Not a few members of the government panel looking into the accident at the
Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant are skeptical about Tokyo Electric Power Co.
pointing the finger of blame at an unprecedented tsunami.
"The claim that tsunami alone caused the accident is nothing but a hypothesis," said panel member Hitoshi Yoshioka, vice president at Kyushu University, who has written a book about the social history of nuclear energy.
...
the only shaking on March 11 that exceeded government anti-quake standards was the east-west shaking at the No. 2 and No. 3 reactors. All the shaking at the No. 1 reactor was within anti-quake standards. Still, the No. 1 reactor was the first where a hydrogen explosion occurred, spewing radioactive materials into the atmosphere.
For that reason, if the Hatamura panel were to take into consideration the possibility that the quake was the main cause of the Fukushima nuclear accident, that would call into question the inspection guidelines for anti-quake design that were revised in 2006 for all nuclear plants in Japan. Such doubts would make even more difficult resumption of operations at those plants.
an article by Mitsuhiko Tanaka in the September edition of Kagaku (Science) magazine, published by Iwanami Shoten. Tanaka is a former nuclear plant design engineer who was involved in the design of the pressure vessel of the No. 4 reactor at the Fukushima plant.
Tanaka's article criticized the computer simulation analysis conducted by TEPCO,[as not matching the data, which shows other kinds of failure] which was attached to the Japanese government's report submitted to the International Atomic Energy Agency. He also surmises that piping at the Fukushima plant was damaged by the quake before the tsunami struck, which led to a loss of cooling water to the reactors.
2// 7 tons of water per hour lost
http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2011/12/fukushima-i-nuke-plant-nisa-admits-to-7.html
"The claim that tsunami alone caused the accident is nothing but a hypothesis," said panel member Hitoshi Yoshioka, vice president at Kyushu University, who has written a book about the social history of nuclear energy.
...
the only shaking on March 11 that exceeded government anti-quake standards was the east-west shaking at the No. 2 and No. 3 reactors. All the shaking at the No. 1 reactor was within anti-quake standards. Still, the No. 1 reactor was the first where a hydrogen explosion occurred, spewing radioactive materials into the atmosphere.
For that reason, if the Hatamura panel were to take into consideration the possibility that the quake was the main cause of the Fukushima nuclear accident, that would call into question the inspection guidelines for anti-quake design that were revised in 2006 for all nuclear plants in Japan. Such doubts would make even more difficult resumption of operations at those plants.
an article by Mitsuhiko Tanaka in the September edition of Kagaku (Science) magazine, published by Iwanami Shoten. Tanaka is a former nuclear plant design engineer who was involved in the design of the pressure vessel of the No. 4 reactor at the Fukushima plant.
Tanaka's article criticized the computer simulation analysis conducted by TEPCO,[as not matching the data, which shows other kinds of failure] which was attached to the Japanese government's report submitted to the International Atomic Energy Agency. He also surmises that piping at the Fukushima plant was damaged by the quake before the tsunami struck, which led to a loss of cooling water to the reactors.
2// 7 tons of water per hour lost
http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2011/12/fukushima-i-nuke-plant-nisa-admits-to-7.html
Friday, December 9, 2011
#Fukushima I Nuke Plant: NISA Admits to 7 Tonnes/Hr Water Leaked from RPV?
A tweet by a Lower House Councilman Hiroshi Kawauchi (DPJ) says the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency now admits in its report that the Reactor Pressure Vessel may have been broken by the EARTHQUAKE, not tsunami. No info about which reactor.
Document from the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency. It reads "a minute damage inside the reactor from the earthquake cannot be denied". It is just surprising to me that they can call a damage that caused the loss of coolant [water] at 7 tonnes per hour "minute", but anyway they have admitted to the possibility of a damage inside the reactor.
...A curious article comes to mind. France's Le Monde reported on December 7 that the government's committee investigating the accident is about to release its interim report, and the report is going to say it is the earthquake, not tsunami as TEPCO and the government has so far insisted, that caused the damage that led to the accident
Document from the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency. It reads "a minute damage inside the reactor from the earthquake cannot be denied". It is just surprising to me that they can call a damage that caused the loss of coolant [water] at 7 tonnes per hour "minute", but anyway they have admitted to the possibility of a damage inside the reactor.
...A curious article comes to mind. France's Le Monde reported on December 7 that the government's committee investigating the accident is about to release its interim report, and the report is going to say it is the earthquake, not tsunami as TEPCO and the government has so far insisted, that caused the damage that led to the accident
Here is something much more concerning. The Tsunami also caused the subsequent failure of the Fujinuma dam. at least 8 deaths, 5 homes lost. Yet the international media ignored this.
Hydroelectric dams are far more likely to fail than nuclear power stations, and when they do, they cause many more deaths. For example:
- Worst nuclear accident: Chernobyl: 50 deaths (some assertions of a higher number, but statistically undetectable).
- Worst Hydro accident: 1975 Banquo dam failure: 171,000 deaths, 11 million homes lost.
- if (just for example) the Aswan High Dam fails, Cairo (a city of over 6 million) will be underwater within hours.
- according to BBC today, another dam failed in Brazil.
There are statistics to show that every other form of electricity generation is statistically more dangerous than nuclear power. (Someone recently demonstrated from available statistics in USA, that even domestic solar energy is more dangerous than nuclear per GW produced, based on the risk of death, falling off a single storey roof during installation.)
Sure, we need to be concerned about safety at nuclear power stations, but how about some perspective?