Japan Earthquake: Political Aspects

[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.

 

[gmax137]

Thanks for the link clancy688, I will take a look at it.

 

[Caniche]

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.

Propaganda, popular ,spin ; cold infers inactivity ,benign ,harmless ;shutdown implies absolute control,mastery ,total authority.
Hard to see how you can claim either or both when you don't know if your sensors are working or where your fuel/debris mix is located?

 

[sp2]

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.

Quick question: If it's "no longer boiling," where's all that steam coming from?


(And yes, of course it's propaganda to call it 'Cold Shutdown.'

'Cold Shutdown' applies to Nuclear Reactors. Like, *intact* Nuclear Reactors.
We don't have anything remotely resembling that here.

Calling it 'Cold Shutdown' is like opening the drawer of the hospital morgue to pull out a patient who's been dead for a week, taking his temperature, and saying, "Well, he's definitely *stable*."

<nonsense deleted>

 

[Borek]

Quick question: If it's "no longer boiling," where's all that steam coming from?

You don't need boiling to see steam. Common misconception.

 

[Luca Bevil]

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.

Covered ? quite dificult to ascertain since the exact location of the corium is not known.
One can only say that temperature at the positions where termocouples are is less than 100 degrees Celsius. which is of course better than registering a higher temperature, especially if there is a decreasing trend, but is far from a normal cold shutdown condition.

 

[tsutsuji]

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

Ryu Matsumoto resigned after one week in July:

Japan's Minister for Reconstruction Ryu Matsumoto has announced his resignation after just a week in the job.

He had been widely criticised for making insensitive remarks to governors of areas badly affected by March's deadly earthquake and tsunami.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-14024206

Minoru Yanagida resigned over a gaffe in November 2010. He had been minister of Justice for less than 3 months:

Japan's justice minister resigns after gaffe
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/22/japan-justice-minister-minoru-yanagida

 

[sp2]

You don't need boiling to see steam. Common misconception.

Borek--

Please don't tell me you would look me in the eye and state that you honestly believe there's nothing boiling in there.

Please.

 

[Borek]

I have no idea what is going on inside. But concluding something is boiling just because you see a steam is wrong.

 

[NUCENG]

Propaganda, popular ,spin ; cold infers inactivity ,benign ,harmless ;shutdown implies absolute control,mastery ,total authority.
Hard to see how you can claim either or both when you don't know if your sensors are working or where your fuel/debris mix is located?

I am the engineer that pointed out that cold shutdown is a technical term with a legal definition that is not applicable to the Fukushima reactors.

Now I will also state that the term propoganda is equally suspect. As I said before, communication and translation from Japanese to English is one source of inaccuracy. Another is in the media interpretation of what they have been told. These can be innocent errors. However, your use of the word propoganda is deliberate and implies intentional miscommunication. Your previous posts clearly demonstrate your bias. So unless you are prepared to prove your assertions, I will simply categorize your posts as propoganda too.

Edit:

TEPCO does not yet consider the plants in cold shutdown. see:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/28/japan-nuclear-plant-idUSL3E7KS28V20110928

 

[zapperzero]

Gentlemen and ladies of PF.

I would like to point out to all of you that this thread is right at the very edge of what is acceptable on physicsforums anyway. It's quite normal, therefore, that moderators lack experience and regulars become uncomfortable with the deluge of spin, propaganda, counterprop and plain all-out kookery.

But that's what this thread is for! Think of it as a bag where all the unruly kittens can be stuffed. Tolerate the odd outburst of noise and the occasional squirming...