Slashdot Mirror


Report Condemns Japan's Response To Nuclear Accident

mdsolar sends this quote from an article at the NY Times: "From inspectors who abandoned the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant as it succumbed to disaster to a delay in disclosing radiation leaks, Japan's response to the nuclear accident caused by the March tsunami fell tragically short, a government-appointed investigative panel said on Monday. ... In particular, an erroneous assumption that an emergency cooling system was working led to an hours-long delay in finding alternative ways to draw cooling water to the plant, the report said. All the while, the system was not working, and the uranium fuel rods at the cores were starting to melt."

34 of 267 comments (clear)

  1. In another era ... by sirdude · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... there would have been less "soteigai" and more "seppuku".

    1. Re:In another era ... by buchner.johannes · · Score: 2

      Comparisons with Chernobyl are varying. Prof. Kodoma estimated 10-40 times Chernobyl (video has transcript and CC).

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
  2. 1% of all nuke plants have melted down now. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Can you imagine if 1% of cars would randomly blow up? How about 1% of airplanes have their engines fall off in flight? There wouldn't be cars or airplanes.

    But, 1% of all nuclear power plants in the world have now experienced melt downs. Per wikipedia, 441 operating plants in the world.

    echo 5/441 | bc -l .01133786848072562358

    So, OVER 1% catastrophic failure. .I'm sure all the pro pro pro nuke industry apologists on /. will mod this to oblivion. Facts can be inconvenient.

    1. Re:1% of all nuke plants have melted down now. by ustolemyname · · Score: 4, Informative

      How many cars have you driven 24/6 for 60 years? Hell, few airplanes are in the air after 30 years.

      On top of that, 0.4% of all cars get in accidents every year. Every year more people die in the US from traffic accidents then in every nuclear power incident ever.

      Sources:
      http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1103.pdf
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States#Total_number_of_vehicles

    2. Re:1% of all nuke plants have melted down now. by beelsebob · · Score: 2

      I count 10 reactors that have melted down:

      BORAX-i
      EBR-i
      The sodium reactor expiremnt
      Stationary Low Power reactor No 1
      SNAP8ER
      Fermi 1
      SNAP8DR
      3 mile island
      chernobyl
      fukushima

    3. Re:1% of all nuke plants have melted down now. by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even with pessistimistic estimates for Chernobyl and Fukushima death rates nuclear power still kills less people per unit of energy than any other form of electrical generation.

      If you want to complain about the safety of nuclear power tell us what you want to replace it with. Be honest and include the expected change in fatalities resulting from switching over to your alternative.

    4. Re:1% of all nuke plants have melted down now. by Idou · · Score: 5, Funny

      To be fair, nuclear plant reactors tend to not cover as much distance in their lifetimes . . . that might contribute to their low traffic accident numbers.

      --
      Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
    5. Re:1% of all nuke plants have melted down now. by Christian+Smith · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And every coal mine has had tragic cave ins and deaths. Fossil fuel is causing potential global melt down.

      Question is, how many of those melt downs resulted in deaths? How many compared to coal, oil and gas exploration and mining?

      And we're not talking about a random blow up here. We're talking a >9 richter scale earth quake and biggest in memory tsunami, which killed infinitely more people than the melt down, and orders of magnitude more people than even Chernobyl.

    6. Re:1% of all nuke plants have melted down now. by khallow · · Score: 2

      He's talking about civil power plants. That drops it to the last three plants on the list and Windscale.

    7. Re:1% of all nuke plants have melted down now. by roman_mir · · Score: 3, Insightful

      IF any of the accidents and incidents with nuclear powerplants (and nuclear weapons) have caused as many deaths and injuries as CARS have (or alcohol or tobacco or other types of powerplants, like coal or hydro), then you'd have half a point.

      Come back when nuclear powerplants start killing as many people as anything I have mentioned here.

    8. Re:1% of all nuke plants have melted down now. by del_diablo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sure: Deaths per TWh
      0.04 deaths per TWh for nuclear. Hydro is a bit more than twice that, wind is at 4 times as much, and Coal is at 42 times that again.

    9. Re:1% of all nuke plants have melted down now. by ustolemyname · · Score: 2

      My point exactly. If you want to use this example to state "we should not continue to operate 60 year old nuclear power plants," I would agree with you for the same reason I do not believe we should operate 60 year old aircraft (which we don't, because that would be stupid.) In fact, your citation only demonstrates a small percentage of aircraft are even their early 40's, which is in line with my "few aircraft are over 30 years old".

      I apologize if my analogies and comparisons are a bit rough, but it started as an apples to oranges comparison.

    10. Re:1% of all nuke plants have melted down now. by suomynonAyletamitlU · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Random? What are you talking about? Are you using the word because a nuclear plant accident can seem random to people not paying attention?

      A car that's improperly maintained can cause an accident that seems to happen "randomly." A driver that falls asleep behind the wheel can cause an accident that seems to happen "randomly". An unexpected weather event can cause an accident that seems to happen "randomly". Are you counting those as "cars randomly blowing up"? Because when they happen at a nuclear plant, you would use the same word.

      Or are you talking about areas affected? Do you really want to try to compare how much (surface area * time) is wasted by car crashes, or how many people lose time or property because of them, compared to nuclear accidents? Or how much manpower is put into cleaning them up? How many fatalities?

      To be perfectly honest, we put up with cars because cars are individually empowering. Nuclear power is not individually empowering, not when compared to other kinds of power generation, and it won't be until we have some sort of cold-fusion device that lets you live off the grid. Power generation is about trust. And nuclear power (right or wrong) is asking us to trust them to deal with scarily powerful forces.

      You can mistrust them. That's fine. But, please don't scaremonger. Voice concerns, by all means, but don't scaremonger. Some of us do trust it, and in a vast majority of cases, that trust is not misplaced. Being a dick to people who are actually trustworthy and going out of their way to be of use to us is kind of a dick move.

    11. Re:1% of all nuke plants have melted down now. by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even with pessistimistic estimates for Chernobyl and Fukushima death rates nuclear power still kills less people per unit of energy than any other form of electrical generation.

      Yes, and air has always been the safest way to travel, but yet the FAA is one of the strictest safety organisations in history. Meanwhile, cars kill hundreds of thousands every year, and manufacturers still fight over having to implement safety features.

      We hold different technologies to different standards, for different reasons. For nuclear power, this reason involves the ability of nuclear accidents to render cities, towns and surrounding regions effectively uninhabitable for up to and over 50 years. A 1% failure rate under these circumstances is not very comforting, particularly in such a space poor country as Japan.

      Would you build a nuclear plant in the suburbs or port regions of New York or Tokyo? If not, why not, and where else are you going to build them? In which regions of your country are you willing to risk that 1% failure rate over 100 years, that could render the areas within 30km of the plant uninhabitable for 50 years?

      If you want to complain about the safety of nuclear power tell us what you want to replace it with. Be honest and include the expected change in fatalities resulting from switching over to your alternative.

      You find me the small town willing to take the risks I've mentioned above first. I'm willing to bet you;ll have more difficulty with that than I will finding alternative energy sources.

      We could of course, build nuclear plants in the middle of nowhere, but apparently that's unacceptable for some reason.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    12. Re:1% of all nuke plants have melted down now. by HornWumpus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There are many 60 year old light aircraft still being flown on a daily basis.

      Those flying 60 year old planes are a lot like my old granddads axe though. On their 5th engine, 6th prop, 2nd windscreen, 3rd instrument cluster etc.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    13. Re:1% of all nuke plants have melted down now. by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 2

      Funny, I haven't heard of that many deaths from solar power .........

      Then you haven't been listening.

      There's no such thing as a riskless human activity. Every single possible thing a person can do has a death rate associated with it.

      Most solar deaths occur during the construction and installation phase of the life cycle.

      The number of deaths is low in absolute terms but since the amount of energy produced over the lifetype of a solar installation is so small compared to denser sources of power it makes each death more signifigant in terms of fatalities per unit of energy generated.

    14. Re:1% of all nuke plants have melted down now. by currently_awake · · Score: 2

      The cities bombed by American nuclear bombs are inhabited. Bikini atoll was nuked over and over, yet the life came back. When dealing with radio-isotopes the higher the level of radiation the shorter the half-life. Yes there will be radiation there for a long time, but not high enough to kill.

    15. Re:1% of all nuke plants have melted down now. by petermgreen · · Score: 2

      Funny, I haven't heard of that many deaths from solar power .........

      That is because the deaths solar power causes are pretty mundane. Stuff like falling off roofs and similar.

      It's like car crashes vs train and plane crashes. Car crashes happen all the time but they are too mundane to be interesting so they aren't usualy mentioned beyond the local news and sometimes not even there. Train and plane crashes kill far fewer people but when one does happen it's big news.

      But, when does demand spike ?

      When the temperature outside gets furthest from the temperature people want inside. In some places that is hot days, in other places it is cold days.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    16. Re:1% of all nuke plants have melted down now. by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 2

      The 'problem' with nuclear isn't the actual deaths but the potential deaths. Sure not every one is explosive, but when they are it ain't pretty. That's why they build the things so massively redundant. It simply can not fail. Period.

      Now put something like that on a coastline prone to quakes and tsunamis. It's a bad risk to take yet was labeled 'safe' quite recently.

      If humans were involved in the design, construction or operation, there will be things that fail.

      Even if they built a sea wall high enough to stop the wave...it wouldn't have been enough because the land 'sank' 3 feet.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
  3. Re:Dunno by MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Proper cooling (which would have meant functioning ICs OR venting+water injection)

    But how could authorities have done that, given that most of the gear at the reactor site was trashed?

  4. Re:Pro-mistakes advocates. by ustolemyname · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Absolutely agree with this report. Incompetence and high risk activities do not belong together. That goes from building a dam to driving a car, all of which have had their share of preventable accidents.

    As a nuclear advocate, I find the nytimes summary of the report indicates it is a little too weak and toothless, as they say, "the interim report seems to leave ultimate responsibility for the disaster ambiguous."

    Not only that, but the report states that a "quicker response" would have helped, as opposed to the obvious "design flaws in the redundant cooling systems should have been fixed previously." Most everything that should have been done to prevent this should have been done decades before.

  5. Re:Pro-mistakes advocates. by Idou · · Score: 2

    Alright, then. So do you support nukes in China?
    Here is a little reminder of the different approaches the two countries have on things.

    Perhaps you might want to clarify just which countries you are pro-nuke for . . .

    --
    Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
  6. Re:Dunno by Magada · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Unit 1 IC train A was shut down by operators to avoid excessive cooling which would have thermally stressed the metal of the RPV and shortened the life of an already old plant. Later, power to operate the valves that would have made it active again became unavailable.

    At that point, the RPV should have been vented and water should have been added using fire engines. This was not done for a variety of reasons, such as that the evacuation was not over yet. When at last venting was attempted, it was found that a valve needed for venting ad failed closed, possibly because of excessive pressure. Attempts to open it manually met with failure.

    So, eventually the reactor vented itself. Explosively.

    The severe accident management guidelines did NOT, in fact, state that venting should only be performed post-evac. They were ignored in the event.

    Even later in the accident sequence sufficient fresh water became unavailable for a while (the first reactor explosion damaged fire trucks, severed water lines and prompted a TOTAL evacuation of the site). A decision was made to delay salt-water cooling. This probably contributed to the melt-through in reactor 3.

    --
    Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
  7. Re:Dunno by Hynee · · Score: 2
    They fucked up by not having adequate backup power systems.

    Everything in the generator hall was fine AFAIK except outside power was down and backup generators were trashed by the tsunami. And that was is, there were no better protected generators, no generators that could run from the heat of the reactor, and no plan to fly in working generators. Derp.

    --
    Damn, I already moderated this topic. Now I'll have to log in with my sock puppet to comment.
  8. Re:Pro-mistakes advocates. by ustolemyname · · Score: 3, Informative

    Fukushima was. The tsunami took out the diesel generators which were used for backup cooling. Having redundant systems (note: redundant does not mean more of the same system) and placing them further inland would have made this controllable.

    As for "was I there when the accident happened," I believe that amounts to an argument for believing the world didn't exist until I was born.

  9. Re:Pro-mistakes advocates. by ustolemyname · · Score: 4, Informative

    Foresight. Article from 2004: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/fl20040523x2.html

    It's not as if this particular reactor was on anybody's list of "this is safe."

  10. Not news by siddesu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Anyone in Japan who has followed the developments would have told you so much. I was hopeful until the Sunday after the quake, when it became plainly obvious that the government and TEPCO are lying about the extent of the damage. It was obvious that a meltdown has occurred at the time of the first explosion, but nobody with even a textbook understanding of how a reactor works would have had any doubts after unit 3 sent large concrete blocks 150 meters up in the air.

    Yet, the Japanese government and TEPCO "admitted the possibility" of meltdowns in the beginning of May, and admitted meltdowns have actually occurred in late July. All this was done while the nuclear industry was faking support for nuclear energy all over Japan, and officials in Japan alongside with power company officials were twisting arms, legs and other limbs to avoid responsibility.

    I won't even discuss the irresponsible dispatch of highly radioactive water on barges and into the ocean and the venting of radioactive steam in the air, which continued for weeks, etc. Now, when the cooling of the reactors has allegedly finished, TEPCO has few hundred tons of highly radioactive sludge in containers on site, waiting for the next quake and tsunami to wash them over the landscape. These will, supposedly, be "dealt with" in the distant future.

    What is really surprising is not only the abysmal response of TEPCO. Nuclear industry in Japan has forever been plagued by accidents. What is un-fucking-believable s the continuing complacency of the government about it. There have been no investigations, no arrests, nothing.

    A government panel, composed mostly of "old boys" (former execs from the nuclear industry, who now serve as "regulators" on taxpayer dime and whose job is to excuse the fuckups of their former colleagues) estimated that Fukushima will increase cost of nuclear power by 20%. Independent experts estimated that actual increase will be more like 3-4 times the current cost. Guess what -- TEPCO already wants the price of electricity to rise by about 20% from next year -- that is just to cope with the immediate cost of the Fukushima cleanup and compensations. The independent experts may yet turn out to be right about a fourfold cost increase.

    Considering the size of the accident and the level of criminal complacency and negligence that lead to it, the report doesn't even come to "damning". It is more like a strongly-worded letter. What is needed in this case is some good ole criminal prosecution, some long terms in the PMITA prison for the TEPCO board members and plant managers, and restructuring the company so that investors who cheered the bad safety practices are heavily punished. A cleanup of the regulatory bodies won't be a bad thing as well.

    But it is Japan, so none of these are very likely to happen. Instead, we'll have another accident in a few years.

  11. Re:Dunno by MightyYar · · Score: 2

    I don't care for your style, but mostly because it is ineffective. The "stupid fuck" will just go into defensive mode, so you haven't changed his mind. Meanwhile, those of us in the people in the peanut gallery don't usually equate knowledgeable professionals with needless public profanity - so you aren't even convincing the peanut gallery like you would have otherwise.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  12. Re:Dunno by Magada · · Score: 2

    Let's not be racist about it. The plant was designed by General Electric (GE nowadays). Immelt, slimy toad that he is, jumped in the media fray VERY early on, to do damage control:

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/56fb5f92-4e0e-11e0-a9fa-00144feab49a.html#axzz1hguiUtBH

    He offered help! He should have started by offering excuses! A group of GE whistleblowers were pointing out design flaws in that exact type of plant in the 970s! Design flaws which played a role in the accident, moreover:

    http://www.iwatchnews.org/2011/03/15/3520/reactors-heart-japanese-nuclear-crisis-raised-concerns-early-1972-memos-show

    also, this:

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/03/15/956586/-Whistleblower-Expose-of-GE-Inspection-Coverup-RARE-EU-Authored-US-BWR-Damage-Report-?via=tag

    --
    Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
  13. cowards by LifesABeach · · Score: 2

    those who have no honor, no respect for community, no regard for actions taken; we now have name for them, "Fukushima Daiichi."

  14. Re:Dunno by PCM2 · · Score: 2

    The severe accident management guidelines did NOT, in fact, state that venting should only be performed post-evac. They were ignored in the event.

    Judging by the news reports at the time, the Japanese government was intent on denying that this even was a "severe accident." I wonder if that was just media spin, or whether there was something about the Japanese cultural mindset that they just refused to believe things were getting out of control as fast as they did? And that's why the appropriate protocols weren't followed -- because they didn't believe this was a case that merited "severe accident management"?

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
  15. Re:Dunno by siddesu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The primary reason for the bad handling within the company (according to what I hear from an acquaintance of mine who works for TEPCO at Fukushima I) was plain panic and desire to cut as much cost as possible. The first reaction of TEPCO was to move out of the Fukushima plant. They apparently had evacuated all staff and families on Sunday already. Then they left subcontractors to deal with the disaster, while TEPCO staff was monitoring the shit happening from Tokyo via videoconferencing. They even had a glitch that caused delay in power re-supply sometime in mid-April, when a construction machine cut the optical cable that connected TEPCO staff with their human robots at the plant.

    The real question is, why was all this allowed. Many reasons.

    First, TEPCO is a very well connected and influential corporation. The nuclear power management body in Japan - JAEA - is staffed exclusively with people from the nuclear power industry, i.e. about half of their staff is from TEPCO itself. Those people advise the government on what to do. They also own stock or options of, receive pensions from and hold sinecure positions with their former corporate employer. No wonder they would be among the last to criticize it. Naturally, they influence what gets in the government media (NHK, mostly) about the accident. TEPCO is a large contributor to national politicians, and the local governments where TEPCO operates (including the affected areas) are also mostly in the pockets of the company. That is why both national and local politicians have worked with TEPCO to calm protesters from day one.

    Despite that, there have been a few large demonstrations, but don't forget that the people in the affected areas are also victims of the earthquake - their houses, business and in many cases, family members are gone. They simply don't have the means to stage significant protests.

    Second, TEPCO is a large advertiser. They wield a very large influence with a lot of private media. That is why you never see anything really bad about them in the newspapers or in the popular private TV channels. The culture preference against rocking the boat plays very nicely with the financial motivation of not angering TEPCO, so coverage is avoiding classifications as "disaster", "severe", etc. There was a lot of shock when the accident was classified at Chernobyl level, but overall the media has managed to project the message that this was an accident that is due to factors beyond human control, which has until recently, limited the interest in it on national level. We'll see if the report changes this.

    Third, TEPCO is a company that also manages distribution of power. That is why if you are a large consumer in times of shortages, you keep your trap shut if you're smart. Just in case.

    There is also the complex political situation in Japan. The LDP, the party that is directly responsible for giving the nuclear lobby a free ride, is the major opposition. They have not uttered a peep about the disaster yet, because they don't want their role advertised. Half the politicians in the party in power (DPJ) were members of the LDP at the time decisions about nuclear power in Japan were made. They also don't want to put forward the political responsibility issue. Third, the DPJ is in deep trouble anyways, and because of the way the political apparatus of Japan works, they handle the bureaucracy with a lot of difficulty. Maybe that is partly why they made the ultimately disastrous decision to let TEPCO handle the accident.

    In short, it is a very complex and very unfortunate story.

  16. Re:Pro-mistakes advocates. by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 2
    This article from 2004 is indeed very informative. For those who cannot read it entirely, here are the most Fukushima-related parts:

    Japan's deadly game of nuclear roulette

    Japan sits on top of four tectonic plates, at the edge of the subduction zone, and is in one of the most tectonically active regions of the world.
    The 52 reactors in Japan are located in an area the size of California, many within 150 km of each other and almost all built along the coast where seawater is available to cool them.
    However, many of those reactors have been negligently sited on active faults, particularly in the subduction zone along the Pacific coast, where major earthquakes of magnitude 7-8 or more on the Richter scale occur frequently.

    "I think the situation right now is very scary," says Katsuhiko Ishibashi, a seismologist and professor at Kobe University. "It's like a kamikaze terrorist wrapped in bombs just waiting to explode."
    Last summer, I visited Hamaoka nuclear power plant in Shizuoka Prefecture. Because Hamaoka sits directly over the subduction zone near the junction of two plates, and is overdue for a major earthquake, it is considered to be the most dangerous nuclear power plant in Japan.
    When the geologic evidence was presented confirming the extreme danger at Hamaoka, the attending media were obviously shocked.

    On July 7 last year, the same day of my visit to Hamaoka, Ishibashi warned of the danger of an earthquake-induced nuclear disaster (...). He said: "The seismic designs of nuclear facilities are based on standards that are too old from the viewpoint of modern seismology and are insufficient. The authorities must admit the possibility that an earthquake-nuclear disaster could happen and weigh the risks objectively."
    After visiting the center a few kilometers from Hamaoka, I realized that Japan has no real nuclear-disaster plan in the event that an earthquake damaged a reactor's water-cooling system and triggered a reactor meltdown.
    Additionally, there is an extreme danger of an earthquake causing a loss of water coolant in the pools where spent fuel rods are kept.

    When I asked ERC officials how they planned to evacuate millions of people from Shizuoka Prefecture and beyond after a Kobe-magnitude earthquake (Kobe is on the same subduction zone as Hamaoka) destroyed communication lines, roads, railroads, drinking-water supplies and sewage lines, they had no answer.
    Yoichi Kikuchi, a Japanese nuclear engineer who also became a whistle-blower, has told me personally of many safety problems at Japan's nuclear power plants, such as cracks in pipes in the cooling system from vibrations in the reactor. He said the electric companies are "gambling in a dangerous game to increase profits and decrease government oversight."

    It is not a question of whether or not a nuclear disaster will occur in Japan; it is a question of when it will occur.

    It is time to make the changeover from nuclear fuel to fossil fuels in order to save future generations and the economy of Japan.

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  17. Re:Dunno by chitokutai · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A couple of clarifications:

    The reason for the poor handling of the situation is as you mention, an over-reliance on contract workers, but also because of a complete lack of preparation and training by those involved. The officials at TEPCO never prepared for a worst-case scenario, because they wanted to cut costs, and they stupidly believed that the worst-case scenario was impossible. Two points make this painfully obvious: 1) they didn't think a complete loss of power was even in the realm of possibility (despite only having two backup generators, both located below ground), and 2) they didn't even have instructions in their manuals for manually venting the RPV. NISA, despite being in charge of nuclear safety and TEPCO, were watching network TV to find out the details of the problem -- i.e. a huge transparency problem.

    Also, the TEPCO as we knew it, and as you mentioned it, is finished. Most likely the company will be nationalized sometime next year, and although the same pieces of shit that got us in this situation will most likely keep their jobs, their influence over Japanese people is pretty much at an end. The media has regularly covered their incompetence and negligence since the March explosions, and even NHK has pretty solidly shown how criminal their actions were. Will anyone get put in jail? Probably not. But the TEPCO CEO has already been forced to quit, and TEPCO stocks will be in shambles for decades. In this sense, you could probably draw parallels to the clusterfuck that was BP and the Gulf oil spill. But again, it must be emphasized that no one seems concerned about TEPCO's influence on network TV at all anymore because there is a massive amount of anger directed at the company.

    In terms of power consumption, there is already talk of allowing non-centralized power companies to start operating, and hopefully this is something we'll see in the next 10 years or so. I have a feeling that the government will want to keep people tied to TEPCO mostly because there will be billions paid out in compensation to victims of the disaster, and they can't afford to pay for everything. There will be a shift away from nuclear power, though. The general consensus is that most people don't have the stomach for it anymore, and based on many reports on TV, it's clear that Japan was essentially forced into using nuclear power in the first place. We will probably see more power sourced from LNG in the near future, and there are plans to build a plant of this type in Tokyo soon.

    I'm not disagreeing with you at all, I just think that some of your information is a bit out of date. TEPCO is in ruins right now, and since we'll be dealing with radiation cleanup for decades, its negligence won't be so easily forgotten.

    I know you mentioned that NHK is in the pocket of the government, and they are, but NHK has produced some of the best documentaries on the disaster, so I highly recommend checking them out if you haven't done so (sadly, I can only find links to English dubbed versions):

    NHK Japan's Nuclear Crisis More video links