Fukushima or BWR expert opinion needed

[R_Spc]

TL;DR

Need any Fukushima or BWR MkI experts to check a document for errors.

Hello!

I apologise if this is not the correct place to ask but I am seeking some assistance and don't really know where else to turn.

I'm a hobbyist historian and have almost finished a book about the history of the Japanese nuclear power industry, starting way back with the opening of Japan in the 1850s and covering the rise of electric power, then switching over to a focus on nuclear power from the 1950s onwards. It culminates in a lengthy chapter on the Fukushima disaster, which I'm sure you're all aware was rather complicated. The book is neutral towards nuclear power itself (possibly leaning more towards pro-nuclear than anti-nuclear, though I strive to be objective), but it is heavily critical of Japan's implementation of it—specifically their bureaucracy.

To my request, I am confident that my depiction of the Fukushima disaster is accurate, but I don't ever want to peddle misinformation so I'm keen for experts to read it over and see if they spot any errors. I've already had feedback from various people about the book as a whole but every technical expert I've asked to do this specifically has not had the time (which is completely understandable, especially with everything going on with covid-19). I don't expect anyone to perform a line by line analysis, even just a "this part may not be correct" would be enough for me to go back and triple check. The book is essentially finished and is going to an editor on August 5th, so I'm running out of time to fix problems, hence why I'm turning to a public forum.

I'm very aware that this is a lot to ask, but if anyone is willing it would be much appreciated (you will need to agree to a basic NDA).

Thank you.

 

[jedishrfu]

Have you sourced NOVA?

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/nuclear-meltdown-disaster/

 

[R_Spc]

Have you sourced NOVA?

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/nuclear-meltdown-disaster/

I haven't watched that particular documentary, no. I tend not to trust documentaries because in my experience they get a lot of small details subtly wrong. My account is mainly based around the various reports by the IAEA, the Japanese government, TEPCO, the Atomic Energy Society of Japan, the wider Japanese nuclear industry and the testimony of those involved. I will watch it though, thank you for the suggestion.

 

[jedishrfu]

Nova in general is pretty good at what they source but I would use it to discover something you dodn't expect or know and then research accordingly to confirm or deny its truth.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Three days isn't a lot of time for fact checking. It's especially not a lot of time for unpaid fact checking. It's especially not a lot of time for unpaid fact checking for someone who is getting paid.

 

[gmax137]

I tend not to trust documentaries because in my experience they get a lot of small details subtly wrong.

i think this is a wise position to take. as a long time NOVA watcher my opinion is they have fallen off quite a bit in quality.

Three days isn't a lot of time for fact checking. It's especially not a lot of time for unpaid fact checking. It's especially not a lot of time for unpaid fact checking for someone who is getting paid.

I did a volunteer edit sanity check for an 'internet forum acquaintance ' once. I spent close to three months on a book that ended up being about 150 pages.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I did a volunteer edit sanity check for an 'internet forum acquaintance ' once. I spent close to three months on a book that ended up being about 150 pages.

Sounds about right.

 

[R_Spc]

Three days isn't a lot of time for fact checking. It's especially not a lot of time for unpaid fact checking. It's especially not a lot of time for unpaid fact checking for someone who is getting paid.

You are not at all wrong and I understand your objection. However, there are no hard deadlines because I will probably be self-publishing it (I haven't arranged anything with any publishers yet, I'll be looking into that last). I also didn't mean for anyone to fact-check, as such, I was mainly curious for people familiar with the accident to simply read it and if anything doesn't sound right I will check it myself.

Also, while it isn't impossible that I will make money from it, I haven't made a penny so far after investing a lot of my own money into it (not to mention three years of every second of spare time), and may very well not make my money back because it is a very niche subject. I'm doing it for fun because I'm interested in this stuff, not to make money. It's my hobby, I like to look into history and write about it. You are otherwise completely right, which is why I don't really expect anyone to help, I just thought I'd ask.

 

[Astronuc]

Summary:: Need any Fukushima or BWR MkI experts to check a document for errors.

Hello!

I apologise if this is not the correct place to ask but I am seeking some assistance and don't really know where else to turn.

I'm a hobbyist historian and have almost finished a book about the history of the Japanese nuclear power industry, starting way back with the opening of Japan in the 1850s and covering the rise of electric power, then switching over to a focus on nuclear power from the 1950s onwards. It culminates in a lengthy chapter on the Fukushima disaster, which I'm sure you're all aware was rather complicated. The book is neutral towards nuclear power itself (possibly leaning more towards pro-nuclear than anti-nuclear, though I strive to be objective), but it is heavily critical of Japan's implementation of it—specifically their bureaucracy.

To my request, I am confident that my depiction of the Fukushima disaster is accurate, but I don't ever want to peddle misinformation so I'm keen for experts to read it over and see if they spot any errors. I've already had feedback from various people about the book as a whole but every technical expert I've asked to do this specifically has not had the time (which is completely understandable, especially with everything going on with covid-19). I don't expect anyone to perform a line by line analysis, even just a "this part may not be correct" would be enough for me to go back and triple check. The book is essentially finished and is going to an editor on August 5th, so I'm running out of time to fix problems, hence why I'm turning to a public forum.

I'm very aware that this is a lot to ask, but if anyone is willing it would be much appreciated (you will need to agree to a basic NDA).

Thank you.

We have a number of threads discussing different aspects of the accident, including a real time discussion of what we learned as the media and TEPCO reported. There was a lot of unknowns, especially in March 2011, since TEPCO did not know and was not sure. During the accident, we believed that they were getting water into the core, but later we learned that that might not have been the case, especially leading up to the explosions.

Here is a summary - https://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/review/review1_1-e.html

The bottom line is that TEPCO and the safety authorities were not prepared for the accident, and glaring deficiencies were revealed during and after the accident. The nuclear safety authority was restructured as a result. Units 5 and 6 were fortunately at a greater elevation, or they too might have been compromised. Units 1, 2 and 3 were operating at the time of the earthquake, and they shutdown as designed. However, the diesel generator and switch gear in the basement became unavailable due to flooding from tsunami. Protection for the systems was inadequate. The fuel storage for the diesel generators was placed by the shoreline, and the fuel tanks were displaced and thus the fuel supply disabled/destroyed; another dramatic failure.

All nuclear plants in Japan were shutdown following the accident in order to assess their safety cases. Only a handful of PWRs (9) have restarted: "As of February 2019, of the 54 nuclear reactors in Japan, there were 42 operable reactors but only 9 reactors in 5 power plants were actually operating."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Japan
https://world-nuclear.org/informati...ofiles/countries-g-n/japan-nuclear-power.aspx

As far as I know, Kashiwazaki-Kariwa 6 & 7 have not restarted, although that is the plan as of June 2020.
https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Joint-venture-formed-to-upgrade-Kashiwazaki-Kariwa

 

[gmax137]

@R_Spc if you haven't read the several Fukushima threads here on PF you might consider skimming them at least to identify some of the major contributors, and direct your request for the book review to those individuals. Warning, those threads are very lengthy and full of false leads and long tangents.

I have wondered about the possibility of downloading the threads and editing them down to a kind of "as it happened" story. That would be a tremendous amount of work, the first long thread has 14,000+ posts and the second almost 2,000 posts. Plus there are a half dozen other threads that branched off.

 

[R_Spc]

@R_Spc if you haven't read the several Fukushima threads here on PF you might consider skimming them at least to identify some of the major contributors, and direct your request for the book review to those individuals. Warning, those threads are very lengthy and full of false leads and long tangents.

I have wondered about the possibility of downloading the threads and editing them down to a kind of "as it happened" story. That would be a tremendous amount of work, the first long thread has 14,000+ posts and the second almost 2,000 posts. Plus there are a half dozen other threads that branched off.

Thanks for the suggestion. I skimmed them a couple of years ago and, while there is a lot of good information and discussion in them, there's also a lot of early speculation which, as you say, turned out not to be correct. Even some of the official interim reports ended up getting some things slightly wrong, so you have to be careful. Those threads are a valuable historical record in and of themselves though, so I'd encourage archiving them even if you don't do any editing.