JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION

Star-viking's past comments

• 

  0

  Star-vikingMay. 26, 2012 - 09:03PM JST

  Excellent Info as usual Blair!

  Christopher Cheung May. 25, 2012 - 02:18AM JST

  This is true. However, you forgot the fact that Cs-137, I-129/131, Pu, and Sr-89/90 which are common by-products of nuclear fission stay inside of human bodies when either ingested or inhaled.

  Cs-137 has a biological half-life of 70 days, The Iodine isotopes 100 days. For Plutonium and Strontium we have not seen significant amounts of Plutonium and Strontium in the environment (at least outside the evac zone).

  Posted in: Demonstrators block delivery of tsunami debris in Kitakyushu

• 

  1

  Star-vikingMay. 24, 2012 - 09:03PM JST

  warnerbroMay. 23, 2012 - 02:15PM JST

  However, burning the material will only concentrate and release radiation into the air.

  It will release, but not concentrate radiation.

  tell me why Kobe had almost the same amount of debris in a much smaller, almost completely urban area in 1995 but was able to dispose of all of it locally.

  First, I can find no solid information on the Kobe debris vs. the Tohoku debris. Second, the debris is going to be of vastly differing forms - collapsed urban structures vs. a pounded mix of trees, wooden structures, plastics, chemicals, sewage, and I'm sure a lot of other stuff. The decaying matter gives off methane, and poses a health hazard if left alone.

  Why after the Kobe quake did nobody once mention the possibility of moving debris from this densely populated city to other parts of Japan?

  Because it was largely suited for landfill?

  The Tohoku debris is only slightly more voluminous than that caused by the Hanshin quake and furthermore, spread along a much, much wider, primarily rural area.

  Got any references for the volumes of the debris? As for being spread along a much wider area - you should take a look at a map of Tohoku - lots of the Pacific coast, especially that in Iwate is just a narrow strip of land fenced in by mountains and sea - a longer coast, but not a wider area by any means.

  Nevertheless the government concocts this ridiculous plan to ship it hither and yon, all the way down to Okinawa? This policy would be absurd even if the debris weren't radioactive.

  If only activists would provide demonstrable documented proof, rather than tight screenshots of spikes which these cheap geiger counters are prone to.

  Posted in: Demonstrators block delivery of tsunami debris in Kitakyushu

• 

  -1

  Star-vikingMay. 20, 2012 - 12:50PM JST

  state broken people May. 20, 2012 - 10:54AM JST

  irony is that support for the monarchy is highest among expatriate British.

  I wouldn't say that - I'd give a rough guess of 50% from the other UK Citizens I know here. Then again, there could be a "what I say in public, what I say in private" bias going on.

  Posted in: Support for British monarchy at highest for decades: poll

• 

  -4

  Star-vikingMay. 17, 2012 - 10:51PM JST

  Rick KisaMay. 17, 2012 - 03:14AM JST

  Reasons WWF International, the global conservation organisation is strongly opposed to nuclear energy are as follows.

  Solutions to energy-related problems such as global warming can only deliver long-term benefits if they reduce instead of merely displace humanity’s damaging impacts on the environment. Nuclear energy is still unsafe – for both humans and nature. The argument that the world should re-embrace nuclear power is seriously flawed.

  Personally, I can live with a few nuclear incidents every decade if the prevent climate change resulting in mass-extinction events. Recently the IEA warned that we're heading towards a 6 degree temperature increase:

  "Mr Jones presented a traffic light scorecard. Of 11 technologies to reduce emissions, only renewable power - particularly from wind and solar - merited a green for being on track.

  Fuel economy, electric vehicles and industry were given an amber.

  Most of the chart is red, including biofuels for transport; building efficiency; nuclear power; carbon capture and storage in industry and power generation; and cleaner conventional coal."

  Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17847196

  Posted in: Oi assembly agrees to restart 2 reactors

• 

  -3

  Star-vikingMay. 17, 2012 - 10:42PM JST

  zichiMay. 17, 2012 - 01:18AM JST

  Tue, KEPCO said that while it currently stands by its projection of a 15 percent shortage, a combination of purchasing electricity from other suppliers, ramping up natural energy use and instituting curbs on power use might actually shrink the projected shortage to 5 percent.

  5% would be very easy to deal with.

  And would still result in power outages. And with plant failures, who knows how more outages would result?

  Posted in: Oi assembly agrees to restart 2 reactors

• 

  0

  Star-vikingMay. 17, 2012 - 10:39PM JST

  Blair HerronMay. 16, 2012 - 10:02AM JST

  ”Who is Iida Tesuya, and what are his qualifications?”
  

  He is the head of ISEP(Institute for Sustainable Energy Policies) and attends Osaka Energy Strategy Council.

  Thanks for your info Blair - had a long reply ready to go and my browser ate it. Will send later.

  Posted in: Oi assembly agrees to restart 2 reactors

• 

  -3

  Star-vikingMay. 17, 2012 - 10:23PM JST

  cleoMay. 16, 2012 - 08:30AM JST

  "So the people of the Oi township and the Fukui Prefecture have to suffer higher unemployment because of the fears of someone in another prefecture entirely? Their livelihood versus your fear."

  Shutting down the reactors and making them safe will provide employment for lots of people for a long, long time. In the meantime their grandchildren will be able to train for some other career - maybe in safe, renewable energy?

  Or maybe hunting for food to survive in a world ruined by global warming?

  Posted in: Oi assembly agrees to restart 2 reactors

• 

  -3

  Star-vikingMay. 17, 2012 - 10:20PM JST

  zichi May. 15, 2012 - 11:07PM JST

  The fact is, Fukui is a very small prefecture and we know from last years disaster, a powerful earthquake can destroy a very large area, even hundreds of km from an epicenter. All but one of the plants in Fukui are on fault lines.

  The Tsunami was the agent of destruction last year. As for all the plants but one in Fukui, are they on or near fault lines - and are the fault lines active or only suspected of being active. That is the kind of detail that is needed.

  Posted in: Oi assembly agrees to restart 2 reactors

• 

  -1

  Star-vikingMay. 17, 2012 - 10:05PM JST

  zichi May. 17, 2012 - 08:31PM JST

  Star-viking at a recent press conference TEPCO have admitted it knew in 2006 following a report, and again in 2008 following another report, their Fukushima plant could be hit by a 14m tsunami and swamp the plant. They made the sea pumps waterproof but took no action to increase the height of the sea wall, waterproofing the reactor buildings or the emergency power generators.

  The second link just states that TEPCO knew that the backup generators could fail if hit by a 14 metre tsunami. The first link could do with some more information - like the background of the other experts on the earthquake panel. If Prof Shimazaki was the only seismologist then the report is worrying, if not - then it just shows that he had a dissenting view. TEPCO is not mentioned as being directly involved in the report, and in fact Prof Shimazaki says:

  "Mr. Shimazaki and others say the fault lay not in outright corruption, but rather complicity among like-minded insiders who prospered for decades by scratching one another’s backs. They describe a structure in which elite career bureaucrats controlled rubber-stamp academic policy-making committees, while at the same time leaving it to industry to essentially regulate itself. "

  Now TEPCO is not blameless by any means, but the bureaucrats are the ones who let things go to hell in a handbasket to line their own pockets.

  Posted in: Researchers to check faults beneath Tsuruga reactors

• 

  -2

  Star-vikingMay. 17, 2012 - 09:52PM JST

  Samuel Mikenga May. 16, 2012 - 01:00AM JST

  In case of accident, the risk and hazard involved is much higher for nuclear plant than the hydro-electric plant.

  Really?

  Malpasset Dam Disaster, France 1959 - around 400 deaths. Vajont Dam Disaster, Italy 1963 - around 2000 deaths. Banquio Dam Disaster, China 1975, around 171,000 deaths. Morvi Dam Disaster, India 1979, between 1800 and 151,000 deaths estimated. Val di Stava Dam Disaster, Italy 1985, 268 deaths. St Francis Dam Disaster, USA 1928, more than 450 deaths. Canyon Lake Dam disaster, USA 1972, 238 deaths. Johnstown Flood, USA 1889, over 2200 deaths.

  Fukushima Disaster - no reported deaths to date.

  This is the reason why care should be taken which area to built a nuclear plant. The way the researchers detail here presents a false picutre that no stone is left unturned to ensure safety of the people when building a nuclear plant , which is not true. Some nuclear plants such as the Niigata ones were knowingly built on an active fault!

  Really? Wiki, which is usually good for this stuff states:

  "After the 2007 earthquake suspicions arose that another fault line may be closer to the plant than originally thought, possibly running straight through the site."

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashiwazaki-KariwaNuclearPower_Plant

  Posted in: Researchers to check faults beneath Tsuruga reactors

• 

  -1

  Star-vikingMay. 17, 2012 - 07:40PM JST

  smithinjapanMay. 15, 2012 - 11:21PM JST

  Star-Viking: "Even then, there is no way, at present, to predict such events to the accuracy you seem to be demanding."

  They were warned, for more than a decade, that what happened would happened,

  If that was the case, then why were there no protest movements, no articles in the Japan Times? Articles in scientific journals do not constitute warnings - though I wish they did.

  but TEPCO completely ignored it. They then said, "How could we have known", and when it was proven they were warned they made up some internal meeting saying it might happen... but of course, the minutes of any and all meetings were never recorded. In other words, the corruption of the electric companies is so disgusting it warrants international attention -- and Fukushima is not the first time TEPCO covered up scandals.

  Well, the frist thing is - why the hell is TEPCO investigating seismic hazards to its facilities in the first place? More blame should be heaped on those who decided that was the best approach from a safety perspective. The second thing is - how conclusive was the research of recurring tsunamis on the Pacific Coast of Tohoku at the time? It's all very well to say that TEPCO was warned - but if the danger was so imminent I would have expected the tsunami experts to have been up in arms about it. Perhaps they did not see it as such a danger?

  They have very detailed maps of fault lines in Japan, and yet these moronic companies always try and suggest they had no idea there was a fault where they built an NPP.

  Well, these maps get filled in as better technology provides better maps.

  Posted in: Researchers to check faults beneath Tsuruga reactors

• 

  -2

  Star-vikingMay. 15, 2012 - 10:54PM JST

  Blair HerronMay. 15, 2012 - 08:21AM JST

  I often post alternatives, but I am often ignored somehow… :'( I don’t know the long term effect, but according to some experts we could get through this summer without NPPs.

  I never ignore your posts Blair, always good stuff in them.

  “Koide Hiroaki (assistant professor of Kyoto University)”

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTx942kwh94

  He seems to be pushing for increased use of fossil fuels, which are having a great impact on our planet as we speak. They can also be knocked out by faults, which are increasingly likely as maintenance shutdowns are being skipped to keep them running 24/7. He also pushes hydro dam use, which as he originally opposed nukes on social justice grounds (benefits to inhabitants vs. that of users) seems hypocritical to me. At least nuke-hosting areas get money from the govt. yearly, hydro-hosting areas lose their homes and see little govt. money compared to nukes.

  “Sharing excess power could avert summer supply crisis” by Asahi Shimbun

  http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behindnews/socialaffairs/AJ201204100065

  The article could be a bit more rigorous - KEPCO's needs are stated as 5.5 GW, but a "transmission capacity" around KEPCO of "more than 29 GW" does not mean that power is available - the surrounding utilities need to use that power too.

  Iida Tetsuya

  http://www.at-douga.com/?p=5022

  Video does not load for me. Who is Iida Tesuya, and what are his qualifications?

  Takano Masao (professor of Nayoya uni)

  http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xjsp9nyyyyyy-yyyyyyyy-1-2news

  From the web he seems to be a geologist/environmentalist, not a power expert. Also, are there any translations available of his comments?

  LNG projects based on shale gas have been proposed to partially meet Japan’s LNG needs.

  http://nippon.com/en/in-depth/a00303/

  Shale gas apparently has problems with greenhouse gas emissions, water and air polution, and causes earthquakes to boot.

  There are a number of IPP: Independent Power Producer, such as Sumitomo Kinzoku Co., Osaka gas, Kanden Plant Co., …and many others.

  But do they have the excess capacity? I assume they already have people they supply power to.

  KEPCO supply capacity: 27,600,000kw

  So if KEPCO faces a shortfall of around 20% it needs around 5.6 GW, gels with the Asahi article above.

  The number of days when peak electricity demand exceeded supply (27,600,000kw) in 2011:1 day　[August 9, 2011 for 4 hours (demand: 27,850,000kw)]

  But there were nukes available then, as opposed to now.

  If this summer is as hot as last summer, blackout possibility in Kansai area would be one day (out of 365 days).

  What are the possibilities if they were as hot as 2010?

  Posted in: Oi assembly agrees to restart 2 reactors

• 

  -4

  Star-vikingMay. 15, 2012 - 09:52PM JST

  kurisupisu May. 15, 2012 - 07:18AM JST

  Fukui prefecture is prone to particularly strong destructive earthquakes. To have operating nuclear plants there is extremely dangerous and puts the lives of millions at risk. Have the Japanese learned nothing from Fukushima???

  I only know of the 1948 earthquake, which was magnitude 7.3, as being particularly destructive, - if you have info on more, please post here.

  Posted in: Oi assembly agrees to restart 2 reactors

• 

  -7

  Star-vikingMay. 15, 2012 - 09:48PM JST

  Environmental group Greenpeace said the government’s “reckless push” to get reactors back in service “has left many communities thinking they have to choose between risks to their health and safety, and risks to their jobs and prosperity.

  Well, seeing that Greenpeace want to shut all reactors worldwide they'd be more honest saying people have to choose between a small risk to their health and safety (nukes) or devastating the planet with the increased burning of fossil fuels that their plans entail.

  Posted in: Oi assembly agrees to restart 2 reactors

• 

  -3

  Star-vikingMay. 15, 2012 - 09:46PM JST

  zichiMay. 15, 2012 - 07:20PM JST

  "They obviously see the oi reactors a safer option for restart, as the region sees far fewer earthquakes than the rest of japan. With it not being on the pacific coast either the tsunami risk is far far lower too."

  There was an earthquake there in 1949 which killed about 3,000 people.

  But at the northern end of the prefecture, not the southern area where to Oi plants are located. There was an earthquake in Wakasa Bay in 1963, but it appears of not only in scientific journals.

  Posted in: Oi assembly agrees to restart 2 reactors

• 

  -8

  Star-vikingMay. 15, 2012 - 09:34PM JST

  Blair HerronMay. 15, 2012 - 07:43PM JST

  I see big active faults near Oi NPPs on the map. NISA told KEPCO that it should plan for the possibility of a simultaneous rupture along underwater faults near the plant as well as the land-based Kumagawa fault. Those faults have a combined length of 63 kilometers.

  http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201203290069

  The article also states that, according to the stress test, the reactors have a massive safety margin before meltdowns could occur.

  Posted in: Oi assembly agrees to restart 2 reactors

• 

  -8

  Star-vikingMay. 15, 2012 - 09:27PM JST

  "Some critics say the government is making undue haste to get reactors up and running because surviving peak summer demand without nuclear power would make it hard to convince the public that atomic energy is vital."

  And some would say that the government is making sure there is excess capacity to cope that will be needed if the summer is another record-breaker like 2010.

  Posted in: Oi assembly agrees to restart 2 reactors

• 

  -1

  Star-vikingMay. 15, 2012 - 09:23PM JST

  CletusMay. 14, 2012 - 09:01PM JST

  And that is what happens when you design and start building a vessel and then part way through change your plans and redesign major components of the vessel.

  Actually, I misremembered the fact given for the switch back to the F-35B - it's the US Electromagnetic Catapult which has increased massively in price. The UK CVF carriers were designed to accommodate either catapults or vertical landing. My bad.

  Posted in: Spiraling F-35 costs have Japan, other potential customers worried

• 

  -4

  Star-vikingMay. 15, 2012 - 09:20PM JST

  Rick Kisa May. 15, 2012 - 07:15AM JST

  "Japan has regulations against building a nuclear plant on top of an active fault that has moved within the last 120,000 to 130,000 years, so the Tsuruga site could be declared unfit to host a nuclear plant."

  So, with such razor sharp predictions, how come these intelligent scientists did not detect the Fukushima incident?

  Your quote is not actually a prediction. Also, some scientists had discovered that there was a recurring earthquake and associated tsunami that appeared to strike the Pacific Coast of Tohoku every 1000-odd years. Even then, there is no way, at present, to predict such events to the accuracy you seem to be demanding.

  As somebody said, it is better to assume that the whole of Japan is sitting in dangerous earthquakes that can happen anytime, and therefore not suitable for nuclear plants, especially the old faulty ones littered all over Japan

  Well, if that is the case - then we also need to drain and close all the large hydro dams. Water supply will have to be decentralized on a large scale, cities probably evacuated, and all the hydro-storage dams that a widespread move to renewables needs will not be able to be built...

  Posted in: Researchers to check faults beneath Tsuruga reactors

• 

  -2

  Star-vikingMay. 14, 2012 - 08:43PM JST

  globalwatcherMay. 14, 2012 - 12:31PM JST

  When I was there from 3/20 to 6/15 for the 1st rescue mission, that was what I have been told by Japanese officials. I believe there were also many written articles I have read while I was in Japan. They were in panic worrying about it.

  We had a fatality in the second earthquake that hit in April - a pensioner who required oxygen 24/7 died when the power cut out and his oxy machine stopped working

  Posted in: Gov't seeks 20% cut in electricity use in central, western Japan

Follow us