Nobel Prize Winner on NHK: “Only way to preserve human life is to completely turn away from nuclear power” (VIDEO)

Published: June 17th, 2012 at 11:20 pm ET
By

56 comments


Novelist Oe submits anti-nuclear petition to govt.
NHK
Jun. 15, 2012

Nobel Prize-winning Japanese novelist Kenzaburo Oe has asked Japan’s government to end its policy of dependence on nuclear power. [...]

[...]

Oe told Fujimura that he opposes the government’s plan to allow a restart of the Ohi nuclear plant in Fukui Prefecture, western Japan.

[...]

He told reporters that the Fukushima accident has shown that people cannot
coexist with nuclear plants.

He also said adults are responsible for opposing the restart, to maintain a healthy environment for children.

Oe and his fellow campaigners plan to hold an anti-nuclear rally in Tokyo on July 16th. 100,000 people are expected to attend.

More from Oe

I believe the only way to preserve human life is to completely turn away from nuclear power.

h/t MsMilkytheclown

Published: June 17th, 2012 at 11:20 pm ET
By

56 comments

Related Posts

  1. Fukushima is adversely affecting neighboring countries says Nobel Prize-winning author — “What is the most important ethic for humans to act is not to destroy conditions that are necessary for the next generation to live” March 18, 2012
  2. Financial Times Covers Japan Protests: Public has shifted significantly against nuclear power and have taken to streets — Opposition has grown considerably — Protesters from all walks of life and age groups (VIDEO) July 4, 2012
  3. Famous Japanese artist produces controversial poster illustrating dangers of nuclear power (PHOTO) February 11, 2012
  4. Fukushima Resident: I’d have given my life away to fight nuclear power — We were ignorant… Deep remorse (VIDEO) September 10, 2012
  5. Japanese Journalist Breaks Down: “Nuclear power plants exist on the foundation of sacrificing human lives” — “I cannot forgive” (VIDEO) September 11, 2012

56 comments to Nobel Prize Winner on NHK: “Only way to preserve human life is to completely turn away from nuclear power” (VIDEO)

  • Sharp2197 Sharp2197

    The video has screen shots of headlines from Enenews.


    Report comment

  • Sickputer

    Two cities in Japan were destroyed by nuclear fire to end a global war nearly 67 years ago. Now their entire country is at risk for total annilhilation from the same scientific toxins. They can sacrifice no more. Who will be next? A larger country? A continent? A hemisphere? The entire race of mankind?

    The citizens of earth must make a unified stand against nuclear toxins if they want the human race to survive. The Doomsday Clock is one second to midnight in my opinion. Time is running out for preventative actions.

    Perhaps it is not already too late. But the human race needs leaders and countries who can make a stand against nuclear power pollution.

    Germany and Switzerland pledgjng to end their plants is not enough. All the countries of the world must join in a united effort or else this will be the last century of human civilization. Failure to stop the nuclear madness means the human race will survive only as damaged mutants at best and in the worst case scenario… global extinction of the human race.


    Report comment

    • dharmasyd dharmasyd

      SP…Exactly. Excellent thinking. This must be done. Get on board with Nobel Peace Prize recipients and nominees against nuclear power, nuclear weapons and nuclear use anywhere besides theoretical research until such time as human consciousness evolves to the moral, ethical level to match the godlike power of the universe. And not just peace prize, get as many Nobel laureates as possible to join this movement. EVOLUTION DEMANDS THIS.


      Report comment

      • richard richard

        yeah, obama and jimmy carter – just imagine :(


        Report comment

        • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar anne

          There is no way that humans and nuclear reactors can ever coexist. Unfortunately, evolution is spiraling downward rapidly due to excessive radiation exposure. Using nuclear reactors for theoretical studies must also be banned to avoid complete extinction. We undoubtedly already passed the tipping point with the first nuclear bomb. It is the hubris that thinks that humans can use nuclear for anything at all that has doomed us. \\

          I second the Nobel prize winning novelist who says never restart any reactors.

          I hope no one is naive enough as to think that Terrapower has the answer. The evolution from radiation exposure is gross physical mutations including organs outside the body and totally unprotected and lose of intellect. Real science has already shown us that radiation kills absolutely and for ever. Radiation also is causing autism. This is truly evolution down. Evolution up is a myth supported by the nuclear industry and is totally unscientific in the face of the massive radiation unleashed on the earth and the destruction of the ozone layer by so much radiation.


          Report comment

          • richard richard

            hi anne, do excuse my cynisism, i do agree with you and the others above – "second the Nobel prize winning novelist who says never restart any reactors"

            (i just can't get over the obama and carter thing tho).

            i wanted to ask about "the destruction of the ozone layer by so much radiation" – is this a known reaction? I wasn't aware and if it is the case it just makes everything doubly crazy/scary.


            Report comment

    • Buffalojam

      Sickputer – Global extinction of the human race seems like a pretty good reason to me to shut down nuclear power everywhere. But, before we do this, I think a thorough discussion covering all aspects of a shutdown must be engaged in and understood by all for such a shutdown to succeed. In a recent study by Stanford University it was estimated that it would take about 30 years to get alternative sources of energy up and running to the point of coming close to producing the energy we need. This raises difficult questions which need to be answered so that a future shutdown movement is not abandoned after discovering how difficult it really is. When do you want to see the shutdown to begin? What would be the economic ramifications of the shutdown? How many businesses and lost jobs would there be if the shutdown was commenced immediately? Who would sustain most of the burden in such a shutdown? Would we all be willing to sacrifice T.V., air conditioning, refrigeration, lighting, etc. for extended periods of time while waiting for alternative sources to click in? Is it possible that a shutdown might lead to mayhem or perhaps a return to 1850s style living (not that that would be so bad)? Unless we get all this worked out ahead of time I fear that many ant-nukers just might change their minds once the stoppage takes place.


      Report comment

      • Buffalojam

        One more issue. What do we do with the waste? Who becomes responsible for it? Does it become a negotiating tool?


        Report comment

        • richard richard

          your great great grandchildren will become responsible for the waste … so negotiate with them, that seems fair.

          (i'm not dissing u Buffalojam, it's just the way i see the waste issue generally. it's a rant).


          Report comment

        • Sickputer

          Dealing with waste after shutting them all down is far preferable to dealing with more meltdowns. Continue the nuclear power plant proliferation and more Level 7 events will occur.

          The race of mankind is already wracked with chemical poisoning from many more sources than just radiation (a common nuclear industry defense) and those have to addressed also. What will it profit the species of naked apes to stop one major polluter and allow the other 90% to mutanize the future generations?

          Consider the whole raft of toxins with nitrates, plastics and other petrochemical products, drug residues, artificial concoctions of mad scientists that rival plutonium. Do we have any hope of survival longterm? Probably not. Man is a greedy and voracious animal. The top of the food chain, but he despoils his nest.


          Report comment

        • moonshellblue moonshellblue

          They need to start dry casking the spent fuel, yesterday. NO NUKES


          Report comment

      • well Im happy with a bow and arrow, and a seagull stew.

        Vs extinction…

        Spent fuel is the only real challenge in a shut down…

        They can honestly sequence a shutdown to slowly transfer essential services to our existing / non nuclear power grids; While this may affect millions of homes / citizens ability to receive alactricity for some time (even potentially decades)…

        It would only make sense to start a full speed shut down now, than to wait for any amount of time to pass between here and then…

        However maintaining the spent fuel will be a huge / and difficult challenge, but it is essential in the respect to the survival, and future of our species…

        Humans existed for thousands of years prior to nuclear power after all… Extermination of nuclear power its self by ridding the earth of the materials that were used to create it lies a challenge…

        Hence why all countries should immediately halt the uses of it no later than well… Today I suppose; Being were pretty fuku'd at this point in time. And Well… Its really not looking too good for mankind at this point, being the situation that we've got ourselves into; (no way to rid the planet of it and no way to contain it).

        SO I don't agree with much of what your post has sufficed…


        Report comment

        • *electricity.

          I do agree serious discussions and decisions need to be made on all accounts. But stanford university likely receives grants from companies like GE. So its likely a bias article that is not really in tuned with the current situation at hand.

          Im sure they never planned on the fuel leaving the building after all. It was their hope that an accident like this would never have happened and that future technology would have abolished incidents like were currently facing…

          Thats not the case i'm afraid.

          All countries investing in nuclear power (and weaponry) offer no 100% fail safe…

          Being that most nuclear power plants hold an apocalyptic pool of radiation (if not several). It is probably safer to simply cut our ties at our earliest convenience than wait and see what the cats might drag in…

          Again I feel that if most people were simply told the truth about all the dangers of nuclear tech. There would be a 100% vote for full withdrawal of the tech. at any cost…
          (Even if it meant driving us back to the stone age).

          We simply cannot store ele quantities of materials anywhere near our species. The juice is not worth the squeeze my friend…


          Report comment

      • apostrophes

        We would also need to decide the method.

        Is glassification and geologic storage the mode du jour? Or has Busby's recent revelation on helium emissions scuppered that one as well?

        Assuming the world would need about 4 such sites spread around the world, if the will was there to do it, we could perhaps be storing stuff in about 3 years. Lots of glassification plants would need to be built concurrently.

        ADMIN – the site is behaving very badly for me at present – it tells me to log in, even though I am logged in, plus other difficulties.


        Report comment

        • apostrophes

          My reply of 8.12 was supposed to be to buffalojam.


          Report comment

          • The reason we do not currently send it to space is because a failed launch could be an ele.

            I would suspect that storing it anywhere is a risk (even the fuel pools prove to be too risky) And they were designed by the most brilliant of our species, to store this very material…

            The only thing we actually know about nuclear power, is that the waste, is impossible to ignore, and impossible to store…

            Hence why the japanese stacked 40 years worth of spent fuel into a building smaller than a baseball stadium;

            Sadly dropping nuclear power, should be placed as a secondary priority, as I truly wish that all nuclear techs, were disarming fukushima until there is a 0% probability of a future release of contamination…

            However Thats never going to happen.

            All the kings horses and men are doing their best as we speak…

            And our best just doesn't cut it i'm afraid.

            Which I suppose only supports my posts from above…


            Report comment

            • apostrophes

              It's interesting that mankind as a whole isn't even trying to solve the problem.

              Yucca Mountain …. failed.
              Windscale / Sellafield / Irish Sea repository …. paper plans only, no progress.


              Report comment

          • Buffalojam

            Richard, Tacomagroove, and apostrophes – Many thanks for your thoughts in response to my comments. I raised the questions I did for a couple of reasons. First, as a middle aged U.S. citizen, I have never had to face an extended period of energy, food, medical, or travel deprivation. To most people around the world I have lived a spoiled life of privilege. This is a perception I do not entirely disagree with. When the issue of abandoning nuclear power comes up, I believe most people in my shoes are finding it easy to jump on the bandwagon without really understanding all of the issues involved. When the difficult times arrive during the transition to alternative sources of energy, and I believe such times are inevitable, we will all stand a better chance of holding our ground and accepting the transition if we received a solid understanding of all aspects of it beforehand. Secondly, if in our haste to embrace shutting down nuclear power, we give the store away to the industry regarding clean up and waste, we will be unjustly sentencing our grandchildren and great grandchildren to life in a pretty shitty world. I think we should be more responsible than that….By the way, with the right coaching and a few sips from the fountain of youth, bow and arrow living could be right up my alley. Regards to all!


            Report comment

        • richard richard

          (techo chat) I've been wandering between computers and mobile devices all day without any problems at all. So I feel the site seems fine and steady.

          Yeah, except for that weird sequence problem in the 'upcoming meetings' – that's been there for a while.


          Report comment

      • GeoHarvey

        Buffalo, I think you are making a mistake by assuming moving to renewable energy will cause a lot of people to lose jobs and a lot of economic problems. The evidence points very much to the opposite.
        Green energy employs more people than nuclear and fossil fuels. We can see this in the example of Germany, which now has more people working in the renewable sector than in nuclear and coal combined.
        Green energy has the further advantage that it can be owned by individuals, cooperatives, small and medium sized businesses, and communities. This means local people are employed for local business, wages are paid and spent locally, and profits are local.
        I would suggest taking a look at a town in Austria called Güssing, which went from being the poorest town in the country to economic independence and a respectable level of prosperity in just twenty years. This was done by use of renewable resources. The employment situation went from having 70% of the workers on weekly commutes to distant places to creation of 1000 new jobs in a town of 3700. (more at http://geoharvey.wordpress.com/gussing/)
        The idea that renewable energy costs jobs looks to me like it is very convenient propaganda produced by the nuclear industry and other such groups to preserve their precious investments as long as possible. No doubt there are those who believe their own lies.


        Report comment

        • +1

          Well said GeoHarvey, and an excellent example.

          Another angle:

          "Why do you (and almost all other commentators on the subject of renewable energy) ignore EfW or the conversion of solid municipal waste into energy? EfW generates 17% of all alternative energy produced in the US (and far more in most European countries) equal to all the energy generated by wind & solar combined. One ton of municipal waste is the equivalent of one barrel or petroleum or one ton of coal. Why do we as a country still insist on burying most of it in the ground?
          See http://www.covantaenergy.com/en/energy-from-waste-101/non-stop-energy.aspx for more information on this subject.
          Richard L. Huber
          139 W. 78th St. NYC"

          http://blogs.cfr.org/geographics/2011/03/24/energy-growth/


          Report comment

          • Renewables can replace N-energy if someone will wake up to many renewable options not even being recognized.

            The first is to make organic wastes into a resource by using pyrolysis on them. Some many benefits accrue as I have detailed in many blog comments that can be checked on by Googling my name. The biowastes are an already harvested biofuel crop having no costs for growing and no usurping of land and water from food crops.

            The second option is using the sun’s energy much more effectively mainly by getting catalysts to split water to get hydrogen. About a dozen catalysts have gotten reports on them in the last 3 years but Sec. of Energy, Dr. Chu seems badly misinformed to be supporting the CC&S Clean Coal farce and more N-power. So he tried to cut support for developing hydrogen soon after becoming Sec., but Congress rebuffed him. Hydrogen is the clean fuel and every effort should be made to get one or more of the catalysts working.

            A third option again with the sun would be to use solar concentrators to distill sea water to get drinking water. The concentrated salt solution left over could be used to disinfect sewage water if it goes directly to the oceans.

            Present processes for purifying seawater, none of which have been very successful, require much energy input while this process might be able to get the distilling steam generating energy.
            Dr. J. Singmaster, Environmental Chemist, Ret.

            http://blogs.cfr.org/geographics/2011/03/24/energy-growth/


            Report comment

            • The above should all be in quotes – I didn't write it, Dr Singmaster wrote it.


              Report comment

              • GeoHarvey

                You raise some interesting points.
                I think we have to bear in mind that not all waste can be used for pyrolysis. A lot of things ranging from PVC to clippings of chemically treated grass can produce dioxin. Nevertheless, I would not discourage people on the idea, just encourage them to be careful.
                The business of salt is really interesting. I did not know anything about it.
                One of my favorites, however, is hydrogen. Solar or wind can be used to drive catalysis to combine hydrogen with carbon dioxide to make methane, which can be used to fuel natural gas plants, or can be converted into automotive fuel, or as a basis for manufacture of plastics.
                We act like spoiled children sitting at the foot of a Christmas tree, surrounded by wonderful presents, but the only ones we want to open are the ones that are sooty, the ones that smell like petrochemicals, and the ones that glow in the dark.


                Report comment

  • TheBigPicture TheBigPicture

    Elected leaders, whoever and wherever you are in the world, get the ball rolling to shut nuclear plants down. We have other technologies, safe ones. So, get going on this.


    Report comment

  • Jebus Jebus

    “Only way to preserve human life is to completely turn away from nuclear power”

    This is nothing new. Some in Japan have known this for almost a decade. They have spoken out, upon deaf ears. The first nuclear reactors in Japan were designed for a ten year life span. They are going on 30 years now and have been given extensions.
    Sound familiar?

    This plea was written in 1996, a year after the Hanshin earthquake.

    It was translated and posted to Global Voices FB page on April 11, 2011. One month after Fukushima began.

    It is worth a read and was eerily prescient of events to come…

    —————————————————————

    Nuclear Power: The Hidden Truth – Norio Hirai

    This is my plea to you. When you wake up in the morning I want you to look carefully at your children. What if an earthquake happens? What of the nuclear plants then? Will we come to regret it? I want you to please think about these questions carefully.

    This is why we must not build any more nuclear stations and decommission those in operation. I strongly believe this. As long as there is nuclear power plant there is no peace.

    Let’s leave a beautiful earth to our children.

    http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=122692927808800&comments


    Report comment

  • BreadAndButter BreadAndButter

    Morning enenewsers, Mr Oe and ourselves are getting help from an unexpected side, as it seems:
    RWE (Germany's second largest nuclear investor) quits all investments in nuclear projects worldwide during the upcoming years. This info was leaked after a meeting of the top 200 managers in Istanbul.
    New CEO Peter Terium (sounds like an isotope, eh?) announced the company das "re-assassed the financial aspects of nuclear investments" and had therefore decided to accelerate its participation in solar (hear hear).

    That might make some others think, too!! Apparently, E.ON also took out the calculator…. :-)

    http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/strategiewechsel-bei-rwe-energiekonzern-baut-keine-atomkraftwerke-mehr-1.1385386

    *good day all


    Report comment

  • CB CB

    Tweeted! ROCK ON ENE!


    Report comment

  • Japan approves renewable subsidies in shift from nuclear power
    By Yuko Inoue and Leonora Walet
    TOKYO | Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:26pm IST
    (Reuters) – Japan approved on Monday incentives for renewable energy that could unleash billions of dollars in clean-energy investment and help the world's third-biggest economy shift away from a reliance on nuclear power after the Fukushima disaster.
    http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/06/18/us-energy-renewables-japan-idINBRE85H00Z20120618


    Report comment

  • 6feetunder 6feetunder

    Didn't Nobel discredit themselves a couple years back with Obombyas Peace prize? Just saying…..


    Report comment