> politicians having replaced the old one. So very clearly a political move.

The old regulator: 'The Nuclear & Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) granted a 10-year licence extension for Fukushima Daiichi 1 in February 2011, after technical review and some modifications in 2010.'

In March 2011, a month later, the reactor was destroyed incl. a fuel meltdown. It will take decades to clean up the mess. It wasn't even this reactor alone, units 2,3 and 4 were also damaged. Units 5 and 6 are given up in 2013.

Yeah, it was definitely a political move to replace the old regulator. The regulator was corrupt, incompetent, without power, ... The experts have failed. They had granted a ten year life extension to a reactor, which only days later was destroyed in a large scale accident.

It took a political move to replace them. Fully justified.

Don't read the torygraph or treehugger. Read the updates from the World Nuclear Association:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-pro...

> Yeah, it was definitely a political move to replace the old regulator.

> The regulator was corrupt, incompetent, without power, .

And that was a legal decision? A technical decision? Oh wait, no! It was a political decision. Made by politicians.

> It took a political move to replace them.

Exactly. So why are you scoffing at me saying that it was a political move?

> Fully justified.

That's your (political) evaluation of that decision. Hmm...last I checked you scoffed at me for my evaluation.

You keep citing that article, but it proves my point.

"However, following the Fukushima accident, in October 2011 the government sought to greatly reduce the role of nuclear power."

Political decision.

Anyway, you still haven't provided any citations to prove your point, and haven't refuted my quotes that clearly show (a) that shutdowns were often routine maintenance (every 13 months) and (b) that blocking startup was frequently due to local political opposition.

So in essence, you have an opinion and not much else.

> Oh wait, no! It was a political decision. Made by politicians.

I'm not sure where you live, but in the country where I live energy policy is done by elected politicians, not by unelected technocrats.

It's their job. That's why we elect them.

The decision to replace the old regulatory body was made because the old regulatory body failed. Technically. Practically. In every single way. A nuclear reactor which they just granted a 10 year lifetime extension blew up days later and was a total wreck then. A multi-billion-dollar-wreck. Who would have left these people in office?

> Political decision.

You say that in a negative way. Every decision done is political. You live in a fairy tale world if you think unelected technocrats should make the decisions. The job of a politician is to make decisions based on all kinds of influences: technical, economical, social, ... That's exactly their job. If a technology (here nuclear) is not safe, costly, has no acceptance, etc, ... then this technology has to be reduced/removed and has to be replaced by safer technologies.

Politicians decided to invest into nuclear and set up the market, the regulatory bodies, the financing, etc. for it. They can also decide to reduce or completely abandon nuclear - if the voters demand that. That's why we have them.

Energy policy is political. Energy policy decisions are finally made by politicians we can elect. Not by TEPCO, Toshiba, ... There are huge amounts of money involved, paid by the tax payer (there is no other insurance of a nuclear power plant, the tax payer pays this show: the taxpayer finances the research, the infrastructure, the financing of the plants, and it keeps bankrupt companies like TEPCO from collapsing by pouring more money into them) and by electricity consumers. No nuclear power plant would exist without political decisions, public money, and a distorted market. It's no wonder nuclear especially grows in authoritarian states like Russia and China. There unelected technocrats make the decisions in combination with authoritarian politicians.

> quotes that clearly show (a) that shutdowns were often routine maintenance (every 13 months) and (b) that blocking startup was frequently due to local political opposition.

You still have not read the overview of the World Nuclear Association. Japan had literally to invest many billions to upgrade their reactor fleet. Old ones which weren't economic to upgrade were closed. Dangerous ones, for example sitting on top of fault lines, are not being opened again.

Glad you finally agree that these were political decisions. That's what I was saying, not sure why you disagreed.

Political decisions based on obvious facts. Great that we agree. :-)

Political decisions based, as always, on political pressures.