What we can see from the catastrophe at the Fukushima nuclear power plant (Part 1)

What we can see from the catastrophe at the Fukushima nuclear power plant (Part 1) 


                                            (From a lecture recording)



The Fukushima power plant accident and the impasse of human society



In 2007, I published the book, “A Country’s Ideal and the Constitution?The 


Road to a Nation for International Peace and the Environment” (Japanese), and 


in 2008, the English translation was published under the title, “Beyond 


National Egoism”. At age 22, I encountered the concept that is presented in 


this book. This book was a compilation of more than 40 years of contemplation 


since then.


The present world is at an impasse because of various difficult problems such as 


war, conflicts, terrorism, environmental problems, food supply shortage, 


poverty, famine, and energy shortage. Human society is facing an unprecedented 




Further, amidst this, in Japan there are not only environmental problems, but 


also educational issues such as bullying, school absenteeism, and classroom 


disruption and chaos. Considering the young people, many of them say that in 


this society, they cannot find a worthy purpose or motivation in living. Of 


course, there are many young people who are working hard and doing their best, 


but overall, we can see a tendency of extremely weak will. I feel this is 


something that should be very alarming regarding the future of Japan.


In addition, the direction toward strengthening the U.S.-Japan Alliance and 


having Japan participate in wars along with the U.S., has gradually gained 


strength. Through all this, it appears that Japan has reached an impasse because 


of various factors, such as whether the Constitution, which is the key point of 


Japan’s future, should be revised or not.


This unprecedented crisis of humankind did not begin recently. The survival of 


humankind itself was endangered in the Cold War era in which the U.S. and Soviet 


Union confronted each other over decades in a state of extreme tension with the 


possibility of an all-out nuclear war because they held several tens of 


thousands of nuclear arms that were said to have the potential to kill all 


humankind many tens of times over.


Fortunately, the collapse of the Soviet Union signaled the end of the Cold War. 


However, although the situation is no longer as tense as before, the U.S. and 


Russia still have a large quantity of nuclear weapons. After the end of the Cold 


War, besides the U.S. and Russia, there has been an increase in the number of 


countries including China that possess and are strengthening their nuclear 


weapons. Certainly, it is thought that there is no longer a threat of an all-out 


nuclear war for now, but the risk of nuclear war has not necessarily gone away. 


In addition, from 30 years ago, the problem of global-scale environmental 


destruction has emerged in a big way. We have come to understand that if we 


continue production and economic growth in the present form, the earth 


environment itself will be destroyed and the survival of humans will be 


threatened in the future.


In my youth, when I learned that we might end up destroying ourselves, I felt 


greatly shocked, and thought, “Humans are so foolish.” At the same time, I 


thought, “Humans absolutely cannot be such foolish beings. Humans will 


unfailingly realize their mistakes, correct them with their own hands, and 


should be able to bring to reality a world where everyone is happy and at peace


”. Since that time, as my life theme, I have been contemplating a solution for 


the impasse faced by Japan and the world, and the realization of a happy and 


peaceful world.


The main theme of those contemplations is as follows. In order to resolve the 


impasse faced by human society, find the most fundamental cause of the impasse 


of human society and determine what can be done to remove the cause. The work 


was complied together as the book, “Beyond National Egoism”.




The nuclear power plant catastrophe that was forewarned frequently


This book explains about the impasse condition of the entire human society, 


including Japan, from various angles. The risks of a nuclear power plant 


accident are described in considerable detail.


Already two months have passed since the accident occurred at the Fukushima 


Daiichi Power Plant this year, on March 11. That day, at our house, we also felt 


tremors with an intensity of a weak 6 on the Japanese seven-level seismic scale. 


After a while, we heard news of this nuclear plant accident, and my first 


thought was, “It happened, after all”. If I were to express my feelings of 


that time, only the word “chagrin” comes to mind. 


What I mean is that already 4 to 5 years ago, in this book, I had written that 


the risk of a nuclear power plant accident is very great, and that if an 


accident were to occur, undoubtedly, it would happen in the way that occurred 


this time. Indeed, it happened exactly as described.


Actually, I felt perplexed that my prediction was accurate. What I mean is that 


I am not an expert regarding nuclear power, nor am I an expert in social 




So, when I was working on the book, “Beyond National Egoism”, I read books 


from various related fields of study in order to examine what is actually 




I looked over about 10 to 20 books related to nuclear power. What I learned from 


reading those books is that already from several decades earlier, although their 


numbers were not at all large, reliable researchers and concerned experts warned 


based on scientific knowledge and research, “Nuclear power plants are extremely 




Despite these warnings, finally, a large-scale nuclear power plant accident 


occurred this time. I was stunned and appalled as I thought anew about what on 


earth we had been doing until now.


Various people have been fervently warning about the risks of nuclear power. Of 


course, there are many people who lent an ear to those warnings, and worked 


hard, raising their voices and taking action to abandon nuclear power. But, 


despite these efforts and activities, a large-scale nuclear plant accident 


occurred this time.


This means that overall, still, only a small number of people seriously lent an 


ear to the warnings of these people and assertively took action based on those 


warnings. As a result, doesn’t this indicate that they could not become a 


definitive force to change this country of Japan? 



Search for the essence of the Fukushima nuclear power plant accident


A large-scale nuclear power plant accident already occurred in Fukushima, but to 


avoid this kind of accident from ever happening again, I feel that now of all 


times, we must address anew the importance of “thinking seriously and acting 




As I mentioned before, I am not an expert regarding nuclear power. In this 


aspect, I am a complete amateur. However, as of four years ago, since I read 


various books and studied in order to write “Beyond National Egoism”, I was 


better informed than the general level people regarding nuclear power. 


But, after the nuclear plant accident in Fukushima, various people have spoken 


out about nuclear power on television, in the newspapers, on the Internet, etc. 


Even people whose voices were small until now have received great coverage. 


Accordingly, many of you probably already know well about what I will discuss 


from now.


So, even though this is the case, the main topic of today’s talk is to search 


for the essence of the problem as we verify anew the information one more time.



The myth of the safety of nuclear power was disproved


First, the biggest thing that has become clear until now is that the electric 


power companies and the government or Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry 


have been saying that nuclear power is absolutely safe, and that this myth of 


the safety of nuclear power has been completely disproved.


Concomitantly, it became clear that until now, the electric power companies had 


been saying lies upon lies. This means that from now, the situation has become 


such that no matter what the electric power companies such as Tokyo Electric 


Power Company, Chubu Electric Power Company, and Kansai Electric Power Company 


try to say, we have reached the point where we will not be able to trust them 




To put it simply, we were being deceived by the government and the electric 


power companies. In other words, it means we were completely taken for fools. It 


is something I had realized, but anew, I feel deeply chagrined.


Furthermore, in the announcements by the Tokyo Electric Power Company and the 


government, the word, “unexpected” is used very frequently. Various things 


have been said about this point, but with just a little studying, even an 


amateur like myself could “expect” the possibility of this kind of accident 




What on earth does it mean when a person who is said to be a specialist, uses 


the word “unexpected” regarding something that an amateur like me can 




Although I am an amateur regarding nuclear power, in the past, I was a 


researcher in the sciences. From that perspective, I feel that it is extremely 


disgraceful for an expert to overuse the word “unexpected”. Their intent to 


want to evade the issue and continue nuclear power even now is obvious. 



Is nuclear power cheap?


There is another point to consider. Until now, as one of the grounds for 


supporting nuclear power, the government and electric power companies have been 


saying that nuclear power generation is less expensive than thermal power and 


other power generation methods.


For example, according to the “Energy White Paper” (2010 edition) of the 


Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, the costs of power generation per 


kilowatt hour are 7 to 8 yen for thermal generation using liquified natural gas, 


8 to 13 yen for hydraulic power, 10 to 14 yen for wind power, and 49 yen for 


solar power. In comparison, nuclear power is 5 to 6 yen per kWh.


However, until now, many experts have been saying that based on data, nuclear 


power is certainly not cheap, and is also not less expensive than thermal power.


Recently, in the April 30 issue of the Tokyo Newspaper, Professor Kenichi Oshima 


of Ritsumeikan University presented data comparing the costs until now of 


nuclear power generation with other methods such as thermal and hydraulic 


generation. These can be found through a search on the Internet. Starting from 


the reports of the electric companies, Professor Oshima calculated the costs 


more precisely by adding factors such as taxes to promote development of nuclear 


power and expenses for reprocessing spent nuclear fuel that were not included in 


the calculations of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry.


By doing so, the costs of power generation per kilowatt hour are 9.90 yen for 


thermal power, 7.26 yen for hydraulic power, and 10.68 yen for nuclear power, so 


nuclear power is the most expensive. Furthermore, this is approximately twice 


the 5 to 6 yen calculated cost that the government used in the “Energy White 


Paper” mentioned above. 


In addition, for nuclear power generation, a pumping-up hydroelectric power 


plant is necessary. In other words, the nuclear power plant and pumping-up 


hydroelectric power plant are a set, and in this case, the cost becomes 12. 23 


yen. So, nuclear power is certainly not cheap.



Does nuclear power save on petroleum?


Another grounds for the theory of promoting nuclear power is the assertion, 


“Nuclear power saves on petroleum”. Is this really true?


To check this, we only need to calculate the electrical power productivity 


ratio. For a power generation method, the electrical power productivity ratio is 


the ratio of the amount of energy of all the petroleum input for generating 


electricity to the electric power generated, converted into the amount of 


petroleum energy.


This means that if the output energy is greater than the input energy (converted 


into petroleum), that is, if the electrical power productivity ratio is greater 


than 1, the energy balance is positive, and it would be meaningful to implement 


that power generation method. Also, the larger the electrical power productivity 


ratio, the more efficient the power generation method from the perspective of 


energy balance. In short, it would mean that method is also profitable 


economically and saves on petroleum.


In contrast, if the productivity ratio is less than 1, the energy balance would 


be negative, and it would mean there is no point in implementing that power 


generation method. Even worse, if the method were implemented, it would be a 


loss economically and a wasteful use of petroleum.


For example, in the case of coal-fired power generation, the power created from 


coal that was mined by using 1 unit of petroleum is said to be equivalent to 


about 100 units of petroleum. That means the electrical power productivity ratio 


is 100, and coal-fired power generation makes sense. 


However, for petroleum-fired power generation, in which petroleum is used to 


drill for petroleum that is burned to generate electricity, the electrical power 


productivity ratio is much larger than 100. This means that from the energy 


balance perspective, petroleum-fired power generation is much more efficient 


than coal-fired power generation. For this reason, usage of coal-fired power 


generation declined. 


Now, how about nuclear power generation? According to the calculations by the 


U.S. Bureau of Energy Development in 1976, the electrical productivity ratio was 


3.8 for nuclear power in the U.S. The figure was 4.0 according to a report of 


the Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry in Japan in 1991, 


although the details of the calculations were not made public. It is believed 


that these figures are nearly the same because the calculations were based on 


similar presumptions such as the model set-up and processes.


It is clear that when calculating energy balance, if there are oversights of 


conditions that ought to be assumed in the calculations, that is, if some 


elements are left out, it will not lead to accurate results.


First, to calculate the energy input, all of the energy input for generation of 


electricity must be totaled. For example, everything must be incorporated, such 


as mining and refining of uranium, expenditures for construction of the power 


generation plant, costs of operating the power plant, and expenditures for 


construction of the pumping-up hydroelectric power generation plant needed to 


run the nuclear plant. From the output energy, it is necessary to subtract 


factors such as expenditures for processing the nuclear waste materials, and 


losses from factors such as transmission and nighttime electricity usage at the 


pumping-up hydroelectric power generation plant.


Dr. Atsushi Tsuchida, a physicist, has pointed out that there were considerable 


oversights in the calculations of the U.S. Bureau of Energy Development, and 


correcting for these, he calculated the following results.


Regarding the “energy input”, construction of a pumping-up hydroelectric power 


plant required for operating a nuclear power plant, construction of an electric 


power plant and electricity used for operation, and construction of a long 


distance electrical transmission facility were overlooked elements, so these 


were added. In addition, regarding “energy output”, nighttime power loss in a 


pumping-up hydroelectric power plant and losses in transmission were subtracted. 


By doing so, it is said that the energy balance becomes almost 1.


From this alone, it means there is no meaning in implementing nuclear power. 


Further, by adding the considerable amount of energy consumed over a long period 


of time for such things as processing radioactive waste, no matter how 


optimistically you look at it, the energy balance will become less than one. 


Professor Takeshi Murota, a mathematical economist, also calculated nearly the 


same results.


From these results, we can say that nuclear power generation makes no sense at 


all for power generation. Rather, nuclear power generation does not save on 


petroleum and is a big wasteful use of petroleum.


In short, the truth is that nuclear power is first of all, extremely dangerous, 


incurs a high cost, and also does not save on petroleum.



Can we get by without nuclear power?


There is another point to consider. It is often questioned, “Can we get by 


without nuclear power?” Certainly, if there is a shortage of electricity, it 


would cause hindrances including in daily life, industrial and economic 


activities, and all activities related to subsistence, so we can say it is a 


very big issue. Accordingly, now, many people are saying, “Without nuclear 


power, there will be an electricity shortage”, and they are using this as a 


major grounds for continuing or promoting nuclear power.


Is this really true? Let us look at the actual figures. Dr. Hiroaki Koide of the 


Kyoto University Research Reactor Institute has pointed out that in Japan 


overall, thermal power generation is operating at 50% capacity, and hydraulic 


power generation is at 19% capacity. Thus, if the operating rates of thermal and 


hydraulic power generation were increased, there would be a sufficient surplus 


in power generation capacity even without operating nuclear plants. 


In fact, the total of thermal and hydraulic power generation capacity is 170 


million KW. Except for the few hours in the afternoon in mid-summer, with the 


sum of thermal power and hydraulic power, the electricity demand can be covered 


even without nuclear power. The highest electricity consumption on record so far 


in Japan is 182 million KW, and that exceeds the sum of thermal and hydraulic 


power generation by 12 million KW.


There would be a slight electricity shortfall only in the period of a few hours 


when air conditioners are used in summer and electricity consumption peaks. 


Therefore, by taking effective measures to suppress the overall amount of 


electricity used in this peak time, it is fully possible to abandon nuclear 




To suppress the overall amount of electricity used during the peak time, 


suppress the electricity consumed by air conditioners by setting the air 


conditioner temperature just a little higher. As an alternative, to suppress the 


electricity consumption during peak times in places such as factories, 


production adjustments can be made such as staggering the operating times for 


the various types of equipment. Furthermore, measures, such as setting the 


electricity rates for peak times higher, as in France, are fully effective for 


suppressing the overall amount of electricity used. In short, we can survive 


sufficiently well without nuclear power. 



Let us consider this by referring to a more concrete example.


At present, the Hamaoka Nuclear Power Plant has been suspended, that is, 


operations have stopped. According to the “Electrical Power Supply Plan” for 


the year 2011 in the Chubu Electric Power Company home page, the generation 


reserve margin was 2.95 million KW for the year 2010. In mid-summer last year, 


which was a heat wave, only reactors 3 and 4 at Hamaoka were operating, and they 


had a total supply capacity of 2.237 million kW. 


That means if reactors 3 and 4 at Hamaoka had not been operating, 2,950,000 - 


2,237,000 = 713,000 kW would have been left in the generation reserve margin.


In addition, the generation reserve margin this year was 4,390,000 kW. Chubu 


Electric Power Company itself has forecast that even if the Hamaoka nuclear 


plant were completely stopped, which is a reduction of 3,617,000 kW, more than 


773,000 kW would be left. Even without nuclear power, other types of power 


generation such as thermal and hydraulic power generation will suffice.


In addition, the following article appeared in the June 12, 2011 Asahi Newspaper 


with the title, “Summer electricity demand, and securing supply capacity. Tokyo 


Electric Power Company moves toward restarting the Hirono Power Plant”.


“All five of the reactors (total output power 3.8 million kW) at the Hirono 


Thermal Power Plant (Hirono Town, Fukushima Prefecture) of Tokyo Electric Power 


Company that had stopped operations after being damaged by the tsunami in the 


Great East Japan Earthquake, are expected to be able to restart operations in 


the middle of July. Therefore, the probability has increased that Tokyo Electric 


Power Company will be able to secure power supply exceeding the forecasted 


highest demand this summer of 55 million kW. (omission of middle part)


If the Hirono Thermal Power Plant starts up, it will become possible to add more 


power with the pumping-up hydroelectric power plant that draws up water with the 


leftover electricity at night.” 


In short, it is an article saying that even in the Tokyo Electric Power Company 


district, they can likely manage without nuclear power this summer. Therefore, 


for example, if everyone sets the air conditioner temperature about 1 degree 


higher, it would easily save on about one nuclear reactor’s worth of 


electricity. So including businesses, if we make a point to conserve electricity 


in our work and daily life, it is fully possible to avoid a shortage of 


electricity without forcing people to endure great hardship.


In other words, from now, we need to change and correct the way we had been 


squandering electricity like water, and endeavor to conserve electricity as much 


as possible. By doing so, and by using only thermal power, hydraulic power, or 


natural energy sources, we can make do even without nuclear power. This can be 


done without lowering the present level of our daily lives or work efficiency of 


businesses, and without raising production costs.


These past several decades, the government has promoted nuclear power as a 


national policy. For this reason, along with thermal power, nuclear power has 


become one of the two large pillars for generating electricity. In other words, 


even though we could have sufficiently met the electricity demands from the 


beginning with methods other than nuclear power, such as thermal power, as the 


main source for generating electricity, nuclear power has been firmly 


incorporated into our daily electricity generation system as a national policy, 


and this structure has left our lives, economic activities and other areas 


dependent on nuclear power.


As a consequence, if we were to suddenly abolish all nuclear power now, 


realistically, adjustments could not be made in time, and in some regions, there 


may be temporary electricity shortages. In this sense, it is certain that how to 


get by through periods of potential electricity shortages is a major issue, and 


we must deal with this carefully. 



The potential for a catastrophe from factors such as a terrorist attack


The accident this time arose from an earthquake and tsunami, but there is 


something else we must consider.


It has not been mentioned often, but in fact, there is a very strong possibility 


that if a nuclear power plant were struck in an airplane crash, missile attack 


or terrorist attack, a catastrophe would occur. 


Based on the principle or structure of a nuclear power plant, it would not be 


possible to prevent a catastrophe if a nuclear plant were struck in an airplane 


crash or military attack. 


In short, nuclear power plants were not designed and built assuming a military 


attack or plane crash. The structures were designed and built on the premise 


that they would be operating during a so-called “era of peace” in which there 


is no war or terrorism. 


In the case of Japan, there are 54 nuclear reactors, and they are located along 


the coastline almost all across the country. If there were a country that 


planned to attack Japan, this would be exactly the same as setting nuclear bombs 


throughout the country.


If a nuclear plant were struck by an airplane, missile, or another form of 


terrorism, it would be the same as having dropped several nuclear bombs on 


Japan. If so, Japan would virtually be annihilated, and there would be no longer 


any place where humans could live in Japan. This would be an extremely terrible 




In this sense, as long as Japan has nuclear power plants, no matter how much the 


military power is strengthened, it would be impossible to prevent attacks from 


other countries against nuclear plants. This may be black humor, but it means 


that if Japan continues to maintain nuclear power plants from now also, there is 


no way for Japan to survive except by completely abolishing all military forces 


and aspiring toward becoming an absolutely peaceful, friendly country that would 


never be attacked by other countries.


Incidentally, Western countries have conducted research and implemented training 


assuming a terrorist attack on a nuclear plant. In 1981, a nuclear reactor in 


Iraq was actually bombed by Israel. 


(Supplementary note: According to the Asahi Newspaper of July 31, 2011, prompted 


by the bombing incident of the nuclear reactor in Iraq, the Ministry of Foreign 


Affairs started damage prediction research in absolute secrecy for the case of 


an attack on a domestic nuclear plant. In 1984, findings were submitted stating 


that an attack on a nuclear plant would cause enormous damage. Nevertheless, it 


was not made public for fear of expanding the anti-nuclear power movement.)



We have been deceived about everything


Now, I would like to summarize the various things that we have considered up to 


this point. In a word, perhaps we have been deceived about everything after all. 


With the catastrophe at the Fukushima nuclear plant this time, not only has it 


been proven by actual fact that nuclear plants, which the electric power 


companies and government have been saying are absolutely safe until now, are 


extremely dangerous, but also, all of the factors that have been considered as 


advantages and grounds for promoting nuclear power were in fact disadvantages.


What does this mean? To put it simply, from the beginning, there was absolutely 


no meaning in implementing nuclear power. With nuclear power, we, the general 


public, only suffer major losses, and nuclear power is extremely dangerous. 


Perhaps this has become clear to many people through the nuclear plant accident 


at Fukushima.


As I mentioned earlier, one more very important point here is that from several 


decades ago, concerned people have been warning repeatedly about these facts.


At the same time, it means there was the influence of electric power companies, 


government, bureaucrats, politicians, the financial world, scholars who wanted 


research funds, and media under the government’s thumb, that sealed off the 


voices of these warnings. In addition, many of us have lived either believing 


unconditionally the words of people in high positions, such as people in the 


government and electric companies, or pretending not to see even while doubting, 


or being completely apathetic to these matters. Perhaps it can be said that a 


combination of these led to the catastrophe this time. 


Ignorance, apathy, leaving matters to others, and giving up are the fundamental 




In short, what I want to say is that, here and now, we ought to properly reflect 


on our own attitude in life, and not try to settle this problem only by one-


sidedly criticizing the electric power companies or government.


For example, although it is pathetic, until the nuclear accident in Fukushima, 


many people did not know that there are 54 reactors in Japan. In addition, we 


can hear the voices of many people who say that because of this accident, for 


the first time, they realized that nuclear power is dangerous. 


Regarding nuclear power, it is clear that the government, electric power 


companies, and others were to blame, but at the same time, we have been 


deficient in many ways. Consequently, the outcome is that we have been 


supporting these kinds of electric power companies, the government, and others. 


If we do not properly reflect on this fact, we cannot create a peaceful and 


happy Japan in the true sense from now. Taking the nuclear power issue as one 


example, I feel that without proper self-reflection, the decisions may go awry 


depending on the situation from now. Further, in other serious societal issues 


besides nuclear power, such as the issue of revising the constitution of Japan, 


the possibility of choosing the wrong path may result. So in this sense too, it 


can be said that we are standing at a major crossroad or critical turning point 




To put it another way, I feel that now of all times, we must make this an 


opportunity to create a country of Japan that is truly peaceful and where 


everyone is happy. We must put forth all our effort to recover from this 


difficult situation as quickly as possible. At the same time, we must 


investigate the fundamental cause that triggered this difficult situation, so 


that not only the nuclear power accident, but this kind of tragedy never occurs 


again, and implement a thorough fundamental treatment in our way of living as 


individuals, in addition to the government and society’s way of being. 



“O-kami-shinko” (blind faith in the government) is no good


Let us consider a little further about these matters. As a general trend, 


Japanese people tend to have “o-kami-shinko” (blind faith in the government). 


The Japanese people, for no reason at all, tend to accept without questioning 


what people “above” say, such as people in high positions in the government, 


university professors, or a president of a large company.


Of course, regarding politicians, for example, we hear conversations of 


complaints about the present prime minister. However, overall, although it is 


odd to say “above” when there is truly no above or below, the nature of 


Japanese people is that there is a tendency to accept without questioning what 


is told to them from “a person above”. Regarding the nuclear power problem, 


perhaps this is one of the fundamental causes on our side.


From another perspective, we do not attempt to know the details, or rather, know 


accurately. This is apathy, which is saying that the matter is something for 


people in high positions to consider and is irrelevant to me. It is also leaving 


matters to others to do, and saying it is not something I can do. Ignorance 


comes from this apathy. I may sound like I am talking patronizingly, but this 


time, I myself cannot say that I do not have this tendency.


Another point is “giving up”. Perhaps an extremely large number of people feel 


somewhere in their heart, “ultimately, that kind of thing can’t be helped”. 


It is a sense of giving up and saying, “even if each of us raises our voice, 


ultimately, it can’t be helped”.


Ignorance, apathy, leaving matters to others, and giving up. These are the 


biggest causes of the Fukushima nuclear accident. Would it be going too far to 


say that before reproaching the attitude of the electric power companies or 


government, we ourselves, each one of us, must reflect on ourselves?


After saying this now, I, myself do not think this statement is going too far, 


but I feel deeply anew that this “ignorance, apathy, leaving matters to others, 


and giving up” of all things are the fundamental causes of the catastrophe at 


the Fukushima nuclear plant. 


In other words, in general, each one of us is lacking the proper recognition 


that “this society, this country and the world are ours”. For this reason, we 


ourselves were lacking the awareness that “we are to create this society, this 


country, and this world with our hands”. Regarding the country, does it not 


mean, “a clear vision of what kind of Japan we are going to create in the 


future, and a true ideal that anyone can accept, has not been set forth in the 


country of Japan”? 



There are still many who are in favor of nuclear power


From what I have discussed until now, I think you have understood that with a 


little investigation, anyone can understand matters such as “nuclear power is 


far from being cheap”.


There are people who think as follows. “Nuclear power and radiation are scary 


for some reason. An accident actually occurred. Therefore, I am opposed to 


nuclear power.” Nevertheless, by actually talking with people, I found that 


there are many people around me who actually support and promote nuclear power. 


I feel that there are still only a small number of people who absolutely oppose 


nuclear power no matter the circumstances; that is, these people feel that we 


will create a society free of nuclear power from now. In questionnaires by 


newspapers and other sources, it seems that 70% oppose nuclear power now, but by 


talking with people in actual daily life, it seems maybe about one quarter of 


the people would abandon nuclear power no matter the circumstances. 


It seems that the remaining three quarters now feel that it would be better not 


to have nuclear power. However, it appears they think that if there would be an 


electricity shortage without nuclear power, or if it would unfavorably influence 


their work, or if economic growth could not be maintained, maybe continuing 


nuclear power is unavoidable. In other words, I think there are a fair number of 


people who feel strongly against nuclear power now, but would switch to 


continuing or promoting nuclear power depending on the circumstances. 


This means that assuming one quarter of the people say they absolutely oppose 


nuclear power no matter the circumstances, if the remaining three quarters 


support nuclear power depending on the situation, nuclear power will continue 




Probably, there are electric power companies, government-related people and 


bureaucrats who would gain by continuing or promoting nuclear power, and they 


have united and promoted nuclear power, but I believe the number of these people 


is about 1% of the total population or less. 


The remaining 99% is the general population. So, if we, the general population, 


just clearly understand that nuclear power truly makes no sense, has no 


advantages, and of course, does not even save on petroleum, nor reduce carbon 


dioxide emissions, and on top of that, is tremendously dangerous, it will be 


possible to abolish nuclear power permanently. 



Not even one advantage to nuclear power


This is an important topic, so I will go over it again. Many people think there 


are advantages and disadvantages to nuclear power. In addition, they try to 


decide whether to support or oppose nuclear power by weighing the advantages and 


disadvantages on a balance, and seeing which is heavier.


Of the disadvantages, the biggest factor is the fact that nuclear power is 


excessively dangerous. Assuming nuclear power has some advantages, even so, the 


disadvantage of being excessively dangerous far outweighs all of the advantages 


combined, and I, myself, feel that nuclear power should be abolished 




Yet, here is a problem of a difference in sense of values. For example, some 


people say as follows. Economic growth is more important than anything else. 


Electricity is needed for economic growth. Even if nuclear power is dangerous, 


it is necessary for supplying electricity. 


In other words, it is the theory that nuclear power is necessary for the sake of 


economic growth, even if there is a dangerous aspect of nuclear power. Perhaps 


the words, “economic growth” could be replaced by, “maintaining the present 


lifestyle”, “continuing the present work”, or “securing and maintaining the 


present income”.


It would mean that support or opposition to nuclear power would depend on each 


person’s sense of values, and further, a person’s way of thinking would change 


according to the social conditions of the time. Under such circumstances, it is 


only natural that a clear conclusion could never be reached. Furthermore, even 


if a conclusion were forcibly drawn, if the conclusion were mistaken, it would 


mean leaving problems in the future. 


However, what I have described so far is, “The fact is that there is absolutely 


no advantage to nuclear power.” If you investigate the actual situation 


regarding all of the factors that were said to be advantages, there is nothing 


that can be called an advantage peculiar to nuclear power, and instead, they are 




In this way, if it becomes clear that there are absolutely no advantages to 


nuclear power, what remains is only the disadvantage that nuclear power is 


excessively dangerous. That means, no matter what, nuclear power ought to be 


abolished as soon as possible and permanently.



Just understanding is not enough


I think you have already agreed with what I have discussed so far. However, by 


that only, nothing will change. 


Some people comment as follows. “I read books on nuclear power. I also looked 


at some websites. I went to listen to some lectures. I see now that nuclear 


power is dangerous. There are no advantages to nuclear power. I understand very 


well that there is no meaning in implementing nuclear power. Therefore, I oppose 


nuclear power.” Perhaps, we can say this is some progress, but I think that 


with this only, it will not be possible to immediately and permanently abolish 


all nuclear power.


In other words, nothing will change if a person just says, "I oppose nuclear 


power", and does nothing more. This has been proven by many examples in history. 


To put it simply, it means, "Peace will not become reality by only praying". 


Toward bringing to reality true peace, I feel that by boldly conveying one’s 


thoughts to others through certain and concrete methods, we must increase the 


number of people who agree. In short, perhaps the most important lesson we ought 


to learn from the nuclear power plant accident is that unless each one of us 


becomes "a person who truly takes action", nothing will change in this society. 



Increase your ability to convey to others


For this purpose, first, each one of us must understand properly as a fact and 


theoretically, "Why it is necessary to abolish all nuclear power immediately". 


Next, it is necessary to develop the ability to properly explain this to others 


with reliable theory and facts. In addition, I feel we must find opportunities 


and boldly convey this truth to others. 


For this, developing your abilities by assertively reading relevant books and 


websites, and participating in lectures and study groups is very effective. In 


addition, introducing good books and websites to acquaintances and inviting them 


to lectures and study groups are effective methods.


For example, how would you reply to opinions such as the following? "Nuclear 


power is necessary to continue economic growth". "With natural energy, power 


generation is unstable and the efficiency is not good, so it will not substitute 


for nuclear power that is stable and is efficient in power generation." "With 


just one gram of uranium, nuclear power generation can produce the energy of two 


tons of petroleum. Nuclear power is far more efficient".


Regarding the first opinion, "Nuclear power is necessary to continue economic 


growth", as I already explained, you can present figures that have been reported 


and say, "Even without nuclear power, thermal and hydraulic power generation are 




Regarding the second opinion, ""With natural energy, power generation is 


unstable, and the efficiency is not good, so it will not substitute for nuclear 


power that is stable and is efficient in power generation", certainly, at the 


present stage, it is a fact that power generation with natural energy is 


unstable, and the efficiency is not high. 


For spreading and expanding natural energy power generation, it is hoped that 


from now, power generation efficiency will be increased by major technological 


innovations, and at the same time, stability and control technology will improve 


through computer technology such as "smart grid". By doing so, power generation 


by natural energy will become increasingly important as a promising power 


generation method in the future.


In addition, the efficiency of power generation with nuclear power is certainly 


not high compared to thermal power and hydraulic power. From this aspect also, 


thermal power, hydraulic power, and natural energy can sufficiently supply the 


required electrical power.


Regarding the third opinion, "With just one gram of uranium, nuclear power 


generation can produce the energy of two tons of petroleum. Nuclear power is far 


more efficient", by thinking about this just a little, people might think, 


"That's amazing". However, this is a numerical trick. 


Indeed, it is amazing that with just one gram of uranium, the energy of two tons 


of petroleum will be output. However, the refined one-gram of uranium does not 


exist in that form from the beginning. By digging deep into the earth, soil- or 


rock-containing uranium is extracted. Of this extracted soil or rock, only a 


small portion contains uranium, and of that uranium, only 0.07% is uranium-235, 


which is used in nuclear power.


This means that we are only saying that the final one-gram of uranium, which was 


produced by repeatedly concentrating the uranium from the first stage where it 


was contained in soil or rock, is equivalent to the energy of two tons of 


petroleum. Therefore, from the initial condition of being in the soil or rock 


deep underground, by no means does crude uranium have so much power compared to 




There is no doubt that concentrated and refined uranium has tremendous energy. 


However, to refine and concentrate uranium to that extent requires an enormous 


amount petroleum or electricity produced from petroleum.


By verifying the facts one by one, as above, it is possible to disprove with 


certainty the basis upon which various people say that nuclear power is 


necessary and to persuade them.



Convey to others with certainty


In this way, each person conveys with certainty to others regarding the truth 


about nuclear power. Convey with certainty to 5, 10 or even 100 people. Those 


people to whom the information was conveyed also convey to 5, 10 or 100 people. 


I feel that if this chain reaction does not reach the final goal, it will not be 


possible to truly abolish nuclear power, of course, nor to bring to reality a 


society of true peace where everyone is happy.


I feel that the fact that each one of us could not do so until now, is the 


biggest cause of making Japan a country that would bring about the catastrophe 


at the Fukushima nuclear power plant. In this sense, perhaps serious 


consideration of "What is true happiness?" and "becoming a person who takes 


action in earnest" are the things most needed from each one of us now.

(to be continued)


Monday, August 1, 2011