4 ms·

Maybe my memory of the event is faulty or maybe the concerns were exaggerated at the time, but I'm fairly sure at least one of the buildings exploded due to hyd

Maybe my memory of the event is faulty or maybe the concerns were exaggerated at the time, but I'm fairly sure at least one of the buildings exploded due to hydrogen build up. Which isn't reassuring when it happens to a building housing radioactive material. Particularly when the safety measures were demonstrably insufficient. Sure it's easy to conclude things may have been safe in hindsight, but you can't base decisions on hindsight. Similarly I've never heard anyone argue that we shouldn't take such stringent safety measures around unexploded ordnance, even though I've never heard of any occasion where evacuating the surrounding area was necessary in hindsight.

russdill 9y ago
Exactly. In hindsight, it's clear it wasn't going to turn into a radiation release worse than Chernobyl. But at the time of the evacuation, not enough was known. With so many unknowns, it would be incredibly irresponsible not to evacuate. I think blaming the evacuation is wrong. You have look deeper, at the reason that an evacuation was necessary in the first place.
- mpweiher 9y ago
  > worse than Chernobyl Have you tracked the WHO assessments of the impact of Chernobyl? It turns out that there as well, the non-radiation effects (evacuation, psychological stress, etc.) far outweighed the radiation effects. > reason that an evacuation was necessary Apart from a core that was certainly necessary: hysteria, fueled by the mass media and an unscientific/unproven and almost certainly wrong model of the health risks of radiation exposure.
guscost 9y ago
It’s a little more complicated, but you’re basically right. The hydrogen buildup happened when they tried to prevent a meltdown by continually pumping water through the reactors, because the earthquake could have cracked the secondary concrete containment, allowing molten core materials to “China syndrome” their way into the groundwater. As far as I know several cores melted down anyway, and there’s no conclusive evidence that the molten cores escaped secondary containment. It would be a stretch to say that trying to prevent meltdowns was a bad decision in this case. Ironically though, pumping so much seawater through the reactors probably led to a much greater release of radiation into the spent fuel pools, which as I recall have been leaking that heavy (and impure) water into the ground and ocean.
ekianjo 9y ago
The point is that you evacuate people Temporarorily maybe, but not for YEARS. After the situation was under control most inhabitants should have been allowed and encouraged to return.
- Johnny555 9y ago
  I thought the long-term evacuation areas were determined by measured radiation exposure? http://fukushimaontheglobe.com/the_earthquake_and_the_nuclear_accident/3988.html http://fukushimaontheglobe.com/the_earthquake_and_the_nuclea... According to the Ministry of the Environment, radiation levels on the road peak at 14.7 microsieverts per hour, and average 3.5 microsieverts per hour. Officials conducted a test in which a car was driven at a speed of 40 kilometers per hour for about 42 kilometers through the no-entry zone, including the opened stretch between Futaba and Tomioka. It recorded a radiation level of 1.2 microsieverts, and very little radioactive material stuck to the car. Based on the results, the government gave the OK to reopen the 14-kilometer stretch, but only to automobiles, not bikes or pedestrians Though even in areas that have had evacuation orders lifted, residents have been (understandably) reluctant to return: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2125805-a-nuclear-ghost-town-in-japan-welcomes-back-residents-this-week/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2125805-a-nuclear-ghost...
- contravariant 9y ago
  Well maybe, but then the part that should be criticised is not the evacuation itself but the recovery efforts. Indeed it looks like the recovery is not going as well as it could. However it's a bit weird to phrase it as if they are at fault for even evacuating in the first place.
- Grue3 9y ago
  Interestingly, they planned to lift the evacuation order like 5 years ago for a large part of the zone. But the local government asked to postpone it by 4 years so that there is time to rebuild the infrastructure, which was completely washed away by tsunami. Regardless of all the nuclear stuff, people would've been living in absolutely terrible conditions with no electricity, water, transport, convenience stores, schools, hospitals and so on. And now they have all of this, but people are still slow to return. There's a lot of interesting stuff being built in the area though (J-Village, etc), so maybe they will eventually.
Iv 9y ago
Most of the discussion I have seen focus on the evacuation of people in an hospital who predictably suffered from it with some of them dying IIRC. Thing is, can we ask medical personal to stay? It causes a cascade of hard questions.
topspin 9y ago
"I'm fairly sure at least one of the buildings exploded due to hydrogen build up" There were four explosions. The no. 1 and 3 buildings exploded quite visibly and video of both events is readily available. The no. 2 reactor suppression pool exploded and damaged the suppression pool. The no. 4 reactor also experienced an explosion; this event was initially believed to be related to the no. 4 spent fuel pool, but was later attributed to accumulated hydrogen from the no. 3 reactor.

russdill 9y ago

Exactly. In hindsight, it's clear it wasn't going to turn into a radiation release worse than Chernobyl. But at the time of the evacuation, not enough was known. With so many unknowns, it would be incredibly irresponsible not to evacuate. I think blaming the evacuation is wrong. You have look deeper, at the reason that an evacuation was necessary in the first place.

mpweiher 9y ago
> worse than Chernobyl Have you tracked the WHO assessments of the impact of Chernobyl? It turns out that there as well, the non-radiation effects (evacuation, psychological stress, etc.) far outweighed the radiation effects. > reason that an evacuation was necessary Apart from a core that was certainly necessary: hysteria, fueled by the mass media and an unscientific/unproven and almost certainly wrong model of the health risks of radiation exposure.

guscost 9y ago

It’s a little more complicated, but you’re basically right. The hydrogen buildup happened when they tried to prevent a meltdown by continually pumping water through the reactors, because the earthquake could have cracked the secondary concrete containment, allowing molten core materials to “China syndrome” their way into the groundwater. As far as I know several cores melted down anyway, and there’s no conclusive evidence that the molten cores escaped secondary containment. It would be a stretch to say that trying to prevent meltdowns was a bad decision in this case. Ironically though, pumping so much seawater through the reactors probably led to a much greater release of radiation into the spent fuel pools, which as I recall have been leaking that heavy (and impure) water into the ground and ocean.

ekianjo 9y ago

The point is that you evacuate people Temporarorily maybe, but not for YEARS. After the situation was under control most inhabitants should have been allowed and encouraged to return.

Johnny555 9y ago
I thought the long-term evacuation areas were determined by measured radiation exposure? http://fukushimaontheglobe.com/the_earthquake_and_the_nuclear_accident/3988.html http://fukushimaontheglobe.com/the_earthquake_and_the_nuclea... According to the Ministry of the Environment, radiation levels on the road peak at 14.7 microsieverts per hour, and average 3.5 microsieverts per hour. Officials conducted a test in which a car was driven at a speed of 40 kilometers per hour for about 42 kilometers through the no-entry zone, including the opened stretch between Futaba and Tomioka. It recorded a radiation level of 1.2 microsieverts, and very little radioactive material stuck to the car. Based on the results, the government gave the OK to reopen the 14-kilometer stretch, but only to automobiles, not bikes or pedestrians Though even in areas that have had evacuation orders lifted, residents have been (understandably) reluctant to return: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2125805-a-nuclear-ghost-town-in-japan-welcomes-back-residents-this-week/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2125805-a-nuclear-ghost...
contravariant 9y ago
Well maybe, but then the part that should be criticised is not the evacuation itself but the recovery efforts. Indeed it looks like the recovery is not going as well as it could. However it's a bit weird to phrase it as if they are at fault for even evacuating in the first place.
Grue3 9y ago
Interestingly, they planned to lift the evacuation order like 5 years ago for a large part of the zone. But the local government asked to postpone it by 4 years so that there is time to rebuild the infrastructure, which was completely washed away by tsunami. Regardless of all the nuclear stuff, people would've been living in absolutely terrible conditions with no electricity, water, transport, convenience stores, schools, hospitals and so on. And now they have all of this, but people are still slow to return. There's a lot of interesting stuff being built in the area though (J-Village, etc), so maybe they will eventually.

Iv 9y ago

Most of the discussion I have seen focus on the evacuation of people in an hospital who predictably suffered from it with some of them dying IIRC. Thing is, can we ask medical personal to stay? It causes a cascade of hard questions.

topspin 9y ago

"I'm fairly sure at least one of the buildings exploded due to hydrogen build up" There were four explosions. The no. 1 and 3 buildings exploded quite visibly and video of both events is readily available. The no. 2 reactor suppression pool exploded and damaged the suppression pool. The no. 4 reactor also experienced an explosion; this event was initially believed to be related to the no. 4 spent fuel pool, but was later attributed to accumulated hydrogen from the no. 3 reactor.