Fukushima Management and Government Performance

[tsutsuji]

I thought the government had taken over the responsibility for public information briefings because of all the early information mistakes. Apparently nothing has changed. At face value they appear to be doing everything they can, but they have lost the trust and confidence of their own citizens because of communication issues.

Didn't the Prime Minister gain a few percentage points, or at least remain stable in opinion polls before and after the Fukushima crisis ? He was very low before, and he is still low after. It is difficult to draw any conclusion. Incidentally, the shut down of the Hamaoka plant is a political success.

 

[NUCENG]

Didn't the Prime Minister gain a few percentage points, or at least remain stable in opinion polls before and after the Fukushima crisis ? He was very low before, and he is still low after. It is difficult to draw any conclusion. Incidentally, the shut down of the Hamaoka plant is a political success.

Sorry, I wasn't following politics in Japan. I was just relaxing after hearing that Donald Trump dropped out of the race here in the US. That was something that was a panic.

 

[zapperzero]

As to total releases, we know three cores are severely damaged. I don't think they actually know how much has been released.

One could be scientific about it and release an estimate, complete with error bars. Or, one could lie and dissemble and hide behind "oh we can't really tell with sufficient precision".

 

[NUCENG]

One could be scientific about it and release an estimate, complete with error bars. Or, one could lie and dissemble and hide behind "oh we can't really tell with sufficient precision".

I'm sorry, they have published estimates. I just thought you wanted more. There was a lot of discussion of estimates comparing their numbers to Chernobyl when they raised the INES classification to Level 7.

http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/files/en20110412-4.pdf

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=ja&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.yomiuri.co.jp%2Fscience%2Fnews%2F20110423-OYT1T00667.htm%3Ffrom%3Dmain7&act=url

 

[zapperzero]

I'm sorry, they have published estimates. I just thought you wanted more. There was a lot of discussion of estimates comparing their numbers to Chernobyl when they raised the INES classification to Level 7.

http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/files/en20110412-4.pdf

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=ja&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.yomiuri.co.jp%2Fscience%2Fnews%2F20110423-OYT1T00667.htm%3Ffrom%3Dmain7&act=url

I knew of those, but thanks. I haven't seen anything more recent, though, and I have no reason to suppose that the steam that has been released since was clean.

 

[AntonL]

quoting from http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20110528a3.html

Tokyo Electric Power Co. did not fully disclose radiation monitoring data after its Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant was crippled by the March 11 earthquake and tsunami, the government revealed Friday.

Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano, after being informed by Goshi Hosono, a special adviser to Prime Minister Naoto Kan, told reporters that he instructed Tepco to sort out the data, make it public and make doubly sure no more information-withholding occurs.

and from same source

New York — A senior nuclear regulatory official in the United States said Thursday he believed there was a "strong likelihood" of serious core damage and core melt at the Fukushima No. 1 power plant in the days immediately after the crisis began.

"There were numerous indications of high radiation levels that can only come from damaged fuel at those kinds of levels," said Bill Borchardt, executive director for operations at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "So we felt pretty confident that there was significant fuel damage at the site a few days into the event."

The NRC also had "suspicions" about the conditions of the spent fuel pools, Borchardt said after a speech at the Japan Society in New York.

Based on that assumption, he said, the NRC recommended that U.S. residents in Japan stay 80 km away from the crippled power plant, which was far beyond the Japanese government's recommendation for residents within a 20-km radius to evacuate.

Tepco held Japanese government in the dark whereas US government seem to have had their own sources to make their own conclusion and recommend the 80km evacuation zone


But more worrying for US

In his speech, Borchardt said that since the magnitude 9.0 quake and tsunami hit the Tohoku region on March 11, his agency has carried out a review of the 104 operating nuclear plants across the United States and confirmed their safety.

"The initial findings of the short-term task force is that we have not identified any issues that undermine our confidence in the continued safety of the U.S. plants or in the emergency planning for those facilities, although it is entirely expected that they will recommend some actions for evaluation that would enhance either safety and/or preparedness activities," he said

Really?

 

[NUCENG]

quoting from http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20110528a3.html



and from same source



Tepco held Japanese government in the dark whereas US government seem to have had their own sources to make their own conclusion and recommend the 80km evacuation zone


But more worrying for US


Really?

The topic here is Fukushima Management and Government Performance. Can we keep away from expanding this to an attack and defense of the US again? As you quoted Mr. Borchard: "... it is entirely expected that they will recommend some actions for evaluation that would enhance either safety and/or preparedness activities."

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/follow-up-rpts.html
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/comm-secy/2011/2011-0002comgbj-srm.pdf

In the case of TEPCO performance on truthfullness and openness we seem to be in violent agreement. ;-} My post #174 shows that TEPCO has lost trust with the press. The government is aware. Your post quotes a chief cabinet secretary. The Japanese government previously said they were taking responsibility for briefings away from TEPCO, but the problems continue. The US has all that research and analysis of severe accidents and saw evidence that the Japanese were slow to evacuate and were not being forthcoming on the ongoing releases and extent of damage. IAEA investigators are now on site.

At what point do these problems become the responsibility of the Japanese Government? At what point do management problems become criminal? There has been a history of Regulatory Agency "recommendations" (e.g., to reperform seismic analysis, to perform probabilistic risk analysis, etc.). Should these improvements have been requirements or directives as clear as the ones being issued in this crisis? Is collusion between industry and regulators putting the public at risk? Where is the leadership and can they succeed without it? We know there are problems - what should they be doing to fix them? What can other nations do to help?

 

[AntonL]

Japan Self Defense Force were never fully prepared for a nuclear accidents
surly a modern defense against nuclear accidents includes the use of robotics.

Japan seemed to have ignored developments in Europe and USA on how to combat nuclear accidents.

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/31_16.html][/PLAIN]
SDF to add robots to drills for nuclear accidents

Japan's Self-Defense Forces want to add robots to their equipment for dealing with nuclear accidents and incorporate them into their regular training drills.

Defense Minister Toshimi Kitazawa told reporters on Tuesday that it's an irony of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant accident that US-made robots were initially used to deal with the disaster, even though Japan is a world leader in robot technology.

Kitazawa said he wants the Self-Defense Forces to use robots in its regular nuclear accident drills, including unmanned helicopters that can operate in a high-radiation environment.

He said the SDF needs to develop expertise in using such equipment in order to be able to deal with possible nuclear accidents in Japan and its neighboring countries.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011 14:42 +0900 (JST)

 

[zapperzero]

Speaking of trust: NISA never verified TEPCO's tsunami safety analysis for Fukushima:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hnjifVSi-UcoxLNiB8sFVyUAnGEg?docId=31c43c68bceb4aef999cc206d3a32731

Money shot:
"This is all we saw," said Masaru Kobayashi, who now heads NISA's quake-safety section. "We did not look into the validity of the content."

And that's all she wrote, in terms of government performance, folks.

Maybe some of these people should get public support while they are writing their post-incident reports. I hear Japanese prisons are exceedingly civilized and quiet places, well lit and clean, with few distractions.

 

[zapperzero]

What can other nations do to help?

Let's face it, the regulatory agencies are captured to a large extent by the industry, on a global level.

I can't see anything that could help, except maybe to set a good example, a la Germany (I mean their increasing use of renewables).

 

[URob]

Here is an interesting article critiquing the area and size of the evacuation zone.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24949
Global research do a nice line between over the top conspiracy and well researched political analysis.
I agree with this articles' conclusions that the Japanese government needs to review what is "safe".

 

[URob]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25064
Estimate of the costs to clean up the solid waste, from my favorite conspiracy site. Very cynical and sarcastic.

 

[AntonL]

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/04_20.html

Now Japan Government (NISA) admits to withholding vital radiation data

A reading on March 12th, one day after the massive earthquake and tsunami hit the plant, shows that radioactive tellurium was detected 7 kilometers away. Tellurium is produced during the melting of nuclear fuel.

Three hours before the data was collected, the government expanded the radius of the evacuation area around the plant from 3 kilometers to 10 kilometers.

But the government's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency reported at a news conference several hours later that the nuclear fuel was intact.

The government also failed to disclose the high radiation levels in weeds 30 to 50 kilometers from the plant. On March 15th, 123 million becquerels of radioactive iodine-131 per kilogram were detected 38 kilometers northeast of the plant.

The nuclear safety agency says it deeply regrets not releasing the data.

So it is not only Tepco, it is bad if governments hide facts from the people!

 

[robinson]

Lies about nuclear issues? What a surprise.

 

[swl]

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/04_20.html

Now Japan Government (NISA) admits to withholding vital radiation data



So it is not only Tepco, it is bad if governments hide facts from the people!

I wonder if this is another case of them withholding information to prevent panic? It is now hard for me to imagine a scenario where I should trust the J government to provide us with accurate and timely information.

 

[NUCENG]

Let's face it, the regulatory agencies are captured to a large extent by the industry, on a global level.

I can't see anything that could help, except maybe to set a good example, a la Germany (I mean their increasing use of renewables).

The NRC on site in Japan disagreed with the slow and inconsistent evacuations. Although pretty tame the summary report from IAEA was clear that Fukushima preparation and design were inadequate. The stories above were sourced in Japanese news media and indicate that some people are willing to resign in protest of inadequate protection of children. As bleak as things may be right now there are signs that people are aware of the lies and misinformation. So I choose to believe that all is not hopeless.

This forum has found many inconsistencies and countered misinformation on a number of topics. So truth is getting out there despite the worst efforts of the Japanese government and TEPCO.

You may choose to believe that the exception proves the rule. My experience in the nuclear industry tells me that the exceptions are exceptions. I have been astounded by the number of opportunities there were for this event to have been avoided. The country that named tsunamis, ignored tsunamis. The country that experienced two cities destroyed by nuclear weapons was slow to protect their own population. Regulators made "suggestions" not regulations. Decisions and designs made 40 years ago were treated as if they were carved on stone tablets by the hand of God.

That hands off approach is completely inconsistent with what I have seen. Our participation in this forum is part of the solution.

 

[robinson]

When the top person assigned by the Prime Minister resigned in protest over the way the government was handling things, that could be a clue something was being covered up. In fact he actually said that was why he was resigning.

 

[NUCENG]

When the top person assigned by the Prime Minister resigned in protest over the way the government was handling things, that could be a clue something was being covered up. In fact he actually said that was why he was resigning.

Fight lies with truth. Probably the dumbest mistake of all is trying to hide truth in the era of the internet.

 

[Lambert]

http://cnic.jp/english/newsletter/pdffiles/nit97.pdf

 

[Dmytry]

The NRC on site in Japan disagreed with the slow and inconsistent evacuations. Although pretty tame the summary report from IAEA was clear that Fukushima preparation and design were inadequate. The stories above were sourced in Japanese news media and indicate that some people are willing to resign in protest of inadequate protection of children. As bleak as things may be right now there are signs that people are aware of the lies and misinformation. So I choose to believe that all is not hopeless.

This forum has found many inconsistencies and countered misinformation on a number of topics. So truth is getting out there despite the worst efforts of the Japanese government and TEPCO.

You may choose to believe that the exception proves the rule. My experience in the nuclear industry tells me that the exceptions are exceptions. I have been astounded by the number of opportunities there were for this event to have been avoided. The country that named tsunamis, ignored tsunamis. The country that experienced two cities destroyed by nuclear weapons was slow to protect their own population. Regulators made "suggestions" not regulations. Decisions and designs made 40 years ago were treated as if they were carved on stone tablets by the hand of God.

That hands off approach is completely inconsistent with what I have seen. Our participation in this forum is part of the solution.

Speaking of children, do you see now why i was especially riled up by the argument as of how everyone likes children and so on?
It was back before the 20msv/year playground exposure limits and that resignation IIRC. I was expecting this stuff to happen, based on Chernobyl.
For you the soviet union is something that was an enemy or what ever; for me it is a place i was born in, and i can see that a lot of things are fairly universal between governments. Before Fukushima you would never have thought that Japan was this similar to Soviet Union when it comes to nuclear accidents - whereas I would think so because I don't see the way SU handled Chernobyl as anything exceptionally bad or good - I was spared the cold war propaganda either way. We have two data points of how government handles severe nuclear disaster - one in communist country, another in capitalist country - and they are fairly similar, so it is not the economical system that matters (though I would say that socialist government could use larger amount of resources and could relocate people easier).

How can you be sure that your government could handle nuclear disaster (plus tsunami) better? For me the only reason to think so is that EU (and US) are more powerful entities than Japan and each can conceivably throw more resources at problem. Well, I do think that you have less complacent population and people would be REALLY pissed off; but i'd think government would try nonetheless; government does not deserve the credit for the love of freedom that people it governs have; people deserve credit for what government they elect.

also speaking of 20mSv/year limit for playgrounds. That is the EU limit for nuclear workers, but a lot more lax, because the nuclear workers are carrying dosimeters and are not getting any internal exposure of note (plus with ALARA principle vast majority of workers stay below 1mSv/year), whereas children are getting internal exposure and are in a messy non-uniform field and there's no ALARA, quite the opposite (don't do anything when below limit). I would guess that the distribution of actual children doses would be non-gaussian with many children going well above this limit.

 

[AntonL]

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20110607a3.html

An investigation that will draw world attention gets under way Tuesday to find answers to the critical question: Was there any way to avoid the meltdowns at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant, and were any people to blame?

The 10-member panel, headed by Yotaro Hatamura, professor emeritus at the University of Tokyo, will investigate the cause of the nuclear crisis and possible crisis management errors by the government and Tepco. The panel will compile an interim report in December.

...

During a June 2009 expert meeting to review the Fukushima No. 1 plant's quake defenses, Yukinobu Okamura, head of the Active Fault and Earthquake Research Center of the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, specifically pointed out that a massive earthquake on the scale of one that hit Tohoku in 869 could strike in the future and devastate nuclear reactors.

The 869 temblor was believed to be 8.3-magnitude, with tsunami that went up to 4 km inland.

 

[rowmag]

Shifted from the technical thread:

Seen on twitter:

MIT Faculty Report on Fukushima: Fukushima Lessons Learned (MIT-NSP-025)
http://mitnse.com/2011/06/03/mit-faculty-report-on-fukushima

Seems a bit dated already, right? AFAIK release estimates are now 20% of Chernobyl not 10%, and the containment of #1 and #3 seem to be leaking too.

I am going to disagree with the following bit of advice from that report:

Radiation risk during nuclear accidents should be communicated to the public using a
qualitative, intuitive scale vs. the traditional quantities of dose rate and activity. For
example, the units of ‘natural background dose equivalence rate’ could be adopted. To
avoid the necessity of adjusting for local background variations, the world average dose-rate
from natural sources should be used: 2.4 mSv/year or 0.27 μSv/hr. Thus the elevated levels
due to contamination would be presented in terms of the factor by which natural background
radiation is exceeded. This approach has several advantages. First, no effort is needed to understand the unit used. For instance, 10 times natural background is easier to grasp than
2.7 μSv/hr since no prior learning in a specialized field is required. Second, there is never a
need to convert between unit systems or to be mindful of numerical prefixes (milli-rem,
micro-Sv, etc.). Third, this method of conveying information about radiation levels reinforces
the concept that some level of radiation exposure is both natural and normal. Finally, use of
this unit implies no estimation of the magnitude of the health hazard from the radiation
levels. This is important since we do not know how hazardous chronic, elevated
background dose rates are, though it is noted that there are regions of the world with
background radiation dose rates one order of magnitude higher than the world-average and yet with no measureable health consequences.

The most frustrating reports have been when instead of absolute numbers, we were told only so many times the legal limit, or so many times above background. Much more preferable to have actual absolute numbers to work with.

When the accident first happened, we were treated to endless variations on the exposure chart: how many Sieverts from one chest x-ray, from one trans-Pacific flight, etc. The public quickly learned the new unit, and later about units such as Bq/kg. This was a good thing, I think.

Also, background varies by location, so using "world average background" as the standard unit adds a layer of confusion. If I live in an area with a normal background rate of 0.1 uSv/h, and it goes up to 0.2 uSv/h, then my background has doubled, even if it is still below the world average of 0.27. How would one express this in a non-confusing way using the proposed units?

Give me numbers, and teach me parenthetically what the numbers mean, if necessary. But don't remove the absolute scale from reports, please.

(And yeah, I understand that the Sievert is a problematic unit, with all kinds of assumptions built in, but it is still better than "N times the legal limit," which tells me nothing. Was the legal limit conservative or aggressive? What was it in numerical terms?)

This is off topic - and tricky. Most of PF users will be able to learn these numbers and to deal with them. Joe Public needs calculator to check how much change he will get from paying $3 for three $0.99 hamburgers. It won't work for him.

I disagree. If it is a one-off event, sure, it may not be worth the bother of teaching, but this is something on the news everyday for months now. I see evidence in people around me that Joe Public is quite educable when it matters, as it does in this case. Let the kid eat locally-grown spinach? Ok, how many Bq/kg in that batch? Joe is a quick learner when it comes to his kids. I have seen this. I am sure the same effect was observed in the USSR and Europe after Chernobyl.

 

[robinson]

One advantage to comparing radioactivity from a nuclear disaster to "background" radiation is it makes it seem like breathing or eating Cesium is as harmless as getting a low skin dose from naturally radioactive materials. Or that radioactive iodine in your thyroid gland is as harmless as eating a banana.

 

[Jorge Stolfi]

According to Wikipedia, the potassium-40 in a banana generates about 15 becquerels (disintegrations per second). However since the body normally contains a fixed amount of potassium with the same isotopic composition, eating a banana does not increase one's exposure. (Any excess potassium one may acquire just after eating the banana should be eliminated in a matter of hours.)

That normal potassium contents of the body generates about 5,000 becquerels. Wikipedia says that the biological absorbed dose for potassium-40 is 5.02 nanosieverts/Bq over 50 years, that comes to ... 0.00005 microsieverts per hour.

Therefore, one microsievert per hour is the same absorbed radiadion rate you would get just after swallowing
0.000001/(5.02*10.0^(-9)*15/(50*365.25*24)) = 5,820,717 bananas, or 0.000001/(5.02*10.0^(-9)*5000/(50*365.25*24)) = 17,462 people and a guinea pig.

I this correct?

EDIT: Actually since potassium-40 emits beta or positron radiation, any disintegrations that occur inside a banana will hardly make it outside. So even if the stomach is filled with bananas (or human meat), the amount of potassium that matters for radiation exposure is only that which is lies within a few mm of the stomach wall. Right?

 

[zapperzero]

EDIT: Actually since potassium-40 emits beta or positron radiation, any disintegrations that occur inside a banana will hardly make it outside. So even if the stomach is filled with bananas (or human meat), the amount of potassium that matters for radiation exposure is only that which is lies within a few mm of the stomach wall. Right?

Wrong, because virtually all of it (what doesn't decay right then and there) gets absorbed into the bloodstream via the intestine.

EDIT: what you are saying is probably correct if thinking about external doses - bananas would be self-shielding to a large extent, what with being mostly water and carbohydrates. Come to think of it, maybe you could moderate a nuclear reactor with banana smoothie.

 

[NUCENG]

The MIT lessons learned document addresses things they would have wanted TEPCO and the Japanese government to do differently. That is topical for this thread. The differences between qualitative and quantitative measures in press releases is topical, too. But let's be careful about expanding too far into internal and external doses and bananas.

TEPCOs press releases have included lots of numbers, some wrong, but only a small fraction of the numbers (and isotopes) they were probably actually measuring. Japanese regulators withheld contamination and airborne dose readings. Whatever the type of numbers (quantitative or qualitative), would the results have been more believable or accurate?

 

[rowmag]

Japanese regulators withheld contamination and airborne dose readings.

That was unconscionable, and the excuse that they didn't want to cause panic was wrong-headed.

In contrast, Edano laid out the worst case possible they knew of early on (the possibility of meltdown). That helped reduce panic, because at least he seemed trustworthy.

Sugarcoating backfires. Talking down to the public does also.

 

[rowmag]

I might add that the public is composed of a wide range of people, and those who don't understand will look to those around them who they think do understand for clues. "How is the hospital x-ray tech down the street handling things?" I have seen instances of that sort of thing in the past 3 months. So it is important to keep the members of the public who can understand details fed with information.

 

[robinson]

The history or radiation is chock full of ignorance, deception, outright lies, and massive pollution of the entire world with isotopes and increased cancer rates. This disaster is no different.

 

[MiceAndMen]

TEPCOs press releases have included lots of numbers, some wrong, but only a small fraction of the numbers (and isotopes) they were probably actually measuring. Japanese regulators withheld contamination and airborne dose readings. Whatever the type of numbers (quantitative or qualitative), would the results have been more believable or accurate?

I remember when they changed their reporting of radioactive nucleides to I and Cs exclusively, down from a much larger set of fission products. At some point in the future I can see another accident where those responsible for cleaning it up will say, "We only have to report levels of I-131, Cs-134 and Cs-137. That's what they did at Fukushima and everybody was OK with that."

But is it really OK? I distinctly remember when they started reporting on only those 3 nucleides and there was more than a little protest in the main thread.

 

[MiceAndMen]

How can you be sure that your government could handle nuclear disaster (plus tsunami) better? For me the only reason to think so is that EU (and US) are more powerful entities than Japan and each can conceivably throw more resources at problem. Well, I do think that you have less complacent population and people would be REALLY pissed off; but i'd think government would try nonetheless; government does not deserve the credit for the love of freedom that people it governs have; people deserve credit for what government they elect.

That's a very thoughtful post, Dmytry.

I hate to admit it, but I found this link at Nancy Foust's website:
http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/22/chernobyl-cleanup-survivors-message-for-japan-run-away-as-qui/

What message do you have for Japan?
Run away as quickly as possible. Don't wait. Save yourself and don't rely on the government because the government lies. They don't want you to know the truth because the nuclear industry is so powerful.

That is a quote from a nuclear engineer, Natalia Manzurova, who spent 4 years cleaning up Pripyat after the Chernobyl disaster. She is the only one of her team still alive.

I don't necessarily agree with her that the reason governments lie about these things is because the nuclear industry is so powerful. That is a part of the reason IMO, but not the only part. Nevertheless, her advice given in that article on 22 March is perhaps better advice than the residents of Fukushima got in the first couple of weeks from either TEPCO or the authorities.

 

[MiceAndMen]

I was outraged recently when I read that the IAEA had rated Japan's handling of the Fukushima crisis as "exemplary". It looks like I was not the only one.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304906004576371781243470772.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

The WSJ has a funky firewall setup, so if that link does not work for you, please go to Google News and search for "IAEA draws fire".

Apparently there are 3 members of the G-8 countries who want to sideline the IAEA in the wake of their recent "exemplary performance" evaluation of Japan. Several conferences and meetings regarding nuclear safety have recently been scheduled so that IAEA head Yukiya Amano will not be able to attend. They knew his schedule, and they arranged these meetings with the intention that he should be unable to attend.

It doesn't get much more political than that

 

[zapperzero]

They knew his schedule, and they arranged these meetings with the intention that he should be unable to attend.

It doesn't get much more political than that

Yeah looks like someone's heading to consultant work sooner rather than later.

 

[etudiant]

An excellent article today in Asahi Shimbun beginning a 4 part series on the 'Nuclear Village' at TEPCO.
http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201106070161.html
It appears as an almost self contained and self supervised entity if the article is to be believed.
Management clearly did not have real insight into that segment of the business, but it was so successful that no one rocked the boat despite some very clear warning signs.
TEPCOs nuclear management will provide case studies for a long time.
Hopefully the lessons will be learned.

 

[zapperzero]

I remember when they changed their reporting of radioactive nucleides to I and Cs exclusively, down from a much larger set of fission products. At some point in the future I can see another accident where those responsible for cleaning it up will say, "We only have to report levels of I-131, Cs-134 and Cs-137. That's what they did at Fukushima and everybody was OK with that."

But is it really OK? I distinctly remember when they started reporting on only those 3 nucleides and there was more than a little protest in the main thread.

I have half a mind to buy a plane ticket to Tokyo and start picketing TEPCO headquarters with a sign saying "release contamination data" on one side and something really insulting about their mothers on the other. That's how angry I am. I know it's not even my country, but...