Japan restarts Takahama nuclear reactor

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

  • 0

    AsianGaijinYesWeExist

    I'm seriously considering buying a radiation detector for my girl in Kagoshima. Anyone knows if those things are any good?

  • 0

    Stuart hayward

    AsianGaiJin: There are many to choose from but unfortunately the inexpensive ones are not reliable? Research for the most accurate, personal Geiger Counters and decide what's best for her.

  • 2

    Kane-Chan

    I don't like the idea of turning them back on. They should be shut down for good for the safety of the people of Japan. God forbid another huge quake happens and causes another melt down. Will the Japanese government then take the right actions to keep its people safe ? Companies and Governments all around the world are just worried about money its pretty sad.

  • 0

    Christopher Glen

    after a court ruled it was safe despite opposition from local residents.

    That tells me all I need to know. Public opinion counts for nothing

  • -2

    Heda_Madness

    I'm seriously considering buying a radiation detector for my girl in Kagoshima. Anyone knows if those things are any good?

    Have you thought about buying her a bubble? I mean, if you're worried about her dying from radiation then you should be concerned about the things that are more likely to kill her such as fossil fuels, traffic accidents, the sun, second hand smoke, lightning stikes, typhoons etc etc etc

  • 0

    Malcolm Rawlingson

    So burning billions of tons of coal oil and gas is better??No thought for the thousands of coal miners that die every year from lung disease. I guess they don't count. Of course we could always switch the power off and let the Japanese people freeze to death. No-one died as a result of Fukushima. Millions die of air pollution caused by coal fired power plants. If by "Public Opinion" you mean a few protesters or deliberately skewed poll results then I think it is good the government ignores it.

  • 3

    AsianGaijinYesWeExist

    @Stuart

    Thanks for the information. Will check it out.

    Have you thought about buying her a bubble? I mean, if you're worried about her dying from radiation then you should be concerned about the things that are more likely to kill her such as fossil fuels, traffic accidents, the sun, second hand smoke, lightning stikes, typhoons etc etc etc

    Yeah, that's why I advise all the people I care about to drive newer and safer cars, buckle their seat belts, apply sunscreens, don't smoke and keep their distance from smokers, stay away from open spaces during a lightning storm, and heed weather reports on inclement weather.

    But after the fiasco that is Fukushima, should anyone rely solely on what the Japanese government tells them when it comes to how safe they are?

  • 0

    RedMango

    "after a court ruled it was safe despite opposition from local residents." the reality is that nothing is safe in this world. Even crossing the road, let alone a nuclear reactor.

  • -3

    Heda_Madness

    Hi Asian, So what do you do about other contaminants in food from pollution? Or other contaminants in the air you breathe.

    The facts are (based on research by international scientists and nothing to do with Japanese government) that coal, gas, oil kills more people annually than nuclear. So the turning on of nuclear will, statistically, increase the life span of your girlfriend.

    But it seems that you, like many on here are in the nuclear's bad m'kay. Despite the evidence to the contrary. From science.

  • 3

    AsianGaijinYesWeExist

    @Heda

    I think you're barking up the wrong tree here. While I agree that nuclear energy is quite safe if nothing goes wrong, I'm more concerned for my loved one living just 30km from a restarted nuclear power plant. My goal is to give her the best tool my modest mean can afford, so that she can make an informed decision on whether to run away from any potential disaster.

    Ideally, the entire world is powered by solar, hydro and wind. But we're not there yet.

    I live in the U.S., in a state that has just two coal fired power plants left. And they are both scheduled to be decommissioned in a few years' time. My state is blessed geographically because the majority of our power comes from hydro. I understand that's not possible everywhere, but I'm sure you'll agree solar, wind and hydro are still preferable, given human's track record with nuclear so far.

  • 0

    Tamarama

    I'm seriously considering buying a radiation detector for my girl in Kagoshima. Anyone knows if those things are any good?

    Did she need one before it was switched off?

    I'm sure you realize that a lot of people have lived very comfortably around Japan for many years with Nuclear Power...including your girl. If Sakurajima blows, start worrying.

    living just 30km from a restarted nuclear power plant.

    Oh, actually no, don't worry. It's 30km away.

    Be chilled. She'll be fine.

  • 1

    Utrack

    Anyone living in Japan could be susceptible to nuclear fallout from the Fukushima Daiichi NPP ongoing incident. The nuclear fuel is mobile and some of it is MOX. I think anyone who wishes to leave Japan should be given automatic citizenship anywhere as a nuclear refugee.

  • -2

    Heda_Madness

    Hi Asia,

    I do seem to be barking up the tree. As presumably are the families of the tens of thousands of people who dies in China when the hydro dams failed. How does that compare with Fukushima? How does that compare with Chernobyl.

    But hey if you want to believe fear and ignore science it's entirely up to you.

    But let's talk about humans track record with nuclear so far.. and let's ompare it to humans track record with fossil fuels. And hydro. And solar and wind

    And according to the scientists the safest is in terms of deaths per kw/h god power generated.. well would you believe it it's nuclear.

    So you may want to make that bubble a bit sturdier than you expected.

  • 0

    Mike O'Brien

    The nuclear fuel is mobile

    No the fuel is a solid lump. Water is leeching some radionuclides from it, but the pumping and treatment of water along with the seawall barrier are containing any appreciable amounts from migrating off site.

    and some of it is MOX

    So? MOX fuel starts with some plutonium in it and ANY uranium fuel reactor creates plutonium within its fuel from the first instant it goes online.

    I think anyone who wishes to leave Japan should be given automatic citizenship anywhere as a nuclear refugee.

    Should everyone be given automatic citizenship anywhere as a fossil fuel refugee? The use of fossil fuels causes many millions of times more deaths and illnesses than nuclear.

  • 0

    marcelito

    Heda, you seem to be quitecomfortable with the safety situation of Japanese N - reactors including Dai Ichi...you really should follow it through with some concrete action and invest in some real estate near in the vicinity of the reactors...there is a ton of cheap bargains around. Once all those ignorant masses fearful of the non existent threat finally see the light and realise how awesome and safe the N-power in Japan really is ( those pesky minor issues such as earthquakes, plant operator's history of safety data falsification etc. aside) those land valuations are gonna skyrocket and you, re gonna be set. It really is chance of a lifetime... Since N-power really is so safe,clean and environmentaly friendly. Even Atom boy agrees it's the best thing since sliced bread.

  • 1

    Heda_Madness

    Pretty sure I've never said the immediate area around Dai Ichi is safe...that's why there's an exclusion zone.

    I have gone on record as saying that the vast majority of Fukushima is safe though. And thats backed by scientists. But hey, what do they know? it's not like theyve studied it? Nope they've just plucked that conclusion from thin air.

    I.mean all they have to do is to read the experts on Japan today to realise they're wrong

  • 0

    AsianGaijinYesWeExist

    Wow, this is a pretty hostile crowd here. All I did was ask for some advise on equipment purchase, and you people acted like I just insulted your grandma and her mother.

    I never demanded that the NPP in Satsumasendai be shut down, did I? Some other posters here had stronger opposition to the restart of NPP but for some reason I'm taking the flack!?

  • 1

    smithinjapan

    "Japan on Friday restarted its third nuclear reactor since a country-wide shutdown in the wake of the Fukushima disaster in 2011..."

    Which is to say, since the time it decided to glue its eyes shut and simply hope for the best, because clearly they NEVER learn. When it happens again -- not if, and not too far down the road given how these nimrods work -- it will be on a scale where 'I told you so' won't even begin to cover it. Do they not remember just how very close Tokyo -- the world's most populous nation -- was to being forever abandoned? How much will clean up cost, and how long will it take?

  • -2

    Heda_Madness

    Do they not remember just how very close Tokyo -- the world's most populous nation -- was to being forever abandoned?

    Erm. In the real world it was never close to being abandoned still that myth lives on in Japantoday world

  • 0

    Brian Wheway

    As Ive said in past post, these will gradually switched on one by one, the government does not care about one or two people moaning/protesting about nuke power. they are sitting dormant and costing money to sit idle, with the finical deficit getting bigger, the government will stop importing gas/oil thus reducing said deficit.

  • -2

    Heda_Madness

    Interesting I get marked down for saying a fact. It's almost as if you wanted Tokyo to be abandoned..wasn't going to happen. Decisions like that aren't based on emotion. They're based on scientific facts. Something that people on here still seem to struggle with.

  • 1

    Tamarama

    Wow, this is a pretty hostile crowd here. All I did was ask for some advise on equipment purchase, and you people acted like I just insulted your grandma and her mother.

    Relax AG. I really don't think you need to worry about your girl - of a list of potential dangers she faces on a day to day basis, that NPP would be very, very low on the list.

  • -1

    smithinjapan

    Heda_madness: "They're based on scientific fact"

    No. FACT is that TEPCO ran and demanded everyone else do the same. Fact is that a brave few did not. Fact is if they did not, it would have resulted in a MUCH worse situation in which Tokyo would have been irradiated. fact is that the nuclear crowd said it was "under control" and "there was no meltdown", when both were total lies (and still denied by your ink).

    But while we're on facts, amigo, how much has the disaster cost so far, how much will it have cost by the time it is completely decommissioned (including environmental costs), and how long in total will it take? And please don't say you don't know since you have all the facts, and certainly don't say it'll be less than half a century IF new technologies are developed to retrieve the fuel.

  • 0

    Heda_Madness

    Fact is if they did not, it would have resulted in a MUCH worse situation in which Tokyo would have been irradiated

    After days of high-intensity analysis and numerous computer runs, the scientists concluded that radiation in Tokyo would come nowhere close to levels requiring an evacuation, even in the event that Fukushima Dai-ichi underwent the worst plausible meltdown combined with extremely unfavorable wind and weather patterns.

    As you can see from the above, my statement was a fact. One that was proven by a team of experts, scientists. People who deal in facts. Your statement wasn't. Even in the worst case scenario. Even with unfavourable wind patterns.

    It was impossible, implausible and grossly incorrect that Tokyo would ever have been evacuated.

  • 0

    Mike O'Brien

    situation in which Tokyo would have been irradiated

    Every place on the planet is constantly being irradiated. The issue is the level of irradiation. And the facts are that all projections of even the worst case situation at Fukushima Dai-ichi indicated that the levels in Tokyo would not have required evacuation.

  • 0

    marcelito

    As you can see from the above, my statement was a fact. One that was proven by a team of experts, scientists. People who deal in facts. Your statement wasn't. Even in the worst case scenario. Even with unfavourable wind patterns. It was impossible, implausible and grossly incorrect that Tokyo would ever have been evacuated.

    Don`t think smith will take the above as a fact just because you one particular team of scientists and their computer simulations concluded so. Btw, who are the scientists you reference and who provides the funding for their activities?

  • 2

    Heda_Madness

    Don't know who provides their funding but they were the scientists that advised President Obama on the situation. So their credentials are fairly strong and it's fair to say they don't have any funding from TEPCO, or the Japanese government.

    But you're right. Smith will ignore that.

Login to leave a comment

OR

グローバルに
活躍したいあなたへ
外資系転職

バイリンガル人材の
ための求人サイト

見てみる

More in National

View all

View all

Time
to Buy
in Japan

Find the perfect home today!

Search