Where Japan stands two years after Tohoku disaster

By Hiroshi Hiyama

National Mar. 07, 2013 - 04:40PM JST ( 24 )

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

24 Comments

5

BertieWoosterMar. 07, 2013 - 03:16PM JST

Opinion polls have shown the majority of adults wish not to continue with Japan's nuclear program.

And yet, in spite of this, and in spite of the horrendous damage done, and the strong likelihood of another major earthquake, Abe wants to recommission as many nuclear reactors as possible and build new ones.

Does this make any sense?
2

Ian DuncanMar. 07, 2013 - 03:23PM JST

A: No.
6

cabadajeMar. 07, 2013 - 03:33PM JST

@BertieWooster

And yet, in spite of this, and in spite of the horrendous damage done, and the strong likelihood of another major earthquake, Abe wants to recommission as many nuclear reactors as possible and build new ones.

Does this make any sense?

Not if you reference the opinions of generic adults.

Alternatively, if you reference the ones who use the lion's share of electricity:

The business sector has loudly pushed for continued use of nuclear power.

It makes perfect sense. Business needs energy. Japan needs business. Until some alternate form of energy appears that can match that of nuclear power, it only makes sense to continue using it and improving it like we do every other technology.
1

horrifiedMar. 07, 2013 - 04:15PM JST

it only makes sense to continue using it

In the light of the ongoing costs of nuclear power, it makes sense to stop using it.
0

TamaramaMar. 07, 2013 - 06:13PM JST

Does this make any sense?

It's a fiscal decision. The cost of importing energy after they shut down the nuclear reactors hurt Japan economically.

Dollars and cents.
-2

DaijobootsMar. 07, 2013 - 06:23PM JST

Yes, it makes sense. Unless you want to live in some fantasy world where renewable enegies etc can prevent shortfalls and damage to the economy.

People don't want nuclear power ideally, but they don't want more holes punched in their wallets either. The latter prevailed.
0

DaijobootsMar. 07, 2013 - 06:27PM JST

Where Japan stands two years after Tohoku disaster

TV is starting to ramp up on this as the anniversary gets closer. Weekend and Monday will be full of all kinds of information.
4

herefornowMar. 07, 2013 - 08:31PM JST

Two years on, 315,196 people are still without permanent homes,

So much for all th statements at the time of the disaster that this wold be a chance for Japan to once again show the world its legendary "efficiency". Instead the rebuilding/clean-up efforts are mired in Japan's legendary bureaucracy and wasting money.
1

cabadajeMar. 07, 2013 - 09:12PM JST

@horrified

In the light of the ongoing costs of nuclear power, it makes sense to stop using it.

How so? Won't having to build the multiple new power generating stations to cover the energy needs the 50+ reactors used to cover cost much more, to say nothing of the dramatic increase in dependency on a foreign power for fuel?
0

EngrHassanASabiMar. 07, 2013 - 09:37PM JST

Economy-wise Japan is better off with the Nuclear Power Plants fully operating.
2

Photoman333Mar. 07, 2013 - 10:46PM JST

Do we know for sure that there are no radioactive materials leaching out into the ocean? I.e. are we sure the melted cores are contained, and will remain so?
0

No MisoMar. 07, 2013 - 11:13PM JST

Q. Have the general media presented the facts in an unbiased and fair fashion so as not to lead the generally unaware public? Or have they strived to keep the story in the head lines as much as possible with very tentative but hugely leading headlines in order to generate advertising revenue?
2

Star-vikingMar. 07, 2013 - 11:25PM JST

BertieWoosterMar. 07, 2013 - 03:16PM JST

"Opinion polls have shown the majority of adults wish not to continue with Japan's nuclear program."

And yet, in spite of this, and in spite of the horrendous damage done, and the strong likelihood of another major earthquake, Abe wants to recommission as many nuclear reactors as possible and build new ones.

Does this make any sense?

Yes, because Opinion polls do not trump cold, hard reality.
2

Star-vikingMar. 07, 2013 - 11:29PM JST

Photoman333Mar. 07, 2013 - 10:46PM JST

Do we know for sure that there are no radioactive materials leaching out into the ocean? I.e. are we sure the melted cores are contained, and will remain so?

Well, if there was significant leakage the Marine Biology community worldwide would be up in arms about it. That's not a 100% confirmation that there isn't a significant leakage - but it's a good indication that it is not the case.
3

Star-vikingMar. 07, 2013 - 11:32PM JST

herefornowMar. 07, 2013 - 08:31PM JST

"Two years on, 315,196 people are still without permanent homes,"

So much for all th statements at the time of the disaster that this wold be a chance for Japan to once again show the world its legendary "efficiency". Instead the rebuilding/clean-up efforts are mired in Japan's legendary bureaucracy and wasting money.

And the politicos spent most of those 2 years fighting, and in the case of Ozawa, trying to gut his own party for a chance of more political power - when he wasn't absenting himself from Tokyo and going in the opposite direction from his home constituency in Iwate, for fear of nuclear fallout. It says something for the servile and geriatric voting population of Japan that he was elected again in Iwate despite showing the morals of a turd.
-4

VerisimilitudeMar. 08, 2013 - 12:29AM JST

I have to ask the Government. How do you intend to revitalize the economy of the entire tohoku region? Without a stable, sustainable, economy to base the reconstruction, you will eventually create nothing more then ghost towns. National government policy, needs to be aligned with local government consensus, and reality. Why not revitalize the whaling industry, i.e. fish for non-in-danger-ed whale species off the coast of Japan. Norway and Iceland still hunt whale, regardless of international laws, and I really do not see the economic necessity to go all the way to the Antarctic to fish, when the fuel bill pretty much puts such expeditions to the red, all payed by the Tax payers.
-1

basroilMar. 08, 2013 - 11:37AM JST

Star-vikingMar. 07, 2013 - 11:29PM JST

Well, if there was significant leakage the Marine Biology community worldwide would be up in arms about it. That's not a 100% confirmation that there isn't a significant leakage - but it's a good indication that it is not the case.

There was a leak of about 10-20PBq. That increased the marine concentration of radiation by something on the order of 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% give or take a few zeros
-2

sincerely999Mar. 08, 2013 - 09:19PM JST

Fukushima nuclear crisis is claiming to Japanese government not to restart nuclear reactors any more. Priority is important. I want to ask them,what is the most important thing for Japanese economy?
0

BertieWoosterMar. 09, 2013 - 01:13AM JST

How many of the existing reactors can be recommissioned?

You would be surprised at the number:

(Hint: It's not huge.)

http://www.japanfocus.org/-Martin_J_-Frid/3878
-2
horrifiedMar. 09, 2013 - 03:39AM JST
But now Japan faces an unprecedented clean-up that experts say could cost at least $100 billion for decommissioning the reactors and another $400 billion for compensating victims and decontaminating areas outside the plant.
- Reuters
Looks expensive to me.
1

cabadajeMar. 09, 2013 - 10:59AM JST

Expensive compared to...what?
0

cabadajeMar. 09, 2013 - 11:06AM JST

How many of the existing reactors can be recommissioned? You would be surprised at the number: (Hint: It's not huge.)

Well, if your standard for eliminating reactors is "something could happen", sure, the numbers tend to drop rather quickly.

That's why engineers don't waste their time arguing about possibilities, and instead work on probabilities. There is no such thing as an indestructible build.
-1

horrifiedMar. 09, 2013 - 03:11PM JST

Compared to the alternatives.
-1

cabadajeMar. 09, 2013 - 03:44PM JST

What alternatives?

What have you got that exceeds, heck, that even matches the safety record, energy density, and lack of environmental impact that nuclear energy has, for the same amount of money?

Common sense pretty much requires two things at a minimum for a comparison. Objecting to something because it is expensive is somewhat meaningless if it turns out the alternatives are even more so.