General Question

mattbrowne's avatar

Why was the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant built to withstand an earthquake of 8.2 magnitude and 5.7 meters (19 ft) tsunamis?

Asked by mattbrowne (31732points) March 31st, 2011

“In 1896 many villages along the Japanese coast of Sanriku were celebrating the return of the soldiers from the war against China, when an earthquake of magnitude 8.5 occurred nearly 145 kilometers offshore of Honshu. The direct effects of the five minutes long quake were of minor entity, the epicenter was distant enough to reduce catastrophic movements on the main island and earthquakes were nothing unusual in this region. However 35 minutes after the earthquake the most devastating tsunami experienced until then in modern Japan hit the coast, one of the subsequent waves reached a height of over 30 meters (98 feet). More than 26,000 people were killed and 9.000 buildings destroyed.

In 1933 another very strong tsunami hit the Japanese coast of Sanriku. The earthquake of magnitude 8.4 occurred on March 3rd. This time also the quake caused heavy damage and landslides, it was then followed by a 21 meter (69 feet) high tsunami.”

http://historyofgeology.blogspot.com/2011/03/historic-tsunamis-in-japan.html

What is the exact reason the nuclear power plant designers used 8.2 as an earthquake limit? And 19 feet as the tsunami limit? Far more dangerous events in recent history were well known.

Now get this: In 2005 the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEO) issued a warning asking engineers to “re-examine the potential dangers to nuclear power plants in the wake of the catastrophic earthquake that struck the Indian Ocean in December 2004, triggering a massive tsunami.”

“India’s Kalpakkam nuclear power plant withstood the giant waves, which engulfed its small township, home to India´s center for atomic research. Battered but safe, the plant shut down automatically after detectors tripped it as the water level rose. There was no release of radioactivity. The reactor was restarted 1 January 2005, six days after the catastrophic waves struck India´s east coast.

“There are scores of nuclear power plants operating in coastal areas and some of these may need to take a renewed look at this external hazard,” IAEA Director of Nuclear Power, Mr. Akira Omoto said. “It is also true for plants presently under construction.” It is common for nuclear power plants to be built in coastal areas, drawing the seawater to cool the reactor.

Specialists from around the world will scrutinize the potential impact of natural disasters on nuclear reactors, at the IAEA organized International Workshop on External Flooding Hazards at Nuclear Power Plant Sites.”

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2005/tsunami.html

And what happened in Fukushima, Japan?

Answer: Nothing.

Tepco even tried to cover up existing problems leading to a huge scandal in Japan.

Given the Japanese history and the 2004 tsunami experience, I think Tepco’s behavior (and that of the Japanese government) was reckless to say the least. That’s gross negligence. Does anyone disagree? In the US people would file billion-dollar law suits, right?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

9 Answers

IchtheosaurusRex's avatar

I don’t disagree that Tepco’s actions were reckless. It’s too early to start thinking about what the lawsuits might be. Radiation monitors in suburban Chicago, where I live, picked up elevated levels of iodine-131 a couple of days ago. We’ve been told they’re “safe,” but I remember what they told us about the tests at Bikini Atoll in the early 1950s, too. Then Isaac Asimov and, later, Linus Pauling mentioned something about carbon-14 from the tests and everybody went “oops!”

I’m not worried about the lawsuits. I’m worried about the “oops!”

mattbrowne's avatar

There Earth’s atmosphere does dilute iodine-131. It’s a big atmosphere out there. And modern instruments are extremely sensitive. Chicago is safe at this point in time. It’s more dangerous to board an airplane and fly at high altitudes.

Another matter is imported sushi. This needs to be checked.

I don’t understand why you think that Tepco’s actions were not reckless. Why it was okay to ignore IAEO recommendations in early 2005 after the Indian Ocean tsunami on December 26, 2004.

bea2345's avatar

Japan evidently has its share of smart-men, the kind of people who cut corners here and there, who figure a safety margin of 1% could be lessened to .75% without accidents – and who have the ears of the people who work in the planning department of government. Add to that: everywhere, the good planners and engineers do not work in government but in the private sector. Ever since the disaster with the oil well in the Gulf of Mexico, I have been having doubts about BP Trinidad and Tobago.

Dr_Dredd's avatar

@mattbrowne I didn’t even think about sushi. Damn, I may have to cut back on my habit for a while.

jerv's avatar

Engineers and bean-counters often have different ideas of how things should be done, and those in charge often side with the bean-counters. Remember the Challenger explosion? The engineers said that the cold weather may have compromised some of the seals and that they shouldn’t launch. They were ignored because the suits didn’t want to delay the launch again (and there were probably some financial reasons for that too) and look what happened.

Considering the high stakes and the possible consequences of a nuclear incident, they should have over-engineered the piss out of the reactors. As it stands, I am impressed that it held up this well despite being subject to stress beyond what it was designed for, but that is no excuse for not designing it to withstand the sort of disasters that have struck in recent history.

Unfortunately, engineering costs money, and good engineering takes more while actually building and maintaining something that is designed well tends to reduce profit margins. I mean, we all know that profits are more important than people or the environment.

I don’t see this as a total, unmitigated catastrophe like Chernobyl, but it is a serious accident nonetheless, and I hope it serves as a wake-up call to the nuclear industry. Those who don’t learn from history are condemned to repeat it, and I think I speak for everyone when I say that I do not want to repeat this piece of history.

mattbrowne's avatar

Yes, today (April 4, 2011) the Chernobyl disaster is still worse than Fukushima, but this could change.

As mentioned in the other thread: Tepco is giving nuclear power undeservedly worse reputation. Far worse than necessary. Let’s use airlines as a comparison. Flying is risky, but it’s a risk most people are willing to take (like driving cars which is even riskier). But most worldclass airlines are doing everything to minimize this risk. Pilots get extra training to handle difficult airports for example.

Yet there are black sheep and they are being blacklisted in Europe and North America (which means they can’t use any of our airports). We can’t allow black sheep to transport unsuspecting passengers. We want to protect our people. The Pacific Ring of Fire and nuclear power plants there deserve extra attention.

Tepco is a black sheep. They have cheated and lied over years long before the accident (the Japanese government being far too nice to them). They have ignored IAEO warnings about tsunamis. And the Japanese population has let them. Protests don’t seem to be part of their culture.

‘Dr Masashi Goto criticised his country’s record on nuclear safety: “We have the government commission overseeing nuclear safety standards and in my opinion they are not doing their job,” he told ABC correspondent Eric Campbell. Dr Goto alleges that in Japan’s nuclear industry profits take precedence over safety standards.

“No-one says it officially or openly. When setting standards for future earthquakes, the thought is of money – how much is it going to cost?” he said. “This underlies the government’s decision making. They are thinking the costs could have a bad repercussion on the economy.” ’

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/21/3168926.htm

NOBU's avatar

To the World, From Fukushima, Japan

I live in Fukushima-City, Fukushima where is 50 km from Fukushima-Daiichi Nuclear Plant. After the explosion, we have spent One Month and many people, who have no money to escape, have lived with toil and tears. Also, we are very scared because more terrible accident waiting to happen, like Chain Reaction and hydrovolcanic explosion.
Why we are scared is that TEPCO and the government is not working to help our life and to combat environmental pollution. They are only suppressing information about the situation of the Fukushima-Daiichi Plant. Even the prime minister of Japan, Naoto Kan, say nothing to us. Additionaly, people who lives in Tokyo, capital city of Japan, does not have demonstration against this serious situation, so people living in Fukushima don’t know what to do.
The environmental pollution effects our jobs since there are endless rumors about radioactivity. if this goes on, we will run out of energy and die.

Please HELP US.

Nobuhiro Miyagi

960–8061 Satsuki-cho, Fukushima-city, Fukushima, Japan.
nobuclare@gmail.com

mattbrowne's avatar

Welcome to Fluther @NOBU !

I’m really sorry and I think the whole world wants to help. What kind of help do you need most? What can we do?

bea2345's avatar

There is a pressure group at avaaz.org – it runs online protest campaigns. I seem to recall one that involved sending e-mails to the Iranian government through one of its ambassadors, to stop the proposed execution of a woman for adultery. Perhaps @NOBU, you could visit that site and interest the group? I would be happy to send my share of e-mails.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther