On March 11, 2011, the island nation of Japan encountered several phenomena that resulted in nothing short of unmitigated tragedy and disaster. Residing in the region of the world colloquially known as “The Ring of Fire” due to the large number of seismic faults and ergo earthquakes, that such a tremor should have occurred on that day may have came of little surprise to the Japanese; it was the magnitude of the quake, and the size of its subsequent tsunami that provided the greatest shock. Complicating matters further, the earthquake, tsunami or some combination of the two forces razed not only homes and business, but also the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. As if reeling form the effects of seismic activity were not enough, the people of coastal Japan now had to contend with the possibility of nuclear fallout as well.

Unfortunately, there is no consensus on exactly what occurred on March 11. Shortly after the events of that day unfolded, the Japanese government launched an investigation into the Fukushima Daiichi disaster in an effort to find out what exactly caused the plant to fail. The preliminary results of that investigation were released in December 2011, finding that “the authorities grossly underestimated the risks tsunamis posed to the plant,” and accused the Tokyo Electric Power Company of ignoring similar grievances in its past (New York Times 2011). According to the report, Tokyo Electric Power Company planned only for tsunami waves of approximately twenty feet, while that which slammed the plant on March 11 eclipsed forty feet.

More recently, the Japanese Parliament has found these results to be unsatisfactory and, as such, commissioned a second investigation into the happenings around Fukushima Daiichi. Within Japan, “questions…linger as to the extent of damage to the plant caused by the earthquake even before the tsunami hit. Any evidence of serious quake damage at the plant would cast new doubt on the safety of other reactors in quake-prone Japan” (New York Times 2012). Given that this previous quake displaced more than 100,000 people and left fallow hundreds of acres of farmland for the foreseeable future, these are not questions to be left unanswered.

How the Japanese government responds to the final findings of the first study, and any results from the second will be very interesting to observe. More than almost any other nation, Japan has embraced nuclear power. With 54 plants across the country, it would not be feasible for them to abandon the power source; but then, how do they go about protecting themselves from similar fiascos in the future? While they cannot regulate the seismic activity of the earth beneath them, perhaps legislation will be drafted to increase government oversight of the plants or their management companies. Regardless of the direction in which Japan heads after more is learned, American eyes will be set firmly upon them, particularly in California, where nuclear power has similarly been embraced and faults such as the San Andreas continue to threaten the state.

Sources and Media:

New York Times Damage Map graphic

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/16/business/global/independent-panel-to-start-inquiry-into-japans-nuclear-crisis.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/world/asia/report-condemns-japans-response-to-nuclear-accident.html