Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Two Years After Fukushima, Japan Reassesses Nuclear
Investor's Business Daily ^ | March 13, 2013 | IBD EDITORIALS

Posted on 03/13/2013 5:12:15 PM PDT by raptor22

Nuclear Power: Buoyed by data showing that outside the immediate area, radiation dangers remain small, Japan's pro-nuclear prime minister seeks to restart other shut-down reactors to restart a stagnant economy.

It has been two years since the March 11, 2011, Honshu quake and tsunami that killed nearly 19,000 people, smashed Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s Fukushima plant, and put the brakes on the worldwide commercial use of nuclear power.

Days after the quake — which registered at 9.0 on the Richter scale and was equal to about 336 million tons of TNT, a quake so powerful it shifted the position of the Earth's axis by as much as 6 inches and moved Honshu, Japan's main island, eight feet eastward — we wrote regarding the future of nuclear power: "Despite a once-in-a-century event in Japan, it's time to put our foot on the accelerator and realize, as someone once put it, that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

That was not the conventional wisdom, then or now.

Nuclear power's image as a clean and safe form of energy seemed irrevocably tarnished, but, as someone else once said, facts are stubborn things, and the fact is that two years later, outside the immediate area of Fukushima, this is hardly a problem at all.

According to a World Health Organization report, there is unlikely to be any detectable increase in cancers in Japan, Asia or the world except close to the facility.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Japan
KEYWORDS: carbondioxide; co2; energy; fukushima; ibd; nuclear; nuclearenergy; nuclearpower
Split atoms. not hairs.
1 posted on 03/13/2013 5:12:15 PM PDT by raptor22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: raptor22

The fix to me is to build reactors in locations not liable to tsunami damage. Fukushima survived the 9.0 magnitude earthquake with serious but Manageable damage, it was the wave that did it in. We’ve got to learn to safely build and run nuclear plants.


2 posted on 03/13/2013 5:23:02 PM PDT by JimSEA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raptor22

I forgot we were supposed to be dead by now.


3 posted on 03/13/2013 5:23:25 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raptor22
These units were placed too close to a known flood zone and the backup pumps were too close to be any good if a big wave came ashore.
The nuke was not to blame...
4 posted on 03/13/2013 5:23:27 PM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks (NRA Life Member)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum; markomalley; Clairity; Carlucci; grey_whiskers; meyer; WL-law; Para-Ord.45; ...

IBD EDIRORIAL PING


5 posted on 03/13/2013 5:24:40 PM PDT by raptor22 (Visit my blog at True Conservatives on Twitter: http://t.co/IKpP3cwq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raptor22

Just imagine if they could build modern reactors.


6 posted on 03/13/2013 5:25:15 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

No kidding. I’m not sure they need to be restarting any old reactors. In fact, that’s probably a terrible idea. And they need a better storage plan for the old stuff instead of on-site too. We need that last part as well.


7 posted on 03/13/2013 5:26:25 PM PDT by Monty22002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: raptor22

Smaller reactor facilities. Newer, safer, cheaper fuel. Safer locations.

And smarter politicians.


8 posted on 03/13/2013 5:31:53 PM PDT by lurk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JimSEA

Why don’t they build incinerators to burn all the junk that has floated away.......


9 posted on 03/13/2013 5:41:17 PM PDT by Average Al
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

. . and send serious, mature, knowledgeable nuclear scientists out to do PR and answer the valid questions of the public . . instead of . . the little teeny bopper girls to pooh-pooh any and every valid question that anyone raises. Back in the 70’s they employed cute T&A teeny bopper very young women to do PR when they were trying to get nuclear power plants built. One of the cousins was in that sort of job; and she was very condescending to me for simply asking how and where they planned to store the nuclear waste. Basically told me to shut up; that “they” would solve that problem when it came up. Without respect, they might as well can it.


10 posted on 03/13/2013 5:42:31 PM PDT by Twinkie (JOHN 3:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: raptor22
Wow...everyone who thought this was only a year ago raise your hand. (mine is up)...doesn't seem like two...

Time just flies...

11 posted on 03/13/2013 5:46:51 PM PDT by Fedupwithit (You gave him what he wanted. I gave him what he needed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave; granite; GreenFreeper; grjr21; I got the rope; IchBinEinBerliner; jaredt112; JayB; ...

IBD EDITORIAL PING


12 posted on 03/13/2013 5:47:46 PM PDT by raptor22 (Visit my blog at True Conservatives on Twitter: http://t.co/IKpP3cwq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raptor22

They rethought nuclear after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They can do it again.


13 posted on 03/13/2013 5:49:45 PM PDT by Starstruck (I need a 30 round magazine because liberal whine gives me a buzz.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks

Not to mention they were built 40 years ago.


14 posted on 03/13/2013 5:59:24 PM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking; StopGlobalWhining; Straight Vermonter; Tampa Caver; TChris; ...

IBD EDITORIAL PING


15 posted on 03/13/2013 6:12:36 PM PDT by raptor22 (Visit my blog at True Conservatives on Twitter: http://t.co/IKpP3cwq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Monty22002

We have the answer to that last part. Harry Reid prevents us from using it.


16 posted on 03/13/2013 8:35:42 PM PDT by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: raptor22

Rule #1: Don’t build nuclear facilities at the beach.


17 posted on 03/13/2013 9:07:32 PM PDT by RobinOfKingston (Democrats--the party of Evil. Republicans--the party of Stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raptor22

Thorium ^

The 1960's technology we should have followed!
(A five minute video with details.)

18 posted on 03/13/2013 10:54:56 PM PDT by brityank (The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JimSEA
We’ve got to learn to safely build and run nuclear plants.

We already know how to do that. It's just that governments make it so hard to build new plants that energy producers are forced to keep outdated plants online for decades longer than intended.

19 posted on 03/14/2013 6:41:54 AM PDT by mvpel (Michael Pelletier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Twinkie
One of the cousins was in that sort of job; and she was very condescending to me for simply asking how and where they planned to store the nuclear waste.

What does a coal plant, the only meaningful large-scale baseload alternative to nuclear power, do with its waste, which includes radioactive materials? It dumps it on the ground or spews it into the air.

20 posted on 03/14/2013 6:44:08 AM PDT by mvpel (Michael Pelletier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: brityank

great video! thanks for posting.


21 posted on 03/15/2013 9:53:16 AM PDT by FBD (My carbon footprint is bigger than yours)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: mvpel

Actually, when a real nuclear scientist did finally demonstrate an example of a spent nuclear rod; it was quite small really. Of course, back then we had no idea what a spent rod looked like, how large it was or anything else the nuclear industry didn’t want us to know. - When they finally did decide we were okay to trust with some knowledge and information, they had already been stopped in their tracks by the Cindy Sheehan style demonstrations. - Their T&A approach was a dismal failure; in face, I resented this cousin’s condescending attitude, as I’m sure did many others.


22 posted on 03/15/2013 11:14:18 AM PDT by Twinkie (JOHN 3:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster; Monty22002

There’s a much better answer than storing spent fuel in a hollowed out mountain—reprocess the spent fuel rods, reclaiming the 90%+ of Uranium that still remains, and thus eliminating the vast majority of high-level radioactive waste from nuclear power plants.

The US Navy has been doing this SAFELY for more than half a century. No reason US and Japanese civilian plants can’t do the same.


23 posted on 03/15/2013 11:23:44 AM PDT by rottndog ('Live Free Or Die' Ain't just words on a bumber sticker...or a tagline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson