Los Angeles Times: Radiation hampers efforts to restore power to nuclear plant in Japan
Engineers at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant worked all day Friday attempting to connect a newly restored power line to reactors No. 1 and 2, but their task was repeatedly interrupted by the need to withdraw workers because of high radiation levels. The team said they hoped the task would be completed sometime Friday evening or in the early morning hours Saturday.
It is not clear yet, however, whether restoring power to the two damaged reactors will help with cooling. Some engineers believe the cooling pumps were irretrievably damaged by the hydrogen explosions that wracked the reactor buildings in the first four days after the March 10 magnitude 9 Tohoku quake, or by corrosion from the seawater that has been pumped into the reactor. At the very least, however, restoring power should restore many of the control functions at the reactor.
Officials of Tokyo Electric Power Co., which owns the facility 140 miles north of Tokyo, said they hoped to have power connected to reactors No. 3 and 4 by Sunday.
Reactor building No. 4 is now the source of the biggest concern at the site because it contains spent fuel rods that may have boiled dry and are releasing large amounts of radiation into the environment.
The spent-fuel pool does not have a containment vessel, so if the fuel rods heat up and start burning, the radioactive ash will be released directly into the environment.
Workers made a second series of attempts Friday to cool the fuel rods, dumping water from helicopters and using water cannons operated by Japan's Self-Defense Forces to spray water into the pool, which sits in the upper level of the building housing reactor No. 4. The reactor itself had been shut down for maintenance before the earthquake, so it does not pose a problem.
But photographs taken by helicopters and a Global Hawk drone operated by the U.S. Air Force indicate the water is not lasting very long in the pool, suggesting that there is a major breach in the walls of the vessel holding the fuel rods, according to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Recognizing the severity of the problem, Japan's nuclear regulatory agency Friday upgraded the severity of the Fukushima disaster from four to five on the international scale of one to seven. The 1986 Chernobyl disaster, the worst nuclear disaster in history, was rated a seven.
The 1979 Three Mile Island incident, previously considered the second-worst accident in history, was also rated a five. French officials had previously called Fukushima a five and now Japanese authorities have agreed with their assessment.
But it is clear that Fukushima is a much more serious problem than Three Mile Island. Little or no radiation escaped from the Pennsylvania facility, and no one was injured there.
The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization, which monitors radiation globally, said Friday that minute amounts of radiation from Fukushima had reached the West Coast of the United States, but only at barely detectable levels that were insignificant to health.
On Sunday, meteorologists predict a heavy rainstorm for the Fukushima area, with the prevailing winds changing toward the direction of Tokyo.
Friday, March 18, 2011
Thursday, March 17, 2011
When You Assume You Make An Ass of You and Me
I had assumed that, because of the vast size of the United States, nuclear power companies would have made very sure not to build their reactors near fault lines.
We've been stdying earthquake data in the US for over 100 years, we must know where all the major fault lines are!
Yet according to this article, many US nuclear reactors were indeed built near fault lines.
I was also wrong about Obama. Since he'd shut down Gulf Oil drilling immediately after the Deep Water disaster, I'd assumed he'd shut down nuclear reactor building too. But (from a diffrent article) this also was incorrect - he's refusing to shut down building, despite requests from environmentalists, and just wants regulators to take a closer look at safety issues.
As I posted in my rant yesterday, when you're building something like a nuclear reactor, you do some calulations to figure out what the absolute worst earthquake is you'd have to withstand. Then you add a safety factor of at least three times that amount! So if there's never been more than a 7.0 earthquake in an area, you build the reactor to withstand a 9.5/10.0 earthquake.
I had assumed that was done in the US as well...but I've now learned I was wrong. According to the article below, most nuclear reactors were only built to withstand a 7.0 earthquake.
US nuclear plants located near geologic faults
LOS ANGELES (AP) — Two years before an immense coastal earthquake plunged Japan into a nuclear crisis, a geologic fault was discovered about a half-mile from a California seaside reactor — alarming regulators who say not enough has been done to gauge the threat to the nation's most populous state.
The situation of the Diablo Canyon plant is not unique. Across the country, a spider's web of faults in the Earth's crust raises questions about earthquakes and safety at aging nuclear plants, amplified by horrific images from Japan, where nuclear reactors were crippled by a tsunami caused by a 9-magnitude quake.
The Indian Point Energy Center, for example, lies near a fault line 35 miles north of Manhattan; on Wednesday, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo ordered a safety review at the plant.
But none of the questions are more pressing than in quake-prone California, where about 10 powerful shakers — stronger than magnitude 7 — have hit since 1900.
At issue at Diablo Canyon is not what is known, but what is not.
Preliminary research at the site, which sits on a wave-washed bluff above the Pacific, found its twin reactors could withstand a potential earthquake generated by the recently identified Shoreline Fault, just off the coast.
But that hasn't satisfied California regulators. Since late 2008, when the undersea crack was identified, they have pressed plant owner Pacific Gas & Electric Co. to conduct sophisticated, independently reviewed studies that they say are needed to fully assess the danger at a site within 200 miles of Los Angeles.
The recently discovered fault is close to, and might intersect with, another bigger crack three miles offshore, and the fear is the two faults could begin shaking in tandem, creating a larger quake than either fault would be capable of producing on its own.
"We don't yet have a firm idea of the hazard posed by the Shoreline Fault," says Thomas Brocher, director of the Earthquake Science Center at the U.S. Geological Survey in Menlo Park, Calif., who led the team that discovered the fault.
State Sen. Sam Blakeslee, a Republican who holds a doctorate in earthquake studies, wants PG&E to pull back an application to extend the plant's operating license for 20 years until more is known.
"Aging nuclear power plants and large, active fault systems should not be in close proximity. This isn't exactly rocket science," Blakeslee says. Because the Shoreline Fault is so close to the Diablo Canyon plant it "can produce shaking far in excess of what's expected."
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and PG&E say the plant is safe and built to withstand a magnitude 7.5 earthquake, the maximum considered possible for the site. Damage from a Japan-like tsunami is unlikely, because the reactors sit on an 85-foot cliff above the ocean and fault structure in the area differs from the Pacific Rim.
Critics around the United States say the government has moved too slowly to assess possible threats from earthquakes.
NRC spokeswoman Lara Uselding said she did not know of a single case in which a U.S. reactor was damaged by a quake. But this does not dispel concerns that may be unavoidable because the study of earthquakes remains an imprecise science. They cannot be predicted, and the damage — as witnessed in Japan — can be catastrophic.
The dangers of earthquakes have been raised repeatedly by opponents of nuclear energy. The Perry nuclear plant, east of Cleveland, lies within 40 miles of two faults; in 1986, a year before the plant opened, a 5.0 earthquake shook the area, but didn't damage the plant, said Todd Schneider, a FirstEnergy spokesman. There have since been less severe quakes.
A citizens group filed suit after the quake, trying to block the plant from opening. They argued that an earthquake greater than the plant was built to withstand was likely to occur in the future; U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia turned down their request.
The plant's design includes piping with shock absorbers intended to prevent breakage in a quake. "Before the plants are even built, there's research done by seismologists and geologists to determine what the maximum earthquake could be," Schneider said. "The plants are designed beyond that."
Indian Point, too, is safe and built to withstand earthquakes, says a spokesman for owner Entergy Nuclear. But earlier this week, Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., urged the NRC to look closely at the earthquake preparedness there. A 2008 analysis of earthquake activity around New York City found that many small faults that were believed to be inactive could contribute to a major temblor, and that a line of seismic activity comes within two miles of the plant on the Hudson River.
Another fault line near Indian Point was already known, so the findings suggest Indian Point is at an intersection of faults. The environmental group Riverkeeper says seismic studies used to assess safety are decades out of date.
Major earthquakes are rare in the southeast United States, although the region is crossed by the New Madrid fault in the west and a fault near Charleston, S.C. in the east. University of Georgia geologist Jim Wright said although the plate sitting under the southeast is stable it's also rigid, meaning the jolt from an earthquake would carry farther than in a region where the earth's crust has been fragmented by seismic activity.
The Atlanta-based Southern Co. has reviewed seismic activity in the area that could impact the Wayneboro, Ga., site where it has two operating reactors and hopes to build two more. Among the largest known regional earthquakes was an 1886 earthquake that struck Charleston, S.C., about 85 miles from the Plant Vogtle site, according to the company's regulatory filings.
To this day, geologists are divided on exactly which faults caused the earthquake. Southern Co. spokeswoman Beth Thomas said the company's reactors comply with federal requirements that they be able to safely withstand the strongest earthquake that could be expected in a 10,000-year period. Thomas said the company has not seen anything in Japan to make it alter its current operations.
The Tennessee Valley Authority's Browns Ferry plant, which is located near Athens, Ala., has boiling water reactors similar in design to the malfunctioning reactors in Japan. That plant was designed to withstand a 6.0-magnitude earthquake based on its proximity to the New Madrid fault, TVA spokesman Duncan Mansfield said.
The TVA's Watts Bar nuclear plant at Spring City, Tenn., and its Sequoyah plant at Soddy-Daisy, Tenn., are designed to withstand a 5.8-magnitude quake based on an 1897 tremor at Giles County, Va., Mansfield said. None of the TVA's reactors are seen as being vulnerable to tsunamis since they are so far inland.
Arkansas' only nuclear plant is located about 150 miles away from the New Madrid fault zone, which produced a series of large quakes in 1811 and 1812, including several over magnitude 7. The shaking was so strong that it reportedly caused the Mississippi River to flow backward and could be felt as far away as New England. Arkansas Nuclear One officials said the plant is designed to withstand natural disasters including quakes, has an emergency plan in place, and routinely trains for the worst-case scenario.
Using increasing sensitive technology, scientists are constantly identifying new faults in the country, sometimes after earthquakes are detected. In Southern California alone, there are an estimated 10,000 earthquakes a year, though most of them are too small to be noticed by residents.
The state's senators, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, on Wednesday sent a letter to Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Gregory Jaczko, asking that the agency "perform a thorough inspection" of the plants at Diablo Canyon and San Onofre.
A 30-foot concrete seawall surrounds San Onofre, built along the beach in northern San Diego County, where officials say it's strong enough to withstand major quakes and any potential tsunami.
Diablo Canyon, whose reactors began operating in the mid-1980s, has a long history of seismic issues. The discovery of the offshore Hosgri Fault in 1971, after the plant's construction permits were issued, forced a major, costly redesign.
Brocher, the USGS scientist, said scientists do not know how fast the adjacent sides of the Shoreline Fault are sliding, a key measurement to determine potential danger. A higher rate of slippage leads to increased pressure — and a greater chance for an earthquake.
With the two faults in proximity "the uncertainty is ... to what extent they might interact," says Barbara Byron, a senior nuclear policy adviser for the California Energy Commission. Since 2008, the commission has urged the plant to conduct three-dimensional mapping of the Shoreline Fault, using technology employed in oil exploration.
Funding has been approved for the study. In testimony to the NRC last year, she called the plant's seismic data "incomplete ... outdated" and urged a review of its evacuation plans.
Uselding, the NRC spokeswoman, said preliminary reviews found that it's unlikely an earthquake would take place directly under Diablo Canyon, but that potential shaking could cause minor damage to buried piping and conduits.
Diablo Canyon has an extensive seismic monitoring system, ready to detect any shifts in the area. "Potential impacts of the Shoreline Fault fall within all safety margins," company spokesman Kory Raftery said.
To University of Southern California professor Naj Meshkati, an expert on earthquakes and nuclear power plants, the risk is not the massive plant structures but the reliability of backup systems that failed in the Japanese tsunami.
While such a large quake and killer wave is unlikely in California, the plants face similar dangers in backup equipment.
"If someone says this cannot happen here, they should really ... take a very hard look at some of their assumptions," Meshkati said.
We've been stdying earthquake data in the US for over 100 years, we must know where all the major fault lines are!
Yet according to this article, many US nuclear reactors were indeed built near fault lines.
I was also wrong about Obama. Since he'd shut down Gulf Oil drilling immediately after the Deep Water disaster, I'd assumed he'd shut down nuclear reactor building too. But (from a diffrent article) this also was incorrect - he's refusing to shut down building, despite requests from environmentalists, and just wants regulators to take a closer look at safety issues.
As I posted in my rant yesterday, when you're building something like a nuclear reactor, you do some calulations to figure out what the absolute worst earthquake is you'd have to withstand. Then you add a safety factor of at least three times that amount! So if there's never been more than a 7.0 earthquake in an area, you build the reactor to withstand a 9.5/10.0 earthquake.
I had assumed that was done in the US as well...but I've now learned I was wrong. According to the article below, most nuclear reactors were only built to withstand a 7.0 earthquake.
US nuclear plants located near geologic faults
LOS ANGELES (AP) — Two years before an immense coastal earthquake plunged Japan into a nuclear crisis, a geologic fault was discovered about a half-mile from a California seaside reactor — alarming regulators who say not enough has been done to gauge the threat to the nation's most populous state.
The situation of the Diablo Canyon plant is not unique. Across the country, a spider's web of faults in the Earth's crust raises questions about earthquakes and safety at aging nuclear plants, amplified by horrific images from Japan, where nuclear reactors were crippled by a tsunami caused by a 9-magnitude quake.
The Indian Point Energy Center, for example, lies near a fault line 35 miles north of Manhattan; on Wednesday, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo ordered a safety review at the plant.
But none of the questions are more pressing than in quake-prone California, where about 10 powerful shakers — stronger than magnitude 7 — have hit since 1900.
At issue at Diablo Canyon is not what is known, but what is not.
Preliminary research at the site, which sits on a wave-washed bluff above the Pacific, found its twin reactors could withstand a potential earthquake generated by the recently identified Shoreline Fault, just off the coast.
But that hasn't satisfied California regulators. Since late 2008, when the undersea crack was identified, they have pressed plant owner Pacific Gas & Electric Co. to conduct sophisticated, independently reviewed studies that they say are needed to fully assess the danger at a site within 200 miles of Los Angeles.
The recently discovered fault is close to, and might intersect with, another bigger crack three miles offshore, and the fear is the two faults could begin shaking in tandem, creating a larger quake than either fault would be capable of producing on its own.
"We don't yet have a firm idea of the hazard posed by the Shoreline Fault," says Thomas Brocher, director of the Earthquake Science Center at the U.S. Geological Survey in Menlo Park, Calif., who led the team that discovered the fault.
State Sen. Sam Blakeslee, a Republican who holds a doctorate in earthquake studies, wants PG&E to pull back an application to extend the plant's operating license for 20 years until more is known.
"Aging nuclear power plants and large, active fault systems should not be in close proximity. This isn't exactly rocket science," Blakeslee says. Because the Shoreline Fault is so close to the Diablo Canyon plant it "can produce shaking far in excess of what's expected."
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and PG&E say the plant is safe and built to withstand a magnitude 7.5 earthquake, the maximum considered possible for the site. Damage from a Japan-like tsunami is unlikely, because the reactors sit on an 85-foot cliff above the ocean and fault structure in the area differs from the Pacific Rim.
Critics around the United States say the government has moved too slowly to assess possible threats from earthquakes.
NRC spokeswoman Lara Uselding said she did not know of a single case in which a U.S. reactor was damaged by a quake. But this does not dispel concerns that may be unavoidable because the study of earthquakes remains an imprecise science. They cannot be predicted, and the damage — as witnessed in Japan — can be catastrophic.
The dangers of earthquakes have been raised repeatedly by opponents of nuclear energy. The Perry nuclear plant, east of Cleveland, lies within 40 miles of two faults; in 1986, a year before the plant opened, a 5.0 earthquake shook the area, but didn't damage the plant, said Todd Schneider, a FirstEnergy spokesman. There have since been less severe quakes.
A citizens group filed suit after the quake, trying to block the plant from opening. They argued that an earthquake greater than the plant was built to withstand was likely to occur in the future; U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia turned down their request.
The plant's design includes piping with shock absorbers intended to prevent breakage in a quake. "Before the plants are even built, there's research done by seismologists and geologists to determine what the maximum earthquake could be," Schneider said. "The plants are designed beyond that."
Indian Point, too, is safe and built to withstand earthquakes, says a spokesman for owner Entergy Nuclear. But earlier this week, Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., urged the NRC to look closely at the earthquake preparedness there. A 2008 analysis of earthquake activity around New York City found that many small faults that were believed to be inactive could contribute to a major temblor, and that a line of seismic activity comes within two miles of the plant on the Hudson River.
Another fault line near Indian Point was already known, so the findings suggest Indian Point is at an intersection of faults. The environmental group Riverkeeper says seismic studies used to assess safety are decades out of date.
Major earthquakes are rare in the southeast United States, although the region is crossed by the New Madrid fault in the west and a fault near Charleston, S.C. in the east. University of Georgia geologist Jim Wright said although the plate sitting under the southeast is stable it's also rigid, meaning the jolt from an earthquake would carry farther than in a region where the earth's crust has been fragmented by seismic activity.
The Atlanta-based Southern Co. has reviewed seismic activity in the area that could impact the Wayneboro, Ga., site where it has two operating reactors and hopes to build two more. Among the largest known regional earthquakes was an 1886 earthquake that struck Charleston, S.C., about 85 miles from the Plant Vogtle site, according to the company's regulatory filings.
To this day, geologists are divided on exactly which faults caused the earthquake. Southern Co. spokeswoman Beth Thomas said the company's reactors comply with federal requirements that they be able to safely withstand the strongest earthquake that could be expected in a 10,000-year period. Thomas said the company has not seen anything in Japan to make it alter its current operations.
The Tennessee Valley Authority's Browns Ferry plant, which is located near Athens, Ala., has boiling water reactors similar in design to the malfunctioning reactors in Japan. That plant was designed to withstand a 6.0-magnitude earthquake based on its proximity to the New Madrid fault, TVA spokesman Duncan Mansfield said.
The TVA's Watts Bar nuclear plant at Spring City, Tenn., and its Sequoyah plant at Soddy-Daisy, Tenn., are designed to withstand a 5.8-magnitude quake based on an 1897 tremor at Giles County, Va., Mansfield said. None of the TVA's reactors are seen as being vulnerable to tsunamis since they are so far inland.
Arkansas' only nuclear plant is located about 150 miles away from the New Madrid fault zone, which produced a series of large quakes in 1811 and 1812, including several over magnitude 7. The shaking was so strong that it reportedly caused the Mississippi River to flow backward and could be felt as far away as New England. Arkansas Nuclear One officials said the plant is designed to withstand natural disasters including quakes, has an emergency plan in place, and routinely trains for the worst-case scenario.
Using increasing sensitive technology, scientists are constantly identifying new faults in the country, sometimes after earthquakes are detected. In Southern California alone, there are an estimated 10,000 earthquakes a year, though most of them are too small to be noticed by residents.
The state's senators, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, on Wednesday sent a letter to Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Gregory Jaczko, asking that the agency "perform a thorough inspection" of the plants at Diablo Canyon and San Onofre.
A 30-foot concrete seawall surrounds San Onofre, built along the beach in northern San Diego County, where officials say it's strong enough to withstand major quakes and any potential tsunami.
Diablo Canyon, whose reactors began operating in the mid-1980s, has a long history of seismic issues. The discovery of the offshore Hosgri Fault in 1971, after the plant's construction permits were issued, forced a major, costly redesign.
Brocher, the USGS scientist, said scientists do not know how fast the adjacent sides of the Shoreline Fault are sliding, a key measurement to determine potential danger. A higher rate of slippage leads to increased pressure — and a greater chance for an earthquake.
With the two faults in proximity "the uncertainty is ... to what extent they might interact," says Barbara Byron, a senior nuclear policy adviser for the California Energy Commission. Since 2008, the commission has urged the plant to conduct three-dimensional mapping of the Shoreline Fault, using technology employed in oil exploration.
Funding has been approved for the study. In testimony to the NRC last year, she called the plant's seismic data "incomplete ... outdated" and urged a review of its evacuation plans.
Uselding, the NRC spokeswoman, said preliminary reviews found that it's unlikely an earthquake would take place directly under Diablo Canyon, but that potential shaking could cause minor damage to buried piping and conduits.
Diablo Canyon has an extensive seismic monitoring system, ready to detect any shifts in the area. "Potential impacts of the Shoreline Fault fall within all safety margins," company spokesman Kory Raftery said.
To University of Southern California professor Naj Meshkati, an expert on earthquakes and nuclear power plants, the risk is not the massive plant structures but the reliability of backup systems that failed in the Japanese tsunami.
While such a large quake and killer wave is unlikely in California, the plants face similar dangers in backup equipment.
"If someone says this cannot happen here, they should really ... take a very hard look at some of their assumptions," Meshkati said.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Human nature is alike all over
If you read the news coming out of Japan, we are told that there is no looting. A circumstance that would be unthinkable in the US - witness what happened in New Orleans with Katrina, in Haiti, and so on and so forth. It's a cultural difference, apparently - Japanese value honor above all and to go out and loot is just unthinkable - if a looter was caught his whole family would bear his or her shame.
(Someone has also said that it's because no one in Japan has guns, whereas in places where guns are easily accessible, you have lots of looting. That theory doesn't hold water, I don't think so - people in Chile looted after their recent disaster, and they don't have guns.)
But that's beside the point of this particular article. Another piece of news coming out of Japan is that apparently their nuclear reactors were built amid a lot of "cutting corners" - and that there was a lot of lax oversight of these nuclear reactors.
I've also just come across an article talking about Japan's nuclear future - they have over a dozen nuclear power plants and need more for their energy - they're not going to shut them down.
I thought this sentence was interesting:
The safety systems on all Japanese plants will be upgraded to withstand a 9.0 earthquake and tsunami (or worse). [from Nuclear Power Plants in Japan.]
I read that sentence and thought... what the hell? You mean nuclear reactors in Japan aren't already built to withstand a 9.0 earthquake????
Japan has about 1,000 earthquakes a year. Most of them minor, a few high up ther eon the richter scale. They have at least one major earthquake (6.6-7.0) a year! There was an earthquake in 2007 that was rated as 8.1 on the Richter scale. And they are building nuclear reactors that can't withstand a 9.0 earthquake?
That is beyond ridiculous. If you get a 7.0 earthquake every year, you don't build a nuclear reactor that can only withstand a 7.0 earthquake. What if the earthquake goes to 7.1? No, you build in so many safeguards that there will never be any chance of a problem with a nuclear reactor, so you build it to safeguard against something that will never happen - a 9.0 earthquake.
Then your populace can sleep safe in their beds.
Meantime, Germany is panicking and shutting down their nuclear reactors. Last I heard there wasn't much of a chance of tsunamis in Germany. People in the US are panicking as well. Well, if htere are nuclear plants built to withstand a 7.0 earthquake, and they sit on the San Andreas or other fault line, they'd have a right to be panicky. BUt the US is a country that is ten times as big as Japan, and we don't build nuclear reactors along fault lines.
Unfortunately, they probably aren't built to withstand a 9.0 earthquake, either, and they should be. Even if a reactor isn't built on a fault line, considering the danger of nuclear radiation, excessive precautions should be taken including building them to withstand a 9.0 earthquake, even if it's statistically impossible for a 9.0 earthquake to occur.
Nuclear reactors are so dangerous...it's only common sense that "excessive" precautions be taken. The fact that they weren't...is a bit disturbing.
(Someone has also said that it's because no one in Japan has guns, whereas in places where guns are easily accessible, you have lots of looting. That theory doesn't hold water, I don't think so - people in Chile looted after their recent disaster, and they don't have guns.)
But that's beside the point of this particular article. Another piece of news coming out of Japan is that apparently their nuclear reactors were built amid a lot of "cutting corners" - and that there was a lot of lax oversight of these nuclear reactors.
I've also just come across an article talking about Japan's nuclear future - they have over a dozen nuclear power plants and need more for their energy - they're not going to shut them down.
I thought this sentence was interesting:
The safety systems on all Japanese plants will be upgraded to withstand a 9.0 earthquake and tsunami (or worse). [from Nuclear Power Plants in Japan.]
I read that sentence and thought... what the hell? You mean nuclear reactors in Japan aren't already built to withstand a 9.0 earthquake????
Japan has about 1,000 earthquakes a year. Most of them minor, a few high up ther eon the richter scale. They have at least one major earthquake (6.6-7.0) a year! There was an earthquake in 2007 that was rated as 8.1 on the Richter scale. And they are building nuclear reactors that can't withstand a 9.0 earthquake?
That is beyond ridiculous. If you get a 7.0 earthquake every year, you don't build a nuclear reactor that can only withstand a 7.0 earthquake. What if the earthquake goes to 7.1? No, you build in so many safeguards that there will never be any chance of a problem with a nuclear reactor, so you build it to safeguard against something that will never happen - a 9.0 earthquake.
Then your populace can sleep safe in their beds.
Meantime, Germany is panicking and shutting down their nuclear reactors. Last I heard there wasn't much of a chance of tsunamis in Germany. People in the US are panicking as well. Well, if htere are nuclear plants built to withstand a 7.0 earthquake, and they sit on the San Andreas or other fault line, they'd have a right to be panicky. BUt the US is a country that is ten times as big as Japan, and we don't build nuclear reactors along fault lines.
Unfortunately, they probably aren't built to withstand a 9.0 earthquake, either, and they should be. Even if a reactor isn't built on a fault line, considering the danger of nuclear radiation, excessive precautions should be taken including building them to withstand a 9.0 earthquake, even if it's statistically impossible for a 9.0 earthquake to occur.
Nuclear reactors are so dangerous...it's only common sense that "excessive" precautions be taken. The fact that they weren't...is a bit disturbing.
Reports: Lax oversight, 'greed' preceded Japan nuclear crisis
Christian Science Monitor: Reports: Lax oversight, 'greed' preceded Japan nuclear crisis
As Japan races to control a nuclear crisis in the wake of Friday's devastating earthquake and tsunami, the country's sterling image as one of the nations most prepared to prevent and manage a disaster of this magnitude is being tarnished.
Reports are emerging that both the United Nations' nuclear watchdog agency and the Japanese government failed to properly ensure the safety of country's nuclear power industry.
The reports are challenging the recent refrain that the world's No. 3 economy couldn't have done better and once again highlighting how poor government oversight of an industry that allegedly cut corners to turn higher profits can spawn an environmental disaster.
IN PICTURES: Japan survivors
Just as the BP oil spill one year ago heaped scrutiny on the United State's Minerals Management Service, harshly criticized for lax drilling oversight and cozy ties with the oil industry, the nuclear crisis in Japan is shining a light on that nation's safety practices.
Design flaws in nuclear reactor containment vessels?
Four out of six reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant (also known as Fukushima I) have now suffered explosions or fires since a March 11 earthquake and tsunami devastated the region and knocked out electricity at the plant, which caused cooling systems to fail and reactors to suffer at least partial meltdowns.
Two of those reactor containment vessels may now have cracked and appear to be releasing radioactive steam. Their designer, General Electric, is now feeling heat for marketing the reactor despite safety concerns dating back three decades. Indeed, just as the BP oil spill drew scrutiny on several multinational companies, the crisis in Japan is underscoring a "flat world" where responsibility – along with environmental and economic fallout – spreads across oceans.
Russian nuclear accident specialist Iouli Andreev, who as director of the Soviet Spetsatom clean-up agency helped in the efforts 25 years ago to clean up Chernobyl, has lashed out against the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and private corporations for failing to heed lessons from that 1986 nuclear catastrophe in Ukraine.
"After Chernobyl all the force of the nuclear industry was directed to hide this event, for not creating damage to their reputation. The Chernobyl experience was not studied properly because who has money for studying? Only industry," he told Reuters in an interview published Tuesday.
Reports that plant operator TEPCO cut corners
Dr. Andreev said the sequence of events at Japan's Fukushima I suggested that the plant's owner, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), may have put profit before safety. The fire that broke out Tuesday in reactor No. 4's fuel storage pond may have been caused by a desire to conserve space and money, he suggested.
Skip to next paragraph
Graphic: Nuclear plants in Japan
(Jake Turcotte/Staff)
Graphic: Areas most affected by 9.0-magnitude earthquake and Tsunami
(Rich Clabaugh/Staff)
Gallery: Japan survivors
Related Stories
Spike in radiation forces Japan to suspend efforts to prevent nuclear meltdown As Japan nuclear crisis unfolds, a small town questions government reassurances Meltdown 101: What are spent-fuel pools and why are they a threat? "The Japanese were very greedy and they used every square inch of the space. But when you have a dense placing of spent fuel in the basin you have a high possibility of fire if the water is removed from the basin," Andreev told Reuters.
TEPCO has come under fire in the past for falsifying safety records at the Fukushima Daiichi plant. In 2002, according to The Wall Street Journal, TEPCO admitted to the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency that it had falsified the results of safety tests on the No. 1 reactor.
This was only one in a string of scandals and coverups to mar the Asia's biggest utility company. In 2007, the company initially said there was no release of radiation after an earthquake damaged its Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant, but later admitted that radioactive water spilled into the Sea of Japan.
And less than a year ago, on June 17, a reactor at Fukushima I lost electricity and saw a dangerous drop in cooling water, Bloomberg reported. TEPCO's president failed to adequately investigate to prevent the current crisis, said Iwaki City council member Kazuyoshi Sato.
“Tokyo Electric and the government’s Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency had too much faith and confidence in the safety of the plant and were lax in their response,” Mr. Sato told Bloomberg News.
Cozy relations within industry
But if the plant was lax in its response, where was the government agency whose job is to enforce safety regulations? Indeed, seemingly cozy relations within the nuclear industry between regulators and operators are now also under the spotlight.
TEPCO and the Japanese government have partnered in the past to market nuclear power. In August, TEPCO's chairman joined the head of Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry on a trip to Vietnam to promote the sale of Japanese nuclear power plants. (Vietnam later chose TEPCO.)
Japan's nuclear crisis: A timeline of key events
Andreev, the Russian scientist, has also accused the IAEA of being too close with corporations. "This is only a fake organization because every organization which depends on the nuclear industry – and the IAEA depends on the nuclear industry – cannot perform properly."
IAEA officials defended the agency, saying this characterization showed a misunderstanding of their mandate. "The agency can facilitate the creation of a standard but cannot enforce that standard," one anonymous official told The Guardian. The IAEA is dependent on member states for voluntary compliance and control of information.
Two Japanese members of the IAEA have specifically been targeted.
Yukiya Amano, a Japanese diplomat named deputy director general for the IAEA's Department of Nuclear Safety and Security in 2009, has been lambasted for apparent delays in issuing crisis updates. Mr. Amano's predecessor, Tomihiro Taniguchi, was criticized by the US more than two years ago for being "weak" on safety practices.
"[Tomihiro] Taniguchi has been a weak manager and advocate, particularly with respect to confronting Japan's own safety practices, and he is a particular disappointment to the United States for his unloved-step-child treatment of the Office of Nuclear Security," the US State Department said in a secret cable that was released to The Guardian by the secret-spilling website WikiLeaks.
Reexamining GE's reactor design
American company General Electric (GE) has also come under fire for its design of the damaged nuclear reactors at Fukushima I.
As early as 1972, American regulators considered discontinuing GE's Mark 1 system, according to The New York Times. "Among the concerns cited was the smaller containment design, which was more susceptible to explosion and rupture from a buildup in hydrogen – a situation that may have unfolded at the Fukushima Daiichi plant," according to the article.
The ban idea was nixed because of the industry's preference for the design. Today in the US, 23 reactors at 16 locations still use the Mark 1 design, according to the antinuclear power Nuclear Information and Resource Service (pdf). The nonprofit has released documents dating back to 1972 on its website.
"The concern has been there all along that this containment building was not strong enough and the pressure containment system was not robust enough to prevent an explosion," Director Michael Mariotte said in a statement.
While the world's biggest nuclear-equipment supplier has maintained that its containment vessels are reliable, three GE employees quit in 1975 in protest over safety concerns around GE's so-called Mark 1 reactor containment vessel. Resigned employee Dale Bridenbaugh told ABC News that the rapid loss of cooling water in a reactor, as has happened now in Japan, "could tear the containment apart and create an uncontrolled release."
As Japan races to control a nuclear crisis in the wake of Friday's devastating earthquake and tsunami, the country's sterling image as one of the nations most prepared to prevent and manage a disaster of this magnitude is being tarnished.
Reports are emerging that both the United Nations' nuclear watchdog agency and the Japanese government failed to properly ensure the safety of country's nuclear power industry.
The reports are challenging the recent refrain that the world's No. 3 economy couldn't have done better and once again highlighting how poor government oversight of an industry that allegedly cut corners to turn higher profits can spawn an environmental disaster.
IN PICTURES: Japan survivors
Just as the BP oil spill one year ago heaped scrutiny on the United State's Minerals Management Service, harshly criticized for lax drilling oversight and cozy ties with the oil industry, the nuclear crisis in Japan is shining a light on that nation's safety practices.
Design flaws in nuclear reactor containment vessels?
Four out of six reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant (also known as Fukushima I) have now suffered explosions or fires since a March 11 earthquake and tsunami devastated the region and knocked out electricity at the plant, which caused cooling systems to fail and reactors to suffer at least partial meltdowns.
Two of those reactor containment vessels may now have cracked and appear to be releasing radioactive steam. Their designer, General Electric, is now feeling heat for marketing the reactor despite safety concerns dating back three decades. Indeed, just as the BP oil spill drew scrutiny on several multinational companies, the crisis in Japan is underscoring a "flat world" where responsibility – along with environmental and economic fallout – spreads across oceans.
Russian nuclear accident specialist Iouli Andreev, who as director of the Soviet Spetsatom clean-up agency helped in the efforts 25 years ago to clean up Chernobyl, has lashed out against the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and private corporations for failing to heed lessons from that 1986 nuclear catastrophe in Ukraine.
"After Chernobyl all the force of the nuclear industry was directed to hide this event, for not creating damage to their reputation. The Chernobyl experience was not studied properly because who has money for studying? Only industry," he told Reuters in an interview published Tuesday.
Reports that plant operator TEPCO cut corners
Dr. Andreev said the sequence of events at Japan's Fukushima I suggested that the plant's owner, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), may have put profit before safety. The fire that broke out Tuesday in reactor No. 4's fuel storage pond may have been caused by a desire to conserve space and money, he suggested.
Skip to next paragraph
Graphic: Nuclear plants in Japan
(Jake Turcotte/Staff)
Graphic: Areas most affected by 9.0-magnitude earthquake and Tsunami
(Rich Clabaugh/Staff)
Gallery: Japan survivors
Related Stories
Spike in radiation forces Japan to suspend efforts to prevent nuclear meltdown As Japan nuclear crisis unfolds, a small town questions government reassurances Meltdown 101: What are spent-fuel pools and why are they a threat? "The Japanese were very greedy and they used every square inch of the space. But when you have a dense placing of spent fuel in the basin you have a high possibility of fire if the water is removed from the basin," Andreev told Reuters.
TEPCO has come under fire in the past for falsifying safety records at the Fukushima Daiichi plant. In 2002, according to The Wall Street Journal, TEPCO admitted to the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency that it had falsified the results of safety tests on the No. 1 reactor.
This was only one in a string of scandals and coverups to mar the Asia's biggest utility company. In 2007, the company initially said there was no release of radiation after an earthquake damaged its Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant, but later admitted that radioactive water spilled into the Sea of Japan.
And less than a year ago, on June 17, a reactor at Fukushima I lost electricity and saw a dangerous drop in cooling water, Bloomberg reported. TEPCO's president failed to adequately investigate to prevent the current crisis, said Iwaki City council member Kazuyoshi Sato.
“Tokyo Electric and the government’s Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency had too much faith and confidence in the safety of the plant and were lax in their response,” Mr. Sato told Bloomberg News.
Cozy relations within industry
But if the plant was lax in its response, where was the government agency whose job is to enforce safety regulations? Indeed, seemingly cozy relations within the nuclear industry between regulators and operators are now also under the spotlight.
TEPCO and the Japanese government have partnered in the past to market nuclear power. In August, TEPCO's chairman joined the head of Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry on a trip to Vietnam to promote the sale of Japanese nuclear power plants. (Vietnam later chose TEPCO.)
Japan's nuclear crisis: A timeline of key events
Andreev, the Russian scientist, has also accused the IAEA of being too close with corporations. "This is only a fake organization because every organization which depends on the nuclear industry – and the IAEA depends on the nuclear industry – cannot perform properly."
IAEA officials defended the agency, saying this characterization showed a misunderstanding of their mandate. "The agency can facilitate the creation of a standard but cannot enforce that standard," one anonymous official told The Guardian. The IAEA is dependent on member states for voluntary compliance and control of information.
Two Japanese members of the IAEA have specifically been targeted.
Yukiya Amano, a Japanese diplomat named deputy director general for the IAEA's Department of Nuclear Safety and Security in 2009, has been lambasted for apparent delays in issuing crisis updates. Mr. Amano's predecessor, Tomihiro Taniguchi, was criticized by the US more than two years ago for being "weak" on safety practices.
"[Tomihiro] Taniguchi has been a weak manager and advocate, particularly with respect to confronting Japan's own safety practices, and he is a particular disappointment to the United States for his unloved-step-child treatment of the Office of Nuclear Security," the US State Department said in a secret cable that was released to The Guardian by the secret-spilling website WikiLeaks.
Reexamining GE's reactor design
American company General Electric (GE) has also come under fire for its design of the damaged nuclear reactors at Fukushima I.
As early as 1972, American regulators considered discontinuing GE's Mark 1 system, according to The New York Times. "Among the concerns cited was the smaller containment design, which was more susceptible to explosion and rupture from a buildup in hydrogen – a situation that may have unfolded at the Fukushima Daiichi plant," according to the article.
The ban idea was nixed because of the industry's preference for the design. Today in the US, 23 reactors at 16 locations still use the Mark 1 design, according to the antinuclear power Nuclear Information and Resource Service (pdf). The nonprofit has released documents dating back to 1972 on its website.
"The concern has been there all along that this containment building was not strong enough and the pressure containment system was not robust enough to prevent an explosion," Director Michael Mariotte said in a statement.
While the world's biggest nuclear-equipment supplier has maintained that its containment vessels are reliable, three GE employees quit in 1975 in protest over safety concerns around GE's so-called Mark 1 reactor containment vessel. Resigned employee Dale Bridenbaugh told ABC News that the rapid loss of cooling water in a reactor, as has happened now in Japan, "could tear the containment apart and create an uncontrolled release."
nuclear loans will be "toxic assets"
Boston.com: Markey: nuclear loans will be "toxic assets"
U.S. Representative Edward J. Markey is comparing the federal government’s loan guarantee program for new nuclear power plants to the much-aligned federal bailout program that bought up bad loans after the 2008 financial collapse.
The Malden Democrat, speaking today at a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing, warned that the loans will put taxpayers on the hook much as the Troubled Asset Relief Program took over defaulted loans after the financial collapse of 2008.
“They’re just like a toxic asset,” Markey said
Energy Secretary Steven Chu was present to testify at the hearing on the department’s 2012 budget, as well as that of the Nuclear Regulatory Agency. Much of the discussion centered on the disaster in Japan, and specifically on the damaged reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station.
The president has asked for $36 billion for 2012 to provide loan guarantees, which Chu said would fund six to eight new projects. The administration has already made about $8 billion in loan guarantees available, which will help build a new plant in Georgia.
Committee member Joe Barton, a Texas Republican, asked Chu if the administration still supported nuclear power.
Chu hedged, saying: “The present budget is what it is. We’re asking for loan guarantees, and for small modular reactors.”
“So that’s a yes?” Barton said. “That’s a yes,” Chu responded.
U.S. Representative Edward J. Markey is comparing the federal government’s loan guarantee program for new nuclear power plants to the much-aligned federal bailout program that bought up bad loans after the 2008 financial collapse.
The Malden Democrat, speaking today at a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing, warned that the loans will put taxpayers on the hook much as the Troubled Asset Relief Program took over defaulted loans after the financial collapse of 2008.
“They’re just like a toxic asset,” Markey said
Energy Secretary Steven Chu was present to testify at the hearing on the department’s 2012 budget, as well as that of the Nuclear Regulatory Agency. Much of the discussion centered on the disaster in Japan, and specifically on the damaged reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station.
The president has asked for $36 billion for 2012 to provide loan guarantees, which Chu said would fund six to eight new projects. The administration has already made about $8 billion in loan guarantees available, which will help build a new plant in Georgia.
Committee member Joe Barton, a Texas Republican, asked Chu if the administration still supported nuclear power.
Chu hedged, saying: “The present budget is what it is. We’re asking for loan guarantees, and for small modular reactors.”
“So that’s a yes?” Barton said. “That’s a yes,” Chu responded.
Emperor Akihito's speech underlines gravity of Japan's nuclear crisis
Los Angeles Times: Emperor Akihito's speech underlines gravity of Japan's nuclear crisis
Reporting from Tokyo — His voice was measured, his language formal, his demeanor somber. It was perhaps the clearest sign yet of just how grave Japan's nuclear crisis had become: The emperor spoke.
Akihito, the nation's 77-year-old sovereign, delivered an unprecedented address to his people on Wednesday in which he urged calm, perseverance and solidarity in "the difficult days that lie ahead." As the pre-recorded speech was broadcast, workers redoubled their frantic efforts to stave off a catastrophic meltdown at a nuclear complex on Japan's northern coast, devastated five days earlier by an earthquake and tsunami.
Wearing a dark suit and muted indigo tie, the emperor spoke from a reception room at the Imperial Palace, seated before a wood-framed backdrop whose appearance evoked a traditional Japanese shoji screen of rice paper. He began with a slight bow, urging victims of the disaster not to abandon hope.
Photos: Scenes of earthquake destruction
"We don't know how many have died," he said. "It is my hope that many lives will be saved."
Often, Japanese court language is so arcane as to be nearly incomprehensible. In his five-minute address, though, Akihito used unusually direct patterns of speech -- still highly mannered, but amounting by palace standards to almost an imperial pep talk to a beleaguered nation.
"I am deeply concerned about the nuclear situation, and hope it will be resolved," the emperor said. "I hope things will take a turn for the better."
Despite ancient dynastic roots, the Japanese monarchy has changed with the times -- to a certain extent. No longer is the emperor regarded as a living god, as was the case for centuries. Still, Akihito is a much-revered figure.
There is precedent for the sovereign to offer public condolences and comfort in times of national crisis. In 1995, Akihito and his wife, the Empress Michiko, visited victims of the Kobe earthquake. That temblor killed about 6,400 people -- a toll expected to be dwarfed by the loss of life in this one.
In 1945, it fell to Akihito's father, Hirohito, to renounce his status as a divinity -- and to deliver to the Japanese people the news that the country had surrendered to the Allies. But in that scratchy radio recording, the imperial language was so freighted with ceremonial phrases and studied ambiguity that few of those listening, who were hearing the emperor's voice for the first time, actually grasped his meaning.
Employing what might have been the ultimate Japanese understatement in that famous address, Hirohito told his subjects that war developments were "not necessarily to Japan's advantage." And in an odd historical echo, he spoke of the strange and terrible power of the atomic bombs that had devastated the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki .
Although Japan's modern-day tabloids sometimes strike a gossipy tone when talking about members of the current royal family -- aggressively dissecting Empress Michiko's stress-related ailments, or the failure of her daughter-in-law, Crown Princess Masako, to produce a male heir -- there is rarely, if ever, a disrespectful word uttered of Akihito.
And normally, no one would dream of interrupting the emperor. But before the speech was telecast twice by the public broadcaster NHK, Akihito, according to the Asahi newspaper, gave a particular instruction. If there were an important development related to the ongoing catastrophe, the control room should do what it would normally do: Break in with the news.
Reporting from Tokyo — His voice was measured, his language formal, his demeanor somber. It was perhaps the clearest sign yet of just how grave Japan's nuclear crisis had become: The emperor spoke.
Akihito, the nation's 77-year-old sovereign, delivered an unprecedented address to his people on Wednesday in which he urged calm, perseverance and solidarity in "the difficult days that lie ahead." As the pre-recorded speech was broadcast, workers redoubled their frantic efforts to stave off a catastrophic meltdown at a nuclear complex on Japan's northern coast, devastated five days earlier by an earthquake and tsunami.
Wearing a dark suit and muted indigo tie, the emperor spoke from a reception room at the Imperial Palace, seated before a wood-framed backdrop whose appearance evoked a traditional Japanese shoji screen of rice paper. He began with a slight bow, urging victims of the disaster not to abandon hope.
Photos: Scenes of earthquake destruction
"We don't know how many have died," he said. "It is my hope that many lives will be saved."
Often, Japanese court language is so arcane as to be nearly incomprehensible. In his five-minute address, though, Akihito used unusually direct patterns of speech -- still highly mannered, but amounting by palace standards to almost an imperial pep talk to a beleaguered nation.
"I am deeply concerned about the nuclear situation, and hope it will be resolved," the emperor said. "I hope things will take a turn for the better."
Despite ancient dynastic roots, the Japanese monarchy has changed with the times -- to a certain extent. No longer is the emperor regarded as a living god, as was the case for centuries. Still, Akihito is a much-revered figure.
There is precedent for the sovereign to offer public condolences and comfort in times of national crisis. In 1995, Akihito and his wife, the Empress Michiko, visited victims of the Kobe earthquake. That temblor killed about 6,400 people -- a toll expected to be dwarfed by the loss of life in this one.
In 1945, it fell to Akihito's father, Hirohito, to renounce his status as a divinity -- and to deliver to the Japanese people the news that the country had surrendered to the Allies. But in that scratchy radio recording, the imperial language was so freighted with ceremonial phrases and studied ambiguity that few of those listening, who were hearing the emperor's voice for the first time, actually grasped his meaning.
Employing what might have been the ultimate Japanese understatement in that famous address, Hirohito told his subjects that war developments were "not necessarily to Japan's advantage." And in an odd historical echo, he spoke of the strange and terrible power of the atomic bombs that had devastated the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki .
Although Japan's modern-day tabloids sometimes strike a gossipy tone when talking about members of the current royal family -- aggressively dissecting Empress Michiko's stress-related ailments, or the failure of her daughter-in-law, Crown Princess Masako, to produce a male heir -- there is rarely, if ever, a disrespectful word uttered of Akihito.
And normally, no one would dream of interrupting the emperor. But before the speech was telecast twice by the public broadcaster NHK, Akihito, according to the Asahi newspaper, gave a particular instruction. If there were an important development related to the ongoing catastrophe, the control room should do what it would normally do: Break in with the news.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Study: U.S. Emergency Preparedness for Nuclear Event is Poor
WAll Street Journal: Study: U.S. Emergency Preparedness for Nuclear Event is Poor
What if the U.S. suffered some sort of nuclear emergency?
According to a newly published study, state health departments are “poorly prepared to respond adequately to a major radiation emergency incident,” including unintentional exposures in a hospital or on a major roadway as well as intentional exposures, as with a dirty bomb or nuclear detonation. The survey doesn’t, however, cover nuclear power plant preparedness, since states with those plants are required to have specific, detailed emergency response plans.
Results from the survey, which includes responses from 76% of state health departments, are published in the current issue of the journal Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, which has a section devoted to nuclear-preparedness issues. (The timing of its release is coincidental.)
The authors asked public-health departments about their preparedness to monitor the human health effects of any released radiation from these kind of incidents. Across the different methods of monitoring, between 70% and 84% of states reported having completed minimal to no planning. Some 82% of states reported no or minimal plans to collect biological or clinical samples to assess the impact of radiation exposure.
Most — between 58% and 68% — reported having plans for health alerts and other communication following an incident. And 73% had plans to distribute potassium iodide or other drugs to help protect against the effects of radiation. (The WSJ reports today that suppliers of potassium iodide are reporting brisk sales as U.S. consumers stock up.)
Public-health departments also reported a lack of resources to maintain preparedness. “No more than 4 states reported having sufficient resources for any of the epidemiologic functions associated with a radiation incident,” the authors write.
Only 47% of states reported having a detailed, finalized response plan specifically for a dirty bomb. Only 15% reported having such a plan to deal with a nuclear incident on a waterway, while 55% had a plan for an incident at a hospital or other medical facility and 53% for some kind of roadway incident.
On a scale of 1-10, the average radiological preparedness score was 4.54 — it was a little better for states with a nuclear power plant and a little worse for those without one.
What if the U.S. suffered some sort of nuclear emergency?
According to a newly published study, state health departments are “poorly prepared to respond adequately to a major radiation emergency incident,” including unintentional exposures in a hospital or on a major roadway as well as intentional exposures, as with a dirty bomb or nuclear detonation. The survey doesn’t, however, cover nuclear power plant preparedness, since states with those plants are required to have specific, detailed emergency response plans.
Results from the survey, which includes responses from 76% of state health departments, are published in the current issue of the journal Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, which has a section devoted to nuclear-preparedness issues. (The timing of its release is coincidental.)
The authors asked public-health departments about their preparedness to monitor the human health effects of any released radiation from these kind of incidents. Across the different methods of monitoring, between 70% and 84% of states reported having completed minimal to no planning. Some 82% of states reported no or minimal plans to collect biological or clinical samples to assess the impact of radiation exposure.
Most — between 58% and 68% — reported having plans for health alerts and other communication following an incident. And 73% had plans to distribute potassium iodide or other drugs to help protect against the effects of radiation. (The WSJ reports today that suppliers of potassium iodide are reporting brisk sales as U.S. consumers stock up.)
Public-health departments also reported a lack of resources to maintain preparedness. “No more than 4 states reported having sufficient resources for any of the epidemiologic functions associated with a radiation incident,” the authors write.
Only 47% of states reported having a detailed, finalized response plan specifically for a dirty bomb. Only 15% reported having such a plan to deal with a nuclear incident on a waterway, while 55% had a plan for an incident at a hospital or other medical facility and 53% for some kind of roadway incident.
On a scale of 1-10, the average radiological preparedness score was 4.54 — it was a little better for states with a nuclear power plant and a little worse for those without one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)