Japan Earthquake: Political Aspects

[tsutsuji]

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/06_11.html Hiroshima Mayor says Fukushima "shattered the public's trust in nuclear energy".

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/05_28.html As Tepco shuts down Kashiwazaki-Kariwa unit 1 (and unit 7 soon to follow) for regular inspection, NHK reminds that "earlier, Niigata Governor Hirohiko Izumida said he will not determine whether to allow restarting of the reactors unless investigation results into the nuclear accident at the Fukushima plant are presented".

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/06_19.html Naoto Kan "proposed at an energy and environmental panel of Cabinet members at the end of last month that the current policy be completely reversed".

 

[zapperzero]

NYT covers the Fukushima cover-up.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/09/world/asia/09japan.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

AP also
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/08/09/ap-impact-japan-ignored-own-radiation-forecasts/

 

[alpi]

Why do the politicians in Japan not just inform the public that the accidents in Fukushima happened because there were no plans in Japan or elsewhere for dealing with a total station blackout lasting for more than a couple of hours?

It appears that the only thing you have to do to ensure that no release of radioactivity occurs in the unlikely event of a new tsunami of this magnitude is to ensure lasting RPV ventilation and that hoses and fire engine pumps not requiring electricity - but capable of pumping in about 10 litres of seawater per second during the first few critical days - are available in a safe place nearby nuclear reactors.

 

[Astronuc]

Three Japanese ministers fired after Fukushima
http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2060333
10 August 2011

The BBC reports that the head of the Nuclear Industry and Safety Agency, Nobuaki Terasaka, the head of the natural resources and energy agency Tetsuhiro Hosono, and the vice-minister for economy, trade and industry, Kazuo Matsunaga, have been fired because of the problems at Fukushima Daiichi.

 

[zapperzero]

Three Japanese ministers fired after Fukushima
http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2060333
10 August 2011

The BBC reports that the head of the Nuclear Industry and Safety Agency, Nobuaki Terasaka, the head of the natural resources and energy agency Tetsuhiro Hosono, and the vice-minister for economy, trade and industry, Kazuo Matsunaga, have been fired because of the problems at Fukushima Daiichi.

What, no Takaki?

 

[Astronuc]

Japan plans cutting evacuation zone
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-Japan_plans_cutting_evacuation_zone-0908114.html
09 August 2011

The Japanese government is planning to allow residents from certain areas near the damaged Fukushima Daiichi plant to return to their homes. Meanwhile, the plant owner has reported a quarterly loss of ¥571.7 billion ($7.4 billion).

. . . .

If I was the regulator, I would have pulled TEPCO's license to operate nuclear plants.

 

[Astronuc]

What, no Takaki?

He's only been Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology since Sep. 2010. Hardly time to have an impact, one way or the other.

There is some expectation that Naoto Kan may resign.

 

[zapperzero]

He's only been Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology since Sep. 2010. Hardly time to have an impact, one way or the other.

There is some expectation that Naoto Kan may resign.

Kan is expected to resign practically since he took office. Funny how he manages to keep postponing the 'inevitable'. As for Takaki... I think he's got a lot to answer for - the decision to start the school year on schedule, for one.

 

[Astronuc]

Lessons learned from Fukushima in a presentation at MIT
http://techtv.mit.edu/collections/nse/videos/11799-lessons-from-fukushima
(skip the first 6 minutes to get to the first of two presentations)

 

[zapperzero]

Lessons learned from Fukushima in a presentation at MIT
http://techtv.mit.edu/collections/nse/videos/11799-lessons-from-fukushima
(skip the first 6 minutes to get to the first of two presentations)

Some of the things the first speaker's saying are pretty odd.

20:53 "it's my understanding, they were putting new shrouds on, which is a standard maintenance procedure"

It is anything BUT standard. In fact, 1F-3 was the first ever NPP in which something like this was ever attempted. http://www.toshiba.co.jp/nuclearenergy/english/maintenance/replace/shroud01.htm

EDIT: also, the last portion and the Q&A which focuses on risk and risk management is really annoying, the way the speakers go out of their way to say "oh there is no perfect safety, oh you have to look at safety as compared to other sources of energy, oh we have to be patient etc etc".

Also, it seems the epitome of hybris to talk about lessons learned, in March, when it's not even clear where the corium is and what the accident progression was even TODAY, five months later.

 

[Astronuc]

Some of the things the first speaker's saying are pretty odd.

20:53 "it's my understanding, they were putting new shrouds on, which is a standard maintenance procedure"

It is anything BUT standard. In fact, 1F-3 was the first ever NPP in which something like this was ever attempted. http://www.toshiba.co.jp/nuclearenergy/english/maintenance/replace/shroud01.htm

EDIT: also, the last portion and the Q&A which focuses on risk and risk management is really annoying, the way the speakers go out of their way to say "oh there is no perfect safety, oh you have to look at safety as compared to other sources of energy, oh we have to be patient etc etc".

Also, it seems the epitome of hybris to talk about lessons learned, in March, when it's not even clear where the corium is and what the accident progression was even TODAY, five months later.

I agree. It is an example of someone who does not have direct experience with commercial power reactors. The first speaker was involved as a manager at TMI-2, then at OCRWM (DOE Spent Fuel Management system). In the US, most utilities opted for repairing cracked shrouds, as opposed to replacing them. That is the more typical approach. The Japanese tend to be a bit more conservative, and they elected to replace that shroud. Shroud replacement is pretty straight-forward, but it means that one has an irradiated shroud to bury somewhere, and when the reactor is shutdown and decommissioned, there will be a second shroud to bury somewhere.

Remember, the speakers are speaking to an audience who probably have some background or interest in nuclear energy.

 

[tsutsuji]

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110809p2g00m0dm009000c.html (English) "Kan calls for study on scrapping Monju fast-breeder reactor"

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/editorial/T110810004371.htm (English) "Kan irresponsibly toying with nuclear policy review"

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/national/news/20110814-OYT1T00481.htm?from=main1 At 10:40 AM on 13 August, a gas fired electric power plant made an automatic emergency shut-down, as a gas turbine blade is damaged, bringing Kansai Electric's remaining capacity to 29,420,000 KW, 6% lower than the estimated maximum demand of 31,380,000 KW.

 

[zapperzero]

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110809p2g00m0dm009000c.html (English) "Kan calls for study on scrapping Monju fast-breeder reactor"

Sudden attack of common sense, eh? Let's hope he pulls it off. I'm almost beginning to like this Kan fellow.

 

[tsutsuji]

http://www.asahi.com/business/update/0817/TKY201108170379.html Tohoku Electric shuts down a 350,000 KW fire-powered electricity generating plant in Akita where a steam leak was found. This is adding to the temporary loss of 1,000,000 KW from dozens of dams in Niigata and Fukushima prefectures, that suffered the heavy rains in July.

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/17_31.html Fukushima [Daiichi] plant chief apologizes over the accident

Niigata Gov. Hirohiko Izumida said that stress tests to check reactors' resistance to severe accidents would "merely be a psychological placebo."
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T110817006114.htm

 

[tsutsuji]

http://www.nikkei.com/life/news/art...DE2E0E3EAEAE7E6E2E0E3E3E0E0E2E2EBE2E2E2E2E2E2 Naoto Kan was seen at Yaesu Book Centre buying 5 books including 2 nuclear power related books. One of them is "Emergency explanation! Fukushima Daiichi accident and radiations" by [NHK Senior Science Commentator] Noriyuki Mizuno. Buying former Fukushima governor Eisaku Sato's book "The Annihilation of a Governor", he let his lingering attachment to exit-from-nuclear show up.

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/20110818/t10014990311000.html Because of the 38°C heat wave in inland areas, Tepco's demand reached its highest peak for this summer at 49,500,000 KW or 90% of capacity at 2:15 PM, 18 August.

 

[jlduh]

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/english/movie/feature_nuclear.html

Power promotion scandal... Hummm I smile looking at this story about Chubu electric manipulating public opinion with the nuclear watchdog being also promoting what they were supposed to regulate, the two departments being under the same ministery...

Scandal? But isn't the real scandal the fact that they seem to just doscover this now? Frankly, is it real news ot tales for children? Everybody seems ok TODAY to say this is unacceptable, that this is a closed system, and so on, but really that's a little bit easy to jump on this position NOW!

This story about bringing in 30% of the audience to a public consultation is ONE the hundreds strategies used to orientate opinion, and achieve strategic goals, that's all. You could call it manipulation, but politically correct novlang is talking about normal lobbying i guess...

Not only in Japan, everywhere. Here in France state is promoting nuclear energy so talking about independancy is just a joke. French state is promoting nuclear energy AND is supposed also to regulate it... (laugh).

There is always a time when everybody seems to wake up (or fakes to wake up?) and say: "Oh Oh Ohhhh this is not normal shame on them (Hummm... on us maybe?). This is comedy for the public.

I you were saying it before, you were just a stupid guy with no knowledge about it, just talking about ideology and politics. Say it now and nobody even listen to you because EVERYBODY adopted it as the "normal way of behaving" once the crisis happened. How many examples of this in nuclear business around the world (known or not yet revealed)? Hundreds, thousands?

Let's smile.

 

[joewein]

In the 1980s the government in the German state of Bavaria was planning to build a nuclear reprocessing plant near its eastern part, a region with low incomes and high unemployment. The state is politically quite conservative. The assumption was that when people have few alternatives, they'll swallow anything (not unlike a lot of fishing villages around that coasts of Japan, I could add). However, things turned out very differently, with steadily growing resistance and civil disobedience.

When trees were felled in the forest for the construction site in December 1985, people from all over the country occupied the site. Thousands of locals joined them. When the police finally cleared a "hut village" built from felled logs, they sealed off the site at night during sub-zero temperatures. Friends of mine who were there told me how the police allowed anyone to leave if they spoke the local dialect, but isolated all the non-locals who were then arrested. When the police action was reported in the news, of course all the trouble makers were supposedly from outside the region, as if there was no local support at all. It was a slap in the face of all the locals opposing the project.

Likewise, later on, when a steel and razor wire security fence had been erected around the construction site, TV cameras always concentrated on the "anarchist corner", a spot where militants tried to cut the steel fence with hand saws while being showered by water cannons, meanwhile ignoring thousands of ordinary families of all ages from the region who came there every Sunday afternoon for "Sunday walkabouts", unofficial demonstrations. I saw some of these walkers targeted by water cannons from inside the fence hundreds of meters from any acts of violence, without any provocation, but such scenes never made it into the evening news.

I watched the events with my own eyes during the day and then in disbelief saw how it was twisted and distorted in the news in the evening. It was a real eye opener for many people in the region. It back-fired in a massive way. Civil disobedience escalated (helped along by the Chernobyl disaster that arrived in the middle of it). The situation ended up so out of control that the electricity companies who provided the funding got cold feet and withdrew their support for the project.

The Wackersdorf reprocessing plant was never built, but for those of us who experienced the struggle from personal experience as well as through the official media, the lessons have remained. Politicians and mass media need constant pressure from citizens to remain honest.

 

[tsutsuji]

Moody's cuts Japan's debt rating on deficit concerns:

Japan's electricity production has been compromised by the crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, which was damaged by the the earthquake and tsunami. The government has cut the country's nuclear power output and is asking people to limit their use of electricity.

The fear is that continuing uncertainty about the supply of power will deter or delay investment by both the public and private sectors.

"These developments further hamper the economy's ability to achieve a growth rate strong enough to steadily reduce the budget deficit," Moody's said.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14625969

 

[tsutsuji]

A worldwide review of political consequences :

This article looks at the new situation in Japan for local residents and political elites along with the post-Fukushima changes in energy policies for Germany, Italy, and Switzerland. Japan and the world stand at a crossroads where decision makers and citizens must publicly evaluate the costs and benefits of pursuing nuclear power.
http://www.paristechreview.com/2011/08/25/nuclear-fukushima-accident-social-political-perspective/

 

[NUCENG]

A worldwide review of political consequences :

Another excellent article tsutsuji.

Of course when I see terms such as "cycle of addiction" and "culture of dependency," I see implicit criticism of past decisions made based on economic considerations and freedom of commerce (aka Capitalism). In spite of that, I think it was a good article.

But the bottom line of this article is that there is also a social and political side to major economic decisions and that is a very clear truth. Germany, and Italy, have chosen to go away from Nuclear power. Japan is struggling with keeping their economy going under severe power shortages. But these countries must be responsive to their citizens. The choices they make are theirs to make and that should include honest considerations of the consequences of those decisions. If this results in a return to coal and oil even for an interim measure, the health, environmental, economic, social, and political consequences of that decision will be just as much their responsibility.

The engineers prayer: "Oh God, please make my blunders wise."

 

[tsutsuji]

http://www.asahi.com/international/jinmin/TKY201108280138.html The NISA announced comparisons between Fukushima (the power plant) and Hiroshima (the atomic bomb) while saying both events are quite different: Fukushima has released 168 times as much cesium, 2.5 times as much iodine, 2.4 times as much strontium as Hiroshima.

 

[tsutsuji]

Of course when I see terms such as "cycle of addiction" and "culture of dependency,"

This reminds me of the page I read on the Onodekita blog, written by Dr. Ono, the owner of a clinic with the same name in Kumamoto, who says he lived in Tomioka, Fukushima prefecture for 5 years in his twenties from 1988 to 2003 where he enjoyed such things as the Yonomori cherry trees or the near annoying singing of the frogs, the flight of the fireflies in the night or the cold bath in the Ocean in summer, answering a reader comment on the difference between Soviet governed Chernobyl and the supposedly democratically chosen Japanese nuclear industry: "What is the difference with opium addiction?" : http://onodekita.sblo.jp/article/47494573.html

http://www.nikkei.com/news/headline...19481E0EBE2E6908DE0EBE2EAE0E2E3E39797E3E2E2E2 Hokkaido electric renounces to start "pluthermal" (using MOX) at its Tomari Nuclear plant in spring 2012, as an investigation is launched over the E-mails asking employees to support pluthermal in a symposium in 2008 ( see also http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110827p2a00m0na011000c.html in English).

 

[tsutsuji]

August 12 point of view, by Genichiro Takahashi, a novelist and professor at Meiji Gakuin University :

"A country that has no transparency is not a democracy."
If [the above] argument is valid, it follows then that Japan is not a democracy, which in turn means that Japan cannot and should not use nuclear energy.
(...)
When fruitful dialogue begins on "Atomos" between members of the atomic village and people in the anti-nuke camp, we may see the beginnings of a "slow democracy" in our country.
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/opinion/AJ201108125202

http://www.tokyo-np.co.jp/article/politics/news/CK2011072802000029.html?ref=rank Minister Goshi Hosono said the fast breeder reactors are being debated as part of the revision of the Framework for Nuclear Energy Policy. The Framework for Nuclear Energy Policy was adopted by the Cabinet in October 2005. It targeted a 30~40% share of electricity production by 2030 and commercial fast breeder reactors by 2050. Its revision was started last November but was interrupted after the Fukushima Daiichi accident.

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/genpatsu-fukushima/20110830/0510_10kmkennai.html The Atomic Energy Commission of Japan will resume its work on the revision of the "Framework for Nuclear Energy Policy" in September. Discussing such issues as the fuel reprocessing plant in Aomori prefecture and the Monju fast breeder in Fukui prefecture, they plan to come up with a policy plan after one year. With the purpose of learning the lessons from the nuclear accident, they are studying the possibility of including contributions from specialists on issues like "safety" and "international problems".

 

[zapperzero]

Watering down IAEA's wine:

(Reuters) - Countries with atomic power plants would be encouraged to host international safety review missions, under a draft U.N. action plan that may disappoint those who had hoped for strong measures to prevent a repeat of Japan's nuclear crisis.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/30/us-nuclear-safety-iaea-idUSTRE77T1MH20110830

 

[tsutsuji]

http://www.asahi.com/international/jinmin/TKY201108280138.html The NISA announced comparisons between Fukushima (the power plant) and Hiroshima (the atomic bomb) while saying both events are quite different: Fukushima has released 168 times as much cesium, 2.5 times as much iodine, 2.4 times as much strontium as Hiroshima.

The isotope data for each event are provided on http://www.meti.go.jp/press/2011/08/20110826010/20110826010-2.pdf : top page= Fukushima units 1,2,3,total ; bottom page=Hiroshima.

I was wondering why the NISA had produced these figures:

The figures were released in response to a request from a Lower House special committee on promoting science and technology innovation.
http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201108270177.html

"80% of Japan's reactors out of service":

After the Sendai No.2 reactor is shut down, 42 nuclear reactors among 54 in Japan will be out of service.
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/31_11.html

 

[Susudake]

This, to me, is telling:

http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201109010197.html

 

[tsutsuji]

2 September Prime Minister Noda press conference:

PRIME MINISTER NODA: I believe 14 nuclear power stations were planned to be newly constructed. However, the construction of new power stations is now, I believe, unrealistic. What will happen in my opinion is that the respective reactors will be decommissioned when they reach their life spans. The reactors which have reached their life spans will not be restored. They will be decommissioned. That is my basic stance. As to the immediate issues, as I also touched on in my opening remarks a moment ago, the reactors which are deemed operable based on rigorous safety checks, including the stress tests, will be restarted in the context of providing thorough explanations to the community members in order to obtain their understanding.
(...)

are you saying that you envision a society that can operate without relying on nuclear power? Any comments?

PRIME MINISTER NODA: Yes, that is what I mean - a society that doesn't rely on nuclear power. I believe that the future will see a movement away from nuclear energy. As you just stated, once nuclear power stations have lived out their periods of usefulness, we will decommission them, and shall not build any new stations.

http://www.isria.com/pages/6_September_2011_1.php

6 September: "The number of Japan's nuclear power plants would be "zero" in the future":

Industry minister Yoshio Hachiro said today that the number of Japan's nuclear power plants would be "zero" in the future, based on Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda's policy of not building new nuclear power plants and decommissioning aged ones. "Considering the premier's remarks at press conferences, it would be zero," Hachiro told reporters in answer to the question whether the number of nuclear plants would reduce to none in the future. Hachiro added that it would be "difficult" to proceed with plans to build new nuclear plants whose construction has yet to begin, such as Chugoku Electric Power Co's Kaminoseki plant in Yamaguchi Prefecture."Public opinion is generally united in reducing (nuclear plants), instead of increasing them," he said.
http://ibnlive.in.com/generalnewsfeed/news/no-of-japans-nuclear-plants-to-be-zero-in-future-hachiro/813170.html

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/atmoney/news/20110906-OYT1T00392.htm?from=y10 Newly appointed minister of Economy, Trade, and Industry Yoshio Hachiro spoke about the 14 new reactors that were planned to be built by 2030. It is "difficult" to build new facilities. The construction sites that were started at Oma and Higashidori are "frozen". What to think about this state of affairs "will be studied". The progress of Oma's construction work is 40%. Last May Democratic Party secretary general visited Oma and said "if we don't use already being built facilities while upgrading their safety, we can't cover Japan's electric power needs". The people who are expecting the reopening of construction work at Oma are "surprised" by Yoshio Hachiro's comment. On the other hand an official of an against-Oma-NPP citizen group said he wishes the decision to stop all 14 new reactors is taken soon.

 

[tsutsuji]

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20110908a4.html [Saga prefectoral assembly special committee on nuclear safety] "Panel chief quits over funds scandal"

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/08_23.html "[Niigata] Governor Hirohiko Izumida has said conducting stress tests will not lead to the prefecture approving of the resumption of such reactors. He has indicated that his prefecture will not make a decision on the matter until the results of investigations into the Fukushima accident are published."

 

[tsutsuji]

http://sankei.jp.msn.com/politics/news/110909/plc11090900340000-n1.htm From yesterday's press conference in Fukushima city. Journalist: Is the middle term storing of nuclear waste outside Fukushima prefecture also considered ? Noda:Yes this is also considered. Hosono:I have been in charge of this issue since the Kan administration. There is no change of the thought that we have no other choice than asking this to Fukushima prefecture. Journalist:Does the Prime Minister share that view? Noda:Yes.

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/editorial/T110907004931.htm English version of 7 September Yomiuri Shimbun editorial : "Noda should ditch denuclearization policy" : "If [supplementary thermal power generation cost] is passed on to users, electricity charges will increase by 20 percent for ordinary households and nearly 40 percent for corporations"."As there are, for now, no solid prospects of securing substitute power sources, it is too early to totally deny the possibility that a new nuclear plant will be constructed".

 

[NUCENG]

This, to me, is telling:

http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201109010197.html

What does it tell you?

That a doctor was out of control?

That he was caught?

That his colleagues weren't paying attention?

That Japanese people in general want to irradiate all their children?

 

[Dmytry]

Another excellent article tsutsuji.

Of course when I see terms such as "cycle of addiction" and "culture of dependency," I see implicit criticism of past decisions made based on economic considerations and freedom of commerce (aka Capitalism). In spite of that, I think it was a good article.

But the bottom line of this article is that there is also a social and political side to major economic decisions and that is a very clear truth. Germany, and Italy, have chosen to go away from Nuclear power. Japan is struggling with keeping their economy going under severe power shortages. But these countries must be responsive to their citizens. The choices they make are theirs to make and that should include honest considerations of the consequences of those decisions. If this results in a return to coal and oil even for an interim measure, the health, environmental, economic, social, and political consequences of that decision will be just as much their responsibility.

The engineers prayer: "Oh God, please make my blunders wise."

Well, in ideal world, the nuclear industry could have self-regulated out of their own self interest, seeing just how many billions the industry lost because some utility tried to save a little money on safety. They could've watched like hawks over each other so that no one would dare to cheat like this at everyone's expense.
But apparently that did not work. Tragedy of the commons - the 'no reactors exploded badly so far' is a common resource, and the responsibility is fragmented.

Afterwards - the failure at Fukushima is no proof that your local nuclear utility is as bad as TEPCO, of course. However it is a proof of failure in whatever process makes people believe that nuke plant in their backyard is safe.
It's not merely a failure of reactor but also a failure of the processes which we trust to declare anything safe.

 

[tsutsuji]

They could've watched like hawks over each other so that no one would dare to cheat like this at everyone's expense.

There have been some lost opportunities. If the 29 March Reuters news is correct

The tsunami research presented by a Tokyo Electric team led by Toshiaki Sakai came on the first day of a three-day conference in July 2007 [2006 (1)] organized by the International Conference on Nuclear Engineering [in Miami].
(...)
Sakai's team determined the Fukushima plant was dead certain to be hit by a tsunami of one or two meters in a 50-year period. They put the risk of a wave of 6 meters or more at around 10 percent over the same time span.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...72S2UA20110329
already quoted at https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3468442&postcount=288

alarm bells should have rung in 2006 in Miami, or later when the proceedings were published ( http://www.asmedl.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=ASMECP002006042460000069000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=Yes&ref=no ). (now available on Joseph S. Miller's blog http://www.jsmillerdesign.com/Fukus...balistic Tsunami Hazard Analysis in Japan.pdf )

If a serious tsunami science scientist had been present at the November 24-26, 2010 Kashiwazaki international symposium on seismic safety, he should have asked Makoto Takao how his http://www.jnes.go.jp/seismic-symposium10/presentationdata/3_sessionB/B-11.pdf page 14 slide can remain valid in the light of the 2006 Sakai presentation, and in the light of the 869 Jogan earthquake.

 

[Dmytry]

tsutsuji : the reactor is on the coast that's been hit by tsunamis over 20 meters tall, the reason why the seawall was so low at Fukushima was not the [geophysical] unknowns, but rather the false belief that they knew more than they actually did. There was the opportunity from the day one - not to use the garbage in garbage out simulations to cut the costs a little bit. Speculating no risk in absence of good data and then waiting for the data to conclusively prove the risk is larger is not a way to go for safety.

 

[robinson]

If you look at the "seawall" (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=fukus...4277&sspn=0.009418,0.016479&vpsrc=6&t=h&z=16"), it's obvious it could have been 40 meters high and the tsunami would have still flooded the site.

There was no tsunami barrier there really. To protect from that sort of event there has to be be a continuous wall. It's as if they didn't plan for a tsunami at all. Just big waves, which a tsunami is certainly not.

 

[Dmytry]

If you look at the "seawall" (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=fukus...4277&sspn=0.009418,0.016479&vpsrc=6&t=h&z=16"), it's obvious it could have been 40 meters high and the tsunami would have still flooded the site.

There was no tsunami barrier there really. To protect from that sort of event there has to be be a continuous wall. It's as if they didn't plan for a tsunami at all. Just big waves, which a tsunami is certainly not.

Well, yes.
The way I see it, they built a plant with no tsunami protection right next to a known tsunami region. That has nothing to do with insufficient knowledge about geophysics by itself and everything to do with combination of a belief that they knew quite exactly where tsunami origin region ends (which is bad) with not actually knowing where it ends (which is totally normal).
edit: to clarify, I mean it is not the inaccuracy of the model by itself that did lead to this disaster (all models were and are inaccurate), but the belief that model was so accurate and reliable that if it told you needed no tsunami protection right next to tsunami zone, you didn't need tsunami protection. This can be done with any model that is not perfect. Or simple negligence.

 

[tsutsuji]

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110911p2g00m0dm066000c.html "[Economy, trade and industry minister] Yoshio Hachiro resigned from his post Saturday after making remarks that angered and displeased people affected by the crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant".

 

[zapperzero]

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110911p2g00m0dm066000c.html "[Economy, trade and industry minister] Yoshio Hachiro resigned from his post Saturday after making remarks that angered and displeased people affected by the crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant".

How common is this in Japan? The new cabinet is just a week old, no?

 

[mantrogo]

depressingly frequent - a cabinet minister resigning after a mere 9 days is actually only tied in fourth place for the fastest resignation post war. And let's face it, ex-PM Kan was the only PM in the last 6 to last more than a year. There was a good quip - if rueful - from the current PM Noda when he was the Finance Minister in June last year. He commented as he returned from the G20 meeting that he was concerned that the Japanese face most familiar to his global counterparts was the translator...

 

[tsutsuji]

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110920p2a00m0na011000c.html "Residents furious over 60-page application, 160-page manual for TEPCO compensation"

Chief Cabinet Secretary Osamu Fujimura tried to clarify Noda's remarks during a news conference Wednesday, saying that while Japan coped with a 2.7 percent supply shortfall during peak electricity demand this summer, a power shortfall of around 10 percent is projected for next summer if all reactors are shut down.
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20110922a3.html

 

[Susudake]

This might be as appropriate on the "scientific side of the fence" (it's not always so clear cut, stupid messy reality!) but I'll post it here:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/09/21/what-tepco-and-the-media-are-hiding/


I've wondered myself about this quake vs. the Hanshin quake, but seeing it calculated at 350 times the Hanshin quake really makes that difference suspect.

I'd love to hear any reactions/explanations about the magnitude issue.

The hydrogen explosions...well that seems to have been well covered on the scientific thread.

 

[Astronuc]

Fukushima Daiichi crisis: OECD & IAEA
http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2060625
Nuclear world confers
20 September 2011

Two international meetings in Europe in June have reinforced the desire of the nuclear industry to work together to respond to the lessons learned from the Fukushima Daiichi accident. In a separate development, the US nuclear industry, which operates a quarter of the world’s reactors, has created a formal organisation to respond to Fukushima Daiichi.
. . . .

 

[gmax137]

This might be as appropriate on the "scientific side of the fence" (it's not always so clear cut, stupid messy reality!) but I'll post it here:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/09/21/what-tepco-and-the-media-are-hiding/I've wondered myself about this quake vs. the Hanshin quake, but seeing it calculated at 350 times the Hanshin quake really makes that difference suspect.

I'd love to hear any reactions/explanations about the magnitude issue.

...

Well I'm no seismic expert, but he seems to be mixing up magnitude (which I thought was a property of the earthquake) and the local ground response at a given location. I just don't see how you can argue that "this 'quake couldn't have been magnitude 9, because the other quake (at magnitude 7.3) caused much more damage". Doesn't it depend on where the 'quake was and where the damage was? He seems to be sensitive to muddy thinking on the part of others, so I'm not sure I understand his seemingly muddy thoughts.

 

[tsutsuji]

Fukushima Daiichi crisis: OECD & IAEA
http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2060625
Nuclear world confers
20 September 2011

Two international meetings in Europe in June have reinforced the desire of the nuclear industry to work together to respond to the lessons learned from the Fukushima Daiichi accident. In a separate development, the US nuclear industry, which operates a quarter of the world’s reactors, has created a formal organisation to respond to Fukushima Daiichi.

Also the American Nuclear Society's Special Committee on the Japanese Fukushima Accident:

will provide a clear and concise explanation of the events surrounding the accident to the general public and U.S. leaders. These communications will include events such as station blackout, the effect on the reactors and on the spent fuel stored at the plant site and the likely health effects of the radioactive substances released to the environment. In addition, the committee will evaluate recommended actions that ANS could or should consider to better communicate with the public and elected officials during a nuclear event.
(...)
will present its draft report by the end of calendar year 2011 and the final report by the spring of 2012.

http://www.new.ans.org/about/committees/scjfa/

Prime minister Noda's address to the IAEA (translation of draft):

At a minimum, there is little doubt that we had overestimated our preparations for tsunami. It is clear that electrical power supplies for emergency use and pumps should not have been situated in locations that could be submerged by tsunami. Our preparations for a severe accident that would result in damage to the reactor core were insufficient. Making a vent took more time than expected, causing loss of precious time. While a full-scale process to discover the cause of the accident will continue for some time, we have identified ''faults'' as well as ''lessons learned'' from them.

(...)

Japan will also present practical strategies and plans around the summer of 2012 concerning the composition of energy sources over the medium and long terms.

http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/09/116392.html

 

[clancy688]

I just don't see how you can argue that "this 'quake couldn't have been magnitude 9, because the other quake (at magnitude 7.3) caused much more damage".

But he has a point. I just checked wikipedia for some older big earthquakes. All of them are measured in the Mj JMA scale. The Tohoku quake is the first one to be measured in the Mw magnitude scale. And according to the german wikipedia, while the Tohoku quake has a 9,0 Mw magnitude, it "only" has a 8,4 Mj JMA magnitude.

http://www.jma.go.jp/jma/press/1103/25b/kaisetsu201103251730.pdf" a comparison of many big quakes and the Tohoku quake (look on page 7). Apparently, the Mw and Mj scales often produced the same numbers, but not for the Tohoku quake.

As far as I understand, the Mw scale measures released energy and the Mj scale destructive power. Wasn't it said that the Fukushima plant should withstand earthquakes up to 8,4? Does anyone know if that number represents the Mw or the Mj number?

 

[westfield]

"IAEA adopts action plan for nuclear safety"

"The plan calls for sending IAEA inspectors to member countries to evaluate the safety of nuclear plants at their request. It also requires the signatories to quickly organize a response team after a nuclear accident."




http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/22_37.html"



As its reported in that article it's seems like a combination of what the IAEA already does and what would be the obvious thing to do in an emergency. Hardly worth a press release unless they just wanted to insult people's intelligence.

 

[Susudake]

http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201109240257.html

I posted on the scientific thread asking for clarification on whether it's accurate to use the term "cold shutdown" in reference to FDI 1-3. Not much response but one person with an engineering background said it would be inaccurate since, as I pointed out, it's not fuel assemblies, but corium, inside (and outside) the reactors.

But now this term seems to be getting embedded in every story (see above). In other words, a meme getting repeated until it's taken for granted. The Asahi is ostensibly a bit more left/independent (independent of a 100+ year right-wing and often militaristic government means by definition being left-leaning) and yet it's still part of the Japanese MSM.

My use of the term "propaganda" (even if the Asahi or others are not doing it intentionally, they're still propagating) in referring to this felicitous mis-application of the term cold-shutdown seems more accurate every time I see this term used.

 

[zapperzero]

My use of the term "propaganda" (even if the Asahi or others are not doing it intentionally, they're still propagating) in referring to this felicitous mis-application of the term cold-shutdown seems more accurate every time I see this term used.

Well, yes, it is. Meaningless feel-good phrase. Cold. Shutdown. No more danger.

 

[alpi]

Well, yes, it is. Meaningless feel-good phrase. Cold. Shutdown. No more danger.

I don't think it is meaningless to have the fuel elements and/or corium covered with water that is no longer boiling, either by heat exchange or by continuous replacement with purified cold water.

 

[gmax137]

... Wasn't it said that the Fukushima plant should withstand earthquakes up to 8,4? Does anyone know if that number represents the Mw or the Mj number?

I don't know if 'it was said' but I think if were said, it would be meaningless. The 'magnitude' is a characteristic of the earthquake (at the location of the earthquake) -- it has nothing really to do specifically with the damage at any given location, simply because the severity at a given location depends on how close you are to the site of the earthquake. Seismic design for a nuclear plant is specified in terms of a ground response spectrum; this tells you how hard the shaking is at the reactor site. The response spectrum defines how a collection of oscillators of various natural frequencies would respond to the ground motion. It has the form of a curve of acceleration (units g or gal) vs. frequency (in hertz). If you want to compare the earthquake as it affected Fukushima to the plant design, you need to convert the measured ground motion at the plant to a response spectrum and then compare that to the specified spectrum. I have not seen such a comparison reported, if any of you have seen it please post a link.

 

[clancy688]

If you want to compare the earthquake as it affected Fukushima to the plant design, you need to convert the measured ground motion at the plant to a response spectrum and then compare that to the specified spectrum. I have not seen such a comparison reported, if any of you have seen it please post a link.

What I meant was http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8379759/Japan-earthquake-Disaster-in-numbers.html" :

8.2 The magnitude of earthquake the Fukushima nuclear plant was designed to withstand

This "8.2" number was often quoted in the media. But is it a number on the Mw scale or the Mj scale?


And there were http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu11_e/images/110516e27.pdf" report, Unit 1 was initially designed for peak ground accelerations of not more than 0.18 g - compare that to the numbers in the TEPCO pdf I posted.