Fukushima Fukushima Management and Government Performance

[zapperzero]

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T110906004963.htm "Kan revealed that the off-site emergency response center near the plant, though supposed to serve as a front-line command center in the event of a crisis, was vacated soon after the accident" (...) Kan: "All the crisis-management arrangements that had been made prior to the accident failed to function properly."

We knew that already. Everyone left as it appeared that Unit 1 was ready to blow, but they returned later.

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110908p2a00m0na022000c.html "TEPCO submits heavily redacted copy of Fukushima nuke accident manual"

As in, 90% or more is blanked out.

 

[tsutsuji]

We knew that already. Everyone left as it appeared that Unit 1 was ready to blow, but they returned later.

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/feature/20110316-866921/news/20110905-OYT1T01170.htm (in Japanese) summarizes Naoto Kan as saying that "personnel failed from gathering at the offsite center". What is meant is, I suppose, the Offsite Center located in Shimonogami, Ookuma (map http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/genshiryoku/jimusho/1_shoukai_6_fukushima1.html ).

I could find the following in the Japanese government report to IAEA :

In relation with the Local Nuclear Emergency Response Headquarters, since the accident events rapidly proceeded in a situation where communication with the Off-site center was difficult due to the disaster, the initial collection of information and communication were conducted mainly by ERC.
(...)
As preparation for earthquakes and tsunamis, etc. in power supplies, communication and reserves, etc. was not sufficient at the Off-site Center (OFC) where the Local Nuclear Emergency Response Headquarters was set up, and also, as enough information on the plant was not obtained as an external factor, expected function of information gathering and communication was not performed from the beginning.
(...)
Meanwhile, convening related parties and dispatching them to the site planned in the framework of the Act on Special Measures Concerning Nuclear Emergency Preparedness was also insufficient in the initial startup stage. This was partly because advanced notices and the register of members to be convened was not fully performed and is to be improved. There is also a background factor that many of current members are planned to be convened from a long distance and improvement should be made for realistic response to a case in which a disaster event proceeds rapidly as in this time.

This time it is contemplated that OFC failed to effectively function under such combined conditions leading to a delay in full-fledged operation of the Local Nuclear Emergency Response Headquarters.
Pages V-42, V-43 http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/kan/topics/201106/pdf/chapter_v.pdf (my boldening added)

See also page V-4 : "Plant information, ERSS, SPEEDI and others were still unavailable at the Off-site Center for some period of time"

 

[NUCENG]

We knew that already. Everyone left as it appeared that Unit 1 was ready to blow, but they returned later.



As in, 90% or more is blanked out.

OK, hope this doesn't come as a shock, hearing this from me.

Claiming that emergency procedures are protected as intellectual property and refusing to provide them in unredacted form to the regulator and the grovernment is just plain bovine excrement. Even if that could be justified, the standard practice in the US is to provide an original unredacted version for official use and a redacted vesion for public release.

And if the exerpts are typical of the detail of those procedure, I doubt that they would be of use even to the operators during an accident. Bad procedures would definitely make mistakes by operators more likely.

"When reactor pressure rises, stabilizes the pressure at (redacted) Mpa by using an emergency condenser and other techniques, and report."

"Other techniques?" Please, the next step was probably "Do what you can and hope that a miracle occurs."

 

[tsutsuji]

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/genpatsu-fukushima/20110930/1600_seiritsu.html The law creating a 10 member nuclear accident investigation commission with investigative powers has been enacted. It is the first time in history that an investigation commission composed of experts is created at the Diet of Japan.

The above commission is different from the "Investigation Committee on the Accident at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Stations of Tokyo Electric Power Company" ( http://icanps.go.jp/eng/about/ ) whose legal basis is a cabinet decision.

http://jp.wsj.com/Japan/Politics/node_317037 Contrasting with the investigation committee appointed by the cabinet in May, the new investigation commission will have a legally binding power to request documents or hear witnesses.

 

[tsutsuji]

Another major difference:

According to the legislation enacted Friday, the new panel will be open to the press,

(...)

The government panel, meanwhile, is not open to the media.

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20111001a5.html

 

[tsutsuji]

25 August:

The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency said the operator informed it just four days before Japan's massive March 11 earthquake and tsunami that waves exceeding 10 meters (33 feet) could hit the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant.
[...]
In 2009, TEPCO notified NISA of a separate calculation showing that a six-meter (20-foot) tsunami could hit the plant, based on studies of a tsunami that occurred in the year 869.
http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110825p2g00m0dm050000c.html

TEPCO says it didn't mean to disclose the assessment since it was a tentative calculation for research purposes based on a simulation.
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/24_36.html

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/images/handouts_110825_01-e.pdf Tepco press release with a time-line of tsunami research from H14.2 (February 2002) to H23.3 (March 2011).

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/genpatsu-fukushima/20111003/1305_tsunamishisan.html The 7 March Tepco report to NISA has been publicly released in answer to a NHK request. All documents are marked with "handle with care" and "for preliminary consultation purposes". Based on the 1896 Meiji Sanriku earthquake, it predicts tsunamis from 8.4 to 10 metre at Fukushima Daiichi units 1 ~ 6. It plans to start studying tsunami countermeasures in April, so that tsunami safety evaluation and countermeasures would match the October 2012 update of the Japanese Civil Engineering Society manual. Tepco's Junichi Matsumoto commented: "At the time of 7 March, the probability of occurrence of such a tsunami was not known, such calculated estimate was in a research phase, and there was no thought that a prompt response was needed". The NISA's Yoshinori Moriyama commented: "I think that three years after producing the calculated estimate, it should have been publicly discussed by specialists, and tsunami countermeasures should have been carried out. Retrospectively it is highly disappointing that this didn't take place".

http://www.asahi.com/national/update/1003/TKY201110030186.html The 7 March Tepco report to NISA has been publicly released on 3 October by the NISA in answer to an Asahi Shimbun request. The report's title is "Fukushima Daiichi and Daini nuclear power plant tsunami evaluation". It is made of one A4 format page and two A3 format pages. Taking into account the deliberations of the Headquarters for Earthquake Research Promotion and of the Japanese Civil Engineering Society, it provides three kinds of estimates. All of them are above the 5.7 metre level, and two are above 10 metre. Upon reception of this report, the NISA's office manager in charge requested Tepco to deliver a report and to take countermeasures at the facilities. Concerning the mega-tsunami of the past (Jogan earthquake), it quotes a specialist as saying "it is necessary to expand knowledge further, and this shall take 2~3 years". It plans the scientific publication in October 2011 of research concluding that tsunami vestiges above 4 metres cannot be found in Fukushima prefecture. Based on the above, it plans to reassess tsunami estimates in time with the expected October 2012 update of the Japanese Civil Engineering Society manual.

http://www.asahi.com/national/update/0918/TKY201109180217.html (18 September) The Atomic Energy Society of Japan has just created a draft probabilistic tsunami safety evaluation manual. Until now, there was a probabilistic manual for earthquakes, but not for tsunamis. Tsunami safety was relying on the standards of the Japanese Civil Engineering Society published in 2002, but in the present accident, those were largely exceeded, the emergency diesel generators were flooded, reactor cooling became impossible, and large amounts of radioactive substances were released. In response, the Atomic Energy Society of Japan decided in May to create a probabilistic tsunami safety evaluation manual. In the draft, tsunami heights and frequencies are predicted using data such as tsunamis of the past and active faults' sizes. The manual provides a method to calculate for each tsunami wave height, the probability of seawater flooding, of building and pipe damages caused by shocks of floating objects. It provides a method to calculate scenarios and related frequencies as regards the accumulation of failures and damages of every equipment leading to core damage. The purpose is to find out which equipment changes or reinforcements can lower the accident probability and to use these results in real safety countermeasures.

 

[zapperzero]

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20111002p2g00m0dm083000c.html
TEPCO finds own nuclear accident manual useless

 

[gmax137]

...

http://www.asahi.com/national/update/0918/TKY201109180217.html (18 September) The Atomic Energy Society of Japan has just created a draft probabilistic tsunami safety evaluation manual. Until now, there was a probabilistic manual for earthquakes, but not for tsunamis. Tsunami safety was relying on the standards of the Japanese Civil Engineering Society published in 2002, but in the present accident, those were largely exceeded, the emergency diesel generators were flooded, reactor cooling became impossible, and large amounts of radioactive substances were released. In response, the Atomic Energy Society of Japan decided in May to create a probabilistic tsunami safety evaluation manual. In the draft, tsunami heights and frequencies are predicted using data such as tsunamis of the past and active faults' sizes. The manual provides a method to calculate for each tsunami wave height, the probability of seawater flooding, of building and pipe damages caused by shocks of floating objects. It provides a method to calculate scenarios and related frequencies as regards the accumulation of failures and damages of every equipment leading to core damage. The purpose is to find out which equipment changes or reinforcements can lower the accident probability and to use these results in real safety countermeasures.

tsutsuji, can you find a link to the actual draft document? All I can find is the story that the draft was created. I'd like to see the actual draft. Thanks

 

[tsutsuji]

tsutsuji, can you find a link to the actual draft document? All I can find is the story that the draft was created. I'd like to see the actual draft. Thanks

I am afraid I can't find the document either. All I could find is the following presentation http://www.aesj.or.jp/information/20110919yamaguchi.pdf (which is linked on http://www.aesj.or.jp/information/session.html ). Pr Yamaguchi seems to be the head of the relevant committee.

Incidentally, I found "A Probabilistic Risk Assessment Practioner looks at the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami" by Woody Epstein, 29 April 2011 at http://woody.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/A-PRA-Practioner-looks-at-the-Great-East-Japan-Earthquake-and-Tsunami.pdf which is asking interesting questions such as "If the TAMNPP methodology is correct, why did TEPCO’s implementation of it indicate a tsunami wall of 5.7m was sufficient ?"

 

[Astronuc]

I have not been able to find the AESJ draft standard for tsunami PRA on their website, but I have found the Epstein paper and other more recent discussions of 'what happened'.

Epstein comments (pg 23/55): "I am also not sure how TEPCO applied the JSCE guidelines. The presentation made by TEPCO in 2008, after their preliminary tsunami risk assessment, only indicates that they used the Chilean Tsunami of 1960 as the scenario tsunami for the far field study; there is no mention of the scenario for the near field study which produced the results of a 5.7m design basis for Daiichi. Perhaps the correct application of the JSCE methods, both historical data collection and implementation of the mathematics, was beyond the scope of TEPCO PRA analysts."

Earlier, Epstein states (pg 13/55) "Dr. Geller correctly points out that one of the leading contributors to “what went wrong” at Fukushima Daiichi was an inability by anyone involved in decision making or regulation to “expect the unexpected”."

I think such a large earthquake and tsunami were forseeable, based on earthquakes since 1900, in addition to historical information. Governments need look at changes in frequencies/trends of such natural phenomena.

This might also be of interest (Nov 24-26, 2010) - http://www.jnes.go.jp/seismic-symposium10/presentationdata/content.html

and particularly - Session C - http://www.jnes.go.jp/seismic-symposium10/presentationdata/4_sessionC/C-10.pdf (Seismic PSA Implementation Standard in Japan)

See also paper B-06, "Tsunami Assessment method for NPP in JSCE, Japan"

and http://committees.jsce.or.jp/ceofnp/system/files/JSCE_Tsunami_060519.pdf

Those papers/presentations represent the thinking prior to March 11, 2011. Obviously, things have changed.

There is also this - Members of nuclear academic society voice repentance over Fukushima disaster
http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110920p2a00m0na001000c.html

Hisashi Ninokata, a professor with the Tokyo Institute of Technology, said, "A myth that nuclear plants were completely safe took on a life of its own and delayed efforts to improve their safety. We experts, too, were overconfident that a nuclear disaster of such magnitude would never happen."
. . . .
One audience member asked, "Does it take a disaster like this to make you notice problems?" In reply, Hosei University visiting professor Hiroshi Miyano said, "We need to reflect on our lack of imagination (regarding possible dangers to nuclear plants)."

Osaka University professor Akira Yamaguchi said, "I think we were in an environment that did not encourage us to exercise our imaginations."
. . . .

Unfortunately, such revelations come after the fact.

 

[gmax137]

...Osaka University professor Akira Yamaguchi said, "I think we were in an environment that did not encourage us to exercise our imaginations."

Unfortunately, such revelations come after the fact.

We in the nuclear industry must aspire to exercise our imaginations, and I hope we don't all focus on earthquakes, tsunamis, and SBO -- we need to take this lesson and apply it to all areas of analysis and operations -- we must question and re-question our assumptions and the validity of all our design bases. The same sneaky complacency can exist in areas completely unrelated to natural events.

 

[Astronuc]

We in the nuclear industry must aspire to exercise our imaginations, and I hope we don't all focus on earthquakes, tsunamis, and SBO -- we need to take this lesson and apply it to all areas of analysis and operations -- we must question and re-question our assumptions and the validity of all our design bases. The same sneaky complacency can exist in areas completely unrelated to natural events.

Folks (e.g. US NRC) are already looking at beyond design basis events (BDBE), but I see that the goal posts are starting to move - which is a good thing.

I would caution those who seem to think certain things can't happen. I've heard comments to the effect that some folks "don't look, because they might find something, and then have to deal with it."


In the Fukushima case, had the tsunami protection been more robust, they might have survived. Or, had the EDG fuel tanks, the EDGs, and electrical equipment been better protected from effects of flooding - we would be reading a thread with over 11,300 posts and 1.6 million views.

 

[rmattila]

Examples of the things that are currently being studied in the aftermath of the Fukushima accident can be found in the http://www.stuk.fi/ydinturvallisuus/ajankohtaista_ydinturvallisuus/ajankohtaiset_uutinen/fi_FI/uutinen_15092011/_files/86251419958379456/default/eu-stress-tests-national-progress-report-finland.pdf concerning the European "stress tests". The final results are to be expected by the end of the year.

 

[gmax137]

Examples of the things that are currently being studied in the aftermath of the Fukushima accident can be found in the http://www.stuk.fi/ydinturvallisuus/ajankohtaista_ydinturvallisuus/ajankohtaiset_uutinen/fi_FI/uutinen_15092011/_files/86251419958379456/default/eu-stress-tests-national-progress-report-finland.pdf concerning the European "stress tests". The final results are to be expected by the end of the year.

Yes, I am aware of the ENSREG-specified 'stress tests.' Earthquake, flooding, SBO/loss of heat sink, severe accident guidelines. These are all fine things to look at, I am simply wishing that we don't stop looking once these areas are evaluated.

 

[zapperzero]

ZDF report on Fukushima (subtitles in English)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=V1T4Ac9nHeY

highlight of the piece: workers required to sign NDAs and waive their right to sue for compensation if they get sick.

Also a bit of ground-level footage from J-village. People standing around in a line with no masks on.

 

[maddog1964]

ZDF report on Fukushima (subtitles in English)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=V1T4Ac9nHeY

highlight of the piece: workers required to sign NDAs and waive their right to sue for compensation if they get sick.

Also a bit of ground-level footage from J-village. People standing around in a line with no masks on.

After looking at the link you provided, it is my undersanding using the english sub-titles that

1) the workers are not "Required" to waive their right to sue for compensation if they get sick. They "choose" this as an option so that they receieve the "Higher Bounus Pay". I understood the employee to say, we are forced to take the bouns pay so as to receive the higher wage, not that the company mandates it.

It sounds like a standardly used procedure to shift the future liabilities of the company to the present. The company would not be complelled to maintaine as large of an account on their books to pay the potential (unknown) future medical payments. It becomes a form of gambling for the employee. As he is choosing to receive compensation today for an illness that he may/maynot experience in the future. Also by taking the bounus pay he has received payment for something he maynot experience, but if he does and turns down the "bouns pay" he would then be relying on two things of major importance. First the the company will still exist and have the funds to cover an illness, second should he work (in the future) at a second NPP he may have to prove the exposure and the % of exposure that came from his work at Fuku. Please note this information is based on my understaning of the US laws, I have no understanding of the Japan regulations.

Also the employee is choosing to work there. He is not being forced to work at the plant. He has the same options as the rest of the Japanese people. He is also choosing to work in a hazards enviorment, no different than firefighters, police and military.

It also is very common in the US for employees to sigh Confidentuality Agreements when they work for a company. I suspect the one that they are signing is must more strigient than normal, but I also can understand many reason that this would be needed. (I can not say that I would agree with everything listed in the agreement, I probably would not)

It apperars signing the document made no difference because he did a interview anyway. Do you happen to know if he received any compensation for it!

With that said, I am not referring to compensation for the employees/firefighters/miliatry that responded to the intial days of the accident. They did not choose to (in the same manner) to put themselves in the exposure. The fireman/military assume you could have a call to duty at the plant, but they did not sign on knowing the hazards that exist today.

Please forward a clearer link if possible, as I do not understand german and find that the translations are not always correct. And sometimes I am not always correct. But I did go back through the subtitles in depth and understood it as an option.

 

[tsutsuji]

http://www.asahi.com/national/update/1014/TKY201110140490.html The ministerial ordinance setting the worker's maximum exposure back (from 250) to 100 mSv [over which time span?] will be enacted in the first decade of November.

 

[nikkkom]

http://www.asahi.com/national/update/1014/TKY201110140490.html The ministerial ordinance setting the worker's maximum exposure back (from 250) to 100 mSv [over which time span?] will be enacted in the first decade of November.

My understanding is its a total allowed cumulative dose during work in the emergency area.

Basically, company must plan for work shifts so that no one gets total dose more than that. If anyone comes close to the limit, this worker is removed. I don't know when such worker can continue working elsewhere (such as a normal NPP).

 

[tsutsuji]

http://mainichi.jp/select/weathernews/20110311/nuclear/news/20111015k0000m040101000c.html On 14 October, Japan Nuclear Energy Safety Organization (JNES) released the contents of 39 cases of analysis it carried out about the Fukushima Daiichi accident. It was learned that on 26 March, JNES had concluded that the EPZ (evacuation prepared zone), originally set to comprise the 8 ~ 10 km range, had to be extended to a 24.5 km range as the accident concerned 3 reactors. But the NISA, which had requested that analysis, failed from taking these results into account. In mid March, JNES had concluded that there was a possibility of recriticality in case the fuel racks at unit 4 would be broken. On 30 June, JNES concluded that a meltdown would occur after 7.7 hours if an aftershock opens a crack, and water disappears from unit 4 spent fuel pool, thus revealing that unit 4's reinforcement work was a pressing matter.

http://www.asahi.com/national/update/1013/TKY201110130700.html On 13 October, the NISA revealed that Tepco had failed to perform safety assessment and reinforcement works following the 2006 update of earthquake guidelines. Work at more than 600 items at Fukushima units 1 ~6, concerning such things as control bars or pipes failed from being done. In March 2008 Tepco sent an interim report to the government analysing earthquake safety and concluding that there was no need to reinforce RPVs. The more than 600 items including control bars and pipes were to be included in the final report, which was announced "for the Autumn of 2010 or later".

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/science/news/20111014-OYT1T00529.htm One of the reasons why Tepco was late to take into account the 2006 earthquake guideline update at Fukushima Daiichi and Daini was, according to Tepco, that they were "busy with the troubles at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa".

http://mainichi.jp/select/biz/news/20111014k0000m020109000c.html In 2006 the earthquake guideline was changed, multiplying the earthquake acceleration by 1.6. Tepco was late to perform the safety assessment of S-class equipments.

http://www.jiji.com/jc/c?g=soc_30&k=2011101400937 The NISA has informed Tepco which parts of unit 1's operation manual must be publicly released. Those parts will be released at the end of next week at the earliest.

 

[clancy688]

1) the workers are not "Required" to waive their right to sue for compensation if they get sick. They "choose" this as an option so that they receieve the "Higher Bounus Pay". I understood the employee to say, we are forced to take the bouns pay so as to receive the higher wage, not that the company mandates it.

Well, they say that they "need" those extra bucks. I nearly slammed my head into the wall when I watched that part the first time.
"'You want a danger bonus?' they ask. 'If yes, sign here.' We have no other choice, because of course we want that danger bonus of up to 10 euros an hour, but if you sign, you sign also that you won't sue the contractor if you're getting sick later." (most literal translation I could come up with)
It's said that they work for 80-100 € a day, but it isn't specified whether the danger bonus is already included into this number (from my understanding, it's not) or under which conditions they'd get that danger bonus.
They're working for TEPCO (and therefore at the plant) because there's "no other work in the area" and they have to support their families somehow.
The news report makes it sound like TEPCO's taking advantage of all those people who're suddenly unemployed because of the evacuation, but I'd take all those statements with a grain, or better a ton of salt. If there's something you can truly relay on, besides that the sky is blue, then that a german news organization will never ever understate any radiation connected dangers. It's actually the opposite...

Please forward a clearer link if possible, as I do not understand german and find that the translations are not always correct. And sometimes I am not always correct. But I did go back through the subtitles in depth and understood it as an option.

The youtube translation is quite literal. I didn't find any big error while watching it, and while the subtitles probably must sound horrible to native speakers, they are basically a one to one conversion from german to english.

 

[zapperzero]

After looking at the link you provided, it is my undersanding using the english sub-titles that

1) the workers are not "Required" to waive their right to sue for compensation if they get sick. They "choose" this as an option so that they receieve the "Higher Bounus Pay". I understood the employee to say, we are forced to take the bouns pay so as to receive the higher wage, not that the company mandates it.

It sounds like a standardly used procedure to shift the future liabilities of the company to the present. The company would not be complelled to maintaine as large of an account on their books to pay the potential (unknown) future medical payments. It becomes a form of gambling for the employee. As he is choosing to receive compensation today for an illness that he may/maynot experience in the future. Also by taking the bounus pay he has received payment for something he maynot experience, but if he does and turns down the "bouns pay" he would then be relying on two things of major importance. First the the company will still exist and have the funds to cover an illness, second should he work (in the future) at a second NPP he may have to prove the exposure and the % of exposure that came from his work at Fuku. Please note this information is based on my understaning of the US laws, I have no understanding of the Japan regulations.

Also the employee is choosing to work there. He is not being forced to work at the plant. He has the same options as the rest of the Japanese people. He is also choosing to work in a hazards enviorment, no different than firefighters, police and military.

It also is very common in the US for employees to sigh Confidentuality Agreements when they work for a company. I suspect the one that they are signing is must more strigient than normal, but I also can understand many reason that this would be needed. (I can not say that I would agree with everything listed in the agreement, I probably would not)

It apperars signing the document made no difference because he did a interview anyway. Do you happen to know if he received any compensation for it!

With that said, I am not referring to compensation for the employees/firefighters/miliatry that responded to the intial days of the accident. They did not choose to (in the same manner) to put themselves in the exposure. The fireman/military assume you could have a call to duty at the plant, but they did not sign on knowing the hazards that exist today.

Please forward a clearer link if possible, as I do not understand german and find that the translations are not always correct. And sometimes I am not always correct. But I did go back through the subtitles in depth and understood it as an option.

It is an option, yes. No telling what happens if you do not "choose" it. Maybe you don't get signed on? Would you try and modify the terms of employment if you had a family to feed? Would you even read the contract, if you were a regular Joe-san unskilled laborer?

I see no good reason for a jumper to sign an NDA. Can you explain?

 

[zapperzero]

http://mainichi.jp/select/weathernews/20110311/nuclear/news/20111015k0000m040101000c.html On 14 October, Japan Nuclear Energy Safety Organization (JNES) released the contents of 39 cases of analysis it carried out about the Fukushima Daiichi accident. It was learned that on 26 March, JNES had concluded that the EPZ (evacuation prepared zone), originally set to comprise the 8 ~ 10 km range, had to be extended to a 24.5 km range as the accident concerned 3 reactors. But the NISA, which had requested that analysis, failed from taking these results into account. In mid March, JNES had concluded that there was a possibility of recriticality in case the fuel racks at unit 4 would be broken. On 30 June, JNES concluded that a meltdown would occur after 7.7 hours if an aftershock opens a crack, and water disappears from unit 4 spent fuel pool, thus revealing that unit 4's reinforcement work was a pressing matter.

Holy smokes.

 

[tsutsuji]

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/genpatsu-fukushima/20111015/0420_shiryo.html In a 25 March document, JNES studied how much the concrete bottom of PCV would be eroded by melt fuel, assuming various melting speeds, and the conclusion was that the concrete would not be eroded.

http://www.jnes.go.jp/jyohou/kouhyo/kaiseki_published.html The analysis documents released by JNES

 

[maddog1964]

It is an option, yes. No telling what happens if you do not "choose" it. Maybe you don't get signed on? Would you try and modify the terms of employment if you had a family to feed? Would you even read the contract, if you were a regular Joe-san unskilled laborer?

I see no good reason for a jumper to sign an NDA. Can you explain?

Explaination:

1) My response was to "CORRECT" the statement as I understood the subtitles. Forced vs option are not the same. Not the merits of the video, as I know nothing about this station/and the source of the information other that the employee apparently signed a confidentiality statement and did not honor it, nor stand behind it with his/her name. So I must then question his/her motivation, as they and it said only two (there are thousand of employees at the plant to my understanding), that's a very small %?

2) As I stated in my post, there are business models that this is based on, and if I was to work there, would take the money now because if it is not a ligit company, its likely they will not exist or be sueable 10/20 years from now. And there are many web sites that are dedicated to bringing TEPCO/others down, so that's not to say they would be around.

3) As I tell my children: education is one of the few things that no one can take from you,(other than some medical cond. such as stroke etc) Reputation/your word is next, although that can be destroyed at the hands of other. With this said, I ask why are these people unemployable when other are?

4) I also do not believe that the term "jumpers" and the information on the web stating "jumpers" can be lumped into one category. In our business it is quite common for *some of the best* to jump from outage to outage(shutdown for maintance). They choose to do this, make most of their yearly salary in *short windows* then lay out,work other jobs the rest of the time, we as employers depend on the *expetice of knowledge they bring to the table*. Its a win/win for both. Along with that there is the need for their support employees, hence labled the unskilled.

I would, unless able to see the raw data myself, (that not going to happen/and should not) not make a stand or statement as to *who the employees are* ?

NOTE: its is apparent that the Media had a full copy of the contract or should if they went on the air with it, so the questions that are need to really understand if these are people being taken advantage of should be as avalible as the *negitive* information. Has anyone seen the whole contract on the web? Please forward link.

I am not sure of the rules of this thread on PF. if its strictly factual or not, but one should state the difference if they are presenting their interpitation vs what the link *actually said*.

Zapperzero do you know the pay scale of similar jobs before the accident/or other sites? How does the payscale (including/not including) relate to those not working at the site? It seems there is not enough information that i have seen to run the needed numbers! Also I would ask you "what is the acceptible" payscale? Also the inablity to sue a company (that may not exist in 10 years) and the ablity to have health care and living pay compensation are not the same. Do you believe, as you lable them "jumpers" are taking that "bouns pay" and investing it in stocks or something so that they have the "need care funds" down the road? I do not! Some will. Also do you even know how many are from the area that is evacuated? Also some are out of work related to the flooding and has nothing to do with the Fuku incident. Again lack of appropiate information to make broad statements.

Not sure this is the right site, but the business model of the so called "jumpers" (your term not mine) is not being fully/factually represented is my belief. Its ony part of the story.

 

[zapperzero]

Explaination:

1) My response was to "CORRECT" the statement as I understood the subtitles. Forced vs option are not the same. Not the merits of the video, as I know nothing about this station/and the source of the information other that the employee apparently signed a confidentiality statement and did not honor it, nor stand behind it with his/her name. So I must then question his/her motivation, as they and it said only two (there are thousand of employees at the plant to my understanding), that's a very small %?

But what is the reason for an NDA in the first place? I know as little as you about ZDF... but I think they are as scared of lawsuits as anyone else and would not state untruths - interpretation is another matter, as is the reliability of sources.

 

[NUCENG]

Explaination:

1) My response was to "CORRECT" the statement as I understood the subtitles. Forced vs option are not the same. Not the merits of the video, as I know nothing about this station/and the source of the information other that the employee apparently signed a confidentiality statement and did not honor it, nor stand behind it with his/her name. So I must then question his/her motivation, as they and it said only two (there are thousand of employees at the plant to my understanding), that's a very small %?

2) As I stated in my post, there are business models that this is based on, and if I was to work there, would take the money now because if it is not a ligit company, its likely they will not exist or be sueable 10/20 years from now. And there are many web sites that are dedicated to bringing TEPCO/others down, so that's not to say they would be around.

3) As I tell my children: education is one of the few things that no one can take from you,(other than some medical cond. such as stroke etc) Reputation/your word is next, although that can be destroyed at the hands of other. With this said, I ask why are these people unemployable when other are?

4) I also do not believe that the term "jumpers" and the information on the web stating "jumpers" can be lumped into one category. In our business it is quite common for *some of the best* to jump from outage to outage(shutdown for maintance). They choose to do this, make most of their yearly salary in *short windows* then lay out,work other jobs the rest of the time, we as employers depend on the *expetice of knowledge they bring to the table*. Its a win/win for both. Along with that there is the need for their support employees, hence labled the unskilled.

I would, unless able to see the raw data myself, (that not going to happen/and should not) not make a stand or statement as to *who the employees are* ?

NOTE: its is apparent that the Media had a full copy of the contract or should if they went on the air with it, so the questions that are need to really understand if these are people being taken advantage of should be as avalible as the *negitive* information. Has anyone seen the whole contract on the web? Please forward link.

I am not sure of the rules of this thread on PF. if its strictly factual or not, but one should state the difference if they are presenting their interpitation vs what the link *actually said*.

Zapperzero do you know the pay scale of similar jobs before the accident/or other sites? How does the payscale (including/not including) relate to those not working at the site? It seems there is not enough information that i have seen to run the needed numbers! Also I would ask you "what is the acceptible" payscale? Also the inablity to sue a company (that may not exist in 10 years) and the ablity to have health care and living pay compensation are not the same. Do you believe, as you lable them "jumpers" are taking that "bouns pay" and investing it in stocks or something so that they have the "need care funds" down the road? I do not! Some will. Also do you even know how many are from the area that is evacuated? Also some are out of work related to the flooding and has nothing to do with the Fuku incident. Again lack of appropiate information to make broad statements.

Not sure this is the right site, but the business model of the so called "jumpers" (your term not mine) is not being fully/factually represented is my belief. Its ony part of the story.

The original reason I started this thread was to discuss performance of TEPCO and Japanese government and regulators with respect to the accident. We are in the accident mitigation phase and the treatment of workers is a legitimate discussion pont here. There are some posters who will consistently take positions that TEPCO is evil incarnate. I haven''t seen any indication that people here think TEPCO was totally effective, open, and honest (including the preliminary report from IAEA).

That said, the real question is why a citizen would risk working in a high radiation, physically dangerous industrial recovery, why they would agree to NDA and no-sue restrictions. Is it the money, unemployment due to destruction during the earthquake and tsunami, national and world economic problems, search for adventure, or simply because Japanese culture leads them to pitch in and just get on with it. The Japanese did not become a world economic power through stupidity or laziness and it seems a little insulting for us to be arguing about whether they are being abused by their employers.

The game of GO is an ancient Japanese strategic game played on a thick wooden board with a grid on the playing surface. The bottom of the board is often hollowed out, which I initially believed was for weight or reigidity. The concentration required to play the game is amazing. I have watched a game between Japanese masters of the game and they made chess grandmasters look like dervishes. There was a story of a Go player who starved to death waiting for a move by his oponent who passed away during a game.

In fact, I was later told that the reason the board was hollowed out was that in the days of the Samurai someone who interrupted the players or kibbitzed would be beheaded and their bloody head left in the hollow of the overturned board as a warning to others. Lesson learned - I'll let the workers and Japanese society decide if they are being fairly treated.

 

[zapperzero]

In fact, I was later told that the reason the board was hollowed out was that in the days of the Samurai someone who interrupted the players or kibbitzed would be beheaded and their bloody head left in the hollow of the overturned board as a warning to others. Lesson learned - I'll let the workers and Japanese society decide if they are being fairly treated.

Ah. But that NDA, a part of TEPCO's policy of silence, is making it hard for the rest of us to know what is going on. It was obvious to me that such an agreement existed, because otherwise the Japanese-speaking web would be filled with personal diaries and tweets and picture blogs of Fukushima work and whatnot.

Moreover, the fact that there will be no lawsuits for damages, coupled with the effect of the NDAs and the system of using myriad subcontractors will severely skew epidemiological data. What is the use of tracing the cause of a case of cancer or leukemia, if there is no compensation forthcoming anyway?

In this way, the truth is hidden because disclosure would be expensive and painful. I think this is a performance that should not be repeated.

Eventually, because of this many more people may be put in harm's way - "oh there were zero extra cancers from Fukushima workers; those guys took up to 250 mSv each, so the safe allowable dose in emergencies must be higher still".

EDIT: moreover, when real info is unavailable, this kind of thing

flourishes and the tin foil hat brigade comes out in force, further muddying the waters...

 

[clancy688]

EDIT: moreover, when real info is unavailable, this kind of thing

flourishes and the tin foil hat brigade comes out in force, further muddying the waters...

Um, what's that? A Light Novel about Fukushima...? Could you please give some informations for those poor guys among us who can't read japanese? ;)

 

[NUCENG]

Ah. But that NDA, a part of TEPCO's policy of silence, is making it hard for the rest of us to know what is going on. It was obvious to me that such an agreement existed, because otherwise the Japanese-speaking web would be filled with personal diaries and tweets and picture blogs of Fukushima work and whatnot.

Moreover, the fact that there will be no lawsuits for damages, coupled with the effect of the NDAs and the system of using myriad subcontractors will severely skew epidemiological data. What is the use of tracing the cause of a case of cancer or leukemia, if there is no compensation forthcoming anyway?

In this way, the truth is hidden because disclosure would be expensive and painful. I think this is a performance that should not be repeated.

Eventually, because of this many more people may be put in harm's way - "oh there were zero extra cancers from Fukushima workers; those guys took up to 250 mSv each, so the safe allowable dose in emergencies must be higher still".

EDIT: moreover, when real info is unavailable, this kind of thing

flourishes and the tin foil hat brigade comes out in force, further muddying the waters...

In the case of Japan with the poor performance of the regulators, this may be the weakest answer I've given. But an independent regulator and the government of Japan should not be hindered during investigations by agreements signed by employees. If they do their job, the truth should emerge. If they don't do their job, I doubt we'll ever know the full story - even without NDAs because no individual has the whole story.

Having an independent regulator that is empowered and in charge is vital.

 

[nikkkom]

It's been more than half a year since the disaster. Are there ANY investigation results at all regarding the events of the first week?

IIRC in Challenger and Columbia accidents investigators provided reports in about half a year.

 

[maddog1964]

Ah. But that NDA, a part of TEPCO's policy of silence, is making it hard for the rest of us to know what is going on. It was obvious to me that such an agreement existed, because otherwise the Japanese-speaking web would be filled with personal diaries and tweets and picture blogs of Fukushima work and whatnot...

Some items to look at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-disclosure_agreement

The NDA works in many ways and works for both parties, from the video I am under the impression that the wages, present/future work compensation and conditions are spelled out in the NDA agreement, (I would better guess its a work contract that contains a NDA agreement)

That would be one reason to sign the agreement. It is a legal binding contract that provides protection BOTH ways. My guys know ever line of their contract that benefits them. (And they should, not all contractors will volunteer to comply).

"highlight of the piece: workers required to sign NDAs and waive their right to sue for compensation if they get sick..."

..." because otherwise the Japanese-speaking web would be filled with personal diaries and tweets and picture blogs of Fukushima work and whatnot."

I think you answer the question in your quote... just because you/we may want to know certain information, that does not mandate that any Company has to release it!

First: "...highligh ... requided to sign and waive ..right to sue.. " JUST not a true statement! But its the statemnents such as this that cause the Media deception, and require NDA's. Alot of people won't even read the link, but assume that you stated it correctly... that then spins the web of false information.

Second: I pointed out several important issues that come into play here, but you seem to just ignore then. This leads me to wonder if your real interest lies in the question "why would you sign a NDA?" Not everything is done to "avoid" a lawsuit or "decive" the public, but addmittly Tepco has done this in the past. Tepco and the sub-contractors are prevy to a lot of information that should not be release through the workers.

Third: I say this in all sincerity... Workers that are worring about blogging and diaries may very well be a significant SAFETY hazard. The conditions warrent that ones concentration be foucued on what they are doing, not what they are going to tell the world!.. I have read blogs that reference *tweeting an employee, to get the scoop first* let's hope he did not make a critical mistake that might just cause a futher release/hazard to the area or an other employee at the time! There is always some who will be misstreated and some who will feel that they are intitled to more (or better).

Fourth: Its the tweeting/blogging of bad information that will cause most of the damage of the data! All the information of exposure will be release in the apporperate agencies as time goes on. Sadly most people do not take the time to read all of it or the important footnotes and small print.

I prefer to stay with the topics that relate to mechanics of FUKU. I don't see protest in the streets/employee's walking off the job, so can only assume that the majority of the workers agree to what they are doing.. again its not mandated that they work there!

You might find it interesting to look back at the old Tepco documents, regarding the format of how exposure is (or was then) calculated! (what workers hours vs. levels of exposure/type etc.) It is a typical business model and has merit to keep the data correct in convaying the information, but I was surprised at first to see the format used in the yearly 2000's to calculate exposure. BUT if you don't read the whole thing or fine print it goes right past you. I would link it to you but I went thruough it in the early days and can not locate it. (and do not know that it pretains today) It was from one of the gov't agency that they report the quarterly/yearly amounts.

Here again I would have to little information to know what catagories the sub-contractors would fall under and also the emergency limit would change the model.

There is little that has surprised me since the early days, and unfortunaly I would guess that we should be looking at all plants around the world, but its the technical senerios that are going to keep us from repeating the past again, and Media hype has no place. The employees in question are being paid to do a job, a company has a right and obligation to protect their intellectual property, and in this case I believe the public.. (from false and fearful/stressful release of mis-information).

Have you ever wondered how many of the so called *leaks/malfunctions* have been *planted*. I suspect a few, as some of the bloggers with *connections inside* are right on it!

Also you need not be conserned about the NDA's limiting the release of information to doctors, gov't agencies or other investigating agencies as they are usually expempt from the NDA's. There are certain things that fall under the exceptions, but again I do not follow japanese law and do not have a copy of the NDA's

well time to lurk and look at the technical issues... So how about the Vents!

 

[zapperzero]

The NDA works in many ways and works for both parties, from the video I am under the impression that the wages, present/future work compensation and conditions are spelled out in the NDA agreement, (I would better guess its a work contract that contains a NDA agreement)

That would be one reason to sign the agreement. It is a legal binding contract that provides protection BOTH ways. My guys know ever line of their contract that benefits them. (And they should, not all contractors will volunteer to comply).

This is ridiculous. So what if the NDA and the work contract are conflated in one document? What sort of protection would an NDA grant to the employee? Also, I don't know who "your guys" are and don't think they are relevant in any case.

I think you answer the question in your quote... just because you/we may want to know certain information, that does not mandate that any Company has to release it!

No. TEPCO has no right to hide information about the accident. They had a responsibility and they failed it. It is only normal that they should be watched carefully from now on, especially in what concerns the way they are dealing with the mess they made.

Also you need not be conserned about the NDA's limiting the release of information to doctors, gov't agencies or other investigating agencies as they are usually expempt from the NDA's. There are certain things that fall under the exceptions, but again I do not follow japanese law and do not have a copy of the NDA's

No. I am concerned about the jumpers themselves not coming forward when/if they get ill and about the fact they participated in the cleanup being "lost", obscured.

A doctor will see leukemia and treat leukemia. He will not ask, of his own accord "have you worked at Fukushima?" and even if he does ask, he will NOT explore further, because a causal link is impossible to establish, years later. That detail may not even go into the patient's medical record (which is not publicly accessible in any case) and so may not appear in any epidemiological studies.

Investigating agencies will not necessarily investigate anyone. Even if they try, already there was a story a couple months ago that TEPCO had lost (or had never had, more precisely) any details of the identity and whereabouts of a couple dozen people who had been employed and had worked at the plant, post-accident.

 

[NUCENG]

It's been more than half a year since the disaster. Are there ANY investigation results at all regarding the events of the first week?

IIRC in Challenger and Columbia accidents investigators provided reports in about half a year.

There have been two reports from NISA to IAEA.

After TMI which was a single reactor as opposed to the 4 units significantly damaged in Japan. The President's commission report was issued in six months. The Rogovin Commission report took 9 months and the Report to the Pennsylvania Governor took 10 months.

I don;t need to discuss the size of the pry bars that were needed to get information from Chernobyl.

 

[zapperzero]

There have been two reports from NISA to IAEA.

After TMI which was a single reactor as opposed to the 4 units significantly damaged in Japan. The President's commission report was issued in six months. The Rogovin Commission report took 9 months and the Report to the Pennsylvania Governor took 10 months.

I don't need to discuss the size of the pry bars that were needed to get information from Chernobyl.

Yeah. Nature of the beast. One of the lesser-known stories is that Gorbachev himself had to send some trusted KGB goons along with the first ministerial delegation to learn what was going on - and it took them nearly three days to report back that the plant had, in fact, exploded.

 

[desertlabs]

"The Japanese did not become a world economic power through stupidity or laziness and it seems a little insulting for us to be arguing about whether they are being abused by their employers. "

But it is the country where Fukushima happened. Fukushima is as bad as it is because TEPCO was allowed to skirt regulations. It isn't a stretch for me to believe that TEPCO is taking advantage of the workers. In fact, haven't we heard a lot about the terrible facilities afforded these workers?

 

[maddog1964]

"The Japanese did not become a world economic power through stupidity or laziness and it seems a little insulting for us to be arguing about whether they are being abused by their employers. "

But it is the country where Fukushima happened. Fukushima is as bad as it is because TEPCO was allowed to skirt regulations. It isn't a stretch for me to believe that TEPCO is taking advantage of the workers. In fact, haven't we heard a lot about the terrible facilities afforded these workers?

I did some reshearch on the labor/NDA's regulations in Japan over the last two days, it is not so cut and dry from what I could see. (hindered by the language barrier and not being able to equate payscale their to relative living cost..) this will take more time than I have at the moment. Also there seems to be some big differences in Culture, that is acceptable, that would not be elsewere in the world.

during the past post i had asked several questions to zapp... but did not get any responses that seem to provide informatioin that would allow one to make an informed descision. But I do see a lot of *inproper/mis-represtentations of the conditions and treatment.. I grant that they have been tough, but I can not say they are intentional vs the best Tepco was able to do at or during the period in question.

One thing that has struck me as strange is the areas of the plant being turned into work/rest areas, that were for the employees before the accident. such as all the athletic fields etc. (conditions must not have been to bad before) So are the conditions due to the stitutaion or lack of concern or both?

Regarding regulations.. I just printed NRC dock NO. 50-259 regarding the valve failure (saftey related) @ browns ferry nuclear plant in the US. I find it rather distrubing that a NPP was given the OK to go back into operation, after a extended outage with valves that were installed in 1968..."refurbished in june 2006, prior to Unit 1 restart... pasted its testing in march 2009, but then "based on casusal analysis information the failurer of the valve (1-FCV-074-066)" FAILED prior to november 2008? Plus the root cause ends up being a manufacture defect that exsisted since 1968? (have not seen maintc. records yet.. just looked up this info.)

But there seems to be some major "regulations" that should have identified this vavle before the time identified in October 23, 2010! How do you past a test then state the failure was before?? Apparently (and they admit it, as I understood it) the testing procedure has a problem??

So I suspect that Tepco is not the only NPP out there running on borrowed time.. I believe the infor above is correct but should be checked against the report if you are interested, as I may have a typo error that i don't see.

I am not sure why any NPP is running with safety system related valves over 40 years old in it? It will be interesting to see it the vavle manufacture gave it a "experation date". So nothing about any gov't/plant surprises me at this point. japan, US they all seem to be in need of review!

I do try and keep the hype out of it and some of the workers stories are being use to play on peoples emotions, not facts the little bit os info I had found so far does not support *all* the stories as they are quoted, I do agree if you need a 160 page manual to submit a 60 page applacation, the system needs revised quickly (this is for compensation, not workers)

 

[NUCENG]

"The Japanese did not become a world economic power through stupidity or laziness and it seems a little insulting for us to be arguing about whether they are being abused by their employers. "

But it is the country where Fukushima happened. Fukushima is as bad as it is because TEPCO was allowed to skirt regulations. It isn't a stretch for me to believe that TEPCO is taking advantage of the workers. In fact, haven't we heard a lot about the terrible facilities afforded these workers?

Yes and I believe that that is both the fault of TEPCO and the Japanese regulatory organizatioons. But the bottom line is that the workers themselves have decided to work under the conditions offered. I have pointed out that despite non-disclosure agreements and non-litigation agreements, the Japanese government and regulators have to get out of the role as promoters and into the role as regulators. We can't do that for the Japanese. They have to make that happen. Japan is not a third world country. It has an exception primary and secondary education system and the population has the capability to understand what is going on. The internet makes information available even if you believe it is being suppressed internally. The daily updates from Tsutsuji belie that as a problem. The Japanese press have not gotten bored like many of the western media systems. They are publishing a huge amount of information and luch of it is critical of the TEPCO and government response.

 

[Caniche]

The Japanese did not become a world economic power through stupidity or laziness and it seems a little insulting for us to be arguing about whether they are being abused by their employers.

The first part is very true. Under the Tokugawa shogunate ,Japanese industrial expansion was massive, and founded on industrial espionage ;forced labour and slavery. Which sort of undermines the point about employer abuse.

 

[NUCENG]

The first part is very true. Under the Tokugawa shogunate ,Japanese industrial expansion was massive, and founded on industrial espionage ;forced labour and slavery. Which sort of undermines the point about employer abuse.

Come on now, Caniche, that is just a bit over the top, isn't it? By that logic, what was once true must always be true, which is logically absurd. It denies any possibility of progress or change. I don't believe the Japanese recovery from the devastation of the Second World War would have been possible if the society was still based on the Shogunate form of feudalism. I will defer to the Japanese citizens participating in this thread. Is Japanese society today based on forced labor and slavery?

 

[tsutsuji]

http://sankei.jp.msn.com/science/news/111105/scn11110522030002-n1.htm The NISA is instructing 9 power plants to conduct earthquake and tsunami assessment again in the light of the knowledge learned from the 11 March earthquake and tsunami. This will further delay the restart of the concerned plants.

The NISA's decision is based on the fact that on 11 March several seismic sources were coupled together, tsunami waves accumulated and created a huge tsunami. As a result of arrival time differences between the waves that came from different sources off the Miyagi prefecture coast and off the Fukushima prefecture coast, although they are only 10 km away from each other, the tsunami height at both plants differed by 4 metre (13 m in Daiichi, 9 m in Daini). For example, the tsunami height expected at the Hamaoka plant from the coupling together of a Tokai tsunami and a Tonankai tsunami has been considered until now to be 6 or 7 metre, but according to the NISA, "An analysis taking into account larger scale earthquakes and wave accumulation resulting from time differences is necessary". This kind of coupled tsunami study is deemed necessary not only for the Hamaoka plant, but also for the Tomari (Hokkaido) and Higashidori (Aomori prefecture) plants.

Regarding the 5 nuclear plants in Fukui prefecture such as Ohi, the question of a large tsunami that could have happened 400 years ago is being raised as a result of the study of historical texts. In the Ando-Momoyama era, the Portuguese missionary Luis Frois wrote in his "History of Japan" : "There was an assault of a big wave like a high mountain, and houses, men and women were taken away. Everything was swallowed by the sea". Plant operators such as Kansai Electric are pressed to perform tsunami deposit surveys to check the existence or absence of historic tsunamis.

At Tokai Daini, fault assessment must be revised because crustal deformation took place in consequence of the earthquake and the characteristics of underground forces have changed.

At Higashidori and Tsuruga, the faults inside the plant premises that were until now not considered as being active, must be studied again.

15 among the 22 reactors concerned have already started the "stress tests" and the Ohi plant has already submitted the stress test results, but the new earthquake/tsunami safety instruction could mean the stress tests must be revised.

http://www.nikkei.com/news/category...19595E1E3E2E3988DE1E3E3E2E0E2E3E39F9FEAE2E2E2 The NISA's decision was announced on 31 November during a hearing of specialists. A historical text was found purporting that a huge tsunami stroke in Wakasa Bay as a result of the Tensho earthquake (1586).

http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/press/2011/11/en20111104-5-2.pdf "Regarding Resumption of Seismic Back Check Based on the Knowledge of the Off the Pacific Coast of Tohoku Earthquake"

 

[joewein]

An http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20111109f3.html" ) provided advice on how to decontaminate areas affected by nuclear fallout, such as in Fukushima, Tochigi and northern Chiba prefecture. Most of the advice is sound, but some is downright alarming:

As for trees, it's best to remove all their leaves because of the likelyhood they contain large amounts of cesium, Higaki [of University of Tokyo] said.
(...)
What should you do with the soil and leaves?
(...)
Leaves and weeds can be disposed of as burnable garbage, a Fukushima official said.

So let me get this right: you should collect all those leaves because they contain so much radioactive cesium (cesium 134 has a half life of 2 years and cesium 137 of 29 years). And then, when you have all that cesium in plastic garbage bags, you have it sent to the local garbage incinerator, so the carefully collected cesium gets spread over the whole neighbourhood again via the incinerator smokestack. That makes no sense at all.

 

[Shinjukusam]

An article in Japan Times (2011-11-09, "Scrub homes, denude trees to wash cesium fears away") provided advice on how to decontaminate areas affected by nuclear fallout, such as in Fukushima, Tochigi and northern Chiba prefecture. Most of the advice is sound, but some is downright alarming:
So let me get this right: you should collect all those leaves because they contain so much radioactive cesium (cesium 134 has a half life of 2 years and cesium 137 of 29 years). And then, when you have all that cesium in plastic garbage bags, you have it sent to the local garbage incinerator, so the carefully collected cesium gets spread over the whole neighbourhood again via the incinerator smokestack. That makes no sense at all.

Generally, emissions for burnable garbage in Japan are pretty strict, and they do not emit very much particulate smoke. This leads to the large amount of radioactive ash that has been collecting at disposal facilities.

It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation, but the overriding trend seems to be to strive to concentrate waste in limited areas.

 

[etudiant]

Generally, emissions for burnable garbage in Japan are pretty strict, and they do not emit very much particulate smoke. This leads to the large amount of radioactive ash that has been collecting at disposal facilities.

It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation, but the overriding trend seems to be to strive to concentrate waste in limited areas.

The objective, to concentrate the contamination, is laudable. However, the method may be counterproductive.
It is unlikely that the current emission controls would pick up cesium, which is quite volatile at exhaust stack temperatures.

 

[tsutsuji]

Nov. 14. Ohi NPP :

Consideration of the first formal application by a nuclear plant operator to restart a suspended reactor under the government’s new stress test system was postponed after experts challenged the safety of the procedure.
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201111150015

 

[zapperzero]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_ZdBXzcvio&feature=player_detailpage#t=609s

If anyone can think of a valid reason for which a reporter should NOT be allowed to film the outside of Unit 2, as viewed from the causeway near the sea, please let me know.

 

[zapperzero]

TEPCO analyzes own response to accident, concludes everything went just fine and there was nothing more to be done
http://www.shimbun.denki.or.jp/en/news/20111206_01.html
color me surprised.

 

[Caniche]

Come on now, Caniche, that is just a bit over the top, isn't it? By that logic, what was once true must always be true, which is logically absurd. It denies any possibility of progress or change. I don't believe the Japanese recovery from the devastation of the Second World War would have been possible if the society was still based on the Shogunate form of feudalism. I will defer to the Japanese citizens participating in this thread. Is Japanese society today based on forced labor and slavery?

Silly sausage, nothing is set in stone. You might wish to reconsider that strange response ;all you were given was historical fact.

 

[NUCENG]

Silly sausage, nothing is set in stone. You might wish to reconsider that strange response ;all you were given was historical fact.

I will reconsider, if you can explain what the "historical fact" has to do with current conditions in Japan.

 

[zapperzero]

More on the jumpers. Article claims cumulative exposures are not tracked.
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/a...clear-gypsies-face-peril-at-power-plants?bn=1

 

[zapperzero]

On March 12, a day after the tsunami, Yoshida ignored an order from Tepco headquarters to stop pumping seawater into a reactor to try and cool it. Tepco said it may penalize Yoshida even though Sakae Muto, then a vice president at the utility, said it was a technically appropriate decision. Yoshida received a verbal reprimand after then Prime Minister Naoto Kan defended the plant chief, the Yomiuri newspaper reported.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-30/leader-of-tepco-fukushima-fifty-steps-down.html

what is this i don't even