Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on September 1, 2015
Assumption of safety behind Fukushima debacle
The widespread assumption that nuclear plants were safe was behind the March 2011 accident at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant, the International Atomic Energy Agency said in its final report on the crisis.
Before the catastrophe, “there was a basic assumption in Japan that the design of nuclear power plants and the safety measures that had been put in place were sufficiently robust to withstand external events of low probability and high consequences,” the report, released Monday, says.
Because of this assumption, “there was a tendency for organizations and their staff not to challenge the level of safety,” the report says. This “resulted in a situation where safety improvements were not introduced promptly.”
The IAEA report stresses the need to “take an integrated approach that takes account of the complex interactions between people, organizations and technology” in order to better identify plant vulnerabilities to natural disasters and other unexpected events.
The report was compiled by around 180 experts from 42 countries. The plant was damaged in the tsunami caused by the powerful earthquake that hit off the Tohoku coast on March 11, 2011.
Some of the factors that contributed to the accident were “not unique to Japan,” IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano says in the report, adding that “continuous questioning and openness to learning from experience are key to safety culture and are essential for everyone involved in nuclear power.”
The Fukushima No. 1 plant’s vulnerability “to external hazards had not been reassessed in a systematic and comprehensive manner during its lifetime,” the IAEA report says.
“The assessment of natural hazards needs to consider the potential for their occurrence in combination, either simultaneously or sequentially,” it says.
Tokyo Electric Power Co. was “not fully prepared for the multiunit loss of power and the loss of cooling caused by the tsunami.”
“Operators had therefore not received appropriate training and had not taken part in relevant severe accident exercises, and the equipment available to them was not adequate in the degraded plant conditions,” the report says.
Furthermore, the report argues that “it was not fully clear which organizations had the responsibility and authority to issue binding instructions on how to respond to safety issues without delay.”
It points to a lack of “coordinated arrangements for responding to a nuclear emergency and a natural disaster occurring simultaneously.”
On the accident’s effects on human health, the Vienna-based IAEA said that thyroid cancer in children is “the most likely health effect.”
However, it adds that “because the reported thyroid doses attributable to the accident were generally low, an increase in childhood thyroid cancer attributable to the accident is unlikely.”
Still, the report notes that uncertainties remain “concerning the thyroid equivalent doses incurred by children immediately after the accident.”
As for the return home of people who have been evacuated following the accident, the IAEA stressed the need to consider “factors such as the restoration of infrastructure, and the viability and sustainable economic activity of the community.”
The long-term goal of post-accident recovery is to re-establish an acceptable basis for a fully functioning society in areas affected by the nuclear crisis, the report notes.
“Communication with the public on recovery activities is essential to build trust,” it says. For effective communication, “it is necessary for experts to understand the information needs of the affected population and to provide understandable information through relevant means.”
15 Comments on "Assumption of safety behind Fukushima debacle"
onlooker on Tue, 1st Sep 2015 9:57 am
Tell me how Japan and Tepco would assume safety based on placing these nuclear reactors next to the shore and based on the fact that Japan is located in a seismic active zone. Kind of like when Condelizza Rice said something to the effect of how could we have know that someone would utilize planes to crash into high rise buildings. haha, these people in power are getting more hilarious by the day.
penury on Tue, 1st Sep 2015 10:00 am
CYA by the BS artists. Trust us, its for the children.
longtimber on Tue, 1st Sep 2015 2:05 pm
The Facility was doomed by the Earthquake and Tsunami , but it was power failure that caused the Level 7 situation. http://www-ns.iaea.org/tech-areas/emergency/ines.asp
Makati1 on Tue, 1st Sep 2015 8:22 pm
Onlooker, you will likely doubt this, but a few months before 9/11, I was driving into NYC with some friends and made the comment about how those skyscrapers would be a great target for terrorist planes. When 9/11 happened, I wished that I had recorded that comment. But I am glad I didn’t. I would probably be in some CIA black hole by now, for life.
TEPCO is only the beginning of the end.
onlooker on Tue, 1st Sep 2015 9:16 pm
Yes Mak, even a precocious child could have foreseen this possibility. Such are the ever widening gap between reality and the elites desire to define it. So Mak I do not doubt it. Just like I do not doubt 911 was an inside job.
Makati1 on Tue, 1st Sep 2015 11:37 pm
onlooker, it was obvious when I watched the towers come down that day, that it was an engineered event. Planes could not accomplish what happened. My career was in construction and I watched a number of controlled demolitions of buildings. None came down so perfectly as the twin towers and number 7. At best, the top, above the crashes, would have tilted over and come down outside the three building footprints, taking a lot of other buildings, and people, with them.
And how can 4 huge commercial planes be hijacked and flown for over 1/2 hour in the tightest security area in the US without military intervention? Only by deliberate orders from the top for the military to stand down.
9/11 was needed to get the sheeple to go to war. I would not be surprised to watch another, worse event happen to get them in the mood for WW3. We shall see.
Kenz300 on Wed, 2nd Sep 2015 7:29 am
The nuclear industry has a good propaganda machine spouting out articles about their safety.
Just like the old “too cheap to meter” propaganda…. it was all a lie…….
There are safer, cleaner and cheaper ways to generate electricity.
BobInget on Wed, 2nd Sep 2015 10:35 am
Breaking;
WASHINGTON — A nuclear deal between Iran and six world powers that promises to fundamentally alter the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East and beyond will not die in the U.S. Congress.
On Wednesday, Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) announced that she would support the agreement, becoming the 34th member of the Senate to do so. In offering her backing, Mikulski, who is retiring in 2016, assured that President Barack Obama will dodge a Republican-led effort to kill the deal. Although a resolution of disapproval may still pass the chamber, the White House now has the necessary support to sustain a presidential veto of said resolution.
“No deal is perfect, especially one negotiated with the Iranian regime. I have concluded that this Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is the best option available to block Iran from having a nuclear bomb,” Mikulski said in a statement. “For these reasons, I will vote in favor of this deal. However, Congress must also reaffirm our commitment to the safety and security of Israel.”
dubya on Wed, 2nd Sep 2015 5:26 pm
BobIn – It does seem curious that our sworn enemies since 1984 now deserve our nuclear technology, so they can build giant nuclear waste generators in the sunny desert,
Sun. Sand. Aren’t those the two main requirements for solar panels? .
And Mak, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head, so to speak. Maybe 9/11 was not a government conspiracy, but organized by the NY Real Estate developers to free up land in the city centre.
SilentRunning on Wed, 2nd Sep 2015 8:00 pm
Had the emergency generators & fuel tanks been located 10 feet higher, the reactors would not have melted down.
Losing cooling immediately after a SCRAM event is a VERY BAD thing to happen, as everybody now knows.
apneaman on Wed, 2nd Sep 2015 8:36 pm
Nuclear Darkness
http://www.nucleardarkness.org/index2.php
Kenz300 on Thu, 3rd Sep 2015 10:00 am
Wind and solar are the future……..safer, cleaner and cheaper….
Makati1 on Thu, 3rd Sep 2015 8:25 pm
Kenz, dreams are cheap. Enjoy yours.
Makati1 on Thu, 3rd Sep 2015 8:27 pm
Kenz, maybe you were referring to solar power making plants grow and not the electrical use. And maybe the windmills will be the kind that pump water and not make electric. If so, I apologize.
Kenz300 on Fri, 4th Sep 2015 9:22 am
The world is in transition away from fossil fuels and nuclear energy. Safer, cheaper and cleaner forms of energy are growing in use around the world.
World Moves Toward 100 Percent Renewable Energy – First Electricity, Then Heating/Cooling, and Finally Transportation – Renewable Energy World
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2015/07/world-moves-toward-100-percent-renewable-energy-first-electricity-then-heating-cooling-and-finally-transportation.html