APR: your source for nuclear news and analysis since April 16, 2010

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Public Opinion in Japan

While the rest of the world --- the part of the world NOT affected by the Great East Japan Earthquake, the resulting tsunami, and the Fukushima Daiichi Accident --- goes on as if it WERE the part of the world affected, it seems as if the Japanese are not as concerned and aren't as anti-nuclear as anyone would have suspected.

The proof is found in a document released by the JAIF (Japan Atomic Industrial Forum) which is a major trade group, for those unfamiliar, for nuclear industry in Japan and which is modeled right off the old AIF (Atomic Industrial Forum) here in the United States.

Click here to read the document.

This information is important; we've already posted here in the past about public opinion in the United States after Three Mile Island, and this compilation of survey results is telling us essentially the same thing. Click here to see my post on the public opinion post-TMI.

The more that the result of this survey compilation spreads, the better. Especially if it's in Germany and Italy. And Switzerland.

6:22 PM Eastern Tuesday June 21, 2011

Note: I've reposted this data to get it to the top of the site for the evening, and to add the link to the TMI post I made some time back because it's very relevant.


  1. Mr. Davis,
    Your cause would be better served if you addressed head-on questions such as the one below which was posed a few days ago.

    "Could you please comment on the "hot particles" about which Gundersen has warned his viewers?"

  2. @dylan: I just watched Gundersen's video covering this topic. Here is what he's doing - he's using the old PR and ad firm rule that states that "when you give the people a new word they'll think they have a new fact."

    Never, ever did I hear of any such "hot particle." Gundersen is dumbing down the terminology for listeners/ readers. What he's trying to talk about are heavy isotopes which are radioactive and are not gaseous. As such - and he mentions Uranium and Plutonium - these have been covered so widely in the general press as to make any further comment redundant. Except to say that I have no clue who the "independent scientists" he keeps referring to are.

    Oh- I also know this. During the first two months the air quality in LA was monitored, and there was even a special air quality web page that authorities put up for this. They took it back down when NOTHING was ever detected in the air. So I also don't know what Gundersen is using to be able to say that anything at all reached the United States in terms of anything harmful.

  3. While the opposition to nuclear is not overwhelming in Japan at present, the trends are currently pointing in a depressing direction. I could wish for a bolder line from the political leaders there; they seem to be jumping on the fear bandwagon without thought for the power requirements of the country, or for the actual outcome of very little harm.

    Gundersen is using magic, not physics, to imagine particles that can travel global distances without being detected near the reactors. The only hot particles that I have heard of previously are the spent fuel particles near the experimental reactor at Duonreay, Scotland, but they obeyed the usual rule of being found near the reactor and not at great distances.

    I'd add that radioactivity is relatively easy to detect, because it can be sensed at a distance - compared to say toxic chemicals, where you need to sample the chemical directly.

  4. Wait till August when anti-nuke groups worldwide will gear up in earnest to "celebrate" Japan's first evil brush with nuclear energy...

    Self-interest behooves the nuclear industry worldwide to get into Japan with some aggressive lie/misinfo/myth-busting education policies, including outtakes from these gutsy pro-nuclear blogs here. Shame Germany that Japan's at least willing to climb back on the horse that threw it instead of cutting and running without a scratch.

    James Greenidge

  5. Very optimistic interpretation. Did you look at the June results, some of which are not graphed (wonder why):

    Do you support a policy to phase out nuclear power with a goal to abandon it? Agree 74%, disagree 14%.

    Do you think natural (renewable) energy will be an energy source which will replace nuclear energy? Yes 64%, no 24%.

    What should be done about domestic nuclear power plants?
    - Increase: 1% (7% in Apr)
    - Maintain the status quo: 27% (42% in Apr)

    - Should decrease: 47% (32% in Apr)
    - Abolish totally: 18% (12% in Apr)

    If anything Germans, Swiss, Italians etc. would feel vindicated. Of course, you can always interpret you own "optimistic" way.

    Things may go the other way over the next years of course, but at present I'd hardly call these supportive of nuclear energy. Unless you are an optimist, of course.

    Nothing against optimism, trying to practice is every day.

  6. @ashen: Sure, you've nothing against optimism; you're just against nuclear energy. But we knew that. The surprise in this polling (and I did read all of it, thanks!) is that it isn't WORSE for nuclear. That's the revealing thing; it's just like after TMI. And as we know, feeling about TMI waned to allow the start of a new nuclear era here, which is on the move.. as Westinghouse prepares to deliver fuel elements for Watts Bar No. 2 in a month or so.