Japan Earthquake: Political Aspects

[andybwell]

This is a conversation between the WSJ and a senior Japanese Politician that finally tells the truth as he sees it! The underlining is mine.

 

[andybwell]

Here is the relevant conversation by the "retired" politician! The underlining is mine.

By YUKA HAYASHI And TOKO SEKIGUCHI

The following is a partial transcript from The Wall Street Journal Interview with Japan senior political figure Ichiro Ozawa, who is calling on Prime Minister Naoto Kan to step down. Ozawa is a long-time rival within the ruling Democratic Party of Japan and is facing charges of improprieties over his fund-raising organization.

Q: By and large, how would you assess the government's response to the earthquake and nuclear crisis?

A: It's been two months, actually 70 days, but the situation at the nuclear reactors is still out of control.

The Kan administration's handling of the situation has been extremely slow. Their understanding of the gravity of the radioactive contamination has been altogether too rosy, or rather they haven't understood it at all.

The administration hasn't taken the initiative in making decisions and executing policies. Decision-making equals taking responsibility. So if nobody is taking responsibility, nothing is being decided.

Q: Why didn't the Kan administration inform the public of the severity of the problems at the nuclear plants? Did they know?

A: Of course the administration knew.

Q: What could the government have done to prevent the flare-up in the nuclear crisis?

A: First of all, it makes no sense to point fingers at Tepco (plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co.), given the current situation. There are a lot of arguments going on, blaming TEPCO, blaming this person and that person. They are all meaningless. There is no point in blaming Tepco. I strongly believe the government must take the leadership and take the initiative in determining what to do. In reality, Tepco is no longer capable of doing anything. (By not facing reality) we are moving toward a tragedy, day by day.

Q: Prime Minister Kan set up a task force and has stationed government officials inside Tepco's offices so they can keep tabs on the company. Is that enough?

A: When Tepco knew what was happening at the nuclear plants, the government must have known it as well. As I said, they can't go on blaming others. The government must take responsibility and take the lead in coming up with solutions.

Q: If you had been in charge, would you have disclosed all the information about the meltdown in the initial stage?

A: Yes. I would have. There is no use in holding back information. We have to decide what to do, based on the premise of the information we have. This problem may be contained in Fukushima for now, but the contamination may spread outside of Fukushima. Anxiety and frustration are growing. People cannot live in the contaminated areas. These areas are becoming uninhabitable. Japan has lost its territory by that much. If we do nothing, even Tokyo could become off limits. There is a huge amount of uranium fuels in the plants, much more than in Chernobyl. This is a terrible situation. The government doesn't tell the truth and people live in a happy-go-lucky...

Q: Mr. Kan seems to have turned to many people for advice. What seems to be the problem?

A: It's not enough. Precisely, it's meaningless to put together a team made up exclusively of people who depend on nuclear power to make a living. All of them are members of the nuclear mafia. Did you see all those scholars saying "the crisis is not so terrible," "won't harm the health at all" on TV? What they say is meaningless because they depend on nuclear power for their livelihood. But people, and the Japanese media, don't understand it. The Japanese media is helpless.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1404555
United States
5/28/2011 2:11 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Thread to discuss CURRENT events at Fukushima Quote [+] #

Ichiro Ozawa [link to en.wikipedia.org]
May be not retired but too old to care.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1356602
Canada
5/28/2011 2:14 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Thread to discuss CURRENT events at Fukushima Quote [+] #

He's not too old. he simply wants to form the next government.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1404555
United States
5/28/2011 2:17 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Thread to discuss CURRENT events at Fukushima Quote [+] #

He's not too old. he simply wants to form the next government.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1356602

I think the immensity of his statement is that he is telling the truth as he sees it in public!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1404665
United States
5/28/2011 2:25 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Thread to discuss CURRENT events at Fukushima Quote [+] #

He's not too old. he simply wants to form the next government.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1356602

I think the immensity of his statement is that he is telling the truth as he sees it in public!
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1404555It takes it out of forums that state "don't believe a dam thing you read here" into msm.

 

[gmax137]

Well I finally had time to view the show, and it was pretty interesting. One thing that continues unabated is the repeated juxtaposition of (admittedly dramatic) weapons test films with discussion of nuclear power. Just because Weinberg and Seaborg et al worked on the Manhattan project doesn't mean that a power plant is a bomb factory. This 'journalistic' fantasy has been a staple of the anti-nuclear-power movement ever since the US and USSR began negotiating down the weapons stockpiles. Many well-meaning people have fallen for this story. See, for example:

... 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.

Nobody has ever used a BWR to produce weapons grade plutonium. Why? Because a BWR is operated for 12 to 18 months between refuelings, and this ensures that the spent fuel contains large amounts of Pu-240 in addition to the Pu-239. If you wanted to make a bomb out of the fuel, you'd need to separate out the 240, a profligate source of neutrons that would ruin any attempt to make a weapon with the material. And, if you have the technology to separate the Pu-240 from the Pu-239, then you can just as well make a uranium bomb and skip the BWR step.

Reactors run to create Pu-239 for bombs are run for short times between refueling, or have the ability to add and remove fuel while operating. To refuel a BWR, you need to remove the vessel closure head, and then remove all of the steam separator/dryer components before you can even see the fuel. There is no connection between a BWR and the weapons.

I disagree.
The point being made is about the overall cultural interrelation of civil use of nuclear power and military use.
It is historically true that military use came first, and that the era of first diffusion of civil nuclear plants was also a period of cold war and military weapons proliferation.

The technical fact that a BWR reactor may not be the best reactor to breed military grade plutonium does not undermine, I think, the cultural point being made.

Even recently when IRAN was supposedly building plants for claimed civil use, the international comunity was suspicious to say the least.

By the way if a nation is determined to produce military grade plutonium and can only get his hands on a BWR could it be possible to make a shorter run with a core of fuel just to obtain better chances of extracting military grade plutonium from it ?

Thanks for the reply, sorry I've been away for a week or so. I'm not sure what I said that you disagree with. Can you amplify / clarify your first paragraph? What do you mean by a 'cultural interrelation'? How is it manifested?

...and that the era of first diffusion of civil nuclear plants was also a period of cold war and military weapons proliferation.

I find this particularly baffling. Is there something about, say, a 1956 Chevy, or a Boeing 707, or Liz Taylor, that embodies the cold war -- just because they share the same time period?

As to the Iran nuclear program, nobody is really concerned if Iran wants to run a nuclear power plant to make electricity. The concern is with the Iranian position - that they want to enrich their own uranium.

And as far as making plutonium with a BWR on a short cycle - I suppose it could be done, but then the plant wouldn't be making much if any electricity; then why build all of the attendant infrastructure (turbines, condensers, generators, electrical switchyards, etc etc). Especially when it is obvious that the unit isn't supplying power to the local grid?

 

[Luca Bevil]

Ok you are right I was cryptic.
What I meant is that in the first phases of nuclear power safety was not a first and foremost concern.

WWII first, then the cold war I think (I was not born then, just trying to extrapolate for my memories as a child in late 60s early 70s) made the public decision makers and society as a whole much more used to extreme risks, in this context the likelyhood of safety accidents in civil plants could have been underestimated even more than in recent days.

where do I get this impression... well for example the fact that the Chicago Pile 1 was built in such a populated area is a sign of both an incomplete perception of the scale of the danger and a society used to extreme risks and death

 

[gmax137]

Luca, the chicago pile made 200 watts (http://www.atomicheritage.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=297). That's the heat output of a medium-large light bulb. And if you don't think Fermi & Zinn et al were concerned with safety, you need to read more on the subject.

Interestingly, the CP-1 led to Argonne national lab (still in Illinois) which (I believe) ran the National Reactor Testing Station out in Idaho (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_Reactor_Testing_Station). The list of experiments done there (in the quest for reactor safety) is astounding.

 

[sono]

A reminder to all of us that it's never wrong to have better damage control equipment and plans, because when the proverbial **** hits the fan, every bit of pre-planning counts. Sadly, irrational decisionmaking and wishful thinking resulted in emergency-suitable robots being phased out 5 years ago:

Five years before the Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami triggered the crisis at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, Japan's six robots that could venture into a radiation-filled reactor building were consigned to the scrap heap.

The reasons ranged from the uneasiness they caused nuclear plant employees, to the belief that a nuclear power accident could never occur in technologically advanced Japan.

http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201105260175.html

 

[sono]

in this context the likelyhood of safety accidents in civil plants could have been underestimated even more than in recent days.

You have no idea what kind of cowboy mentality was prevalent in the early years... For a little shocker/introduction, watch this

 

[Luca Bevil]

Luca, the chicago pile made 200 watts (http://www.atomicheritage.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=297). That's the heat output of a medium-large light bulb. And if you don't think Fermi & Zinn et al were concerned with safety, you need to read more on the subject.

Interestingly, the CP-1 led to Argonne national lab (still in Illinois) which (I believe) ran the National Reactor Testing Station out in Idaho (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_Reactor_Testing_Station). The list of experiments done there (in the quest for reactor safety) is astounding.

Well it seems that we keep on disagreeing but in a very civilised way and interesting discussion.
Thank you for the stimulus and feedback.

I'd like to read your view on what is written in the book "Nuclear Safety" by Gianni Petrangeli.
It can be read at http://www.scribd.com/doc/40037799/Nuclear-Safety-Gianni-Petrangeli

page 2 gives a schematic of safety measures at CP1 and a speculative explanation of the acronym SCRAM

According to the author "In the light of subsequent approaches used in
reactor safety, probably, in this first period, not all the necessary precautions were taken; however, it is necessary to consider the specific time and circumstances present (a world war in progress or just finished, status of radiation protection knowledge not yet sufficiently advanced, etc.).

On this specific point I kind of share Petrangeli evaluation.
On other book topics my view is much more harsh than Petrangeli view.
In short I deem "complacent", and short minded, economically blinded the attitude toward nuclear safety that has been prevailing in many cases and has unfortunately been factually demonstated at Fukushima.

My hope is that such an attitude will be drastically reconsidered.
I'll be looking forward to read your opinion.
My best regards
Luca

 

[jlduh]

As a direct consequence of the Fukushima disaster, Angela Merkel just announced today that Germany is going to definitively shutdown its 17 nuclear reactors in the next 11 years: 14 before 2021, and the 3 most recent ones in 2022.

Recent polls show that 60 per cent of Germans wanted to shutdown all 17 nuclear plants in the country, with 70 per cent fearful that a Japanese-style disaster could happen in Germany.

http://www.therecord.com/news/world/article/539928--germany-announces-plan-to-shut-down-all-nuclear-power-plants-by-2022

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/30/germany-to-shut-nuclear-reactors

This decision is today a big subject here in France as you can imagine (France being a strong promoter of nuclear industries!).

Just heard also that the nuclear electricity is subject to price increases in the next years (supposedly because of investments in nuclear safety... which was already safe, were they keeping saying. ?). That may be also a strategy from EDF Suez here in France to justify huge price increases (they already started!) in the next years, they have now (since several years) shareholders to please!

But they have to be very careful with this strategy to justify price increases...

Because the gap between prices of renewable energies and nuclear electricity will decrease, which will bring the critical question: why pay the same prices if the risks are higher? This has always been the big justification here in France for nuclear power: it costs less! But based on the lastest high price increases (and the planned ones!) this starts to bother more and more people. It seems that some projections of costs for latest generations of nuclear plants (like EPR from AREVA) leads to a doubling of production costs in comparison with the ones from the first generations...

In this case, why take the risk of having nuclear plants in a country if the cost advantage evaporates?

(remember you have to take into accout the cost for intalling ad maintaining a huge grid which is also related to big centralized production policy).

 

[jlduh]

Something to add to the previous post...

The cost of "cleaning" (if even possible) could be between 50 times and 165 times the investment cost of one single reactor (I took 2 billions dollars for unit cost)!


http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/31_24.html

Fukushima cleanup could cost up to $250 billion

A private think tank says the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant could cost Japan up to 250 billion dollars over the next 10 years.The estimate is part of the Nuclear Safety Commission's ongoing survey of opinions on the disaster from nuclear and other experts.[...] the costs of the accident could range from nearly 71 to 250 billion dollars. The figure includes 54 billion to buy up all land within 20 kilometers of the plant, 8 billion for compensation payments to local residents, and 9 to 188 billion to scrap the plant's reactors.

Iwata said a drastic review of the government's nuclear energy policy is necessary to fund the cleanup.He said the government could channel about 71 billion dollars to the necessary fund over the next decade by freezing research and development projects linked to the nuclear fuel cycle.Another 150 billion could come from Tokyo Electric Power Company's reserve fund, and the government's nuclear energy-related budgets.

 

[clancy688]

Is there any reason for you to keep double posting in two or more threads? Tsunami damages were expected to be around 300 billion dollars. Now they get another 250 billion dollars for removing this nuclear mess.
So much for "the tsunami is way worse than the fukushima disaster". Well, it killed 25000 lives and the NPP none so far. But on economical terms, both disasters are on par. Forgive me for being overly cynical. I tend to think that lost lives are not everything that counts.

 

[jlduh]

Is there any reason for you to keep double posting in two or more threads? Tsunami damages were expected to be around 300 billion dollars. Now they get another 250 billion dollars for removing this nuclear mess.
So much for "the tsunami is way worse than the fukushima disaster". Well, it killed 25000 lives and the NPP none so far. But on economical terms, both disasters are on par. Forgive me for being overly cynical. I tend to think that lost lives are not everything that counts.

Well, I posted this here adding some comment on the cost, because this is more in relation with the nuclear policy and especially the fact that nuclear energy has always been presented as "cheap" or "cheaper". So this is the political aspect of this info.

I posted also on the other one because it is also related to contamination clean up and consequences for japan citizens and taxpayers. Obviously some posts can have different uses and interpretations, that's why i don't see any problem with my double posting of this info, but with messages that are not exactly the same in fact.

I didn't understand precisely your last sentence (I mean the idea behind it), sorry.

 

[clancy688]

I didn't understand precisely your last sentence (I mean the idea behind it), sorry.

Many people keep saying that the Fukushima disaster is nothing compared to the Tsunami disaster. Especially because the Tsunami killed 25000 lives and the NPP claimed none so far (except the one unlucky worker with a heart attack).
But only comparing lost lives is fundamentally wrong. Tsunami damage will be fixed in a couple of years, then economy can grow again. As for the lost lives, there are thousands killed all over the world every day. It's a huge deal for individuals, but for the country as a whole, the lost economy in tsunami stricken areas is much more serious.
Now there's this problem with Fukushima Daiichi. Recovering the mess will cost nearly as much as fixing Tsunami damage. But the lost economy (in the exclusion zone for example) won't be recovered for decades. That land is lost.
When the tsunami areas are flourishing again, the fallout area still will be a major concern for the country.

For individuals, deaths are of course the biggest deal. But for the country as a whole, lost areas are much more serious than a "few thousand" deaths.

And that's an overly cynical, but in my opinion correct, view of the situation.

 

[jlduh]

Ok i understand better. I agree with you, but i want also to add that anyway there will be deaths and ills because of Fukushima, no doubt about this in my mind. The only difference is that it will be much more difficult to count them.

The problem with nuclear stuff is that it's a big social breaker, because of its very nature. The consequences are very large and last long, very long, from the community standpoint. This is never properly shown by numbers.

 

[AntonL]

Message to Tokyo Residents
To pachinko or not to pachinko - that is the question
on the serious side Tokyo governor appealing for a live style of traditional values.

http://www.metro.tokyo.jp/ENGLISH/GOVERNOR/MESSAGE/index.htm][/PLAIN]
Truth be told, I was 150 percent set on retiring, but various circumstances led to my unexpected fourth term as governor.

What timing, indeed. Immediately after I announced my bid for reelection, the great earthquake struck—a catastrophe that virtually devastated east Japan. I believe this can be called a national crisis, which, in a way, exacts greater sacrifices from us than a small war could. Recovery and restoration are sure to require an enormous amount of time and money.

At the same time, the nuclear power plant in Fukushima Prefecture also sustained devastating damages. The danger of radiation still continues as well. This plant had supplied the capital region with the power needed to function smoothly and support the lives of the citizenry. Unless we use this as an opportunity for careful introspection, the lessons of this crisis will not benefit the future.

For example, amid power shortages resulting from the nuclear accidents, we are expecting a hot summer again this year. While we do not yet know if we will experience a heat wave on the level of last year, it's a fact that power consumption greatly increases during the summer months.

With the power company unable to supply this much-needed power, it is now up to each and every one of us to do our best to conserve energy. While striving to do so, we must reconsider our way of life in Tokyo, which we have hitherto taken for granted. Our lifestyle of comfort and convenience, for example, relies largely on the supply of electric power. What might perhaps be a phenomenon unique to Japan is our street corners saturated with vending machines. This situation no doubt exists because Japan is a safe country. You wouldn't find this condition abroad because of the risk of looters breaking into the vending machines and stealing their contents. Thankfully, the metropolitan area is safe, and so the installation of vending machines has, in a sense, gone rampant.

Recently, an executive of the vending machine association said, "We are definitely not wasting power. We are consuming power for sure, but not wasting it." This is just a fallacious argument. Those machines are found at all the street corners as a modern-day convenience, but can we truly justify this enormous consumption of electricity? I think this is just a waste of energy, an extravagance.

And then there's pachinko, which so many Japanese enjoy. Pachinko parlors are a source of racket, with their endless music and neon signs. And each pachinko machine also devours power. Moreover, there are people making a living by the money earned from pachinko—is it not time to reconsider this way of life?

It seems that many of the people running these pachinko parlors are of Korean descent. Thinking that pachinko would be popular in their homelands, some introduced the game to South Korea, and it caught on right away. The authorities, however, decided to abolish pachinko, arguing that it will make people lazy and ruin their lives.

Now, I do not altogether approve of this approach. But it is a fact that the machines run all day long, making a racket. Moreover, for a pachinko parlor to be one of the first facilities going up in a major area of redevelopment is probably not what I would call a proud example of society's advancement.

In any case, under the current crisis, I don't think our nation can survive unless we reconsider the lifestyles we had taken for granted and, by extension, the forms our lives should take.

The people affected by this disaster are living in truly tragic conditions. But the interactions between the people there—including the volunteers—reveal how human beings should be; seeing the survivors shedding tears in thanks for a modest helping hand gives me hope that the beautiful Japanese spirit of old is still alive within us. But this does not stop here. People all over Japan need to take up the personal challenge of reflecting on how to live their lives and what form their lives will take, or I fear that the heavens will forsake our country.

I may sound presumptuous and aggressive, but I believe that the immense sacrifice and loss caused by the disaster will be in vain if we do not take this opportunity to practice a little more moderation in our lives and move Japan away from a society where materialism and drives for money and sex are rampant.

We must seriously consider making some more concessions, being moderate, shunning selfishness and personal interests, and embracing a lifestyle that is, if not quite frugal, more solid.

Let us reconsider these things and make a change for the better.

Shintaro Ishihara
Governor of Tokyo

 

[zapperzero]

Loved the appeal to xenophobia and fear of the poor&/criminal. The man's good at his job.

 

[clancy688]

Loved the appeal to xenophobia and fear of the poor&/criminal. The man's good at his job.

Oh yes, he's indeed very good at this. A little collection of many of his statements: http://www.sankakucomplex.com/search/?gquery=Ishihara&commit=Senden

 

[AntonL]

IAEA submits preliminary report

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2011/japanmission.html]The[/PLAIN] expert team made several preliminary findings and lessons learned, including:

● Japan's response to the nuclear accident has been exemplary, particularly illustrated by the dedicated, determined and expert staff working under exceptional circumstances;

● Japan's long-term response, including the evacuation of the area around stricken reactors, has been impressive and well organized. A suitable and timely follow-up programme on public and worker exposures and health monitoring would be beneficial;

● The tsunami hazard for several sites was underestimated. Nuclear plant designers and operators should appropriately evaluate and protect against the risks of all natural hazards, and should periodically update those assessments and assessment methodologies;

● Nuclear regulatory systems should address extreme events adequately, including their periodic review, and should ensure that regulatory independence and clarity of roles are preserved; and

● The Japanese accident demonstrates the value of hardened on-site Emergency Response Centres with adequate provisions for handling all necessary emergency roles, including communications.

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/01_28.html]Team[/PLAIN] leader Michael Weightman handed the report to the prime minister's advisor Goshi Hosono in Tokyo on Wednesday.

The report points out that Japan underestimated the impact of the tsunami. It urges the government to correctly assess the risks of all natural disasters, and draw up protective measures in the design and operation of nuclear power plants.

The report adds that Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency should be independent and given a clear role based on IAEA standards, so it can respond appropriately to disasters.

Hosono thanked the team for its extensive and detailed investigation, and said the Japanese government will make the best use of the report as it probes the crisis.

we need 18 experts on a fact finding mission to discover above

 

[zapperzero]

Hmm... It's actually very good if they have said those things. Let me translate from bureaucratese, point by point:

• The first responders are heroes and have saved all your arses. Good on them.
• It's good that you've evacuated people, now get on with the fallout surveys and the rad exposure screening already!
• TEPCO lied about tsunamis and did nothing. That's bad.
• You guys swallowed TEPCO's lie about tsunamis hook line and sinker. That's stupid, don't do that again.
• Why wasn't there a satellite phone in your fancy new Emergency Centre?

 

[desertlabs]

Hmm... It's actually very good if they have said those things. Let me translate from bureaucratese, point by point:

• The first responders are heroes and have saved all your arses. Good on them.
• It's good that you've evacuated people, now get on with the fallout surveys and the rad exposure screening already!
• TEPCO lied about tsunamis and did nothing. That's bad.
• You guys swallowed TEPCO's lie about tsunamis hook line and sinker. That's stupid, don't do that again.
• Why wasn't there a satellite phone in your fancy new Emergency Centre?

Great translation...it's much clearer now...I still think they all need a complete psych eval though.

 

[htf]

What is plan B?

As they did before - let your radioactivity flow ...

 

[Calvadosser]

Many people keep saying that the Fukushima disaster is nothing compared to the Tsunami disaster. Especially because the Tsunami killed 25000 lives and the NPP claimed none so far (except the one unlucky worker with a heart attack). (snip)

Er - wasn't a crane driver killed in one of the explosions? I think I remember reading that six troops were also killed by one of the explosions.

 

[clancy688]

Er - wasn't a crane driver killed in one of the explosions? I think I remember reading that six troops were also killed by one of the explosions.

The crane operator died immeadiatly after the earthquake. And he died at Daini, which didn't suffer any explosions.

The six killed workers at Unit 3 are rumours. I haven't seen any reports confirming this. And two workers were killed by the tsunami at Daiichi.
There's probably only one death connected to the nuclear disaster - and that one isn't radiation connected. It's the worker who suffered a heart attack and died because TEPCO apparently didn't see any need to provide sufficient medical emergency care. I rumbled about this https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3303089&postcount=20".

 

[Danuta]

As they did before - let your radioactivity flow ...

Yeah, for a company that Moody's recently downgraded to junk status, it would definitely
be a lot cheaper for them to let the radioactivity flow, wouldn't it.

What was it going to cost TEPCO for AREVA's attempting Plan A ?

 

[jlduh]

IAEA submits preliminary report we need 18 experts on a fact finding mission to discover above

I always like that kind of wording: could, should, would, etc.

Instead of "can" or "will"...

In essence, Fukushima SHOULD not have happened. WILL it NOT happpen again is the true question (raised already 25 years ago by the way).

Is IAEA ony able to ask for recommendations like those evidences above, or can IAEA transform these recommendations in CONCRETE ACTS and MEASURES, by imposing them with sanctions in case of non conformance?

Can it do it, and does it want to do it?

 

[Danuta]

... or can IAEA transform these recommendations in CONCRETE ACTS and MEASURES, by imposing them with sanctions in case of non conformance?

Can it do it, and does it want to do it?

You're having a pipe dream here. What kind of sanctions can nuclear salespeople impose on anyone?

 

[etudiant]

Yeah, for a company that Moody's recently downgraded to junk status, it would definitely
be a lot cheaper for them to let the radioactivity flow, wouldn't it.

What was it going to cost TEPCO for AREVA's attempting Plan A ?

The EX-SKF site here
http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2011/05/arevas-water-treatment-system-for.html

quotes TEPCO as estimating 210,000 yen/ton, on 250,000 tons, for a total cost of $656 million at current exchange rates. Not clear if this includes the cost of the facility or what if any performance guarantees are involved.

I do think that it is unfair to bash TEPCO at this point. They are obviously just the executive agent of the Japanese government in this matter and it is politically better for them to be blamed than the government.
TEPCO is playing the bad cop role, niggardly on compensation and disclosure, because that gives the government some flexibility which it would lose if it ever assumed direct control. Moreover, given we now know the reactors were doomed within a day of the loss of power, it is not clear any great harm was done by the TEPCO stonewalling during the early days after the accident. Or am I missing something?

 

[tsutsuji]

Many people keep saying that the Fukushima disaster is nothing compared to the Tsunami disaster. Especially because the Tsunami killed 25000 lives and the NPP claimed none so far (except the one unlucky worker with a heart attack).

The death toll could be higher :

Nearly 45 people out of some 440 patients and workers at a hospital here are estimated to have died while or after being evacuated following the accident at the tsunami-hit Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant. http://mdn.mainichi.jp/features/archive/news/2011/04/20110426p2a00m0na006000c.html

 

[tsutsuji]

The management of the plant is undergoing changes with the creation of a "Fukushima Daiichi Stabilization Center" :

the center will be located in the Hama-dori region within Fukushima Daini Nuclear Power Station.

The Deputy General Manager of the Nuclear Power & Plant Siting Division will be the resident superintendent.
(...)
TEPCO management has set June 28 as the scheduled date for implementation of the plant stabilization measures.
http://www.rttnews.com/ArticleView.aspx?Id=1629125

 

[zapperzero]

Moreover, given we now know the reactors were doomed within a day of the loss of power, it is not clear any great harm was done by the TEPCO stonewalling during the early days after the accident. Or am I missing something?

You're missing the part where TEPCO created this mess in the first place. Inexistent tsunami defense, marginal earthquake-proofing, no emergency preparations to speak of (oh yea, they built a concrete office building and called it emergency centre :P), a culture of secrecy and a long history of hiding safety-related problems... Are you kidding me?

 

[clancy688]

The death toll could be higher :

My god... I just read the article. That's way beyond shocking...

 

[jlduh]

Well, do you know of any other INDUSTRIAL accident that necessitates a so quick and large evacuation of an area around, including hospitals and so on?

I don't know any. Major nuclear accidents have this unique specificity, which makes them so difficult and large to manage, with unfortunately collateral victims like those.

 

[swl]

...it is not clear any great harm was done by the TEPCO stonewalling during the early days after the accident. Or am I missing something?

It's not clear to me, no. But I suspect that we would have been better off if they could have vented the containment systems without the Hydrogen explosions. Had the Hydrogen explosions been avoided, it is possible that there would be a greater level of containment now. Also, less equipment would have been damaged, thus leaving more options for cooling, along with better access to the containment buildings, and possibly, less water leakage.

 

[Danuta]

... They are obviously just the executive agent of the Japanese government in this matter...

Yes, looks like it now, but no, not before this nuclear fiasco happened. Anyway, that does not excuse TEPCO from their initial acceptance of ridiculously skewed earthquake and tsunami risk assessment. They put those reactors in the most frail milieu probability wise and on top of that cut corners on safety together with falsification of records. This is indefensible and unconscionable. I've a suspicion that most people in the know are way beyond the bashing TEPCO stage and are now into the damning one.

TEPCO literally banked the money instead of banking the shore like they were supposed to.

 

[QuantumPion]

Well, do you know of any other INDUSTRIAL accident that necessitates a so quick and large evacuation of an area around, including hospitals and so on?

I don't know any. Major nuclear accidents have this unique specificity, which makes them so difficult and large to manage, with unfortunately collateral victims like those.

Pretty much any large chemical processing plant could have a dangerous release of toxic chemicals necessitating wide-spread evacuations. The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster" is probably the most notorious (note that it immediately killed 5x more people than even Chernobyl's high estimate for premature cancer deaths).

Apparently there was a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia,_Pennsylvania" which is still burning today and is estimated to continue to burn for at least a hundred more years, necessitating the complete evacuation and abandonment of the town. Not all that different from Chernobyl, eh?

 

[clancy688]

Apparently there was a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia,_Pennsylvania" which is still burning today and is estimated to continue to burn for at least a hundred more years, necessitating the complete evacuation and abandonment of the town. Not all that different from Chernobyl, eh?

"quick" and "large" evacuation necessary?

 

[QuantumPion]

"quick" and "large" evacuation necessary?

The Bhopal disaster most surely did. The coal mine fire was more of an example of non-nuclear related ecological disaster making land unusable for long period of time.

 

[clancy688]

The Bhopal disaster most surely did. The coal mine fire was more of an example of non-nuclear related ecological disaster making land unusable for long period of time.

Check the affected area of the Bhopal disaster, compare it to any nuclear accident and come and post again.

Of course you get thousands of deaths if a chemical plant built in the middle of a city explodes.

We'd have thousands of radiation deaths (not cancer deaths) as well if Chernobyl was located in Kiev city. No, probably more...

 

[QuantumPion]

Check the affected area of the Bhopal disaster, compare it to any nuclear accident and come and post again.

Of course you get thousands of deaths if a chemical plant built in the middle of a city explodes.

We'd have thousands of radiation deaths (not cancer deaths) as well if Chernobyl was located in Kiev city. No, probably more...

Pripyat was a city of over 50,000 people, and the power plant was right in the middle of it. Furthermore, the population was not evacuated until a several days after the accident occurred. Yet still, the only immediate and confirmed deaths were the ~60 firefighters directly exposed. Try again (but please check the facts first next time).

 

[clancy688]

Pripyat was a city of over 50,000 people, and the power plant was right in the middle of it. Furthermore, the population was not evacuated until a several days after the accident occurred. Yet still, the only immediate and confirmed deaths were the ~60 firefighters directly exposed. Try again (but please check the facts first next time).

Pripyat was located 4 km northwest to the NPP. The evacuation happened at April 27th, one day after the disaster. Because of favourable winds, heavy contamination of Pripyat happened only after the evacuation was completed.

As for Bhopal, the population in a radius 1 km around the plant was 100.000.

 

[Luca Bevil]

Pripyat was a city of over 50,000 people, and the power plant was right in the middle of it. Furthermore, the population was not evacuated until a several days after the accident occurred. Yet still, the only immediate and confirmed deaths were the ~60 firefighters directly exposed. Try again (but please check the facts first next time).

Prypiat is at about 3 km from the chernobyl plant.

Moreover it is well known that acute effects begin at around 3 Sv absorbed over a short period.
This does not make a few hundred millisieverts absorbed over a few days less dangerous for substantially increased cancer and leukemia risk.

Try again (but please check the facts first next time).

 

[QuantumPion]

Pripyat was located 4 km northwest to the NPP. The evacuation happened at April 27th, one day after the disaster. Because of favourable winds, heavy contamination of Pripyat happened only after the evacuation was completed.

As for Bhopal, the population in a radius 1 km around the plant was 100.000.

What is your point? That if Chernobyl was 3 km closer to the population center that 20,000 people would have died of radiation poisoning? Sorry, but that is just bologna. Allow me to quote my original comment so that the context is not forgotten:

Well, do you know of any other INDUSTRIAL accident that necessitates a so quick and large evacuation of an area around, including hospitals and so on?

I don't know any. Major nuclear accidents have this unique specificity, which makes them so difficult and large to manage, with unfortunately collateral victims like those.

Pretty much any large chemical processing plant could have a dangerous release of toxic chemicals necessitating wide-spread evacuations. The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster" is probably the most notorious (note that it immediately killed 5x more people than even Chernobyl's high estimate for premature cancer deaths).

Apparently there was a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia,_Pennsylvania" which is still burning today and is estimated to continue to burn for at least a hundred more years, necessitating the complete evacuation and abandonment of the town. Not all that different from Chernobyl, eh?

 

[clancy688]

What is your point? That if Chernobyl was 3 km closer to the population center that 20,000 people would have died of radiation poisoning? Sorry, but that is just bologna. Allow me to quote my original comment so that the context is not forgotten:

Nope. The contrary. Those 5000 people at Bhopal wouldn't have died if the plant was located a few km outside the city.

And bologna or not - radiation levels in Prypjat were reaching three-digit mSv/hr numbers by April 27th evening (the whole population was evacuated during noon). I leave it to your imagination what the first cloud (the one formed by the explosion which did MISS Pripyat) whould have done to the population of any city in its path.

http://www-ns.iaea.org/downloads/rw/projects/emras-urban-draft-pripyat-May06.pdf

The first radioactive cloud, which had formed during the explosion, under conditions of
steady night weather, was elevated to 300-500 m height and went to the west, creating a long (up to 100 km) and almost straight, narrow trace [Izrael, 1990]. It passed south of Pripyat’s residential buildings by 1.5-2 km. This trace fallout contained many unoxidized fuel particles, some of which were very large (up to 10-100 µm) and were deposited along the first kilometers of the cloud’s path [Kashparov, 2001]. Also, at the moment of the explosion, almost all of the reactor’s noble gases were released into the atmosphere [Izrael, 1990].
Further, during natural fuel heat-up and graphite stack burning (up to 1800-2000 °K), a spurt
of radioactive releases was elevated to 1000-1200 m height and directed to the northwest
[Izrael, 1990; Baryakhtar, 1997], bending around Pripyat. They were enriched by highly mobile, volatile radionuclides (I, Te, Cs) and finely dispersed, oxidized fuel particles (1-3 µm). In the surface layer of the atmosphere, the air current was transferred mainly to the west and southwest directions. By noon of April 26, the plume reached the settlement of Polesskoe and crossed it by a narrow trace. The dose rate reached 0.1-0.6 mR/h there (in some places, 2.0 mR/h) [Nad’yarnyh et al., 1989].
On April 27, the north and northwest directions of surface air currents prevailed. This caused
a quick worsening of the radiation situation in Pripyat. On April 26, the radiation level in the town was 0.014-0.13 R/h, but by the evening of April 27, this level had reached 0.4-1.0 R/h, and in some places, 1.5 R/h [Baryakhtar, 1997] (by other data, up to 4-7 R/h [Repin, 1995]).
During the period of 14:00-16:30, all of the town’s residents were evacuated. The strongest radioactive fallout occurred along the eastern outskirts of the town. Although during that time the releases were enriched by small particle aerosols with sublimated radionuclides, there were also some heavy combustion products which precipitated on the closest territories, including Pripyat’s surroundings. On April 28-29, the radioactive releases began to lose height (600 m) and activity, and the transfer turned gradually to the northeast [Izrael, 1990].

 

[QuantumPion]

Nope. The contrary. Those 5000 people at Bhopal wouldn't have died if the plant was located a few km outside the city.

Ok. And No one would have had any radiation exposure at Chernobyl if they weren't conducting an unsafe experiment with an unsafe designed reactor. And the Fukushima accident would not have happened if the Tsunami flood wall was a few meters higher. What is your point? Mine is that there have been non-nuclear industrial accidents far worse than any nuclear accident. What is yours?

And bologna or not - radiation levels in Prypjat were reaching three-digit mSv/hr numbers by April 27th evening (the whole population was evacuated during noon). I leave it to your imagination what the first cloud (the one formed by the explosion which did MISS Pripyat) whould have done to the population of any city in its path.

http://www-ns.iaea.org/downloads/rw/projects/emras-urban-draft-pripyat-May06.pdf

So you are saying the doses during the first release were not immediately hazardous, and the fallout cloud was narrow and localized. Thanks for proving my point.

 

[clancy688]

What is your point? Mine is that there have been non-nuclear industrial accidents far worse than any nuclear accident. What is yours?

Let's see, we've had three large scale nuclear accidents so far. Mayak, Chernobyl and Fukushima. For all you could consider us being lucky since we encountered favourable winds. Maybe that won't happen with number four.
And how many "non-nuclear industrial accidents" have there been so far? Millions? I'm pretty sure that many of these accidents encountered "lucky" situations as shown above. As for Bhopal, that was probably an very "unlucky" situation. A third world country with no emergency procedures, a leaking chemical plant inside the slum of a city with over one million residents... of course there are horrendous fatalities.
At Seveso (in Italy) a similar accident happened. But only two people died. How many people would've died if the plant would have been at the same location as the Union Carbide factory in Bhopal?
You're picking practically the worst non-nuclear industrial accident ever out of millions of accidents, oppose it to the only three large scale nuclear accidents we had so far and keep telling "Look, nuclear accidents aren't so bad, are they?".
Nuclear Accidents SO FAR haven't been as bad as Bhopal. That's correct. But they have the potential to become, way, way worse. It just hasn't happened yet.

So you are saying the doses during the first release were not immediately hazardous, and the fallout cloud was narrow and localized. Thanks for proving my point.

Yes and no. They were hazardous. The people were just lucky to be missed by the hazardous cloud. That's all.
You're basically saying "If an avalanche doesn't hit me, it's not dangerous."

 

[robinson]

Fukushima is the third, fourth, fifth, sixth and the seventh serious nuclear accidents. Lumping six huge reactor failures as one accident is ridiculous. The material in anyone of the six reactors dwarfs the small amount at Chernobyl.

I put 5 and 6 together, but considering the amounts of radioactivity released from them (which are in no way known yet), they could be considered the 7th and 8th worse disasters.

There is no doubt they are useless as reactors, and still pose a huge threat of radioactivity.

While I understand why nuclear advocates would want to call it one disaster, it's disingenuous in the extreme.

 

[QuantumPion]

You're picking practically the worst non-nuclear industrial accident ever out of millions of accidents, oppose it to the only three large scale nuclear accidents we had so far and keep telling "Look, nuclear accidents aren't so bad, are they?".
Nuclear Accidents SO FAR haven't been as bad as Bhopal. That's correct. But they have the potential to become, way, way worse. It just hasn't happened yet.

There have only been three large scale nuclear accidents. I'm comparing the worst non-nuclear industrial accident to the worst nuclear industrial accident. It would be kind of silly to compare to the worst non-nuclear industrial accident to a postulated worst-case doomsday scenario nuclear accident. I could come up with all sorts of doomsday scenarios in non-nuclear industries that have the potential to be far far worse. I mean, SO FAR wide-spread use of antibiotics has not lead to the development of genocidal super-bug, but theoretically it could. Does that mean we should cease use of all antibiotics, just in case?

 

[QuantumPion]

Fukushima is the third, fourth, fifth, sixth and the seventh serious nuclear accidents. Lumping six huge reactor failures as one accident is ridiculous. The material in anyone of the six reactors dwarfs the small amount at Chernobyl.

I put 5 and 6 together, but considering the amounts of radioactivity released from them (which are in no way known yet), they could be considered the 7th and 8th worse disasters.

There is no doubt they are useless as reactors, and still pose a huge threat of radioactivity.

While I understand why nuclear advocates would want to call it one disaster, it's disingenuous in the extreme.

The reason why they are all lumped together is because the total radiation release by all of the Fukushima units combined is less than 5% of the Chernobyl accident (~200 PBq compared to >4000 for Chernobyl) and is primarily Iodine (Chernobyl released particulate core material). Hence why calling it as bad as Chernobyl is disingenuous in the extreme.

 

[robinson]

Nobody actually knows the amount of material released so far, especially into the ocean. As for the amount that is out of containment at this point, it's huge. Of course advocates want to say leaking material from water doesn't count, because somehow even though it is no longer inside a reactor (or fuel pond), it's still contained somehow.

The other factor, which advocates have hung onto for dear life, is that they want to say what is now is the complete disaster. Like no more material will escape, and nothing could possibly happen in the years to come. The disaster is years away from any semblance of safe, so it's ongoing.

Or rather six disasters are ongoing.

From my reading of nuclear advocates, even if all the core material, and spent fuel rods, even if all of it was released, they wouldn't change their stance that nuclear power is the safest power source ever.

Which is pure nonsense, but they have actually said this. Even if all the material leaks out, because evacuations and careful avoidance by workers would mean nobody died, they would trumpet that fact as if it means nuclear power is still safe. Which is of course, pure politics.

 

[tsutsuji]

Fukushima is the third, fourth, fifth, sixth and the seventh serious nuclear accidents. Lumping six huge reactor failures as one accident is ridiculous. The material in anyone of the six reactors dwarfs the small amount at Chernobyl.

I put 5 and 6 together, but considering the amounts of radioactivity released from them (which are in no way known yet), they could be considered the 7th and 8th worse disasters.

There is no doubt they are useless as reactors, and still pose a huge threat of radioactivity.

While I understand why nuclear advocates would want to call it one disaster, it's disingenuous in the extreme.

Do you think Fukushima Daiichi unit 5 and 6 pose a bigger threat than neighboring Fukushima Daini Power Plant ? If so, why ?