In Light Of Further Nuclear
Risks, Economic Growth Should Not Be Priority
Fukushima Nuclear Crisis
EMF Computer Protection
Magnetic Field Detector
The government continues to take regressive steps in spite
of the torrent of criticism it has received and the lessons
that should have been learned since the Great East Japan
Earthquake and tsunami triggered a nuclear disaster.
This is evidenced in the fact that starting this week, which
marks the beginning of a new fiscal year, the Nuclear and
Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) and the Nuclear Safety
Commission of Japan (NSC) have no budget. The new nuclear
regulatory agency that was supposed to begin operations on
April 1 in NISA's stead is now floundering amid resistance
in the Diet from opposition parties. In other words,
government agencies overseeing nuclear power now have an
even more diminished presence.
According to Japan's general budget provisions, funds for a
new government organization can be diverted to existing
government organizations if the money is being used for its
original purpose. The situation doesn't do much for morale,
however. Back-scratching relationships between government
ministries, the indecision of both the ruling and opposition
parties, and the unchanging fact that much of the current
crisis is still left in the hands of plant operator Tokyo
Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) remains the same.
One of the biggest issues that we face is the possibility
that the spent nuclear fuel pool of the No. 4 reactor at the
stricken Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant will collapse.
This is something that experts from both within and outside
Japan have pointed out since the massive quake struck. TEPCO,
meanwhile, says that the situation is under control.
However, not only independent experts, but also sources
within the government say that it's a grave concern.
The storage pool in the No. 4 reactor building has a total
of 1,535 fuel rods, or 460 tons of nuclear fuel, in it. The
7-story building itself has suffered great damage, with the
storage pool barely intact on the building's third and
fourth floors. The roof has been blown away. If the storage
pool breaks and runs dry, the nuclear fuel inside will
overheat and explode, causing a massive amount of
radioactive substances to spread over a wide area. Both the
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and French nuclear
energy company Areva have warned about this risk.
A
report released in February by the Independent Investigation
Commission on the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident stated
that the storage pool of the plant's No. 4 reactor has
clearly been shown to be "the weakest link" in the parallel,
chain-reaction crises of the nuclear disaster. The
worse-case scenario drawn up by the government includes not
only the collapse of the No. 4 reactor pool, but the
disintegration of spent fuel rods from all the plant's other
reactors. If this were to happen, residents in the Tokyo
metropolitan area would be forced to evacuate.
Former Minister of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and
Tourism Sumio Mabuchi, who was appointed to the post of then
Prime Minister Naoto Kan's advisor on the nuclear disaster
immediately after its outbreak, proposed the injection of
concrete from below the No. 4 reactor to the bottom of the
storage pool, Chernobyl-style. An inspection of the pool
floor, however, led TEPCO to conclude that the pool was
strong enough without additional concrete. The plans were
scrapped, and antiseismic reinforcements were made to the
reactor building instead.
"Because sea water was being pumped into the reactor, the
soundness of the structure (concrete corrosion and
deterioration) was questionable. There also were doubts
about the calculations made on earthquake resistance as
well," said one government source familiar with what took
place at the time. "It's been suggested that the building
would be reinforced, and spent fuel rods would be removed
from the pool under those conditions. But fuel rod removal
will take three years. Will the structure remain standing
for that long? Burying the reactor in a concrete grave is
like building a dam, and therefore expensive. I think that
it was because TEPCO's general shareholders' meeting was
coming up (in June 2011) that the company tried to keep
expenses low."
Promotion of nuclear power is a national policy, and yet the
operation of nuclear reactors lies in the hands of private
corporations. The government pushes the blame on TEPCO,
while TEPCO dodges responsibility with the excuse that
nuclear energy promotion is a government policy. This system
of irresponsibility hasn't changed.
In
the three weeks after the Independent Investigation
Commission on the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident's
report became available to the public, 95,000 copies had
been sold; this, despite the fact that they run 1,575 yen a
piece. It's a testament to the public's thirst for a
systematic explanation that is not affected by appearances
or interests.
Earthquakes in the neighborhood of level-5 on the seismic
intensity scale continue to occur even now in the Tohoku and
Kanto regions. We cannot accept the absurd condescension of
those who fear the worse-case scenario, labeling them as
"overreacting." We have no time to humor the senseless
thinking that instead, those who downplay the risks for the
sake of economic growth are "realistic." (By Takao Yamada,
Expert Senior Writer)
http://www.emfnews.org/store |