Buyer's remorse - Japanese opposition to nuke power stronger

[kristopher]

Expecting the government to fix a problem that can't be fixed is inevitably going to lead to this type of dissatisfaction. The potential damage from a large scale nuclear accident is not something you deal with after the fact - it can only be prevented. And the only way to prevent it, is to stop using it. Extending the life of existing plants is an open invitation to disaster.

Poll: Japanese opposition to nuke power stronger
By Malcolm Foster Associated Press / June 5, 2012

TOKYO—Japanese oppose nuclear power more strongly than they did while the tsunami-damaged Fukushima plant was still in crisis a year ago, according to a poll that found widespread dismay with the government's handling of that disaster and the ongoing recovery.

The survey released Tuesday by the Washington-based Pew Research Center said 70 percent of Japanese believe the country should reduce its reliance on nuclear energy, up from 44 percent last year.

Before the disaster, Japan relied on nuclear power for about a third of its energy needs. All 50 of Japan's usable nuclear reactors have been shut down as of last month due to routine inspections and safety concerns, straining the country's ability to meet power demands.

The survey found that 80 percent of Japanese are dissatisfied with the government's handling of the nuclear crisis, caused by a massive earthquake and tsunami on March 11 that damaged the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant, which spewed radiation into the surrounding air, soil and water...

http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2012/06/05/poll_japanese_opposition_to_nuke_power_stronger/

[DCKit]

1. Jeebus Japan, develop workable wave energy devices already.

It's not as if you're short of resources.

[Kolesar]

2. Geothermal from that big volcano behind you...eom

[DCKit]

3. Yeah, there's that too.

This "Oh My God, What can we do" bullshit we're getting from the MSM is killing me.

When Japan goes independent (and it will) they'll be screaming.

[kristopher]

4. Did you know that radiation is like the screaming voice of an angry wife?

Radiation: Shall I compare thee to an angry Japanese wife?
by Miki Kayaoka
TOKYO | Tue Jun 5, 2012 4:42am EDT
(Reuters) - A Japanese research agency has dropped a controversial public relations campaign aimed at educating women about nuclear safety that compared radiation to the screaming voice of an angry wife.

The Japanese Atomic Energy Agency devoted a page on its website to an effort to "make the hard words used in the nuclear power industry" more easy to understand, particularly for women.

The page, which included a cartoon of an angry, fist-waving wife and her cowering husband, compared the wife's yell to radiation. It continued the metaphor by saying that the women's increasing agitation could be compared to "radioactivity", while claiming the wife herself was comparable to "radioactive material"...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/05/us-japan-radioactivewife-idUSBRE8540CX20120605

[XemaSab]

5. Wow

That is really sexist.

[RobertEarl]

6. Naoto Kan - Former Prime Minister says:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/asia/japans-naoto-kan-condemns-nuclear-power.html

In an unusually stark warning, Japan’s prime minister during last year’s nuclear crisis told a parliamentary inquiry on Monday that the country should discard nuclear power as too dangerous, saying the Fukushima accident had pushed Japan to the brink of “national collapse.”

...his strongest comments came at the end of his testimony, when a panel member asked him if he had any advice for the current prime minister. Mr. [Naoto] Kan replied that the accident had brought Japan to the brink of evacuating metropolitan Tokyo and its 30 million residents. He said the loss of the capital would have paralyzed the national government, leading to “a collapse of the nation’s ability to function.”

He said the prospect of losing Tokyo made him realize that nuclear power was just too risky, the consequences of an accident too large, for Japan to accept.

“It is impossible to ensure safety sufficiently to prevent the risk of a national collapse,” Mr. Kan said. “Experiencing the accident convinced me that the best way to make nuclear plants safe is not to rely on them, but rather to get rid of them.”