Thousands protest against nuclear power in Japan

Jan 15, 2012
The anti-nuclear activists urged Tokyo to
Anti-nuclear activists hold placards during a rally against nuclear energy in Yokohama. About 2,000 demonstrators hit the streets of Yokohama on Saturday calling for an end to nuclear energy in Japan after the March 11 disaster that sparked the worst atomic crisis since Chernobyl.

About 2,000 demonstrators hit the streets of Yokohama on Saturday calling for an end to nuclear energy in Japan after the March 11 disaster that sparked the worst atomic crisis since Chernobyl.

They marched in the port city southwest of Tokyo chanting in chorus: "We don't need nuclear power. Give back our hometown. Protect our children."

The protest, organised by several anti-nuclear and environmental groups, also saw residents evacuated from areas outside the Daiichi plant take part.

Japan had previously aimed to use nuclear power to generate around 50 percent of its energy needs by 2030 in a bid to reduce and enhance the energy independence of the resource-poor archipelago.

But sentiment has shifted since the quake and tsunami crippled the plant's cooling systems, sparking reactor meltdowns that spewed radiation into the environment forcing tens of thousands to evacuate from a 20-kilometre radius.

Radiation fears have become part of daily life in Japan after cases of , beef, vegetables, tea and seafood. The government has been at pains to stress the lack of an "immediate" health risk.

Explore further: Scientists invent award winning 2-in-1 motor for electric cars

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Nuclear contamination found beyond Japan no-go zone

Oct 05, 2011

High levels of radioactive contamination have been found in soil in the capital of Japan's Fukushima prefecture, a study showed Wednesday, prompting calls to make the area a voluntary evacuation zone.

Thousands march against nuclear power in Japan

Apr 24, 2011

Thousands of people marched in Tokyo on Sunday to demand an end to nuclear power in Japan and a switch to alternative energy after the crisis at an atomic plant hit by the March 11 earthquake and tsunami.

Japan to set up new nuclear watchdog

Aug 12, 2011

Japan will set up a new nuclear regulator under the environment ministry in the wake of the Fukushima disaster, in a bid to give the watchdog more teeth, media reported Friday.

Radium 'likely cause' of Tokyo radiation hotspot

Nov 01, 2011

Japanese authorities believe radium was to blame for a radiation hotspot at a Tokyo supermarket, a local city office said on Tuesday, in another scare for a nation still on edge over Fukushima.

Recommended for you

First self-contained step dimming LED tube

10 hours ago

Samsung Electronics today introduced the industry's first AC Direct step-dimming LED linear replacement for T8 and T12 fluorescent tubes at the National Electrical Contractors Association (NECA) Convention ...

Battery system will be able to light 2,500 homes

10 hours ago

One of the largest, most environmentally-friendly, battery-based energy storage systems in the nation will be installed at the University of California, San Diego the campus announced today (Sept. 29).

NREL software tool a boon for wind industry

13 hours ago

Wind energy is blowing away skeptics—it's so close to achieving cost parity with fossil fuels that just a little extra efficiency is all that is likely needed to push it into the mainstream and past the ...

Harvesting energy from walking

13 hours ago

A device that fits into a shoe harvests the energy made by walking and successfully uses it in watch batteries.

User comments : 44

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

kochevnik
2 / 5 (8) Jan 15, 2012
Here you can follow the daily decay of a Fukushima blogger's teeth, nails and hair falling out: http://fukushima-...ustream/
TEPCO lawyers say the radioactive cesium that blights the world isn't their problem. TEPCO's lawyers used the arcane legal principle of res nullius to argue the emissions that escaped after the tsunami and earthquake triggered a meltdown were no longer its responsibility.
ShotmanMaslo
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 15, 2012
Here you can follow the daily decay of a Fukushima blogger's teeth, nails and hair falling out: http://fukushima-...ustream/


I smell BS, no link with Fukushima can be inferred.
deatopmg
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 15, 2012
This is like the protest in "Bonfires of the Vanities" by Wolfe.

A relatively insignificant number of people blown out of proportion by the media in order to make money.

Radiation exposure can be a serious health issue but one has to weigh the danger to benefits to society as a whole. No risks no benefits.
Czcibor
4.3 / 5 (4) Jan 15, 2012
In my city (and a few other Polish cities too) there was last week comparable in size protests of gov employees who were not given a raise.

I don't know why it is not placed here as top news ;)
If we take assumption that protest about nuclear energy makes valid news in category of technology related to nuclear energy why on earth protest of underpaid (at least in their view) prison guards, fire fighters, etc. does not make a valid in social policy category?

Not mentioning that these journalist here should concentrate on EU farmers - they are guaranteed to have plenty of "scientific" news about farmers convinced that we don't donate farming heavy enough.
Callippo
1 / 5 (5) Jan 15, 2012
To demonstrate against nuclear power is nonsense - they should demonstrate for research and implementation of cold fusion. The problem with nuclear plants would solve automatically.
RonPaul1
2.3 / 5 (4) Jan 15, 2012
They should go with hot fusion.
Callippo
3 / 5 (5) Jan 15, 2012
Critical value of hot fusion? Get real. Billions have been pumped into it already, and it's still 30-40 years into the future. And it's not like it's such a green option anyway: the immense neutron load makes the tokamak walls brittle, so every half year or so you have to replace them. This is very expensive and what's worse, they have become highly radioactive due to the neutron bombardment. Noone every seems to talk about this, but the nuclear waste problem is essentially the same as that of fission.
Telekinetic
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 15, 2012
This is like the protest in "Bonfires of the Vanities" by Wolfe.

A relatively insignificant number of people blown out of proportion by the media in order to make money.

Radiation exposure can be a serious health issue but one has to weigh the danger to benefits to society as a whole. No risks no benefits.

What a jerk. Your health is the most important thing you have. The cost of treating radiation cancers of the population in and around Fukushima will grow exponentially as time goes on. The projected numbers of radiation related illness won't be contained to a handful of "rabble rousers". In the U.S., there will be deaths due to radioactive particulates carried by the wind from Fukushima. This "bottom line" doublespeak of yours is vile. What if your child, niece, or nephew became ill? Would you step over them to benefit your society?
kochevnik
1 / 5 (4) Jan 15, 2012
Radiation exposure can be a serious health issue but one has to weigh the danger to benefits to society as a whole. No risks no benefits.
What benefits?
Here you can follow the daily decay of a Fukushima blogger's teeth, nails and hair falling out: http://fukushima-...ustream/
I smell BS, no link with Fukushima can be inferred.
I smell BS, no link with the scientific method can be inferred from your post. You believe in effects without causes.
Critical value of hot fusion? Get real.
Mainstream physicists don't know the mean free electron path. So they build bigger and hotter furnaces when in fact the energy is available for free.
Idiomatic
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 16, 2012
This is like the protest in "Bonfires of the Vanities" by Wolfe.

A relatively insignificant number of people blown out of proportion by the media in order to make money.

Radiation exposure can be a serious health issue but one has to weigh the danger to benefits to society as a whole. No risks no benefits.

What a jerk. Your health is the most important thing you have. The cost of treating radiation cancers of the population in and around Fukushima will grow exponentially as time goes on. The projected numbers of radiation related illness won't be contained to a handful of "rabble rousers". In the U.S., there will be deaths due to radioactive particulates carried by the wind from Fukushima. This "bottom line" doublespeak of yours is vile. What if your child, niece, or nephew became ill? Would you step over them to benefit your society?


Other types of energy production aren't safer. So. The costs of ending nuclear power would ironically be health and safety.
ShotmanMaslo
5 / 5 (2) Jan 16, 2012
What benefits?


Plentiful carbon-free energy, and possibly the safest one per kWh produced.

I smell BS, no link with the scientific method can be inferred from your post. You believe in effects without causes.


Nor does your link. You believe in unproven (and highly dubious) causes of effects.
ShotmanMaslo
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 16, 2012
What if your child, niece, or nephew became ill? Would you step over them to benefit your society?


There is a thousandfold bigger chance that they will become ill due to coal-fired power plants, and there is a comparable chance they would become ill due to ice from a wind turbine falling on their head. The chance is insignificant. Peak oil or climate change will be a much much bigger threat for my family than nuclear will ever be.
antialias_physorg
1 / 5 (1) Jan 16, 2012
A relatively insignificant number of people blown out of proportion by the media in order to make money.

For Japan this is significant - not in numbers as a percentage of population, but that people are on the streest at all. We should not compare this to "2000 people march through Washington streets to protest (insert name of war here)" by numbers alone. Japan has a very different strike/protest culture than from other countries.

If people in Japan are taking to the streets then this is a SERIOUS indication that the poulation is miffed.

There is a thousandfold bigger chance that they will become ill due to coal-fired power plants,

False dichotomy. Shutting down a nuclear reactor does not mean that you must build a COAL power plant to replace it. Japan has plenty of coasts (for wave energy) and a lot of mountains (for wind or solar).
ShotmanMaslo
not rated yet Jan 16, 2012

False dichotomy. Shutting down a nuclear reactor does not mean that you must build a COAL power plant to replace it.


It does mean that:
http://depletedcr...il-fuel/

http://nextbigfut...020.html
ShotmanMaslo
3 / 5 (2) Jan 16, 2012
To show you how pants on head retarded it is to think that we can supply the world energy needs from renewables, consider this:

In 2008 energy supply by power source was oil 33.5%, coal 26.8%, gas 20.8% (fossil 81%), renewable (hydro, solar, wind, geothermal power and biofuels) 12.9%, nuclear 5.8% and other 4%. Oil was the most popular energy fuel.


Renewables in this case include dangerous and ecologically devastating "old" renewables such as burning wood and big dams. The figure for interminent "new" renewables, those that modern pseudogreen movements get a boner for, is around 3 %. Good luck with that.

Nuclear power will be absolutely crucial for averting the horrible impacts of climate change and peak oil in 21st century. Even if there could be a chance that we will theoretically meet our energy needs with new renewables sometime in far future, it is EXTREMELLY stupid to rely on such conclusion and not pursue nuclear.
rawa1
1 / 5 (2) Jan 16, 2012
Under current situation nuclear fission is necessary, but with respect to fast development of cold fusion and build payback time of nuclear plants all investments into it are waste of money. IMO the era of nuclear fission ended already.
antialias_physorg
1 / 5 (1) Jan 16, 2012
It does mean that:

I think you missed that germany has upped it's electricity from renewables/alternative energy sources to 17% in 2010.
Nuclear furnishes 22%. The last reactor will go offline by 2022. Even moderate extrapolation will result in a complete replacement of those 22% by alternativ means. Not one additional coal power plant will have to be built (although there are still a few for which old contracts have been signed)

Nuclear furnishes ONLY electricity - so we have to look at the numbers of electricity producing alternatives (which are basically all of them). Renewables do include biogas powerlants, but those are a LOT cleaner than coal power plants.

uclear is such a small part of the energy mix thatits impact is negligible in the short, medium, or long term. Especially if we want to look at the 'bang per buck' as we go green.
ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (1) Jan 16, 2012
I think you missed that germany has upped it's electricity from renewables/alternative energy sources to 17% in 2010.


I did not miss it. Germany is one of the wealthiest countries and most commited for renewables in the world. Yet 17 % is too little and too late. It will not be enough to avert climate change and peak oil by far.

Nuclear furnishes ONLY electricity


It can also supply heat.

uclear is such a small part of the energy mix thatits impact is negligible in the short, medium, or long term. Especially if we want to look at the 'bang per buck' as we go green.


Not in the long term. Getting rid of fossil fuels will be extremelly hard. Getting rid of fossil fuels and nuclear is impossible to do
ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (1) Jan 16, 2012
Not one additional coal power plant will have to be built (although there are still a few for which old contracts have been signed)[q/]

Yeah, right. Even if true, its too little too late. We should be REPLACING coal and fossil fuels. Painting stagnation as success is laughable.

Nuclear furnishes ONLY electricity


As for this claim, a time when all our energy (not just electricity) needs will have to be supplied by non-carbon sources is approaching. Renewables alone will not cut it. Not in Germany, and not around the globe. 3 % interminent energy is too little, too impractical and too late.
antialias_physorg
1 / 5 (1) Jan 16, 2012
Yet 17 % is too little and too late.

Is that supposed to be an argument that it shouldn't be done at all?
We've seen an increase in the alternative energy contingent between 1 and 2% per year(!). At only a fraction of the subsidies that coal or nuclear are getting, to boot. (Nuclear and coal have ben getting about 200bn Euros each to date, whereas alternative energies have been getting less than 30bn )

The point is: It's doable. It isn't expensive (quite the contrary - the switchover will amount to vast savings on subsidies in the energy sector). And the realy question is: why isn't everyone doing it?

It can also supply heat.

It isn't used for that. But then again: what is someone to stop from using something like solar thermal from supplying heat?
antialias_physorg
1 / 5 (1) Jan 16, 2012
Yeah, right. Even if true, its too little too late. We should be REPLACING coal and fossil fuels. Painting stagnation as success is laughable.

Who is saying that it needs to stop once nuclear has been replaced? We just decided to get rid of nuclear first. Coal will follow - never fear.

And with the changeover to cars which run on either electricity or some sort of generated fuel (artificial hydrocarbons or hydrogen) then the dependence on oil imports can be reduced.

But in the end it will be a mix of replacing all of the above at the same time rather than replacing one after the other.
there's no tehnical hurdle. There's no economic hurdle. We're doing it, and up until now it's working.

With no world government individual countries just have to decide to do it themselves.
Telekinetic
1 / 5 (6) Jan 16, 2012
"Other types of energy production aren't safer. So. The costs of ending nuclear power would ironically be health and safety." -Idiot

I would rather breathe soot than radiation. You are wrong about nuclear safety. As long as there are humans at the controls, nuclear is completely UNSAFE. Ask those living near Chernobyl if you don't want to address Fukushima, who were at a complete loss as to how to control their disaster. On top of that, the reactors were run despite the fact that they were flawed which management knew and paid people to keep quiet. Then there's the problem of spent fuel rods. How about you storing them in your backyard? Radiation inflicts irreversible damage to your DNA, the very blueprints of what we are.
Telekinetic
1 / 5 (5) Jan 16, 2012
What if your child, niece, or nephew became ill? Would you step over them to benefit your society?


There is a thousandfold bigger chance that they will become ill due to coal-fired power plants, and there is a comparable chance they would become ill due to ice from a wind turbine falling on their head. The chance is insignificant. Peak oil or climate change will be a much much bigger threat for my family than nuclear will ever be.

Thousandfold chance? Where do you get these numbers? These aren't statistics, they're the product of nuclear industry doublespeak sucked up by the uneducated.
ShotmanMaslo
5 / 5 (2) Jan 16, 2012
Thousandfold chance? Where do you get these numbers? These aren't statistics, they're the product of nuclear industry doublespeak sucked up by the uneducated.


http://nextbigfut...rce.html
ShotmanMaslo
5 / 5 (2) Jan 16, 2012
Is that supposed to be an argument that it shouldn't be done at all?


Nope, I am in favor of renewables. But also nuclear.

It isn't used for that.


Yes, it is. Plenty of towns are heated by nuclear stations.
And the realy question is: why isn't everyone doing it?


Because it is too expensive when compared per TWh produced, and interminent energy sources are not practical.
ShotmanMaslo
4 / 5 (1) Jan 16, 2012
Who is saying that it needs to stop once nuclear has been replaced? We just decided to get rid of nuclear first. Coal will follow - never fear.


Too little, too late. There is a reason for fear, and it is not nuclear. The reason is called climate change and peak oil.

And with the changeover to cars which run on either electricity or some sort of generated fuel (artificial hydrocarbons or hydrogen) then the dependence on oil imports can be reduced.


And electricity needs will skyrocket.

there's no tehnical hurdle. There's no economic hurdle. We're doing it, and up until now it's working.


Massive technical and economic hurdles are there. Which is why only wealthy countries that can afford and are willing to burn taxpayer money will have substantial renewable generation, and still it wont be enough.
Telekinetic
1 / 5 (4) Jan 16, 2012
Excerpted from your link:

"A total of about $400 million for the more effective air pollution technologies for Sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulates.
So it is perfectly feasible and economic to retrofit existing coal plants to prevent most of the air pollution and the damage that they cause. The costs is far less than what is required to deal with carbon dioxide (pipes to capture and put it all into large places underground). China has about 650 GWe of coal power installed in 2011. It would probably be cheaper for China to do the particulate retrofits (say $30 million per GWe). Therefore $20 billion would enable a 99.5% reduction in particulates. The United States has 315 GWe of coal power installed in 2011. It would cost about $16 billion for electrostatic precipitators on all coal plants in the United States."
And the lobbyists from your beloved nuclear industry keep yammering into the ears of legislators that it's too costly to do anything but nuclear.
ShotmanMaslo
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 16, 2012
I would rather breathe soot than radiation.


Soot is radioactive.

nuclear is completely UNSAFE.


It is relatively very safe per energy produced. You are not thinking rationally. Chernobyl and Fukushima were old designs. There will be nuclear accidents, the death rate is really negligible, and will only go down.

Then there's the problem of spent fuel rods. How about you storing them in your backyard?


Fine. Much more toxic chemicals are stored around routinely, yet it is not EVIL NUCULAR, so uneducated masses do not care.

Radiation inflicts irreversible damage to your DNA, the very blueprints of what we are.


So do countless other carcinogens.
Modernmystic
1.3 / 5 (15) Jan 16, 2012
And the lobbyists from your beloved nuclear industry keep yammering into the ears of legislators that it's too costly to do anything but nuclear.


Coal is going to run out LONG before nuclear fuels. In the long run nuclear is far cheaper.
Telekinetic
1 / 5 (5) Jan 16, 2012
"It is relatively very safe"- Shotman

Not for me and my relatives. I'm of the generation that drank strontium-90 tainted milk from cows grazing on grass that had radioactive fallout from atomic bomb tests. Incidence of human cancers increased as a result.
Telekinetic
1 / 5 (2) Jan 16, 2012
And the lobbyists from your beloved nuclear industry keep yammering into the ears of legislators that it's too costly to do anything but nuclear.


Coal is going to run out LONG before nuclear fuels. In the long run nuclear is far cheaper.


And the cost of human lives? Is that far cheaper, too?
ShotmanMaslo
5 / 5 (1) Jan 16, 2012
"It is relatively very safe"- Shotman

Not for me and my relatives. I'm of the generation that drank strontium-90 tainted milk from cows grazing on grass that had radioactive fallout from atomic bomb tests. Incidence of human cancers increased as a result.


Atomic bomb tests are not nuclear power plants.


And the cost of human lives? Is that far cheaper, too?


Compared to coal power or lack of power, which kill far more people, it is preferable.
Deathclock
3 / 5 (2) Jan 16, 2012
Nuclear power plants are like commercial airliners, when one of them fails it is a disaster and makes international headlines, but in the face of such tragedy we tend to forget that there are THOUSANDS of them working correctly every single day. It is said that you have a better chance of dying from a direct lightning strike than dying in a plane crash, and I am sure you have a much higher chance of dying in a plane crash than to nuclear fallout from a power plant.
Deathclock
3 / 5 (2) Jan 16, 2012
Also, as has been stated, nuclear energy is one of the safest energy generation methods ever devised when going strictly by deaths per watt hour produced. I'd be willing to bet that once we really start using wind turbines their death to watt-hour ratio will end up worse than nuclear due to maintenance workers falling from them when installing/repairing the blades...
Deathclock
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 16, 2012
It's pretty amazing that all of these people against nuclear probably have no problem with commercial airplanes, which are far more dangerous, or even cars which are a hundred times more dangerous than air travel.

Risk is a component of almost any activity. We measure risk/reward ratios and determine if the risk is worth taking. As far as cars, airplanes, and nuclear plants are concerned sane rational people consider the risk to be worth the reward.
Telekinetic
1 / 5 (3) Jan 16, 2012
@Deathclock:
There are new environmental laws on the books that penalize contractors for the mishandling of lead dust in old paint and asbestos on pipes and old floor tiles. The fines for exposing the dwellers is $5,000 to the contractor and another $5,000 to the owner. When there are multiple exposures, the fines now run into hundreds of thousands of dollars. Lead and asbestos are innocuous toxins compared to radiation poisoning. The taxpayer will have to pick up the tab not only to clean up a nuclear disaster site, but also the multi-millions of dollars the government will be sued for in a class action suit filed by radiation victims. Still the cheapest way to go?
Deathclock
3 / 5 (2) Jan 16, 2012
@Deathclock:
There are new environmental laws on the books that penalize contractors for the mishandling of lead dust in old paint and asbestos on pipes and old floor tiles. The fines for exposing the dwellers is $5,000 to the contractor and another $5,000 to the owner. When there are multiple exposures, the fines now run into hundreds of thousands of dollars. Lead and asbestos are innocuous toxins compared to radiation poisoning. The taxpayer will have to pick up the tab not only to clean up a nuclear disaster site, but also the multi-millions of dollars the government will be sued for in a class action suit filed by radiation victims. Still the cheapest way to go?


I didn't say it was the cheapest... I said it was the safest. Going by deaths per watt-hour of electricity generated nuclear is the safest form of mass energy production. You didn't even address anything I said, but instead attacked a straw man, and poorly at that.
Deathclock
3 / 5 (2) Jan 16, 2012
There has been roughly 15,000 years of cumulative nuclear power plant operation. There have been 31 fatalities directly caused by Nuclear power accidents. Compare that to 6400 from Coal plant accidents.

http://www.world-...f06.html
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Jan 16, 2012
There have been 31 fatalities directly caused by Nuclear power accidents. Compare that to 6400 from Coal plant accidents.

Um...have you got the numbers for cumulative years of coal power plant operations and kWh produced (since the industrial revolution)? That's ORDERS of magnitude higher.

and really: No one is arguing that coal power plants are a good alternative to nuclear power plants. You're arguing a false dichotomy here. Just because people want to get rid of nuclear does not mean that anyone wants more coal.
Telekinetic
1 / 5 (3) Jan 16, 2012
"Coal is going to run out LONG before nuclear fuels. In the long run nuclear is far cheaper."- ModernMisled

Pardon me, Deathclock, I meant to address the other knucklehead. We simply are not ready or capable of controlling this deadly technology. Remember Three Mile Island? You think the operators of that plant released perfume into the atmosphere? And the Japanese government are notorious liars, and their people are sick of being lied to. The Indian Point nuclear facility is located on a fault line. What if the fracking upstate sends tremors along that fault? Whose fault would that be?
Deathclock
3 / 5 (2) Jan 16, 2012
Um...have you got the numbers for cumulative years of coal power plant operations and kWh produced (since the industrial revolution)? That's ORDERS of magnitude higher.


Yes I do. There have been 8 deaths from nuclear power per terawatt-year, compared to 342 deaths from coal power per terawatt-year.

and really: No one is arguing that coal power plants are a good alternative to nuclear power plants. You're arguing a false dichotomy here.


883 deaths per terawatt-year of hydro power, and 85 deaths per terawatt-year of natural gas power.
Deathclock
3 / 5 (2) Jan 16, 2012
Remember Three Mile Island?


No deaths have been directly linked to three mile island, and only 1 or 2 additional cancer deaths were attributed to the incident in the decades following.
kaasinees
1 / 5 (1) Jan 16, 2012
8 deaths per TWyr? I call bullshit.
It is very hard to link cancer/mutation/infant deaths with nuclear disasters plus the secretive and banned reports by governments.

http://en.wikiped...bstances

http://en.wikiped...ccidents

http://en.wikiped...ccidents

http://en.wikiped...isasters

http://en.wikiped...bstances

http://en.wikiped...ccidents

http://en.wikiped..._uranium

http://www.thewe....ans.html

http://www.hcn.or...m-mining

http://www.johnst...nts.html

these lists are small there is more but i cant find atm. plus char limit.
Deathclock
1 / 5 (1) Jan 18, 2012
8 deaths per TWyr? I call bullshit.
It is very hard to link cancer/mutation/infant deaths with nuclear disasters plus the secretive and banned reports by governments.

these lists are small there is more but i cant find atm. plus char limit.


You were nowhere near the character limit, LMAO.

In any case, I gave you my sources, take it up with them.