Current Japanese premier Abe is in favour of nuclear energy. Do you believe Japan should follow his lead?

Send suggestions

Bangkok Post » Poll

Current Japanese premier Abe is in favour of nuclear energy. Do you believe Japan should follow his lead?

Current Japanese premier Abe is in favour of nuclear energy. Do you believe Japan should follow his lead?

  • Start date:Jan 15, 2014
  • End date:Jan 16, 2014
  • Voters: 2,299 times
  • Yes
  • No
  • I don't know
  • I'm not familiar with the issue

Share your thoughts

For more candid, lengthy, conversational and open discussion between one another, use our Forum

Report objectionable comments click here. Include: discussion #, commenter name, comment date / time as it looks on the page. Example: discussion 15: 09/01/2009 at 10:00 AM.

  • Discussion 8 : 18 Jan 2014 at 12.158

    Well that's what i feared...
    People prefers waste energy and try to find more and more dangerous solutions to provide them energy in order to have air con every day and tv and ipad on 24hrs a day.
    It would be so easy to reduce our useless needs ...
    But if you prefer killing my planet earth, you can be sure that i won't care about your lives either.

  • Discussion 7 : 16 Jan 2014 at 23.247

    @Disc6: Driven more by cost than other factors, everybody is trying to reduce energy cost by developing technologies that consume less energy, being aware of energy waste, etc. But the reality is that energy use, especially in Southeast Asia, is projected to increase dramatically, especially in the developing areas. The rise of the middle class in this region, in Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, and even Myanmar , will drive a significant demand increase. It's nice to say "lets reduce energy use", but the fact is, demand is going to increase. So where does the extra energy come from?

  • Discussion 6 : 16 Jan 2014 at 22.526

    i know it sounds totally crazy but ... what about reducing the incredible amount of energy used by every people on this planet ?

  • Discussion 5 : 16 Jan 2014 at 18.245

    @ Disc 4: I voted no.
    You make some very valid points, but I would prefer if countries followed Germany's lead on this.
    One of the main mistakes with nuclear energy planning is how the costs are calculated: the cost of accidents and the cost of managing leaky nuclear waste containers is *never* taken into account, because that never happens.. right? (and the half life of nuclear waste is thousands of years) Then we have oil and gas, which is generally subsidized, and coal which is just terrible for the environment.
    Renewables on the other hand, don't compromise our future. Let's compare those options on their true, long term cost.

  • Discussion 4 : 16 Jan 2014 at 15.584

    For someone who voted yes, I'm extremely surprised with the lack of no votes. I thought that Fukoshima would seriously change public opinion.
    I used to go to anti-nuclear demonstrations back in the day in the US. My stance has changed with reflection into the issue: global warming is a much bigger problem and, sadly, renewables are not going to completely replace fossil fuels for base-load times (at our current levels of energy use). Newer plant designs are much safer then older ones, but NIMBY is keeping governments from building new plants. New "fast reactor" technology can cut the half-life of nuclear fuel substantially.

  • Discussion 3 : 16 Jan 2014 at 04.383

    The concerns after Fukoshima are valid, the damage from that event was very serious (though not as serious as some of the ridiculous stuff on the Internet. But the design of that plant was very flawed, especially with the placement of the emergency diesel generators in the basement. It put total faith in the seawall not being breached by a tsunami, which obviously proved inadequate. In nuclear design there are always back-ups to back-ups and worst case scenarios are assumed. Granted, not everything can be predicted, but with current knowledge, modern design, and concern for safety, I believe plants can be operated with minimal risk.

  • Discussion 2 : 15 Jan 2014 at 16.442

    What other option is there. Fracking? Probably even more dangerous than well managed nuclear plants.

  • Discussion 1 : 15 Jan 2014 at 16.441

    Cannot believe the amount of yes votes after what Japan has just been through. Would all the people in agreement with restarting the nuclear industry in Japan go and live in the Fukoshima precinct ? Would they grow and eat there food from that area or the pacific fish being poisoned everyday as tons of radioactive water spew into the ocean ? I doubt it !


Sign in once and access every part of the website at your convenience!

Please log in to our community to post your comments.
You can sign in to the community by clicking here.

If you weren't part of the community yet, please sign up here.
By being part of this community you will get all these privileges.