User:Mw89/401

The Earthquake

class=notpageimage|

Illustration of the earthquake's epicenter

On Friday, March 11, 2011, a powerful magnitude 9.0 earthquake struck Japan; it was centered off the east coast of Japan's Honshu Island. This earthquake, and its resulting tsunami would go on to cause only the second INES Level 7 event (the first of which was the Chernobyl disaster).

Why Does Japan Use Nuclear Power?

Japan is located along the Pacific Ring of Fire, a region of frequent and intense earthquake activity. Despite this, Japan had little choice but to construct nuclear power plants, as it has little coal or oil available for use. There are some rivers in the country that are dammed, but these hydroelectric dams produce only about 7% of the electricity Japan needs.

A Brief Description of the Power Plants

...and after

The Fukushima nuclear power plants are two separate nuclear power plants located along the eastern coast of Honshu. These are the Fukushima Daiichi power plant (Fukushima I), with six reactors, and the Fukushima Daini power plant (Fukushima II), with four reactors.

Construction

Being in such an earthquake-prone area ensures there was a lot of data recorded about seismic activity in Japan. When the plants were originally designed, engineers noted that the most powerful earthquakes in the area were typically of magnitude 7 to 8. As the plants were built 40 years ago, knowledge of seismology during construction was far less as compared to today. However, through the years, with advances made in the knowledge of earthquakes, a corresponding update in the ability of the plants to withstand earthquakes and tsunamis failed to occur. In fact, the inital landscaping of the current power plant site actually increased risk of damage by tsunami. Originally, where Fukushima I now stands was a 35 metre high seaside cliff. However, TEPCO, the power company responsible for overseeing the plants reduced the height of that cliff to 10 metres. While the bedrock at that height would provide a sturdier base for the plant to lie on, the primary business reason for locating the plant at that height was the water pumps. They pumped water directly out of the ocean and up to the plant, for its use as a coolant in the reactors. Naturally, the lower the plant was built, the lower the operating costs of the pumps would be, despite the obvious increased tsunami risk. Actually, it would not be until 2006 that the Japanese government explicitly outlined the risks of tsunamis in its official regulations for nuclear power plants.

Concerns

thumb|TEPCO logo Unlike BC Hydro, which is under the control of the provincial government, TEPCO was a private company. TEPCO had always claimed that their reactors were "absolutely failsafe", despite concerns that were raised by skeptical scientists. Alas, it appeared to be the political and business side of things that led into this disaster. In its dealings with the power companies such as TEPCO, the Japanese government was often seen as weak, and not forceful enough. In addition, Japan lacked one, central crisis management agency. Rather, there existed a process by which multiple people, such as the Prime Minister and the TEPCO director, decide how to manage a crisis. This leads to a fragmented leadership with the inability of effective decision-making.

Environmental Impacts

Of course, as with any serious nuclear accident, there will be effects on the environment; here those effects were largely due to the direct release of radioactive materials into the environment, by way methohds such as steam venting and power plant explosions. For example, seawater near the power plants was measured at 68 MBq/m³ immediately after the accident. This high level of radiation was likely to the the large amount of ¹³⁷Cs that was released. This of course, raises the question about the effect of radioactivity on our seafood supply; that is, do fish in that area become unsafe to eat? However, as not even a year has passed since this incident, the long-term effects on seafood still have to be studied. Another question about the environment comes into play when it comes time to consider if the land remains habitable. Various sources give the amount of radiation leaked into the environment as ranging from 5% to 20% of that of Chernobyl. Much like Chernobyl, if the radiation levels of the land are too high, an exclusion zone must be created. The standard that was set in post-Chernobyl Ukraine was that any lands recording a radiation level of greater than 0.5 MBq/m² were evacuated. Permanent evacuation of the lands near the Fukushima plants seem to be the only solution as well; radiation levels as high as 3.7 MBq/m² were noted on lands in the vicinity of the power plants.

The Foreign Aftermath: Nuclear Power in Other Countries

Questions about the use of nuclear power in other countries were raised following the Fukushima disaster in Japan. For example, in Germany, the government had announced it would immediately shut down all of its oldest reactors, with plans to rid the country of all nuclear energy within the next decade. However, this would not be without consequence. As nuclear power is responsible for about one-quarter of Germany's electricity needs, this would create a huge energy gap. Thus, Germany would need to find another energy source to fill this gap, or face the prospect of having to rely on energy imports from other countries. Another European country faced with a nuclear crisis was Italy. Italy had previously banned by popular referendum the construction of nuclear power plants, following the 1986 Chernobyl disaster. However, in 2008, the Italian government decided to reverse that ban, with the goal of increased reliance on nuclear power in the future. But, this goal would be short-lived, as Italian voters again rejected nuclear power in a referendum following the Fukushima disaster. However, after like Japan, Taiwan also suffers from frequent earthquakes due to its position on the Pacific Ring of Fire. Closer to Japan, another country's nuclear industry was also affected by Fukushima. In Taiwan, there are 4 seaside nuclear power plants. Despite being located along the Pacific Ring of Fire, like Japan, the Taiwanese government has refused to shut down their reactors, with the assurances that they were completely safe. However, all four of Taiwan’s nuclear power plants were named among the world's top 14 most potentially dangerous plants in a report produced by World Nuclear Assocation. Many other nuclear debates took place in other countries around the world after Fukushima; the three countries listed above are merely examples of many different paths that each country could possibly take.

References

1. Aoki, M.; Rothwell, G. Asian Development Bank Institute. 2011, Coordination Under Uncertain Conditions: An Analysis of the Fukushima Catastrophe.
2. Blowers, A. J. Integr. Environ. Sci. 2011, Vol 8(2), 73-80.
3. Bolsunovsky, A.; Dementyev, D. J. Environ. Radioactiv. 2011, Vol 102, 1062-1064.
4. Buesseler, K.; Aoyama, M.; Fukasawa, M. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, Vol 45, 9931-9935.
5. Calabrese, E. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2011, Improving the scientific foundations for estimating health risks from the Fukushima incident.
6. Chan, C.; Chen, Y. East Asian Sci. Technol. Soc. 2011, Vol 5, 403-407.
7. Cyranoski, D.; Brumfiel, G. Nature. 2011, Vol 477, 139-140.
8. Ferstl, R.; Utz, S.; Wimmer, M. 2011, The Effect of the Japan 2011 Disaster on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Stocks Worldwide - An Event Study.
9. Fesharaki, F.; Hosoe, T. Asia Pacific Bulletin. 2011, The Fukushima Crisis and the Future of Japan's Power Industry.
10. Hall, H.L. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 2011, Vol 7(3), 406-408.
11. Garnier-Laplace, J. et al. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011.
12. Hong, S. East Asian Sci. Technol. Soc. 2011, Vol 5(3), 409-415.
13. Kinoshita, N. et al. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2011, Assessment of individual radionuclide distributions from the Fukushima nuclear accident covering central-east Japan.
14. Lozano, R.L. et al. Environ. Int. 2011, Vol 37(7), 1259-1264.
15. Nakamura, A.; Kikuchi, M. Public Admin. Rev. 2011, Vol 71(6), 893-899.
16. Onishi, N.; Glanz, J. Japanese Rules for Nuclear Plants Relied on Old Science, The New York Times, March 26, 2011.
17. Ramseyer, J.M. Theoretical Inquiries in Law. 2012, Vol 13(2) (To be published)
18. Schiermeier, Q. Nature. 2011, Vol 472, 505.
19. Smith, J.T. Nature. 2011, Vol 472, 7.
20. Tertrais, B. Survival. 2011, Vol 53(3), 91-100.
21. Wheeler, S.; Dotson, B. American Planning Association. 2011, Japan's Nuclear Crisis: Timeline of Events.
22. Yamakazi, M.; Minami, Y.; Sasaki, H.; Sumi, M. Bull. World Health Organ. 2011, Vol 89, 623.
23. Yamamura, E. Munich Personal RePEc Archive. 2011, Experience of technological and natural disasters and their impact on the perceived risk of nuclear accidents after the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan 2011: A cross-country analysis.
24. Yoshida, R.; Fukada, F. Fukushima plant site originally was a hill safe from tsunami, The Japan Times, July 12, 2011.
25. TEPCO details tsunami damage, The Daily Yomiuri, April 11, 2011.
26. Timeline: Japan power plant crisis, BBC News, March 13, 2011.