Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumIt's not just Fukushima: mass disaster evacuations challenge planners
The Fukushima evacuation zone raises the issue of what would happen during an evacuation in heavily populated US metropolises during a nuclear meltdown.
David Biello 05 March 2012
On March 11, 2011, Japan suffered a massive earthquake and subsequent tsunami that destroyed roads, bridges, and buildings; killed nearly 16,000 people; and critically disabled three reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. By March 12, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) was already considering urging Americans within 50 miles of the stricken nuclear reactors to evacuate, given an explosion in Unit 1 that destroyed the reactor building and exposed spent nuclear fuel and other radioactive materials to the air.
"If this happened in the U.S., we would go out to 50 miles," said Bill Borchardt, NRC executive director for operations on March 17, according to transcripts of the days following the catastrophe. "That would be our evacuation recommendation."
In fact, in the U.S., more than four million Americans live within 10 miles of the 63 sites of nuclear power plants with at least one operating reactor, according to data compiled by the NRC based on the 2000 census. That number swells when the radius extends outward to 50 miles to affect more than 180 million Americans, and includes major metropolitan areas such as New York City, Philadelphia, San Diego and even West Palm Beach, Fla.
In the wake of the meltdowns in Japan and subsequent evacuations, could all these people in the U.S. be evacuated or take some form of protective action in time in similar circumstances?
Planning for the worst
Nuclear power plants are surrounded by two "emergency planning zones" developed out ...
http://www.nature.com/news/it-s-not-just-fukushima-mass-disaster-evacuations-challenge-planners-1.10165
FBaggins
(26,695 posts)What the article fails to note is that "this" didn't happen in Japan either. The 50-mile recommendation was incorrect.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)The nuclear industry wants people to not think about the risks associated with nuclear plants. If they were genuinely concerned with public welfare instead of manipulating public policy they would be routinely conducting mass exercises that were based on worst case scenarios instead of pretending that meltdowns and massive releases of radioactivity are an impossibility.
Secret report reveals everyone within 105 miles of plant would have had to be evacuated in event of full meltdown
Areas would have been contaminated with so much radiation they would not be safe for several decades
Japanese government insisted there was no need to make plans for widespread evacuation after tsunami damaged Fukushima plant
Entire population of Tokyo would have had to flee area if workers failed to control crippled reactors
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2092139/Japanese-government-hid-worst-case-scenario-Fukushima-disaster-fact-40-MILLION-people-evacuate.html
FBaggins
(26,695 posts)And we can look at those same headlines for proof.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)It was only luck that swept most of the releases from Fukushima out to sea instead of towards population centers.
It was only luck that the earthquake happened when it did instead of 4 hours later when the plant would have been nearly deserted and they wouldn't have had the personnel on-scene to jury-rig a response.
I have trouble understanding how you find that funny.
FBaggins
(26,695 posts)Didn't I predict a year ago that you would be saying this?
Regardless... no... it wasn't "only luck".
kristopher
(29,798 posts)It was a self evident fact at the time we were watching the regular NHK broadcasts of wind direction and hoping that the wind didn't shift to come out of the NE.
If you think that your "prediction" somehow invalidates the fact that it was pure luck that spared far worse contamination than occurred, feel free to spell it out clearly.
I'd also love to hear a specific account of exactly where you see a straw man in what I wrote. Your posts are weighted so heavily towards snark and baseless insinuation that they nearing the point of zero actual content.
FBaggins
(26,695 posts)It isn't relevant that the wording happens to be similar (though it's entertaining). The thrust of the prediction is that reality would never turn out to be bad enough to satisfy. That opponents would necessarily have to return to what might have been ("We almost lost Nebraska" or all those dozens of "near misses", etc). That regardless of events, the anti-nuke crowd would be incable of admitting that they were wrong. It was never "Chernobyl on steroids" and the whole world now knows it... but they can't retract the error. It's more than a year later and many are still clinging to the notion that the corium is just moments away from hitting that water table and causing a massive explosion. There are almost weekly breathless claims regarding what they see in a webcam photo (#4 has collapsed... or is on fire... or #5&6 are releasing deadly vapors).
It was a self evident fact at the time we were watching the regular NHK broadcasts of wind direction and hoping that the wind didn't shift to come out of the NE.
An interesting (if selective) memory that you have there. Do you not also remember reports from the plant that cooling wasn't working well enogh and they were going to have to vent some time soon? That they wanted to make sure that the prevailing winds were out to sea?
That's not "luck". And that's ignoring the fact that the wind is usually from the W or SW there.
The point here is that you consistently seem to be unable to accept what actually is... you must always focus on your own version of what could have been (with your own twist on the chances of course). This isn't new for Fukushima. You imagine (just for instance - since you recently posted yet another photo of it) that the Davis-Bessee incident was just moments away from meltdown and nothing but good fortune kept the US from a major nuclear disaster.