9 ms·

The "whole disaster" was actually a tsunami caused by an earthquake under the sea, and problems around the nuclear plant are just a tiny side-issue compared to

The "whole disaster" was actually a tsunami caused by an earthquake under the sea, and problems around the nuclear plant are just a tiny side-issue compared to the devastation caused by the tsunami. Perhaps the government - many successive governments - could have changed zoning, building code etc so that the disaster would have been smaller, but the nuclear element of the "whole disaster" is just a minor component.

toyg 7y ago
> the nuclear element of the "whole disaster" is just a minor component. If you consider the tsunami "the whole disaster", yes; but if we restrict the issue to the nuclear accident, the Japanese government carries a lot of responsibility. Fukushima, iirc, was an aging and creaking reactor in a somewhat dangerous location, which should have been decommissioned a long time ago. When disaster struck, official reactions were very opaque to begin with - not as bad as the Soviet ones in Chernobyl but definitely not as open as they should have been. Raising radiation thresholds, as mentioned in the article, was particularly egregious; regardless of whether it may or may not be scientifically correct, it's not the right thing to do after something like this, because the optics are (rightly) damning. So yeah, if the Japanese government had done the right thing by closing down Fukushima 10 years before the tsunami, the city would not have died as it did. That is "the whole disaster" for the area.
- roenxi 7y ago
  > Raising radiation thresholds, as mentioned in the article, was particularly egregious; regardless of whether it may or may not be scientifically correct ... I might be reading this too literally, but if it is scientifically justifiable to raise the radiation thresholds, why not do it? "The government should make decisions based on science" is a little controversial in some less-reputable quarters, but generally speaking it is a good idea. "Optics" do not take precedence when there is a risk of people are being kicked out of their homes or suffering economic losses for unscientific reasons.
  - toyg 7y ago
    > "Optics" do not take precedence when there is a risk of people are being kicked out The duty of care should follow clear priorities: health first, property second. If your priority is really to care for people's health, it's better to be on the safer side, and follow the stricter approach you have on the table. By all means raise thresholds 10 years later "because studies", but not shortly after the accident - regardless of scientific truth, it smacks of interested carelessness while handling people's health. IIRC, people had already been mostly evacuated by that point anyway, it just felt like an attempt to save money and troubles by pushing them back in their homes. Besides, by ignoring optics, they achieved the opposite effect: people distrusted the advice and are still not going back, years after. The government likely lost their trust for ever.
    - roenxi 7y ago
      > By all means raise thresholds 10 years later "because studies", but not shortly after the accident I don't speak Japanese, so there are obviously some assumptions I'm making, but ... If there are thresholds then those thresholds are being used to stop people selling products or as guidance for things like the evacuation and exclusion zones. If they are not in line with the current best knowledge, then people will be losing their livelihoods and being ejected from their homes and barred from returning for no reason. That is a crisis and should certainly prompt immediate action. Your complaint seems to be that they should have toughed it out with inappropriate regulation because that would instill a sense of confidence in government. (1) That is unfair to the people they displaced. (2) I have no way of checking how the Japanese feel about their government, but at some point we can't be that pessimistic about the public's ability to deal with reality. The truth has intrinsic value and should be supported by regulation. If a law, regulation or standard is inappropriate the government should change it promptly. If the population are being superstitious, maybe work on improving the education system. Spread some knowledge.
      - toyg 7y ago
        > Your complaint seems to be that they should have toughed it out with inappropriate regulation That regulation had in been in place for quite some time, clearly for a reason. To suddenly relax it in the middle of a crisis where such regulation could save lives at the expense of property, it's just not the right thing to do. > (1) That is unfair to the people they displaced. Are you being provocative on purpose? People had already been displaced and did not go back when they raised thresholds. The change was, in all likelihood, an attempt at making "little people" go about their lives so as to reduce the inconvenience on central government. After all, the worse it could happen was that cancer rates would go up in a few years, which someone else could deal with. That is unfair. > At some point we can't be that pessimistic about the public's ability to deal with reality. As proven by facts, you'll be optimistic at your peril. Good leadership (and hence government) is about empathy as much as it is about truth. This goes double if you've only just attempted to minimize and downplay a catastrophe, as TEPCO and Japanese authorities did right after the tsunami. How can you ask people to trust you in matters that advantage you more than them, when you've only just lied to them? > If the population are being superstitious Detecting corruption is not "superstition". This comment is downright callous towards people who lost their livelihood because of greed and incompetence by TEPCO and the Japanese government.
beders 7y ago
I'm sure for all the people developing cancer because of this 'minor component' it ain't a 'minor' component. You can rebuild houses, you can re-grow crop, but you can't clean up nuclear waste effectively. (3 Miles Island took 14 years and $1b, there are radioactive boars roaming the forests of Bavaria, hundreds of miles away from Chernobyl)
- ptaipale 7y ago
  And when some of my countrymen fled Fukushima area because of radioactivity, they came back home to Finland, where we have a higher natural background radiation level than the elevated radioactivity from which they fled. When doing so, they took an airplane, where the radiation levels are even higher (though of course only for just a few hours, but certainly everyone who flies is exposed to the risk of cancer, and for those who get a cancer, it's also not a minor component). Risks of radioactivity are blown out of all proportion when dicsussing application of nuclear power.
  - beders 7y ago
    Risks have been carefully measured and assessed for most incidents. You can read up on the numbers elsewhere. Doesn't mean you want to be living next to a nuclear power plant. And it gives no comfort to people who have their health significantly affected because of the actions or inactions of nuclear power plant operators and governments. And you are speculating on reasons of your countrymen you probably have no clue about. Did you talk to any of them ?
    - kalleboo 7y ago
      I'd rather live next to a nuclear power plant than a coal one (which is what Japan is now building to replace lost nuclear capacity)
  - v_lisivka 7y ago
    Level of radiation is useful metric, but it can be diluted when "... at average ..." is used. A cold room with one cup of boiling water in it has much lower temperature at average than sunny lagoon, but cup of boiling water can injure or even kill you, while sunny lagoon cannot.
mimixco 7y ago
No, the disaster was caused by people who had ample evidence of tsunami activity in the area and didn't design the plant to cover that eventuality. Turkey Point near Miami is prone to hurricanes and has several of the same design problems.
- hvidgaard 7y ago
  Wasn't it the size of the tsunami that was the problem? It was designed for a smaller scale tsunami, but that's not what happened, thus the main power backup was destroyed. That said, if memory serves me correct, they should have ensured proper backup power a long time before the tsunami, so a timely shutdown and following cooldown could happen without problems.
  - gargravarr 7y ago
    It was designed for a smaller tsunami, yes, but extensive studies of the area published before construction began suggested that a tsunami of the 2011 kind was possible, and the design was inadequate. The sea wall, for example, should have been twice as tall. TEPCO ignored the studies. They also took General Electric at their word that they should install all the electrical switchgear in the reactor basements (except unit 6), despite this being the lowest point of the plant, and despite previous warnings about flooding risks (and actual flooding occurring during heavy storms predicting exactly what eventually happened). The government oversight was woefully inadequate and basically rubber-stamped whatever TEPCO said was 'acceptable'. For a country so dependent on nuclear energy, the lack of regulation and deferring to the for-profit company has led to such a backlash that all Japan's nuclear plants were shut down and remain so. By ignoring warnings, experts and everything else in the pursuit of profit, TEPCO single-handedly killed the entire Japanese nuclear industry.
hrktb 7y ago
This is giving too much credit to the government who handled almost every aspect the worst way possible: - the plant had designs flaws and shortcuts taken that worsened the effect of the tsunami - government media (NHK) heavily downplayed the issue while the reactor was melting, independent journalists got shutdown, actual information only leaked through anonymous sources - even after the anonymous info was proven true, there were still active campaigns to downplay the events and just put a seal on any further information leak - contaminated soil and debris got shipped around the country with vibrant "solidarity above all" chants to shutdown critics - media campaign were launched to eat Fukushima fruits and vegetable - yakuza got involved in sourcing the contractors that do the cleanup - health damage is/was massively downplayed to remove any institutional responsibility I know a lot of that is just "business as usual", but if we're asking if former residents of Fukushima are wrong to distrust the government, I think there's a lot to take into account.
- mikekchar 7y ago
  > - government media (NHK) heavily downplayed the issue while the reactor was melting, independent journalists got shutdown, actual information only leaked through anonymous sources I'm just going to pick this one thing because I was in Japan at the time and watched the NHK broadcasts. The thing I have always found frustrating is that I believe the information reported by the western media was wrong. At the time NHK (and every channel, actually) literally turned their entire schedule into detailed descriptions of what was going on at Fukushima. In fact, advertising on the commercial channels was dominated by AC Japan [1] because it was considered unseemly to advertise during these presentations. Specifically I remember seeing models showing how the reactors worked and I remember TEPCO officials saying, "The data is consistent with a meltdown, but we can not confirm that at this time". This was somehow, incredibly, reported as "There has not been a meltdown" by the western media. I kept telling expats in the area that the information they were getting in Western media was wrong, but nobody would listen to me. Everyone I spoke to in Japanese understood extremely well what the situation was. Everyone I spoke to in English was panicking because the information they were getting was absolutely wonky. I eventually looked into it and almost all of the reports for the western media was coming from a group of reporters working for Reuters. I do not believe they are Reuters staff, but were working on contract. These reports were picked up by everybody and published without changes. I wish I'd made better notes because now so long after the fact, it's hard to show what happened. However, if you go into the old revisions on Wikipedia, you can see for yourself. At the time, the page was being updated several times a day with links to new articles being written. Check the bylines on those articles and you will see that they are all written by the same people. The IAEA used to have a page with all of the statements from TEPCO (in Japanese). You could, at the time, cross reference those with the news releases out of Reuters and show that the Reuters news releases were incorrect. I have not been able to find that page for about 5 years now, which is really frustrating. It will probably seem incredibly implausible to you, as I know you are very confident of what you are saying. However, I think if you actually talk to most Japanese people, they do not doubt the government with respect to the way Fukushima was handled the way you say they do. Or at least that is my experience. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_Council_Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_Council_Japan

toyg 7y ago

> the nuclear element of the "whole disaster" is just a minor component. If you consider the tsunami "the whole disaster", yes; but if we restrict the issue to the nuclear accident, the Japanese government carries a lot of responsibility. Fukushima, iirc, was an aging and creaking reactor in a somewhat dangerous location, which should have been decommissioned a long time ago. When disaster struck, official reactions were very opaque to begin with - not as bad as the Soviet ones in Chernobyl but definitely not as open as they should have been. Raising radiation thresholds, as mentioned in the article, was particularly egregious; regardless of whether it may or may not be scientifically correct, it's not the right thing to do after something like this, because the optics are (rightly) damning. So yeah, if the Japanese government had done the right thing by closing down Fukushima 10 years before the tsunami, the city would not have died as it did. That is "the whole disaster" for the area.

roenxi 7y ago
> Raising radiation thresholds, as mentioned in the article, was particularly egregious; regardless of whether it may or may not be scientifically correct ... I might be reading this too literally, but if it is scientifically justifiable to raise the radiation thresholds, why not do it? "The government should make decisions based on science" is a little controversial in some less-reputable quarters, but generally speaking it is a good idea. "Optics" do not take precedence when there is a risk of people are being kicked out of their homes or suffering economic losses for unscientific reasons.
- toyg 7y ago
  > "Optics" do not take precedence when there is a risk of people are being kicked out The duty of care should follow clear priorities: health first, property second. If your priority is really to care for people's health, it's better to be on the safer side, and follow the stricter approach you have on the table. By all means raise thresholds 10 years later "because studies", but not shortly after the accident - regardless of scientific truth, it smacks of interested carelessness while handling people's health. IIRC, people had already been mostly evacuated by that point anyway, it just felt like an attempt to save money and troubles by pushing them back in their homes. Besides, by ignoring optics, they achieved the opposite effect: people distrusted the advice and are still not going back, years after. The government likely lost their trust for ever.
  - roenxi 7y ago
    > By all means raise thresholds 10 years later "because studies", but not shortly after the accident I don't speak Japanese, so there are obviously some assumptions I'm making, but ... If there are thresholds then those thresholds are being used to stop people selling products or as guidance for things like the evacuation and exclusion zones. If they are not in line with the current best knowledge, then people will be losing their livelihoods and being ejected from their homes and barred from returning for no reason. That is a crisis and should certainly prompt immediate action. Your complaint seems to be that they should have toughed it out with inappropriate regulation because that would instill a sense of confidence in government. (1) That is unfair to the people they displaced. (2) I have no way of checking how the Japanese feel about their government, but at some point we can't be that pessimistic about the public's ability to deal with reality. The truth has intrinsic value and should be supported by regulation. If a law, regulation or standard is inappropriate the government should change it promptly. If the population are being superstitious, maybe work on improving the education system. Spread some knowledge.
    - toyg 7y ago
      > Your complaint seems to be that they should have toughed it out with inappropriate regulation That regulation had in been in place for quite some time, clearly for a reason. To suddenly relax it in the middle of a crisis where such regulation could save lives at the expense of property, it's just not the right thing to do. > (1) That is unfair to the people they displaced. Are you being provocative on purpose? People had already been displaced and did not go back when they raised thresholds. The change was, in all likelihood, an attempt at making "little people" go about their lives so as to reduce the inconvenience on central government. After all, the worse it could happen was that cancer rates would go up in a few years, which someone else could deal with. That is unfair. > At some point we can't be that pessimistic about the public's ability to deal with reality. As proven by facts, you'll be optimistic at your peril. Good leadership (and hence government) is about empathy as much as it is about truth. This goes double if you've only just attempted to minimize and downplay a catastrophe, as TEPCO and Japanese authorities did right after the tsunami. How can you ask people to trust you in matters that advantage you more than them, when you've only just lied to them? > If the population are being superstitious Detecting corruption is not "superstition". This comment is downright callous towards people who lost their livelihood because of greed and incompetence by TEPCO and the Japanese government.

beders 7y ago

I'm sure for all the people developing cancer because of this 'minor component' it ain't a 'minor' component. You can rebuild houses, you can re-grow crop, but you can't clean up nuclear waste effectively. (3 Miles Island took 14 years and $1b, there are radioactive boars roaming the forests of Bavaria, hundreds of miles away from Chernobyl)

ptaipale 7y ago
And when some of my countrymen fled Fukushima area because of radioactivity, they came back home to Finland, where we have a higher natural background radiation level than the elevated radioactivity from which they fled. When doing so, they took an airplane, where the radiation levels are even higher (though of course only for just a few hours, but certainly everyone who flies is exposed to the risk of cancer, and for those who get a cancer, it's also not a minor component). Risks of radioactivity are blown out of all proportion when dicsussing application of nuclear power.
- beders 7y ago
  Risks have been carefully measured and assessed for most incidents. You can read up on the numbers elsewhere. Doesn't mean you want to be living next to a nuclear power plant. And it gives no comfort to people who have their health significantly affected because of the actions or inactions of nuclear power plant operators and governments. And you are speculating on reasons of your countrymen you probably have no clue about. Did you talk to any of them ?
  - kalleboo 7y ago
    I'd rather live next to a nuclear power plant than a coal one (which is what Japan is now building to replace lost nuclear capacity)
- v_lisivka 7y ago
  Level of radiation is useful metric, but it can be diluted when "... at average ..." is used. A cold room with one cup of boiling water in it has much lower temperature at average than sunny lagoon, but cup of boiling water can injure or even kill you, while sunny lagoon cannot.

mimixco 7y ago

No, the disaster was caused by people who had ample evidence of tsunami activity in the area and didn't design the plant to cover that eventuality. Turkey Point near Miami is prone to hurricanes and has several of the same design problems.

hvidgaard 7y ago
Wasn't it the size of the tsunami that was the problem? It was designed for a smaller scale tsunami, but that's not what happened, thus the main power backup was destroyed. That said, if memory serves me correct, they should have ensured proper backup power a long time before the tsunami, so a timely shutdown and following cooldown could happen without problems.
- gargravarr 7y ago
  It was designed for a smaller tsunami, yes, but extensive studies of the area published before construction began suggested that a tsunami of the 2011 kind was possible, and the design was inadequate. The sea wall, for example, should have been twice as tall. TEPCO ignored the studies. They also took General Electric at their word that they should install all the electrical switchgear in the reactor basements (except unit 6), despite this being the lowest point of the plant, and despite previous warnings about flooding risks (and actual flooding occurring during heavy storms predicting exactly what eventually happened). The government oversight was woefully inadequate and basically rubber-stamped whatever TEPCO said was 'acceptable'. For a country so dependent on nuclear energy, the lack of regulation and deferring to the for-profit company has led to such a backlash that all Japan's nuclear plants were shut down and remain so. By ignoring warnings, experts and everything else in the pursuit of profit, TEPCO single-handedly killed the entire Japanese nuclear industry.

hrktb 7y ago

This is giving too much credit to the government who handled almost every aspect the worst way possible: - the plant had designs flaws and shortcuts taken that worsened the effect of the tsunami - government media (NHK) heavily downplayed the issue while the reactor was melting, independent journalists got shutdown, actual information only leaked through anonymous sources - even after the anonymous info was proven true, there were still active campaigns to downplay the events and just put a seal on any further information leak - contaminated soil and debris got shipped around the country with vibrant "solidarity above all" chants to shutdown critics - media campaign were launched to eat Fukushima fruits and vegetable - yakuza got involved in sourcing the contractors that do the cleanup - health damage is/was massively downplayed to remove any institutional responsibility I know a lot of that is just "business as usual", but if we're asking if former residents of Fukushima are wrong to distrust the government, I think there's a lot to take into account.

mikekchar 7y ago
> - government media (NHK) heavily downplayed the issue while the reactor was melting, independent journalists got shutdown, actual information only leaked through anonymous sources I'm just going to pick this one thing because I was in Japan at the time and watched the NHK broadcasts. The thing I have always found frustrating is that I believe the information reported by the western media was wrong. At the time NHK (and every channel, actually) literally turned their entire schedule into detailed descriptions of what was going on at Fukushima. In fact, advertising on the commercial channels was dominated by AC Japan [1] because it was considered unseemly to advertise during these presentations. Specifically I remember seeing models showing how the reactors worked and I remember TEPCO officials saying, "The data is consistent with a meltdown, but we can not confirm that at this time". This was somehow, incredibly, reported as "There has not been a meltdown" by the western media. I kept telling expats in the area that the information they were getting in Western media was wrong, but nobody would listen to me. Everyone I spoke to in Japanese understood extremely well what the situation was. Everyone I spoke to in English was panicking because the information they were getting was absolutely wonky. I eventually looked into it and almost all of the reports for the western media was coming from a group of reporters working for Reuters. I do not believe they are Reuters staff, but were working on contract. These reports were picked up by everybody and published without changes. I wish I'd made better notes because now so long after the fact, it's hard to show what happened. However, if you go into the old revisions on Wikipedia, you can see for yourself. At the time, the page was being updated several times a day with links to new articles being written. Check the bylines on those articles and you will see that they are all written by the same people. The IAEA used to have a page with all of the statements from TEPCO (in Japanese). You could, at the time, cross reference those with the news releases out of Reuters and show that the Reuters news releases were incorrect. I have not been able to find that page for about 5 years now, which is really frustrating. It will probably seem incredibly implausible to you, as I know you are very confident of what you are saying. However, I think if you actually talk to most Japanese people, they do not doubt the government with respect to the way Fukushima was handled the way you say they do. Or at least that is my experience. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_Council_Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_Council_Japan