Japan Earthquake: Political Aspects

[tsutsuji]

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/genpatsu-fukushima/20120310/index.html The NHK checked the progress of the reinforcement measures listed by the NISA in February, by asking each nuclear plant operator about the 12 points considered "important points", among a list of 30. All plant operators have installed redundant power supplies, including air-cooled generators and power generating trucks. The installations of watertight building doors are completed or under work. The dispersion of the main power distribution panels, meant to lower the risk of a blackout, is difficult to undertake immediately, as finding a suitable location and construction work take time. The installation of batteries able to supply power to instrumentation for a long time is "under study" at all nuclear power plants. Pr. Kazuhiko Kudo of Kyushu university says the government must say clearly which items must be completed before the restart of the plants and which items are allowed to be done later.

The 30 points are probably those mentioned in http://www.meti.go.jp/press/2011/02/20120216004/20120216004.html "Technical knowledge on the Tokyo Electric Fukushima Daiichi NPP accident (interim compilation)" (16 February 2012) as "Matters being considered which should be reflected in future regulations".

[Countermeasures for external power]
1 Improvement of reliability of external power lines
2 Improvement of earthquake resistance of transformer equipments
3 Improvement of earthquake resistance of switching stations
4 Quick recovery of external power equipments

[Countermeasures for internal electric power equipments]
5 Dispersion of internal electric equipments into different locations
6 Reinforcement of inundation countermeasures
7 Reinforcement of redundancy and diversification of emergency AC power supplies
8 Reinforcement of emergency DC power supplies
9 Installation of separate power supplies for exclusive use
10 Simplification of electric supply from outside
11 Storage of spare items in relation with electric equipments

[Countermeasures for cooling and water injection]
12 Improvement of judgement capacity during an accident
13 Securing inundation resistance and dispersion into different locations of cooling equipments
14 Reinforcement of final heat sink after an accident
15 Improvement of operational reliability of isolation valves and safety relief valves
16 Reinforcement of alternative water injection function
17 Improvement of reliability of cooling and water supplying function of spent fuel pools

[Countermeasures for primary containtment vessel]
18 Diversification of PCV heat removal function
19 Countermeasures to prevent PCV top head flange damage by excess of heat
20 Secured transition to low pressure alternative water injection
21 Improvement of venting reliability and operability
22 Reduction of the environmental impact of venting
23 Secure independance of venting pipes
24 Prevention of hydrogen explosions (concentration management and appropriate release)

[Countermeasures for management and measurement equipments]
25 Equip and secure the command post used during accidents
26 Secure the communication function
27 Secure the reliability of instrumentation during accidents
28 Reinforcement of plant status surveillance function
29 Reinforcement of monitoring function during accidents
30 Building of emergency response system and performance of drills

Underlined items are for boiling water reactors only.

 

[zapperzero]

Were there either passive recombiners or filtered venting facilities at Fukushima that just did not work in the conditions at hand?

One of TEPCO's theories wrt the explosions is that some of the hydrogen that was supposed to be vented directly via the hardened vents flowed back into the building through the SGTS.
More here, among other places:
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201106040401

EDIT: I do not see how this explains anything, frankly. If hydrogen was supposed to go out from the RPV into the drywell, then wetwell and then via either hardened vent or SGTS into the stack, I cannot understand how it could have entered the reactor buildings instead of flowing back into the wetwell and accumulating there.

 

[zapperzero]

NRC transcript from the 17th confirms that US help was refused at least once.

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1205/ML12052A109.pdf

MR. CASTO: Right. So, well, there were
22 five pumps delivered to the site. We got that moving.
23 They've accepted them, apparently, this time.

 

[zapperzero]

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201203090078?imgIX=0&page=1
a writeup of what happened in the Japan PM office and J-gov in general during the first five days

EDIT: It's behind a paywall. Perhaps someone who has a subscription could print it to PDF? For personal archival purposes, of course.

 

[tsutsuji]

http://www.lefigaro.fr/sciences/201...-centrale-n-aurait-jamais-du-etre-inondee.php Interview of Armando Armijo, seismologist at the Paris Institut de physique du Globe.

"The problem is that the occurrence of an extreme event such as that of March 11 was underestimated by the Japanese seismologists and by an international consensus, according to which earthquakes in that part of Japan were not supposed to exceed magnitude 7.5".
...
"In my view, this is the gravest scientific error in history."

How was that possible?

By the refusal to take into account data and events that might break the previously established consensus. It is the case of the 1952 Kamchatka earthquake, although it is located in the same subduction zone, and similar in all respects with the March 11 earthquake.

 

[tsutsuji]

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/genpatsu-fukushima/20120314/2020_rokuga.html On 14 March it was found by the Diet's investigation commission that a video showing the then prime minister Naoto Kan visiting Tepco's main office on 15 March 2011 has been recorded. However, the sound and voices were not recorded. According to a commission member, during the 50 minutes when they were busy to respond to the prime minister, the emergency response center was not functioning. According to another commission member it is "strange" that only those 50 minutes are without records of voice. The president of the commission also says "I was surprised" to learn that there is no voice recording.

 

[NUCENG]

I am posting a link to an article that discusses the magnitude of the Japanese Disaster from the earthquake and tsunami as compared to the public and media focus on the Fukushima Dai-ichi accident.

We have discussed a lot of aspects of the nuclear issues and politics. In this forum that is totally justified. The article just brings a little balance to the discussion.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9094430/The-world-has-forgotten-the-real-victims-of-Fukushima.html

 

[clancy688]

The article just brings a little balance to the discussion.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9094430/The-world-has-forgotten-the-real-victims-of-Fukushima.html

He's right when he criticises the media hysteria which pushed another disaster in the background.
But then he keeps on arguing that because there were no deaths by radiation, Fukushima wasn't a "real disaster". Which's pretty much ******** in my opinion. He's making a mistake many people are tempted to do - he's narrowing down the catgorization of a disaster on caused deaths alone.
If you're instead looking at "lifes heavily affected", then Fukushima is a major, major disaster.

Sure, radiation didn't kill anyone (so far) in Fukushima. But that's not the point. 100.000 people lost their homes for years, some probably for decades. Hundreds of square kilometres are lost, thousands more can't be used for food growth anymore.
To sum it up we have 100.000 refugees, the destroyed economy of several cities, severly restricted farming in large areas and a whole region being uninhabitable. Can you really argue that this "disaster never was" only because nobody died?

At last a few notes on some of his paragraphs:

We had forgotten the real victims, the 20,000-and-counting Japanese people killed, in favour of a nuclear scare story.

So those 100.000 refugees are not "real victims"? And what's with all those other tsunami related refugees?

It wasn’t until several weeks later that the first considered scientific reports emerged from Japan, notably the report by Britain’s nuclear regulator, Mike Weightman, which made it clear that although outdated, riddled with design flaws and struck by geological forces that went way beyond the design brief, the Fukushima plant had survived remarkably intact.

?
This man has an interesting definition of the term "intact".

There are bitter ironies in all of this. The panic caused a minor evacuation of Tokyo, which almost certainly resulted in more road deaths than will ever be attributable to radiation leaks.

Is he implying that road deaths attributed to panic are worse than all those displaced people?

 

[tsutsuji]

Why entitle the article "the real victims of Fukushima" if his purpose is to talk about the tsunami victims whose greatest numbers are in Iwate and Miyagi prefecture and not in Fukushima prefecture.

And If the Daily Telgraph is convinced that one should talk more about the tsunami than about the nuclear accident, why is the list of "related articles" provided with this one the following ?

Related Articles

Fukushima tour
21 Feb 2012

Fukushima nuclear plant opened to journalists
20 Feb 2012

Japan's trade deficit balloons to all-time high
20 Feb 2012

The aftershocks still hitting Japan
19 Feb 2012

Secret nuclear risk report lost
17 Feb 2012

 

[NUCENG]

He's right when he criticises the media hysteria which pushed another disaster in the background.
But then he keeps on arguing that because there were no deaths by radiation, Fukushima wasn't a "real disaster". Which's pretty much ******** in my opinion. He's making a mistake many people are tempted to do - he's narrowing down the catgorization of a disaster on caused deaths alone.
If you're instead looking at "lifes heavily affected", then Fukushima is a major, major disaster.

Sure, radiation didn't kill anyone (so far) in Fukushima. But that's not the point. 100.000 people lost their homes for years, some probably for decades. Hundreds of square kilometres are lost, thousands more can't be used for food growth anymore.
To sum it up we have 100.000 refugees, the destroyed economy of several cities, severly restricted farming in large areas and a whole region being uninhabitable. Can you really argue that this "disaster never was" only because nobody died?

At last a few notes on some of his paragraphs:
So those 100.000 refugees are not "real victims"? And what's with all those other tsunami related refugees?

?
This man has an interesting definition of the term "intact".

Is he implying that road deaths attributed to panic are worse than all those displaced people?

No, I don't think the author meant anything to imply that the reactor accident was not also a "disaster." Just that the focus has been skewed and fear mongering sells news. Being displace is bad. Billions of dollarslost is bad. Depression, suicide, and worries about future health effects are bad, But 20,000 deaths are also bad and unrecoverably permanent.

 

[Caniche]

I am posting a link to an article that discusses the magnitude of the Japanese Disaster from the earthquake and tsunami as compared to the public and media focus on the Fukushima Dai-ichi accident.

We have discussed a lot of aspects of the nuclear issues and politics. In this forum that is totally justified. The article just brings a little balance to the discussion.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9094430/The-world-has-forgotten-the-real-victims-of-Fukushima.html

Balance from the Telegraph , a novel idea. In the UK it is most commonly referred to as the Torygraph , who knows how such an impartial publication acquired such a reputation for bias

 

[NUCENG]

Balance from the Telegraph , a novel idea. In the UK it is most commonly referred to as the Torygraph , who knows how such an impartial publication acquired such a reputation for bias

Ad Hominem (Argument To The Man): attacking the person instead of attacking his argument. Does their alleged bias make their facts incorrect? Does their reputation or nickname belie their argument? Do you believe the focus of the media has been balanced in terms of the consequences of the earthquake/tsunami compared to the nuclear consequences? Does the fact that this is a "more political" thread mean our posts do't need to raise valid points?

 

[Yamanote]

But then something odd happened.

Here I fully agree with the author. It was also odd to me that it was so easy to knock out a nuclear power plant.

The rest of the article I will not comment.

 

[tsutsuji]

http://mainichi.jp/area/ishikawa/news/20120329ddlk17040634000c.html On 28 March, Hokuriku Electric Power announced that it started studying the installation on PCV venting equipments of filters that can reduce the dispersion of radioactive substances. The cost and installation schedule are not planned yet but it is planned to install those at Shika NPP units 1 and 2. Filters can reduce radioactive substances to 100,000th. According to Hokuriku Electric Power, whereas French and Swedish NPPs are equipped with such filters, Japanese ones are not. A Hokuriku Electric Power manager said that (as Japan is a seismic country) earthquake resistance is a problem, but he wants to study the possibility to install such filters, using Europe as a reference.

http://www.rikuden.co.jp/press/attach/12032801.pdf Hokuriku Electric Power's press release. See diagram on attachment 3 page 6/6.

 

[tsutsuji]

The English-language executive summary of The Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission was just released a few minutes ago. You can download it from here:

http://naiic.go.jp/en/

I am glad that at long last an official report from a government body makes the following clear statements on the fact that some people died at Fukushima:

http://naiic.go.jp/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/NAIIC_report_lo_res.pdf 19/88: "Others were forced to move multiple times, resulting in increased stress and health risks—including deaths among seriously ill patients." (also quoted by the BBC at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18718486 )
http://naiic.go.jp/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/NAIIC_report_lo_res.pdf 38/88 : "60 patients died in March from complications related to the evacuation"

because this exposes the denial/forgetfulness by the IAEA, ANS, NRC, WHO, and others:

Saying "To date no health effects have been reported in any person as a result of radiation exposure from the nuclear accident" (http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/fukushima/missionsummary010611.pdf 3/5) and "The Japanese Government’s longer term response to protect the public, including evacuation, has been impressive and extremely well organized" (http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/fukushima/missionsummary010611.pdf 4/5), The IAEA's fact finding mission (24 May - 1 June 2011) was very keen on NOT FINDING THE FACTS concerning the deaths.

In a June 28 2011 presentation at the ANS Annual Meeting, F. Caracappa mentioned "Deaths due to earthquake/tsunami: ~25,000 ; Deaths or serious injuries due to direct radiation exposures: 0 ; Cancer deaths due to accumulated radiation exposures: can’t be ruled out –conservative risk estimates ~100s cases, against an expected ~10 million cases" ( http://fukushima.ans.org/inc/docs/FukushimaSpecialSession-Caracappa.pdf 27/27) so he was forgetting the deaths by nuclear evacuation of fragile patients.

The NRC Task Force Report of 12 July 2011 said "The outcome—no fatalities" (http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1118/ML111861807.pdf page iii - 5/96)

In "Preliminary dose estimation from the nuclear accident after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami" (2012), the WHO mentions radiation exposure by the general population, but forgets about the higher exposure of nuclear workers and the non-radiation related deaths:

http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2012/9789241503662_eng.pdf
They don't seem to take the nuclear workers who worked at the plant into account (although their number is 23,000 http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/genpatsu-fukushima/20120508/index.html ).

These deaths were not mentioned either in the Japanese government's first and second reports to the IAEA in June 2011 ( http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/fukushima/japan-report/ ) and September 2011 ( http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/fukushima/japan-report2/ ).

They were reported until now only by Japanese news agencies and newspapers and were little reported abroad. See:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3351282&postcount=314
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3352403&postcount=320
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3352504&postcount=321
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3404481&postcount=408

The NAIIC report's main text contains detailed explanations on this 60 people death toll and the reasons why it happened over 10 pages. It is available in Japanese only for now, on http://naiic.go.jp/pdf/naiic_honpen_honbun4.pdf page 380-389 (34/140 - 43/140).

 

[Azby]

Tsutsuji,

If we take into account the certified "disaster-related deaths" the number is over 500.
This from Feb 2012:

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T120204003191.htm

"A disaster-related death certificate is issued when a death is not directly caused by a tragedy, but by fatigue or the aggravation of a chronic disease due to the disaster...
...A disaster-related death certificate is issued when a death is not directly caused by a tragedy, but by fatigue or the aggravation of a chronic disease due to the disaster."

I believe the number has climbed since then.

 

[tsutsuji]

Tsutsuji,

If we take into account the certified "disaster-related deaths" the number is over 500.
This from Feb 2012:

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T120204003191.htm

Thanks. For the record, I extract the figures given in this article: "Of the 634 [applications], 573 deaths were certified as disaster-related, 28 applications were rejected, four cases had to reapply because of flawed paperwork, and 29 remain pending."

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201206300051 [30 June 2012] [Yukio Edano's exclusive interview with The Asahi Shimbun on June 29] : "From the outset, I have always called (on TEPCO) to disclose (the videos)," Edano said. "I don't understand why they won't do so." (...) "Matsumoto indicated that TEPCO has the right to erase "in-house material" at its own discretion".

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201207110023 [11 July 2012] TEPCO to release teleconference videos after all

 

[mscharisma]

No, I don't think the author meant anything to imply that the reactor accident was not also a "disaster." Just that the focus has been skewed and fear mongering sells news. Being displace is bad. Billions of dollarslost is bad. Depression, suicide, and worries about future health effects are bad, But 20,000 deaths are also bad and unrecoverably permanent.

I cannot comment on the author's intention, but I disagree with the focus having been skewed.

20,000 deaths due to a natural disaster are indeed absolutely horrible, just as is the fate of many, if not all the survivors. Nonetheless, however tragic the casualties are, one has to accept that it happened and move on - although that is not to say to leave the affected people to their own devices or improved disaster relief and city planning should not take place.

By contrast, the Fukushima NPP accident has posed and continues to pose a threat that affects by far more people for generations to come. In addition, the NPP itself as well as the NPP disaster to a large degree were man-made and hence preventable. People have been mistakenly, if not deliberately for reasons of profit led to believe the NPP poses no threat to them, even if a natural disaster occurs.

Personally, I'm all for the media focusing on the more far-reaching, preventable disaster.

 

[tsutsuji]

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201206300051 [30 June 2012] [Yukio Edano's exclusive interview with The Asahi Shimbun on June 29] : "From the outset, I have always called (on TEPCO) to disclose (the videos)," Edano said. "I don't understand why they won't do so." (...) "Matsumoto indicated that TEPCO has the right to erase "in-house material" at its own discretion".

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201207110023 [11 July 2012] TEPCO to release teleconference videos after all

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/social_affairs/AJ201207310070 "However, TEPCO has no plan to review the ban on video and voice recordings and the ban on reporting the names of individuals other than the senior TEPCO officials..."

 

[tsutsuji]

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/genpatsu-fukushima/20120731/index.html On 31 July, the NISA completed a provisional plan establishing criteria for the relocation of the offsite centers, up to 30 km away from nuclear power plants. During the Fukushima nuclear accident, the offsite center, located within the 5 km range from the plant, had not functioned. As a precaution, backup centers located further than 30km will be provided for the case when the main center is not functional. The revision of the offsite centers won't be implemented until after the new regulatory organisation will be launched.

 

[tsutsuji]

Now an article about a number of victims whose deaths might have resulted of the combination of the natural earthquake/tsunami disaster and the man made nuclear accident:

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/genpatsu-fukushima/20120809/2140_baisho.html A lawyer representing the families of 164 victims from Namie applied on 9 August at the government's conflict resolution center, requesting Tepco a 10 million yen compensation per deceased or missing person, over the charge that as they were forced to evacuate, the families could not rescue their beloved ones, who were victims of the earthquake and tsunami, and the moral suffering of the families associated with the fact that the bodies were not searched and found until one month after the event.

 

[tsutsuji]

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/genpatsu-fukushima/20120906/index.html Tepco is about to reveal the teleconference videos over the 1st month (11 March - 11 April 2011), instead of the first 5 days only. The same restrictive rules apply (journalists only, restrictions on copying, on revealing peoples' names, etc.)http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201209050060 "TEPCO videos: Sans equipment, staff, Fukushima crisis spun out of control"

 

[tsutsuji]

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/genpatsu-fukushima/20120914/0415_josen.html It was found by the NHK that about 3 months after the accident, when the Nuclear Safety Commission started to study the issuance of an advice to reinstate the original inhabitant decontamination criteria, which had been softened immediately after the accident, it faced opposition from the local response headquarters (a national government administration) and from the Fukushima prefecture administration, and postponed the issuance for 3 months. The opposing administrations said things like "if the criteria becomes more severe, too many cars will need decontamination" or "as there are not enough decontamination facilities, people will need to leave [the restricted zone] without their [contaminated] belongings".

 

[zapperzero]

The opposing administrations said t...ny sort of say in this. Japan is kinda weird.

 

[tsutsuji]

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/genpatsu-fukushima/20120927/index.html The Cabinet's investigation committee was officially disbanded as of 28 September. As unclear points are remaining, in its final report (1) it said the investigation must go on. It is viewed that the Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) will play a central role, but no concrete framework has been decided yet. It is necessary to urgently decide one.

(1) http://icanps.go.jp/eng/final-report.html Full English translation now available.

 

[tsutsuji]

http://naiic.go.jp/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/NAIIC_report_lo_res.pdf 19/88: "Others were forced to move multiple times, resulting in increased stress and health risks—including deaths among seriously ill patients." (also quoted by the BBC at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18718486 )
http://naiic.go.jp/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/NAIIC_report_lo_res.pdf 38/88 : "60 patients died in March from complications related to the evacuation"

The Cabinet's investigation committee provides two counts of patients confirmed dead upon reaching evacuation destination:http://icanps.go.jp/eng/05IVfinal.pdf Chapter IV, (d) Rescue on March 15, notes 49 and 50, p. 277:

49 A total of 54 patients transported by the integrated mission unit and the 12th Brigade Medical Squadron, after the screening, headed for Fukushima Prefectural Medical University Hospital in private-sector buses arranged by the Prefecture Nuclear Emergency Response Center. As the hospital refused to accept them, the patients were then carried to the Date Fureai Center at around 1:00 on March 16. At the time, two of the patients were confirmed dead.

50 After the screening, these rescued patients were transported to Kasumiga zyo Park and Azuma Sports Park in private-sector buses arranged by the Prefecture Nuclear Emergency Response Center, but five of them were confirmed dead upon arrival there.

 

[Astronuc]

because this exposes the denial/forgetfulness by the IAEA, ANS, NRC, WHO, and others:

Yes - these organizations (and the industry) lose credibility when they dismiss the deaths of elderly and ill because they had to be evacuated. I don't think a few 100 (or 1000s) latent cancer deaths should be minimized either. Those folks trusted the government and industry to ensure such an accident wouldn't happen.

 

[tsutsuji]

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/genpatsu-fukushima/20121003/1720_50km.html In its 3 October meeting, the NRA studied a draft revision of nuclear disaster countermeasure guidelines which proposes to expand evacuation zones from 10 km around plants to 30 km, and to plan distribution of iodine pills within the 50 km range. This would put the number of cities and villages included in an evacuation zone from 45 in 15 prefectures to 135 in 21 prefectures. According to the draft, Offsite Centers should be installed within the 30 km range (instead of 20 km), and excluded from the 5 km range, with several backup institutional sites being secured outside the 30 km range and in different directions. The NRA plans to hear the opinions of local governments in its next meeting.

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/genpatsu-fukushima/20121003/index.html Fukushima Daiichi will be designated as "Special nuclear facility". While at present the decommissionning work plans are proposed by Tepco and approved by the government, under the new status, it will be possible for the NRA to become involved in the planning of the decomissionning work. NRA president Shun'ichi Tanaka said "In order to secure Fukushima Daiichi's safety, we must be actively involved". The NRA will not only propose action plans for example regarding stable cooling or preventing contamination spreading, but will also give orders to modify or improve the advancement of works or of technical development. During the press conference, president Tanaka said: "While it can be said that the disaster has been brought under control, I am well aware that an accident happened and that it is unstable. I want to secure safety by regulations that look far ahead, toward a 30 year long decommissionning work".

 

[tsutsuji]

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/genpatsu-fukushima/20121005/index.html In response to a request by news organizations, Tepco is publicly releasing another compilation of the teleconference videos, consisting of 161 sequences put together and edited in order to hide people's names for a total of 6 hours (the raw footage for the 5 first days after the accident consists of 150 hours). In this new video, it is possible to see on 13 March before dawn how plant manager Yoshida is trying to get in touch with the prime minister's office [is it not the other way round, the cabinet's office trying to get in touch with Yoshida ?], revealing interference from outside hampering onsite crisis management. The video also shows the discussions in the night of 14 March about unit 2, where the Tokyo main office says things like "open that valve quickly!", without sufficiently knowing the onsite situation, and being argued in response by Fukushima Daiichi "Will you please stop disturbing ?". The teleconference videos of the first month after the accident will be available to journalists next month at the earliest.

http://sankei.jp.msn.com/life/news/121005/trd12100515460011-n1.htm On 5 October, Economy and Industry minister Yukio Edano said the Kaminoseki nuclear power plant will not be built, in exact application of the "no new NPP construction principle". [ There is a good article on the Kaminoseki NPP project and the debates among the inhabitants here: http://www.japanfocus.org/-Martin-Dusinberre/3805 ]. See also http://mainichi.jp/english/english/newsselect/news/20120926p2a00m0na016000c.html "The government is planning to urge power companies to voluntarily withdraw plans to build new nuclear power plants whose construction has not started, Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry Yukio Edano has revealed in an interview with the Mainichi Shimbun."

 

[tsutsuji]

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/10/12/us-japan-nuclear-idUKBRE89B0XK20121012 "Tokyo Electric Power Co (Tepco), the operator of the wrecked Fukushima nuclear plant, said on Friday it could have dealt better with the plant's meltdowns if broad preparations were taken, reversing the previous management's view that the disaster was unavoidable due to an unexpected force of nature."

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/2012/1221806_1870.html Press Release (Oct 12,2012) Document Related to the First Nuclear Reform Monitoring Committee Meeting:The attached is a document created by the Nuclear Reform Special Task Force(Naomi Hirose: TEPCO president, director and the chairman of the Nuclear Reform Special Task Force) and used at the first Nuclear Reform Monitoring Committee Meeting.

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu12_e/images/121012e0101.pdf Fundamental Policy for the Reform of TEPCO Nuclear Power Organization, October 12 2012, (English, 32 pages)

[Is it a coincidence, or is it related to the fact that Junichi Matsumoto, who had been a constant defender of the former view, doesn't seem to appear any longer at press conferences ? ]

As a change from Mr Ono, today's conference is done by Mr Fukuda (12 October press conference as reported by http://genpatsu-watch.blogspot.com/2012/10/201210121730-1-apdf4.html )

Mr Ono (at October 11 press conference : http://genpatsu-watch.blogspot.com/2012/10/201210111730-1.html )

Junichi Matsumoto on his last press conference (11 September 2012: http://genpatsu-watch.blogspot.com/2012/09/20129111750.html) he had been doing the press conference spokesman job since April 1 2011.