Abe says nuclear plants need tighter anti-terrorism measures

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

  • 3

    Francis Urquhart

    Oh, so it was terrorism, no doubt instigated by non-Japanese, after all. I'm glad that's clear now, because I had wondered right from the beginning.

  • 7

    Ewan Huzarmy

    So, is terrorism a euphemism for incompetence ?

  • 8

    kurisupisu

    Not placing nuclear reactors in an earthquake prone country is safe.....just what is Prime Minister Abe smoking?

  • 12

    gaijintraveller

    What he wants to do is protect the vested interests of the nuclear village against anti-nuclear demonstrators.

  • 6

    sf2k

    like the designers who put them on earthquake fault lines?

  • 4

    sf2k

    perhaps this to distract away from all the workers who were cheated out of their pay for working on the Fukushima cleanup and the bosses who cleaned up their earnings instead

    Abe should be after TEPCO for all kinds of violations and help the country trust government. I don't see how this does anything but show Japanese that their concerns are not important.

  • 1

    rowiko68

    @kurisupisu: Really had a good laugh at your comment! Then again, it's probably a legitimate question. How anyone can put the focus on the terrorism threat instead of quakes is absolutely beyond me.

  • 4

    wanderlust

    The only 'terrorist' incidents in Japan have been by Japanese themselves...

    Unarmed guards who have to call the police to do anything? Yes, really useful. They'd probably be better off calling the Yamaguchi-gumi workers in the plant to defend it...

    But agree with @gaijintraveler that it is probably focused on defending NPPs from protesters .Look how quickly the Riot Police deployed to protect the start up of the Oi reactor in Fukui.

  • 9

    Ayler

    I give up. Politics is a waste of time.

  • 10

    nostromo

    How about "anti TEPCO" measures???... They seem to be the bigger concern...

  • 2

    JeffLee

    Japan's nukes are indeed at threat. The anti-nuke groundswell continues to grow, and many plant workers are sub-sub contracted on very casual, short-term contracts. Infiltration would be extremely easy.

    The other factor is Japan's rich history of terrorism, like the Red Army, and other extremist grounds. Heck, extremism is part of the national character.

  • 4

    Mirai Hayashi

    Wow...I suppose you can label a tsunami a terrorist. but I think the smarter move is shutdown all nuclear power plants in earthquake prone areas and parked next to an ocean....which is all of them

  • 4

    VicMOsaka

    Yes, and also remove all the security equipment and access placed in the plant and reactors by a certain country who themselves do not allow IAEA inspections of their own power plants and nuclear facilities. Japanese need to take charge of their own security. We really don't want to see another reactor like No.3 blow up which wasn't in operation.

  • 2

    SquidBert

    Seawall -against tsunamis - Tsunami will probably not happen, seawall not needed. Flood protection - for diesel generators - Flooding will probably not happen, protection not needed.

    Higher fence - against terrorist attack - Absolutely needed, this is the biggest risk facing us right now, lets do it.

    Most nuclear emergency drills that I have witnessed before the accident also revolved around the terror threat

    External (foreign) threats are off-course much more attractive to a government that can't admit that it has been doing anything wrong. Especially attractive to a right winged hawk such as Abe.

  • 7

    BertieWooster

    Here's another and MAJOR reason NOT to have nuclear power.

    If the environment is as dangerous as the US military and Abe seem to indicate - threats of attacks from NK, China, etc. Then surely, a nuclear reactor with its stockpile of fuel would be a prime target. If you wanted to cause devastation on a truly MASSIVE scale, a well placed bomb would fit the bill perfectly. Sure, check points would make it difficult for someone to enter an atomic facility and place a bomb. But NK has proved that they can fire a rocket at least as far as Japan. This would cause HUGE damage, when the strike occurred and way into the future.

    Compare this with a rocket taking out a bank of wind turbines or even a dam. The results would be a bit messy, but it could be cleared up with a bit of hard work. A rocket strike on a nuclear power station would be FAR WORSE than Fukushima or Chernobyl.

    Nuclear power is very messy.

    Getting uranium out of the ground causes massive pollution. Processing it too. And getting rid of the waste just shoves the problem onto the next generation.

  • -9

    cabadaje

    Wow, there are some really petty comments from the anti-nuke crowd. Have any of you made the connection yet between this sort of attitude and the weak, albeit genuine, excuse of "We didn't want to investigate safety measures because the general public would get scared"? We can't even get an article about improving the overall physical security at plant without people getting all snide about it, and the same people wonder at the reluctance to act?

    Physical security has nothing to do with the engineering of a nuclear plant. Seawalls, earth-quake measures, containment, cooling towers, those are all valid concerns and topics, but they are not the only ones. It is perfectly legitimate to talk about other aspects of a nuclear facility that also need improvement. The only result you will achieve from petty sniping is to force the topics underground until another incident occurs because no one wanted to talk about it.

    And yes, as far as the actual article goes, there is a significant possibility of terrorist interest. Not structurally, not in terms of crashing an airplane or even a missile into a plant, but actual directed sabotage. A group infiltrating or directly attacking a plant and intentionally causing a large scale incident on one of the older plants, without passive safety systems in place (or even with them in place and plans for getting around them) would create a rather dangerous situation.

    That said, I do have to wonder what the gain from a terrorist attack on Japanese soil would be.

  • 6

    VicMOsaka

    cabadaje said----------

    A group infiltrating or directly attacking a plant and intentionally causing a large scale incident on one of the older plants, without passive safety systems in place (or even with them in place and plans for getting around them) would create a rather dangerous situation.

    How about the " Stuxnet " computer virus ? A program designed to control Siemens control valves etc. Which was also known to cause breakdowns with Iran's nuclear operations.

  • 6

    BurakuminDes

    "Possibility of external terror threats"? Traditionally the only terrorist groups that have attacked Japan have been Japanese. But I guess stating this fact does not appeal to the constant siege mentality among the voters here.

  • 6

    Scrote

    Plant operators have boasted that their plants can survive a plane crashing into them

    What about the spent fuel pools placed precariously on top of the reactors: can they withstand a plane crash?

    Terrorists don't need to bother attacking nuclear plants in a country where LDP governments collude with plant operators to minimise operating costs and ignore safety standards. The less money spent on reactor safety, the more money available for donations to politicians.

  • 9

    Aristoman

    Nuclear energy is safe, isn't it? And cheap too. So why the hell you need antiterrorist measures. What about to listen to scientists. Don't build it on dangerous places. Or how many antiterrorist you need on solar plant? Dumb as hell.

  • -5

    cabadaje

    @VicMOsaka

    How about the " Stuxnet " computer virus ? A program designed to control Siemens control valves etc. Which was also known to cause breakdowns with Iran's nuclear operations.

    Well, again, physical security and engineering security are two different things, and protection of the IT system kind of fall under engineering. It is a valid concern, of course, but it isn't the actual topic of the article.

    There are ways to attack everything, and the rather open secret of physical security is that there is little that one can do to completely eliminate the threat of a focused and determined individual (or group) looking to destroy something. That said, the main purpose of security is to reduce as much as possible the avenues of attack. Making an attack impossible just challenges those who want to do the impossible; making an attack extremely difficult challenges anyone who doesn't or can't put in the time or effort, and there are a lot more of those people around. In terms of engineering (not physical security), when dealing with something as potentially catastrophic as a nuclear incident, I tend to lean more towards the passive security rather than active security. In other words, systems that default automatically, preferably through sheer physics, to a safe state. In other words, in the event of an incident, without human intervention or computer assistance, the system shuts itself down or contains the threat when limits are passed.

    This is not to say that active engineering safeties are not needed; on the contrary, active measures should be the primary line of defense. However, active measures are far easier to sabotage, either intentionally (terrorism) or unintentionally (TEPCO, looking at you now). That's why I specifically mentioned the older plants, which do not have the current technologies we incorporate into reactors today.

  • 7

    Magnet

    Does total incompetence and gross negligence count as terrorism, Mr. Abe? I think there's more to be worried about from within the nuclear industry and their government bed buddies than any perceived terrorist threat, unless you count nature as a terrorist as well. Seriously, the Japanese government and TEPCO need to stop pointing fingers and own up to what they've done to themselves.

  • 10

    moomoochoo

    I find it laughable that they are concerned about terrorists when TEPCO has done far worse than any terrorist has ( in Japan). Fix the problems that need fixing, then do the rest later. I'm concerned this is just a way of keeping international safety inspectors from getting easy access to the reactors.

  • -8

    basroil

    VicMOsakaMar. 13, 2013 - 09:54AM JST

    How about the " Stuxnet " computer virus ? A program designed to control Siemens control valves etc. Which was also known to cause breakdowns with Iran's nuclear operations.

    That was an attack on uranium centrifuges, and the actual effects are very limited, changing speeds by tiny fractions to disrupt the separation of U235 used in bombs. Unlike nuclear plants that are in constant human supervision, centrifuges are mostly automatic since they take months to complete their job, and that's why the virus had any effect. To date, no nuclear plant has received damage from any computer virus, despite several infections.

  • 4

    Ron Barnes

    Looks like we all missing the main point. People died and the country has a large uninhabitable chunk of waste land that was an indirect cause of earth movement causing a Synami which in turn wiped out this particular reacter and many thousands of Japenese people. Up grading security on all neuclear facilites to police ,should include anti missle options maned by the militery head quarters. Until they have been safely been demolished. With regard to all reacters that dont comply with recomended safe construction should be shutdown and removed for safety reasons to the general public and to the whole of Japan its self. Since Japan has discovered a methane Resevoir all new power stations should be ran by this.Thus avoiding construction of any new neuclear power stations in this decade .It is not that we need neuclear energy at present. . Neuclear Energy is very expensive over a period of time on safe storage of spent rods and radioactive heavy water. There-for Neuclear power should be held over when all other resources have been used up . By that time science will have advanced to be able to cover all options of safety.

  • -11

    basroil

    . The two aum attacks have already injured more than fukushima is ever expected to do (by Stanford University's independent research) and didn't need nuclear reactors to do it. And when the next terrorist attack happens, it won't be by arabs or chinese forces, it will be by Japanese citizens using things they can buy right here in Japan.

    There's no use discussing terrorism in Japan unless you look at past examples, ignoring them is unprofessional.

  • 4

    BertieWooster

    Basroil,

    To date, no nuclear plant has received damage from any computer virus, despite several infections.

    So you come to this conclusion?

    "No nuclear plant has received damage from any computer virus, therefore none will in the future?"

    It's not very scientific, is it?

    If Abe insists on using Nuclear Power, I think he is quite correct in stating that security measures have to be upgraded. There are many ways a terrorist group could infiltrate a nuclear power facility. We cannot ignore computer viruses.

  • 1

    moomoochoo

    In terms of the number of people affected and the period of time over which the effects occurred- Fukushima was/is worse.

  • -6

    basroil

    BertieWoosterMar. 13, 2013 - 11:32AM JST

    So you come to this conclusion?

    "No nuclear plant has received damage from any computer virus, therefore none will in the future?"

    No, YOU came to that failed conclusion. I merely hinted that any successful attack would not be from a simple virus from terrorist activity, rather from an act of war by a country. In an act of war, more people will die from a lack of electrical power than from radiation, by medical systems failure, water contamination, and even famine.

  • 3

    budgie

    Major deflection by Mr Abe and clearly design to deflect attention from the Japanese government's own failings. The biggest threat to Japans nuclear plants remains the environment and the shoddy workmanship, maintenance shortcuts and poor oversight of the organizations that run them. By that I mean the government the NRA and their cronies. Terrorism is way down the list.

  • 2

    Disillusioned

    Who is gonna protect them from themselves?

  • 2

    smithinjapan

    Ah, who cares that thousands are back up and marching again against nuclear power? Who cares about the promise by regulators not to restart without the permission of the local communites? Who cares that more and more facts about how far the radiation from Fukushima has spread are coming out? Who cares that the ineptitude of companies like TEPCO continues on a daily basis? None of that matters; what DOES is the bottom line, and Abe is true to the LDP in scrapping plans to wean Japan off the nuclear teat and keen to restart reactors. "They must pass stringent new guidelines", he says, despite at least a few companies saying they will have done so within 5 years (but will restart in July).

    Increase security against the threat of terrorism? great -- fine idea, really. But given they can't even take care of security in day to day matters will this be more lip service as usual? Methinks yes.

  • 2

    smithinjapan

    basroil: " In an act of war, more people will die from a lack of electrical power than from radiation, by medical systems failure, water contamination, and even famine."

    No one would survive a nuclear war, and if they did they would soon die after from RADIATION, and then after lack of clean water, famine, and medical systems. You seem to think the world has ALWAYS had power or we would not have survived to the present day.

  • -6

    basroil

    smithinjapanMar. 13, 2013 - 12:49PM JST

    No one would survive a nuclear war, and if they did they would soon die after from RADIATION, and then after lack of clean water, famine, and medical systems.

    Nobody is talking about nuclear war here, except you. In any war, the first thing you go after is energy sector, since without electrical power you can't launch a long term counter.

    You probably haven't studied modern engineering at all, or you would have first accepted the fact that all water supplies in the major cities (except a few places like Hakodate that use facilities built in the early 1900s) is powered by electricity. One of the major issues in the Tohoku area was getting clean water, most of it had to be shipped in and run off generators until power was restored. Even if the water supply trucks aren't attacked, there would simply not be enough of them to supply a major city like Tokyo.

    Most food in the cities is transported from outside, and coordinated through communications that require electricity to function. A decent amount is also carried in by trains, which are 100% electric. While people would be fine for the first few days, if transport coordination isn't restored within a reasonable time, you will see people going hungry.

    For medical systems, backups generally only last a day or two, perhaps a bit more if you can steal gas from every source around. But even if the hospitals work, many of the things they took for granted will be slowed down, and when their batteries run low, the quality of medicine will be sent back 50 years. Things that today would be nearly harmless could end up being life threatening, and things we still have trouble with will be fatal.

    It's not about can people live without power, it's a question of how many can live without power. We don't exactly live in low density cities with nearby farms anymore.

  • -7

    basroil

    BertieWoosterMar. 13, 2013 - 09:10AM JST

    A rocket strike on a nuclear power station would be FAR WORSE than Fukushima or Chernobyl.

    You clearly have absolutely no clue as to a little something called scale. The Chernobyl blast was estimated at 10 tons of TNT equivalent, and Kyshtym was 100 tons. Chernobyl's blast was as large as the biggest non-nuclear bomb in the US inventory, which cannot be delivered by missile (and Kyshtym was larger than the largest conventional bomb ever, which is 44tons). A tomahawk missile can carry up to 500kg of explosive power, which falls very short of even Chernobyl, and likely not enough to even penetrate the containment building. To say that it would be worse is a show that no effort was put into checking the facts, as it would certainly be less energy released.

    Only possible way it could be worse is if they launched a barrage of a hundred large missles... but then that would mean some really poor response by JSDF and US forces, since you would be able to spot that an hour before it strikes. Not to mention that many missiles would kill a thousand times more people (and all of them within hours or days, rather than half century) if they just bombarded Tokyo instead, more if they attacked factories with chlorine tanks as well.

  • 1

    BertieWooster

    So, Basroil,

    We don't need to worry if NK drops a missle, sorry missile, bullseye-dead centre on a nuclear power station?

    You reckon we would be OK?

  • -1

    buchailldana

    stoke the fear stoke the fear keep the mind of the real problems

  • 2

    sillygirl

    in addtion to ACTUALLY PERFORMING checks on these plants, this sort of thing should have been in place years ago.

  • -3

    basroil

    BertieWoosterMar. 13, 2013 - 04:09PM JST

    We don't need to worry if NK drops a missle, sorry missile, bullseye-dead centre on a nuclear power station?

    You have constantly stated that such enemies are imagined, so why the change of heart now? Perhaps you should change your stance on certain other matters before you even consider this one.

    And no, given the NK's track record on missiles, you are more likely to see it hit anything else. Unlike a solar farm you can see from space, nuclear plants are small targets, and reactor buildings are even smaller. They haven't shown any ability to hit from that far in an area so small. If anything, they would attack Osaka with a dirty bomb, since it's much easier and far more effective. Even china has difficulty with targets that small without using russian and US technology. Not to mention china has enough Co60 to cause more damage than 20 fukushimas, all without hitting a single plant.

  • 0

    BertieWooster

    They haven't shown any ability to hit from that far in an area so small.

    Ah. I see.

    If they haven't hit a target that small in the past, they won't in the future either.

    You put my mind at rest, Basroil.

    Whew!

    What a relief!

  • -2

    cabadaje

    Interesting technique, Bertie. Mind if I give it a shot?

    There are ways to attack everything, and the rather open secret of physical security is that there is little that one can do to completely eliminate the threat of a focused and determined individual (or group) looking to destroy something.

    So, since there is no way to prevent all attacks, we shouldn't try to defend against any attacks.

    The only result you will achieve from petty sniping is to force the topics underground until another incident occurs because no one wanted to talk about it.

    So, since sniping isn't a good way to talk about a topic, we shouldn't ever talk about the topic at all.

    In other words, in the event of an incident, without human intervention or computer assistance, the system shuts itself down or contains the threat when limits are passed.

    So, since these passive systems can do everything all by themselves, we don't need active safety systems at all.

    Huh. That was easy.

    @Ron Barnes

    Looks like we all missing the main point

    I agree. People are all so politically obsessed over being anti-nuclear that they don't even care what the content of the article is. As long as the words "Nuclear Power" are involved, it's free license to post all our opinions on how corrupt the government, TEPCO, and anyone who is pro-nuke is, as well as deriding those mental midget nuclear engineers for not seeing how obviously superior and much more available energy is.

  • 2

    marcelito

    All those arguing that chance of a terrorist attack is negligible or that the only terrorist act in Japan to date was perpetrated by homegrown Aum terrorists sound like they are using the Tepco manual - it hasn't happened in living memory so it's probably not gonna happen ....sounds eerily similar to the excuses offered after the 3.11 ...it was an " unimaginable " natural disaster we couldn,t predict. The most effective anti- terrorist measure available to J govt. is to shut the bastards down and as much as possible secure the spent rods. I.ll take a terrorist strike on a solar plant over a nuclear one any day.

  • 0

    JeffLee

    All those arguing that chance of a terrorist attack is negligible or that the only terrorist act in Japan to date was perpetrated by homegrown Aum terrorists sound like they are using the Tepco manual

    No, we're highlighting the hypocrisy and xenophobia behind the gov'ts atttitude.

    A serious risk analysis would show that Japanese terrorists are the threat, but the gov't seems to prefer to resort to xenophobia. Remember, in the lead-up the fatal nerve-gas attacks in Tokyo, the authorities knew what the Japanese terrorists were up to but chose to do basically nothing about it.

  • -2

    basroil

    marcelitoMar. 13, 2013 - 06:24PM JST

    All those arguing that chance of a terrorist attack is negligible or that the only terrorist act in Japan to date was perpetrated by homegrown Aum terrorists sound like they are using the Tepco manual

    Actually the statistics are available from the CIA, but people like to make things up. Simple fact is that most terrorism anywhere in the world is domestic. When terrorism is carried out in Japan, it is done against soft targets, with not a single significant terrorist attack having ever successfully used explosives to destroy a building. Japan is just too mono-ethnic to allow foreign terrorists to do their activities without raising a few flags, so if any terrorists do slip through the nets it will be domestic.

    A biological/chemical attack like those that have happened before, would do nothing to a nuclear plant, and the home-made explosives that could be made in Japan without catching the eye of every cop from okinawa to hokkaido would do nothing in the quantities that could be transported in one go.

    Unless you can get away with parking a 747 into a reactor building, you aren't going to do more than make a need to repaint the outside. Taking over control systems could do damage, but unless you managed to get a dozen terrorists trained in nuclear engineering, all you would do is get the reactors to SCRAM and safely shutdown. Any prevention efforts for that rest squarely on NISA and the cops.

  • -1

    cabadaje

    @marcelito

    All those arguing that chance of a terrorist attack is negligible or that the only terrorist act in Japan to date was perpetrated by homegrown Aum terrorists sound like they are using the Tepco manual -

    Wait...has anyone even argued those points? Let alone made the the foundation of their argument?

  • -1

    cabadaje

    I.ll take a terrorist strike on a solar plant over a nuclear one any day.

    No terrorist would bother with such an inconsequential target.

  • -1

    cabadaje

    @smithinjapan

    Ah, who cares that thousands are back up and marching again against nuclear power?

    Mostly Rationalists.

    Who cares about the promise by regulators not to restart without the permission of the local communites?

    Mostly the local communities who really, really, wanted to turn the heaters on during winter.

    Who cares that more and more facts about how far the radiation from Fukushima has spread are coming out?

    Mostly those who never really cared too much about whether it was a fact or not prior to complaining about it.

    Who cares that the ineptitude of companies like TEPCO continues on a daily basis?

    You would think that is precisely what the protestors would be up in arms about, considering that this is probably the most blatant abuse and reckless endangerment of people the world has seen in some time, but hey, they have their political priorities, and we have ours. They care more about eliminating nuclear power, and we care more about eliminating the bureaucracy that allowed such negligence in the use of such potentially dangerous technology.

    None of that matters; what DOES is the bottom line,

    Too true.

    -and Abe is true to the LDP in scrapping plans to wean Japan off the nuclear teat and keen to restart reactors. "They must pass stringent new guidelines", he says, despite at least a few companies saying they will have done so within 5 years (but will restart in July).

    Like you said, what matters is the bottom line. Japan cannot afford to be without power. So much so that Abe is willing to risk political suicide and get the reactors back on before new measures are in place.

    Increase security against the threat of terrorism? great -- fine idea, really. But given they can't even take care of security in day to day matters will this be more lip service as usual? Methinks yes.

    If only people were willing to march and protest against the actual problem, and not the boogeyman's shadow.

  • -3

    basroil

    BertieWoosterMar. 13, 2013 - 05:09PM JST

    Ah. I see.

    If they haven't hit a target that small in the past, they won't in the future either.

    By the time NK gets the capability of striking a target that small, they won't be a threat anymore.

  • -1

    avigator

    There will be no terrorist attack on them, but it will come from Terrarist, or the Earth itself by way of earthquakes.

  • 0

    EngrHassanASabi

    I hope Prime Minister Shinzo Abe addresses the issue of terrorism a lot more serious.

  • 0

    Tony Ew

    The real terror threat could be from home grown Japanese anti nukes people . There could just be a Timothy McVeigh type in Japan or a real terrorist like the one in US about a year ago attempting to use drones to attack or at least to harass the authorities.

  • 1

    cabadaje

    @Doublespeak

    Apparently, domestic terrorism is a bigger threat than the effects of Fukushima are expected to be. Could anyone please tell me what the effects of Fukushima are expected to be?

    From what perspective?

  • 0

    marcelito

    "I.ll take a terrorist strike on a solar plant over a nuclear one any day. No terrorist would bother with such an inconsequential target."

    Precisely - thank you for re enforcing my point. No target worth striking here? The bad guys will go look in another neighbourhood.

  • 0

    marcelito

    "what matters is the bottom line. " AGreed - sad but true and accurate description of reality -and therein lies the reason why the "elite" does not really give a s&%#$ about what majority of the population thinks most of the time.

  • -3

    basroil

    marcelitoMar. 14, 2013 - 01:50PM JST

    Precisely - thank you for re enforcing my point. No target worth striking here? The bad guys will go look in another neighbourhood.

    They would be looking at another place anyway. It's much easier to steal a few tubes of radio-medicine grade Cs137 or Co60 and blow it up in a stadium or train station. Much more panic from that, and very likely far more casualties. What's more frightening, a few mSv/yr and no immediate deaths in some low density area, or a few mSv/hr and dozens of deaths in downtown Tokyo? Terrorists always strike the easiest target with the most effectiveness. That's why aum picked the subways instead of the yamanote line, and why any successful future attacks will also be on people rather than buildings. The only people that will go after utilities in developed counties are militaries, since only they get any significant benefit.

  • 0

    cabadaje

    @marcelito

    Precisely - thank you for re enforcing my point. No target worth striking here? The bad guys will go look in another neighbourhood.

    Probably. If you can't strike at the industry, strike at the people.

    sad but true and accurate description of reality -and therein lies the reason why the "elite" does not really give a s&%#$ about what majority of the population thinks most of the time.

    Don't confuse the facts of reality with your opinion or conclusion.

    Fact: The bottom line is one of the major driving forces of civilization and scientific advancement through-out the history of mankind. Nothing gets done without it; nothing starts without the promise of it.

    Opinion: Elites don't give a damn about the majority of the population.

    Notice how the opinion doesn't even follow, in any way, shape, or form, from the actual fact?

    Newsflash: The majority of the population doesn't really give a damn about the majority of the population most of the time. Neither, for that matter, do most terrorists.

  • -2

    sincerely999

    Which will win? The reinforced concrete walls versus a missile attack?It is a crucial problem. Will human beings be able to protect nuclear plants from a various crisis? I am afraid of what will happen.

  • -1

    basroil

    sincerely999Mar. 14, 2013 - 10:16PM JST

    Which will win? The reinforced concrete walls versus a missile attack?It is a crucial problem.

    That was solved ages ago:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X697yZBCN8w

    The reinforced concrete wall will survive any aircraft or shoulder launched missile without a scratch, you need large surface to surface missiles like a tomahawk to even stand a chance of breaching the walls, and that would mean that a leaking reactor is the least of your worries (means china decided to invade Japan, which would likely result in millions of casualties long before the first case of cancer would be expected). You can be afraid all you want, but it's currently pointed at the wrong thing.

  • 1

    cabadaje

    @sincerely999

    It is a crucial problem.

    Not...really. Sure, it is definitely a concern, but it can't really be referred to as a problem. After all, the solution is pretty straightforward.

  • 0

    marcelito

    @cabadaje ..."Don't confuse the facts of reality with your opinion or conclusion."

    • Don`t think I,m confused one bit here.

    "The bottom line is one of the major driving forces of civilization and scientific advancement" -that is a " fact ".

    That I can agree with but I wouldnt go as far as saying that " nothing" gets done or start without it. There are enough examples in human history of advancements being driven by primary considerations a little bit more humanistic than just a " bottom line ". It is also a "fact" that majority of Japanese public is in favor of gradually shutting down the N-plans as reflected by the numerous surveys on the topic since 3.11 including the most recent one. Another "fact " is that the new LDP government made a U-turn on the DPJs roadmap to shut the reactors down by the 2030s and is in favor or re-starting idled reactors as well as proposing to build new ones despite the majoritys opinion clearly being the exact opposite. If that is not an example of the elite "knowing better" and "not giving a s&%$"..about the majority opinion I dont know what is. That is the current "reality " being driven exclusively by the bottom line here right now...no confusion.

  • 0

    cabadaje

    @Marcelito

    There are enough examples in human history of advancements being driven by primary considerations a little bit more humanistic than just a " bottom line ".

    Are there? I can't think of too many off the top of my head. Certainly not enough to even be considered statistically significant (possibly not even noticeable).

    It is also a "fact" that majority of Japanese public is in favor of gradually shutting down the N-plans as reflected by the numerous surveys on the topic since 3.11 including the most recent one.

    I will agree that most people would rather not have nuclear power, however I will not go as far as to say that they would favor a gradual shut-down if it means that they will have to bear extra costs or inconvenience. Notice that neither the survey question nor my question would actually contradict each other.

    Another "fact " is that the new LDP government made a U-turn on the DPJs roadmap to shut the reactors down by the 2030s and is in favor or re-starting idled reactors as well as proposing to build new ones despite the majoritys opinion clearly being the exact opposite.

    Okay. Now, think about that a bit: There was already a plan in place which took into account the opinions of the majority. Then, it was decided that a new plan had to be made, one which was guaranteed to affect the public opinion.

    Does that sound like something that didn't require consideration? Was the previous plan so conceptually flimsy that the new administration could just casually brush it off the table without even "giving a damn" about the public opinion?

    If that is not an example of the elite "knowing better" and "not giving a s&%$"..about the majority opinion I dont know what is.

    Well, being that you just decided to throw in a new variable, "knowing better", I won't say anything about it other than to say that yes, often by definition, the elites do indeed know better (in fact it is how one often becomes an elite in the first place) and that there is nothing shameful about being more skilled in a particular field than the general public.

    In regards to not giving a series of expletive characters about the majority opinion, that is pretty much the same accusation leveled at any member of a controversial topic. The problem is that you are deciding on a personal conclusion, whereas the problem itself is not a personal one. If a group of doctors decide that smoking marijuana is not healthy for people with cancer, referring to them as people who don't give a damn about patients is a non-sequitor. It isn't even a question of whether they are right or wrong; the problem is that by making it personal, you give yourself the excuse to dismiss anything they have to say about it. If it is a situation where the numbers make the final decision, no amount of public opinion will change that reality.

    Just because dad won't buy you a car doesn't mean he doesn't give a damn about you. Sometimes, you just can afford to buy your kid a car.

  • 0

    warnerbro

    The primary threat they face is that the yakuza are in charge of personnel recruitment for Japan's nuclear industry. They could easily extort money for not causing any accidents, if they are not doing so already.

Login to leave a comment

OR

More in National

View all

View all