Within the first few years of this new millennium, Planet Earth and its human inhabitants have suffered from two massive, destructive earthquakes and their subsequent tsunamis. In the final December days of 2004, Southeast Asian countries were devastated by the Sumatra earthquake and its roaring rogue wave, killing thousands of helpless civilians along the coastlines. Seven years later, the technologically advanced nation of Japan was shocked by a similar tragedy originating offshore in the Pacific Ocean. However, unlike the Sumatra earthquake, the Tokohu earthquake of 2011 and its reactive tsunami caused an unexpected and threatening consequence: the breakdown of a seaside nuclear plant called Fukushima Daiichi.
On March 11, spontaneous seismic activity in the Pacific Ocean sparked the creation of a tsunami reaching an extended height of 41 meters; the combination of these two elements caused one of the most devastating natural disasters in Japanese history. For the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, the culprit in its destruction was the subsequent tsunami. Constructed in the 1960s, the plant had been designed to withstand strong earthquakes, but only 3.1 meters worth of tsunami height (Nöggerath et al 38). As the rogue wave tumbled over the plant’s inadequate sea wall, the nuclear cooling devices were destroyed by the force and resulted in an escape of radioactivity into the surrounding area. According to research collected by scientists at Cardiff University, “the full extent of radiation leakage is yet to be determined… lethal levels of radiation had been detected at the site, raising concerns about the scale of the impacts, particularly for workers” (Butler et al 4). Later in their article, they observe that 170,000 people within a 20-kilometer radius of Fukushima Daiichi were evacuated for the fear of radiation exposure. Later in 2011, the United Nations dubbed the Fukushima Daiichi disaster “the world’s worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl” (Sweeney). Upon investigation of this terrifying event, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) uncovered numerous flaws in the plant’s design which could have prevented the nuclear disaster had they been acknowledged by the plant’s owners, the Tokyo Electrical Power Company (TEPCO).
Aside from the protective sea wall’s incapability to prevent any wave taller than 3.1 meters, Fukushima Daiichi failed to meet numerous other requirements for a nuclear power plant. To prevent the main cause of the plant’s breakdown, “the electrical device for the main cooling pumps, its switchgear, and the emergency diesel generators should have had a much higher resistance to flooding” (Nöggerath et al 42). In addition to this crucial element, Fukushima Daiichi lacked a backup method of cooling that would be guaranteed to withstand water damage from a tsunami. Other problems with the plant’s design include an insufficient venting system and “a hydrogen re-combiner system in the reactor buildings, which led to three explosions that released large amounts of radioactive material into the environment” (Nöggerath et al 43). Thus, the investigative conclusion reached by the IAEA, with the help of surfacing information, was that TEPCO “failed to properly review the tsunami countermeasures in accordance with IAEA guidelines and continued to allow the Fukushima plant to operate… despite having received clear warnings from at least one member of a government advising committee” (Nöggerath et al, 37). To envision that a nation as advanced and efficient as Japan would ignore possible consequences of such a dangerous magnitude is unsettling, as observant countries such as Germany have now come to believe.
In particular, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States, have begun to use the disaster at Fukushima Daiichi to change their own views on nuclear power. While recent polls in the United States show that those in favor of nuclear power still exceeds those opposed after the Japanese incident, the same cannot be said for Germany, whose government has decided “to completely phase out nuclear power plants by 2022” (Butler et al 6). The German government argues that their decision to withdraw from the advancement of nuclear plans is based on their belief that nuclear power can be replaced with a safer alternative, although no examples have been provided. However, in the United States and the United Kingdom, the Fukushima Daiichi disaster, although tragic, has proven to be an educational experience and “has allowed for continued adherence to… further new nuclear power occurring concomitantly with the development of more safety measures, procedures, and knowledge” (Butler et al 6). Unfortunately for Japan, the mistakes made in the design of the Fukushima Daiichi disaster plant has cost them the endangerment of thousands of lives and nearly US$124 billion worth of damage. As reporter Dave Sweeney acknowledges, the tragedy of this nuclear disaster will not recede from the minds of Japanese civilians any time soon: “Today, tomorrow and for many decades to come the Japanese people and environment must now live with the radioactive threat and reality of the nuclear industry’s hollow assurances.”
Sources:
Butler, Catherine, Parkhill, Karen A., and Pidgeon, Nicholas F. “Nuclear Power After Japan: The Social Dimensions.” Cardiff University, 2 Nov. 2011: 3-13. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development. Web. 24 Jan. 2012.
Geller, Robert J., Gusiakov, Viacheslav K., and Nöggerath, Johannis. “Fukushima: The myth of safety, the reality of geoscience.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 2011: 37-46. Web. 24 Jan. 2012.
Sweeney, Dan. “Fukushima Fallout.” Habitat Online Nov. 2011: 26. Web. 24 Jan. 2012.