That's how Asahi Shinbun reports. It is hard to tell for certain without the full context, but I think she meant "no one died from acute radiation sickness caused by the nuclear accident", just like many foreign experts including former NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko (though now a changed man, it seems, after having visited Fukushima in 2012) have said over the past two years.
People in Japan who read the Asahi article are outraged. Several workers have died at Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant while working to contain the accident. There are people who committed suicide after the nuclear accident because of radiation contamination ruining their crops and cattle. There are people who died of hunger and thirst inside the 20 kilometer evacuation zone, as officials, being bureaucratic officials, prohibited the family members from entering the zone to rescue their parents, siblings, relatives. (Why these people nonetheless followed the officials' orders is another issue.) That zone wouldn't have been set if there had been no nuclear accident. There are people who died on the way to distant shelters, who died at shelters for lack of food and heat, and who wouldn't have needed to be taken to the shelters, spending 10 or more hours on an uncomfortable bus, if there had been no nuclear accident.
But they certainly did not die from acute radiation sickness, for sure.
From Asahi Shinbun (6/17/2013):
「原発事故による死亡者は出てない」自民・高市政調会長
"No one has died from the nuclear accident", says LDP's Policy Bureau Chief Takeichi
自民党の高市早苗政調会長は17日、神戸市の党兵庫県連の会合で、「事故を起こした東京電力福島第一原発を含めて、事故によって死亡者が出ている状況ではない。安全性を最大限確保しながら活用するしかない」と原発再稼働を目指す考えを強調した。
Sanae Takaichi, Policy Bureau Chief of LDP, said in a meeting of Hyogo Prefecture LDP in Kobe City on June 17, "It is not that there has been a death from the nuclear accident, including at Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant. We have no choice but utilize nuclear power plants as long as we secure maximum safety", emphasizing her (the party's) intention to restart nuclear power plants.
原発事故により多くの避難者が出ている現状で「死亡者が出ていない」との理由を挙げて、再稼働方針を強調する姿勢には、批判が出る可能性もある。
Emphasizing the policy to restart nuke plants because "no one has died" may draw criticism, when there are many people displaced because of the nuclear accident.
自民党は参院選公約の最終案で、再稼働について「地元自治体の理解を得られるよう最大限の努力をする」と推進する考えを盛り込んでいる。高市氏は産業競争力の維持には電力の安定供給が不可欠としたうえで、「原発は廃炉まで考えると莫大(ばくだい)なお金がかかるが、稼働している間のコストは比較的安い」と語った。
The final draft of LDP's campaign promise for the coming Upper House election includes the push for restart of nuclear power plants by saying the party will "make maximum effort to win the understanding of local municipalities". Ms. Takaichi said the stable supply of power is indispensable for maintaining the competitiveness of industries, and that "a nuclear power plant costs enormous amount of money if we think about the cost of decommissioning, but while it is operating the cost is relatively cheap."
Her boss, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, has been busy peddling Japanese nuclear power technologies and plants in Asia and central Europe, saying his country has learned the lessons from Fukushima and the country's nuclear technology is better than ever.
In other words, après moi, le déluge.
15 comments:
Hm...
The spokesman of the Chinese communist regime said that "no one died on Tiananmen Square" after the bloody crackdown in June 1989.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s10zJQtaMoc
The "conservative right-wing" politicians in LDP look more like the Chinese that they hate the most...
How should we interpret such similarity and what is the bottom line in the stupidity of Japanese politics?
Probably she was referring to radiation poisoning, the government has already admitted that there were close to 1000 deaths, or mor, don't remember, as a result of the evacuations (or lack of preparedness thereof as a result of the safety myth.)
Been seeing this "nobody has died from radiation" rubbish in various places. Just because nobody wants to prove a link doesn't mean it isn't a significant contributing factor.
Right, and those 3 thyroid cancers discovered in year 2012, climbing to 12 in this first half of 2013, none of them died yet so no need to worry... and never mind we barely escaped turning half of Japan into nuclear wasteland (worse case scenario envisioned by Kan counselors and the US), let's play Russian roulette a little longer.
Ah. Thyroid cancer rubbish.
@anonimous above: you'd talk differently if it were your son... probably.
Anon at 1:22PM, the number of children with A2 (nodules larger than 5 mm, cysts larger than 20 mm) in Fukushima was smaller than other prefectures tested by the government. Unofficial tests by doctors in Tokyo, Kobe show the similar results, that the number in Fukushima is totally in line with everywhere else in Japan. Actually, Fukushima's number is lower.
But people like you would simply dismiss them as "they lie". Or "you lie".
Then the next thing you would say is a direct quote from the likes of Caldicott. "Thyroid cancer in children are so rare! One in million!" without realizing you are comparing apples and oranges.
The quote comes from prof. Takeda blog; he is mentioning cancers, not cysts.
Today ms. Takaichi retracted ALL she said and apologized. Now she says she has no opinion whatsoever on energy matters: she has as been lobotomized directly by the top of her party for talking nonsense nuclear propaganda without being able to do it and for doing it right before the elections.
Well, it does not matter: her party is one and the same with nuclear industry and it wants to restart the nuke clunkers despite the deaths Fukushima Daiichi disaster caused and despite the risk of an even larger catastrophe that might have made Tokyo inhabitable. Takaichi now looks just like a pathetic pawn.
Apart from the no-deaths stupidity, running NPPs is cheaper than decommissioning them? Is there really no limit to how nearsighted a person can become?
*mscharisma*
mscharisma,
the diagnosis is probably total blindness, rather than short sightedness.
Firstly I doubt Takaichi knows what she is talking about -- my impression is that she was just parroting some propaganda she happened to hear.
Secondly, talking about running costs, she is not taking into account the cost of final disposal of the "spent" fuel generated while running the plant (paid both cash and health of the people living nearby the final disposal site). Unfortunately electric utilities do not have to account for that cost either, hence they find it economically convenient to restart the plants.
OT: apparently Japanese npps had 5 beyond-design (想定外) events in the last 8 years. What safety factor is the nuclear industry using?? 1.001?
By claiming "no deaths" Takeichi is doing a great service to the anti-nuclear agenda - i for one hope he continues to make this ludicrous claims loudly.
What he possibly fails to realize is that the ability to fool the people no longer exists- the tipping point has been reached.
And in this new context, claims such as this are so obviously false that they appear to be an act of desperation to the masses.
Revealing desperation in public relations is akin to spilling blood in shark infested waters - it will only serve to hasten the feeding frenzy.
Perhaps he is instead a very smart man and his real intent is to destroy nuclear by feigning support, however I don't think it's the case - I more believe he is receiving truly horrible public relations advice
James
James, it is "she".
@ anon at 11:45: My thoughts exactly. Keep it running now because it's cheaper than decommissioning. But decommissioning costs will STILL come up and there will be more to decommission, i.e. additional fuel. Not to mention the potential added cost in case of an accident. I was thinking near-sighted because she obviously sees the numbers for running vs. closing down a plant, just nothing beyond.
*mscharisma*
mscharisma,
ok, I guess it depends on what point in time you account for spent fuel costs: when you use the fuel (blindness) or decommission time (shortsightedness).
Recently in Japan you often hear her reasoning: [nuclear has high upfront costs and] decommissioning is expensive hence we need to restart the clunkers.
High upfront costs are one reason not to invest into nuclear (more risk), if the utilities chose to invest anyways it is their problem, not the ratepayers.
As you say, at some point they will have to decommission anyways so that is another fixed cost utilities will have to pay anyways (unless they go bankrupt by then) so this alone is not a reason to restart the clunkers.Running costs are on the low side but only if someone else pays for the "spent" fuel liability, otherwise every day you run the plant plunges you further into the red.
Agree on all points.
*mscharisma*
Post a Comment