Nuke plants needed but significant safety worries abound
Advertisement
One thing that I have always considered a bit of a dichotomy in Japan has been the overwhelming anti-nuclear weapon stance of the general public (hmm, I don’t actually have a survey on that, so I hope I’m correct!) versus the seemingly quiet acceptance of nuclear power. This recent survey from Central Research Services Inc looked at the second half of the above statement. The survey was entitled living and the environment, so the below is just one part of the survey.
Demographics
During October 2008 (CRS are always slow to publish their survey results!) 4,500 adults were selected at random, 3,000 from the Kinki (also known as Kansai) area of Japan, namely the prefectures of Shiga, Kyoto, Osaka, Hyogo, Nara and Wakayama, and 1,500 from Fukui, a prefecture that hosts all of the nuclear powerstations that generate the electricity for the region. From the 3,000 people selected from Kinki, 1,031, or 34% responded; in Fukui 551 from 1,500 responded, for a response rate of 37%.
The “Is nuclear power needed?” question is a difficult one to decipher, and the text doesn’t suggest any refinement to it. Given that Kinki’s main electricity generator KEPCO (Kansai Electric Power Co) generates 60% of its power from nuclear, it is very much required, so a negative answer is not a realistic position. However, if the question is more slanted towards “Is more needed?” or “Should alternatives be found and existing facilities decommissioned?”, that goes some way to explaining the 20% opposition. Here is an article on Kinki power.
Research results
Q1: Comparing now and ten years hence, how do you think the global warming problem will be? (Sample size=1,031 and 551)
Kinki
N=1,031Fukui
N=551More serious than now 70% 64% Not really changed from now 21% 20% Better than now 5% 6% Don’t know 5% 10% Looking at the individual prefectures, Osaka was the most pessimistic. By sex, Kinki women were more pessimistic than men, at 74% versus 65%, but in Fukui it was reversed at 68% of men and 62% of women. By age, younger people were more pessimistic.
In the following question, what exactly the energy problem is is not defined, or if it includes all concerns about energy from passing peak oil to clean energy.
Q2: How interested are you in the energy problem? (Sample size=1,031 and 551)
Kinki
N=1,031Fukui
N=551Interested 74% 72% Not interested 24% 26% Don’t know 2% 2% Men were more interested than women, at 81% versus 67%.
Q3: Do you think nuclear power is needed? (Sample size=1,031 and 551)
Kinki
N=1,031Fukui
N=551Think so, perhaps think so 59% 62% Can’t say either way 11% 11% Don’t think so, perhaps don’t think so 21% 17% Don’t know 10% 10% The most significant difference to be seen was between men and women, 72% of men everywhere versus just 46% of Kinki women and 55% of Fukui women thought it was needed.
Q4: DWhat do you think about the safety of nuclear power generation? (Sample size=1,031 and 551)
Kinki
N=1,031Fukui
N=551Safe, perhaps safe 25% 25% Can’t say 16% 17% Unsafe, perhaps unsafe 51% 48% Don’t know 8% 10% Twice as many men as women thought nuclear power to be safe; 33% versus 17% for Kinki, and 35% versus 18% for Fukui.
Subscribe to feed
Why would you consider being anti-nuclear weapon but pro-nuclear power a dichotomy?
The purpose of one is to murder a huge number of people, the purpose of the other is to generate energy. Doesn’t seem unusual to support one but not the other.
>Chris
I see what you mean, but I’m a little skeptical about the “pro-nuclear power and anti-nuclear weapon” stance that seems to be spreading as a “reasonable” stance for countries to take.
Why do so many countries want to invest in something that has such high economic/environmental costs and risks of disasters as nuclear power? Electricity is vital and all, but does it make sense to get electricity in exchange for a) radioactive waste that we can’t really deal with and b) the possibility of deaths and illnesses in case of accident (the latter concern should be especially big for Japan, the land of earthquakes)?
It’s not as if there isn’t any other way to meet our electricity demand. Nuclear power isn’t clean, and it isn’t cheap, either. So why nuke, really?
It doesn’t seem to make sense unless there is something else. What can that something be? Perhaps…keeping plutonium at hand, just in case…? Even if you don’t have nuclear weapons, you might want to keep the materials for them…just in case?