The "more political thread" besides "Japan Earthquake: nuclear plants" scientific one

clancy688

He's right when he criticises the media hysteria which pushed another disaster in the background.
But then he keeps on arguing that because there were no deaths by radiation, Fukushima wasn't a "real disaster". Which's pretty much ******** in my opinion. He's making a mistake many people are tempted to do - he's narrowing down the catgorization of a disaster on caused deaths alone.
If you're instead looking at "lifes heavily affected", then Fukushima is a major, major disaster.

Sure, radiation didn't kill anyone (so far) in Fukushima. But that's not the point. 100.000 people lost their homes for years, some probably for decades. Hundreds of square kilometres are lost, thousands more can't be used for food growth anymore.
To sum it up we have 100.000 refugees, the destroyed economy of several cities, severly restricted farming in large areas and a whole region being uninhabitable. Can you really argue that this "disaster never was" only because nobody died?

At last a few notes on some of his paragraphs:

So those 100.000 refugees are not "real victims"? And what's with all those other tsunami related refugees?


???
This man has an interesting definition of the term "intact".


Is he implying that road deaths attributed to panic are worse than all those displaced people?

tsutsuji

Why entitle the article "the real victims of Fukushima" if his purpose is to talk about the tsunami victims whose greatest numbers are in Iwate and Miyagi prefecture and not in Fukushima prefecture.

And If the Daily Telgraph is convinced that one should talk more about the tsunami than about the nuclear accident, why is the list of "related articles" provided with this one the following ?

NUCENG

No, I don't think the author meant anything to imply that the reactor accident was not also a "disaster." Just that the focus has been skewed and fear mongering sells news. Being displace is bad. Billions of dollarslost is bad. Depression, suicide, and worries about future health effects are bad, But 20,000 deaths are also bad and unrecoverably permanent.

Caniche

Balance from the Telegraph , a novel idea. In the UK it is most commonly referred to as the Torygraph , who knows how such an impartial publication acquired such a reputation for bias

NUCENG

Ad Hominem (Argument To The Man): attacking the person instead of attacking his argument. Does their alleged bias make their facts incorrect? Does their reputation or nickname belie their argument? Do you believe the focus of the media has been balanced in terms of the consequences of the earthquake/tsunami compared to the nuclear consequences? Does the fact that this is a "more political" thread mean our posts do't need to raise valid points?

Yamanote

Here I fully agree with the author. It was also odd to me that it was so easy to knock out a nuclear power plant.

The rest of the article I will not comment.

tsutsuji

http://mainichi.jp/area/ishikawa/new...40634000c.html On 28 March, Hokuriku Electric Power announced that it started studying the installation on PCV venting equipments of filters that can reduce the dispersion of radioactive substances. The cost and installation schedule are not planned yet but it is planned to install those at Shika NPP units 1 and 2. Filters can reduce radioactive substances to 100,000th. According to Hokuriku Electric Power, whereas French and Swedish NPPs are equipped with such filters, Japanese ones are not. A Hokuriku Electric Power manager said that (as Japan is a seismic country) earthquake resistance is a problem, but he wants to study the possibility to install such filters, using Europe as a reference.

http://www.rikuden.co.jp/press/attach/12032801.pdf Hokuriku Electric Power's press release. See diagram on attachment 3 page 6/6.

tsutsuji

I am glad that at long last an official report from a government body makes the following clear statements on the fact that some people died at Fukushima:

http://naiic.go.jp/wp-content/upload...ort_lo_res.pdf 19/88: "Others were forced to move multiple times, resulting in increased stress and health risks—including deaths among seriously ill patients." (also quoted by the BBC at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18718486 )
http://naiic.go.jp/wp-content/upload...ort_lo_res.pdf 38/88 : "60 patients died in March from complications related to the evacuation"

because this exposes the denial/forgetfulness by the IAEA, ANS, NRC, WHO, and others:

Saying "To date no health effects have been reported in any person as a result of radiation exposure from the nuclear accident" (http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus...mary010611.pdf 3/5) and "The Japanese Government’s longer term response to protect the public, including evacuation, has been impressive and extremely well organized" (http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus...mary010611.pdf 4/5), The IAEA's fact finding mission (24 May - 1 June 2011) was very keen on NOT FINDING THE FACTS concerning the deaths.

In a June 28 2011 presentation at the ANS Annual Meeting, F. Caracappa mentioned "Deaths due to earthquake/tsunami: ~25,000 ; Deaths or serious injuries due to direct radiation exposures: 0 ; Cancer deaths due to accumulated radiation exposures: can’t be ruled out –conservative risk estimates ~100s cases, against an expected ~10 million cases" ( http://fukushima.ans.org/inc/docs/Fu...-Caracappa.pdf 27/27) so he was forgetting the deaths by nuclear evacuation of fragile patients.

The NRC Task Force Report of 12 July 2011 said "The outcome—no fatalities" (http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1118/ML111861807.pdf page iii - 5/96)

In "Preliminary dose estimation from the nuclear accident after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami" (2012), the WHO mentions radiation exposure by the general population, but forgets about the higher exposure of nuclear workers and the non-radiation related deaths:
These deaths were not mentioned either in the Japanese government's first and second reports to the IAEA in June 2011 ( http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus.../japan-report/ ) and September 2011 ( http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus...japan-report2/ ).

They were reported until now only by Japanese news agencies and newspapers and were little reported abroad. See:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpos...&postcount=314
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpos...&postcount=320
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpos...&postcount=321
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpos...&postcount=408

The NAIIC report's main text contains detailed explanations on this 60 people death toll and the reasons why it happened over 10 pages. It is available in Japanese only for now, on http://naiic.go.jp/pdf/naiic_honpen_honbun4.pdf page 380-389 (34/140 - 43/140).

Azby

Tsutsuji,

If we take into account the certified "disaster-related deaths" the number is over 500.
This from Feb 2012:

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T120204003191.htm

"A disaster-related death certificate is issued when a death is not directly caused by a tragedy, but by fatigue or the aggravation of a chronic disease due to the disaster....
...A disaster-related death certificate is issued when a death is not directly caused by a tragedy, but by fatigue or the aggravation of a chronic disease due to the disaster."

I believe the number has climbed since then.

tsutsuji

Thanks. For the record, I extract the figures given in this article: "Of the 634 [applications], 573 deaths were certified as disaster-related, 28 applications were rejected, four cases had to reapply because of flawed paperwork, and 29 remain pending."

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311dis...AJ201206300051 [30 June 2012] [Yukio Edano's exclusive interview with The Asahi Shimbun on June 29] : "From the outset, I have always called (on TEPCO) to disclose (the videos)," Edano said. "I don't understand why they won't do so." (...) "Matsumoto indicated that TEPCO has the right to erase "in-house material" at its own discretion".

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311dis...AJ201207110023 [11 July 2012] TEPCO to release teleconference videos after all

mscharisma

I cannot comment on the author's intention, but I disagree with the focus having been skewed.

20,000 deaths due to a natural disaster are indeed absolutely horrible, just as is the fate of many, if not all the survivors. Nonetheless, however tragic the casualties are, one has to accept that it happened and move on - although that is not to say to leave the affected people to their own devices or improved disaster relief and city planning should not take place.

By contrast, the Fukushima NPP accident has posed and continues to pose a threat that affects by far more people for generations to come. In addition, the NPP itself as well as the NPP disaster to a large degree were man-made and hence preventable. People have been mistakenly, if not deliberately for reasons of profit led to believe the NPP poses no threat to them, even if a natural disaster occurs.

Personally, I'm all for the media focusing on the more far-reaching, preventable disaster.

tsutsuji

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_...AJ201207310070 "However, TEPCO has no plan to review the ban on video and voice recordings and the ban on reporting the names of individuals other than the senior TEPCO officials..."

tsutsuji

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/genpatsu-...731/index.html On 31 July, the NISA completed a provisional plan establishing criteria for the relocation of the offsite centers, up to 30 km away from nuclear power plants. During the Fukushima nuclear accident, the offsite center, located within the 5 km range from the plant, had not functioned. As a precaution, backup centers located further than 30km will be provided for the case when the main center is not functional. The revision of the offsite centers won't be implemented until after the new regulatory organisation will be launched.

tsutsuji

Now an article about a number of victims whose deaths might have resulted of the combination of the natural earthquake/tsunami disaster and the man made nuclear accident:

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/genpatsu-...40_baisho.html A lawyer representing the families of 164 victims from Namie applied on 9 August at the government's conflict resolution center, requesting Tepco a 10 million yen compensation per deceased or missing person, over the charge that as they were forced to evacuate, the families could not rescue their beloved ones, who were victims of the earthquake and tsunami, and the moral suffering of the families associated with the fact that the bodies were not searched and found until one month after the event.

tsutsuji

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/genpatsu-...906/index.html Tepco is about to reveal the teleconference videos over the 1st month (11 March - 11 April 2011), instead of the first 5 days only. The same restrictive rules apply (journalists only, restrictions on copying, on revealing peoples' names, etc.)


http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311dis...AJ201209050060 "TEPCO videos: Sans equipment, staff, Fukushima crisis spun out of control"

tsutsuji

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/genpatsu-...415_josen.html It was found by the NHK that about 3 months after the accident, when the Nuclear Safety Commission started to study the issuance of an advice to reinstate the original inhabitant decontamination criteria, which had been softened immediately after the accident, it faced opposition from the local response headquarters (a national government administration) and from the Fukushima prefecture administration, and postponed the issuance for 3 months. The opposing administrations said things like "if the criteria becomes more severe, too many cars will need decontamination" or "as there are not enough decontamination facilities, people will need to leave [the restricted zone] without their [contaminated] belongings".

zapperzero

I don't understand why the local administration would have any sort of say in this. Japan is kinda weird.