Fukushima 2011 - lessons were not learnt?

         The Fukushima accident was a result of a 9.0 magnitude earthquake that struck off the Eastern coast of Japan (World Nuclear Association 2015) – however it was the tsunami, that was reported to have reached 21m in height offshore and at least 12m on the point of coastal impact (Asahi Shimbun 2012), that was the main causation of the accident. The nuclear reactors on the shore were relatively resistant to the seismic action but the tsunami impact was arguably less prepared for – this was despite academic papers being produced that claimed such tsunamis were possible (Suzuki 2013 – BBC interview). The issue emerged from the Fukushima Daiichi units 1-3, where the tsunami impact caused the reactor cooling and water circulation functions to fail (World Nuclear Association 2015). This consequently led to the emergence of high pressure conditions and high-pressure hydrogen explosions (Fukurai 2012). Previous precautions had placed the seawater cooling pumps 5m above sea-level. However such precautions were made redundant by the vast magnitude of the tsunami waves that impacted the nuclear plant.

Tsunami wave height. Source: Asahi Shimbun 2012

Similar to Chernobyl there was a mass release of radionuclide material including Iodine and Caesium 134, 136 and 137 (Fukada 2013). Therefore the fear of similar health conditions such as thyroid cancer, mutations and mental illnesses were apparent. These concerns were central to the Fukushima evacuation policy – relocating people from a 20-30km radius of the nuclear reactor (FOTG 2015), with restricted access only permitted to the emergency services. This highlights another nuclear energy concern in regards to the social impacts and personal psychological stress of being removed from your home. This concern was not simply a brief issue, with evidence showing around 120,000 people were still living within “nuclear limbo” three years after the accident (Guardian 2014). Around half of the evacuees surveyed were seen to be living away from families, with a reported 68% of families claimed to have been suffering from psychosocial or physical stress (Guardian 2014). This extends the issues of nuclear beyond the publicised illnesses and deaths to the wider reaching social impacts.

Explosion of the nuclear reactors. Source: Beforeitsnews.com

However, what must be noted is that despite 19,000 deaths being caused by the tsunami devastation, no deaths have yet to be recorded from nuclear based radiation (Guardian 2011). This therefore may suggest that the risks involved are minor, that lessons had been learnt from the Chernobyl disaster. This may in part be due to the quicker and more efficient Japanese response, with evacuation of the area as mentioned – along with the circulation of potassium iodide tablets in the impacted areas (Butler 2011). These tablets insert nonradioactive iodine to the thyroid gland, which acts to prevent the cancerous threat, which is seen to be of particular concern within children (Butler 2011). However, can the safety success  be truly evaluated within such a short time period following the event? Other reports from the Nordic Probabilistic Safety Assessment claim that the disaster will cause around 600,000 premature deaths (Cazzoli 2011), based on future cancerous growths and still-born pregnancies. Such health risks are likely to arise from radioactive consumption, as radionuclide fallout contaminates vegetables for example, as well as  marine fish catches (Buesseler 2011). Therefore the apparent celebration many have in regard to the immediate safety may turn to mourning as the long term impacts become increasingly visible.

Radioactive fish?! Source: Simpsons Wiki

It is seen that just like Chernobyl, certain safety changes were stimulated following the disaster. Most notably the requirement to take into account the "worse case scenario" when planning on the level above sea level that nuclear reactors and cooling systems  are built. This is likely to induce higher costs for future nuclear plants - which along with declining global support - may limit nuclear energy production to restricted regions of the globe (MIT 2012). There is a need for the safety criteria to be further unified by global regulations, to ensure that the positives of a carbon-free fuel are not dismissed due to highly isolated incidents (MIT 2012).

Economic concerns were also paramount as was the case for Chernobyl too, for example the fact that Japan imports around 90% of its energy now following the nuclear downturn places enhanced economic stress upon the nation (BBC 2014). The increased need to import fuel has led to an increase of 10 trillion Yen in costs (Devalier 2014 – BBC interview). This has consequently had wider reaching impacts with electricity costs increasing for the Japanese population – depicting the scope of impact once again. Furthermore, Japan is now the 2^nd largest importer of coal and the 3^rd largest for oil on a global scale (Devalier 2014); this supports the belief that with a loss of nuclear it appears to be the common practice to fall back on fossil fuels (Guardian 2011). This therefore counters any climatic emission progressions that had been made and further adds to the growing concerns of the environment. Further economic issues relate to local economies with the evacuations causing business loss as well as agricultural declines (Yasunari 2011), with large scale excavations of radioactive topsoil (BBC 2013). The local town of Miyagi for example had much land nearing or exceeding the Cs-137 limits allowed under Food Sanitation Laws (Yasunari 2011).

Fukushima evacuation zone. Source: BBC 2011

Fukushima was a result of a natural disaster, therefore can the accident that revolved around the nuclear plant truly be utilised as a case study to oppose nuclear energy. I believe it can, the complacency of the government cannot be underestimated, dismissing research papers that highlighted the tsunami potential and the inadequate planning by placing such a volatile and dangerous factory in a seismic zone cannot be ignored. Therefore it can be defined as a human disaster which caused socioeconomic, environmental and health damage. The fear that emerges is that Japan has the third highest GDP in the world (World Bank 2014), it has the funds and the potential to take every safety precaution available. However, the fact that such a developed nation faced such a disaster means the potential for it to occur in countries with less funding and with less expertise is frightful. After Chernobyl important lessons were learnt, yet arguably it was not enough!

Many would argue that the high magnitude tsunami event is highly infrequent and therefore it was perhaps perceived that such precautions were not needed to be taken within the lifetime of the Fukushima plant – however the possible negative outcomes can be globally devastating and therefore I would think that the greatest level of precaution should be taken for the worst possible scenario in all instances.

The lack of preparation here surprises me, especially following the hysteria surrounding Chernobyl – I still believe nuclear to be a strong candidate for future expansion, but it is clear it must continue to be taken more seriously and such complacencies and errors simply cannot be replicated.

                

            Understandably the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters had major impacts on public support and the perceptions and symbols attached to nuclear energy – these will be explored in the next blog and the manner in which this may hinder the potential expansion of nuclear energy.

             At the time of writing this post, none of the 11 votes in my poll have proclaimed a fear of nuclear as a threat or unnecessary risk. This is surprising, however it many be related to the audience of the blog - with the wider public likely to possess varied responses.