Fukushima I

[[File:Fukushima I by Digital Globe.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Oh, no!]]{{Nuclear}}
'''Fukushima I''' ('''Fukushima Daiichi''' in Japanese) is a [[nuclear power]] plant in [[Japan]], consisting of six [[Nuclear power#Light water reactor|light water boiling water]] reactors. On 11 March 2011 it was near the epicenter of an 9.0 magnitude earthquake and the accompanying tsunami. The plant suffered massive damage, most notably to the diesel generator, fuel tanks and power lines that supplied emergency cooling to the reactors. The diesel generators were, for some reason, situated only just above sea level; this was the site's fatal flaw. If not for that location, the incident might never have happened.

When flooding from the tsunami shut down the diesel generators, reactors 1-3 began heating up. The only option available for cooling the reactors off was to flood them with some of the sea [[water]] that now surrounded the building -- but that much [[salt]] water would have permanently destroyed the reactors. Not wanting to lose their investment unless they absolutely had to, the owners of the plant refused to flood the reactors with salt water until the government ordered them to, by which time it was too late.

Of the six reactors, three of them experienced a [[core meltdown]] (a technical term not to be confused with the iconic [[Nuclear war|mushroom cloud]]<ref>[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-energy-primer/ What Happens During a Nuclear Meltdown?], ''Scientific American''</ref>) and Units 1, 3 and 4 were the sites of [[hydrogen]] explosions that destroyed the roofs of the reactor buildings. Units 5 and 6 were not operational at the time of the accident, but their spent fuel pools began to overheat due to the loss of water from the cooling system.

==Relative scale==
On the {{wpl|International Nuclear Event Scale|International Nuclear Event Scale,}} the Fukishima incident ranks as a 7, up there with [[Chernobyl]], but the spread of [[radioactive]] substances isn't as pronounced. Unlike Chernobyl, there was no gigantic fire pushing particles into the atmosphere, and the wind was blowing towards the sea most of the time. There was no radiological impact outside of Japan (despite hysterical claims of baby deaths on the [[US]] west coast derived by [[cherry-picking]] random variations to manufacture a trend).<ref>[http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/06/21/are-babies-dying-in-the-pacific-northwest-due-to-fukushima-a-look-at-the-numbers/ Are Babies Dying in the Pacific Northwest Due to Fukushima? A Look at the Numbers], ''Scientific American''</ref> Health Canada put the extra radiation in [[Canada]]'s air due to Fukushima for 18 March at 0.5 nSv, compared to background levels from 20 to 1200 nSv/day depending on the region.

Aftereffects of the meltdown are still ongoing. In mid-2013, a new emergency was declared regarding leakage of radioactive water from storage tanks where it was held after being used to cool reactors, and the resulting nuclear contamination of seawater. There are concerns that Japanese authorities may have downplayed the scale of this crisis.<ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23779561 Fukushima leak is 'much worse than we were led to believe], BBC News</ref>

==Reactions (not the nuclear kind)==
Whilst this was certainly an important nuclear incident and its local impact was severe (a large area was evacuated), the response from certain areas displays [[fear of radiation|classic knee-jerk reactions]]. [[Germany]] announced plans to shut down its reactors early, closing eight of them built before 1980 immediately, even though the nuclear regulator said this was uncalled for.<ref>[http://www.dw.de/scrapping-nuclear-plants-to-cost-billions/a-17439221 Scrapping nuclear plants to cost billions], Deutsche Welle</ref> This did not go well with the utilities, which sued the government for €1.5 billion. The German Supreme Administrative Court later ruled the shutdowns unlawful in January 2014.<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/14/us-rwe-biblis-idUSBREA0D0W920140114 RWE to sue after German nuclear plant shut-down ruled illegal], Reuters</ref> Other countries are looking to imitate the Germans. Protests occurred worldwide, [[ironic]]ally resulting in more deaths than the original disaster.<ref>[http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-04-19/indian-police-kill-anti-nuclear-protester/2609632 Indian police kill anti-nuclear protester], Australian Broadcasting Corporation</ref>

Looking at it realistically, the nuclear plant was hit by one of the biggest earthquakes in recent times ''and'' a 15-meter-high tsunami. That it didn't explode, that there are no deaths attributed to radiation as of yet (there were two deaths at the plant from the tsunami and one from heart attack), and that the release of radiation was both limited and local, is testament to the robustness of even old, '70s-era nuclear reactors and their housing. Instead of asking "Why are we building dangerous nuclear power plants?" the question should be "Why the hell are we putting nuclear power plants in geologically unstable areas without making sure they can ''withstand'' the conditions they could experience there?"<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSBjEvPH2j4 You would think they would be prepared for things like this.]</ref>

The majority of the criticism for the event should be focused on the poor handling of the situation by both the Japanese government and the owner of the nuclear power plant, rather than on the entire concept of using nuclear electricity.

==Theories==
Much remains unknown about the causes of the accident, about what is happening now at the plants, about what might happen next, and about the possible health hazards to the populations living near the plants. Building [[hypothesis]] to explain the unknown is not irrational by itself, as building hypothesis is an important step of scientific research. However some of the theories that were proposed, be they emphasizing danger or safety, [[Just asking questions|seemed to be quite fragile]].

==="Unit 4 is leaning"===
In May 2011, the view that the Unit 4 reactor building was leaning in a significant, visible way was expressed by the "news" network [[RT]], using webcam pictures as purported evidence in support of that theory.<ref>[http://enenews.com/very-very-serious-reactor-no-4-leaning-in-danger-of-falling-govt-confirms-stabilization-efforts-underway-video "Very, Very Serious”: Unit No. 4 leaning, in danger of falling — Gov’t confirms stabilization efforts underway"]</ref> In the same month, [[Arnold Gundersen]] expressed the view that "Unit 4 is leaning."<ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20120314055346/http://www.fairewinds.com/content/fukushima-one-step-forward-and-four-steps-back-each-unit-challenged-new-problems "Fukushima - One Step Forward and Four Steps Back as Each Unit Challenged by New Problems"]</ref> While it is true that the Tokyo Electric Power Company reinforced the spent fuel pool supporting structure in Unit 4,<ref>[http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/images/handouts_110620_04-e.pdf Fukushima installation work of supporting structure at the bottom of Spent Fuel Pool (Completion of installation of steel support pillars)], TEPCO</ref> it was not a response to the speculated leaning of the whole building. The "Unit 4 is leaning" theory lost momentum in the subsequent months, and was forgotten after [[journalist]]s were allowed to have a close look at the Fukushima Daiichi plant in November 2011.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/world/devastation-at-japan-site-seen-up-close.html Devastation at Japan Site, Seen Up Close], ''The New York Times''</ref>

==="Radiation doesn't affect people who are smiling"===
In a lecture held on 21 March 2011 in Fukushima City, professor Shunichi Yamashita of Nagasaki University said "放射線の影響は、実はニコニコ笑ってる人には来ません,"<ref>[http://ameblo.jp/kaiken-matome/entry-10839525483.html Full transcript]</ref> which translates as "To tell you the truth, radiation doesn't affect people who are smiling." This statement sounds very bizarre out of context, but it may sound more sane in Japanese, and ''might'' have been a reference to the fact that [[Radiophobia|psychological and psychogenic]] health problems after [[Chernobyl]] were far worse than radiation-related health problems. Later, it turned out this may be the case for Fukushima.<ref>[http://www.nature.com/news/fukushima-fallout-of-fear-1.12194 Fukushima: Fallout of fear], ''Nature''</ref>

==See also==
*[[ENENews]]

==External links==
*[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/10/world/asia/masao-yoshida-nuclear-engineer-and-chief-at-fukushima-plant-dies-at-58.html RIP Masao Yoshida]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Government incompetence]]

Categories: Government incompetence