The meltdowns at three nuclear plants at Fukushima, Japan almost three years ago were an economic disaster, but were these plants inherently unsafe? Did the Fukushima designs provide adequate safety during extreme circumstances?
The magnitude 9 earthquake that hit Japan in 2011 was its largest ever. However it was the enormous tsunamis that led to meltdowns. At Fukushima the spent fuel pools never leaked water in spite of the earthquake, its aftershocks, and tsunamis. Even Fukushima’s emergency power systems initially survived the earthquake, only to be soon destroyed by the tsunamis.
The nuclear plants at Fukushima were in an extreme situation. The electric grid and the emergency power systems were knocked out, leaving operators in a blackout condition. Tsunamis flooded various areas and buildings. Hydrogen generated by the meltdowns was not harmlessly vented. The containment venting systems could not be quickly opened because they lacked electric power. Reactor buildings were destroyed when the hydrogen that collected there exploded, sending debris flying and further impeding plant access. Post-accident plant improvements will prevent a recurrence of this venting issue.
The earliest environmental release of radioactive material started at 13 hours and was a small percentage of the total radioactive inventory. Small and delayed releases are consistent with previous blackout studies by the Sandia Laboratory on a similar plant, where no near term radiological health effects were calculated. This was confirmed by the World Health Organization which concluded that there were no early radiological health effects and long term health effects would be too small to be detectable statistically.
Beyond the economic losses, the major losses from Fukushima were fear, not fact, driven. More than 1,100 needless excess deaths came from over-evacuating and long term sheltering. Japan, Germany, and California, all with reductions in nuclear electricity, are burning more fossil fuels. Meanwhile, China, Russia, and South Korea strengthen their economic futures selling and servicing new nuclear plants worldwide. Misunderstanding the full story of Fukushima is a profound mistake.
Did the Fukushima designs provide adequate safety during extreme circumstances? How should our understanding, or misunderstanding, of Fukushima impact our approach to nuclear power?
That’s a nice re-invention of ti situation, but sadly not true. Aside from billions of dollars worth of property losses and loss of future economic activity, the health issue is… Read more »
The direct questions posed here are whether the designs of the reactors at Fukushima were adequate, and how our approach to nuclear power is impacted by a correct or incorrect… Read more »
Robert, Good comments. Just one question. Germany’s plan to build more coal plants. I agree the closure of nuclear probably did not justify the return of coal. I have been led to believe… Read more »
Jack, My take on the German situation is that there is now a struggle to determine the exact future path of the electricity system. The large utilities see themselves losing… Read more »
When nuclear power plants are evaluated for safety they are only evaluated from a mechanical risk and site risk standpoint. We have been assured that this process should allow accidents… Read more »
One could make a case that the Fukushima meltdowns would never have occurred were it not for the fear and safety paranoia that were allowed to develop around the subject… Read more »
Mr. Smith, A few comments in response to your discussion re Fukushima, and nuclear plant safety evaluation in general. First of all, I would like to know who… Read more »
I can’t claim to be an authority on nuclear reactor safety or the health effects of various levels of radiation exposure. I do follow those issues as they surface in… Read more »
The chart won’t load. Please refer to the chart in this link! Part of the problem is that the nuclear industry has influenced the Government to ignore well-known data in… Read more »
Suppose we say that the risk of operating one plant would be expected to be one in ten-thousand years. That sounds pretty good until you remember that we have more… Read more »
A number of comments were received on my discussion piece on whether our understanding of the Fukushima accident is backwards. In order to respond to these comments comprehensively, a second… Read more »
This is a thoughtful and informative debate. Some of my responses: Broadly, I sympathize with Specter’s view. The significance of the Fukushima disaster has been misunderstood, exaggerated in some ways,… Read more »
I think that Dr. Perelman has presented many valuable points. The issue of biomagnification has come up in earlier comments, so I will try to address it here. First, biomagnification… Read more »