Japan Earthquake: Political Aspects

[Jorge Stolfi]

You also need people in charge who want to know what is the true situation, rather than bullgarbageting themselves that things are not really all that bad.

The Soviet military was heavily involved in the response to Chernobyl. I'm surprised that military involvement seems absent in the Fukushima crisis.

This topic may be more adequate for the political thread. (But indeed the government seems to be totally absent from the remedial efforts at the plant. Apparently it decided to let TEPCO run the entire operation, including diagnostic, planning, and on-site monitoring. Even AREVA seems to have more authority there than the Prime Minister; and NISA apparently can't even get TEPCO to send them legible faxes of the plant status forms.

This may have been the biggest mistake Kan made in this crisis. Recall that the Chernobyl managers and their bosses insisted that everything was under control, until Gorbachev pushed them aside.)

The problems that exist in the world today cannot be solved by the
level of thinking that created them. -- Albert Einstein​

 

[clancy688]

Despite what suspicions some posters have expressed here about "plant men", "shills", or several other negative references, most engineers that are successful in the nuclear industry are successful because they don't accept things at face value. They "pull the string" to find out what is really behind an event. Experience is the best teacher and an engineer (whatever his or her industry) who is afraid of being wrong is in the wrong occupation. You may never be able to prove WHAT happened, but by elimination of what did NOT happen you may actually learn more. I am learning a lot her

In my opinion the overall public reception of engineers is another problem. Because there is practically none. At least no positive.
The people are taking their working technology for granted. They can surf in the internet because there is a computer, they can drive a car because there are engines. It's a little bit like deus ex machina. The thing works because it works.
Engineers are technical blockheads who are living in their own little play world, but they are not connected to all these modern wonders - that's what many people are thinking subconciously. If there's someone who gets praise for very well engineered solutions, it's mostly the investor - people like Steve Jobbs for example.
But then there's an accident, an big accident, Fukushima. According to the public, there are many people at fault. Managers, politicians - but also engineers who dared to build such a ticking bomb called a "nuclear plant". They were blended by their own hybris, they are dangerous gamblers, that's why many people think they can't trust engineers anymore.

But they are missing the point. Engineers must be curious, they must have visions. Otherwise, there'll be no technological advance. Currently, the public is condemning the one thing which defines an engineer - his curiosity to solve a problem.
This curiosity brought us to the Moon and and in the sky, and it brought us to Hiroshima and Chernobyl.
Of course we have to make sure that those visions don't go overboard, we have to evaluate what impact our solutions will have to mankind. But condemning our curious nature and thus distrusting every engineer is the wrong way.

Note quite on topic, but I had those thoughts lingering around in my head for weeks~

 

[Dmytry]

Despite what suspicions some posters have expressed here about "plant men", "shills", or several other negative references, most engineers that are successful in the nuclear industry are successful because they don't accept things at face value.

well there's been one allegedly plant man who said chernobyl NPP was in middle of pripyat' and pripyat' was not evacuated for several days.
That what provoked (or re-provoked) the negative references. You can hardly blame people for negative response to such statement (and you are in no position to blame people for mixing you up with another nuke guy coz you've been openly declaring that you mix up me with someone else).

There is a lot of 'pro nuclear' websites online spreading this exact sort of nonsense (with articles written by nuclear engineers, supposedly); rather than achieving their stated goal of promotion of nuclear power, they make nuclear power look bad, very bad, to anyone who can check the facts.

 

[Dmytry]

Actually no, there are several characteristics of Cs and I that would make significant differences in their transport. Cs readily deposits of colder horizontal surfaces. An order (or three) of magnitude can easily occur depending on how it gets to the sample point.

Yes but does that apply for solutions? Cs compounds are very water soluble.

One of the principles of release analysis is the use of the SBGT system filters. The HEPA filter efficiency for CsI is assumed to be 99.9%. For other isotopes such as noble gases there may be some filtration in the charcoal filter beds but basically most noble gases are directly released to the environment. I know those systems didn't work here, but the point is there are things that can make big defferences in transport. In the long run Cs deposition could become a significant problem that will remain embedded in concrete and debris long after all the water is processed.

Hmm, so there may be filters in spent fuel pool sufficient to take out the Cs but not I ? The filter has to take out same molar amount of anions as cations.

Use of contaminated water to cool the pools early in the event would be expected to add both Cs and I, but in what ratio? That depends on the transport to the poin of cooling water suction. If that path was fairly slow and had a lot of cool horizontal surfaces the Cs getting to the suction could have been at a much lower concentration. Before you jump on me, I do not know if that explains it or not . There are way too many unknowns for me to make that call.

Well, I've been looking at various soil samples and seawater samples and fish samples and it just doesn't look like anywhere the ratio was changed this much over transport from the original leaks.

SFP4 is a tough call. I was surprised by how little evidence of damage was shown in the video and photos considering that the roof was so heavily damaged. Most of the debris was blown out or over the pool. There is some debris in the pool and it could have damaged rods releasing fission products from the gap. There was an extended loss of fuel pool cooling, but my calculations tell me that the fuel was not uncovered. Debris could have blocked natural circulation water flow in some channeled fuel bundles allowing localized heatup.

The Boral inserts are in the sides of each rack position As such the rack and fuel bundles in the cells will actually tend to protect the Boral. If the pool didn't uncover fuel the boral would not have been much over 100 degC depending on submergence pressure. Further if the boral had been extensively damaged and allowed recriticality I would have expected more radioactivity in the pool because there is no forced flow in the pool to cool a critical fuel assembly. Inside the reactor the recirculation system cools the rods with millions of pounds of recirculation flow per hour.

I dunno, the tops of some of the fuel racks look thermally damaged compared to other racks. But not very damaged. It can't get thermally damaged if it is covered by water, so it had to be uncovered at least a bit.

My best guess for SFP4 is that it experienced hydrogen evolution by radiolysis and pool boiling and some limited mechanical damage due to debris that released some fission products into the pool. Additional pool contamination from cooling water is a strong possibility as well based on the large leaks, feed and bleed addition of water to fuel pools, and the high concentrations measured in the shore area.

I'm kind of sceptical regarding radiolysis hydrogen. A lot of hydrogen had to be produced. With the boiling again, it can reduce the recombination some but I don't believe it'd go from barely any hydrogen to filling up entire building and blowing it apart (despite building not being exactly hydrogen-tight). Hydrogen and oxygen don't recombine very well to start with, that's the thing (there's multiple reactions going with atomic oxygen and atomic hydrogen, some ending with h2o and some ending with h2 and o2 , and h2 and o2 are stable and don't recombine unless themselves radiolysed), even if steam totally prevents recombination that's still not many orders of magnitude increase in h2 that gets out. There's very little bubbling in the SFP as seen on video. Definitely not cubic metres per hour.

The #4 explosion is just strange. You'd think it'd be easy to prevent by removing a panel. And there was so much damage on the lower floors, more than in #3.

 

[zapperzero]

h2 and o2 are stable and don't recombine unless themselves radiolysed), even if steam totally prevents recombination that's still not many orders of magnitude increase in h2 that gets out. There's very little bubbling in the SFP as seen on video. Definitely not cubic metres per hour.

Have you counted the bubbles you see in that short video? Can you get a volume estimate? For a visual reference, remember a fuel assembly is about 20cm on a side.

Ah. Here you go:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/contract/cr6213/

 

[gmax137]

Wow, if you applied that logic consistently you'd never do anything unless you did it yourself. Toilet backed up? Better call the carpenter, you know that plumber makes his living off broken pipes...

[EDIT} oh yeah, don't bother looking, I've been a 'shill' for the "nuke complex" for over 30 years.

Well I tend to do the routine maintenance work on my motorbikes myself, after having been ripped off by mechanics once too often. I even went so far as to acquire the skills needed to change lightbulbs in the house :D.

But other than that, I tend to trust those who have demonstrable expertise. I would certainly trust QuantumPion to understand a decay chain or a jet pump and be able to discuss such subjects in a reasonable and balanced manner.

Yet, I would not blindly trust him, or you, or anyone else in the industry when the talk turns to "is nuclear power really necessary?" just as I wouldn't trust my mechanic to answer truthfully if I ask "hey, do you think it would be an issue if I checked my spark plugs all by myself from now on?".

Fair enough. I don't advocate blind trust. I also don't advocate blind distrust. It's the 'blind' part that isn't necessary or required.

 

[Dmytry]

Have you counted the bubbles you see in that short video? Can you get a volume estimate? For a visual reference, remember a fuel assembly is about 20cm on a side.

order of magnitude, easily. Remember, cubic metre of air is 1000 litres, and 1 litre is 10cm x 10cm x 10cm (obviously) . If you aren't numerically blind, its no problem to notice that it is quite a few orders of magnitude off. A couple small bubbles, the flow is what, under a litre per second? and probably a lot of it is dissolved air released by heat. The cube of 10x10x10 meters has 1000 cubic metres.
http://www.houseoffoust.com/fukushima/blueprint.html
so we get thousands cubic metres of air there.
The concentration, hydrogen in air is flammable at >4% <75% volume concentration and can detonate at >18% <60% , with steam its of same order of magnitude but you need more hydrogen. Tens to hundreds cubic metres of hydrogen needed.
The problem is whenever one would bother to notice or not, and then it boils down to motivation.
[[This is btw why houses don't blow up so often due to gas stoves (to think about it, i'd say houses blow up less often to gas stoves than nuclear reactors for varying reasons). You have to leave gas fully on for quite some time before it can blow. There's a lot of litres in a room.]]

Also if i recall correctly they removed a panel in #4 prior to explosion (hopefully someone can find reference). In any case it shouldn't have been totally air tight in first place and not after quake, tsunami, and after#3 blew up so hard there was a discussion that it might've damaged #4 this bad.

 

[zapperzero]

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3346210&postcount=9332

Jap gov't is delaying the translation of their report to IAEA into English. Interestingly enough, the "late" bits are the technical appendices, where all the data is.

 

[zapperzero]

order of magnitude, easily. Remember, cubic metre of air is 1000 litres, and 1 litre is 10cm x 10cm x 10cm (obviously) . If you aren't numerically blind, its no problem to notice that it is quite a few orders of magnitude off. A couple small bubbles, the flow is what, under a litre per second? and probably a lot of it is dissolved air released by heat. The cube of 10x10x10 meters has 1000 cubic metres.
http://www.houseoffoust.com/fukushima/blueprint.html
so we get thousands cubic metres of air there.
Tens to hundreds cubic metres of hydrogen needed.

Let's say hydrogen production is really inefficient and you only get 10%. of steam volume radiolysed so 0.1 liter/second. Your 1000 cubic metres would get to be filled to 10% hydrogen (more than enough for deflagration) in a million seconds, which is about 15 days and a half. I take 4% as a lower concentration limit needed for deflagration, I only need seven days and change.

I don't see your "many" orders of magnitude here, sorry. Perhaps I am innumerate and I lost some zeroes somewhere.

You are seeing the pool in a relatively stable state, at 60 degrees Celsius or so, on April 30 I believe. Now try and take into account the much higher temps that the uncooled pool reached. At one point TEPCO said it was boiling. Way more steam. Way more radiolysis.

By the way, those deflagration limits you cite are for normal air. Radiolysis produces hydrogen and oxygen. I'm not sure anyone ever tried to see what the limits are in an oxygen-enriched atmosphere, but I am willing to bet my bottom dollar the lower limit gets lower, not higher.

 

[Danuta]

Land is precious in Japan. Idle land barely exists there.

Fukushima’s nuclear meltdown puts forest industry near collapse

“If we can't go into thin the trees for a year or longer, the underbrush will grow and the saplings that have been newly planted will suffer from lack of sunlight,” said Hiroshi Sagara, a forestry cooperative chief, the Mainichi Daily News (MDN) reports. “The forest will fall into disrepair and trees will fail to grow well.”

Adding to the woes are concerns of severe soil contamination caused by radioactive materials, a probability which would impact the forest industry for some time to come. “Improving soil quality (in forests) is harder than it is for farmland. Even if the evacuation orders are rescinded, it may be a long time before radiation levels are low enough for workers to go in there,” Sagara added.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/307506#ixzz1OgtirATw"

 

[Borek]

Tsutsuji just posted details about water treatment facility, between othe rthings:

The buildings must be watertight to prevent leaks into ground water... etc.

Which makes me wonder, why reactor and diesel buildings have been not designed this way. Shouldn't be difficult, as they are already quite sturdy. Sounds easier and cheaper than antitsunami wall. It won't protect turbine buildings, but these - even if destroyed - are not source of problems we observe since the earthquake.

Could be that'll be one of the lessons learned.

 

[Danuta]

Which makes me wonder, why reactor and diesel buildings have been not designed this way. Shouldn't be difficult, as they are already quite sturdy. Sounds easier and cheaper than antitsunami wall.

Might be cheaper AND make more sense. An anti-tsunami wall, if breached, slows water from flowing back into the sea, which is another problem. So water tightness seems an excellent overall precaution to take. Also situating mobile fuel tanks so they are not the first to take a hit like front line soldiers would have been good too.

 

[causeceleb]

Tsutsuji just posted details about water treatment facility, between othe rthings:



Which makes me wonder, why reactor and diesel buildings have been not designed this way. Shouldn't be difficult, as they are already quite sturdy. Sounds easier and cheaper than antitsunami wall. It won't protect turbine buildings, but these - even if destroyed - are not source of problems we observe since the earthquake.

Could be that'll be one of the lessons learned.

we need a call from physicists and engineers all over the world for the United Nations
Security Council to take control of the situation at Fukushima Daiichi, and establish
a board of renowned physicists and engineers (where's Richard Feynman when you need him?) to direct these emergency operations (and, of course, Japan will provide any
and all resources that are needed).

 

[tsutsuji]

"The Japanese Government’s longer term response to protect the public, including evacuation, has been impressive and extremely well organized" : http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/fukushima/missionsummary010611.pdf

Peter Karamoskos: Well, firstly, the problem lies in the exclusion zone. The Japanese instituted a 20 kilometre exclusion zone, and up to 30 kilometres they said people should stay indoors, but within the first week the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, as well as the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, both said that that was too little and you needed to have an 80 kilometre exclusion zone.

So that would, that's just basic public health 101, if you like. Furthermore, it would have enabled appropriate counter measures for people exposed to radioactive iodine.

Now I don't know precisely what the doses of people outside the exclusion zone were, but the fact that the overseas authorities were advocating an 80 kilometre exclusion zone, tells me that it wasn't of a safe level. And, perhaps, people who could have benefited from iodine, failed to receive it, and children particularly.

Doctor Karamoskos is the public representative of the Radiation Health Committee of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, although he is not representing ARPANSA tonight.
Broadcast: 10/06/2011 http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3241511.htm

I also wish we knew a little more of what happened at Futaba hospital and the exact number of casualties before the IAEA or anybody concludes that the evacuation was "extremely well organised". The 45 possible death figure mentioned by Mainichi on 26 April : http://mdn.mainichi.jp/features/archive/news/2011/04/20110426p2a00m0na006000c.html does not fit well with "extremely well organized".

The following 7 May article http://www.asahi.com/special/10005/TKY201105060448.html mentions 60 people reported by municipalities as having died immediately after evacuation, but the causal relationship between evacuation and death had yet to be investigated. The government will pay compensations in cases when the causal relationship is established. Compensations will also be provided when people's health deteriorated because of the evacuation.

The following 9 June article http://sankei.jp.msn.com/affairs/news/110609/dst11060918200014-n1.htm tells about 10 people, among which 7 bedridden elderly, who died while waiting for the Japanese military or other evacuation teams : 4 at Futaba hospital, 3 at Nishi hospital, and 3 at Imamura hospital, citing dehydration or the lack of medication as factors aggravating their illnesses.

 

[ElliotLake]

I'm not going to click the link, it would be too distressing to read the details, but I took care of my elderly mother as she was dying, and for them to leave bedbound people to die of dehydration means they left them for a really long time. A long, agonizing time. Not only in pain, but panicking and abandoned.

I've no words I can use in public for that.

 

[Hiyodori]

for them to leave bedbound people to die of dehydration means they left them for a really long time. A long, agonizing time. Not only in pain, but panicking and abandoned.

I've no words I can use in public for that.

They did not "die of dehydration". The article states that tap water was unavailable, and that an insufficient fluid intake, coupled with insufficient medicine available to treat the illnesses that the 72 to 93 year old people had (including 7 who were bedridden due to dementia and/or other problems), contributed to making their illnesses worse. It also states that the cause of death was mostly stroke or "cardiac dysfunction".

That doesn't diminish government or other responsibility in dealing with the actual situation at hand, nor in planning for such circumstances in the shadows of a nuclear plant. But it appears that it was a combination of things, and not due to dehydration.

 

[ElliotLake]

@Hiyodori:

The following 9 June article http://sankei.jp.msn.com/affairs/news/110609/dst11060918200014-n1.htm tells about 10 people, among which 7 bedridden elderly, who died while waiting for the Japanese military or other evacuation teams : 4 at Futaba hospital, 3 at Nishi hospital, and 3 at Imamura hospital, citing dehydration or the lack of medication as factors aggravating their illnesses.

Insufficient fluid intake IS dehydration--and splitting hairs, the heart stops-- "cardiac dysfunction" -- when you die of dehydration. My father was a physician who did a lot of emergency work, I am familiar with these things.

 

[robinson]

For some reason, just the thought that even one person died from Fukushima is hard for the supporters of nuclear power to entertain. This is based on internet conversations only.

 

[Hiyodori]

@Hiyodori:

Insufficient fluid intake IS dehydration--and splitting hairs, the heart stops-- "cardiac dysfunction" -- when you die of dehydration. My father was a physician who did a lot of emergency work, I am familiar with these things.

And what is death due to lack of medication? And does dehydration at any level lead to stroke? The quoted article does *not* imply that these people died due only to lack of fluid intake. The article, not me, only suggests that this was one contributing cause. As does tsutsuji in his/her original post. Thus your implication that everyone was dying of thirst, alone, panicking, abandoned cannot be extrapolated from the article. If you will not read it (or cannot, since it's in Japanese), then I would suggest that you shouldn't comment on its content.

Support, or lack thereof, of nuclear power and/or TEPCO and/or the Japanese government's pre-disaster preparation and post-disaster response has nothing to do with our responsibility to comment on the facts as known. In this case the "facts" are provided by the Sankei Shimbun newspaper.

 

[tsutsuji]

Let's try a full translation of the MSN-Sankei article :

救助待つ間に１０人死亡　３月　原発１０キロ圏内の３病院
Rescue-waiting 10 people die : March : 3 hospitals in the 10 km radius zone
2011.6.9 18:17

福島第１原発から半径１０キロ圏内にある五つの病院のうち３病院の患者計１０人が、政府の避難指示を受けて救助の自衛隊などを待っていた３月１２～１５日に院内で相次いで死亡していたことが９日、各病院への取材で分かった。１０人のうち少なくとも７人は寝たきりの高齢者。断水で水分補給ができなかったり薬剤が不足したりした上、持病が悪化した患者もいたという。
An interview to each hospital on June 9th revealed that 10 patients at 3 among the 5 hospitals within the 10 km radius of Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, being subject to the government's evacuation order, died one after one other between March 12th and March 15th while waiting for the Self Defense Forces or other evacuation teams. At least seven people are 10 bedridden elderly people. It was said that it includes patients whose chronic illness worsened for reasons such as, in the context of water supply cut off: hydration impossibility, and shortage of medication.

１０人が亡くなったのは双葉病院（福島県大熊町、４人）、西病院（同県浪江町、３人）、今村病院（同県富岡町、３人）。双葉、今村の両病院で死亡した７人は認知症などで寝たきりの７２～９３歳で、死因は脳梗塞や心機能不全など。西病院は「カルテなどを院内から持ち出せず、死因や年齢は不明」としている。
The hospitals where the 10 people died are Futaba Hospital (Ookuma City, Fukushima prefecture, 4 people), Nishi Hospital (Namie City, same prefecture, 3 people), Imamura Hospital (Tomioka City, same prefecture, 3 people). The 7 people who died at Futaba Hospital and Nishi Hospital were 72~93 year old patients suffering from dementia and the causes of death include cerebral stroke and cardiac dysfunction. Concerning Nishi Hospital, we were told that the patients' medical records could not be transported and that the patients' ages and causes of death are therefore unknown.

政府は地震発生から１５時間後の１２日午前５時４４分、１０キロ圏内に避難を指示。圏内にある５病院とも入院患者の搬送手段がなく、自治体や自衛隊に救助を要請した。
15 hours after the earthquake, at 5:44 AM on March 12th, the government issued the evacuation order in the 10 km radius zone. None of the 5 hospitals in the zone had means of transportation for the patients, and they applied to local governments or to the Self Defense Forces for rescue.

http://sankei.jp.msn.com/affairs/news/110609/dst11060918200014-n1.htm

There is more in the following Okinawa Times article maked with "(Kyodo news)" and dated 19:12 9 June 2011. The first and last paragraphs are exactly the same as the first and second paragraphs of MSN-Sankei. Here is what the middle paragraph is saying :

福島県は原発から１０キロ圏内を防災対策の重点地域（ＥＰＺ）に指定。原発事故時の避難に備え、圏内の病院は入院患者の移送先や搬送用車両の確保などの計画を「あらかじめ定めておく」と地域防災計画に規定している。しかし「避難計画を備えていた」とするのは１病院のみ。県も各病院に計画の整備状況を確認していなかった。

In Fukushima prefecture, priority areas for disaster management (EPZ) are defined 10 km around nuclear power plants. In the regional disaster prevention plan, hospitals within the zones are instructed to "prepare in advance" the means of transportation and the destination of patients in case of an evacuation following a nuclear power plant accident. However, hospitals saying "the evacuation plan was prepared" are only one hospital. Neither had the prefectural administration checked the preparedness of each hospital's plans.

http://www.okinawatimes.co.jp/article/2011-06-09_18978/

See also the following picture http://static2.stuff.co.nz/1300064019/949/4766949_600x400.jpg captioned with "Futaba Kosei Hospital patients disembark after being evacuated from a hospital near the troubled Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear complex. They might have been exposed to radiation while waiting for evacuation." on http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/asia/j...-admits-being-unprepared-for-nuclear-disaster (you must click on the pictures to browse them. For this picture and caption to appear, you must click 20 times or so). Other related picture captioned with "Futaba Kosei Hospital patients who might have been exposed to radiation are carried into the compound of Fukushima Gender Equality Center in Nihonmatsu in Fukushima Prefecture Sunday morning, March 13, 2011, after being evacuated from the hospital in Futaba town near the troubled Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power station. They were waiting for evacuation when an explosion of Unit 1 reactor of the complex blew off the top part of its walls on Saturday, one day after a strong earthquake and tsunami hit northeastern Japan. " at http://www.cleveland.com/world/index.ssf/2011/03/japan_races_to_prevent_nuke_re.html.

The Futaba Hospital in Okuma town (North West of the plant) and the Futaba Kosei Hospital in Futaba town (South West of the plant) are two different hospitals.

 

[tsutsuji]

There is more in the following Chugoku Shinbun article, among other paragraphs which are exactly the same as those translated above :

３病院の入院患者の避難状況は、死者がなかった２病院と比べ、ほぼ半日以上遅れており、県などを含む関係機関の対応の迅速さが明暗を分けた可能性もある。

Evacuations at those three hospitals were performed about half a day later than at the remaining 2 hospitals where no deaths occured, possibly reflecting a contrast in the response speed of the concerned organizations including the prefectural administration.

(...)

双葉病院では同日午前、職員が役場に行き、入院患者の避難をサポートするよう要請。自力で歩ける患者は同日中に避難したが、寝たきりの入院患者約１３０人を運ぶバスの到着は14、15日になった。
At Futaba Hospital on the morning of March 12th, hospital employees went to the town hall requesting evacuation support. The patients that were able to walk by their own strength were evacuated on the same day, but the bus(es) transporting the 130 bedridden patients arrived on March 14th and 15th.

西病院も役場などに救助を要請。患者約70人が14日から、自衛隊とヘリやバスで避難した。
Nishi Hospital requested help at the town hall too. About 70 patients were evacuated by helicopter or bus by the Self Defense Force on March 14th.

今村病院の約１００人は13日夜から14日朝にかけ、自衛隊ヘリが何度も往復して搬送した。
The transportation of about 100 patients from Imamura Hospital was carried out by a number of rotations of the Self Defense Force helicopter from the night of March 13th to the morning of March 14th.

残る双葉厚生病院と県立大野病院は13日午前までに全員の避難が終了。
Full evacuation of the remaining Futaba Kosei Hospital and Ono Prefectural Hospital had been completed by the morning of March 13th.

避難計画について今村病院は「備えていた」と説明。しかし移送先に想定していた病院が地震による被害で受け入れられない状態となり、患者は別の避難所に運ばれたという。双葉病院は「計画の有無を確認できない」とし、西、双葉厚生、県立大野の各病院は「なかった」としている。
Concerning the evacuation plan, Imamura Hospital explains "it was prepared". However because the destination hospital had been damaged by the earthquake, it could not accept patients and they had to be taken to a different evacuation place. Futaba Hospital says "we are unable to check the existence or absence of a plan". Nishi Hospital, Futaba Kosei Hospital, and Ono Prefectural Hospital all say "there was none".

http://www.chugoku-np.co.jp/News/Sp201106100047.html

 

[robinson]

I'm looking at the webcam right now. There is no fog, wind is offshore, you can see the moon and clouds, but you can't see any steam. I can however clearly see the distortion in the clouds where the steam is pouring out of building three and four. No, it's not the camera causing it. Other areas are rock solid and show no distortion.

Of course the Japanese and one of the worlds most powerful corporations can't afford to put an actual real modern webcams up. They could only do one, and it's static and horrible.

This, of all things, shows their true attitude to the world.

 

[radio_guy]

I'm looking at the webcam right now. There is no fog, wind is offshore, you can see the moon and clouds, but you can't see any steam. I can however clearly see the distortion in the clouds where the steam is pouring out of building three and four. No, it's not the camera causing it. Other areas are rock solid and show no distortion.

Of course the Japanese and one of the worlds most powerful corporations can't afford to put an actual real modern webcams up. They could only do one, and it's static and horrible.

This, of all things, shows their true attitude to the world.

I admit that I am a little miffed by the quality and placement of the camera, but you have to remember a few things.

1.) They didn't have to provide anything.
2.) It is eating up (i'm sure) still limited communication channels.
3.) I think they have bigger problems.

This is the type of thing that the news media covers, but due to the nature of the situation they can't do safely. Name any other large scale industrial accident where the company provided coverage? they don't

 

[zapperzero]

This is the type of thing that the news media covers, but due to the nature of the situation they can't do safely. Name any other large scale industrial accident where the company provided coverage? they don't

Oh it is in their interest to provide something. The playbook for such a big disaster is bound to be a bit different than the one for a refinery fire. The availability of trustworthy, technically apt information sources outside their direct control (ZAMG, IAEA etc) also changes things a bit.

The very fact that it is available limits the pool of interested parties that are willing to try and set up live monitoring of their own. The news media was covering this, quite safely, (remember there was a JNN live feed?) but they gave up.

Big media could be having a field day with Fukushima. They could be crawling all over Japan looking for the temp workers and the refugees, wringing every possible tear out of every displaced 100 year old Japanese grandmother, asking every Fukushima school child about how afraid they feel when they go to school with dosimeters on.

Just to clarify: I am not arguing that TEPCO are evil or whatever. Just that there are professionals handling TEPCO public relations and that they are doing one heck of a good job.

 

[Pu239]

There is still a TBS JNN Live Feed

http://www.youtube.com/user/tbsnewsi#p/l/ZIa6yble2gk

It gets taken down from time to time. It went down during the large release I mentioned earlier.

 

[westfield]

snip >
]
. Name any other large scale industrial accident where the company provided coverage? they don't

Not nitpicking but did you forget a little thing called the deepwater horizon incident and the Chilean miners, to name just two?

 

[Pu239]

Here's a detailed map, well labelled, of the Fukushima complex:

http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/fukushima_daiichi_map_plan.jpg

A couple of spelling errors, but a very good map:

"Radioactive [sorid] waste treatment facility"
"[Techinical] and Skill Training Center"

--unless someone has a better one ...

 

[radio_guy]

Not nitpicking but did you forget a little thing called the deepwater horizon incident and the Chilean miners, to name just two?

I knew there would be some.. I forgot about BP

 

[jlduh]

Don't think it has already been mentionned...

Italian people rejet massively Berlusconi plan for nuclear energy in June 12 referendum, where for the first time in 16 years, more than 50% (57%) of the voters participated.

Almost 95% of the voters expressed their wish to withdraw from any nuclear power.

This a a new crucial political step against nuclear development in Europe, after Swiss and (above all) Germany decision to close all its nuke plants before 2022 (6 already stopped now).

President Sarkozy had already annouced (proudly, as usual...) that "he" sold 4 Areva EPR to Italy for its future program, he will have to review its position after this referendum!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/13/berlusconi-nuclear-power

 

[jlduh]

Around 1700 children would still be in the 20-30kms zone...

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T110609005998.htm

How to convince people to evacuate in a country where land is scarce?

 

[Borek]

Italian people rejet massively Berlusconi plan for nuclear energy in June 12 referendum, where for the first time in 16 years, more than 50% (57%) of the voters participated.

Almost 95% of the voters expressed their wish to withdraw from any nuclear power.

I wonder if the result would be so one sided if not for the fact in coincided in time with Fukushima disaster.

 

[jlduh]

Japan Steel works, which is the only company in the world able to manufacture big reactor vessels from one single piece of metal (above 1000 MWh) and that made all the 53 reactors vessels in Japan, takes a downturn, just compare these two informations:

2008:
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C-Japan_Steel_Works_to_triple_capacity-0312085.html

June 2011:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/06/01/bloomberg1376-LM52RA07SXKX01-5QCK77VCM4BFNKHOTOK8GNUOJM.DTL

 

[jlduh]

I wonder if the result would be so one sided if not for the fact in coincided in time with Fukushima disaster.

Are you surprised that Fuskushima disaster has an impact on people mind in the world about nuclear energy?

If there was no Chernobyl, no Fukushima, no other problems and fears (waste storage and "retreatment" dead end for example, etc.) , if there was no huge implications for social communities after nuclear accidents, if ... if ... if nuclear energy was different than what is is in fact, then i can assure you that 95% of Italian (and others) would be favourable to this industry!

But... this is just NOT the case! These things exists and make what we call reality.

Hard time for nuclear proponents and those who earn their salary from this industry to admit reality (and especially "impossible" recent reality), it seems...

 

[westfield]

I wonder if the result would be so one sided if not for the fact in coincided in time with Fukushima disaster.

Apparently Italy had already had a referendum and said no to muclear power just after Chernobyl but technically that ruling only lasted 5 years.

They are a rather seismically active country, Berlusconi isn't too popular, Fukushima, take your pick.

If Italy could somehow harness the energy of automobile horns their energy issues would be over ;)

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jc8f64FqRdHw4lyc7rx--EFRfG7g?docId=b70264b1519247ff995a06bf8aaeb7ee"

 

[Borek]

Are you surprised that Fuskushima disaster has an impact on people mind in the world about nuclear energy?

No, I am not. However, asking such question just after the accident will always give skewed answer, this is a known psychological effect. That means the answer given at this particular moment doesn't reflect average sentiments of Italians (whatever they are).

I am not even trying to analyze political aspects of the referendum, for sure they add to the result as well.

Hard time for nuclear proponents and those who earn their salary from this industry to admit reality (and especially "impossible" recent reality), it seems...

This is pure propaganda. Just like razzz, you are fighting statements that you judge as biased with your own biased statements.

 

[jlduh]

35 out of 54 reactors currently stopped in Japan, production down to 16 500 MWh from a total capacity of more than 49 000 MWh (33% of the full capacity):

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/20110614dy02.htm

The problem is also that many qualified people are right now full time on the Fukushima disaster, which will limit the ability to work on regular maintenance program and inspections on other reactors. By the way, Tepco i now also facing an other concern: how to replace workers who already have reached (and even more than reached for some!) their dose limits?

 

[jlduh]

No, I am not. However, asking such question just after the accident will always give skewed answer, this is a known psychological effect. That means the answer given at this particular moment doesn't reflect average sentiments of Italians (whatever they are).

I am not even trying to analyze political aspects of the referendum, for sure they add to the result as well.



This is pure propaganda. Just like razzz, you are fighting statements that you judge as biased with your own biased statements.

I can of course admit your last sentence. But at least my bias is free from any money, which is not the case of every bias, let's recognize it. It is still a bias maybe, but only a free time citizen one...

Now, personally, i don't see biases as abnormal. Democracy is (or should be) a system where biases from individuals or groups can continuously interact in a free way to create balanced power, with means Power AND Counter Power (not sure of my english translation, sorry) actions in decision making. What is abnormal is when biases are not confronting themselves in a balanced manner.

That is for example what i understand from reading this statement from Madarame (chairperson of Japan Nuclear Safety Commission):

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3341445&postcount=284

He said the guidelines were not revised because experts on nuclear power generation are an enclosed group and they tend to avoid vigorous discussions and uncomfortable subjects. He concluded that the Fukushima accidents were caused by human error.

Of course you can say also that his statement is biased because this is said just after the Fukushima accident, and that he wouldn't have said that publicly in "normal times"

So bias is everywhere, let's recognize it, maybe?

 

[robinson]

To err on the side of caution, when it comes to nuclear accidents, is no vice.

 

[zapperzero]

Speaking of errors.
The IAEA report says

The resulting ground acceleration at Units 1, 4 and 6 did not exceed the standard seismic ground motion, whereas at Units 2, 3 and 5, the resulting ground acceleration did exceed the standard seismic ground motion. The tsunami exceeded the design basis at all units.

Yomiuri Shinbun reports http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T110316005275.htm" :

FUKUSHIMA--Strong horizontal jolts dislodged ceiling pipes and massive amounts of water started flooding out--this was the frightening scene experienced by a worker who was in the building housing the No. 1 reactor of the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant when the earthquake hit Friday.

Am I to understand that an earthquake that was not supposed to damage the #1 reactor, did in fact damage it?

 

[SteveElbows]

Speaking of errors.
The IAEA report says
Yomiuri Shinbun reports http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T110316005275.htm" :Am I to understand that an earthquake that was not supposed to damage the #1 reactor, did in fact damage it?

Well the reports words you quote about which units had higher than standard seismic ground motion does not actually make any claims as to damage, its only talking about what earthquake instruments measured within the different reactors.

As for what damage the earthquake may have caused, it clearly remains possible that there was some, but we still lack useful evidence. The article you link to is interesting, but it does not give enough information for us to judge what exactly was damaged, if anything. We need this eye witness report to be confirmed, and we need to know what system the pipes belonged to.

 

[Borek]

I wonder what it means for the building to be earthquake resistant. Perhaps it should survive with no structural damage, but without guarantee that everything inside stays intact? Or perhaps things inside are rated differently - some are designed to survive, some less important can be damaged?

 

[Luca Bevil]

http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS02_1308214183P.pdf

Have a look at the trend for nuclear support polls in Japan.

Seems slow but unequivocable.

People are starting to feel the real pain, I guess...

 

[jlduh]

Municipal heads go anti-nuclear
Municipal heads and reconstruction experts are discussing ways to reduce the use of nuclear power after the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi plant.

...

On June 15th, a panel of experts in Fukushima Prefecture agreed on a draft of basic concepts for reconstruction that includes the idea of abandoning nuclear power and promoting renewable energy. The head of a town in Yamaguchi Prefecture, where the Chugoku Electric Power Company aims to operate a nuclear plant in 7 years, indicated the possibility of reviewing the town's nuclear-tolerant stance.

Kaminoseki Mayor Shigemi Kashiwabara told the municipal assembly on Tuesday that the town needs to consider breaking free from nuclear power.The mayor of Osaka City, Kunio Hiramatsu, has suggested that Kansai Electric Power Company should pursue new energy sources to replace nuclear power.

Goshi Hosono, the prime minister's advisor for the Fukushima accident, said it is natural for municipal heads and others to voice their objections to nuclear power amid the disaster at the Fukushima plant.

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/22_02.html

 

[splitringtail]

Don't think it has already been mentionned...

Italian people rejet massively Berlusconi plan for nuclear energy in June 12 referendum, where for the first time in 16 years, more than 50% (57%) of the voters participated.

Almost 95% of the voters expressed their wish to withdraw from any nuclear power.

I can live that, but this makes me want go into fast food industry if this catches on:

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/05/italian-scientists-to-stand-trial.html?ref=hp

Seems like to me the political environment is not science friendly at all, which is ironic considering it was the birthplace of the Renaissance.

 

[Luca Bevil]

I can live that, but this makes me want go into fast food industry if this catches on:

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/05/italian-scientists-to-stand-trial.html?ref=hp

Seems like to me the political environment is not science friendly at all, which is ironic considering it was the birthplace of the Renaissance.

Sorry being Italian I can't refrain from commenting this statement.

There is no anti scientific mood in the country at all.

The referendum decision about nuclear power has been taken (more or less informedly, but lack of precise scientific knowledge was common in both camps) on rational concerns, among which I would certainly put first and foremost the risk of major accidents, just demonstrated in Fukushima.
One might or might not agree with that stance but it means nothing with respect to the country stance toward science.

The other case is a trial about the possibility of professional misconduct, for the L'Aquila quake, 3 years ago.

The politic environment, which has issues of its own has little to do with both facts.

 

[Borek]

L'Aquila process is already discussed here: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=502291

 

[swl]

http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS02_1308214183P.pdf

Have a look at the trend for nuclear support polls in Japan.

Seems slow but unequivocable.

People are starting to feel the real pain, I guess...

I find it interesting that the trend shows a progressive erosion of support for nuclear power as we get further from the earthquake and meltdowns. Perhaps people are starting to learn things about nuclear accidents that they had assumed to be impossible?

I wonder how long it will take for the trend to reverse. I also wonder how the reaction will be outside of Japan.

 

[Danuta]

... Perhaps people are starting to learn things about nuclear accidents that they had assumed to be impossible?

Yes, that is it exactly. And in addition, it makes one feel like a naive fool for assuming.

 

[splitringtail]

The referendum decision about nuclear power has been taken (more or less informedly, but lack of precise scientific knowledge was common in both camps) on rational concerns, among which I would certainly put first and foremost the risk of major accidents, just demonstrated in Fukushima. One might or might not agree with that stance but it means nothing with respect to the country stance toward science.

I was not referring to that actually. I support nuclear, but I will not push it on anyone. It is a country's own prerogative if they want nuclear power.

I have been trying to find some good evidence on Enzo Boschi's misconduct, If you know of any, then could you can add to the other thread.

Perhaps I made the erroneous assumption that if his and the other scientists misconduct was clear then geologists around the world would point it out pretty quick to protect themselves from similar situation. US Geologic Survey has been supportive.

Look at Fukushima, nuclear experts across the world have been critical of Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency. It keeps the heat of them to be honest.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/22/world/asia/22japan.html

 

[Luca Bevil]

I was not referring to that actually. I support nuclear, but I will not push it on anyone. It is a country's own prerogative if they want nuclear power.

I have been trying to find some good evidence on Enzo Boschi's misconduct, If you know of any, then could you can add to the other thread.

Perhaps I made the erroneous assumption that if his and the other scientists misconduct was clear then geologists around the world would point it out pretty quick to protect themselves from similar situation. US Geologic Survey has been supportive.

Look at Fukushima, nuclear experts across the world have been critical of Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency. It keeps the heat of them to be honest.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/22/world/asia/22japan.html

About Enzo Boschi conduct I've had no time to form a specific opinion.
It is more than likely than you know about it much more than I do.

I should perhaps have stated it more clearly but I just do not think that Italy's attitude toward science can be extrapolated form the two cases you mentioned.

This does not mean that I think Italy is having astounding successes in technical or scientific advances (quite the contrary in fact); it is just that I do not see around any prevailing persecutory mood toward science or scientists.