclear powers stations. If Japan had any natural resources of her own then this might be a different story, but having to rely 100% on imported fossil fuel is a tricky situation.

I hope that the Japanese can conclude some sort of arrangement with Russia regarding the Northern Islands that involves a deal to import Russian gas. Russia has a lot, and they're geographically close. Its a win/win.

The Fukushima disaster was caused by a one in a million freakishly large earthquake followed by a freakishly large tsunami that nailed the plant with a direct hit. I side completely with those who say that the Fukushima plant was woefully unprepared, constructed in a really dumb location, and way too old. But I believe that there are modern reactors that are much safer, and if Japan learns where and how to construct these plants the danger could be mitigated to some extent.

The other choice is to go back to life without air-conditioning etc. While I'm personally willing to do that, I wonder if the majority of people want to take such a drastic step. I mean you can only take "cool biz" so far, right?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

To be honest, even if it was 10 million people in that park, the government wouldnt pay attention. Looking after their buddies...

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Well, I love how people who support N power in Japan are either connected to the industry in some way or are a safe distance away in their living room.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

I'll support the restarting of all nuclear power plants in Japan only if TEPCO is dissolved to separate their transmission, generation and services businesses, and those responsible at TEPCO for the playing down of the nuclear disaster are prosecuted. Until then, no.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The Japanese government is trying to justify the use of nuclear energy through the use of convoluted logic and fractured syllogism. The answer is not to accelerate our move into a nuclear future.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Nobody yet knows for sure how safely to store or destroy long-lived radioactive waste produced in all nuclear power plants. This nuclear garbage is a mixture of highly poisonous and perilous elements with fancy names like strontium, krypton, cesium, ruthenium, plutonium and so on

1 ( +3 / -2 )

In any discussion on the future of power supply technology, making arguments based on existing infrastructure to oppose future infrastructure is not rational. Most existing infrastructure is old, and nowhere near the state of the art. Remember, this is technology we're talking about, anything older than six months is probably already obsolete. Basically, if you aren't up on the latest developments, you don't know what you're talking about.

This is true for projected renewable energy technologies just as much as it is for projected nuclear technologies. A lot of very reputable studies have been conducted in the past few years which project that 100% reliance on renewable sources is feasible. But also, Generation IV nuclear reactor technologies are so much safer, reliable, efficient and easier to maintain, it makes current reactors look like dinosaurs.

The real key to the issue is to NOT stop technology development for irrational reasons, so we have a choice in the future of power supply, and a capacity for meeting our needs. Yes, we should take steps to mitigate risks in our current infrastructure - that's entirely rational. And if it means shutting down aging reactors maybe that's the correct thing to do.

We also have to recognize there's a significant cost and bring-up gap when implementing a new technology, so in the mean time, something has to fill the gap, or we decide to just do without for a while. Or use an otherwise undesirable technology for a limited time. The range of solutions isn't the problem, our will to engage them, or our ignorance and irrationality in not engaging them is the problem.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I hate the idea of nuclear power being brought back to this quake-prone country. But this protest will go nowhere. The last Tokyo election was clearly polarized as nuclear vs no-nuke....the nuclear side won. The people have (stupidly) spoken.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

I'm not sure how you come to that - 30% want a total removal. 44% want some of the nuclear plants to close and 23% want t

Whilst it could be argued that 74% want a reduction in nuclear power, less than 1/3 want a total ban.

If you use the middle group, they can be used on both sides of the argument:

74% want a reduction 67% want to maintain the current system to some degree

You originally said 2/3 want to keep nuclear power. That would be the 67%. I was making the point that if you say 2/3 want to keep nuclear power, 3/4 want to get rid of it to some degree. The point being that the middle group should not be used for making conclusions on one side or the other of the argument.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The whole of Japan should go on strike to send a united message that all nuclear power plants should be mothballed for good.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I have to wonder how many of the protesters even vote? Sadly it's just not going to matter until anti nuclear representatives are elected into office on a specific nuclear ending platform.

btw, geothermal can handle baseload like nuclear just fine. Nuclear in my province of Ontario covers 52% of our energy yet geothermal can be used per site to handle 60% or so. It would take time to make it happen, but it could work out. Japan is not alone in being held hostage to a nuclear industry while other options lie all around us.

Japan has options and I hope can reach for them. Combined with all the other toys out there and there really could be a rising sun of green energy, rather than a setting one.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

At the moment for many reasons ( one being the trade deficit ) japan needs to get some of the reactors back online meanwhile it also needs to work on and find cheaper alternatives to fossil fuel, I cannot however understand why more geothermal power is not used as this country boasts about its onsens but seems to waste the thermal activity on taking baths.

I am not a fan of nuclear anything but if they can ensure some of the reactors will not sustain the same fate as fukushima then get them up and running safely.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

"History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men!" - BOC "Godzilla" All the promoters of nuclear energy please board busses that will relocate you next to reactors, and your grandchildren next nuclear waste storage dumps!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The reason why Japan shifted from fossil fuels to nuclear energy is because of the oil shock that happened in the 70's. In support of PM Abe, I also don't think it's a good move to shift back to fossil fuels because it could hurt Japan's economy. Yet, I also consider the fact that Japan is prone to major earthquakes. We just need to wait and see on what the Abe administration has to say or do about this issue.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Here is the Energy answer Aneutronic Fusion Reactor - Eco-friendly Energy No radioactive nuclear waste, just clean and safe neutron-free fusion energy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUrt186pWoA

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How could anyone in their sane mind in the world be pro-nuclear energy?

In the absence of any better alternatives...

0 ( +1 / -1 )

How could anyone in their sane mind in the world be pro-nuclear energy?

Because unlike oil/coal based power, it is clean and doesn't ruin the environment if managed properly. There have been three major incidents in 35 years, that have ruined a number of square kilometers in the world. Coal/oil based energy on the other hand has ruined the environment of almost the entire planet. Climate change is a direct result of coal/oil based power, and is a way larger threat to our planet than nuclear energy ever has been or ever will be. Nuclear energy is also much cheaper, and can be used by countries that don't have coal and oil resources.

If the incompetents at Tepco hadn't ignored warnings before the tsunami and had properly built defenses in preparation for such a tsunami, the problems at Fukushima wouldn't have happened, and the discussion in Japan wouldn't be happening. The Fukushima issue is a direct product of human incompetence and ignorance, on reactors built 40 years ago. With 40+ years of additional knowledge, combined with proper oversight, there is no reason why nuclear power cannot be provided safely, giving a clean source of energy that doesn't ruin our planet and kill, like coal and oil do.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

It is not just the people on the street.. the power of the internet is vast and immediate.. use it..

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Go to direct democracy, let the people vote on any issues. Power to the people!

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

people can protest all they want, but nuclear power coming back online is crucial for Japans economic recovery? Or is the trade deficit and inflation from importing fuel a good sign of things to come? Wage increases?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

It's great to see so many people protesting nuclear power, but sadly, their government is not listening and will continue to promote nuclear power and continue to partition for the restart of all the reactors regardless of public opinion. I'm curious to know how many of these protesters voted for Abe or how many of them actually voted at all!

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

How could anyone in their sane mind in the world be pro-nuclear energy?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

I am suggesting that Japan uses 21st century technology in both terms of nuclear and renewables. I'm suggesting that Japan moves away from fossil fuels, goes back to the Kyoto agreement and ultimately makes the country safer for it's citizens.

It's interesting that you say that 2/3 of local assemblies oppose them. I know last week you said 80% of Japanese public wanted no nuclear because you misread an NHK poll. I wonder if you've also misread that? 2/3 of Japan's public support Japan having nuclear. Perhaps the assemblies don't understand the needs of the public.

Onagawa was closest to the epicentre of the quake. It survived. Lessons should be learned from it. What did they do right and can that be transferred elsewhere?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Again, the lesson's from Onagawa should be learned.

You have stated that it was built higher and better culture of safety... and if they'd built a sea wall that was high enough (and they should have learned from the Indian Ocean Tsunami). And surely you can improve the culture of safety.

Fukushima's problems were caused by the tsunami and poor management. You can remove the poor management (and I wish someone would remove all of TEPCO's management)

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

“This is an opportunity for Japan to drop nuclear power,”

And use what as immediate alternative? Buy fossil fuels from middle east? There has to be an alternative viable option for large scale consumption before we ditch the nuclear powered ones. Or else, there will be dark powerless days ahead!

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

I guess you didn't read the article? Try it

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

No one died as a direct result of the nuclear accident, but at least 1,656 people died as a result of complications related to stress and other conditions while their lives in evacuation become extended

There have been a total of 3,000 deaths in temporary housing across all of the regions and whilst it's clear that there have been more in Fukushima then elsewhere, this article suggests that all of those who have died in Fukushima have been because of the nuclear situation. Which clearly isn't the case.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Sorry - yes 30% of the poll want an end to nuclear. 44% want some nuclear plants to close. 23% said they want to keep the remainder and 1% (I think) wanted more to be built.

In total, over 2/3 of the poll wanted nuclear power for Japan. Which is a massive sing when you consider for the past 3 years everyone on here have been saying that the majority want a total removal of nuclear.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

For god's sake THERE IS NOT SHORT-TERM ALTERNATIVE! Wish these people would educate themselves...

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

I'm not sure how you come to that - 30% want a total removal. 44% want some of the nuclear plants to close and 23% want the status quo.

Whilst it could be argued that 74% want a reduction in nuclear power, less than 1/3 want a total ban.

On here, I've read hundreds of times than the popluation want a total ban on nuclear power. This recent poll shows that not to be true.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

74% want a reduction. By saying that 74% want removal, it's suggesting that they want a complete removal not just a reduction.

Clearly 2/3 are happy for Japan to have nuclear power, albeit at a reduced capacity.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

It was surreal to hear that the PM at that time was afraid for the safety of the Tokyo region, and believed that a metropolitan area of 30,000,000 people might require a large-scale evacuation.

There's an excellent article on slate.com that covers this in their article much of what you have heard about Fukushima is wrong.

After days of high-intensity analysis and numerous computer runs, the scientists concluded that radiation in Tokyo would come nowhere close to levels requiring an evacuation, even in the event that Fukushima Dai-ichi underwent the worst plausible meltdown combined with extremely unfavorable wind and weather patterns. Obama was briefed on the findings, and pressure for an evacuation abated.

Zichi - I've always advocated a combined use of nuclear and renewables. Still don't understand why you always ignore Onagawa when you say that one of them can be sure they can stand earthquakes and tsunamis...

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

I keep mentioning Onagawa because it did what it was supposed to. In fact it survived an earthquake bigger than it was built for. So yes, I keep mentioning Onagawa.

Its easy for someone like you to state Japan should restart its reactors when you are living many thousands of miles away

I can't believe you are resorting to this. I was also in favour of starting the reactors when I lived in Japan. When I was making regular visits to Fukushima. My locale has changed but nothing else. And to suggest that I support the starting of the reactors because I live far away is pathetic. And I'd expect more of you.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Fortunate that it did the job it was supposed to?

It was unfortunate that a massive tsunami hit Fukushima, otherwise there wouldn't have been any problems.

So I'm pleased you now agree that Japan's nuclear plants are safe in an earthquake.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Good, I'm pleased you are inspired.

President Obama's top science advisers turned to Livermore to determine the extent of the peril to the Japanese archipelago. After days of high-intensity analysis and numerous computer runs, the scientists concluded that radiation in Tokyo would come nowhere close to levels requiring an evacuation, even in the event that Fukushima Dai-ichi underwent the worst plausible meltdown combined with extremely unfavorable wind and weather patterns. Obama was briefed on the findings, and pressure for an evacuation abated.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/09/fukushima_disaster_new_information_about_worst_case_scenarios.html

I'm pretty sure if Obama knew we wouldn't need to be evacuated that he may have mentioned it to Kan. I know it's just a hunch but still...

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Last week in an NHK poll, 30% of the population said they wanted an end to nuclear power.

-6 ( +5 / -11 )

With fossil fuels.

I love how people are against nuclear for safety/health reasons yet wholeheartedly support the use of fossil fuels.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

I love it when some supporters of nuclear energy never give the whole picture or even mention any of the problems which nuclear energy also creates or often any suggestion on how to solve them.

What that fossil fuels is worse for the environment or that fossil fuels kills more people? Of course nuclear isn't perfect, I've never said it is. However it's substantially better than fossil fuels.

The discussion is on Japan. Last time I looked there weren't 1.5 billion people here. It's about what's best for Japan. According to you, it's better to have fossil fuels to nuclear. Which means it's better to kill more people. And do more damage to the environment.

40% of air pollution comes from cars? And how much energy do we generate from cars? Power your house? No, so what does it have to do with Japan's need for nuclear power? Nothing.

Again, why mention cars for air pollution? You're trying to hide the fact that the burning of fossil fuels is a major killer. Nothing to do with cars. And everything to do with Japan's power consumption. Those of you who advocate it's use as a replacement of nuclear are saying that you are happy for thousands to die a year. This is without doubt.

James Hanson is one scientist that advocates the use of nuclear. He's not the only one. I'm yet to see a scientist say we should be using coal.

I'm blaming people for advocating the use of coal simply because it's not nuclear. It's dirtier. Kills substantially more people. And is costly.

And 2/3 of the Japanese population want Japan's power to, at least partially, come from nuclear.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Onagawa survived because it was supposed to. It wasn't luck.

Tokyo wasn't going to be evacuated. Even in a worst case scenario.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Yea, that's the only way people can be pro-nuclear isn't it?

I mean it's not like they could have read up on the subject, formed an opinion is it?

You all are happy that thousands die a year from the extra reliance on fossil fuels simply because it's not nuclear.

It's quite surreal.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

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