Since that tragic day of March 11, 2011 when an enormous earthquake and horrific tsunami struck the northeastern side of Japan, we have been inundated by media reports on the ongoing attempts to bring the nuclear plant into a stable condition. The technical challenge is enormous but the task is simple--keep the core and the spent fuel covered with water. While designed to withstand earthquakes of magnitude 7, the site felt a magnitude 9. While designed to withstand a tsunami of approximately 22 feet, the site was swept by a wave of 30 feet. This wall of water wiped out everything in its path; the visual devastation witnessed by the world was unimaginable. This same wave slammed the nuclear plant sites of Daiichi and Daini where 10 reactors stood bracing for the onslaught. According to reports, the plants withstood the earthquake but the wave was too much for the auxiliary equipment needed to supply power and electricity to the emergency cooling systems designed to protect the core at Daiichi. The major structures survived but what was lost was the ability to cool the core and the spent fuel pools for four of the units.
In the wake of this terrible event--we cannot call it an accident, since it was a natural disaster that needed to be managed--it has been difficult to separate media reports rooted in solid science from those peddling unfounded conjecture. Having followed the event closely, it was difficult to get reliable status reports as to what was happening and why. The Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) itself had difficulty for the same reasons the public did--electricity was lost, roads and highways were destroyed, communications were difficult and unreliable, and understanding the magnitude of the damage at 10 stations required time. What information was made available by the government, Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency and TEPCO was limited and incomplete, encouraging speculation as to what was really happening. Given whatever information was available, trained nuclear engineers could begin to assemble a picture of the events based on their technical understanding of nuclear systems and fuel behavior under various possible scenarios for these types of reactors. Even so, most of the discussion was conjecture since we did not know exactly what happened.
There was a group of "experts" that was often quoted and seen on television who would, without hesitation or qualification, give the media what they wanted to hear: scenarios of disaster, fear and unbounded "China Syndrome" core meltdown stories. When many of these faces began appearing, I did a background check on some. One often sought-after "expert" in nuclear engineering was a psychology undergraduate major with a Ph.D. in political science from a prestigious university. Another group was from an international peace organization. We also have physics professors willing to speak to nuclear engineering issues, not recognizing that quantum mechanics has little to do with net positive suction head. It is through these mouths, written words, and faces that the story of Fukushima is being told to a public that really wants and needs to understand what is going on. If only our national media would do some background checks on the people that they call upon as experts before they put them on television or quote them to inform us, we would be so much better off. Instead, they seem to find people who fit their "story line."
Sadly, the tragedy of the expected 25,000 deaths caused by the tsunami is compounded by the media who failed miserably in informing and educating the public on an important energy source. The Fukushima nuclear event will affect the public perception of nuclear energy for decades. Despite the disaster, it could have been a learning opportunity for the public.
The nuclear industry is taking the Fukushima event seriously by reviewing all their designs and preparedness for events that are beyond design basis. We are now in the 4th level of "what ifs" with nuclear power. First was the hypothetical accident in which a main coolant pipe was somehow severed requiring the installation of emergency core cooling systems with backup electrical power; then came Three Mile Island and the new procedures and systems to deal with core melt accidents including severe accident management; third was the 9-11 response in which nuclear plants needed to show how they would deal with a terrorist flying a jet into a nuclear plant. We are now at the 4th level where we are going to review what would happen if all capability to cool the core was lost (as in Fukushima) and how we would manage that regardless of the type of disaster.
You can be assured that the lessons learned from Fukushima will be applied to all operating and future reactors. As President Obama stated and other national leaders have reinforced, nuclear energy is a vital part of our energy mix and we need to do whatever is necessary to assure the safety of these facilities from whatever "acts of God" may come upon us. As of this writing, there have been no members of the public who have died due to the difficulties of the Fukushima nuclear plants. This is good and should always be kept in perspective.
This essay is the third in an Inside NOVA series presenting different viewpoints on Japan's nuclear crisis and its impact on the future of nuclear energy. Read other articles in this series.
For more on Japan's devastating earthquake and tsunami, watch the original one-hour documentary Japan's Killer Quake, which premieres Wednesday, March 30 at 9pm on most PBS stations and will be streaming online after that date. NOVA will also investigate the future of alternative and renewable energy, including nuclear, in Power Surge, premiering Wednesday April 20 at 9 pm. Please check your local listings to confirm when these programs will air near you.
March 30, 2011 9:18 PM
Listening to NOVA tonight (MARCH 30), your narrator stated, "As the data POURS in....." and I would remind you, as scientists you should know better. The word "data" is plural and requires a plural verb. He should have said "As the data POUR in....." This was an excellent explanation of what happened in Japan recently, and I wish someone had edited the text for correctness.
Thanks for making science comprehensible for even youngsters.
March 30, 2011 11:17 PM
Those close to the nuclear industry tend to believe strongly in the technology and all the safety factors built in by teams of highly trained experts. Geologist are already pointing out that the those who approved the plans for the Fukushima I NPP chose to disregard presented geological evidence that the plant would likely encounter the effects of a much greater natural disaster than it was modeled for.
Most nuclear experts are steeped in their own lingo which makes it hard to transmit an understanding of the situation to outsiders. Terms like ponds and pools are thrown around freely even if what in being referred to is a flooded area of contaminated water.
It's been clear to me, and to many outside observers, that those in charge of this plant have not been forthcoming with many details regarding what's been happening at the plant, including descriptions of how blinded they've become by the loss of much of their plant instrumentation and control systems. They can claim that some of their lack of candor stems from a fear of causing panic among the public. What's been needed is complete disclosure and on-site outside experts so those who don't have vested interests in protecting this worshiped technology, can come to their own conclusions and can provide outside-the-box approaches to dealing with the situation.
I feel nuclear power can be compared to putting a gun in the hands of an extremely confident 14 year old boy. He may feel absolutely certain he knows how to handle it but I wouldn't want to hang around this kid. We need to ask, why no one has been held accountable for not coming up with a final solution to the disposal of the highly radioactive radioactive waste from these plants for at the last four decades.
March 31, 2011 1:06 AM
Expertise is often its' own punishment.
But what is the global picture? The media reported that an earthquake and tsunami resulted in a monumental loss of human life and created a series of catastrophic failures in a nuclear power plant. I cannot say for sure, but my common sense tells me that this simple statement encapsulates all the vast majority of media consumers wanted; the beginning, the middle and the end of the big disaster story in Japan. The media gave them just that.--A sad truth.
It is indisputable: the media will always get it wrong in some sense.
Those of us who think deeply on matters such as these seek and find the necessary understanding. Those who do not go blithely on their way.
April 2, 2011 5:29 PM
This reminds me of Iran. What will happen with the spent fuel rods and other radioactive material? There are no answers, just hiding the questions.
I have a question. Can we use the radiation on the spent rods and other material as fuel? Its out of the box, but it will solve storing them.
April 4, 2011 1:39 PM
The Japan video was great. It provides some unbelievable video. Thank you.
So, Mr. Kadak is complaining about the media having an agenda and not providing accurate information??? From his resume, it sounds like he has a lot to gain from the promotion of nuclear power. No wonder he is critical of negative media reports.
I could get information about democratic party policy from Rush Lindbough and come out with about the same result as getting information about nuclear power from Mr. Kadak.
By the way, I am a proponent of nuclear fission power as a "bridge technology" until renewables become cost competative with fossil fuels and nuclear fission.
April 6, 2011 1:52 AM
Dr. Kadak is absolutely correct!
Each operating reactor at the Japanese plant immediately shut down after the earthquake. There was absolutely no operational problems with this about forty year old facility.
The ENTIRE problems resulted from the emergency generators; their equipments and fuel tanks; sited for a 22 foot potential tsaunami, when they experienced a 30 foot wave, wiping out all ability to control core and fuel rod temperatures, without emergency power.
Compare this design flaw, of emergency gensets improperly sited for potential disaster, to the emergency generators that were sited a few feet above the massive pumps designed to pump out New Orleans; power supplies that Katrina's waters immediately placed out of service, resulting in the total flooding of the city, without any ability to relieve the disaster. Or, to the New Orleans hospital that placed their generator systems at about ground leve, and forced the evacuation of all patients into the flooded city.
While nuclear technology is exposed to significant safety problems, it's time that our engineers design a margin of safety into the emergency power systems that are supposed to mitigate a developing problem!
As to your comment about finding a repository for spent fuel rods, talk to your President, and his congress, about why they are forcing the nuclear plants to have this material stored on their premises
Roger Spence
April 6, 2011 3:50 AM
Unfortunately this is the sad truth. Since the late 70's nuclear technology has been miss understood and poorly portrayed. It's a general rule that people fear what they don't understand, and for the most part, neutron flux, thermal cross sections and resonance escape probabilities are harder to understand than combustion, air to fuel ratios and spark timing.
The only people who have a real understanding of the dangers in these situations are people who have a vested interest in the technology, but no one ever seems to mind when a doctor recommends kemo therapy. Thats because they are trusted experts, and we accept that even though they get benefit from the procedure, they are also concerned i. Nuclear scientists have just as much training as medical doctors (and in many cases more), so why are they not given the same level of trust?