EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- How the US Turned Three Pacifists into Violent Terrorists
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Revealed: How US State Department 'Twists Arms' on Monsanto's Behalf
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Explosive Truth Behind Fukushima's Meltdown
It is one of the mysteries of Japan's ongoing nuclear crisis: How much damage did the 11 March earthquake inflict on the Fukushima Daiichi reactors before the tsunami hit?
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant after Japan's earthquake and tsunami in March. Photograph: Reuters The stakes are high: if the earthquake structurally compromised the plant and the safety of its nuclear fuel, then every similar reactor in Japan may have to be shut down. With almost all of Japan's 54 reactors either offline (in the case of 35) or scheduled for shutdown by next April, the issue of structural safety looms over any discussion about restarting them.
Plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co (Tepco) and Japan's government are hardly reliable adjudicators in this controversy. "There has been no meltdown," government spokesman Yukio Edano repeated in the days after 11 March. "It was an unforeseeable disaster," Tepco's then president Masataka Shimizu famously and improbably said later. Five months since the disaster, we now know that meltdown was already occurring as Mr Edano spoke. And far from being unforeseeable, the disaster had been repeatedly forewarned by industry critics.
Throughout the months of lies and misinformation, one story has stuck: it was the earthquake that knocked out the plant's electric power, halting cooling to its six reactors. The tsunami then washed out the plant's back-up generators 40 minutes later, shutting down all cooling and starting the chain of events that would cause the world's first triple meltdown.
But what if recirculation pipes and cooling pipes burst after the earthquake – before the tidal wave reached the facilities; before the electricity went out? This would surprise few people familiar with the 40-year-old reactor one, the grandfather of the nuclear reactors still operating in Japan.
Problems with the fractured, deteriorating, poorly repaired pipes and the cooling system had been pointed out for years. In September 2002, Tepco admitted covering up data about cracks in critical circulation pipes. In their analysis of the cover-up, The Citizen's Nuclear Information Center writes: "The records that were covered up had to do with cracks in parts of the reactor known as recirculation pipes. These pipes are there to siphon off heat from the reactor. If these pipes were to fracture, it would result in a serious accident in which coolant leaks out."
On 2 March, nine days before the meltdown, government watchdog the Nuclear Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) warned Tepco on its failure to inspect critical pieces of equipment at the plant, including recirculation pumps. Tepco was ordered to make the inspections, perform repairs if needed and report to NISA on 2 June. It does not appear, as of now, that the report has been filed.
The Independent has spoken to several workers at the plant who recite the same story: serious damage, to piping and at least one of the reactors, occurred before the tsunami hit. All have requested anonymity because they are still working at or connected with the stricken plant. Worker A, a maintenance engineer who was at the Fukushima complex on the day of the disaster, recalls hissing, leaking pipes.
"I personally saw pipes that had come apart and I assume that there were many more that had been broken throughout the plant. There's no doubt that the earthquake did a lot of damage inside the plant... I also saw that part of the wall of the turbine building for reactor one had come away. That crack might have affected the reactor."
The reactor walls are quite fragile, he notes: "If the walls are too rigid, they can crack under the slightest pressure from inside so they have to be breakable because if the pressure is kept inside... it can damage the equipment inside so it needs to be allowed to escape. It's designed to give during a crisis, if not it could be worse – that might be shocking to others, but to us it's common sense." Worker B, a technician in his late 30s who was also on site at the time of the earthquake, recalls: "It felt like the earthquake hit in two waves, the first impact was so intense you could see the building shaking, the pipes buckling, and within minutes I saw pipes bursting. Some fell off the wall...
"Someone yelled that we all needed to evacuate. But I was severely alarmed because as I was leaving I was told and I could see that several pipes had cracked open, including what I believe were cold water supply pipes. That would mean that coolant couldn't get to the reactor core. If you can't sufficiently get the coolant to the core, it melts down. You don't have to have to be a nuclear scientist to figure that out." As he was heading to his car, he could see that the walls of the reactor one building had started to collapse. "There were holes in them. In the first few minutes, no one was thinking about a tsunami. We were thinking about survival."
The suspicion that the earthquake caused severe damage to the reactors is strengthened by reports that radiation leaked from the plant minutes later. The Bloomberg news agency has reported that a radiation alarm went off about a mile from the plant at 3.29pm, before the tsunami hit.
The reason for official reluctance to admit that the earthquake did direct structural damage to reactor one is obvious. Katsunobu Onda, author of Tepco: The Dark Empire, explains it this way: A government or industry admission "raises suspicions about the safety of every reactor they run. They are using a number of antiquated reactors that have the same systematic problems, the same wear and tear on the piping." Earthquakes, of course, are commonplace in Japan.
Mitsuhiko Tanaka, a former nuclear plant designer, describes what occurred on 11 March as a loss-of-coolant accident. "The data that Tepco has made public shows a huge loss of coolant within the first few hours of the earthquake. It can't be accounted for by the loss of electrical power. There was already so much damage to the cooling system that a meltdown was inevitable long before the tsunami came."
He says the released data shows that at 2.52pm, just after the quake, the emergency circulation equipment of both the A and B systems automatically started up. "This only happens when there is a loss of coolant." Between 3.04 and 3.11pm, the water sprayer inside the containment vessel was turned on. Mr Tanaka says that it is an emergency measure only done when other cooling systems have failed. By the time the tsunami arrived and knocked out all the electrical systems, at about 3.37pm, the plant was already on its way to melting down.
Kei Sugaoka, who conducted on-site inspections at the plant and was the first to blow the whistle on Tepco's data tampering, says he was not surprised by what happened. In a letter to the Japanese government, dated 28 June 2000, he warned that Tepco continued to operate a severely damaged steam dryer in the plant 10 years after he pointed out the problem. The government sat on the warning for two years.
"I always thought it was just a matter of time," he says of the disaster. "This is one of those times in my life when I'm not happy I was right."
During his research, Mr Onda spoke with several engineers who worked at the Tepco plants. One told him that often piping would not match up to the blueprints. In that case, the only solution was to use heavy machinery to pull the pipes close enough together to weld them shut. Inspection of piping was often cursory and the backs of the pipes, which were hard to reach, were often ignored. Repair jobs were rushed; no one wanted to be exposed to nuclear radiation longer than necessary.
Mr Onda adds: "When I first visited the Fukushima Power Plant it was a web of pipes. Pipes on the wall, on the ceiling, on the ground. You'd have to walk over them, duck under them – sometimes you'd bump your head on them. The pipes, which regulate the heat of the reactor and carry coolant are the veins and arteries of a nuclear power plant; the core is the heart. If the pipes burst, vital components don't reach the heart and thus you have a heart attack, in nuclear terms: meltdown. In simpler terms, you can't cool a reactor core if the pipes carrying the coolant and regulating the heat rupture – it doesn't get to the core."
Tooru Hasuike, a Tepco employee from 1977 until 2009 and former general safety manager of the Fukushima plant, says: "The emergency plans for a nuclear disaster at the Fukushima plant had no mention of using seawater to cool the core. To pump seawater into the core is to destroy the reactor. The only reason you'd do that is no other water or coolant was available."
Before dawn on 12 March, the water levels at the reactor began to plummet and the radiation began rising. The Tepco press release published just past 4am that day states: "The pressure within the containment vessel is high but stable." There was one note buried in the release that many people missed: "The emergency water circulation system was cooling the steam within the core; it has ceased to function."
At 9.51pm, under the chief executive's orders, the inside of the reactor building was declared a no-entry zone. At around 11pm, radiation levels for the inside of the turbine building, which was next door to reactor reached levels of 0.5 to 1.2 mSv per hour. In other words, the meltdown was already underway. At those levels, if you spent 20 minutes exposed to those radiation levels you would exceed the five-year limit for a nuclear reactor worker in Japan.
Sometime between 4 and 6am, on 12 March, Masao Yoshida, the plant manager decided it was time to pump seawater into the reactor core and notified Tepco. Seawater was not pumped in until hours after a hydrogen explosion occurred, at roughly 8pm. By then, it was probably already too late.
Later that month, Tepco went some way toward admitting at least some of these claims in a report called "Reactor Core Status of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station Unit One". The report said there was pre-tsunami damage to key facilities, including pipes.
"This means that assurances from the industry in Japan and overseas that the reactors were robust is now blown apart," said Shaun Burnie, an independent nuclear waste consultant who works with Greenpeace. "It raises fundamental questions on all reactors in high seismic risk areas."
As Mr Burnie points out, Tepco also admitted massive fuel melt 16 hours after loss of coolant, and seven or eight hours before the explosion in Unit One. "Since they must have known all this, their decision to flood with massive water volumes would guarantee massive additional contamination – including leaks to the ocean."
No one knows how much damage was done to the plant by the earthquake, or if this damage alone would account for the meltdown. But certainly Tepco's data and eyewitness testimony indicates that the damage was significant.
As Mr Hasuike says: "Tepco and the government of Japan have provided many explanations. They don't make sense. The one thing they haven't provided is the truth. It's time they did."
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

72 Comments so far
Show AllI'm sure that silly ass Mark Abrams is still walking around touting how safe and clean nuclear energy is. What a stupid fuck.
Did the DeHavilland Comet, the occasionally reversing rudder controls of the Boeing 737, the defective cargo door latch in the DC-10, or pitot tubes and computer software in the Airbus A330 lead to calls to ban all airliners?
And, the number of people that defects in these airliners killed is far, far larger than those killed in all nuclear accidents.
The casue of the Fukushima accident were unconscionable defects in design and naintenance of this specific plant and rather dated model of reactor, not "nuclear power".
AGW-denying investors in Peabody, Alpha/Massey, or Range Resources love talk like yours.
PJD412- Your comments are completely disingenuous. When the problems you mention with aircraft were discovered the planes or technologies involved were grounded. Why do you not agree we should do the same with nuclear powered water boilers? And no concerted efforts by industry and government were coordinated to present lies about the conditions or faults of your 'airplane example'. Your claim about the victims of airplanes compared to victims of nuclear industry are lies also- you do not present empirical data about this because you know you are lying. Nuclear power plants cannot be operated safely, every one has released radiation from across the spectrum of such energy wavelength. The idea that this flawed and uncontrollable technology is 'safe' is a lie. The cause of the radiation release was not flawed design but the only result possible, it cannot be contained. You are an example of unconscionable defects in ethical human behavior. Your correlation to the "'AGW denying' investors loving talk like yours" is absolute bullshit, they are paying shills like you to create this crap. How close do you live to a nuclear powered boiler? Are you a human being? It is called fighting for what you want, so what do you want? Are you already getting it, or do you want love and human community to be shared?
---"When the problems you mention with aircraft were discovered the planes or technologies involved were grounded. Why do you not agree we should do the same with nuclear powered water boilers?"---
I do agree. All currently running General Electric Mk1 BWR's should be shut down immediately, and considering their age, decommissioned.
---"How close do you live to a nuclear powered boiler?"---
The Beaver Valley nuclear plant (two Westinghouse PWR's) is about 32 miles to the NW of my house. I recieve far more exposure to radionuclides, along with mercury and other heavy metals) from the big, ugly 3-unit Bruce Mansfield coal burning plant right next to the nuclear plant. The possible life-ending CO2 emissions from this plant and the thousands like it worries me even more. Nonetheless, both of those power plant sources pale next to the naturally occurring radon coming up through my basement and garage floor.
---"they are paying shills like you to create this crap."---
The ad-hom accusation that someone who disagrees with you is a "paid shill" is really low and vile - and an admission that you cannot argue the actual issue.
---"Are you a human being?"---
Yup.
---"It is called fighting for what you want, so what do you want? Are you already getting it, or do you want love and human community to be shared?"---
I am a socialist. I want the means of production (including nuclear plants) to be in the hands of coperative worker ownership, so the wealth and ingenuity, and the good life that comes from that ingenuity is shared by all. The threat of humanity-ending runaway global warming is a far greater threat than the hazards or radioactive materials. Radiation hazards are wildly exaggerated by nuclear opponents to the point that it resembles more superstition than informed opinion. The mining and burning of coal, and to the greatest degree possible, shale-gas, has to be stopped. Nuclear power generation, using new, safe, inherently melt-down proof designs, along with renewables, are the only real-world way we are going to stop burning coal.
PJD412- Thank you for your well considered response to my questions. Your assertion that you receive more exposure form the coal fired plants is often used to deflect the thrust of the anti-nuclear argument. It does not bear up to scrutiny. Or maybe not, do you have continuos air, surface water, groundwater sampling equipment conducting radioisotope monitoring and analysis? I do not agree with your assertion about the radon hazard being greater than electricity generation exhausts. It is not an either or question about resistance to nuclear versus CO2 emitting industries, this is nonsense. I agree with your critique of the other electricity generating methodologies, but not the point about nuclear being part of our only options to extricate ourselves from this problem. As for the 'vile' and 'low' ad - hom attacks, I apologize for insulting you. But I would advocate that you develop an awareness of the tactics of the 'industry', and the fact that they do use 'paid shills'- especially on this site. I asked if you are human because often the comments that are truly vile and absurd seem to be repetitive, mechanical, and may be attributed to computer generated disinformation. By the way, I would recommend Murray Bookchin, if you are not familiar with his work. An advocate of Anarcho-syndicalism.
Also, are you familiar with Dr. Leonard Shlain's work? I would recommend: The Alphabet Versus the Goddess, and Sex,Time,and Power.
'The casue of the Fukushima accident were unconscionable defects in design and naintenance of this specific plant and rather dated model of reactor, not "nuclear power".
When there are billions of dollars at stake, it's often difficult (if not impossible) to draw any real distinction between the two.
..and there is that little minor detail: the earthquake.
The interesting thing about engineering design is that no matter how high we set the standards bar, even if it is built to spec, sooner or later, nature will jump over it.
Count on it.
So, we always have to assume that the worst will happen (or at least would be wise to assume that)
John McPhee wrote a very good book about the (sometimes silly and sometimes tragic and sometimes tragisilly) hubris of humans: "The Control of Nature"
i am a civil engineer involved in among other things, the seismic safety of dams. The failure of a structure under a force of nature is almost always due to a money-based decision from the managers above the engineers, not a failing in their knowlege. Of course there are really remote events that cannot be designed against like asteroid impacts.
Many advances have been made in determining maximum credible earthquake shaking since Fukushima was built, and it appears that even Fukushima was grossly, maybe knowingly underdesigned even from knowlege at the time - notably that gained from the '64 Anchorage earthquake a few years earlier.
A good engineer thinks there is always a way to resolve a problem if they can just figure it out. This makes them believe there are answers to all problems. This leads to the insane optimism that lets them think that you can design a safe reactor.
cttrl-z- wow! I love it, right on! Very good post. Although many engineers understand that for us, alive on earth, there is no safe design of nuclear fission machines, I almost did not include this caveat because- well because you are right on it. I dig it! Keep it up,Keep it up.
Just to be clear- Keep it up.
Hello ctrl-z,
You said
"A good engineer thinks there is always a way to resolve a problem if they can just figure it out. This makes them believe there are answers to all problems."
I hold a doctorate in Engineering, and no, we're not supposed to think that. TEPCO apparently believes that it can create its own reality regarding how the Universe works, but a good engineer doesn't.
I've known a number of engineers and the majority of them had that optimistic, can do hubris that leads to so many downfalls.
I see you've reconsidered and modified your original assertion, which was that *good* engineers have that hubris.
Engineers who do have that hubris are not only bad ones; they're fools who should be fired.
Most of the engineers I've known were good engineers. Good in the sense that they cared about what they were doing and tried to give their best effort. But they had this blind spot...
It's like the science fiction magazines that wouldn't publish stories that didn't have a happy ending.
I stand by my assertion.
" Of course there are really remote events that cannot be designed against like asteroid impacts"
It is not asteroid impacts that should be of concern. It is shallow earthquakes of magnitude 8 or 9 that occur nearby. The closer to the surface the event is, the more lateral fault motion that occurs, which is a real challenge to design against. Floating foundations are fine for hotels, but I'm not sure if any nuclear reactors have been built on them. The problem of course, is that if a structure is designed to withstand anything that is likely to happen at some time in the future (because it happened at some time in the past), the cost would be so great that the structure could not be built. So while penny-pinching managers may be the cause of the Fukushima disaster, sometimes the site chosen is just not appropriate for a structure, regardless of what management wants.
"The failure of a structure under a force of nature is almost always due to a money-based decision from the managers above the engineers, not a failing in their knowlege."
It's not clear to me what that means. Does it mean that if engineers had infinite resources (including money), they could build structures that would never fail?
If that's what it means, I'd have to say it's really a meaningless statement (and probably not even true in principle, since it's simply not feasible that engineers could plan for every possibility that nature throws at them).
But if instead what is meant is that the failure of most structures is due to "skimping" (using "cheap" materials where better, more expensive, ones are available, etc), then I'd like to see the data for that. Studies?
'Of course there are really remote events that cannot be designed against like asteroid impacts. "
With all due respect, that really is just a silly statement.
There are LOTS of cases FAR short of asteroid impacts where engineered structures can (and do) fail simply because nature throws something at the engineers that they did not "expect" or prepare for (eg, the "500 year flood' when they only planned for the "100 year flood").
Let's put aside the issue of subpar building (cutting corners to save money etc) for the moment (even though that is the real economic world we live in).
That the reactors at Fukushima were not designed for what hit them is precisely my point. They were not designed for either the 9.0 magnitude earthquake OR the 13+ meter tsunami. They were desiged for up to about 7.9 magnitude earthquake and 5.7 m tsunami. So the earthquake that hit was 10x as powerful and the tsunami over 2X as high as 'designed for."
While 9.0 magnitude earthquakes and 13+ m tidal waves may not happen very frequently, they DO happen and are certainly FAR more probable than an "asteroid impact".
And no matter what one designs and builds for (and there are both physical and monetary constraints on any engineered structure) there is always a chance (albeit small) that the forces of nature will tear it apart.
In fact, that is one of the overriding "issues" related to nuclear power. It's simply not possible to design and build something that is completely fail safe. And what Fukushima has shown beyond any reasonable doubt is that the safety measures which drive the costs of nuclear power up relative to much more benign options for generating power and cutting carbon emissions ARE indeed important. Steel and concrete conmtainment domes, backup cooling systems and the rest are all very necessary -- but they all boost the price of nuclear power plants. And high cost is the best argument against building more, in my opinion. Not that my opinion really matters, but rest assured, economics will ultimately determine the fate of nuclear power, at any rate.
Given the tendency for any one human being or a group, to succumb to the pressure of greed, and other negative human foibles, we should NOT resort to using a source of energy which, if compromised by these human weaknesses, have consequences that are not only terrrible in their immediate effect, but have effects that last into the generations, causing drastic and irreversible damage to humans, other species and the earth itself for generation after generation after generation after generation after generation, after generation.....I think you get my point..... air plane problems don't last that long.
"AGW-denying investors in Peabody, Alpha/Massey, or Range Resources love talk like yours."
Nukes are very expensive way of reducing carbon emissions.
Read what Joe Romm has to say; (in The Nukes of hazard: reports of nuclear renaissance were greatly exaggerated"
"New nukes would still make sense if they were truly needed to save the planet. But as a Brattle Group paper noted last month, additional reactors “cannot be expected to contribute significantly to U.S. carbon emission reduction goals prior to 2030.” By contrast, investments in more-efficient buildings and factories can reduce demand now, at a tenth the cost of new nuclear supply. Replacing carbon-belching coal with cleaner gas, emissions-free wind and even utility-scale solar will also be cheaper and faster than new nukes. It’s true that major infusions of intermittent wind and solar power would stress the grid, but that’s a reason to upgrade the grid, not to waste time and money on reactors."
'The industry’s defenders may ignore Fukushima Daiichi, but the industry will not. It’s serious about public safety, and meltdowns are bad for business; no company wants to lose a $10 billion reactor overnight. But additional safety measures cost money: in 2003 industry lobbyists beat back an NRC committee’s recommendation for new backup-power rules that were designed to prevent the hydrogen explosions that are now all over the news."
"It may sound unrealistic to require plants to withstand a vicious earthquake and a 25-ft. tsunami, but nobody’s forcing utilities to generate power with uranium. One lesson of the past decade, in finance as well as nature, is that perfect storms do happen. When nukes are involved, the fallout can be literal, not just political."
//end of joe romm quotes
Hey, when an Airbus A330 can render large portions of countryside uninhabitable for millennia, get back with us, okay?
CORVO- much more succinct rebuttal than my own. Keep it up.
Good one!
Hello pjd412,
You said,
"The causes of the Fukushima accident were unconscionable defects in design and naintenance of this specific plant and rather dated model of reactor, not nuclear power."
You neglect to mention that those unconscionable defects had repeatedly been pointed out to TEPCO and Japanese authorities, who nevertheless allowed the reactors to remain in operation. In a purely philosophical discussion, I might agree that safe reactors are possible. However, reactors are designed, built, inspected, and maintained by fallible (even evil) human beings who do unconscionable things.
We need to yield to the realities of the situation, and get away from nuclear power even at the cost of a having a "lower" standard of living.
"And, the number of people that defects in these airliners killed is far, far larger than those killed in all nuclear accidents."
We can't know that without reliable data on the amount of radiation released in those accidents. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that that data comes from either (a) institutions that have clear reasons to downplay the seriousness of those accidents; or (b) sources that those same institutions might well be able to pressure.
"AGW-denying investors in Peabody, Alpha/Massey, or Range Resources love talk like yours."
Which is irrelevant to whether our concerns are valid or not.
The effects of a plane going down is nothing to the effects of a nuclear power plant melting down. The impact on human life alone makes these risks not even comparable (And that's with ignoring the impact on the environment and on animal life).
pjd412 sez: "And, the number of people that defects in these airliners killed is far, far larger than those killed in all nuclear accidents."
Your statement is true only if you pretend that the only ones killed were onsite and ignore the consequences of the contamination and fallout.
But you shills are good at pretending.
Actually, I doubt he's a shill. The nuke industry can afford more intelligent and capable spokesmen. :-)
An unpaid shill then.
My goodness gracious!
I do believe, that you might just achieve, the vaunted John Abrams award for best/worst Nuclear Industry Servicing Blow Hard.
Don't be too hard on Mark. He's a paid shill. It's a job. We all do things we'd rather not to earn a paycheck. I'd like to believe he's using some of that money to stock up on potassium iodide, betanite clay, and dosimeters for his family.
At least Japan is having a serious conversation (among government officials and univeristy scientists and engineers) about the future of nuclear power in their country after the Fukushima disaster (which actually could have been much worse for Japan had the wind been blowing inland -- eg, toward Tokyo -- in the early days of the disaster.)
If only we could say the same about the US.
All we seem to get here is the same old "expert tripe" (eg, from MIT nuclear engineering department: " the Fukushima-Daichii plant has performed relatively well in some respects" [relative to what? Chernobyl?] ) that completely "overlooks" what may well have been a key element of the cooling failure (pipe breakage by the earthquake) BEFORE the power outage -- see my comment below which links to the MIT report on Fukushima
Unfortunately it doesn't look like "Japan" is having that serious conversation. Rather, several brave Japanese are. But official Japan, including the Japanese media, are toeing the nuke party line but nicely.
You could be right, but I wouldn't dismiss the impact of the "brave" Japanese just yet.
My guess is that they are just the "tip of the iceberg."
Radiation is obviously still a very sore subject among the Japanese public and ANY challenge to the official party line is quite significant in a country where people normally would not even think to question their government.
Germany also had the conversation and already came to a new conclusion, the permanent shutdown of all nuclear power plants as fast as alternate electrical generation can be brought online. Germany also has the benefit of having vastly increased their solar and wind generation in the last few years with Feed-In-Tariffs. They know how to achieve the goal, and have a decent idea on the cost.
So much for the nuclear industry: it's about as truth committed as the U.S. Congress and President, or the petroleum industry, or the pharmaceutical industry, or Wall Street, or the religious right, or ...
. . . or any large corporate entity.
q
This story never saw the light of day in the U.S.
A little pressure by our nuke industry. We have numerous reactors running here built from the same plans and modified exactly as the Fukushima reactors.
Wouldn't want to create 'needless' concern about glowing in the dark to the general populace, would we?
This story never saw the light of day in the U.S.
A little pressure by our nuke industry. We have numerous reactors running here built from the same plans and modified exactly as the Fukushima reactors.
Wouldn't want to create 'needless' concern about glowing in the dark to the general populace, would we?
tepco management waited for almost a full day before acting to flood (and thereby destroy) the plant with seawater, even after they knew it was necessary. Their only possible motive for waiting was to avoid the monetary loss of destroying the reactor. This is what Corporate deregulation looks like - pathetic, greedy, shameless, and completely lacking any human virtue.
Is tepco "too big to fail?"
...but...but...MIT "expert" Josef Oehmen said there was little to worry about -- that the amount of radiation released would be very small.
Oehmen is not a nookyalur engineer, buuuut, the MIT Nookyalur Engineering Department also published a report "Technical Lessons Learned from the Fukushima-Daichii Accident and Possible Corrective Actions for the Nuclear Industry: An Initial Evaluationon" (May, 2011)
that included the following
"Observations from Fukushima:
• The loss of offsite power (due to the earthquake) and onsite AC power (due to the tsunami), combined with the rapid discharge of the DC batteries led to a complete station blackout, which in turn led to fuel overheating and damage
Key question:
How can the station blackout scenario be either prevented or sufficiently mitigated to ensure minimal consequences?
Possible corrective actions for current plants:
• The diesel generators, their fuel, and related switch gear could be housed in rooms at sufficiently high elevation and/or in water-proof rooms to preserve onsite AC power in case of tsunamis or floods. Note, however, that seismically-induced stresses increase with elevation."
//end of MIT quote
So, the MIT nookyalur "experts" sure seem to believe that the power failure was the key issue behind the cooling failure and that preventing or sufficiently mitigating a "station blackout scenario" could ensure minimal consequences.
The statement "Note, however, that seismically-induced stresses increase with elevation" is more than a little ironic in light of the information in the above piece.. The MIT "experts" were obviously focused in their report on the ramifications for power to the pumps, but seem to have completely overlooked the earthquake ramifications for the cooling pipes, which are NOWHERE EVEN MENTIONED in their report.
If the MIT report is coming from the world's "top experts" on the issue, all I can say is that we are all in very deep doo doo.
TEPCO funds a chair at MIT...
http://enenews.com/tepco-funds-chairprofesssorship-at-mit-nuclear-researcher-nuclear-researchers-have-a-stake-in-reassuring-the-pubic-that-nothing-bad-is-happening
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2000/tepco-0503.html
Well, as Paul Harvey famously said, "Now you know ...the rest of the story".
It really is quite interesting that they never even mention the possibility of cooling system failure due to pipe breakage in that MIT report.
Given a large enough earthquake, pipe breakage is something that could occur at ANY operating nuclear plant and it would be realtively difficult -- and certainly very expensive -- to "retrofit" existing nuclear plants with a backup pipe system that could withstand a large earthquake and ensure continued operation of the cooling system for the case in which the primary system failed due to pipe breakage.
On the other hand, providing for backup power for the cooling pumps would be relatively easy and cheap.
But i'm sure it's just a coincidence (combined with pure, unadulterated incompetence on the part of the members of the MIT engineering department who wrote that report) that they failed to even mention the problem that is hard and expensive to "fix" (pipe failure caused by earthquake).
Revolutionyouarein- Good post-keep it up.
No matter where the nuclear disaster takes place; the gory details of what actually happened and the aftereffects are much worse than upon initial media glare.
Simply put, nuclear power and weapons are amongst the worst and most dangerous things ever invented by mankind, and the sooner they pass from active use to guarded wariness around the sites (which is highly doubtful), the better.
The authors said,
"Tepco and the government of Japan have provided many explanations. They don't make sense. The one thing they haven't provided is the truth. It's time they did."
No, it's time for us to stop imagining that we'll ever hear it from them.
Where we go from there, I don't know, but the first step is to accept that they're serial liars, and that we'll have no reason to believe anything they say, *ever*.
As I wrote at the time in the comments section of a CD story, "The picture of the explosion is telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth". You can remember that the next time there's a picture of a nuclear reactor exploding; it's poisoning hundreds of thousands of people to early deaths, mostly from cancer. The explosion says, "Run, you big dummy!"
Not having the explosion in the first place is a pretty nice idea too, worth idly daydreaming about if you're a politician. Respect is something that should be earned.
Sixty-six years ago, WW-II ended. The survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were trying to survive, burned skin hanging off their bodies, many vomiting and bleeding, all exhausted and frightened.
The Military-Industrial-Congressional-Complex looked at the huge sums involved in nuclear research and weaponry which had gone into their pockets for the past few years. They were facing serious cutbacks in government money if we actually were to transform into a peaceful economy.
So what did we need? Fear! The enemy without and within! It worked, and the War Department which was mainly concerned with defense was transformed into the Defense Department, dedicated to expanding war and profits.
A similar crises developed when the CCCP went down. The horrifying fear that the MICC would be reduced to making refrigerators and stoves instead of bombs. A man buys a refrigerator, he keeps it for ten or fifteen years; not much profit in that. Guy buys a thousand pound bomb and BOOM! he has to buy another. Now that is real profit!
Each time that peace has threatened, the MICC has come up with another foe, another fear to which the answer is to give the MICC more billion$ to protect us.
The nuclear industry is inextricably tied into the MICC and sucks greedily at the same teat which We the People keep filled.
The great sow which our government has become slops up our resources and sees that the teats are full for Big Nuke, MICC, Big Oil, Big Coal, etc.
We the People have been denied any of the milk, but we have been allowed to lick the sweat off the privates of the sow for sustenance. However, even that is being begrudged us as the Oligarchy comes into its own. They want it all, now!
We the People, once citizens of a Constitutional Republic have become subjects of the American Empire. Soon, we will be no more than serfs of the all powerful Oligarchy and that is the way they want it.
I'm an old man. I lived through WW-II and remember the hope we had for a world of peace when it was finally over. I have seen and felt the power of the H-Bomb at Bikini in 1956. I suffered radiation poisoning and fortunately survived it. I have seen WW-III up close and personal and have spent most of my adult life working and writing for peace, understanding, empathy. (Very hard to get that published I may add.) :-)
I don't expect to live long enough to see more than the beginning of the horrors that are coming in the wake of Fukushima. Chernobyl seems like yesterday to me, but its effects still linger around the world. Chernobyl, a huge area uninhabitable for three to six hundred years. The same may well happen in Northern Japan. The birth defects, cancers and miscarriages that will grow for generations.
No, I shall not be sad to depart, but my heart goes out to the younger generations who are inheriting this horrible mess we leave behind us.
and then there's the explosive truth behind the lies told by Heath Canada and the EPA about the exposure in north america.
“Tends to concentrate in the testicles”: 360+ atoms of radioactive sulfur per day may have been inhaled by Californians after Fukushima
http://enenews.com/concentrate-testicles-360-atoms-radioactive-sulfur-day-inhaled-californians-after-fukushima
from forbes.com
Thanks for the link.
GottaGetOffTheGrid wrote:
'and then there's the explosive truth behind the lies told by Heath Canada and the EPA about the exposure in north america.
'“Tends to concentrate in the testicles”: 360+ atoms of radioactive sulfur per day may have been inhaled by Californians after Fukushima
'http://enenews.com/concentrate-testicles-360-atoms-radioactive-sulfur-day-inhaled-californians-after-fukushima'
And how does that compare to what may have been inhaled BEFORE the Fukushima accident? But the average adult non-smoker inhales over 12,000 atoms of the highly toxic polonium-210 (an alpha-emitter) per day, along with other radioisotopes. It's all in the numbers.
John
In America we need a progressive government before its too late. Conservative's ecologic and economic disasters like Japan's Fukushima, corporate wars and financial scams will cause more irreversible global damage.
The fastest way to get there is to get conservatives out of government. The easiest way to do that is to elect Progressive Democrats, finish voting out Conservative Blue Dog and DNC Democrat/Republicans in disguise and become the Progressive Democrat majority party.
Would the Greens be willing to form a temporary coalition with Progressive Democrats to achieve progressive government?
EZlyer- Obama was a 'progressive democrat', whatever that creature is. The question really should be framed the other way: would democrats be willing to form a coalition to fight back? Why not advocate joining with people who are fighting back? Not the roll over-surrender-and give up the ass-democrats.
"EZlyer- Obama was a 'progressive democrat'"
He sure fooled everybody.
Since the Democratic Party is the majority party, isn't lumping Progressive Democrats together with Conservative Democrats counterproductive? If Greens formed a coalition with Progressive Democrats, we could have progressive government by the next election. If Progressive Democrats left to join the Green Party, we could not and the fascists would win. Anger clouds judgement. But libs and progressives are supposed to be the smart ones and able to pick the winning strategy.