Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: In Tokyo, Thousands Protest the Restarting of a Nuclear Power Plant

Expand Messages
  • eastwest3173
    ... Note how the Japanese people appear not to be calling for the complete cancellation of nuclear power per se, but calling for adequate saftey measures to be
    Message 1 of 3 , Jul 1, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Sukla writes:

      >
      > "Japanese have not spoken out against the national government," said Yoko
      > Kajiyama, a 29-year-old homemaker who carried her 1-year-old son. "Now, we
      > have to speak out, or the government will endanger us all."
      >
      > "To restart the nuclear plant without ensuring its safety is crazy," said
      > Naomi Yamazaki, 37, another homemaker and first-time demonstrator. "I know
      > we need these plants for power and jobs, but I don't trust the authorities
      > now to protect us."

      Note how the Japanese people appear not to be calling for the complete cancellation of nuclear power per se, but calling for adequate saftey measures to be in place before the re-start.

      I suspect they have every reason to distrust capitalist corporations just restarting the nuclear plants without changing their profits-first-and-suseqent-cutting-of-corners methods. I also suspect they have little confidence in their capitalist state being able to reign or control these corporations.

      "No more Fukushimas" - everyone can agree with this, even pro-nukes. Can these demonstrations be read as anti-nuclear in total? It's difficult to read that into these reports.

      What we do know, it seems, is that simple safety measures such as working pumps could have prevented the Fukushima Daiichi reactor from going into near meltdown. Such working pumps could easily have been installed, if they were not run by a cost-cutting capitalist corporation. And, from what I can tell, these reactors were old technology, a model that would not now be constructed.

      Even despite this, these reactors did remarkably well to withstand being hit by a severe earthquake and tsunami, as well as they did. Nuclear power cannot be blamed for an earthquake or tsunami. Moreover, it seems that it would be easy enough to build reactors that could withstand all but the most devastating earthquake.

      Acolytes of "renewables" state that if an earthquake hit a solar power plant or a wind farm, the infrastructure would be destroyed, but there would be no disaster. Power would also be cut, needless to say. I concede this point to advocates of renewables. But I would also say that the same result - a cut in power - could happen with renewables simply as a result of a change in weather, i.e. a drop off in sunshine and wind. Ahh, but renewables have "back up" built in. This is true. And what is this back up? Biomass - or gas, which is a fossil fuel. With climate change already causing....climate change, is it not reasonable to suppose that the "renewables" plants will more often be running on "back up" (biomass or gas) than they will on "renewables" ?

      Adam Baker
    • gabe
      The next question is whether the electric grid in a given country is sufficiently reinforced to withstand a major solar flare given that we are in a period of
      Message 2 of 3 , Jul 1, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        The next question is whether the electric grid in a given country is sufficiently reinforced to withstand a major solar flare given that we are in a period of solar maximum? If not you have a potential meltdown of most ALL nuclear power plants around the plant or at least those in countries who are not prepared.
        Gabe

        http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/03/120308-solar-flare-storm-sun-space-weather-science-aurora/



        --- In GreenLeft_discussion@yahoogroups.com, "eastwest3173" <eastwest3173@...> wrote:
        >
        > Sukla writes:
        >
        > >
        > > "Japanese have not spoken out against the national government," said Yoko
        > > Kajiyama, a 29-year-old homemaker who carried her 1-year-old son. "Now, we
        > > have to speak out, or the government will endanger us all."
        > >
        > > "To restart the nuclear plant without ensuring its safety is crazy," said
        > > Naomi Yamazaki, 37, another homemaker and first-time demonstrator. "I know
        > > we need these plants for power and jobs, but I don't trust the authorities
        > > now to protect us."
        >
        > Note how the Japanese people appear not to be calling for the complete cancellation of nuclear power per se, but calling for adequate saftey measures to be in place before the re-start.
        >
        > I suspect they have every reason to distrust capitalist corporations just restarting the nuclear plants without changing their profits-first-and-suseqent-cutting-of-corners methods. I also suspect they have little confidence in their capitalist state being able to reign or control these corporations.
        >
        > "No more Fukushimas" - everyone can agree with this, even pro-nukes. Can these demonstrations be read as anti-nuclear in total? It's difficult to read that into these reports.
        >
        > What we do know, it seems, is that simple safety measures such as working pumps could have prevented the Fukushima Daiichi reactor from going into near meltdown. Such working pumps could easily have been installed, if they were not run by a cost-cutting capitalist corporation. And, from what I can tell, these reactors were old technology, a model that would not now be constructed.
        >
        > Even despite this, these reactors did remarkably well to withstand being hit by a severe earthquake and tsunami, as well as they did. Nuclear power cannot be blamed for an earthquake or tsunami. Moreover, it seems that it would be easy enough to build reactors that could withstand all but the most devastating earthquake.
        >
        > Acolytes of "renewables" state that if an earthquake hit a solar power plant or a wind farm, the infrastructure would be destroyed, but there would be no disaster. Power would also be cut, needless to say. I concede this point to advocates of renewables. But I would also say that the same result - a cut in power - could happen with renewables simply as a result of a change in weather, i.e. a drop off in sunshine and wind. Ahh, but renewables have "back up" built in. This is true. And what is this back up? Biomass - or gas, which is a fossil fuel. With climate change already causing....climate change, is it not reasonable to suppose that the "renewables" plants will more often be running on "back up" (biomass or gas) than they will on "renewables" ?
        >
        > Adam Baker
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.