
The Panic Over Fukushima - aakil
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444772404577589270444059332.html?mod=WSJ_hps_LEFTTopStories
======
justincormack
The opposition into Japan is not about the exact number of cancers or deaths.
It is about trust. To quote the official report [1]:

...the subsequent accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant cannot
be regarded as a natural disaster. It was a profoundly manmade disaster – that
could and should have been foreseen and prevented. And its effects could have
been mitigated by a more effective human response.

How could such an accident occur in Japan, a nation that takes such great
pride in its global reputation for excellence in engineering and technology?
This Commission believes the Japanese people – and the global community –
deserve a full, honest and transparent answer to this question.

Our report catalogues a multitude of errors and willful negligence that left
the Fukushima plant unprepared for the events of March 11. And it examines
serious deficiencies in the response to the accident by TEPCO, regulators and
the government.

For all the extensive detail it provides, what this report cannot fully convey
– especially to a global audience – is the mindset that supported the
negligence behind this disaster. What must be admitted – very painfully – is
that this was a disaster “Made in Japan.”

Its fundamental causes are to be found in the ingrained conventions of
Japanese culture: our reflexive obedience; our reluctance to question
authority; our devotion to ‘sticking with the program’; our groupism; and our
insularity.

(the rest is worth reading too)

If your government and industry had failed you like that would you trust them
to continue with nuclear power without fixing the underlying problems?

[1] <http://www.nirs.org/fukushima/naiic_report.pdf>

~~~
rbanffy
> If your government and industry had failed you like that would you trust
> them to continue with nuclear power without fixing the underlying problems?

And yet, the hottest spots seem to be healthier places to live than Denver...
Is that a really big problem?

~~~
tsotha
Sure, but who in his right mind would live in Denver?

------
tokenadult
The author of the submitted article, Richard Muller, is the developer of a
Physics for Future Presidents course at UC Berkeley, author of a book with the
same title as the course, and author of a new book Physics and Technology for
Future Presidents: An Introduction to the Essential Physics Every World Leader
Needs to Know

<http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9226.html>

that is well worth a read. In other words, Muller has been thinking about how
to apply the facts of nature to the contentious issues of public policy for a
long time, and has a good sense of economic and political trade-offs in
policy- making. The article submitted here is a great example of clear
thinking on a scary issue, and I endorse it as well worth reading and thinking
about.

P.S. I have just been to Colorado Springs, Colorado, transiting the Denver,
Colorado airport to get there, and I am not worried about increasing my cancer
risk by returning to the Front Range each year for the business that brought
me there.

<http://www.epsiloncamp.org/>

I checked some of the statements made in other comments in this thread since
posting this, and I can't find any confirmation that the country-wide shutdown
of nuclear plants in Japan has been anything other than bad for the country.
While Japan continues to need electricity (for life-saving medical
technologies, among other uses), and until other sources of electricity become
less expensive, it makes sense for Japan to be open to restarting the other
nuclear plants in the country.

P.P.S. I live in one of the states of the United States in which an
exceptionally large percentage of electricity is generated at nuclear power
plants. Both plants are located along the Mississippi River, as is most of
Minnesota's population centers. Electricity is unusually inexpensive here, and
health statistics are unusually good here, compared to other parts of the
United States.

~~~
nacker
"I can't find any confirmation that the country-wide shutdown of nuclear
plants in Japan has been anything other than bad for the country. While Japan
continues to need electricity (for life-saving medical technologies, among
other uses), and until other sources of electricity become less expensive, it
makes sense for Japan to be open to restarting the other nuclear plants in the
country."

OK, I don't know if anyone else finds this to be a strange statement, but I
do.

First, no one is saying that shutting down 50 of 52 nuclear power power
plants, providing 30% of Japan's electricity supply is an economic benefit.
Would that even make sense?

But "bad for the country" is a very different proposition.

"Japan has shut down over 95% of the power plants which produce radioactive
waste which lasts for thousands of years."

Bad for the country?

While Japan continues to need electricity (for SHORT TERM CONVENIENCE) , and
until other sources of electricity become less expensive, it makes sense for
Japan to be open to restarting the PRODUCTION OF ENERGY WHICH RESULTS IN
RADIOACTIVE WASTE THAT IS LETHAL FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS).

Yeah. Right.

What IS good for the country? Short term consumption, or long-term sickness,
death and mutation? What would Hoppe say, in terms of a time preference
analysis?

~~~
jacques_chester
The concept of a half-life explains why LETHAL FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS is a bit
of an overselling of the situation.

The more radioactive a substance is, the shorter its half life. That is, the
sooner it will become less radioactive. And vice versa: if a substance has a
long half life, it will simply emit less energy per unit of time.

It's just inverse formulae. Nothing magical.

But people imagine high-powered radioactivity lasting for THOUSANDS OF YEARS.
It just doesn't happen like that.

~~~
nacker
Jacques, I feel reluctant to disagree with you, because to search out the
supporting references is a bit of a chore, but I had a good education in
physics, I was a very good student, and I am confident that _lethal for
thousands of years_ is not overselling of the situation. If anything,
thousands of years is _underselling_ , as hundreds of thousands would be more
accurate.

~~~
fixedit
Let me help you with that. Jacques is correct in his description of activity.
I just checked my radiation detection text book to make sure (that would be
embarrassing wouldn't it!)

However, "lethal" is a bit of an ambiguous term when applied to the waste from
the nuclear power generation. After cooling down, the fuel assemblies will
most certainly be emitting ionizing radiation that will be detectable for
hundreds of thousands of years, as you suggest. This does NOT mean it is
"lethal" for this time period. UNLESS you open one of the assemblies and make
an industrial waste smoothie. Most of the long lived isotopes contained in the
assembly will be deadly as heavy metals. So there is still danger, but it is
easily manageable, just like the waste from many other industrial processes
(like making solar panels, or batteries for hybrids for instance).

------
e12e
"It is remarkable that so much attention has been given to the radioactive
release from Fukushima, considering that the direct death and destruction from
the tsunami was enormously greater. Perhaps the reason for the focus on the
reactor meltdown is that it is a solvable problem; in contrast, there is no
plausible way to protect Japan from 50-foot tsunamis."

It's amazing to be able to take such an arrogant attitude. The outrage
regarding the Fukushima disaster is exactly that there would have been _no_
fallout if not for several human errors leading up to the disaster -- and the
lies and misinformation following the disaster. There is a complete and
justified lack of trust in the government and the industry -- and no
indication that there will be no further accidents -- whether induced by
natural disasters or just poor maintenance.

So yes, over engineering does indeed work -- and is a necessary measure when
dealing with potential radioactive fallout -- but even then accidents do
happen. I've seen people claim that the fact that human error is behind this
and other accidents "proves" that nuclear power is safe -- this is of course
rubbish. Human error will always be a big risk factor in any engineering
project.

The author also ignores the fact that Japan has done an unprecedented job of
mitigating the damage tsunamis can do -- but that the effort had been scaled
towards what was assumed to be the likely threat -- a tsunami smaller than the
one associated with this earthquake. He implies that this effort was for
nothing -- which isn't true. It simply wasn't effective along large parts of
the coast as it should (could) have been.

Consciously allowing a potentially huge risk -- the long time destruction of
farmland and populated areas by radioactive contamination -- versus not
mitigating all possible natural disasters and risks of war -- is a false
dichotomy.

The problem with nuclear power isn't that a lot of people might die from
cancer -- it's that _generations_ might be affected by a single accident --
and will be burdened with containing spent fuel for longer than human
civilization have existed.

Finally, if it turns out that geothermal power is a viable alternative -- then
it should be possible to fulfil Japan's energy need without any risk of
nuclear fallout.

~~~
chmars
In addition, we as mankind know how to deal with the aftermath of a tsunami:
We clean up, rebuild and so on …

After a nuclear disaster, we mostly remain helpless observers. As of today,
the Japanese neither fully know what actually happened and still have no idea
how to deal with the Fukushima aftermath in a long-term. The same goes for
Tschernobyl and many other sites with nuclear fallout and waste. Nuclear
energy is like a dragon awoken without any possibility to put him at sleep
ever again.

------
radu_floricica
> Looking back more than a year after the event, it is clear that the
> Fukushima reactor complex, though nowhere close to state-of-the-art, was
> adequately designed to contain radiation. New reactors can be made even
> safer, of course, but the bottom line is that Fukushima passed the test.

He made a good argument that new cancer cases are statistically few, but I
can't see what test Fukushima passed. As far as I know there were multiple
meltdowns and dumping radioactive water into the ocean. From an engineering
point of view, it was a clear-cut failure. If not of implementation, then at
least of specifications and margins.

~~~
tjoff
They were not designed to be able to resist an earthquake of that magnitude so
I fail to see how it can be an failure from an engineering perspective (the
fact that most plants handled it fine should if anything suggest that, from an
engineering perspective, it was a success).

~~~
Tichy
Could you forward your comment to the author of Dilbert, please?

------
jbuzbee
As an experiment, I volunteer to expose myself, my wife and my children to a
yearly dose of radiation that is three times the maximum safe-level
recommended by The International Commission on Radiological Protection. i.e.
we happily live in the Denver area ;-)

~~~
davvid
Really? Are you serious?

BTW, there's a big difference between "background radiation" and ingested
radiation (either through air, food, water, etc.)

The scientific consensus is that there is _no amount_ of radiation that is
safe to ingest.

<http://www.rrjournal.org/doi/pdf/10.1667/RR2629.1>

Do you _really_ want to test your theory?

~~~
ScotterC
I'd happily ingest as much plutonium as you would caffeine.

~~~
Someone
Are you sure?<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#Flammability>, to me,
indicates that it may not be a wise idea to drop the stuff in the acid inside
your stomach, even if it is only, say, a gram a day.

~~~
ScotterC
I'm sorry. I didn't mean to imply daily. As professor Bernard Cohen meant it,
as a competition with Ralph Nader, I was a one off meant to show that the
equivalent mg dosage of caffeine would kill you much faster then plutonium. A
daily ingestion is much different.

------
sgoranson
Lately I've been reevaluating my predictable sci/techy pro-nuclear stance. I
still roll my eyes at folks who don't really know what radiation is but think
it's inherently bad, and I still think nuclear power is probably a lesser evil
than fossil fuels. But two things I learned this week gave me pause:

First, that Fukushima was not as benign as I believed if butterflys are
mutating
[http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/120809/srep00570/full/srep00...](http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/120809/srep00570/full/srep00570.html)

Second, and maybe everyone else knew this, but I never knew that we haven't
been able to produce low-background steel since 1945
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-background_steel>

And maybe those are both insignificant. But I think they both serve as non-
partisan evidence that we can and have semi-permanently altered the planet
with each nuclear mistake we've made.

~~~
tikhonj
The low-background steel seems to be a factor of nuclear weapon testing rather
than nuclear reactors. Even the most ardent of nuclear power supporters don't
argue for detonating more nuclear weapons!

Besides, essentially everything people do at any scale has altered the planet
in permanent or semi-permanent ways. It _is_ an issue, but it is not an issue
unique to nuclear power.

~~~
justatdotin
I am convinced that the nuclear power industry remains not only inextricably
linked to nuclear WMD programs, but its expansion is in fact driven by the
desire for the materials, technology and capability to develop nuclear weapons

~~~
tsotha
Perhaps in places like Iran and Pakistan. For the last few years we've been
using old Russian warheads as fuel here in the US, which is the opposite
situation.

~~~
justatdotin
sure, in the us(a) it may be an intrinsic (historical) link, but where nuclear
power is expanding, I see weapons as a driver.

~~~
tsotha
Yeah, I think you're probably right about that. But there are already some 400
nuclear power plants around the world. As much as I'd rather the Iranians not
have one, it's pretty difficult to say "Sure, we have 104 nuclear reactors in
the US, but _you_ guys aren't allowed to have any."

------
altarelli
Physicist Richard Muller should clearly demonstrate his beliefs by moving to
Fukushima, instead of discussing the panic from the other side of the world.
And he should also put nuclear risks in perspective, and contradict Seaborg:

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/03/a_is_for_atom....](http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/03/a_is_for_atom.html)

~~~
nohat
He should leave his tenured position at a major university to demonstrate his
conviction? That's not a meaningful point or challenge.

~~~
altarelli
we have the same point: why should he take a morally superior position and not
mislead the public? this is what the documentary is about.

~~~
nohat
I'm not sure what you mean. My point was that challenging him to move to
Fukushima doesn't show his hypocrisy or anything. He has very good reasons not
to move to Fukushima that have nothing to do with the threat of radiation.

------
alanfalcon
Handy radiation dose effect chart provided by Randall of XKCD (note: 1
microsievert = 0.0001 rem)

<http://blog.xkcd.com/2011/03/19/radiation-chart/>

Perhaps an interesting meta-discussion is the phenomenon of how choice of
units affects the framing of a discussion. 0.1 rem doesn't sound nearly as
dangerous as 1,000 μSv, though of course both numbers are completely
meaningless to most lay people.

~~~
justsee
TEPCO measured radiation levels of 10 Sv in the basement of Reactor 1 in June
this year [1].

In March TEPCO measured radiation levels of 73 Sv/h in the container vessel
[2]. A Fukushima worker tweeted a radiation level estimation of > 1000 Sv for
another part of the reactor (the endoscope used for radiation testing is only
rated to 1000 Sv, so cannot be used) [3].

The radiation level next to Chernobyl immediately after the meltdown was 300
Sv/h.

Also in March, Arnie Gundersen of FaireWinds went to Tokyo to collect soil
samples from parks and streets, and on testing the samples back in the US
concluded they would be considered radioactive waste in the United States. [4]

The XKCD cartoon was produced during the perceived hysteria following the
aftermath and reporting of the Fukushima radiation and fallout, but the
history since then appears to indicate that the extreme concern over Fukushima
radiation is depressingly justified.

[1] <http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20120629a7.html>

[2] [http://fukushima-diary.com/2012/03/73svh-in-container-
vessel...](http://fukushima-diary.com/2012/03/73svh-in-container-vessel/)

[3] <https://twitter.com/Happy11311/status/184586152186097664>

[4] [http://fairewinds.org/content/tokyo-soil-samples-would-be-
co...](http://fairewinds.org/content/tokyo-soil-samples-would-be-considered-
nuclear-waste-us)

~~~
tsotha
>...but the history since then appears to indicate that the extreme concern
over Fukushima radiation is depressingly justified.

If you're living in the reactor containment vessel.

~~~
justsee
That's a stunningly ignorant risk assessment.

Unit 4 has significant structural damage, and contains the most (and most
recently used) fuel rods, stored outside the containment wall. Another 7.5
earthquake could cause a collapse triggering a fuel rod fire that could not be
put out. TEPCO's plan states that they cannot begin removing fuel rods until
2013, or possibly 2014. [1]. "There is as much cesium in the fuel pool at Unit
4 as there was in all of the atomic bombs dropped in all of the tests in the
1940's, the 1950's, the 1960's, and into the 1970's."

All that is required for a catastrophic release of radiation across the
northern hemisphere is a significant seismic event.

Fukushima is now classed alongside Chernobyl as a category 7 reactor event,
the area surrounding Fukushima will take decades to clean up, and the Japanese
Government has admitted major human error within regulatory bodies, and within
TEPCO and credulous government acceptance of the Nuclear industry's unfounded
safety claims. [2]

And Muller claims that "Fukushima passed the test". You can't make this stuff
up. But you can call it what it is, historical revisionism by an ardent
supporter of the nuclear industry.

Considering the still perilous situation, it is a breathtakingly irresponsible
and insensitive article to write. Truly astonishing.

[1] [http://www.fairewinds.com/content/fukushima-daiichi-truth-
an...](http://www.fairewinds.com/content/fukushima-daiichi-truth-and-future)

[2]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disas...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster)

~~~
tsotha
>That's a stunningly ignorant risk assessment.

Or maybe it's just a rational one. None of what you've brought up contradicts
my point. The problem isn't ignorance on my part, but rather hysteria on
yours. Really, if this is the way you approach life I'm surprised you have the
courage to get out of bed in the morning.

>Unit 4 has significant structural damage, and contains the most (and most
recently used) fuel rods, stored outside the containment wall. Another 7.5
earthquake could cause a collapse triggering a fuel rod fire that could not be
put out.

Or it could do nothing at all. You do realize they spent the first part of
this year pouring concrete and putting in steel rods to stabilize that
building, right? Did you think they've been drinking sake and shooting the
breeze all this time?

>"There is as much cesium in the fuel pool at Unit 4 as there was in all of
the atomic bombs dropped in all of the tests in the 1940's, the 1950's, the
1960's, and into the 1970's."

Yes, the reactors and pools are contaminated. And it will take a few years to
get all that ugly stuff into completely safe storage. And? As long as the fuel
doesn't go anywhere it doesn't matter how long it takes to clean up.

>Fukushima is now classed alongside Chernobyl as a category 7 reactor event,
the area surrounding Fukushima will take decades to clean up

I find it amazing people can say (presumably) with a straight face that
because shares some subset of characteristics with Chernobyl that it's _OMG
JUST AS BAD AS CHERNOBYL!!!!_ It's not as bad as Chernobyl by orders of
magnitude. It never was.

As far as the exclusion zone goes, it's only 20 km. Even for a country as
land-poor as Japan that's not much.

~~~
justsee
I wouldn't be so generous as to call your initial comment a point. More like
an antagonistic expression of wilful ignorance.

That you would assert that the only people who need to be concerned with
radiation are people 'living in a containment vessel' is simply absurd.

All you're doing now is applying the industry's standard response to rational
concerns over a disastrous reactor incident: paint public concern as ignorant
'hysteria', engage in a bit of character assassination ("I'm surprised you
have the courage to get out of bed in the morning"), and gloss over the
seriousness of the situation, and impacts ("it's only 20 km").

Your stance also clearly indicates you've read little on the impact on the
ground in Fukushima over the last year. I don't think there's much to be
gained from discussing this issue with you, as at any point you'll be arguing
with a concocted mental model of an opponent who is 'hysterical' and
'ignorant', and bring only arrogance and snark to the table. Boring.

------
dmoy
I don't know of any authoritative resources on radiation->cancer risk, can
anyone provide more information? The article starts out with a cool premise
but I have a hard time swallowing the linear rem->%chance relationship
described here

"If 25 rem gives you a 1% chance of getting cancer, then a dose of 2,500 rem
(25 rem times 100) implies that you will get cancer (a 100% chance)"

~~~
archgoon
Unfortunately, we don't have the data. Yep, it's non linear, but all of our
data is basically on two ends of the spectrum. Low amounts of radiation on one
end, accumulated from natural sources or working at nuclear plants, and high
amounts of radiation on the other, accumulated from survivors of Hiroshima,
Cherynobyl, and some nuclear accidents.

So, given those data points, with clusters on two ends of this spectrum you're
stuck with interpolation. Ideally, we'd like a good, predictive, biological
based model that explicitly showed how you go from biological damage to cancer
or death. We don't have that (though there are people researching it), so we
go with statistical techniques. This results in basically 3 different proposed
models.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model>

The Linear No Threshold Model:

Draw a line between the two regions. Bam! Done.

This is clearly wrong for very large doses, but is used mostly to try and
estimate the effect of a small change in radiation exposure to predict
increase in cancer incidence. This is very important for public policy. Of
course, this makes all these models politically contested.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_model>

Threshold Model

This model predicts that small amounts of radiation has zero effect on cancer
incidence. According to this model, going to higher altitude, or taking a
plane flight, won't increase your risk of cancer.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis>

Radiation Hormesis

A little radiation is good for you! The biological argument is that your body
gets used to dealing with damage from radiation. Don't tax it too hard and
you'll be stronger. So take a plane trip, and enjoy the X-ray scans!

~~~
davvid
_A little radiation is good for you!_

The science says otherwise.

<http://www.rrjournal.org/doi/pdf/10.1667/RR2629.1>

[http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/04/low-level-doses-of-
ra...](http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/04/low-level-doses-of-radiation-
can-cause-big-problems.html)

~~~
fixedit
Hate to keep taking issue with your comments, but they are pattently wrong.
Using a study of atomic bomb studies and an anti-nuke web site do not
constitute science.

Studies Ive read, completely contradict your statements
([http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?artic...](http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.1104294))
for one. There are others, and I am sure that I will not be convincing you,
but I didn't want your voice to be the only one on the issue here.

------
JPRan
To the author of this article: I will believe you if you agree to move to
Fukushima and live there for the rest of your life.

~~~
jbuzbee
As for me, I live in Denver with my family which according to the exposure
map, is about the same as living within 25 miles of Fukushima

~~~
adrr
You don't have radioactive iodine floating around. Radon doesn't asbord into
your thyroid glands.

------
mbateman
Maybe I was being ridiculously optimistic, but ~200 projected additional cases
of cancer seems pretty bad.

~~~
radu_floricica
You really have to put things in context, otherwise you get into the "think of
the children" fallacy, where everything is worth the effort if it saves one
life.

We die of three causes: cancer, heart problems and strokes. Well over 30% die
of cancer. So this means some of those 200 will die of cancer before they die
of something else (some of them will recover and live to die from heart attack
later). This makes the new deaths a really tiny percentage, which means
policy-wise it's hardly worth discussing.

~~~
mbateman
I'm certainly not trying to imply any policy prescriptions. I'm strongly in
favor of nuclear power. But if there's risk we should know what it is so it
can be distributed/compensated for.

I'm not saying it's not worth the cost (or even trying to discuss things in
those terms), but I'm not convinced this outcome is insignificant. If this
article is right, many of these people will die N years sooner than they would
have otherwise. How high does N have to be before it gets worth discussing?

~~~
altarelli
The risk for the GE MkI was (is) well known, but physicist-socipath Seaborg
chose to hand out the operating license:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4401744>

------
rerkh
With 2 reactors online and several thermal plants taken offline Japan is more
than meeting it's current demand even though an exceptionally hot summer.

(Yes, I've been keeping an eye on the demand & availability numbers. Not just
making stuff up in advance like others here.)

In fact if you took the 2 reactors offline they would still meet demand.

Now as the renewable energy industry actually gets a chance, rather than being
squashed by the nuclear industry stranglehold on government the reactors are
becoming clearly unnecessary long term.

Statements like many of the blog posts here are frankly ridiculous propaganda.

------
pella
Infertility and High Natural Background Radiation ...

 _"Conclusion: Findings of this study indicate that women's Primary
infertility rate in the HBR residents was considerably less than in the area
with ordinary background radiation."_

[http://docsdrive.com/pdfs/medwelljournals/rjbsci/2008/534-53...](http://docsdrive.com/pdfs/medwelljournals/rjbsci/2008/534-536.pdf)

"Y. Tabarraie , S. Refahi , M.H. Dehghan and M. Mashoufi , 2008. Impact of
High Natural Background Radiation on Woman`s Primary Infertility. Research
Journal of Biological Sciences, 3: 534-536."

------
cantankerous
Random question: Could the altitude of Denver contribute to its lower
incidence rate of cancer? Your body does have to work a bit harder to live
higher up. Just curious.

------
nacker
The conclusion of the WSJ was: "The great tragedy of the Fukushima accident is
that Japan shut down all its nuclear reactors. Even though officials have now
turned two back on, the hardships and economic disruptions induced by this
policy will be enormous and will dwarf any danger from the reactors
themselves."

The conclusion of The Corbett Report was: "Along with the tragic loss of life,
the destruction of homes, farms, businesses and property, and the beginning of
the Fukushima nuclear crisis, the 2011 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami exposed
the biggest secret of all: that the myth of the necessity of nuclear power in
Japan is just that. A myth."

[http://www.corbettreport.com/mp3/episode237_fukushimas_bigge...](http://www.corbettreport.com/mp3/episode237_fukushimas_biggest_secret.mp3)

~~~
Natsu
I question that conclusion. The power shortages have been quite troubling.

[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2012/03/12030...](http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2012/03/120309-japan-
fukushima-anniversary-energy-shortage/)

[http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201207...](http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201207030064)

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18468685>

~~~
nacker
I read your links. I know the audio is almost an hour, so I don't expect you
to have listened before you posted.

According to Mr. Corbett, who lives in Japan, the predicted shortages did not
in fact materialize this summer, and in fact, a SURPLUS of power was reported.
He doesn't assert that without the 50 plants currently offline there will be
no power shortfall. Most of the report is about alternatives such as solar,
geothermal, thorium, and wave power.

The point is that Japan has gone over a year now with almost NO nuclear power,
and the sky has not fallen. There are alternatives. There are also large
corporate/governmental interests who PREFER the present nuclear policy, and
that policy is now opposed by a large number of the Japanese people.

Did you personally suffer any consequences? Are you perhaps suspicious of
TEPCO, or the WSJ's motives?

~~~
Natsu
Left out of that story are all the sacrifices people had to make to conserve
power. That said, Thorium is a promising power source. Just don't tell anyone
that it's nuclear power.

