If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Japan Times)   1. Japan bans nuclear power. 2. Japan taxes fossil fuels. 3. ¥¥¥. 4. Profit   (japantimes.co.jp) divider line 24
    More: Obvious, oil products, energy saving, Japan  
•       •       •

691 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Oct 2012 at 8:40 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



24 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-10-05 08:43:11 AM
Heh..

That is such a bad system no matter how you look at it.
 
2012-10-05 08:44:23 AM
Nothing like a knee jerk reaction to shoot yourself in the foot
 
2012-10-05 08:46:18 AM
Had a friend and his wife (she's Japanese) basically bail out of Japan and move to Texas a few months back.

Looks like they did the right thing.
 
2012-10-05 08:47:24 AM
$39B Yen = $495 million USD. Yes, that will bring the industrial backwater that is Japan to Seppuku.
 
2012-10-05 08:48:18 AM
ctrl + f
'nuclear'

'ban'

wtf.
 
2012-10-05 08:50:59 AM
Some industries are against the environment tax. But they should realize that their activities have caused environmental deterioration. It is clear that they should follow the "polluters pay" principle.

ExxonMobil execs stare at the Alaska coastline where the Valdez tanker ruptured, BP looks at the Gulf Coast at the site of its Horizon disaster, and they all scratch their heads and simultaneously say, "Pay for polluting? What the hell are you talking about?"
 
2012-10-05 08:55:34 AM

EyeballKid: ExxonMobil execs stare at the Alaska coastline where the Valdez tanker ruptured, BP looks at the Gulf Coast at the site of its Horizon disaster, and they all scratch their heads and simultaneously say, "Pay for polluting? What the hell are you talking about?"


The Japanese could learn from your examples. Instead, they foolishly continue operating with their silly "honor" and "ethics".
 
2012-10-05 08:56:35 AM
Here's a relevant bit from Wikipedia:

According to a June 2012 Stanford University study, the radiation released could cause 130 deaths from cancer (the lower bound for the estimater being 15 and the upper bound 1100) and 180 cancer cases (the lower bound being 24 and the upper bound 1800), mostly in Japan. Radiation exposure to workers at the plant was projected to result in 2 to 12 deaths. The radiation released was an order of magnitude lower than that released from Chernobyl, and some 80% of the radioactivity from Fukushima was deposited over the Pacific Ocean; preventive actions taken by the Japanese government may have substantially reduced the health impact of the radiation release. An additional approximately 600 deaths have been reported due to non-radiological causes such as mandatory evacuations. Evacuation procedures after the accident may have potentially reduced deaths from radiation by 3 to 245 cases, the best estimate being 28; even the upper bound projection of the lives saved from the evacuation is lower than the number of deaths already caused by the evacuation itself.[14] 

That is, more people died from the evacuation than would likely have died from radiation release. Instead, Japan will ramp up fossil fuel use, which has been directly tied to deaths from power plant exhaust. Glad to see reason win out again.
 
2012-10-05 09:00:03 AM

THX 1138: EyeballKid: ExxonMobil execs stare at the Alaska coastline where the Valdez tanker ruptured, BP looks at the Gulf Coast at the site of its Horizon disaster, and they all scratch their heads and simultaneously say, "Pay for polluting? What the hell are you talking about?"

The Japanese could learn from your examples. Instead, they foolishly continue operating with their silly "honor" and "ethics".


No, no. Not silly. Those are just for little people. Just like taxes are only for little people.
 
2012-10-05 09:00:19 AM
What's the difference between steps 3 and 4?
 
2012-10-05 09:03:44 AM
And since Japan has pretty low supplies of fossil fuels, I assume they'll be invading Manchuria again soon.
 
2012-10-05 09:04:19 AM

atomsmoosher: That is, more people died from the evacuation than would likely have died from radiation release.


... Perhaps the hasty evacutation reduced the risks associated with prolonged radiation exposure. Just saying.

Or I guess you can go with the General Woolwort strategy.
 
2012-10-05 09:30:49 AM

BeesNuts: atomsmoosher: That is, more people died from the evacuation than would likely have died from radiation release.

... Perhaps the hasty evacutation reduced the risks associated with prolonged radiation exposure. Just saying.

Or I guess you can go with the General Woolwort strategy.


But now they get to stick around in floodwater mixed with coal ash. More radiation exposure, plus serious carcinogens too!
 
2012-10-05 09:36:25 AM

atomsmoosher: Here's a relevant bit from Wikipedia:

According to a June 2012 Stanford University study, the radiation released could cause 130 deaths from cancer (the lower bound for the estimater being 15 and the upper bound 1100) and 180 cancer cases (the lower bound being 24 and the upper bound 1800), mostly in Japan. Radiation exposure to workers at the plant was projected to result in 2 to 12 deaths. The radiation released was an order of magnitude lower than that released from Chernobyl, and some 80% of the radioactivity from Fukushima was deposited over the Pacific Ocean; preventive actions taken by the Japanese government may have substantially reduced the health impact of the radiation release. An additional approximately 600 deaths have been reported due to non-radiological causes such as mandatory evacuations. Evacuation procedures after the accident may have potentially reduced deaths from radiation by 3 to 245 cases, the best estimate being 28; even the upper bound projection of the lives saved from the evacuation is lower than the number of deaths already caused by the evacuation itself.[14] 

That is, more people died from the evacuation than would likely have died from radiation release. Instead, Japan will ramp up fossil fuel use, which has been directly tied to deaths from power plant exhaust. Glad to see reason win out again.


Well next time they decide to evacuate people from the region of a nuclear meltdown, I hope they learn from your post and consult a study from 15 months in the future to tell them whether they're taking the right course of action.
 
2012-10-05 09:47:18 AM
Raising taxes on oil forces the economy to invest in fuel saving measures, which isn't a bad idea. Also it protects the economy from swings in oil prices, since the underlying price now makes up a smaller proportion of the total bill.

And nobody in Japan trusts the government to run nukes right now, so they're off the table.
 
2012-10-05 10:03:58 AM

BeesNuts: atomsmoosher: That is, more people died from the evacuation than would likely have died from radiation release.

... Perhaps the hasty evacutation reduced the risks associated with prolonged radiation exposure. Just saying.

Or I guess you can go with the General Woolwort strategy.


That was kind of the point of the study. They looked at potential deaths from radiation vs. what happened in evacuation. I'm not saying that they shouldn't have evacuated--it was precisely the right thing to do--what I am saying is that banning nuclear power is exactly the wrong lesson from what happened at Fukushima. Instead of building better, safer plants they gave into nuke panic.
 
2012-10-05 10:05:26 AM

atomsmoosher: That is, more people died from the evacuation than would likely have died from radiation release. Instead, Japan will ramp up fossil fuel use, which has been directly tied to deaths from power plant exhaust. Glad to see reason win out again.


They are just worried about this guy.
www.badassoftheweek.com
/hot like fission
 
2012-10-05 10:24:08 AM

THX 1138:

Well next time they decide to evacuate people from the region of a nuclear meltdown, I hope they learn from your post and consult a study from 15 months in the future to tell them whether they're taking the right course of action.


That's hardly the point, isn't it? I'm not arguing with evacuation. Who would? Not even the Stanford scientists that conducted the research.

The point is that nuclear power is manageable. It is safe. And that our perception of risk is less informed by fact than by fear and panic.
 
2012-10-05 10:53:58 AM
And now for the next Japanese Lost Decade
 
2012-10-05 12:24:57 PM
Japan also just implemented a very aggressive feed-in tariff for solar energy, leading to an explosion of development efforts. We expect Japan to be second or third world-wide for solar installations in 2013.
 
2012-10-05 02:36:15 PM

Arkanaut: What's the difference between steps 3 and 4?


When they convert Yen to Renminbi.
 
2012-10-05 02:52:41 PM

WelldeadLink: Arkanaut: What's the difference between steps 3 and 4?

When they convert Yen to Renminbi.


It's the same symbol:
Link
 
2012-10-05 04:33:27 PM
Sounds like Japan is encouraging conservation of resources and research into alternative energy.
They must not have a strong oil lobby.
 
2012-10-06 01:48:09 PM

Arkanaut: WelldeadLink: Arkanaut: What's the difference between steps 3 and 4?

When they convert Yen to Renminbi.

It's the same symbol:
Link


Yes, but one is backed by the U.S. Dollar.
 
Displayed 24 of 24 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report