EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Eve of Destruction (or How to Destroy a Planet Without Really Trying)
- 'Beyond Orwellian': Outrage Follows Revelations of Vast Domestic Spying Program
- The Bill of Rights Exists: An Open Letter to Dianne Feinstein
- The World Economy Is a Ticking Time Bomb (and The Fuse is Burning)
- 'We Are Movement, Not a Moment': North Carolina Peaceful Uprising Continues
- Eve of Destruction (or How to Destroy a Planet Without Really Trying)
- The World Economy Is a Ticking Time Bomb (and The Fuse is Burning)
- The Bill of Rights Exists: An Open Letter to Dianne Feinstein
- 'Beyond Orwellian': Outrage Follows Revelations of Vast Domestic Spying Program
- Naomi Klein: 'Anti-Shock Doctrines' Show the Way to Resist
Popular content
Today's Top News
A Meltdown in Communication: Nuclear Disaster and Corporate Accountability
A new report released by The Rebuild Japan Initiative Foundation questions the safety of nuclear power, especially in the hands of private companies.
A team of 30 lawyers, university professors, and journalists interviewed several hundred people involved with last year’s triple nuclear plant meltdown at Fukushima. What they found should serve as a caution to the U.S. government and the U.S. nuclear power industry.
Fukushima reactor facility fires
In the days just after the earthquake and tsunami, the Japanese government struggled to maintain consistent lines of communication with Tokyo Electric Power’s executive office and the manager of the Fukushima Daiichi plant, Masao Yoshida.
Mr. Yoshida asserted repeatedly that he could get the damaged plants under control if he was allowed to keep all of his staff on site. At the same time, the owners of the plant, Tokyo Electric Power (Tepco), demanded that the government allow them to evacuate all personnel from the Fukushima Daiichi complex.
Undoubtedly Tepco’s executives viewed this as a liability issue: if any more of their personnel were injured, they could be sued. But a much bigger problem would have been caused by a complete evacuation, according to the report. If the Daiichi complex had been evacuated, it’s nuclear cores would have spiraled out of control, releasing so much radiation that other, nearby nuclear plants would have required evacuation, too. This would have put the reactors at Fukushima Daini and Tokai at severe risk of meltdowns. This “demonic chain reaction,” as described by Japan’s chief cabinet secretary at the time, would have forced the evacuation of Tokyo prefecture, which holds 13 million people—or just over 10% of Japan’s entire population.
Tepco’s President, Masataka Shimizu, made repeated calls to Prime Minister Naoto Kan insisting that Tepco be allowed to pull out all of its personnel from the Daiichi plant. But Naoto Kan, who is often castigated in the Japanese media for being too much of an activist, responded by storming into Tepco’s executive offices and insisting that they remain involved in bringing the Daiichi plant under control. It was Mr. Kan’s activist tendencies that saved Japan, not the vagaries of the private market.
Here’s how the private market operates: when a disaster occurs, it makes the most economic sense for a business to throw up its hands and walk away and let the government pick up the pieces. Companies are ruled primarily by their bottom line: anything that would cost too much money or eat into a company’s profits must be abandoned. “Cut your losses” is the mantra. And if necessary, declare bankruptcy so the company’s shareholders and executives never have to pay a dime in penalties or compensation to the victims.
In the case of an industry as potentially dangerous as the nuclear power industry, this could be disastrous. Politicians don’t know the technical requirements of nuclear power plants. They can’t make informed decisions in a crisis without the help of the engineers who work for the private companies that run the plants. But when the leadership of a private company doesn’t want to cooperate, then the ensuing high-risk communications meltdown can endanger the lives of millions of people.
As the head of the Rebuild Japan Initiative Foundation said, “We barely avoided the worst-case scenario, though the public didn’t know it at the time.”
But if that worst-case scenario had come to pass, the Japanese public would have been the ones to pay. And the rest of the world would’ve had to deal with the fallout. Literally.
Of course the U.S. nuclear power industry likes to point out the failings of the Japanese regulatory system. But the U.S. nuclear regulatory system has its own failings. Like a policy of automatically extending licenses on aging nuclear plants with ongoing maintenance problems.
In the wake of the Fukushima meltdowns, several European nations pledged to phase out nuclear power, but the U.S. is still pursuing an expansion, including the construction of a new generation of plants—to be owned and managed by private companies, of course.
The American people should pay closer attention to the events at Fukushima and question our government’s ability to manage a similar crisis. Could you envision an American president storming into the offices of a major U.S. corporation and demanding that they clean up the mess?
No, I didn’t think so.
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...



13 Comments so far
Show AllAs Alan MacDonald often points out, these types of entities skim the profits off the top and conveniently externalize the real--in this case the inevitable clean-up--costs. With more tornadic activity, floods, and earthquakes inside the Weather pipeline... only those who stand on the fragile rock of hubris dare speak for the safety of these ticking time bombs, a criminal position so long as the SUN (power) shines!
a real soft pedalled article
no nukes are safe - they all leak and they all kill
and their owners know it but as usual could care less
this welfare bum "industry" living from hand out to hand out while lying their asses off to a public that ought to but doesn't know better
we are guided by the beauty of our weapons and of course they are nuclear or as bush baby used to say
nucular
Nuclear power generation (how many reactors are currently in use worldwide ?) is akin to playing Russian roulette with a lethal round in each chamber - we are certain to blow our brains out, to annhilate the entire living world - it is not a matter of if, but, when. How frigging crazy is that ? ? ?
The only times we ever have a public discussion of nukes is during crises such as political crises or during the latest meltdowns like Fukushima/Daichi.
The fact is -- even if there was never another nuclear "accident" (a contradiction in terms since the realities of nuclear physics make meltdowns inevitable); even if another nuclear weapon is not exploded (highly unlikely) -- human-made nuclear reactions of any kind ultimately lead to the destruction of the species that made them (unless, of course, global warming and/or non-nuclear toxic wastes do the job first).
The Big Lie or Original Sin -- take your pick -- of human-made nuclear energy is that there is no technology yet developed by humans to neutralize nuclear products, by-products and wastes. The best that we can do is attempt to manage the stuff while it burns off over generations and millennia.
While we "manage" it, nuclear power, nuclear bombs, nuclear medicine, nuclearized agriculture; nuclearized industrial processes; individually and collectively poison water, air, and soil, and are spread throughout the Earth's environment. The more energy and waste produced, the sooner species death will occur.
In the meantime, a hell of alot of people get cancers and suffer from other horrible diseases caused/heightened by nuclear poisoning.
Trillions of dollars are wasted forever in the futile effort to create and "dispose of" increasing stockpiles of nuclear waste.
For what?
The energy is primarily used for boiling water, irradiating industrial products and processes, doing some medical things and killing people. We know how to do those things more safely without nuclear energy of any kind.
In fact, the best way to stop killing people is to...well...stop.
Am in complete agreement with the article except to say that, if I'm not mistaken, the photograph that accompanies the article is not that of Fukushima but rather of some oil refinery fire, perhaps Galveston....
can anyone confirm or otherwise?
As described above, add the Price-Anderson Act, rubber-stamp insider regulation, torpedoed whistle blowers, corporate non-responsibility, suppression of alternatives---you see that the system is set up so that the reactors will be run until they fail, a virtual certainty.
A nuclear death spiral.
A crime.
Decommissioning the world's aging nuclear power plants will cost trillions. How many government's want to put that cost into their budgets, even though it is inevitable that they do so?
-30-
I read somewhere that decommissioning Sellafield (Winscale) will cost 70 billion Pounds. I recall reading somewhere else that the yearly British military budget is 58 billion Pounds. Sellafield 's decommissioning began in around 2010 so it should be possible to check the costs.Military budgets are available via Google; I think my figure came from The Christian Science Monitor which ran an article on assorted military budgets. For the UK I recall 1000 Pounds per person per year goes to the military, which would indeed be around 60 billion Pounds.
Assuming for Sellafield the cost of construction equals costs of decommissioning, that is 140 billion Pounds in modern money. Sellafield ran for 60 years (approx). Spread across a population that averaged 55 million per year for 60 years, that works out as 4.2 Pounds per person per year or say 12.6 Pounds (in modern monetary values) per year per wage-earner; 12.6 Pounds would buy around 5 English pints of beer now, 12.6 pounds is around 1/13 000th of the cost of a house on the west coast of Scotland (Argyllshire) (damn; the righteous will burn me at the stake as a pro-nuke again). That is an order-of magnitude calculation that excludes running costs incurred during that time.It is a cost that ignores the carbon-footprint cost between commencement of construction and final demolition. And it is a cost that ignores the other social costs of health-risk and dealing with the officially reported 240 cancers caused by the 1957 accident. There have also been public concerns that the area has been a leukaemia hot-spot caused by later accidents and radioactivity in the cooling waters discharged to the sea. I have no official or unofficial details for this.The figure also ignores the social cost of storing the nuclear waste and of the potential accidents arising therefom.
If one is to replace carbon-sourced and nuclear-sourced energy with solar, wind and wave, then one has to run through this type of argument rather than getting one's knickers in overly emotive twists as OTHERWISE ONE WILL BE DISCREDITED FAR TOO EASILY.
Okay guys and gals (and kiddies), seek now for the "memes" of a so-called "specialist in disinformation" and show me your intolerant bigotry, once again. Which request will be seen of itself as proof positive of "memes", because it is such a subtle "meme", is it not?
OK everyone, from now on check with "I am the calm and rational adult in the room" to make sure we are using the correct methodology of "argument" and our knickers are not in a twist. Give us a fucking break- we are already replacing dirty power with Clean Energy right now, and your "I am late to the party- but every one should listen to what I have to say, AND follow my advice and 'leadership' " schtick is preposterous.
It is you whom is discredited, keep it up tho- we are using your posts in a play about nuke proponents and their lackeys, it is of value.
Just what are you doing to replace the current generating sources with clean energy sources? Have you ever installed any PV, Solar Thermal, Micro Hydro, or any system that generates electricity or converts energy to power? Or is enough for you to kick the beehive and play "devil's advocate"?
Claiming that everyone who is disgusted with and disagrees with your "point" is exhibiting "intolerant bigotry" is absurd- comedy of the absurd.
This article was about the constant misinformation produced by corporation and government collaboration. (By the way this is the definition of "Fascism": Private control of public resources, it was defined by Mussolini as "Corporatism", it is not a catch all for authoritarian behavior, it is a specific stage of development in capitalism.) The corporation has been lying about the technology all along, the government was cooperating. In line with this is your reliance on the actual criminals anecdotes and declarations of safety, their studies that minimize the costs and deaths, and the identified tactic of using other disasters to present nuclear power as "just as safe or safer", your avoidance of the reality that these devices are the physical manifestations of a debt instrument that indenture people as surely as the debt for military expenditure does- all this cast your exhortations here as pure hyperbole and malfeasance. Maybe you can mount a PV panel on your motorcycle?
duplicate deleted
Mr. Kan deserves high praise for standing his ground. The world should reward him in some way.
Never make a mess you cannot clean up.
The figure is not that of the "Fukushima fires".Whilst I support the general tenor of the article, Common Dreams does itself no favours by publishing incorrect photos and then mislabelling them. Credibility requires truth. One hopes it is simply an inadvertant editorial mistake.The only images I have seen of Fukushima were the several non-fiery explosions I saw on TV. They were not accompanied by a large fire producing thick black smoke. Correct me if I am wrong.Nor does the overall geography in the photo look to be correct.