Media leaks prevent nomination of 5 candidates to new nuclear regulatory commission

By Tetsushi Kajimoto

National Jul. 21, 2012 - 06:53AM JST ( 15 )

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

Order by Time Order by Popularity

15 Comments

-4

basroilJul. 21, 2012 - 08:25AM JST

Kazue Suzuki, nuclear campaigner at Greenpeace Japan, said appointing representatives of the “nuclear village” would undermine the original aim of separating the regulatory body from one promoting nuclear energy.

So should we trust the guy who forced Japan to stop sending spent fuel for reprocessing in France and lead to 1500 rods being stored in a building that normally only kept a few hundred, or a guy who actually understands how reactors work and fuel cycles implemented. The obvious answer is ignore the idiot with no education and seek advice from the guy with plenty of knowledge on both the advantages and disadvantages of nuclear.
3

Ron MullerJul. 21, 2012 - 09:15AM JST

Idiot: a person who doesn't trust safety of nuclear power. Someone to be trusted: a person who went to school, presumably to get a high-paying job in the nuclear industry. All clear to me now ("-").
1

wanderlustJul. 21, 2012 - 10:25AM JST

Is this a secret ballot? Why should the public not know whom the government propose to lead an important functions, paid for by taxpayers.

And it is refreshing to see the media finally doing their job of informing the pubic what is going on, after having spent 40 years promoting government policy, betraying the residents of Japanese ...
-1

basroilJul. 21, 2012 - 10:44AM JST

wanderlustJul. 21, 2012 - 10:25AM JST

And it is refreshing to see the media finally doing their job of informing the pubic what is going on,

So reports of killer levels of radiation in Tokyo due to Fukushima is informing? The media is known for going with what makes them money, and playing on fear is the most profitable way forward.
-3

zichiJul. 21, 2012 - 11:35AM JST

Shunichi Tanaka should not be made the head of the new atomic safety agency. Has a previous vice head of the NSC and a major administrator he failed in those duties and is part of the nuclear decision making chain which caused the nuclear disaster.

All heads and senior administrators of METI, NSC, NISA who were part of the nuclear decision making should not be in charge of the new agency.

I understand it's difficult to come up with five just men/women who were not part of that chain, or have no links with the nuke village, or didn't receive substantial research grants from the nuke village.

Making Shunichi Tanaka head of the new agency is sending the wrong message, same old boy network, no change.
0

ProbieJul. 21, 2012 - 11:55AM JST

The government suffered a fresh setback on Friday in its efforts to restore trust in nuclear power, shattered by the Fukushima crisis, when media leaks forced it to delay nominating candidates for a new atomic safety watchdog.

They gave themselves an even larger setback when the okay-ed the electric rate rise the day before.
2

Thomas AndersonJul. 21, 2012 - 11:55AM JST

basroil

So should we trust the guy who forced Japan to stop sending spent fuel for reprocessing in France and lead to 1500 rods being stored in a building that normally only kept a few hundred, or a guy who actually understands how reactors work and fuel cycles implemented. The obvious answer is ignore the idiot with no education and seek advice from the guy with plenty of knowledge on both the advantages and disadvantages of nuclear.

You mean the reprocessing for obtaining the "MOX fuel"? MOX fuel doesn't work, it's a waste of time and money. You can only use MOX fuel once (no "recycling" here), it only saves about 10% of uranium and it actually costs more and is more dangerous than using regular uranium. So there's no point in reprocessing actually.
2

Thomas AndersonJul. 21, 2012 - 11:56AM JST

And Japan already has tons of tons of plutonium and FAST-BREEDERS DON'T WORK, so why would Japan need to reprocess their fuel any further?
2

YubaruJul. 21, 2012 - 12:07PM JST

How about looking outside of Japan for a few of the members?

Never going to happen as the reality check would be too much of a shock for the government and industry to deal with.
0

basroilJul. 21, 2012 - 12:42PM JST

Thomas AndersonJul. 21, 2012 - 11:55AM JST

So there's no point in reprocessing actually.

1) You get rid of those spent rods, reducing the need for spent fuel pools.

2) Reprocessing is actually NOT just for mox, and the primary is actually to recover the 0.8% U235 remaining in the rods, as well as separating out the wastes like Cs137.

3) Japan either sends to France or keeps it until they have openings in reprocessing plants here, which have a tiny limit. The fuel doesn't just magically disappear, and it is not a good idea to keep massive stockpiles at the reactors.
3

Thomas AndersonJul. 21, 2012 - 01:19PM JST

basroil

1) You get rid of those spent rods, reducing the need for spent fuel pools.

We're still receiving useless (and dangerous) plutonium and MOX fuel. What for?

3) Japan either sends to France or keeps it until they have openings in reprocessing plants here, which have a tiny limit. The fuel doesn't just magically disappear, and it is not a good idea to keep massive stockpiles at the reactors.

...Or maybe it's not a good idea to keep running nuclear reactors at all and producing even more nuclear waste... I mean look, reprocessing doesn't solve the fundamental problem. The nuclear reprocessing was supposed to solve all the problems of nuclear waste, but that didn't happen since fast-breeders didn't work. We're just sending the radioactivity to France. A lot of radioactivity is released during the reprocessing process.

We're sending dangerous radioactive waste all the way to France then back to Japan again. What exactly for?
1

sf2kJul. 21, 2012 - 02:27PM JST

to avoid a potentially crippling summer power crunch

by the time they are online the summer will be over. This is all a PR scam
0

Star-vikingJul. 21, 2012 - 10:47PM JST

Pretty silly that leaking info can nix the appointment of someone to the new agency. With that rule it could take centuries to appoint someone!
2

Thomas AndersonJul. 21, 2012 - 11:33PM JST

Hardly. Disposal of flyash for coal is far worse, and coal is now making up an increasing amount of Japan's energy while they debate a "commission" of just five people.

You can say how bad coal is, but you can't say that the nuclear re-processing facility is "hardly" releasing any radioactivity. It releases a lot of radioactivity.
0

bajhista65Jul. 22, 2012 - 04:58PM JST

The best choice ...... listen to the people of Japan. If the people wants or doesn't like Nuclear powered energy, so be it. Cuz they're the one who will suffer when radiation hits.