picture of the day

No nukes

36 Comments

Holding "No Nukes" signs, people march Saturday in Tokyo's Yoyogi Park, demanding Japan abandon nuclear power.

© Japan Today

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

36 Comments
Login to comment

just love these where's waldo san pic !!

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

I understand people's fear and mistrust of government, but the transition away from nuclear power will be neither immediate, nor cheap.

8 ( +12 / -5 )

Not sure but when did 'nukes' start referring to nuclear power plants?

2 ( +8 / -6 )

Not sure but when did 'nukes' start referring to nuclear power plants?

'nukes' may be Japanese version of Fukushima Nuclear Disaster.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

What they probably don't want is another screw up like Fukushima! The govt should spend lots of money to keep power plants 3000% safe or do away with them.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

James Hoadley,

I understand people's fear and mistrust of government, but the transition away from nuclear power will be neither immediate, nor cheap.

The cost of the clean up of the nuclear disaster at Fukushima will be 20 to 30 TRILLION YEN, which will be paid for by the taxpayer. Is that cheap?

3 ( +12 / -9 )

Tigerguy,

The nuclear power plants belong to private power companies, which have made trillions of profit over the last 40 years. TEPCO was the 4th largest in the world.

It's the power companies and not at cost to the taxpayer, which must pay to ensure that their NPP's are operating at the highest safety standards or be forced to shut them down.

TEPCO's recent mandatory reactor stress test at it's NPP in Niigata, failed on more than 100 essential pieces of equipment.

While there are nuclear power plants, there will always be the danger of another Fukushima.

Nuclear power plants cost billions to build, billions to decommission, billions to store the nuclear waste for tens of thousands of years, and trillions to clean up when they go belly up!

The door to the nuclear disaster wasn't too difficult to open, but now will be near impossible to close.

No to Nuke Energy, yes to RENEWABLES!

1 ( +9 / -8 )

no power equals no jobs no income and japan economy is finished so how will that lot survive?

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

First thing I noticed: the one idiot with the sign upside down.....lol

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Also the sign "No more Fukushima" can be totally misinterpreted.....

Do they mean they want Fukushima destroyed and made obselete? Or no more similar incidents to Fukushima?

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Darbysan,

Who said anything about living with no power? America still generates most of its power from non nuclear energies.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

"A survey sponsored by the Nuclear Energy Institute, conducted in September 2011, found that "62 percent of respondents said they favor the use of nuclear energy as one of the ways to provide electricity in the United States, with 35 percent opposed". " If america says that.. Why not Japan..

It should be only OK for power generation . but not for Nuke Bombs for oncoming Wars..

4 ( +5 / -1 )

SEKUN ON! ...No Nukes backwards... but hey the thought counts.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

miyazawa3 asked: If america says that.. Why not Japan..

It might have something to do with Japan being in an earthquake/tsunami zone, but I have to admit, I am just taking a stab in the dark on that....

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Looks like the Mayor of Tokyo is Not going to submit the legislative bill of ballot initiative for nuclear power to the metropolitan assembly, even though he has the 279,881 signatures for the ballot initiative.

Tokyo Mayor Ishihara press video conference on Fukushima Diary

0 ( +0 / -0 )

655321 asked: Not sure but when did 'nukes' start referring to nuclear power plants?

For a while. From dictionary.com:

nuke noun

a nuclear or thermonuclear weapon. a nuclear power plant or nuclear reactor. nuclear energy: to convert from coal to nuke.

Both nuclear bombs and nuclear plants have the word nuclear in them for a reason. There are so many similarities and shared dangers that many people oppose both and use the word nuke for both.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Perhaps Noda & co should ask Germany for advice/help; oh wait ... god forbid!

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Shintaro Ishihara, the outspoken governor of Tokyo, says he has no intention of supporting a referendum on nuclear power being sought by a citizens group.

Ishihara, claimed,

"protesting against nuclear energy was as stupid as monkey's."

But there again, monkey's never felt the need to build nuclear power plants?

2 ( +6 / -4 )

I went back to my country in very north Europe for the x-mas holidays, and we had a 9-day blackout due to a storm (dad's cottage is very remote). After returning to Tokyo, all Japanese asked "How did you manage, it must have been so cold?!?". I simply answered truthfully: "Yeah, not really. In my country we rarely heat with electricity. Even water pressure is based on gravity. It was nice reading books in candlelight during holidays".

What is the value of economic growth if something very probable as a blackout can bring everything to it's very knees? Growth should not be built on single source of energy and blind faith that nothing ever goes wrong.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

One wonders how the public would react to being asked, "Would you give up nuclear power if it meant blackouts, economic catastrophe, job losses, higher electricity costs and more greenhouse gas emmisions?"

As one poster pointed out, this is not going to be a quick or cheap process. No nukes? Eventually that would be fine with me, but for right now, we need the power. Nobody other than the zelots is just going to sit at home in the dark, freezing in the winter and basting in the summer. Just not going to happen.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

I'm still protesting against Nuks

2 ( +3 / -1 )

What is the value of economic growth if something very probable as a blackout can bring everything to it's very knees? Growth should not be built on single source of energy and blind faith that nothing ever goes wrong.

Pray tell how you would run a manufacturing plant without electricity? It's nice that you had enough candles to allow you to read books at night, but try heating a manufacturing building with wood stoves. Your experience over the holidays has NO relation to what a country faces if rolling blackouts have to be instated.

These people certainly have a right to demand where their power comes from. I just wonder if they've really thought out what the alternatives will entail. I wish them good luck in their upcoming struggles.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Nukes are bombs. They got the English wrong once again.

0 ( +2 / -3 )

There are many other ways to generate electricity. In fact many developed countries in the world are doing just fine without nuclear. Considering the high costs of nuclear power in case of an accident, Germany was very wise to abandon nuclear power last year. I hope Japan will do the same soon. For Japan with their earthquakes and tsunamis nuclear energy is without doubt the most expensive way to generate electricity. For the utilities this is of course no argument, since in case of an accident such as last year the taxpayer is handling the bill. Another unsolved task, which all countries with nuclear plants are facing is where to put all that radioactive waste, which is going to pose severe risks to humans for the next tens of thousands of years. Wonder who is going to pay for the storage? I guess you all know already.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

miyazawa3

"A survey sponsored by the Nuclear Energy Institute, conducted in September 2011, found that "62 percent of respondents said they favor the use of nuclear energy as one of the ways to provide electricity in the United States, with 35 percent opposed". " If america says that.. Why not Japan..

And what do you think these people would say if asked following a Level 7 nuclear disaster in their country?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

http://danieldiaztecles.blogspot.com/ 1 The nuclear energy is always the cheapest 2 The nuclear energy is the most risk is 3 ° No other source of energy as efficient as nuclear power. 4 If the disaster in Japan does happen elsewhere in the world ... 5 ° They have sacrificed many Japanese to fix the mess caused by the earthquake. 6 th We learn from the exemplary behavior of the Japanese and their commitments to society.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

And as they all protest no nuclear power plants, at the end of the day they all go home to their well lit and heated homes, turn on the idiot box and think life is good.

But seriously, every single one of these people should be living by candle light, refusing to use anything and nearly everything that is powered by a "nuke" power plant (still think nuke ONLY refers to a nuke bomb, icbm, etc) and should shun modern living in its entirety. I get their sentiment and agree with them on the issue but if you're gonna protest you better not go half-assed and go full bore.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

655321,

Didn't you state in a previous comment that the whole of Fukushima should be abandoned?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

what is the "Fish anyways?"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But seriously, every single one of these people should be living by candle light

Looks like 'seriously' has taken on a new meaning.

So, 655321, would you say that people who object to Nike sports shoes being made by children in sweatshops should therefore refuse to wear any kind of footgear or play any kind of sport? That people who are concerned about the next earthquake, instead of quake-proofing their houses, should not live in a house at all, but just sleep out in the open in readiness?

I hope those who think nuclear power is a good thing are ready to store their share of the nuclear waste for the next ten thousand or more years. And my share too, cos I don't want it.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Currently, there are only three nuclear reactors in operation, and surprise! surprise! there's no power shortages, no factories unable to work 24/7.

Last year, the government hid a document stating that last summer, and the coming one this year, there would be no power shortages.

The price of power from nuclear energy has been falsely set, because the power charges don't include the cost of storing nuclear waste for thousands of years nor the cost of a nuclear disaster, like Fukushima which will be more than 30 trillion yen.

The cost of importing more energy will cost an extra $80 billion, which is why the country needs to generate power from new ambles and other natural resources.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@zichi I did state that and still believe Fukushima prefecture is a danger zone and should be written off. Enough with the politicians talking about clean up and decon. How does that relate to what I posted here?

@cleo I can see how you could take what I said as all encompassing but that's just my laziness in not wanting to in detail iterate what I want to say. I would just like to say this, the type of power that these people in the photo are protesting against have/had provided them with all the things I mentioned in my first post. I'm willing to bet that they weren't picketing as they are in the picture before 3/11. Only now they come out to protest the evils of nuclear energy. That's what makes me laugh. I'm sure some of them are hardcore environmentalists but not all.

@cleo Your comparison to footwear and earthquake proofing are slightly different imo. Protest the company that uses such measures to make their footwear if it bothers you, but of course, keep on wearing whatever footwear you please. Obviously, not from the manufacturer you're protesting though. As for proofing against quakes, that's completely different I think. You can't really protest against mother nature or whatever you want to attribute earthquakes to so by all means quake-proof away.

I'm not saying I support nuclear power or that I'm against it. I'm just saying that if you're going to protest against something you truly believe in then you better make sure that you're not benefiting (eg: lights, heat, whatever) from what you're protesting against.

@zichi That's good that nationwide there are only three reactors left in operation. Hopefully they're not coastal reactors like the Fukushima one. I still can't get my head around why in the hell they would put several plants in areas that could suffer the effects of not one, but two natural disasters. I'm sure the ocean water has cooling purposes or whatever in the overall scheme of the science behind power plants but the less reactors online, the better I'd say after 3/11.

Hope I've been a little more clearer for you guys. My apologies if I haven't.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@zichi @cleo I feel honored to have gotten replies from two JT heavyweights like yourselves. ;)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm just saying that if you're going to protest against something you truly believe in then you better make sure that you're not benefiting (eg: lights, heat, whatever) from what you're protesting against.

Sorry, but your argument doesn't hold up. If I object to unlabelled GMO, does that mean I mustn't eat anything because I don't know if it's got GMO in it or not? (That's the whole point of the protest....) Or if a local textile factory has been found to have been pouring pollutants into the river the police can't prosecute because the police uniforms are made from cloth produced by that factory?

These people aren't protesting about electricity. They're protesting about a particular source of electricity that politicians and power companies have assured them is safe, clean and cheap - and that has been shown spectacularly since 3/11 to be not safe, not clean and not cheap. Now they know the truth is the time to protest the evils of nuclear energy, is it not?

Saying people shouldn't complain now about stuff they didn't know about/weren't aware of before because they believed the politicians and power companies is like saying parents shouldn't complain when they find out radioactive beef and milk has been served in school dinners because, well, they didn't complain when the kids were eating those radioactive dinners. Why would people complain about the unthinkable before it becomes plain that the unthinkable has happened and will continue to happen if people don't speak up?

A bit like being in favour of money but opposed to getting it by robbing banks.

('JT heavyweight', ey? Maybe need to go on a JT diet...)

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@cleo I get what you're saying and I'm not proposing an "argument" (but I guess posting online it's almost instantaneous) but let me say it this way. I agree with what you're saying in your above post BUT if any of the people in the photo who oppose nuclear energy as a source to create usable electricity go home and live their lives using electricity that was generated from a nuclear power plant, to me that's rather hypocritical.

I equate it to saying, "Drinking alcohol is bad for you and you shouldn't do it.", meanwhile you have a pint in your hand and take a swig right after finishing saying it.

Thanks for the attention but I'm gonna leave this one alone now.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

655321,

All of the nuclear power plants, 18 of them, are on the coast, to save on construction costs by using sea water for cooling. The location of the Fukushima plant was originally a 50 meter hill, which TEPCO leveled otherwise in have had to install stronger, more powerful, more expensive cooling pumps. If he it had been built on a hill, it would not have been damaged by the 3/11 mega tsunami.

TEPCO have a history of putting profit before safety.

I'm not a JT heavyweight, just "RadioActive!".

3 ( +3 / -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