Japan Earthquake: Political Aspects

[jlduh]

Back to a fact (i will express no opinion )

35 Japanese reactors are soon to be out of line

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/12_29.html

All told, 35, or about two-thirds, of Japan's commercial reactors will have been shut down by the end of May.

During the next few months, 5 more reactors will have to be shut down ahead of regular inspections.

If the utilities decide to keep these 40 reactors offline for the time being, Japan will have about 75 percent of its reactors shutdown this summer.

 

[jlduh]

and an other fact (but it's more for getting lighter here, even if the reality behind it is not fun for people concerned): the procedure for citizens to get compensation from Tepco seems as clear as their strategy for restoring the mess:

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/hosyou/images/flow-e.pdf

I wish good luck to these unfortunate people...

 

[Dmytry]

Yes, IF they are doing it correctly. Dmytry is discussing Grays and Sieverts and he is right that there is a distinction. A Gray is 1 J/kg of any substance. Sv are 1 J/kg equivalent dose. The links to FGR11 and FGR 12 explain whow a concentration of radiation in a cloud can be converted from Bq/kg, or Bq/cm^3 into an equivalent whole body dose in Sv accounting for inhalation, ingestion or simple external dose from the cloud, liquid, or contamination levels on surfaces. Limits for radiation workers, and the general puplic are expressed in Sieverts. In the United States we had limits on doses to the whole body, skin of the whole body extremities and there are also some guidelines for dose to thyroid and organs like bones and so on. The new standard now in use is TEDE (Total Effective Dose Equivalent). TEDE is the sum of Deep Dose Equivalent (Penetrating dose to the whole body) and CEDE (Committed Effective Dose Equivalent which is a combination of the internal effects of radiation to the organs.

But how accurate are those estimates? We all know them are imperfect; nothing is perfect; and so on and so forth. In science, each number has error range.
When you say it is imperfect, please tell how much do you think it is imperfect. The "imperfect measurement" is a tautology.

In my opinion it's at best 'within same order of magnitude' sort of estimate. The dose near a rain drain can be order of magnitude higher than average [not as dramatically as in the video where Geiger counter is counting betas, but still quite dramatically thanks to inverse square law], the long term inhalation (of the deposited material that re-enters air) is very dependent to the weather, etc. The doses that kids can get, well, god knows, kids play in dirt, some types of dirt chemically absorb Cs-137, some do not. The distribution of radioactivity is a fractal with high 'roughness', there's huge variability down to 1m distances.
Then the food testing, beyond limit food will slip through occasionally [you can't test everything, just randomly chosen samples], how often? How do you know in advance how often? And what is the distribution of the doses? Then, there's the issue of wood ashes... do they use wood for heating at all or not? In the tsunami aftermath? Then there's the issue of the wreckage cleanup work that has to be done. And so on and so forth, and that's the things that i'd guess can change dose by more than factor of 2, and there's probably a lot of other important things I missed. The contamination level of radioactive boars in EU varies immensely - a few boars are heavily contaminated, most are harmless [strongly non-gaussian distribution btw], not a good situation for random sampling based testing.

It is not enough to calculate 'to the best of your knowledge' in science. You need also to provide the error range, and ideally distribution of the errors. In engineering too - I believe you do have ranges for uncertain numbers?

re: Sievert vs Gray, it just irritates me immensely to see a Geiger counter that advertises it's giving out Sv. The bloody thing doesn't even do Grays on gamma very well, the thing overcounts betas - yet it proudly says microSieverts/hour.

 

[Drakkith]

Back to a fact (i will express no opinion )

35 Japanese reactors are soon to be out of line

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/12_29.html

Interesting. Hopefully they will fix any issues before they come back online. (If they are going to that is.)

 

[jlduh]

More contamination on the grass in towns outside of the evacuation zone, and far outside!

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/13_01.html

3,480 becquerels of radioactive cesium were detected in one kilogram of pasture grass collected on May 5th in Nikko City, Tochigi Prefecture. The figure exceeds the state limit of 300 becquerels. Also, at two different locations in Nasushiobara City, 3,600 becquerels and 860 becquerels of radioactive cesium respectively were detected in one kilogram of pasture grass collected on May 3rd.

Tochigi Prefecture requested farmers in the area where the radioactive substance was detected not to feed pasture grass to livestock.

NOTE THAT NIKKO CITY IS AT AROUND 170 kms FROM THE PLANT (SOUTH WEST) which is quite far... the other one is at around 100 kms same direction.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sou...8424,140.542603&spn=2.548084,6.696167&t=h&z=8

It seems that the winds are spreading the bad stuff in several directions, the North west has been severely touched, the South West could start to get the same scenario.

Over a long period of time (who knows when this crisis will be contained), we can fear that long life Cs-137 (ans maybe Strontium?) will accumulate here and there, like thin layers of small snow falls which would never melt and add weeks after weeks...

The only difference being this is invisible and dangerous snow...

 

[Drakkith]

re: Sievert vs Gray, it just irritates me immensely to see a Geiger counter that advertises it's giving out Sv. The bloody thing doesn't even do Grays on gamma very well, the thing overcounts betas - yet it proudly says microSieverts/hour.

I understand. But the issue isn't that it reads in microSieverts/hour. ANY measurement system will be just as accurate on that device as any other one. The key, I believe, is to make it as accurate as possible.

But how accurate are those estimates? We all know them are imperfect; nothing is perfect; and so on and so forth. In science, each number has error range.
When you say it is imperfect, please tell how much do you think it is imperfect. The "imperfect measurement" is a tautology.

And? The fact is that the system is in use and it works, whether you agree with how accurate it is or not. Is there another way of doing it that works better in that situation?

Your entire post goes off on a tangent about things that aren't remotely close to dealing with counting sieverts on a geiger counter. Do you really think that they never took any of your situations into account when they designed the system and when they use it? Ludicrous!

You might not like the fact that there are error ranges and estimates and such, but in the end it doesn't matter. There isn't any other way of determining these things.

And just to make sure everyone knows my position, I'll say it again.

I think there were serious mistakes made in the running of the NPP's in Japan. I think there are currently and will be more mistakes made everywhere. But my opinion is that the gain is worth the risk as long we err more on the side of caution than we have in Japan.

 

[Dmytry]

Drakkith: What I do not like is that nobody is calculating or reporting the error ranges. There is an other way. Honest science. Where not only you tell the measurements, but you also tell how much (and how often by how much) it can be wrong.
Other thing that I do not like is this nonsense discussion where any error - be it off by up to an order of magnitude, be it to 1% tolerance, is equally 'imperfect'. You just don't distinguish between any degree of 'imperfect', and for you it makes absolutely no difference, it's all verbal reasoning from you, is it not? Yes/no, perfect/imperfect (and everything is imperfect), etc.

"Do you really think that they never took any of your situations into account when they designed the system and when they use it? Ludicrous!"
Do I think they haven't took any? No, they have, some of. Do I think they have took ALL ? No I don't! It is immense amount of work. It is just not doable, period. What is doable though, is a honest estimation of by how much it can be wrong. Hell, even a dishonest estimation of the error range is still a huge step forward compared to 'throw some numbers out and assure them that it is the best measurements that can be done'.

"But the issue isn't that it reads in microSieverts/hour. ANY measurement system will be just as accurate on that device as any other one."
Suppose you had a ruler that reads in calories, you measure size of the fruit with it. Well, the distance measurements on that ruler can be accurate, but the calorie on that ruler are not. You can, however, use the ruler that reads in centimeters (or inches), with a conversion table (for different fruits), to obtain calories far more accurately.

 

[unlurk]

Censorship

jlduh, I have no interest in joining this thread.

I'm interested in the technical aspects of Fukushima, not the politics.

As such there are aspects of Fukushima that might be compared to Three Mile Island or Chernobyl or SL1 or any number of sites or events.I only wondered if that documentary was considered a "fringe" video made by nutjobs or not.

You are living in France so I thought you might have some knowledge of the subject matter.

BTW
2, 3 and 4 are each spewing steam at the moment.

 

[Drakkith]

Drakkith: What I do not like is that nobody is calculating or reporting the error ranges. There is an other way. Honest science. Where not only you tell the measurements, but you also tell how much (and how often by how much) it can be wrong.

It isn't reported because it only serves to confuse almost everyone and cause even MORE panic. The average person doesn't like any possibility of errors, no matter how inevitable they are. (In my experience at least) This doesn't make it dishonest to me. I guess it does to you.

Other thing that I do not like is this nonsense discussion where any error - be it off by up to an order of magnitude, be it to 1% tolerance, is equally 'imperfect'. You just don't distinguish between any degree of 'imperfect', and for you it makes absolutely no difference, it's all verbal reasoning from you, is it not? Yes/no, perfect/imperfect (and everything is imperfect), etc.

Incorrect. I have no idea why you would believe this. Any errors that are outside of whatever is reasonable given the situation are unacceptable.

"Do you really think that they never took any of your situations into account when they designed the system and when they use it? Ludicrous!"
Do I think they haven't took any? No, they have, some of. Do I think they have took ALL ? No I don't! It is immense amount of work. It is just not doable, period. What is doable though, is a honest estimation of by how much it can be wrong. Hell, even a dishonest estimation of the error range is still a huge step forward compared to 'throw some numbers out and assure them that it is the best measurements that can be done'.

I disagree. It is entirely possible to accurately calculate reasonable estimates.

"But the issue isn't that it reads in microSieverts/hour. ANY measurement system will be just as accurate on that device as any other one."
Suppose you had a ruler that reads in calories, you measure size of the fruit with it. Well, the distance measurements on that ruler can be accurate, but the calorie on that ruler are not. You can, however, use the ruler that reads in centimeters (or inches), with a conversion table, to obtain calories far more accurately.

Except that you can use your conversion table before you measure to ensure that your marks are accurate before you measure. If we didn't know what kind of fruit it was beforehand, that would be different.

I use the word reasonable here because every situation is different and must be looked at individually.

 

[Susudake]

You are contradicting yourself big time.

I'm going to revisit this, not because I'm so concerned that I might (be seen to) have contradicted myself, but because it's simply a false comparison.

Saying there's a "complex" of any kind does not mean everyone within this complex acts in unison, that it's a monolithic well-greased machine. The military industrial complex term appears to date to Eisenhower's speech:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-industrial_complex

and more recently other writers have added different societal sectors to the term, usually academic (google it and you'll find writings, at least on the web, about that factor), security, and political.

The intimate relations between the military and nuclear sectors go back to the beginning of the nuclear age.

So, in sum, the MIC concept, at least, is well-established and supported by no small amount of evidence; adding other sectors less so, yet it's not something I just pulled out of my hat.

On the other hand, when one member of this forum states or strongly implies that two others think exactly alike based on a couple of statements by one of them (this statement about Dmytry and me was originally made after I'd made one or two posts) then they are being inaccurate.

So you have a bit of information being used arrive at an erroneous conclusion, vs. decades of information, books, the statements of a former POTUS/highest ranking general during WWII etc.

One would think this difference would be obvious.

 

[Susudake]

I wrote:

So since you've stated that there isn't, in contradiction to many others (try the google, it's pretty cool), it's a fact. Right.

Not in the way you are referring to it there isn't.

And you're not responding to my point.

I wrote: FWIW I think you are, I just think you a) have blinders on and b) are rhetorically out of your depth.

So? I don't care what you think about me.

same, non-responsive.

I've interacted with plentry of people as well. Most of them that DON'T have at least some small amount of scientific mindset don't have a clue how the world actually works. They tend to spew things such as "The government/big business/whatever they don't trust, is out to get them and everyone else and is evil or incompetent and can't ever be trusted at all".

So as long as the have a bit of scientific mindset they're not clueless. I'll agree somewhat, and would counter that people with ONLY a scientific mindset are equally clueless, except that such generalizations are not only full of contempt but also utterly simplistic and unrealistic.

They tend to spew things such as "The government/big business/whatever they don't trust, is out to get them and everyone else and is evil or incompetent and can't ever be trusted at all".

and

Probably because of the difficulty in keeping tact for years of people who don't understand a word of what comes out of their mouths.

That kind of naivete has nothing to do with being unscientific. Moreover, the kind of utter disregard for those who don't share your mindset (sound familiar?) you're displaying here is destructive, but more interestingly exactly the kind of contemptuous/hubristic attitude that has being a major factor in getting us into deep doo-doo over and over (see Chernobyl, TMI, Macondo, FDI).

I'll go further and ask: how much death and destruction, how much pollution, how many babies and children blown apart by mines, cluster bombs, irradiated by DU munitions and exploding nuclear plants, etc etc etc has been caused by artists?

Poor performances, ugly, poorly-executed paintings, unlistenable music aside, just how much harm have these clueless artists wreaked on the world?

Now about that engendered by (99% well-meaning) scientists and engineers?

I'm not advocating a return to the stone-age. Technology is wonderful as long as it doesn't endanger our lives (or genetic heritage). But arrogant, contemtuous engineers who think, conversely, that the blueprints in the lab transfer perfectly to the messy reality outside have done much more harm to the world AND to the future of technology than any group of "clueless artistic-types."

Nonsense, if I make a statement that is 100% about something that is immune to opinion, such as facts, numbers, ETC, and I'm incorrect, then I will immediately admit my mistake when I am made aware of it. The problem here is that 99% of this thread ISN'T about those kinds of things.

First, you begin numerous responses to people with very disparaging words, the "nonsense" in this case being a perfect example.
Then, it's a huge assumption you're making that there's this clean, clear break between "facts, numbers" etc and how those facts and numbers affect the real world when applied to it.

Together, they create the exact impression of the one-sided, out-of-touch-with-reality, arrogant contemptuous scientist/engineer the very people you despise rail against.

It's about opinions. Even the title of the thread screams opinion.

And this is the whole point: you can't debate on this thread in such a black-and-white fashion while demonstrating such a lack of respect for those who disagree.

I've read your responses re technical aspects on this thread, and it's obvious you're well-schooled, but even then you're pretty caustic in refuting others.

Obtaining a BA/MA/PhD in literature (to take one example) means years of debating often absolutely debatable points--what did Shakespeare/Dickens/Joyce mean when he wrote this? One garners evidence the best one can and then makes a case with it--kind of like scientific research. But, as I stated before, many if not most people endeavoring in the humanities realize in the end it's all opinion--just better-supported or not-so-well supported opinion--so at least a modicum of self-doubt is not just helpful, but necessary to succeeding. The best scientists have this too, yet so many have this utter confidence in science as the sole source of the truth, which inexorably leads to dismissing non-scientists as clueless, as you have above.

Back in the day all students had to study a core curriculum of humanities, but with the increasing dominance of science and hi-tech in the world this has pretty much stopped. As a result most people in the tech-world these days have little or no education in the humanities. To me this is a monumental tragedy and is a factor in creating potentially monumental catastrophes like FDI.

You no doubt are of the opinion that I'm going way overboard. Well, this is an opinion thread, isn't it. If that's too messy for you perhaps you should stick to technical issues.

 

[Drakkith]

On the other hand, when one member of this forum states or strongly implies that two others think exactly alike based on a couple of statements by one of them (this statement about Dmytry and me was originally made after I'd made one or two posts) then they are being inaccurate.

So you have a bit of information being used arrive at an erroneous conclusion, vs. decades of information, books, the statements of a former POTUS/highest ranking general during WWII etc.

One would think this difference would be obvious.

Your previous statement implies that all these complexes are all purposely doing harm to everyone, and then lying about it and spreading false information all on purpose. This ignores the fact that each of those complexes are made up of thousands of individuals whose ideals, beliefs, morals, etc are all diverse and range all over the place.

Knowing this, AND based on personal experience in some of these "complexes" myself, i guarantee you that your catchall statement is hideously incorrect. For every person that lies, cheats, and steals their way around there are dozens of honest people that work diligently and provide the best information possible.

 

[Drakkith]

And you're not responding to my point.

That's because you don't have a point. Not one I can see at least. Please elaborate if you do.

same, non-responsive.

There isn't anything to respond to. It's just you assuming that I have blinders on or whatever. So again, I don't care.

So as long as the have a bit of scientific mindset they're not clueless. I'll agree somewhat, and would counter that people with ONLY a scientific mindset are equally clueless, except that such generalizations are not only full of contempt but also utterly simplistic and unrealistic.

That kind of naivete has nothing to do with being unscientific. Moreover, the kind of utter disregard for those who don't share your mindset (sound familiar?) you're displaying here is destructive, but more interestingly exactly the kind of contemptuous/hubristic attitude that has being a major factor in getting us into deep doo-doo over and over (see Chernobyl, TMI, Macondo, FDI).

I'm not disregarding anyone. You're the one continually bringing up pointless statements and judging entire groups of people.

I'll go further and ask: how much death and destruction, how much pollution, how many babies and children blown apart by mines, cluster bombs, irradiated by DU munitions and exploding nuclear plants, etc etc etc has been caused by artists?

As I don't know of any reliable way of finding out how many artists have been in the military, I can't tell you. But I'd bet there were a few.

Poor performances, ugly, poorly-executed paintings, unlistenable music aside, just how much harm have these clueless artists wreaked on the world?

Now about that engendered by (99% well-meaning) scientists and engineers?

How about all those that promote violence and such? Plenty out there.

I'm not advocating a return to the stone-age. Technology is wonderful as long as it doesn't endanger our lives (or genetic heritage). But arrogant, contemtuous engineers who think, conversely, that the blueprints in the lab transfer perfectly to the messy reality outside have done much more harm to the world AND to the future of technology than any group of "clueless artistic-types."

How many poets, artists, songwriters, painters ETC have inspired rebellion, war, ETC in history? How many non scientists/engineers have made incorrect choices based on ignorance or dismissal? Or based purely on religious views? Plenty. EVERYONE is capable of making bad decisions or doing harm to someone else.

First, you begin numerous responses to people with very disparaging words, the "nonsense" in this case being a perfect example.
Then, it's a huge assumption you're making that there's this clean, clear break between "facts, numbers" etc and how those facts and numbers affect the real world when applied to it.
Together, they create the exact impression of the one-sided, out-of-touch-with-reality, arrogant contemptuous scientist/engineer the very people you despise rail against.

Have I linked any specific numbers? No. That's because I understand that no matter what I type up here on my computer, it won't be close to being accurate because I'm not there. I don't have the needed information.

And this is the whole point: you can't debate on this thread in such a black-and-white fashion while demonstrating such a lack of respect for those who disagree.

Like you've been doing this whole time? I don't have any problem with your stance. Trust me, I'm not responding to you merely because you disagree with me. I'm attempting to point out WHY certain things work and others don't. And I will most definitively point out when people make assumptions about broad groups (like you have) for no good reason.

I've read your responses re technical aspects on this thread, and it's obvious you're well-schooled, but even then you're pretty caustic in refuting others.

Obtaining a BA/MA/PhD in literature (to take one example) means years of debating often absolutely debatable points--what did Shakespeare/Dickens/Joyce mean when he wrote this? One garners evidence the best one can and then makes a case with it--kind of like scientific research.

Sure. And if this was the case here I wouldn't have a problem. However this isn't the case. All I've seen is one person (including myself) after another spew random opinions about without any evidence to back any of it up. And on top of that, any evidence linked against that view is immediately disregarded as inaccurate because "people aren't trustworthy" or whatever. I try very hard to make sure that when I dispute something I do it for a reason and not merely because I don't believe it's accurate. Unless of course it's something only opinion based, and then I will try to explain why I believe their view is incorrect the best way I can.

But, as I stated before, many if not most people endeavoring in the humanities realize in the end it's all opinion--just better-supported or not-so-well supported opinion--so at least a modicum of self-doubt is not just helpful, but necessary to succeeding. The best scientists have this too, yet so many have this utter confidence in science as the sole source of the truth, which inexorably leads to dismissing non-scientists as clueless, as you have above.

Truth? What truth is there except science? Science at its base is a search for truth! It also includes things like humanities! How and why people act the way they do, different cultures, it all is encompassed. So I really don't know what you mean when you say that so many have this confidence as science as the sole source of truth, as I've never known anything else to be "truth".

Back in the day all students had to study a core curriculum of humanities, but with the increasing dominance of science and hi-tech in the world this has pretty much stopped. As a result most people in the tech-world these days have little or no education in the humanities. To me this is a monumental tragedy and is a factor in creating potentially monumental catastrophes like FDI.

I have no idea whether this is a factor or not. All I can say is that all in all safety is MUCH better nowadays than it has ever been.

You no doubt are of the opinion that I'm going way overboard. Well, this is an opinion thread, isn't it. If that's too messy for you perhaps you should stick to technical issues.

That's fair. If this is going to be an "opinion thread" then I will post accordingly. I was unaware this thread was mostly opinion based.

 

[jlduh]

To all: you should read the first posts i have written for starting this thread, i think it should be useful to avoid misconception about this thread and understand in which conditions it has been created and what is expected to be seen.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3221090&postcount=1

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=486089

Again this Fukushima disaster is a very special one and most of us are very affected by what happens there, but we are also left with very little resources to act and even understand what happened, what's happening, and what will (possibly) happen: the scale of this accident 5' reactors hit at the same time, more than 10 cores involved with several in a very bad state or probably in current meltdown, in an area with very high densities of population, this has NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE and in fact is out of proportion of most of our resources (reources on site to try to contain the situation, but also resources here on this forum to analyse the situation). We have to admit that.

If you read the main thread and consider the PF guidelines, based on the very specific kind of this situation as described above, i can guarantee that this thread woud be "quiet like a dodo" ,as someone recently wrote with some humour, if only restricted to pure facts or theories published in some reviews and so on! Why? Well because this main thread is just trying to keep contact with what happens there (and in fact will be an unvaluable and incredibly useful record of all the events in the future) and that this situation is right now mainly beyond any scientific explanations and approaches, also because most of the infos we get are from Tepco and proved to be (for various reasons...) very inconsistent, unreliable, full of mistakes, and very incomplete (complete analysis of all the isotopes found are very scarce for example, this would be a big help for the SFs for example: WHY?).

I wrote some days ago a message to explain why, in my opinion, more and more moderate members were getting frustrated and even upset even if they were trying to stay as much as possible on the analysis of facts, numbers, and parameters:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3297330&postcount=6792

This should explain why this "more political" thread can have its interests in the current and very special situation happening at Fukushima. It's also here to try to keep the main thread as "clean" as possible on facts and analysis, but again what makes this main thread very alive (this is the only place most people find on the net to continue to follow this subject on a day by day basis from the technical standpoint, and this gives PF a very good visibility and gives high credit to this forum!) is the amount of information collected and recorded and debated here, which are not, let recognize it, always as "pure" as some scientific approach would like them to be, but because this is just not possible... This Fukushima is a worldwide accident and the scale of it, and the way it started and the way it evolves, are the main reasons of this being like that.

So please consider this more political thread as it should be, regarding what i explained, and avoid entering into too personal disputes which are boring IMHO.

Also, if this kind of thread has no interest from your standpoint, you can also simply avoid it

 

[jlduh]

Even if this could have done in far better conditions of course (i mean that we shouldn't wait for a tsunami and a nuclear crisis to do it of course, because these are tough conditions for citizens...) this crisis is probably going to lead to good measures to work on energy efficiency and energy saving programs:Govt sets summer power-saving target at 15%

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/13_18.html

The plan that was hammered out on Friday by the government taskforce calls on corporate and individual users to reduce their electricity use by a uniform 15 percent from the peak summer period last year. This is ten percentage points lower than the maximum 25 percent target announced in April.

Under the plan, factories and other major consumers will be asked to prepare to reduce their use of electricity in the summer.

 

[rowmag]

Even if this could have done in far better conditions of course (i mean that we shouldn't wait for a tsunami and a nuclear crisis to do it of course, because these are tough conditions for citizens...) this crisis is probably going to lead to good measures to work on energy efficiency and energy saving programs:


Govt sets summer power-saving target at 15%

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/13_18.html

Yes, this is a good thing. Everybody went on an energy conservation binge after the earthquake to minimize the need for blackouts, and it was pretty successful, but I think the big challenge this summer will be to see how well fans can replace air conditioners.

 

[jlduh]

If there should be an ultimate reason for not having privately owned companies running plants like the nuclear ones with so heavy consequences to social life and communities around in case of accidents, i think it could be this one:

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/10_20.html
In the list of what they will do to raise "maximum" funding, I see "reduce the salaries and the bonuses -which bonuses by the way? Will they still have bonuses?) BUT i DIDN'T see something like:

"refund the necessary dividends accumulated in the past by shareholders"

(for an other example of huge social impact of a crisis, this remark could apply to all private banks in the financial crisis, with in both cases the TOO BIG TO FAIL THREAT TO PUSH TO ACCEPT THE "DEAL")

Instead of this, sates/citizens will probably pay collectively for it.

For any "normal citizen", this is not acceptable to privatize the gains for years and share the losses with the community. Especially when a company has a so long list of frauds and lies to the community behind her...

Ok, you drove drunk several times in the past, this time you have a huge accident and kill and injure many people and destroy their house, you have to pay fines and penalties for it and... you go to see the government to ask to help you to pay part of the stuff -but promise you will do your "maximum" to pay part of it!

Does it sound right and logical to you, as a "normal citizen"?

I know that it has been said several times here: "don't condemn them as long as you didn't run into their shoes".

But hey, if I was a japanese citizen, couln't I say ALSO that they stealing MY SHOES in fact?

Gov decides about the structure to be put in place to help Tepco pay compensation:

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/13_14.html

Under the framework decided on Friday, a new state backed institution will be set up to facilitate quick payments to those affected. The new body would receive financial contributions from electric power companies that own nuclear power plants in Japan.
The government will inject public funds by allocating to the institution a special type of bond that can be cashed whenever necessary.The institution would strengthen TEPCO's capital base by making use of these funds to pay compensation claims and make business investments.

The institution would annually return a certain amount of money from TEPCO to the state coffers.

This is quite fuzzy to say the least. For sure Tepco has two big levers in its hands in case of bankrupcy: the risk of lack of supply AND the risk of leaving the state with 4 crippled reactors on its back. Would be interested to see what will be the final key ratio for financing this structure, between nuclear industry contributions and state contributions. Anyway, at the end, the ones who will pay are the citizens or the users (which are both the same). The only question is to know the contrinution of private nuclear shareholders in the compensation financing. Why doesn't nuclear industry have a mutual compensation system (mutual insurance) being feed by nuclear companies, to be used in that kind of accident? Even if it proved not sufficent, oil industry have something like that in place i think. It can also be done with a kind of reinsurance mutual fund, like ASSURPOL in France (even if i think the nuclear industry is not in this system either in France: nuclear risks are so big that the insurance for consequences is a real problem, but one way or the other, this has to be adressed -and its better if it is before hand!- and costs to be included in the total cost of the produced energy through nuclear plants):

http://www.assurpol.fr/index.php?page=general

 

[jlduh]

This news confirms go into the direction of 2 points already mentionned in this thread, the latter being just above:

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/13_20.html

Referring to information offered by Japan right after the accident, Poneman said the US side had difficulty grasping what was actually happening. He said if US officials had been able to obtain data more quickly, they could have given better advice.

It seems that not only us here are saying this...

Poneman said that even before the Fukushima crisis, the US had repeatedly urged Japan to ratify an international treaty over damage from serious nuclear plant accidents. He expressed hope that Japan will ratify the pact soon.

Under the treaty, compensation for serious nuclear accidents would be financially supported by funds collected from the signatories.

Well, this is precisely what i was mentionning in the post above!

 

[jlduh]

More contamination on the grass in towns outside of the evacuation zone, and far outside!

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/13_01.html



NOTE THAT NIKKO CITY IS AT AROUND 170 kms FROM THE PLANT (SOUTH WEST) which is quite far... the other one is at around 100 kms same direction.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sou...8424,140.542603&spn=2.548084,6.696167&t=h&z=8

It seems that the winds are spreading the bad stuff in several directions, the North west has been severely touched, the South West could start to get the same scenario.

Over a long period of time (who knows when this crisis will be contained), we can fear that long life Cs-137 (ans maybe Strontium?) will accumulate here and there, like thin layers of small snow falls which would never melt and add weeks after weeks...

The only difference being this is invisible and dangerous snow...

Some more contamination of tea leaves:

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/13_39.html

Radioactive material above designated safety limits has been detected in tea leaves harvested in 5 municipalities in Kanagawa Prefecture, neighboring Tokyo.

The prefectural government checked samples of leaves harvested in 15 municipalities in the region. Officials say that samples from 5 of those were found to contain unsafe levels of radioactive cesium.

They say 780 becquerels of cesium were detected in tea leaves in Odawara City, 740 becquerels in Kiyokawa Village, 680 becquerels in Yugawara Town, 670 becquerels in Aikawa Town and 530 becquerels in Manazuru Town.

Damn, this info is really a breaking news to me, not because of the levels (even it there are sufficiently high to make them unsafe!) but BECAUSE OF WHERE THEY HAVE BEEN MEASURED:

KANAGAWA prefecture is south of Tokyo!

I located Odawara on this map for example:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sou...008,140.855713&spn=4.754161,13.392334&t=h&z=7

So this is around 330 kms south west of Daichi plant!

Minami Ashigara, also listed in the article, is even further

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sou...0598,139.251709&spn=4.74326,13.392334&t=h&z=7

The scale at which unsafe deposits are falling is enlarging day after day...

 

[zapperzero]

Color me surprised.
But seriously, because of Fukushima we'll see how well humans can live in fallout areas. It's unconceivable that half of Japan will be evacuated, so...

 

[SteveElbows]

Color me surprised.
But seriously, because of Fukushima we'll see how well humans can live in fallout areas. It's unconceivable that half of Japan will be evacuated, so...

Well the level of contamination is rather important, its certainly not the first time we have seen a nuclear accident cause problems for farming many hundreds of miles away. As parts of countries such as the UK are still dealing with this issue 25 years after Chernobyl, it won't be at all surprising if we see foodstuffs with contamination levels above the limit in many locations across Japan over time.

 

[SteveElbows]

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110513p2a00m0na019000c.html

According to the announcement, sludge with radioactivity levels of over 100,000 becquerels per kilogram should preferably be incinerated and melted in Fukushima Prefecture before being kept at sewage plants. Ash generated through sludge incineration should be contained in metal barrels to prevent it from scattering.

Ummm, is incinerating radioactive sludge a good idea?

Sludge with radioactivity levels of under 1,000 becquerels per kilogram can be recycled into cement and other material if the levels can be reduced to under 100 becquerels through mixture with other materials and dilution.

"The volume of radioactive sludge should be reduced as much as possible through recycling," said an official with the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, adding that the recycling of such sludge into fertilizer should be withheld for the time being.

Oh well at least the radioactive fertilizer is off the agenda for now, what a relief.

 

[etudiant]

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110513p2a00m0na019000c.html



Ummm, is incinerating radioactive sludge a good idea?



Oh well at least the radioactive fertilizer is off the agenda for now, what a relief.

According to some data on EX-SKF here
http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2011/05/now-radioactive-sewage-sludge-from.html
the sewage sludge incineration releases about two thirds of the radioactivity, with the rest concentrated over tenfold in the ash. The ash is then used to help make cement, which may release more of the radioactivity, so the contamination is recycled through the air.
Unfortunately, while the iodine contamination could be largely solved for dairy products by using the milk to make cheese, cesium's long half life makes it a lasting menace.
There is no good fix, at best the people will need to filter everything and avoid local food.
Japan is becoming a testbed for living in a dirty world. Not a good thing.

 

[rowmag]

Some more contamination of tea leaves:

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/13_39.html
Damn, this info is really a breaking news to me, not because of the levels (even it there are sufficiently high to make them unsafe!) but BECAUSE OF WHERE THEY HAVE BEEN MEASURED:

KANAGAWA prefecture is south of Tokyo!

It was mentioned on the news last night that those tea plantations have the bad luck to be on the sides of mountains facing Fukushima, so winds from that direction preferentially deposit fallout there. This effect was also apparently observed in the aftermath of Chernobyl.
(Same effect as seen for rain or snow,too, I guess.)

 

[Drakkith]

Even if this could have done in far better conditions of course (i mean that we shouldn't wait for a tsunami and a nuclear crisis to do it of course, because these are tough conditions for citizens...) this crisis is probably going to lead to good measures to work on energy efficiency and energy saving programs:


Govt sets summer power-saving target at 15%

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/13_18.html

Yep. It's still unfortunate that this had to happen. I'd hate to have to do something like go without AC all summer down here in Louisiana. (Summer is like 5-6 months long here by the way, or at least it feels like it)

 

[yakiniku]

Plutonium detected in rice paddy by a food manufacturer more than 50 kms away from Fukushima power plant:

http://jbpress.ismedia.jp/articles/-/7890?page=2

また、ある食品メーカーが独自に調査した結果では、福島第一原発から50キロ以上離れた水田の土から、政府が発表している数値よりケタ違いに高い放射線が検出されたという。

Additionally, a certain food manufacturing company conducted a survey by themselves. In a rice field is more than 50kms away from the Fukushima power plant, it was found that there was very high radiation that is very different to what the government released.

(heading)
原発から50キロ以上離れた田んぼの土から高濃度のプルトニウム

High density plutonium is in the rice field that was mentioned previously.

この食品メーカーによると、現時点でその結果を公表するのは影響が大きすぎるため発表は控えているとのことだが、その田んぼの土からは高い濃度のプルトニウムも検出されたそうだ。

According to this food manufacturing company, they currently don't announce these results due to the large influence* that this rice field has high concentration of plutonium.

* Note: It is not mentioned what the influence is but it implies they do not currently release the information as it may have an impact on the media/public.

 

[AntonL]

“4 reactors that are all still emitting significant amounts of radiation into the environment so this is not a situation that has been brought under control …we have ongoing leakage”

“Managing public opinion is as serious an operation as managing the crisis itself

“...it is easier to just reduce the amount of information the public has so that you can control the situation, at least from the point of view of public opinion and keep people from panicking”

http://www.youtube.com/user/RussiaToday#p/search/15/Dxbm7iJTT8U at 4:20 onwards

unfortunately he also took up the leaning unit 4, 03:10 onwards, somehow those graphics look familiarhttp://jen.jiji.com/jc/eng?g=eco&k=2011051400255

Japan to Seek APEC Cooperation to Dispel N-Crisis Rumors

Washington, May 14 (Jiji Press)--Japan is to seek cooperation from other members of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in dispelling harmful rumors stemming from the country's nuclear crisis at a meeting of APEC trade ministers to be held Thursday-Friday in Big Sky, Montana.
Japan will ask its APEC partners to respond calmly to the radiation leak accident at the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant in northeastern Japan, with regard to their import restrictions on Japanese food and industrial products, sources said.

Only way to suppress rumors is to have an open, honest and complete information policy.

 

[jlduh]

Well, looking at the last results of contamination in the last days in the grass, tea leaves and maybe now rice padding, now at a large distance from the plant (more than 300 kms for the tea leaves), it smell that this desaster is going to become a very large affair in the next weeks/months. A a big scandal also.

 

[AntonL]

Well, looking at the last results of contamination in the last days in the grass, tea leaves and maybe now rice padding, now at a large distance from the plant (more than 300 kms for the tea leaves), it smell that this desaster is going to become a very large affair in the next weeks/months. A a big scandal also.

And now

Radioactive ash found in Tokyo sewage plant -

The ash, containing an unidentified substance with a radioactive density of 170,000 Becquerel per kg, was collected from a plant in Koto Ward, eastern Tokyo, the Nikkei and Sankei dailies said, quoting metropolitan government sources.

http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Asia/Story/STIStory_668600.html

 

[jlduh]

hopefully not something bad again...

http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/05/91196.html

Trouble delayed cold shutdown of Hamaoka nuke reactor
SHIZUOKA, Japan, May 15, Kyodo

Chubu Electric Power Co. said Sunday that cooling system trouble delayed the 'cold shutdown' of the No. 5 reactor at its Hamaoka power plant in Shizuoka Prefecture for about two hours earlier in the day, while ruling out any external release of radioactive substances.

 

[etudiant]

And now

http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Asia/Story/STIStory_668600.html

Not good news.
Earlier coverage of the contamination at other sewage treatment plants in the vicinity of the accident site here:
http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2011/05/now-radioactive-sewage-sludge-from.html#comments
The contamination measured in those sites near to Fukushima was about 30,000 bequerels of cesium per kg of waste, rising to about 10x that in the residual ash left after burning the sludge. So the contamination measured here has only dropped by about a factor of 2 despite the increased distance. Clearly the hope that airborne emissions would be efficiently diluted as they disperse has been disappointed.
Sewage is an excellent indicator of the overall level of pollutants and is routinely used for that purpose, for instance to monitor urban drug use. These data indicate that the radiation contamination from Fukushima is already so widespread that it is doubtful whether the Japanese authorities have any options other than to increase the allowable contamination levels for foodstuffs and construction material.

 

[Danuta]

Perchance this sheds a little more light on why TEPCO is behaving the way it's behaving.

The new enervated TEPCO

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20110516a1.html"

"Tepco's interest-bearing liabilities, including corporate bonds, total more
than ¥7.3 trillion, most of which is owed to insurance companies and financial
institutions, both private and government-owned. The biggest lender is the
Development Bank of Japan, which is 100 percent state-owned. It has lent more
than ¥300 billion to Tepco.

Shortly after the Fukushima plant accidents, major banks committed another
¥2 trillion in credit lines to Tepco, including ¥600 billion from Sumitomo Mitsui
Banking Corp.

Should Tepco go bankrupt, not only would the Japanese financial market be thrown
into an utter chaos, but international markets would lose their trust in Japanese
banking institutions to the extent that the institutions would have to pay higher
interest rates to secure funds.

If worse comes to worst, Tepco share certificates would become worthless sheets
of paper for 600,000 shareholders as well as for many corporate pension funds that
have included Tepco stock in their portfolios. The steep drop in Tepco's stock price has
already dealt a blow to investment funds in the United States. Nearly 20 percent of its
stock is held by non-Japanese investors. This has reportedly led the Obama administration
to urge the Kan government to take steps to prevent a further decline in Tepco stock."

 

[etudiant]

Perchance this sheds a little more light on why TEPCO is behaving the way it's behaving.

The new enervated TEPCO

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20110516a1.html"

"Tepco's interest-bearing liabilities, including corporate bonds, total more
than ¥7.3 trillion, most of which is owed to insurance companies and financial
institutions, both private and government-owned. The biggest lender is the
Development Bank of Japan, which is 100 percent state-owned. It has lent more
than ¥300 billion to Tepco.

Shortly after the Fukushima plant accidents, major banks committed another
¥2 trillion in credit lines to Tepco, including ¥600 billion from Sumitomo Mitsui
Banking Corp.

Should Tepco go bankrupt, not only would the Japanese financial market be thrown
into an utter chaos, but international markets would lose their trust in Japanese
banking institutions to the extent that the institutions would have to pay higher
interest rates to secure funds.

If worse comes to worst, Tepco share certificates would become worthless sheets
of paper for 600,000 shareholders as well as for many corporate pension funds that
have included Tepco stock in their portfolios. The steep drop in Tepco's stock price has
already dealt a blow to investment funds in the United States. Nearly 20 percent of its
stock is held by non-Japanese investors. This has reportedly led the Obama administration
to urge the Kan government to take steps to prevent a further decline in Tepco stock."

Excellent point.
TEPCO is in a difficult position, serving as the spearcatcher for the Japanese government, exposed to overwhelming costs and liabilities, with only a promise of some government support for the eventual compensation payments.
The company has not the resources, financially, managerially or technically to cope adequately with a disaster of this magnitude. However, the problem is so bad that there is no clear reason for the government to step in and take charge. It would raise costs but not get more accomplished, afaik.
The center of Japan is already seriously contaminated and the reactors are scrap.
Admittedly, Michio Ishikawa of the Japan Nuclear Technology Institute has forcefully argued for a much more aggressive approach, but he may have changed his view in light of the disclosure that reactor 1 was entirely lost within a day of the disaster. Now that the reactors are lost, the problem becomes a vast and painful cleanup, which will leave Japan permanently scarred. The political leadership will try to ensure that that can remains tied to TEPCO. The money is a tertiary concern.

 

[jlduh]

hopefully not something bad again...

http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/05/91196.html

Hummm, no, nothing serious, just 400 tons of seawater found in N°5 reactor coolant of Hamaoka plant!

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/16_03.html

In the course of shutdown, plant operator Chubu Electric Power Company found impure substances in coolant water at the No.5 reactor.

The company reports damage to a duct connected to a condenser, a system that turns the steam generated by a nuclear reactor to water through the use of seawater.
Chubu Electric Power Company says 400 tons of seawater may be mixed into the cooling water that goes through the reactor.

It says 400 tons would not severely affect the reactor, and that no radioactive substances were detected outside the building.

But in order to prevent the reactor being eroded by seawater, the operator will take measures to remove salt from the cooling water.

They should ask Tepco which has a good know how of cooling reactor with seawater...

Damn, they were saying that theses plants didn't endure damages during earthquake... Might not be exactly the case?

 

[Danuta]

... The political leadership will try to ensure that that can remains tied to TEPCO. The money is a tertiary concern.

Yup, you are right, the can remains tied till the last hours. But methinks TEPCO is doomed already (KABOOM). It has
over 90 billion bucks in debt(that's from a month ago) and around 30 billion in equity buffer. Nationalization is on the
horizon. It's just too big a company to let tank. Then Japan can hit up the US for money owed to further finance the
stoppage and cleanup of the ongoing nuke disaster.

 

[jlduh]

An other interesting article about the "Whistleblower Who Shutdown 17 Nuclear Reactors in Japan" (including recently published video of interview)

http://criticality.org/2011/05/whistleblower-shutdown-17-nuclear-reactors/

 

[Danuta]

An other interesting article about the "Whistleblower Who Shutdown 17 Nuclear Reactors in Japan" (including recently published video of interview)

http://criticality.org/2011/05/whistleblower-shutdown-17-nuclear-reactors/

I posted the same vid a couple of posts back. It's rather interesting viewing!

 

[Danuta]

Hummm, no, nothing serious, just 400 tons of seawater found in N°5 reactor coolant of Hamaoka plant!

Em, #5 is a BWR? Yeah, yeah, no problemo with the injection of a little seawater. So the real reason they shut Hamaoka
down is due to earthquake damage necessitating almost trashing(if not trashing) reactor #5 with seawater, and not the sudden
concern over underestimated risk and peoples' welfare. God but these guys positively stink at spin doctoring too.

 

[etudiant]

Yup, you are right, the can remains tied till the last hours. But methinks TEPCO is doomed already (KABOOM). It has
over 90 billion bucks in debt(that's from a month ago) and around 30 billion in equity buffer. Nationalization is on the
horizon. It's just too big a company to let tank. Then Japan can hit up the US for money owed to further finance the
stoppage and cleanup of the ongoing nuke disaster.

Your opinion is clearly shared.
The Japanese National Policy Minister Koichiro Genba just said publicly that TEPCO 'may not survive as is'.
Link here: http://jen.jiji.com/jc/eng?g=eco&k=2011051600073

 

[Danuta]

Your opinion is clearly shared.
The Japanese National Policy Minister Koichiro Genba just said publicly that TEPCO 'may not survive as is'.
Link here: http://jen.jiji.com/jc/eng?g=eco&k=2011051600073

So it seems.

Somewhere in the middle of this are some very angry Japanese banksters threatening
to refuse any future loans to TEPCO after Edano's hint, hint, ah, bold suggestion, that
said banksters waive all of TEPCO's present loans.

But, well, nationalization after the bankruptcy would solve that "future loans" obstacle
too. (And quite frankly, who really gives a hoot about banksters losing any money.)

We shall see how it all plays out.


Bank chiefs unsettled by Edano's remarks over TEPCO
http://www.istockanalyst.com/business/news/5146869/update1-bank-chiefs-unsettled-by-edano-s-remarks-over-tepco"

"The heads of major banking groups did not hide their discomfort on Friday at
remarks by the government's top spokesman suggesting banks lending to the
embattled Tokyo Electric Power Co. (OOTC:TKECY) should forgive their debt and
help the utility pay compensation over the crisis at its Fukushima Daiichi nuclear
power plant.

Loans extended to Tokyo Electric, known as TEPCO, by SMFG, Mizuho and other
big banks amount to around 4 trillion yen, including 1.9 trillion yen in emergency
loans offered after the March 11 earthquake and tsunami.

''We have lent to TEPCO, considering the significant role it plays for the interest
of Japanese society,'' a senior official at a major bank said, complaining about
Edano's comments.

In the event of debt forgiveness, the official added, any loans to TEPCO must
be categorized as nonperforming and this could make it rather difficult for banks
to extend additional loans to the company."

 

[jlduh]

It seems that more governors start to be pretty angry about the principle retained by government of the basic circular evacuation zones and want more "fine tuning" forecast through SPEEDI system:

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/16_11.html

Shiga Prefecture in western Japan is one of the prefectures that has asked for the radiation forecast system. It lies 13 kilometers from a nuclear power plant in neighboring Fukui Prefecture.

Shiga Governor Yukiko Kada says it is unreasonable to draw up evacuation plans simply based on the distance from nuclear power plants. She says such plans should be studied based on data the system provides.

Kyoto Prefecture, also neighboring Fukui, has decided to expand the scope of its disaster preparedness plan to cover areas 20 kilometers from the power plant in Fukui.

All things some of us already mentionned and criticized in the last weeks here, by the way...

The problem is: time and deposits going on, data will soon reveal to either evacuate or... just absorb more and more doses as "no short term improvement" is foreseen at the plant (to say it in a politically correct manner...)

 

[jlduh]

I wanted to mention here this documentary that was made by a famous documentarist, Adam Curtis, whose films have been widely shown and awarded especially at the BBC (more on him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Curtis )

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/03/a_is_for_atom.html

very interesting because it goes back to old times and history of BWR reactors and GE...

 

[pdObq]

I wanted to mention here this documentary that was made by a famous documentarist, Adam Curtis, whose films have been widely shown and awarded especially at the BBC (more on him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Curtis )

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/03/a_is_for_atom.html

very interesting because it goes back to old times and history of BWR reactors and GE...

Wow, thanks for that link, that documentary is kind of disturbing (although it's not really surprising that much blame goes to business and sales people).

One thought during watching: It would not seem terribly unfair if GE (or GE-Hitachi) had to pay its share in the whole mess. After all, they designed those reactors and sold them to TEPCO, almost certainly without letting them know about the known risks.

Just for comparison (although possibly not quite comparable):

Toyota had to pay and its image got damaged just because some "operators" mixed up the accelerator with the break pedal.

"BP" Oil Spill: So far BP is getting all the blame, but how about Transocean who owned the platform and did the work, how about Haliburton who (likely) did a poor cementing job, how about the company that built the blowout preventer? IMHO they all should pay their share depending on how much they are able to contribute without going bankrupt.

 

[gmax137]

... It would not seem terribly unfair if GE (or GE-Hitachi) had to pay its share in the whole mess. After all, they designed those reactors and sold them to TEPCO, almost certainly without letting them know about the known risks.

Source, please?

Oh, almost certainly there is no source.

 

[pdObq]

Source, please?

Oh, almost certainly there is no source.

Source?? I guess that would be me, as I wrote that was a thought I had while watching that documentary...

Did you watch it? One could probably make a list of the actual sources shown in the documentary (studies and interviews). It's pre Fukushima-crisis, though, so there is no information about the history of TEPCO or the plant in there. However there is about GE and its BWR design.

 

[jlduh]

Don't preclude to quickly that there are none

Sorry if it isn't a pure source (peer review article etc.) but at least this is an article that summarizes the history of mark I containment and some old studies (not sure they are available on the net anyway) which made this design very controversial:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/world/asia/16contain.html

Several utilities and plant operators also threatened to sue G.E. in the late 1980s after the disclosure of internal company documents dating back to 1975 that suggested that the containment vessel designs were either insufficiently tested or had flaws that could compromise safety.

See also this document hyperlinked in the article, which criticizes the technology used by GE in order to reduce size of containment and ultimately cost:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs/greeninc/hanauer.pdf

And you have also an interesting page, PAGE 63, in this document, where are compared the abilities of different containments to absorb a sudden Hydrogen production from Zr oxydation, and Mark I is far behind the other ones (high percents of H2 inside the containment are reached much quicker, increasing risks of explosion...)

http://www.galcit.caltech.edu/~jeshep/fukushima/ShepherdFukushima30April2011.pdf

I don't have access to all the documents behind this article of the NY times but in the mega trial that will follow this desaster, no doubt that there will be a cascade of responsabilities that will be debated (long and hard anyway!) and that Tepco will mayb be tempted to sue GE and maybe other subcontractors to share the burden of responsabilities, as anyway this history exist and that some documents may be available...

Meanwhile, the article precise that "G.E.’s liability would seem limited in Japan — largely because the regulatory system in that country places most liability on the plant operator".

Also, these reactors have been through some retrofit to improve the flaws but it is unclear right now which ones are implemented at Daichi (the hardened venting seems part of this, also some deflectors in the torus, but still retrofit has its limits of course...)

Anyway, this will be a VERY COMPLEX trial (a bunch of different trials in fact), as an expert for courts, with some experience in this kind of technical debate, i can assure you that!

By the way it seems the first ones (of a long list...) to claim compensation from Tepco will be the farmers:

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/17_33.html

Farmers in Fukushima Prefecture plan to demand about 5.5 million dollars in damages from TEPCO over radioactive contamination from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant.

32 agricultural groups decided at a meeting in Fukushima City on Tuesday that they will make the demand to Tokyo Electric Power Company on May 27th. It will be their first compensation claim.

 

[Danuta]

I don't have access to all the documents behind this article of the NY times but in the mega trial that will follow this desaster, no doubt that there will be a cascade of responsabilities that will be debated (long and hard anyway!) and that Tepco will mayb be tempted to sue GE and maybe other subcontractors to share the burden of responsabilities, as anyway this history exist and that some documents may be available...

Meanwhile, the article precise that "G.E.’s liability would seem limited in Japan — largely because the regulatory system in that country places most liability on the plant operator".

Couldn't seem like a better time for a certain law revision.

Laws revised to make it easier to sue foreign firms in Japan
Thursday 28th April 2011
http://www.japantoday.com/category/politics/view/laws-revised-to-make-it-easier-to-sue-foreign-firms-in-japan"


"Legal revisions to enable consumers to file lawsuits against foreign companies more easily in Japan were approved Thursday by a majority of lawmakers in the House of Representatives.

With the approval, consumers and workers will be able to file suits against foreign firms with Japanese courts, in principle, if their residence addresses are in Japan.

The enactment of the revised Code of Civil Procedure and the revised Civil Preservation Law will also allow Japanese courts to deal with legal cases if defendant foreign firms have their main offices in Japan or if their representatives live in Japan.

Until now, there was no domestic law governing the jurisdiction of civil litigation involving parties belonging to Japan and other countries, thus Japanese courts had to handle those suits on a case-by-case basis, based on precedents.

The legal revisions were made to stipulate under what kind of circumstances Japanese courts can have jurisdiction amid an increasing number of problems involving transactions through the Internet and employment contracts between people in Japan and foreign firms."

 

[gmax137]

Thanks for those links, jlduh, the hanauer memo especially is interesting (as is typical of his work). But I don't see how AEC debating the merits of the pressure suppression containment designs shows that the weaknesses of the design were some secret closely guarded by GE. Further, the issues discussed by hanauer don't really address what seems to have happened at fukusima -- namely h2 explosions in the secondary containment.

 

[pdObq]

One thought during watching: It would not seem terribly unfair if GE (or GE-Hitachi) had to pay its share in the whole mess. After all, they designed those reactors and sold them to TEPCO, almost certainly without letting them know about the known risks.

Source, please?
Oh, almost certainly there is no source.

Did you watch it? One could probably make a list of the actual sources shown in the documentary (studies and interviews). It's pre Fukushima-crisis, though, so there is no information about the history of TEPCO or the plant in there. However there is about GE and its BWR design.

jlduh, thanks for the backup !

gmax137, I suppose you were offended a bit by the "almost certainly without letting them know about the known risks". I mean, you probably don't want to debate about that GE designed the reactors, nor about that GE (and later GE-Hitachi AFAIK) sold them to TEPCO?

I was looking for a transcript of that documentary, but I couldn't find anything so far. However, Adam Curtis (who made it for BBC back in 1992) puts it into the context of the Fukushima accidents in his http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/03/a_is_for_atom.html" that jlduh found in his post above. So, let me quote Mr Curtis (with some highlighting by me):

The film shows that from very early on - as early as 1964 - US government officials knew that there were serious potential dangers with the design of the type of reactor that was used to build the Fukushima Daiichi plant. But that their warnings were repeatedly ignored.

[...]

Those early plants in America were the Boiling Water Reactors. And that is the very model that was used to build the reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi plant. Three of them were supplied directly by General Electric.

In 1966 the US government Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards tried to force the industry to redesign their containment structures to make them safer. But the chairman of the committee claims in the film that General Electric in effect refused.

And in 1971 the Atomic Energy Commission did a series of tests of Emergency Core Cooling systems. Accidents were simulated. In each case the emergency systems worked - but the water failed to fill the core. Often being forced out under pressure.

As one of the AEC scientists says in the film: "We discovered that our theoretical calculations didn't have a strong correlation with reality. But we just couldn't admit to the public that all these safety systems we told you about might not do any good"

And again the warnings were ignored by senior members of the Agency and the industry.

That was the same year that the first of the Fukushima Daiichi plant's reactors came online. Supplied by General Electric.

There are more interviews and references to studies in the film itself, in which IIRC is stated that a) they knew their plants were not as safe as possible quite early on, b) they were trying to make it a profitable business (since they had spent already so much money on the technology that they could not go back any more), so they had to sell plants at the lowest possible prices to be competitive with fossile fuel plants, which lead to safety compromises.

So, common sense tells me, that in order to do b), you don't tell your potential customers about a), at least not in any honest way (Just think about used car dealers...). Because if you did they just would not buy it. Probably the TEPCO people really were convinced that it was a safe technology (maybe even the GE sales people were!), but of course there is no easily available source for that either .

In terms of responsibility, maybe those law suits agaist the tobacco industry in the US are more related to this case, in the sense of "But you told us it was safe..."

Well, we'll see what's going to happen regarding possible law suits against GE.

 

[jlduh]

I was ready to answer to GMAX137 but I think you summarized pretty well pdObq what would have been my answer.

There are a lot of information in this documentary and I'm sure that there are documents behind to support what the guys interviewed in the documentary are saying. Most were "insiders" at this time with responsabilities in various organisations, and that's the force of the film. They are talking freely because they are much older, or even very old, and no more implied in the business! Also the film is not one based on sensationalism after the Fukushima accident, this documentary is from 1992, so its interest is just being rediscovered in light with the Fukushima disaster.

The dates mentioned in the video seem to pretty well correlate with the possibility that at the date of building Fukushima plant was started to be built in 1967, so at this date, based on some of the dates mentionned in Adam CURTIS site (1966), the discussions between american regulators and GE about redesign demands and flaws of the primary design, already occurred, but as you said it is very probable that the japanese weren't informed of that (the Hanauer document is from a later date, September 1972, so one year after the start of reactor N°1 at Fukushima).

So yes, it can be said with some reason that it has "probably" been kept secret at this date to Japanese buyers.

Something else to mention to explain what the documentary is showing very well -the fact that in this era, some countries were rushing in a race to be the first, and that safety was NOT AT ALL the primary concern- is that, in addition to the "make money" reason, there was as second reason why these leading countries wanted to build a profitable civil nuclear industry: the race they were involved in was also a military one, and as i mentionned already in some previous posts, they needed PLUTONIUM in larger quantities for the bombs and missiles... And one way to get it was through civil reactors, where PU is a byproduct of the nuclear fission in used cores. This is a know fact that civil nuclear birth happened as a close brother of military nuclear.

All of this old history is resurging with the Fukushima disaster, which scares a little bit the nuclear industry IMO...

It very premature to know IF there will be a juridic battle on this, it depends closely of the behind the screen relations that are currently taking place between governments and various interests. Personally i would be very surprised if this would happen, but we'll see. Don't forget that Tepco is or will be in a short future almost nationalized (and at least very dependent of state funding...) so the game will be decided at high level with strategical things on the table.