Japan ministers ignored safety warnings over nuclear reactors

[jpak]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/12/japan-ministers-ignored-warnings-nuclear

The timing of the near nuclear disaster at Fukushima Daiichi could not have been more appropriate. In only a few weeks the world will mark the 25th anniversary of the worst nuclear plant disaster ever to affect our planet – at Chernobyl in Ukraine. A major core meltdown released a deadly cloud of radioactive material over Europe and gave the name Chernobyl a terrible resonance.

This weekend it is clear that the name Fukushima came perilously close to achieving a similar notoriety. However, the real embarrassment for the Japanese government is not so much the nature of the accident but the fact it was warned long ago about the risks it faced in building nuclear plants in areas of intense seismic activity. Several years ago, the seismologist Ishibashi Katsuhiko stated, specifically, that such an accident was highly likely to occur. Nuclear power plants in Japan have a "fundamental vulnerability" to major earthquakes, Katsuhiko said in 2007. The government, the power industry and the academic community had seriously underestimated the potential risks posed by major quakes.

Katsuhiko, who is professor of urban safety at Kobe University, has highlighted three incidents at reactors between 2005 and 2007. Atomic plants at Onagawa, Shika and Kashiwazaki-Kariwa were all struck by earthquakes that triggered tremors stronger than those to which the reactor had been designed to survive.

In the case of the incident at the Kushiwazaki reactor in northwestern Japan, a 6.8-scale earthquake on 16 July 2007 set off a fire that blazed for two hours and allowed radioactive water to leak from the plant. However, no action was taken in the wake of any of these incidents despite Katsuhiko's warning at the time that the nation's reactors had "fatal flaws" in their design.

<more>

[tblue37]

1. k&r

[FBaggins]

2. Why is this warranted at this point?

Let's assume that the current incident ends at roughly the "three mile island" point. What have we learned?

Well... in what appears close to the worst possible circumstances (largest ever earthquake plus significant tsunami), they've had several hundreds (very likely many thousands) of people die and many many thousands more are injured and tens of thousands are homeless. Many tens of billions of dollars in destruction seems likely.

On top of all of this they might have a modestly higher rate of cancers in the local population? Maybe a few people killed? (again... assuming this doesn't get many times worse than now appears likely). People dying obviously isn't a good thing, but in a disaster that kills thousands directly, why are we focusing on a piece of the larger disaster that might not even kill anyone?

Where's the perspective here? Dams were destroyed causing massive damage. Does anyone write an auricle saying we need to learn to get rid of dams? Some oil facilities are destroyed (with likely just as significant consequences than the reactor). Will we read that they're getting rid of oil?

Lastly... the ongoing argument is really "should we build the NEXT reactor?". How many of the critical failures in this event would not even be an issue with a more modern design? If a mid-60s vehicle hits a brick wall at 30 mph and the driver cracks his skull... would we really have a debate over the wisdom of building more cars when we know that all of the new cars have airbags?

[Dave Caputo]

6. Nuclear = Poison

Anyone who doesn't get this, doesn't get "it".

[xchrom]

3. recommend

[Abq_Sarah]

4. Considering the size and location of the quake

The site seems to have held up pretty damned well.

[Zen Democrat]

5. CNN now says the core is melting.