Fukushima nuclear accident

"Fukushima nuclear disaster" redirects here. For the incidents at Fukushima Daini (Fukushima II), see Fukushima Daini Nuclear Power Plant.

See also: Timeline of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster and Fukushima disaster cleanup

Fukushima nuclear accident

Image on 16 March 2011 of the four damaged reactor buildings. From right to left: Unit 1,2,3,4. Hydrogen-air explosions occurred in Unit 4,3 and 1 causing the building damage, while a vent in Unit 2's wall, with water vapor/"steam" clearly visible, preventing a similar explosion.
Date	11 March 2011 (2011-03-11)
Location	Ōkuma, Fukushima, Japan
Coordinates	37°25′17″N 141°1′57″E
Outcome	INES Level 7 (Major accident)
Non-fatal injuries	37 with physical injuries, 2 workers taken to hospital with radiation burns
File:Japan Nuclear power plants map.gif

External videos
24 hours live camera for Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster on YouTube, certified by Tokyo Electric Power Co. Inc.

The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster (福島第一原子力発電所事故, Fukushima Daiichi (pronunciation^ⓘ) genshiryoku hatsudensho jiko) was a catastrophic failure at the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant on 11 March 2011, resulting in a meltdown of three of the plant's six nuclear reactors. The failure occurred when the plant was hit by the tsunami triggered by the Tōhoku earthquake; the plant began releasing substantial amounts of radioactive materials beginning on 12 March, becoming the largest nuclear incident since the 1986 Chernobyl disaster and the second (with Chernobyl) to measure Level 7 on the International Nuclear Event Scale, initially releasing an estimated 10-30% of the earlier incident's radiation. In August 2013, it was stated that the massive amount of radioactive water is among the most pressing problems that are affecting the cleanup process, which is expected to take decades. There have been continued spills of contaminated water at the plant, and some into the sea. Plant workers are trying to lower the leaks using measures such as building chemical underground walls, but they have not improved substantially.

Although no short term radiation exposure fatalities were reported, some 300,000 people evacuated the area, approximately 18,500 people died due to the earthquake and tsunami, and as of August 2013 approximately 1,600 deaths were related to the evacuation conditions, such as living in temporary housing and hospital closures. The exact cause of the majority of these evacuation-related deaths were unspecified because that would hinder the deceased relatives' application for financial compensation.

The World Health Organization indicated that evacuees were exposed to so little radiation that radiation-induced health impacts are likely to be below detectable levels, and that any additional cancer risk from radiation was small—extremely small, for the most part—and chiefly limited to those living closest to the Nuclear power plant. A 2013 WHO report predicts that for populations living in the most affected areas there is a 70% higher risk of developing thyroid cancer for girls exposed as infants (but experts said the overall risk was small: the radiation exposure means about 1.25 out of every 100 girls in the area could develop thyroid cancer over their lifetime, instead of the natural rate of about 0.75 percent), a 7% higher risk of leukemia in males exposed as infants, a 6% higher risk of breast cancer in females exposed as infants and a 4% higher risk, overall, of developing solid cancers for females.

The World Health Organization stated that a 2013 thyroid ultrasound screening programme was, due to the screening effect, likely to lead to an increase in recorded thyroid cases due to early detection of non-symptomatic disease cases. This screening program found that more than a third (36%) of children in the Prefecture have abnormal growths in their thyroid glands, however whether these growths can be attributed to exposure to nuclear radiation has not yet been proven.

The Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission found the nuclear disaster was "manmade" and that its direct causes were all foreseeable. The report also found that the plant was incapable of withstanding the earthquake and tsunami. TEPCO, regulators Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) and NSC and the government body promoting the nuclear power industry (METI), all failed to meet the most basic safety requirements, such as assessing the probability of damage, preparing for containing collateral damage from such a disaster, and developing evacuation plans. A separate study by Stanford researchers found that Japanese plants operated by the largest utility companies were particularly unprotected against potential tsunamis.

Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia "Fukushima nuclear disaster" redirects here. For the incidents at Fukushima Daini (Fukushima II), see Fukushima Daini Nuclear Power Plant. See also: Timeline of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster and Fukushima disaster cleanup Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster Fukushima I by Digital Globe.jpg Image on 16 March 2011 of the four damaged reactor buildings. From right to left: Unit 1,2,3,4. Hydrogen-air explosions occurred in Unit 4,3 and 1 causing the building damage, while a vent in Unit 2's wall, with water vapor/"steam" clearly visible, preventing a similar explosion. Date 11 March 2011 Location Ōkuma, Fukushima, Japan Coordinates 37°25′17″N 141°1′57″E Outcome INES Level 7 (Major accident)[1][2] Injuries 37 with physical injuries,[3][not in citation given] 2 workers taken to hospital with radiation burns[4][5]

External video

24 hours live camera for Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster on YouTube, certified by Tokyo Electric Power Co. Inc.

The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster (福島第一原子力発電所事故 Fukushima Daiichi (About this sound pronunciation) genshiryoku hatsudensho jiko?) was a catastrophic failure at the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant on 11 March 2011, resulting in a meltdown of three of the plant's six nuclear reactors.[6] The failure occurred when the plant was hit by the tsunami triggered by the Tōhoku earthquake;[7] the plant began releasing substantial amounts of radioactive materials beginning on 12 March,[8] becoming the largest nuclear incident since the 1986 Chernobyl disaster and the second (with Chernobyl) to measure Level 7 on the International Nuclear Event Scale,[9] initially releasing an estimated 10-30% of the earlier incident's radiation.[10] In August 2013, it was stated that the massive amount of radioactive water is among the most pressing problems that are affecting the cleanup process, which is expected to take decades. There have been continued spills of contaminated water at the plant, and some into the sea. Plant workers are trying to lower the leaks using measures such as building chemical underground walls, but they have not improved substantially.[11] Although no short term radiation exposure fatalities were reported,[12] some 300,000 people evacuated the area, approximately 18,500 people died due to the earthquake and tsunami, and as of August 2013 approximately 1,600 deaths were related to the evacuation conditions, such as living in temporary housing and hospital closures.[13] The exact cause of the majority of these evacuation-related deaths were unspecified because that would hinder the deceased relatives' application for financial compensation.[14][15] The World Health Organization indicated that evacuees were exposed to so little radiation that radiation-induced health impacts are likely to be below detectable levels,[16] and that any additional cancer risk from radiation was small—extremely small, for the most part—and chiefly limited to those living closest to the Nuclear power plant.[17] A 2013 WHO report predicts that for populations living in the most affected areas there is a 70% higher risk of developing thyroid cancer for girls exposed as infants (but experts said the overall risk was small: the radiation exposure means about 1.25 out of every 100 girls in the area could develop thyroid cancer over their lifetime, instead of the natural rate of about 0.75 percent), a 7% higher risk of leukemia in males exposed as infants, a 6% higher risk of breast cancer in females exposed as infants and a 4% higher risk, overall, of developing solid cancers for females.[12] The World Health Organization stated that a 2013 thyroid ultrasound screening programme was, due to the screening effect, likely to lead to an increase in recorded thyroid cases due to early detection of non-symptomatic disease cases.[18] This screening program found that more than a third (36%) of children in the Prefecture have abnormal growths in their thyroid glands, however whether these growths can be attributed to exposure to nuclear radiation has not yet been proven.[19] The Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission found the nuclear disaster was "manmade" and that its direct causes were all foreseeable. The report also found that the plant was incapable of withstanding the earthquake and tsunami. TEPCO, regulators Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) and NSC and the government body promoting the nuclear power industry (METI), all failed to meet the most basic safety requirements, such as assessing the probability of damage, preparing for containing collateral damage from such a disaster, and developing evacuation plans.[20][21] A separate study by Stanford researchers found that Japanese plants operated by the largest utility companies were particularly unprotected against potential tsunamis.[7] Contents [hide] 1 Overview of incident 2 Background 2.1 Regulation 3 Plant description 3.1 Cooling requirements 3.2 Cooling systems 3.3 Backup generators 3.4 Central fuel storage areas 3.5 Zircaloy 3.6 Safety issues 3.6.1 1967: Layout of the emergency-cooling system 3.6.2 1976: Falsification of safety records 3.6.3 1991: Back-up generator of reactor 1 flooded 3.6.4 2008: Tsunami study ignored 3.7 Location 4 Events 4.1 Earthquake 4.2 Tsunami 4.3 Evacuation 4.4 Units 1, 2 and 3 4.4.1 Core meltdowns 4.5 Units 4, 5 and 6 4.5.1 Unit 4 4.5.2 Units 5 and 6 4.6 Central fuel storage areas 4.7 Contamination 5 Response 5.1 Poor communication and delays 6 Event rating 7 Aftermath 7.1 Risks from radiation 7.2 Thyroid screening program 7.2.1 Chernobyl comparison 7.3 Effects on evacuees 7.4 Radiation releases 7.5 Insurance 7.6 Energy policy implications 7.7 Equipment, facility and operational changes 8 Reactions 8.1 Japan 8.2 International 8.3 Investigations 8.3.1 NAIIC 8.3.2 Investigation Committee 9 See also 10 Notes 11 References 12 External links 12.1 Investigation 12.2 Video 12.3 Drawing and Imagery 12.4 Other Overview of incident[edit]

The plant comprised six separate boiling water reactors originally designed by General Electric (GE) and maintained by the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO). Units 2 through 6 were BWR-4, while unit 1 was the slightly older BWR-3 design.[22] All six were housed in Mark 1 containment building designs.[23] At the time of the earthquake, reactor 4 had been de-fueled and reactors 5 and 6 were in cold shutdown for planned maintenance.[24] Immediately after the earthquake, following government regulations, the remaining reactors 1–3 automatically SCRAMmed; control rods shut down sustained fission reactions. Although fission stops almost immediately with a SCRAM, fission products in the fuel continue to release decay heat, initially about 6.5% of full reactor power. This is still enough to require active reactor cooling for several days to keep the fuel rods below their melting points. In Generation II reactors like the GE Mark I, cooling system failure may lead to a meltdown even in a SCRAMmed reactor.[25] Coincident with the SCRAM emergency generators were automatically activated to power electronics and cooling systems. The tsunami arrived some 50 minutes after the initial earthquake. The 14 meter high tsunami overwhelmed the plant's seawall, which was only 10 m high,[7] with the moment of the tsunami striking being caught on camera.[26] The tsunami water quickly flooded the low-lying rooms in which the emergency generators were housed.[27] The diesel generators were flooded and began to fail soon after, their job being taken over by emergency battery-powered systems. When the batteries ran out the next day on 12 March, active cooling systems stopped, and the reactors began to heat up. The power failure also meant that many of the reactor control instruments also failed.[25] As workers struggled to supply power to the reactors' coolant systems and control rooms, multiple hydrogen-air chemical explosions occurred from 12 March to 15 March.[25][28][29] It is estimated that the hot zirconium fuel cladding-water reaction in reactors 1-3 produced 800 to 1000 kilograms of hydrogen gas each, which was vented out of the reactor pressure vessel and mixed with the ambient air. The gas eventually reached explosive concentration limits in units 1 and 3. Either piping connections between units 3 and 4 or from the zirconium reaction in unit 4 itself,[30] unit 4 also filled with hydrogen. Explosions occurred in the upper secondary containment building in all three reactors.[31] TEPCO admitted for the first time on October 12, 2012 that it had failed to take stronger measures to prevent disasters for fear of inviting lawsuits or protests against its nuclear plants.[32][33][34][35] There are no clear plans for decommissioning the plant, but the plant management estimate is thirty or forty years.[36] On 22 July 2013, more than two years after the incident, it was revealed that the plant is leaking radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean. This had been denied by TEPCO.[37] The report prompted Japanese Prime Minister Shinzō Abe to order the government to step in.[38] On 20 August, in a further incident, it was announced that 300 metric tons of heavily radioisotope-contaminated water had leaked from a storage tank.[39] On 26 August, the government took charge of emergency measures to prevent further radioactive water leaks. Background[edit]

A national program to develop robots for use in nuclear emergencies was terminated in midstream[when?] as a way of implying that they were unneeded. Japan, supposedly a leader in robotics, had none to send into Fukushima when the crisis began. The Japanese government sent a request for robots developed by the US military to help deal with the crisis. The robots went into the plants, and took pictures to help assess the situation. But they couldn't perform human tasks. Following Fukushima, efforts to develop humanoid robots that could supplement relief efforts have accelerated dramatically.[40] Similarly, Japan's Nuclear Safety Commission said in its safety guidelines for light-water nuclear facilities that "the potential for extended loss of power need not be considered.".[41] Regulation[edit] Three investigations into the Fukushima disaster showed the man-made nature of the catastrophe and its roots in regulatory capture associated with a "network of corruption, collusion, and nepotism".[42][43] Regulatory capture refers to the "situation where regulators charged with promoting the public interest defer to the wishes and advance the agenda of the industry or sector they ostensibly regulate". Those with a vested interest in specific policy or regulatory outcomes lobby regulators and influence their choices and actions. Regulatory capture explains why some of the risks of operating nuclear power reactors in Japan were systematically downplayed and mismanaged so as to compromise operational safety.[43] Critics argue that the government shares blame with the regulatory agency for not heeding warnings and for not ensuring the independence of the oversight function.[44] The New York Times alleged that the Japanese nuclear regulatory system sided with and promoted the nuclear industry because of amakudari ('descent from heaven') in which senior regulators accepted high paying jobs at companies they once oversaw. To protect their potential future position in the industry, regulators sought to avoid taking positions that upset or embarrass the companies. TEPCO's position as the largest electrical utility in Japan made it the most desirable position for retiring regulators. Typically the "most senior officials went to work at Tepco, while those of lower ranks ended up at smaller utilities".[45] In August 2011, several top energy officials were fired by the Japanese government; affected positions included the Vice-minister for Economy, Trade and Industry; the head of the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, and the head of the Agency for Natural Resources and Energy.[46] Plant description[edit]

Main article: Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant

Fukushima Daiichi I nuclear powerplant site close-up.

Map of Japan's electricity distribution network, showing incompatible systems between regions. Fukushima is in the 50 Hertz Tohoku region.

Simplified cross-section sketch of a typical BWR Mark I containment as used in units 1 to 5. Key: RPV: reactor pressure vessel. DW: dry well enclosing reactor pressure vessel. WW: wet well - torus-shaped all around the base enclosing steam suppression pool. Excess steam from the dry well enters the wet well water pool via downcomer pipes. SFP: spent fuel pool area. SCSW: secondary concrete shield wall.

The Fukushima I (Daiichi) Nuclear Power Plant consists of six GE light water, boiling water reactors (BWR) with a combined power of 4.7 gigawatts, making Fukushima Daiichi one of the world's 25 largest nuclear power stations. Fukushima Daiichi was the first GE-designed nuclear plant to be constructed and run entirely by the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO). Reactor 1 is a 439 MWe type (BWR-3) reactor constructed in July 1967. It commenced operation on 26 March 1971.[47] It was designed to withstand an earthquake with a peak ground acceleration of 0.18 g (1.74 m/s2) and a response spectrum based on the 1952 Kern County earthquake.[48] Reactors 2 and 3 are both 784 MWe type BWR-4. Reactor 2 commenced operating in July 1974, and reactor 3 in March 1976. The earthquake design basis for all units ranged from 0.42 g (4.12 m/s2) to 0.46 g (4.52 m/s2).[49][50] All units were inspected after the 1978 Miyagi earthquake when the ground acceleration reached 0.125 g (1.22 m/s2) for 30 seconds, but no damage to the critical parts of the reactor was discovered.[48] Units 1–5 have a Mark 1 type (light bulb torus) containment structure; unit 6 has Mark 2 type (over/under) containment structure.[48] In September 2010, reactor 3 was partially fueled by mixed-oxides (MOX).[51] At the time of the accident, the units and central storage facility contained the following numbers of fuel assemblies:[52] Location Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4 Unit 5 Unit 6 Central Storage Reactor Fuel Assemblies 400 548 548 0 548 764 0 Spent Fuel Assemblies[53] 292 587 514 1331 946 876 6375[54] Fuel UO 2 UO 2 UO 2/MOX UO 2 UO 2 UO 2 UO 2 New Fuel Assemblies[55] 100 28 52 204 48 64 N/A There is no MOX fuel in any of the cooling ponds. The only MOX fuel is loaded in the Unit 3 reactor. Cooling requirements[edit]

Diagrammatic representation of the cooling systems of a BWR. See also: Decay heat – Power reactors in shutdown and Nuclear reactor safety systems These reactors generate electricity by using the heat of the fission reaction to create steam. When the reactor stops operating, the radioactive decay of unstable isotopes continues to generate heat for a time. This decay and the decay heat that results requires continued cooling.[56][57] Initially this decay heat amounts to approximately 6% of the amount produced by fission,[56] decreasing over several days before reaching cold shutdown levels.[58] Exhausted fuel rods that have reached cold shutdown temperatures typically require several years in a spent fuel pool before they can be safely transferred to dry cask storage vessels.[59] The decay heat in the unit 4 spent fuel pool had the capacity to boil about 70 tonnes of water per day (12 gallons per minute).[60] On 16 April 2011, TEPCO declared that cooling systems for units 1-4 were beyond repair and would have to be replaced.[61] Cooling systems[edit] In the reactor core, circulation is accomplished via high pressure systems that cycle water between the reactor pressure vessel and heat exchangers. These systems then transfer heat to a secondary heat exchanger via the essential service water system, using water that is pumped out to sea or an onsite cooling tower.[62] When the reactor is not producing electricity, cooling pumps can be powered by other reactor units, the grid or by diesel generators or batteries.[63][64] Units 2 and 3 were equipped with steam-turbine driven emergency core cooling systems that can be directly operated by steam produced by decay heat and which can inject water directly into the reactor.[65] Some electrical power is needed to operate valves and monitoring systems. Unit 1 was equipped with a different cooling system, the "Isolation Condenser" or "IC", which is entirely passive. This consists of a series of pipes run from the reactor core to the inside of a large tank of water. When the valves are opened, steam flows upward to the IC where the cool water in the tank condenses the steam back to water, and it runs under gravity back to the reactor core. For reasons that are not entirely clear, unit 1's IC was operated only intermittently during the emergency. Backup generators[edit] Two emergency diesel generators were available for each of units 1–5 and three for unit 6.[66] In the late 1990s, three additional backup generators for units 2 and 4 were placed in new buildings located higher on the hillside, to comply with new regulatory requirements. All six units were given access to these generators, but the switching stations that sent power from these backup generators to the reactors' cooling systems for units 1 through 5 were still in the poorly protected turbine buildings. All three of the generators added in the late 1990s were operational after the tsunami. If the switching stations had been moved to inside the reactor buildings or to other flood-proof locations, power would have been provided by these generators to the reactors' cooling systems.[67] The reactor's emergency diesel generators and DC batteries, crucial components in powering cooling systems after a power loss, were located in the basements of the reactor turbine buildings, in accordance with GE's specifications. Mid-level engineers expressed concerns that this left them vulnerable to flooding.[68] Fukushima I was not designed for such a large tsunami,[69][70] nor had the reactors been modified when concerns were raised in Japan and by the IAEA.[71] Fukushima II was also struck by the tsunami. However, it had incorporated design changes that improved its resistance to flooding, reducing flood damage. Generators and related electrical distribution equipment were located in the watertight reactor building, so that power from the electricity grid was being used by midnight.[72] Seawater pumps for cooling were protected from flooding, and although 3 of 4 initially failed, they were restored to operation.[73] Central fuel storage areas[edit] Used fuel assemblies taken from reactors are initially stored for at least 18 months in the pools adjacent to their reactors. They can then be transferred to the central fuel storage pond.[3] Fukushima I's storage area contains 6375 fuel assemblies. After further cooling, fuel can be transferred to dry cask storage, which has shown no signs of abnormalities.[74] Zircaloy[edit] Many of the internal components and fuel assembly cladding are made from zircaloy. At normal operating temperatures of approximately 300 °C (572 °F), zircaloy is inert. However, above 500 degrees celsius in the presence of steam,[75] zircaloy undergoes an exothermic oxidizing reaction and produces free hydrogen gas. The reaction between the zirconium and the fuel can lower the fuel's melting point and thus speed up a core melt.[76] Safety issues[edit] 1967: Layout of the emergency-cooling system[edit]

Fukushima reactor control room. On 27 February 2012, NISA ordered TEPCO to report by 12 March 2012 regarding its reasoning in changing the piping layout for the emergency cooling system. These changes were made after the plans were registered in 1966 and the beginning of construction. The original plans separated the piping systems for two reactors in the isolation condenser from each other. However, the application for approval of the construction plan showed the two piping systems connected outside the reactor. The changes were not noted, in violation of regulations.[77] After the tsunami, the isolation condenser should have taken over the function of the cooling pumps, by condensing the steam from the pressure vessel into water to be used for cooling the reactor. But the condenser did not function properly and TEPCO could not confirm whether a valve was opened. 1976: Falsification of safety records[edit] Fukushima Daiichi was central to a falsified-records scandal that led to the departure of senior TEPCO executives. It also led to disclosures of previously unreported problems,[78] although testimony by Dale Bridenbaugh, a lead GE designer, claimed that GE was warned of major design flaws in 1976, resulting in the resignations of several GE designers who protested GE's negligence.[79][80][81] In 2002, TEPCO admitted falsifying safety records for unit 1. The scandal and a fuel leak at Fukushima Daini forced the company to shut all 17 of its reactors.[82] A power board distributing electricity to temperature control valves was not examined for 11 years. Inspections did not cover cooling systems devices such as water pump motors and diesel generators.[83] 1991: Back-up generator of reactor 1 flooded[edit] On 30 October 1991, one of two backup generators of reactor 1 failed, after flooding in the reactor's basement. Seawater used for cooling leaked into the turbine building from a corroded pipe at 20 cubic meters per hour, as reported by former employees in December 2011. An engineer was quoted as saying that he informed his superiors and of the possibility that a tsunami could damage the generators. TEPCO installed doors to prevent water from leaking into the generator rooms. The Japanese Nuclear Safety Commission commented that it would revise its safety guidelines and would require the installation of additional power sources. On 29 December 2011, TEPCO admitted all these facts: its report mentioned that the room was flooded through a door and some holes for cables, but the power supply was not cut off by the flooding, and the reactor was stopped for one day. One of the two power sources was completely submerged, but its drive mechanism had remained unaffected.[84] 2008: Tsunami study ignored[edit] In 2007, TEPCO set up a department to supervise its nuclear facilities. Until June 2011 its chairman was Masao Yoshida, the Fukushima Daiichi chief. A 2008 in-house study identified an immediate need to better protect the facility from flooding by seawater. This study mentioned the possibility of tsunami-waves up to 10.2 metres (33 ft). Headquarters officials insisted that such a risk was unrealistic and did not take the prediction seriously.[85][verification needed] A Mr. Okamura of the Active Fault and Earthquake Research Center urged TEPCO and NISA to review their assumption of possible tsunami heights based on a tenth century earthquake, but it was not seriously considered at that time.[86] The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission warned of a risk of losing emergency power in 1991 (NUREG-1150) and NISA referred to the report in 2004. No action to mitigate the risk was taken.[87] Location[edit] The plant was located in Japan, which, like the rest of the Pacific Rim, is in an active seismic zone. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had expressed concern about the ability of Japan's nuclear plants to withstand seismic activity. At a 2008 meeting of the G8's Nuclear Safety and Security Group in Tokyo, an IAEA expert warned that a strong earthquake with a magnitude above 7.0 could pose a "serious problem" for Japan's nuclear power stations.[88] The region had experienced three earthquakes of magnitude greater than 8, including the 869 Jogan Sanriku earthquake, the 1896 Meiji-Sanriku earthquake, and the 1933 Sanriku earthquake.[citation needed] Events[edit]

Further information: Timeline of the Fukushima I nuclear accidents and 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami Earthquake[edit]

Position of Japanese nuclear power stations as they relate to the epicenter of the quake and the tsunami that followed. Fukushima I was the second closest power station to the epicenter of the earthquake, after Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant. The 9.0 MW Tōhoku earthquake occurred at 14:46 on Friday, 11 March 2011 with epicenter near Honshu Island.[89] It produced maximum ground g-forces of 0.56, 0.52, 0.56 (5.50, 5.07 and 5.48 m/s2) at units 2, 3 and 5 respectively. This exceeded their design tolerances of 0.45, 0.45 and 0.46 g (4.38, 4.41 and 4.52 m/s2). The shock values were within the design tolerances at units 1, 4 and 6.[50] When the earthquake struck, units 1, 2 and 3 were operating, but units 4, 5 and 6 had been shut down for periodic inspection.[49][90] Reactors 1, 2 and 3 immediately underwent an automatic shutdown (called SCRAM).[91][92] When the reactors shut down, the plant stopped generating electricity, cutting off power.[93] One of the two connections to off-site power for units 1–3 also failed,[93] so 13 on-site emergency diesel generators began providing power.[94] Tsunami[edit]

The height of the tsunami that struck the station approximately 30 minutes after the earthquake. A:Power station buildings B:peak height of tsunami C:Ground level of site D:average sea level E: Sea Wall to block waves. The earthquake triggered a 13-to-15-metre (43 to 49 ft) maximum height tsunami that arrived approximately 50 minutes later. The waves overtopped the plant's 10 metres (33 ft) seawall,[95][96][97] flooding the basements of the turbine buildings and disabling the emergency diesel generators[66][98][99] at approximately 15:41.[93][100] TEPCO then notified authorities of a "first level emergency".[91] The switching stations that provided power from the three backup generators located higher on the hillside failed when the building that housed them flooded.[67] Power for control systems switched over to batteries that were designed to last about eight hours.[101] Further batteries and mobile generators were dispatched to the site. They were delayed by poor road conditions and the first arrived only at 21:00 11 March,[94][102] almost six hours after the tsunami. Multiple unsuccessful attempts were made to connect portable generating equipment to power water pumps. The failure was attributed to flooding at the connection point in the Turbine Hall basement and the absence of suitable cables.[98] TEPCO switched its efforts to installing new lines from the grid.[103] One generator at unit 6 resumed operation on 17 March, while external power returned to units 5 and 6 only on 20 March.[104] Evacuation[edit] The government initially set in place a 4-stage evacuation process: a prohibited access area out to 3 km, an on-alert area 3–20 km and an evacuation prepared area 20–30 km. On day one nearly 134,000 people were evacuated from the prohibited access and on-alert areas. Four days later an additional 354,000 were evacuated from the prepared area. Later, Prime Minister Kan instructed people within the on-alert area to leave, and urged those in the prepared area to stay indoors.[105][106] The latter groups were urged to evacuate on 25 March.[107] The 20 kilometer exclusion zone was guarded by only lightly manned roadblocks.[108] Units 1, 2 and 3[edit]

The suspected location of molten fuel inside Unit 1, according to the MAAP report from November 2011. Most of the fuel from Unit 1 is assumed to be at the bottom of the Primary Containment Vessel (PCV), where it is estimated to be "well cooled down". [icon] This section requires expansion. (August 2013) See also: Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster (Unit 1 Reactor), Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster (Unit 2 Reactor), and Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster (Unit 3 Reactor) In reactors 1, 2 and 3, overheating caused a reaction between the water and the zircaloy, creating hydrogen gas. On 12 March, an explosion in Unit 1 was caused by the ignition of the hydrogen, destroying the upper part of the building. On 14 March, a similar explosion occurred in the Reactor 3 building, blowing off the roof and injuring eleven people. On the 15th, an explosion in the Reactor 2 building damaged it and part of the Reactor 4 building. Core meltdowns[edit]

The suspected location of molten fuel inside Unit 2 and Unit 3, according to the MAAP report from November 2011. Most of the fuel from Unit 2 and Unit 3 is assumed to have remained in the Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV), where it is estimated to be "cooled sufficiently". On 16 March TEPCO estimated that 70% of the fuel in Unit 1 had melted, and 33% in Unit 2, further suspecting that Unit 3's core might also be damaged.[109] In the TEPCO report of the Modular Accident Analysis Program (MAAP) from November 2011 further estimates are made to the state and location of the fuel.[110] The report came to the conclusion that the Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) in Unit 1 (commonly known as the reactor core) had been damaged during the disaster, and that "significant amounts" of molten fuel had fallen into the bottom of the Primary Containment Vessel (PCV) – the erosion of the concrete of the PCV by the molten fuel after the core meltdown was estimated to have been stopped in approx. 0.7 metres (2 ft 4 in) depth, with the thickness of the containment being 7.6 metres (25 ft). Gas sampling done before the report detected no signs of an ongoing reaction of the fuel with the concrete of the PCV and all the fuel in Unit 1 was estimated to be "well cooled down, including the fuel dropped on the bottom of the reactor". Furthermore the MAAP report showed that fuel in Unit 2 and Unit 3 had melted, however less than Unit 1, and fuel was presumed to be still in the RPV, with no significant amounts of fuel fallen to the bottom of the PCV. The report further suggested that "there is a range in the evaluation results" from "all fuel in the RPV (none fuel fallen to the PCV)" in Unit 2 and Unit 3, to "most fuel in the RPV (some fuel in PCV)". For Unit 2 and Unit 3 it was estimated that the "fuel is cooled sufficiently". The larger damage in Unit 1 in comparison with the other two units was according to the report due to longer time that no cooling water was injected in Unit 1, which resulted in much more decay heat to accumulate – for about 1 day there was no water injection for Unit 1, while Unit 2 and Unit 3 had only a quarter of a day without water injection. There exists some uncertainty about the amount of damage the reactors sustained during the meltdown – Tepco revised the numbers several times. In November 2013 Mari Yamaguchi reported for Associated Press that there are computer simulations which show that "the melted fuel in Unit 1, whose core damage was the most extensive, has breached the bottom of the primary containment vessel and even partially eaten into its concrete foundation, coming within about 30 centimeters (one foot) of leaking into the ground" – a Kyoto University nuclear engineer said with regards to these estimates: "We just can't be sure until we actually see the inside of the reactors."[111] According to a December 2013 report TEPCO estimated for Unit 1 that "the decay heat must have decreased enough, the molten fuel can be assumed to remain in PCV (Primary container vessel)".[112] Units 4, 5 and 6[edit] Main article: Fukushima Daiichi units 4, 5 and 6

Aerial view of the station in 1975, showing separation between units 5 and 6, and 1-4. ・Unit 6, not completed until 1979, is seen under construction. Unit 4[edit] All fuel rods from unit 4 had been transferred to the spent fuel pool on an upper floor of the reactor building prior to the tsunami. On 15 March, an explosion damaged the fourth floor rooftop area of unit 4, creating two large holes in a wall of the outer building. It was reported that water in the spent fuel pool might be boiling. Radiation inside the unit 4 control room prevented workers from staying there for long periods. Visual inspection of the spent fuel pool on 30 April revealed no significant damage to the rods. A radiochemical examination of the pond water confirmed that little of the fuel had been damaged.[113] In October 2012, the former Japanese Ambassador to both Switzerland and Senegal Mitsuhei Murata said that ground under Fukushima unit 4 was sinking, and the structure may collapse.[114][115] Units 5 and 6[edit] Reactors 5 and 6 were also not operating when the earthquake struck. Unlike reactor 4, their fuel rods remained in the reactor. The reactors had been closely monitored, as cooling processes were not functioning well.[citation needed] Central fuel storage areas[edit] On 21 March, temperatures in the fuel pond had risen slightly, to 61 °C and water was sprayed over the pool.[3] Power was restored to cooling systems on 24 March and by 28 March temperatures were reported down to 35 °C.[116] Contamination[edit] Main article: Radiation effects from Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster Sub article: Comparison of Fukushima and Chernobyl nuclear accident with detailed tables inside

Map of contaminated areas around the plant (22 March – 3 April 2011).

Fukushima dose rate comparison to other incidents and standards, with graph of recorded radiation levels and specific accident events from 11 to 30 March.

Radiation measurements from Fukushima Prefecture, March 2011

Seawater-contamination along coast with Caesium-137, from 21 March until 5 May 2011 (Source: GRS)

Radiation hotspot in Kashiwa, February 2012. Radioactive material was released from the containment vessels for several reasons: deliberate venting to reduce gas pressure; deliberate discharge of coolant water into the sea; and uncontrolled events. Concerns about the possibility of a large scale release led to a 20 kilometres (12 mi) exclusion zone around the power plant and recommendations that people within the surrounding 20–30 km zone stay indoors. Later, the UK, France and some other countries told their nationals to consider leaving Tokyo, in response to fears of spreading contamination.[117] Trace amounts of radiation, including iodine-131, caesium-134 and caesium-137, were widely observed.[118][119][120] Between 21 March and mid-July around 2.7 × 1016 Bq of caesium-137 (about 8.4 kg) entered the ocean, about 82 percent having flowed into the sea before 8 April.[121] This emission of radioactivity into the sea represents the most important individual emission of artificial radioactivity into the sea ever observed. However, the Fukushima coast has some of the world's strongest currents and these transported the contaminated waters far into the Pacific Ocean, thus causing great dispersion of the radioactive elements. The results of measurements of both the seawater and the coastal sediments led to the supposition that the consequences of the accident, in terms of radioactivity, would be minor for marine life as of autumn 2011 (weak concentration of radioactivity in the water and limited accumulation in sediments). On the other hand, significant pollution of sea water along the coast near the nuclear plant might persist, because of the continuing arrival of radioactive material transported towards the sea by surface water running over contaminated soil. Organisms that filter water and fish at the top of the food chain are, over time, the most sensitive to caesium pollution. It is thus justified to maintain surveillance of marine life that is fished in the coastal waters off Fukushima. Despite caesium isotopic concentration in the waters off of Japan being 10 to 1000 times above concentration prior to the accident, radiation risks are below what is generally considered harmful to marine animals and human consumers.[122] A monitoring system operated by the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) tracked the spread of radioactivity on a global scale. Radioactive isotopes were picked up by over 40 monitoring stations.[123] On 12 March, radioactive releases first reached a CTBTO monitoring station in Takasaki, Japan, around 200 km away. The radioactive isotopes appeared in eastern Russia on 14 March and the west coast of the United States two days later. By day 15, traces of radioactivity were detectable all across the northern hemisphere. Within one month, radioactive particles were noted by CTBTO stations in the southern hemisphere.[124][125] Estimates of radioactivity released ranged from 10-40%[10][126][127][128] of that of Chernobyl's. The significantly contaminated area was 10[10]-12%[126] that of Chernobyl.[10][129][130] In March 2011, Japanese officials announced that "radioactive iodine-131 exceeding safety limits for infants had been detected at 18 water-purification plants in Tokyo and five other prefectures".[131] On 21 March the first restrictions were placed on the distribution and consumption of contaminated items.[132] As of July 2011, the Japanese government was unable to control the spread of radioactive material into the nation's food supply. Radioactive material was detected in food produced in 2011, including spinach, tea leaves, milk, fish and beef, up to 200 miles from the plant. 2012 crops did not show signs of radioactivity contamination. Cabbage, rice[133] and beef showed insignificant radiation levels. A Fukushima-produced rice market in Tokyo was accepted by consumers as safe.[133] On 24 August 2011, the Nuclear Safety Commission (NSC) of Japan published the results of the recalculation of the total amount of radioactive materials released into the air during the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station. The total amounts released between 11 March and 5 April were revised downwards to 130 PBq (petabecquerels) for iodine-131 and 11 PBq for caesium-137, which is about 11% of Chernobyl emissions. Earlier estimations were 150 PBq and 12 PBq.[134][135] In 2011 scientists working for the Japan Atomic Energy Agency, Kyoto University and other institutes, recalculated the amount of radioactive material released into the ocean: between late March through April they found a total of 15 PBq for the combined amount of iodine-131 and caesium-137, more than triple the 4.72 PBq estimated by TEPCO. The company had calculated only the direct releases into the sea. The new calculations incorporated the portion of airborne radioactive substances that entered the ocean as rain.[136] In the first half of September 2011 TEPCO estimated radiation release at some 200 MBq (megabecquerels) per hour. This was approximately one four-millionth that of March.[137] Traces of iodine-131 were detected in several Japanese prefectures in November[138] and December 2011.[139] According to the French Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety, between 21 March and mid-July around 27 PBq of caesium-137 entered the ocean, about 82 percent before 8 April. This emission represents the most important individual oceanic emissions of artificial radioactivity ever observed. The Fukushima coast has one of the world's strongest currents (Kuroshio Current). It transported the contaminated waters far into the Pacific Ocean, dispersing the radioactivity. As of late 2011 measurements of both the seawater and the coastal sediments suggested that the consequences for marine life would be minor. Significant pollution along the coast near the plant might persist, because of the continuing arrival of radioactive material transported to the sea by surface water crossing contaminated soil. The possible presence of other radioactive substances, such as strontium-90 or plutonium, has not been sufficiently studied. Recent measurements show persistent contamination of some marine species (mostly fish) caught along the Fukushima coast.[140] Migratory pelagic species are highly effective and rapid transporters of radiation throughout the ocean. Elevated levels of 134 Cs appeared in migratory species off the coast of California that were not seen pre-Fukushima.[141] As of March 2012, no cases of radiation-related ailments had been reported. Experts cautioned that data was insufficient to allow conclusions on health impacts. Michiaki Kai, professor of radiation protection at Oita University of Nursing and Health Sciences, stated, "If the current radiation dose estimates are correct, (cancer-related deaths) likely won't increase."[142] In May 2012, TEPCO released their estimate of cumulative radiation releases. An estimated 538.1 PBq of iodine-131, caesium-134 and caesium-137 was released. 520 PBq was released into the atmosphere between 12–31 March 2011 and 18.1 PBq into the ocean from 26 March – 30 September 2011. A total of 511 PBq of iodine-131 was released into both the atmosphere and the ocean, 13.5 PBq of caesium-134 and 13.6 PBq of caesium-137.[143] TEPCO reported that at least 900 PBq had been released "into the atmosphere in March last year [2011] alone".[144][145] In August 2012, researchers found that 10,000 nearby residents had been exposed to less than 1 millisievert of radiation, significantly less than Chernobyl residents.[146] As of October 2012 radiation was still leaking into the ocean. Fishing in the waters around the site was still prohibited, and the levels of radioactive 134Cs and 137Cs in the fish caught were not lower than immediately after the disaster.[147] On 26 October 2012 TEPCO admitted that it could not stop radioactive material entering the ocean, although emission rates had stabilised. Undetected leaks could not be ruled out, because the reactor basements remained flooded. The company was building a 2,400-foot-long steel and concrete wall between the site and the ocean, reaching 100 feet below ground, but it would not be finished before mid-2014. Around August 2012 two greenling were caught close to shore. They contained more than 25,000 becquerels of caesium-137 per kilogram, the highest measured since the disaster and 250 times the government's safety limit.[148][149] On 22 July 2013 it was revealed that the plant continued to leak radioactive water into the ocean, something long suspected by local fishermen and independent investigators.[37] TEPCO had previously denied that this was happening. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzō Abe ordered the government to step in.[38] On 20 August, in a further incident, it was announced that 300 metric tons of heavily contaminated water had leaked from a storage tank,[39] approximately the same amount of water as one eighth (1/8) of that found in an Olympic-size swimming pool.[150][151] The 300 metric tons of water was radioactive enough to be hazardous to nearby staff, and the leak was assessed as Level 3 on the International Nuclear Event Scale.[152] On 26 August, the government took charge of emergency measures to prevent further radioactive water leaks, reflecting their lack of confidence in TEPCO.[153] As of 2013, about 400 tonnes per day of cooling water was being pumped into the reactors. Another 400 tonnes of groundwater was seeping into the structure. Some 800 tonnes of water per day was removed for treatment, half of which was reused for cooling and half diverted to storage tanks.[154] Ultimately the contaminated water, after treatment to remove radionuclides other than tritium, may have to dumped into Pacific.[36] TEPCO intend to create an underground ice wall to reduce the rate contaminated groundwater reaches the sea.[155] In February 2014, NHK reported that TEPCO was reviewing its radiation data, after finding much higher levels of radiation than was reported earlier. TEPCO now says that levels of 5 million becquerels of strontium per liter were detected in groundwater collected in July 2013 and not 900,000 becquerels, as initially reported.[156][157] In March 2014, numerous news sources, including NBC,[158] began predicting that the radioactive underwater Plume_(hydrodynamics) traveling through the Pacific Ocean would reach the western seaboard of the Continental_United_States. Though the common story was that the amount of radioactivity would be harmless and temporary once it arrived, many Website had alternative perspectives on the situation, pointing to abnormally high levels of radiation on the beach in places like San Francisco,[159] radiation in US milk found hundreds of times higher than federal standards,[160] rainwater discovered over 100 times higher than normal levels by the UC Berkeley nuclear engineering program,[161] and various pictures of mutated animals and plants found in various states that had been reported after the incident. The scientific community, and state and federal agencies, however, have generally assured both Californians and Americans that there are no health risks present, though officials are actively monitoring the situation. Response[edit]

Government agencies and TEPCO were unprepared for the "cascading nuclear disaster".[162] The tsunami that "began the nuclear disaster could and should have been anticipated and that ambiguity about the roles of public and private institutions in such a crisis was a factor in the poor response at Fukushima".[162] In March 2012, Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda said that the government shared the blame for the Fukushima disaster, saying that officials had been blinded by a false belief in the country's "technological infallibility", and were taken in by a "safety myth". Noda said "Everybody must share the pain of responsibility".[163] According to Naoto Kan, Japan's prime minister during the tsunami, the country was unprepared for the disaster, and nuclear power plants should not have been built so close to the ocean.[164] Kan acknowledged flaws in authorities' handling of the crisis, including poor communication and coordination between nuclear regulators, utility officials and the government. He said the disaster "laid bare a host of an even bigger man-made vulnerabilities in Japan's nuclear industry and regulation, from inadequate safety guidelines to crisis management, all of which he said need to be overhauled".[164] Physicist and environmentalist Amory Lovins said: Japan's "rigid bureaucratic structures, reluctance to send bad news upwards, need to save face, weak development of policy alternatives, eagerness to preserve nuclear power's public acceptance, and politically fragile government, along with TEPCO's very hierarchical management culture, also contributed to the way the accident unfolded. Moreover, the information Japanese people receive about nuclear energy and its alternatives has long been tightly controlled by both TEPCO and the government".[165] Poor communication and delays[edit] The Japanese government did not keep records of key meetings during the crisis.[166] Data from SPEEDI (System for Prediction of Environmental Emergency Dose Information) were emailed to the prefectural government, but not shared with others. Emails from NISA to Fukushima covering 12 March 11:54 PM to 16 March 9 AM holding vital information for evacuation and health advisories went unread and were deleted. The data was not used because the disaster countermeasure office regarded the data as "useless because the predicted amount of released radiation is unrealistic."[167] The Investigation Committee on the Accident at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Stations of Tokyo Electric Power Company's interim report stated that Japan's response was flawed by "poor communication and delays in releasing data on dangerous radiation leaks at the facility". The report blamed Japan's central government as well as TEPCO, "depicting a scene of harried officials incapable of making decisions to stem radiation leaks as the situation at the coastal plant worsened in the days and weeks following the disaster".[168] The report said poor planning worsened the disaster response, noting that authorities had "grossly underestimated tsunami risks" that followed the magnitude 9.0 earthquake. The 12.1 metres (40 ft) high tsunami that struck the plant was double the height of the highest wave predicted by officials. The erroneous assumption that the plant's cooling system would function after the tsunami worsened the disaster. "Plant workers had no clear instructions on how to respond to such a disaster, causing miscommunication, especially when the disaster destroyed backup generators.".[168] In February 2012, the Rebuild Japan Initiative Foundation described how Japan's response was hindered by a loss of trust between the major actors: Prime Minister Kan, TEPCO's Tokyo headquarters and the plant manager. The report said that these conflicts "produced confused flows of sometimes contradictory information".[169][170] According to the report, Kan delayed the cooling of the reactors by questioning the choice of seawater instead of fresh water, accusing him of micromanaging response efforts and appointing a small, closed, decision-making staff. The report stated that the Japanese government was slow to accept assistance from U.S. nuclear experts.[171] A 2012 report in The Economist said: "The operating company was poorly regulated and did not know what was going on. The operators made mistakes. The representatives of the safety inspectorate fled. Some of the equipment failed. The establishment repeatedly played down the risks and suppressed information about the movement of the radioactive plume, so some people were evacuated from more lightly to more heavily contaminated places".[172] From 17 to 19 March 2011, US military aircraft measured radiation within a 45-km radius of the site. The data recorded 125 microsieverts per hour of radiation as far as 25 km (15.5 mi) northwest of the plant. The US provided detailed maps to the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI) on 18 March and to the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) two days later, but officials did not act on the information.[173] The data were not forwarded to the prime minister's office or the Nuclear Safety Commission (NSC), nor were they used to direct the evacuation. Because a substantial portion of radioactive materials reached ground to the northwest, residents evacuated in this direction were unnecessarily exposed to radiation. According to NSC chief Tetsuya Yamamoto, "It was very regrettable that we didn't share and utilize the information." Itaru Watanabe, of the Science and Technology Policy Bureau, blamed the US for not releasing the data.[174] After the Americans published their map on 23 March, Japan published fallout maps compiled from ground measurements and SPEEDI the same day. On 19 June 2012 science minister Hirofumi Hirano stated that his "job was only to measure radiation levels on land" and that the government would study whether disclosure could have helped in the evacuation efforts.[175] Event rating[edit]

Main article: Accident rating of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster

Comparison of radiation levels for different nuclear events. The incident was rated 7 on the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES).[176] This scale runs from 0, indicating an abnormal situation with no safety consequences, to 7, indicating an accident causing widespread contamination with serious health and environmental effects. Prior to Fukushima, the Chernobyl disaster was the only level 7 event on record, while the Three Mile Island accident was a level 5. A 2012 analysis of the intermediate and long-lived radiation released found about 10-20% of that released from the Chernobyl disaster.[177][178] Approximately 15 PBq of caesium-137 was released;[179] compared with approximately 85 PBq of caesium-137 at Chernobyl,[180] indicating the release of 24 kilograms (53 lb) of caesium-137.[181] Unlike Chernobyl, all the Japanese reactors were in concrete containment vessels, which limited the release of strontium-90, americium-241 and plutonium, which were among the radioisotopes released by the earlier incident.[177][180] Some 500 PBq of iodine-131 were released,[179] compared to approximately 1,760 PBq at Chernobyl.[180] Iodine-131 has a half life of 8.02 days; decaying into a stable nucleide. After ten half lives (80.2 days) 99.9% has decayed to xenon-131, a stable isotope.[182] Aftermath[edit]

Main article: Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster casualties No deaths followed short term radiation exposure, while approximately 16,000 people died due to the earthquake and tsunami. Risks from radiation[edit] Very few cancers would be expected as a result of accumulated radiation exposures,[183][184][185] even though people in the area worst affected by Japan's Fukushima nuclear accident have a slightly higher risk of developing certain cancers such as leukemia, solid cancers, thyroid cancer and breast cancer.[12] Estimated effective doses from the accident outside of Japan are considered to be below (or far below) the dose levels regarded as very small by the international radiological protection community.[186] In 2013 WHO reported that area residents who were evacuated were exposed to so little radiation that radiation induced health impacts were likely to be below detectable levels.[16][187] The health risks were calculated by applying conservative assumptions, including the conservative Linear no-threshold model of radiation exposure, a model that assumes even the smallest amount of radiation exposure will cause a negative health effect.[188][189] The report indicated that for those infants in the most affected areas, lifetime cancer risk would increase by about 1%,[190][191] It predicted that populations in the most contaminated areas faced a 70% higher relative risk of developing thyroid cancer for females exposed as infants, and a 7% higher relative risk of leukemia in males exposed as infants and a 6% higher relative risk of breast cancer in females exposed as infants.[17] One-third of involved emergency workers would have increased cancer risks.[192][193] Cancer risks for fetuses were similar to those in 1 year old infants.[194] The estimated cancer risk to children and adults was lower than infants.[195] The stated risks were relative and not absolute. The baseline risk of thyroid cancer in females is 0.75%, predicted to increase to 1.25%, a "70% higher relative risk":[193] These percentages represent estimated relative increases over the baseline rates and are not absolute risks for developing such cancers. Due to the low baseline rates of thyroid cancer, even a large relative increase represents a small absolute increase in risks. For example, the baseline lifetime risk of thyroid cancer for females is just (0.75%)three-quarters of one percent and the additional lifetime risk estimated in this assessment for a female infant exposed in the most affected location is (0.5%)one-half of one percent.[193] Stanford University professor Mark Z. Jacobson and colleague John Ten Hoeve suggested that according to the linear no-threshold model (LNT model) the accident would most likely cause 130 cancer deaths.[196][197] Radiation epidemiologist Roy Shore countered that estimating health effects from the LNT model "is not wise because of the uncertainties".[198] The LNT model greatly overestimated casualties from Chernobyl, Hiroshima or Nagasaki; instead. Evidence that the LNT model was invalid has existed since 1946 and was suppressed by Nobel Prize winner Hermann Muller.[199][200][201] Thyroid screening program[edit] As part of the ultrasound screening program, 36% of children in 2012 were found to have abnormal growths in their thyroid glands, but whether this is due to the effects of nuclear radiation is undetermined.[19][18] The overwhelming majority of thyroid growths are benign growths that will never cause symptoms, illness or death, even if nothing is ever done about the growth. Autopsy studies on people who died from other causes show that more than one third of adults technically have a thyroid growth/cancer.[202] According to the Tenth Report of the Fukushima Prefecture Health Management Survey released in February 2013, more than 40% of children screened around Fukushima prefecture were diagnosed with thyroid abnormalities and that 10 of 186 eligible are suspected of having thyroid cancer as a result of the exposed radiation.[203] As of August 2013, there have been more than 40 children newly diagnosed with thyroid cancer and other cancers in Fukushima prefecture as a whole. In November 2013, another report from the Fukushima Prefectural Government revealed that more children have been diagnosed with confirmed or suspected thyroid cancer. The number of children diagnosed with thyroid cancer was 59. Furthermore, the report claims that in Fukushima prefecture, 12 people per 100,000 who were aged 18 or younger at the time of the accident developed thyroid cancer. This figure is contrasted by a 2007 figure where 1.7 people per 100,000 in the general population between the ages of 15 and 19 contracted the cancer according to statistics taken in four prefectures, including nearby Miyagi. [204] The World Health Organization stated that a 2013 thyroid ultrasound screening programme was, due to the screening effect, likely to lead to an increase in recorded thyroid cases due to early detection of non-symptomatic disease cases.[18] This screening program found that more than a third (36%) of children in the Prefecture have abnormal growths in their thyroid glands, however whether these growths can be attributed to exposure to nuclear radiation has not yet been proven.[19] Thyroid cancer is one of the most survivable cancers, with an approximate 94% survival rate after first diagnosis. That rate increases to a 100% survival rate with catching it early.[205] Chernobyl comparison[edit] Radiation deaths at Chernobyl were also statistically undetectable. Only 0.1% of the 110,000 cleanup workers surveyed had as of 2012 developed leukemia, although not all cases resulted from the accident.[206][207] Data from Chernobyl showed that there was a steady then sharp increase in thyroid cancer rates following the disaster in 1986, but whether this data can be directly compared to Fukushima is yet to be determined.[208][209] Chernobyl thyroid cancer incidence rates did not begin to increase above the prior baseline value of about 0.7 cases per 100,000 people per year until 1989 to 1991, 3–5 years after the incident in both adolescent and child age groups.[208][209] From 1989 to 2005, an excess of 4,000 children and adolescent cases of thyroid cancer were observed. Nine of these had died as of 2005, a 99% survival rate.[210] Effects on evacuees[edit] Evacuation decreased perceived health status.[211] In the former Soviet Union many patients with negligible radioactive exposure after the Chernobyl disaster displayed extreme anxiety about radiation exposure. They developed many psychosomatic problems, including radiophobia along with an increase in fatalistic alcoholism. As Japanese health and radiation specialist Shunichi Yamashita noted:[212] We know from Chernobyl that the psychological consequences are enormous. Life expectancy of the evacuees dropped from 65 to 58 years -- not [predominately] because of cancer, but because of depression, alcoholism and suicide. Relocation is not easy, the stress is very big. We must not only track those problems, but also treat them. Otherwise people will feel they are just guinea pigs in our research.[212] A survey by the Iitate local government obtained responses from approximately 1,743 evacuees within the evacuation zone. The survey showed that many residents are experiencing growing frustration, instability and an inability to return to their earlier lives. Sixty percent of respondents stated that their health and the health of their families had deteriorated after evacuating, while 39.9% reported feeling more irritated compared to before the disaster.[213] Summarizing all responses to questions related to evacuees' current family status, one-third of all surveyed families live apart from their children, while 50.1% live away from other family members (including elderly parents) with whom they lived before the disaster. The survey also showed that 34.7% of the evacuees have suffered salary cuts of 50% or more since the outbreak of the nuclear disaster. A total of 36.8% reported a lack of sleep, while 17.9% reported smoking or drinking more than before they evacuated.[213] Stress often manifests in physical ailments, including behavioral changes such as poor dietary choices, lack of exercise and sleep deprivation. Survivors, including some who lost homes, villages and family members, were found likely face mental health and physical challenges. Much of the stress came from lack of information and from relocation.[214] A Mainichi Shimbun survey computed that of some 300,000 evacuees, approximately 1,600 deaths related to the evacuation conditions, such as living in temporary housing and hospital closures that had occurred as of August 2013, a number comparable to the 1,599 deaths directly caused by the earthquake and tsunami in the Prefecture. The exact causes of these evacuation related deaths were not specified, because according to the municipalities, that would hinder relatives applying for compensation.[14][15] While some articles have drawn an effect on the mortality rate for infants in the Pacific Northwest since the crisis, Scientific American revealed that the underlying statistical analysis was questionable.[215] Radiation releases[edit] In June 2011, TEPCO stated the amount of contaminated water in the complex had increased due to substantial rainfall.[216] On 13 February 2014, TEPCO reported 37,000 becquerels of cesium-134 and 93,000 becquerels of cesium-137 were detected per liter of groundwater sampled from a monitoring well.[217] Insurance[edit] According to reinsurer Munich Re, the private insurance industry will not be significantly affected by the disaster.[218] Swiss Re similarly stated, "Coverage for nuclear facilities in Japan excludes earthquake shock, fire following earthquake and tsunami, for both physical damage and liability. Swiss Re believes that the incident at the Fukushima nuclear power plant is unlikely to result in a significant direct loss for the property & casualty insurance industry."[219] Energy policy implications[edit]

The number of nuclear power plant constructions started each year, from 1954 to 2013. Note the increase in new constructions from 2007 to 2010, before a decline following the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster.

Anti-nuclear power plant rally on 19 September 2011 at the Meiji Shrine complex in Tokyo. By March 2012, one year after the disaster, all but two of Japan's nuclear reactors had been shut down; some had been damaged by the quake and tsunami. Authority to restart the others after scheduled maintenance throughout the year was given to local governments, who in all cases decided against. According to The Japan Times, the disaster changed the national debate over energy policy almost overnight. "By shattering the government's long-pitched safety myth about nuclear power, the crisis dramatically raised public awareness about energy use and sparked strong anti-nuclear sentiment". A June 2011 Asahi Shimbun poll of 1,980 respondents found that 74% answered "yes" to whether Japan should gradually decommission all 54 reactors and become nuclear-free.[220] An energy white paper, approved by the Japanese Cabinet in October 2011, says "public confidence in safety of nuclear power was greatly damaged" by the disaster and called for a reduction in the nation's reliance on nuclear power. It also omitted a section on nuclear power expansion that was in the previous year's policy review.[221] Michael Banach, the current Vatican representative to the IAEA, told a conference in Vienna in September 2011 that the disaster created new concerns about the safety of nuclear plants globally. Auxiliary Bishop of Osaka Michael Goro Matsuura said this incident should cause Japan and other countries to abandon nuclear projects. He called on the worldwide Christian community to support this anti-nuclear campaign. Statements from Bishops' conferences in Korea and the Philippines called on their governments to abandon atomic power. Author Kenzaburō Ōe, who received a Nobel prize in literature, urged Japan to abandon its reactors.[222] The nuclear plant closest to the epicenter of the earthquake, the Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant, successfully withstood the cataclysm. According to Reuters it may serve as a "trump card" for the nuclear lobby, providing evidence that it is possible for a correctly designed and operated nuclear facility to withstand such a cataclysm.[223]

Electricity generation by source in Japan (month-level data). Nuclear energy's contribution declined steadily throughout 2011 due to shutdowns and has been replaced with thermal power stations such as fossil gas and coal power plants. Units 3 and 4 at Ohi Nuclear Power Plant are the only two Japanese reactors which have so far met the new safety rules and thus continue to operate. The loss of 30% of the country's generating capacity led to much greater reliance on liquified natural gas and coal.[224] Unusual conservation measures were undertaken. In the immediate aftermath, nine prefectures served by TEPCO experienced power rationing.[225] The government asked major companies to reduce power consumption by 15%, and some shifted their weekends to weekdays to smooth power demand.[226] Converting to a nuclear-free gas and oil energy economy would cost tens of billions of dollars in annual fees. One estimate is that even including the disaster, more lives would have been lost if Japan had used coal or gas plants instead of nuclear.[196] Many energy policy analysts have begun calling for a phase-out of nuclear power in Japan, including Amory Lovins, who claimed, "Japan is poor in fuels, but is the richest of all major industrial countries in renewable energy that can meet the entire long-term energy needs of an energy-efficient Japan, at lower cost and risk than current plans. Japanese industry can do it faster than anyone — if Japanese policymakers acknowledge and allow it".[165] Benjamin K. Sovacool asserted that Japan could have exploited instead its renewable energy base. Japan has a total of "324 GW of achievable potential in the form of onshore and offshore wind turbines (222 GW), geothermal power plants (70 GW), additional hydroelectric capacity (26.5 GW), solar energy (4.8 GW) and agricultural residue (1.1 GW)."[227] Environmental activists at a 2011 United Nations meeting in Bangkok used the disaster to promote renewable energy.[228] In August 2011, the Japanese Government passed a bill to subsidize electricity from renewable sources. This legislation, effective 1 July 2012, requires utilities to buy electricity generated by renewable sources including solar, wind and geothermal at above-market rates.[229] In September 2011, Mycle Schneider said that the disaster can be understood as a unique chance "to get it right" on energy policy. "Germany – with its nuclear phase-out decision based on a highly successful renewable energy program – and Japan – having suffered a painful shock but possessing unique technical capacities and societal discipline – can be at the forefront of an authentic paradigm shift toward a truly sustainable, low-carbon and nuclear-free energy policy".[230] As of September 2011, Japan planned to build a pilot offshore floating wind farm, with six 2-megawatt turbines, off the Fukushima coast.[231] The first became operational in November 2013.[232] After the evaluation phase is complete in 2016, "Japan plans to build as many as 80 floating wind turbines off Fukushima by 2020."[231] In 2012, Prime Minister Kan said the disaster made it clear to him that "Japan needs to dramatically reduce its dependence on nuclear power, which supplied 30% of its electricity before the crisis, and has turned him into a believer of renewable energy".[citation needed] Sales of solar panels in Japan rose 30.7% to 1,296 megawatts in 2011, helped by a government scheme to promote renewable energy. Canadian Solar received financing for its plans to build a factory in Japan with capacity of 150 megawatts, scheduled to begin production in 2014.[233] As of September 2012, most Japanese people supported the elimination of nuclear power,[234] and Prime Minister Noda and the Japanese government announced plans to make the country nuclear-free by the 2030s. They announced the end of new construction of nuclear power plants and a 40-year limit on existing nuclear plants, Nuclear plant restarts must meet safety standards of the new independent regulatory authority. The plan requires investing $500 billion over 20 years.[235] On 16 December 2012, Japan held a general election. Voters gave the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) a clear victory. Shinzō Abe became Prime Minister. Abe supported nuclear power, saying that leaving the plants closed was costing the country 4 trillion yen per year in higher costs.[236] The comment came after Junichiro Koizumi, who chose Abe to succeed him as premier, made a recent statement to urge the government to take a stance against using nuclear power.[237] A survey of local mayors by the Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper in January 2013 found that most of them from cities hosting nuclear plants would agree to restarting the reactors, provided the government could guarantee their safety.[238] More than 30,000 people marched on 2 June 2013, in Tokyo against restarting nuclear power plants. Marchers had gathered more than 8 million petition signatures opposing nuclear power.[239] In October 2013, it was reported that TEPCO and eight other Japanese power companies were paying approximately 3.6 trillion yen (37 billion dollars) more in combined imported fossil fuel costs compared to 2010, before the accident, to make up for the missing power.[240] Equipment, facility and operational changes[edit] A number of nuclear reactor safety system lessons emerged from the incident. The most obvious was that in tsunami-prone areas, a power station's sea wall must be adequately tall and robust.[7] At the Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant, closer to the epicenter of the 11 March earthquake and tsunami,[241] the sea wall was 14 meters tall and successfully withstood the tsunami, preventing serious damage and radiation releases.[242][243] Nuclear power station operators around the world began to install Passive Auto-catalytic hydrogen Recombiners ("PARs"), which do not require electricity to operate.[244][245][246] PARs work much like the catalytic converter on the exhaust of a car to turn potentially explosive gases such as hydrogen into water. Had such devices been positioned at the top of Fukushima I's reactor and containment buildings, where hydrogen gas collected, the explosions would not have occurred and the releases of radioactive isotopes would arguably have been much less.[27] Unpowered filtering systems on containment building vent lines, known as Filtered Containment Venting Systems (FCVS) can safely catch radioactive materials and thereby allow reactor core de-pressurization, with steam and hydrogen venting with minimal radiation emissions.[27][247] Filtration using an external water tank system is the most common in European countries, with the water tank positioned outside the containment building.[248] In October 2013, the owners of Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power station began installing wet filters and other safety systems, with completion anticipated in 2014.[249][250] In generation II reactors in flood or tsunami prone areas, a 3+ day supply of back-up batteries has become an infomal industry standard.[251][252] Another change is to harden the location of back-up diesel generator rooms with water-tight, blast-resistant doors and heat sinks, similar to those used by nuclear submarines.[27] The oldest operating nuclear power station in the world, Beznau, which has been operating since 1969, has a 'Notstand' hardened building designed to support all of its systems independently for 72 hours in the event of an earthquake or severe flooding. This system was built prior to Fukushima Daiichi.[253][254] Upon a station blackout, like the one that occurred after Fukushima's back-up battery supply was exhausted,[255] many already constructed Generation III reactors adopt the principle of passive nuclear safety. They take advantage of convection (hot water tends to rise) and gravity (water tends to fall) to ensure an adequate supply of cooling water and do not require pumps to handle the decay heat.[256][257] Reactions[edit]

Japan[edit] Main article: Japanese reaction to Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster

Japan towns, villages, and cities in and around the Daiichi nuclear plant exclusion zone. The 20 km and 30 km areas had evacuation and shelter in place orders, and additional administrative districts that had an evacuation order are highlighted. However the above map's factual accuracy is called into question as only the southern portion of Kawamata district had evacuation orders. More accurate maps are available.[258][259] Japanese authorities later admitted to lax standards and poor oversight.[260] They took fire for their handling of the emergency and engaged in a pattern of withholding and denying damaging information.[260][261][262][263] Authorities allegedly wanted to "limit the size of costly and disruptive evacuations in land-scarce Japan and to avoid public questioning of the politically powerful nuclear industry". Public anger emerged over an "official campaign to play down the scope of the accident and the potential health risks".[262][263][264] In many cases, the Japanese government's reaction was judged to be less than adequate by many in Japan, especially those who were living in the region. Decontamination equipment was slow to be made available and then slow to be utilized. As late as June 2011, even rainfall continued to cause fear and uncertainty in eastern Japan because of its possibility of washing radiation from the sky back to earth.[citation needed] To assuage fears, the government enacted an order to decontaminate over a hundred areas with a level contamination greater than or equivalent to one millisievert of radiation. This is a much lower threshold than is necessary for protecting health. The government also sought to address the lack of education on the effects of radiation and the extent to which the average person was exposed.[265] Previously a proponent of building more reactors, Kan took an increasingly anti-nuclear stance following the disaster. In May 2011, he ordered the aging Hamaoka Nuclear Power Plant closed over earthquake and tsunami concerns, and said he would freeze building plans. In July 2011, Kan said, "Japan should reduce and eventually eliminate its dependence on nuclear energy".[266] In October 2013, he said that if the worst-case scenario had been realized, 50 million people within a 250-kilometer radius would have had to evacuate.[267] On 22 August 2011, a government spokesman mentioned the possibility that some areas around the plant "could stay for some decades a forbidden zone". According to Yomiuri Shimbun the Japanese government was planning to buy some properties from civilians to store waste and materials that had become radioactive after the accidents.[268][269] Chiaki Takahashi, Japan's foreign minister, criticized foreign media reports as excessive. He added that he could "understand the concerns of foreign countries over recent developments at the nuclear plant, including the radioactive contamination of seawater".[270] Due to frustration with TEPCO and the Japanese government "providing differing, confusing, and at times contradictory, information on critical health issues"[271] a citizen's group called "Safecast" recorded detailed radiation level data in Japan.[272][273] The Japanese government "does not consider nongovernment readings to be authentic". The group uses off-the-shelf Geiger counter equipment. A simple Geiger counter is a contamination meter and not a dose rate meter. The response differs too much between different radioisotopes to permit a simple GM tube for dose rate measurements when more than one radioisotope is present. A thin metal shield is needed around a GM tube to provide energy compensation to enable it to be used for dose rate measurements. For gamma emitters either an ionization chamber, a gamma spectrometer or an energy compensated GM tube are required. Members of the Air Monitoring station facility at the Department of Nuclear Engineering at the University of Berkeley, California have tested many environmental samples in Northern California.[274] International[edit] Main article: International reaction to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster

Evacuation flight departs Misawa.

U.S. Navy humanitarian flight undergoes radioactive decontamination The international reaction to the disaster was diverse and widespread. Many inter-governmental agencies immediately offered help, often on an ad hoc basis. Responders included IAEA, World Meteorological Organization and the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization.[275] In September 2011, IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano said the Japanese nuclear disaster "caused deep public anxiety throughout the world and damaged confidence in nuclear power".[276] Many countries advised their nationals to leave Tokyo.[277] Events at Fukushima "cast doubt on the idea that even an advanced economy can master nuclear safety".[278] Following the disaster, the IAEA halved its estimate of additional nuclear generating capacity to be built by 2035.[279] Anti-nuclear demonstrations were followed by a significant reevaluation of existing nuclear power programs in many countries. Germany closed off its old nuclear power reactors and decided to phase the rest out by 2022.[280] Italy held a national referendum, in which 94 percent voted against the government's plan to build new nuclear power plants.[281] The same happened in Switzerland, and later Belgium. In France the strongly pro-nuclear government was defeated in a national election and with 70 percent of the public opposing nuclear in some polls, it was replaced by a government promising to radically reduce reliance on nuclear power.[282] In June 2011 an opinion poll from Ipsos MORI reveled that 62% of the citizens of 24 different countries across the world were opposed to nuclear energy.[283] Nuclear power plans were abandoned in Malaysia, the Philippines, Kuwait and Bahrain, or radically changed, as in Taiwan. China suspended its nuclear development programme, but restarted it on a reduced basis in late 2012 with the government approving a ‘small number’ of projects in each of the following five years. The initial plan had been to increase the nuclear contribution from 2 to 4 percent of electricity by 2020, but renewable energy already supplied 17 percent of China’s electricity and, post-Fukushima, it seemed likely that most of the 15 percent of non-fossil energy that China aims to use by 2020 will be from renewables.[citation needed] Stock prices of energy companies reliant on nuclear sources dropped, while renewable energy companies increased. In the United States output from renewable energy had already overtaken that from nuclear and after Fukushima some proposed nuclear projects collapsed. With renewables booming and nuclear costs rising, it seemed as if nuclear contribution will progressively fall.[citation needed] New nuclear projects were proceeding in some countries. The United Kingdom was still planning a major nuclear expansion. So is Russia. Despite massive protests, India is also pressing ahead with a large nuclear programme, as is South Korea.[citation needed] Investigations[edit] NAIIC[edit] Main article: National Diet of Japan Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission The Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission (NAIIC) was the first independent investigation commission by the National Diet in the 66-year history of Japan's constitutional government. Fukushima "cannot be regarded as a natural disaster," the NAIIC panel's chairman, Tokyo University professor emeritus Kiyoshi Kurokawa, wrote in the inquiry report. "It was a profoundly man-made disaster -- that could and should have been foreseen and prevented. And its effects could have been mitigated by a more effective human response."[284] "Governments, regulatory authorities and Tokyo Electric Power [TEPCO] lacked a sense of responsibility to protect people's lives and society," the Commission said. "They effectively betrayed the nation's right to be safe from nuclear accidents.[285] The Commission recognized that the affected residents were still struggling and facing grave concerns, including the "health effects of radiation exposure, displacement, the dissolution of families, disruption of their lives and lifestyles and the contamination of vast areas of the environment". Investigation Committee[edit] Main article: Investigation Committee on the Accident at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Stations of Tokyo Electric Power Company The purpose of the Investigation Committee on the Accident at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Stations (ICANPS) was to identify the disaster's causes and propose policies designed to minimize the damage and prevent the recurrence of similar incidents.[286] The 10 member, government-appointed panel included scholars, journalists, lawyers and engineers.[287][288] It was supported by public prosecutors and government experts[289] and released its final, 448-page[290] investigation report on 23 July 2012.[21][291] The panel's report faulted an inadequate legal system for nuclear crisis management, a crisis-command disarray caused by the government and TEPCO, and possible excess meddling on the part of the Prime Minister's office in the crisis' early stage.[292] The panel concluded that a culture of complacency about nuclear safety and poor crisis management led to the nuclear disaster.[287] See also[edit]

List of civilian nuclear accidents Lists of nuclear disasters and radioactive incidents Timeline of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster Comparison of Fukushima and Chernobyl nuclear accidents Fukushima disaster cleanup Notes[edit]

Jump up ^ Negishi, Mayumi (12 April 2011). "Japan raises nuclear crisis severity to highest level". Reuters. Jump up ^ "Fukushima accident upgraded to severity level 7". IEEE Spectrum. 12 April 2011. ^ Jump up to: a b c "IAEA Update on Japan Earthquake". Retrieved 16 March 2011. "As reported earlier, a 400 millisieverts (mSv) per hour radiation dose observed at Fukushima Daiichi occurred between 1s 3 and 4. This is a high dose-level value, but it is a local value at a single location and at a certain point in time. The IAEA continues to confirm the evolution and value of this dose rate. It should be noted that because of this detected value, non-indispensable staff was evacuated from the plant, in line with the Emergency Response Plan, and that the population around the plant is already evacuated." Jump up ^ McCurry, Justin (24 March 2011). "Japan nuclear plant workers in hospital after radiation exposure". The Guardian. Retrieved 16 December 2013. Jump up ^ "Radiation-exposed workers to be treated at Chiba hospital". Kyodo News. 25 March 2011. Retrieved 17 April 2011.[dead link] Jump up ^ Wakatsuki, Yoko (20 February 2014). "New radioactive water leak at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi plant". cnn.com. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Phillip Lipscy, Kenji Kushida, and Trevor Incerti. 2013. "The Fukushima Disaster and Japan’s Nuclear Plant Vulnerability in Comparative Perspective." Environmental Science and Technology 47 (May), 6082-6088. Jump up ^ "Explainer: What went wrong in Japan's nuclear reactors". IEEE Spectrum. 4 April 2011. Jump up ^ "Analysis: A month on, Japan nuclear crisis still scarring" International Business Times (Australia). 9 April 2011, retrieved 12 April 2011; excerpt, According to James Acton, Associate of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, "Fukushima is not the worst nuclear accident ever but it is the most complicated and the most dramatic...This was a crisis that played out in real time on TV. Chernobyl did not." ^ Jump up to: a b c d Frank N. von Hippel (September/October 2011 vol. 67 no. 5). "The radiological and psychological consequences of the Fukushima Daiichi accident". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. pp. 27–36. Jump up ^ "Japan nuclear plant suffers worst radioactive water leak". cbcnews. 08/02/13. Retrieved 12/02/13. ^ Jump up to: a b c Nebehay, Stephanie (28 February 2013). "Higher cancer risk after Fukushima nuclear disaster: WHO". Reuters. Jump up ^ See Template:2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami casualties dead for updates and references for total casualties of this event. ^ Jump up to: a b Smith, Alexander (10 September 2013). "Fukushima evacuation has killed more than earthquake and tsunami, survey says". Retrieved 11 September 2013. ^ Jump up to: a b "Stress-induced deaths in Fukushima top those from 2011 natural disasters". ^ Jump up to: a b WHO 2013, p. 92. ^ Jump up to: a b http://science.time.com/2013/03/01/meltdown-despite-the-fear-the-health-risks-from-the-fukushima-accident-are-minimal/#ixzz2MnbjhPmv Meltdown: Despite the Fear, the Health Risks from the Fukushima Accident Are Minimal Time magazine article which includes a link to the WHO report, and explains the report in laymans terms. ^ Jump up to: a b c WHO 2013, p. 87-88. ^ Jump up to: a b c Ryall, Julian (19 July 2012). "Nearly 36pc of Fukushima children diagnosed with thyroid growths". The Telegraph UK. Jump up ^ National Diet of Japan Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission. "国会事故調 | 東京電力福島原子力発電所事故調査委員会のホームページ". National Diet of Japan Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission. Retrieved 9 July 2012. ^ Jump up to: a b "UPDATE: Government panel blasts lack of 'safety culture' in nuclear accident". The Asahi Shimbun. 23 July 2012. Retrieved 29 July 2012. Jump up ^ "Fukushima Event PCTRAN Analysis", Micro-Simulation Technology, April 2011 Jump up ^ "General Electric Knew Its Nuclear Reactor Design Was Unsafe … So Why Isn’t GE Getting Any Heat for Fukushima?" Jump up ^ Black, Richard (15 March 2011). "Reactor breach worsens prospects". BBC Online. Retrieved 23 March 2011. ^ Jump up to: a b c "OECD Timeline for the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident". Jump up ^ W. Maschek, A. Rineiski, M. Flad, V. Kriventsev, F. Gabrielli, K. Morita. "Recriticality, a Key Phenomenon to investigate in Core Disruptive Accident Scenarios of Current and Future Fast Reactor Designs". IAEA & Institute for Nuclear and Energy Technologies (IKET). Note: See picture in the upper left corner of page 2. ^ Jump up to: a b c d 24 Hours at Fukushima A blow-by-blow account of the worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl By Eliza Strickland Posted 31 Oct 2011 Jump up ^ "Fukushima nuclear accident update log, updates of 15 March 2011". IAEA. 15 March 2011. Retrieved 8 May 2011. Jump up ^ Hydrogen explosions Fukushima nuclear plant: what happened? Jump up ^ "MELCOR Model of the Spent Fuel Pool of Fukushima Dai-ichi Unit 4". Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Jump up ^ page 6 http://eetd-seminars.lbl.gov/sites/eetd-seminars.lbl.gov/files/Fukushima1_Technical_Perspective_LBL_EEDT_04052011-1.pdf What happened at Fukushima a Technical Perspective. Nuclear Regulatory Commission page 11, 26, 29. Jump up ^ Fackler, Martin (12 October 2012). "Japan Power Company Admits Failings on Plant Precautions". The New York Times. Retrieved 13 October 2012. Jump up ^ Sheldrick, Aaron (12 October 2012). "Fukushima operator must learn from mistakes, new adviser says". Reuters. Retrieved 13 October 2012. Jump up ^ Yamaguchi, Mari (12 October 2012). "Japan utility agrees nuclear crisis was avoidable". Boston.com. Associated Press. Retrieved 13 October 2012. Jump up ^ "Japanese nuclear plant operator admits playing down risk". CNN Wire Staff. CNN. 12 October 2012. Retrieved 13 October 2012. ^ Jump up to: a b Justin Mccurry (10 March 2014). "Fukushima operator may have to dump contaminated water into Pacific". The Guardian. Retrieved 10 March 2014. ^ Jump up to: a b Fukushima Plant Admits Radioactive Water Leaked To Sea. Huffingtonpost.com. Retrieved on 2013-09-06. ^ Jump up to: a b Adelman, Jacob. (2013-08-07) Abe Pledges Government Help to Stem Fukushima Water Leaks. Bloomberg. Retrieved on 2013-09-06. ^ Jump up to: a b "Wrecked Fukushima storage tank leaking highly radioactive water". Reuters. 20 August 2013. Retrieved 21 August 2013. Jump up ^ "Disaster response robots", Open Minds blog, featuring BBC Documentary Jump up ^ Yoichi Funabashi (11 March 2012). "The End of Japanese Illusions". New York Times. Jump up ^ Richard Tanter (October–December 2013, Vol. 37, No. 4). "After Fukushima: A Survey of Corruption in the Global Nuclear Power Industry". Asian Perspective. ^ Jump up to: a b Jeff Kingston (10 September 2012). "Japan’s Nuclear Village". Japan Focus. Jump up ^ Kaufmann, Daniel and Veronika Penciakova (17 March 2011). "Japan's triple disaster: Governance and the earthquake, tsunami and nuclear crises". Brookings Institution. Jump up ^ Culture of complicity tied to stricken nuclear plant, NYTimes, 27 April 2011 Jump up ^ "Japan to fire 3 top nuclear officials – CNN". Articles.cnn.com. 4 August 2011. Retrieved 11 August 2011. Jump up ^ "Fukushima Daiichi Information Screen". Icjt.org. Retrieved 15 March 2011. ^ Jump up to: a b c Brady, A. Gerald (1980). "An Investigation of the Miyagi-ken-oki, Japan, earthquake of June 12, 1978". In Ellingwood, Bruce. United States Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards. NBS special publication 592. p. 123. ^ Jump up to: a b "The record of the earthquake intensity observed at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station and Fukushima Daini Nuclear Power Station (Interim Report)". TEPCO (Press release). 1 April 2011. ^ Jump up to: a b "Fukushima faced 14-metre tsunami". World Nuclear News. 24 March 2011. Retrieved 24 March 2011. Jump up ^ "Fukushima to Restart Using MOX Fuel for First Time". Nuclear Street. 17 September 2010. Retrieved 12 March 2011. Jump up ^ Martin, Alex, "Lowdown on nuclear crisis and potential scenarios", Japan Times, 20 March 2011, p. 3. Jump up ^ "Fukushima: Background on Fuel Ponds" (PDF). Retrieved 23 November 2013. Jump up ^ "No. 1 fuel pool power to be restored: Tepco". Retrieved 20 March 2013. Jump up ^ "NISA – The 2011 off the Pacific coast of Tohoku Pacific Earthquake and the seismic damage to the NPPs, pg 35" (PDF). Retrieved 24 April 2011. ^ Jump up to: a b Grier, Peter (16 March 2011). "Meltdown 101: Why is Fukushima crisis still out of control?". Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 27 March 2011. Jump up ^ Helman, Christopher (15 March 2011). "Explainer: What caused the incident at Fukushima-Daiichi". Forbes. Retrieved 7 April 2011. Jump up ^ DOE fundamentals handbook – Decay heat, Nuclear physics and reactor theory at the Wayback Machine (archived March 16, 2011), Vol. 2, module 4, p. 61. Jump up ^ "What if it happened here?". Somdnews.com. Retrieved 7 April 2011. Jump up ^ "More on spent fuel pools at Fukushima". Allthingsnuclear.org. 21 March 2011. Retrieved 7 April 2011. Jump up ^ Higgins, Andrew, "disorder intensified Japan's crisis", The Washington Post, 19 April 2011, Retrieved 21 April 2011. Jump up ^ Pre-construction safety report – Sub-chapter 9.2 – Water Systems. AREVA NP / EDF, published 2009-06-29, Retrieved 23 March 2011. Jump up ^ Mike Soraghan (24 March 2011). "Japan disaster raises questions about backup power at US nuclear plants". The New York Times. Greenwire. Retrieved 7 April 2011. Jump up ^ "Regulatory effectiveness of the station blackout rule" (PDF). Retrieved 7 April 2011. Jump up ^ "Why has it become impossible for Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Station to cool reactor core?". Shimbun.denki.or.jp. Archived from the original on 2011-04-27. Retrieved 7 April 2011. ^ Jump up to: a b "The 2011 off the Pacific coast of Tohoku Pacific Earthquake and the seismic damage to the NPPs" (PDF). Retrieved 13 July 2011. ^ Jump up to: a b Shirouzu, Norihiko (1 July 2011). "Wall Street Journal: Design Flaw Fueled Nuclear Disaster". Online.wsj.com. Retrieved 13 July 2011. Jump up ^ Yoshida, Reiji, "GE plan followed with inflexibility", Japan Times, 14 July 2011, p. 1. Jump up ^ Arita, Eriko, "Disaster analysis you may not hear elsewhere", Japan Times, 20 March 2011, p. 12. Jump up ^ Agence France-Presse/Jiji Press, "Tsunami that knocked out nuke plant cooling systems topped 14 meters", Japan Times, 23 March 2011, p. 2. Jump up ^ "IAEA warned Japan over nuclear quake risk: WikiLeaks". physorg.com. Retrieved 26 March 2011. Jump up ^ "Plant Status of Fukushima Daini Nuclear Power Station (as of 0 AM March 12th )", TEPCO, end of day 11 April. Jump up ^ Fukushima No. 1 plant designed on 'trial-and-error' basis, Asahi Shimbun, 7 April 2011. Jump up ^ "Spraying continues at Fukushima Daiichi". 18 March 2011. Retrieved 19 March 2011. Jump up ^ "The Japanese Nuclear Emergency – Sydney Technical Presentation". Engineers Australia. 6 June 2011. Retrieved 22 August 2011.[dead link] Jump up ^ B. Cox, JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MATERIALS, PELLET CLAD INTERACTION (PCI) FAILURES OF ZIRCONIUM ALLOY FUEL CLADDING – A REVIEW, 1990, volume 172, pages 249–292 Jump up ^ The Mainichi Shimbun (28 28 February 2012)TEPCO ordered to report on change in piping layout at Fukushima plant Jump up ^ Norihiko Shirouzu and Rebecca Smith (16 March 2011). "Plant's design, safety record are under scrutiny". The Wall Street Journal. Jump up ^ "Environment: The San Jose Three". TIME Magazine. 16 February 1976. Retrieved 3 March 2012 Jump up ^ "Environment: The Struggle over Nuclear Power". TIME Magazine. 8 March 1976. Retrieved 3 March 2012. Jump up ^ ABC News. "Fukushima: Mark 1 Nuclear Reactor Design Caused GE Scientist To Quit In Protest". Retrieved 15 March 2011. Jump up ^ "Special report-fuel storage, safety issues vexed Japan plant". Reuters. 22 March 2011. Jump up ^ "Operator of Fukushima nuke plant admitted to faking repair records". Herald Sun. Australia. 20 March 2011. Retrieved 24 April 2011. Jump up ^ NHK-world (29 December 2011) Fukushima plant's backup generator failed in 1991. JAIF (30 December 2011)Eathquake report 304:Fukushima plant's backup generator failed in 1991. The Mainichi Daily News (30 December 2011) TEPCO neglected anti-flood measures at Fukushima plant despite knowing risk. Jump up ^ "TEPCO did not act on tsunami risk projected for nuclear plant |". Jagadees.wordpress.com. 2012-02-13. Retrieved 2013-12-30. Jump up ^ "AFERC urged to review assumption on Tsunami in 2009". Yomiuri News Paper. 11 March 2011. Retrieved 14 September 2013. Jump up ^ "Fukushima Nuclear Accident - U.S. NRC warned a risk on emergency power 20 years ago". Bloomberg L.P. 16 March 2011. Retrieved 14 September 2013. Jump up ^ "IAEA warned Japan over nuclear quake risk: WikiLeaks". physorg.com. Daily Telegraph. 17 March 2011. Jump up ^ "Magnitude 9.0 – near the East coast of Honshu, Japan". Earthquake.usgs.gov. Retrieved 17 March 2011. Jump up ^ "Plant Status of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station (as of 0AM March 12th )". TEPCO (Press release). 12 March 2011. Retrieved 13 March 2011. ^ Jump up to: a b "Occurrence of a specific incident stipulated in Article 10, Clause 1 of the Act on "Special measures concerning nuclear emergency preparedness (Fukushima Daiichi)"". TEPCO (Press release). 11 March 2011. Retrieved 13 March 2011. Jump up ^ Associated Press, "How the first 24 hours shaped Fukushima nuclear crisis", Japan Times, 7 July 2011, p. 3. ^ Jump up to: a b c "TEPCO press release 3". Tepco (Press release). 11 March 2011. ^ Jump up to: a b TEPCO tardy on N-plant emergency: National: Daily Yomiuri Online (The Daily Yomiuri). Yomiuri.co.jp (12 April 2011). Retrieved 30 April 2011. Jump up ^ Eric Talmadge (1 July 2011). "AP: First 24 hours shaped Japan nuke crisis". Google.com. Retrieved 13 July 2011. Jump up ^ Japan Meteorological Agency|Tsunami Warnings/Advisories, Tsunami Information. Jma.go.jp. Retrieved 30 April 2011. Jump up ^ Bloomberg, "Tepco revises tsunami's height to 15 meters", 10 April 2011, ^ Jump up to: a b David Sanger and Matthew Wald, Radioactive releases in Japan could last months, experts say. The New York Times 13 March 2011 Jump up ^ "Massive earthquake hits Japan". World Nuclear News. 11 March 2011. Retrieved 13 March 2011.; "Japan earthquake update (2030 CET)". International Atomic Energy Agency. 11 March 2011. Retrieved 12 March 2011. Jump up ^ Bloomberg L.P., "Time not on workers' side as crisis raced on", Japan Times, 5 May 2011, p. 3. Jump up ^ Inajima, Tsuyoshi; Okada, Yuji (11 March 2011). "Japan Orders Evacuation From Near Nuclear Plant After Quake". Bloomberg BusinessWeek. Retrieved 11 March 2011. Jump up ^ "Japan Earthquake Update (2210 CET)". International Atomic Energy Agency (Press release). 11 March 2011. Retrieved 12 March 2011. Jump up ^ Magnier, Mark et al. (16 March 2011). "New power line could restore cooling systems at Fukushima Daiichi plant". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 19 March 2011. Jump up ^ "Stabilisation at Fukushima Daiichi". World-nuclear-news.org. 20 March 2011. Retrieved 24 April 2011. Jump up ^ Richard Black (15 March 2011). "Japan quake: Radiation rises at Fukushima nuclear plant". BBC Online. Retrieved 15 March 2011. Jump up ^ "Japan's PM urges people to clear 20-km zone around Fukushima NPP (Update-1)". RIA Novosti. Retrieved 15 March 2011. Jump up ^ Makinen, Julie (25 March 2011). "Japan steps up nuclear plant precautions; Kan apologizes". Los Angeles Times. Jump up ^ Herman, Steve (12 April 2011). "VOA Correspondent Reaches Crippled Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant". VOA. Retrieved 5 March 2014. Jump up ^ Fukushima Timeline scientificamerican.com Jump up ^ The Evaluation Status of Reactor Core Damage at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station Units 1 to 3 November 30, 2011 Tokyo Electric Power Company Jump up ^ Uncertainties abound in Fukushima decommissioning. Phys.org. 19 Nov 2013. Jump up ^ Most of fuel NOT remaining in reactor1 core / Tepco "but molten fuel is stopped in the concrete base" Fukushima-Diary.com Jump up ^ "Most fuel in Fukushima 4 pool undamaged". world nucler news. 14 April 2011. Retrieved 27 January 2012. Jump up ^ "Japan Diplomat: Ground underneath Fukushima Unit 4 is sinking — More than 30 inches in some areas — Now in danger of collapse". ENENews. Retrieved 24 October 2012. "Due to its ground has been sinking, reactor 4 is now endangered in collapse. … According to secretary of former Prime Minister Kan, the ground level of the building has been sinking 80 cm … unevenly. Because the ground itself has the problem, whether the building can resist a quake bigger than M6 still remains a question." Jump up ^ "Gundersen: Japan ambassador confirms Fukushima Unit 4 is sinking unevenly — Building "may begin to be tilting"". ENENews. Retrieved 24 October 2012. "So I have been able to confirm that there is unequal sinking at Unit 4, not just the fact the site sunk by 36 inches immediately after the accident, but also that Unit 4 continues to sink something on the order of 0.8 meters, or around 30 inches." Jump up ^ "Seismic Damage Information (the 61st Release)". Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency. 29 March 2011. Retrieved 12 April 2011. Jump up ^ Cresswell, Adam (16 March 2011). "Stealthy, silent destroyer of DNA". The Australian Jump up ^ Fukushima radioactive fallout nears Chernobyl levels – 24 March 2011. New Scientist. Retrieved 30 April 2011. Jump up ^ Report: Emissions from Japan plant approach Chernobyl levels, USA Today, 24 March 2011 Jump up ^ Doughton, Sandi. (5 April 2011) Local News|Universities come through in monitoring for radiation|Seattle Times Newspaper. Seattletimes.nwsource.com. Retrieved 30 April 2011. Jump up ^ IRSN (26 October 2011). "Synthèse actualisée des connaissances relatives à l'impact sur le milieu marin des rejets radioactifs du site nucléaire accidenté de Fukushima Dai-ichi". Retrieved 3 January 2012. Jump up ^ Buesseler, Ken O.; Jayne, Steven R.; Fisher, Nicholas S.; Rypina, Irina I.; Baumann, Hannes; Baumann, Zofia; Breier, Crystaline F.; Douglass, Elizabeth M.; George, Jennifer; MacDonald, Alison M.; Miyamoto, Hiroomi; Nishikawa, Jun; Pike, Steven M.; Yoshida, Sashiko (2012). "Fukushima-derived radionuclides in the ocean and biota off Japan". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109 (16): 5984–8. doi:10.1073/pnas.1120794109. PMC 3341070. PMID 22474387. Jump up ^ "CTBTO to Share Data with IAEA and WHO". CTBTO Press Release 18 March 2011. Retrieved 17 May 2012. Jump up ^ "Fukushima-Related Measurements by the CTBTO". CTBTO Press Release 13 April 2011. Retrieved 17 May 2012. Jump up ^ "CTBTO Trakcs Fukushima's Radioactive Release". Animation CTBTO YouTube Channel. Retrieved 17 May 2012. ^ Jump up to: a b No-Man's Land Attests to Japan's Nuclear Nightmare. ABC News, 27. December 2011. Jump up ^ "Reactor accident Fukushima – New international study". Norwegian Institute for Air Research. 21 October 2011. Retrieved 20 January 2012. Jump up ^ David Guttenfelder (27 December 2011). "No-man's land attests to Japan's nuclear nightmare". theStar.com (Toronto). Retrieved 20 January 2012. Jump up ^ Kyodo News, "Radioactivity Dispersal Distance From Fukushima 1/10th Of Chernobyl's", 13 March 2012, (wire service report), "The data showed, for example, more than 1.48 million becquerels of radioactive caesium per square meter was detected in soil at a location some 250 kilometers away from the Chernobyl plant. In the case of the Fukushima Daiichi plant, the distance was much smaller at about 33 km, the officials said." Jump up ^ Hongo, Jun, "Fukushima soil fallout far short of Chernobyl", Japan Times, 15 March 2012, p. 1. Jump up ^ Michael Winter (24 March 2011). "Report: Emissions from Japan plant approach Chernobyl levels". USA Today. Jump up ^ Hamada, Nobuyuki. "Safety regulations of food and water implemented in the first year following the Fukushima nuclear accident". Oxford Journals. Retrieved 30 November 2013. ^ Jump up to: a b "福島産の新米、東京で販売開始　全袋検査に合格". 共同 Nikkei Kyodo news. 2012-09-01. Retrieved 18 April 2013. Jump up ^ JAIF (5 September 2011) NSC Recalculates Total Amount of Radioactive Materials Released Jump up ^ INES (the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale) Rating on the Events in Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Station by the Tohoku District – off the Pacific Ocean Earthquake. NISA/METI, 12 April 2011, archived from Original. Jump up ^ JAIF (9 September 2011) Radioactive release into sea estimated triple Jump up ^ JAIF 20 September 2011 Earthquake-report 211: A new plan set to reduce radiation emissions Jump up ^ Possibility of recriticality again, Fukushima Diary Jump up ^ Increasing leakage of Iodine-131, Fukushima Diary Jump up ^ IRSN (26 October 2011). "Synthèse actualisée des connaissances relatives à l'impact sur le milieu marin des rejets radioactifs du site nucléaire accidenté de Fukushima Dai-ichi". Retrieved 3 January 2012 Jump up ^ Daniel J. Madigan, Zofia Baumann, and Nicholas S. Fisher (29 May 2012). "Pacific bluefin tuna transport Fukushima-derived radionuclides from Japan to California". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109 (24): 9483–9486. doi:10.1073/pnas.1204859109. PMC 3386103. PMID 22645346 Jump up ^ Aoki, Mizuho, "Tohoku fears nuke crisis evacuees gone for good", Japan Times, 8 March 2012, p. 1. Jump up ^ TEPCO Press Release. "The Estimated Amount of Radioactive Materials Released into the Air and the Ocean Caused by Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station Accident Due to the Tohoku-Chihou-Taiheiyou-Oki Earthquake (As of May 2012)". TEPCO. Retrieved 24 May 2012. Jump up ^ Kevin Krolicki (24 May 2012). "Fukushima radiation higher than first estimated". Reuters. Retrieved 24 May 2012. Jump up ^ "TEPCO puts radiation release early in Fukushima crisis at 900 PBq". Kyodo News. 24 May 2012. Archived from the original on 8 Jul 2012. Retrieved 24 May 2012. Jump up ^ Boytchev, Hristio, "First study reports very low internal radioactivity after Fukushima disaster", Washington Post, 15 August 2012 Jump up ^ Ken O. Buesseler (26 October 2012). "Fishing for Answers off Fukushima". Science 338 (6106): 480–482. doi:10.1126/science.1228250. PMID 23112321. Jump up ^ "Fish Off Japan's Coast Said to Contain Elevated Levels of Cesium". New York Times Asia Pacific. 25 October 2012. Retrieved 28 October 2012. Jump up ^ (Dutch) Nu.nl (26 oktober 2012) Tepco sluit niet uit dat centrale Fukushima nog lekt Jump up ^ Volume of a Swimming Pool The Physics Factbook™ Edited by Glenn Elert -- Written by his students An educational, Fair Use website."2,500,000 liters" Jump up ^ Given that an Olympic swimming pool is 50 by 25 by 2 meters. It therefore contains 2,500 cubic meters of water. Each cubic meter of water is one metric ton. Jump up ^ "Japan nuclear agency upgrades Fukushima alert level". BBC. 21 August 2013. Retrieved 21 August 2013. Jump up ^ Takashi Hirokawa, Jacob Adelman, Peter Langan and Yuji Okada (26 August 2013). "Fukushima Leaks Prompt Government to 'Emergency Measures' (1)". Businessweek (Bloomberg). Retrieved 27 August 2013. Jump up ^ "Japan seeks outside help for contaminated water". World Nuclear News. 26 September 2013. Retrieved 1 October 2013. Jump up ^ "How TEPCO plans to build an ice wall at Fukushima". Nuclear Engineering International. 18 February 2014. Retrieved 19 February 2014. Jump up ^ date=9 February 2014. "TEPCO to review erroneous radiation data". NKH World. NHK. Retrieved 2014-02-09. "Tokyo Electric Power Company, or TEPCO, says it has detected a record high 5 million becquerels per liter of radioactive strontium in groundwater collected last July from one of the wells close to the ocean. ... Based on the result, levels of radioactive substances that emit beta particles are estimated to be 10 million becquerels per liter, which is more than 10 times the initial reading." Jump up ^ date=9 February 2014. "TEPCO to Review Erroneous Radiation Data". Yomiuri Online. Yomiuri Shimbun. Retrieved 2014-02-09. "On February 6, TEPCO announced that 5 million Bq/Liter of radioactive strontium was detected from the groundwater sample taken on June 5 last year from one of the observation wells on the embankment of Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant. The density is 160,000 times that of the legal limit for release into the ocean, and it is about 1,000 times that of the highest density in the groundwater that had been measured so far (5,100 Bq/L). TEPCO didn't disclose the result of measurement of strontium alone, as the company believed there was a possibility that the result of measurement was wrong. As to this particular sample, TEPCO had announced on July last year that the sample had contained 900,000 Bq/L of all-beta including strontium. On February 6, TEPCO explained that they had "underestimated all of the results of high-density all-beta, which exceeded the upper limit of measurement." This particular sample may contain about 10 million Bq/L of all-beta, according to TEPCO. The company recently switched to a different method of analysis that uses diluted samples when the density of radioactive materials is high." Jump up ^ http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/fukushimas-radioactive-ocean-plume-due-reach-us-waters-2014-f8C11050755 Jump up ^ http:// https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcQLxT49ZP0 Jump up ^ http://foodmatters.tv/articles-1/fukushima-radiation-taints-us-milk-supplies-at-levels-300-percent-higher-than-epa-maximums Jump up ^ http://www.businessinsider.com/san-francisco-rainwater-radiation-181-times-above-us-drinking-water-standard-2011-4 ^ Jump up to: a b Yoichi Funabashi and Kay Kitazawa (1 March 2012). "Fukushima in review: A complex disaster, a disastrous response". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Jump up ^ Hiroko Tabuchi (3 March 2012). "Japanese Prime Minister Says Government Shares Blame for Nuclear Disaster". The New York Times. ^ Jump up to: a b "AP Interview: Japan woefully unprepared for nuclear disaster, ex-prime minister says". ctv.ca. 17 February 2012. ^ Jump up to: a b Amory Lovins (2011). "Soft Energy Paths for the 21st Century". Jump up ^ "Japan did not keep records of nuclear disaster meetings". BBC Online. 27 January 2012. Jump up ^ "Fukushima Pref. deleted 5 days of radiation dispersion data just after meltdowns". The Mainichi Shimbun. 22 March 2012.[dead link] ^ Jump up to: a b "Report: Japan, utility at fault for response to nuclear disaster". LA Times. 26 December 2011. Jump up ^ Martin Fackler (27 February 2012). "Japan Weighed Evacuating Tokyo in Nuclear Crisis". The New York Times. Jump up ^ Yoshida, Reiji (17 March 2012). "Kan hero, or irate meddler?". Japan Times. p. 2. Jump up ^ Hongo, Jun (29 February 2012). "Panel lays bare Fukushima recipe for disaster". Japan Times. p. 1. Jump up ^ "Blow-ups happen: Nuclear plants can be kept safe only by constantly worrying about their dangers". The Economist. 10 March 2012. Jump up ^ Kyodo News (20 June 2012). "Japan sat on U.S. radiation maps showing immediate fallout from nuke crisis". Japan Times. p. 1. Jump up ^ "Japan failed to use U.S. radiation data gathered after nuke crisis". The Mainichi Shimbun. 18 June 2012. Jump up ^ Japan Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc. (JAIF) (19 June 2012). "Earthquake report 447"[dead link] Jump up ^ "NISA News Release April 12, 2011" (PDF). Retrieved 24 April 2011. ^ Jump up to: a b Directly comparing Fukushima to Chernobyl : Nature News Blog. Blogs.nature.com (2013-01-31). Retrieved on 2013-02-13. Jump up ^ Austria (12 April 2011). "IAEA Fukushima Nuclear Accident Update Log – Updates of 12 April 2011". Iaea.org. Retrieved 24 April 2011. ^ Jump up to: a b Press Release | The Estimated Amount of Radioactive Materials Released into the Air and the Ocean Caused by Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station Accident Due to the Tohoku-Chihou-Taiheiyou-Oki Earthquake (As of May 2012). TEPCO. Retrieved on 2013-02-13. ^ Jump up to: a b c Chapter II The release, dispersion and deposition of radionuclides - Chernobyl: Assessment of Radiological and Health Impact. Oecd-nea.org. Retrieved on 2013-02-13. Jump up ^ Cesium-137: A Deadly Hazard. Large.stanford.edu (2012-03-20). Retrieved on 2013-02-13. Jump up ^ Isotopic ratio of radioactive iodine (129I/131I) released from Fukushima Daiichi NPP accident Jump up ^ Brumfiel, Geoffrey (23 May 2012). "World Health Organization weighs in on Fukushima". Nature (journal). Retrieved 20 March 2013. Jump up ^ Brumfiel, Geoff. "Fukushima: Fallout of fear". Nature 493 (7432): 290–293. doi:10.1038/493290a. PMID 23325191. Jump up ^ Brumfiel, Geoff. "PRINT - FUKUSHIMA". Nature 485 (7399): 423–424. doi:10.1038/485423a. PMID 22622542. Jump up ^ WHO 2013, p. 42. Jump up ^ WHO News release "Global report on Fukushima nuclear accident details health risks" Jump up ^ Frequently asked questions on the Fukushima health risk assessment, questions 3 & 4 Jump up ^ WHO 2013, p. 83. Jump up ^ "Global report on Fukushima nuclear accident details health risks" Jump up ^ "WHO: Slight cancer risk after Japan nuke accident". Jump up ^ "WHO report: cancer risk from Fukushima is low". Nuclear Engineering International. 1 March 2013. Retrieved 6 March 2013. ^ Jump up to: a b c Walsh, Bryan. (2013-03-01) WHO Report Says That Fukushima Nuclear Accident Posed Minimal Risk to Health | TIME.com. Science.time.com. Retrieved on 2013-09-06. Jump up ^ WHO 2013, pp. 70, 79-80. Jump up ^ WHO 2013, p. 13. ^ Jump up to: a b Dennis Normile (27 July 2012). "Is Nuclear Power Good for You?". Science 337 (6093): 395. doi:10.1126/science.337.6093.395-b. Jump up ^ John E. Ten Hoeve and Mark Z. Jacobson (2012). "Worldwide health effects of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident". Energy & Environmental Science 5 (9): 8743. doi:10.1039/c2ee22019a. Retrieved 18 July 2012. Jump up ^ Normile, D. (2011). "Fukushima Revives the Low-Dose Debate". Science 332 (6032): 908–910. doi:10.1126/science.332.6032.908. PMID 21596968. edit Jump up ^ researcher points to suppression of evidence on radiation effects by 1946 Nobel Laureate. Eurekalert.org (2011-09-20). Retrieved on 2013-09-06. Jump up ^ Muller’s Nobel lecture on dose–response for ionizing radiation: ideology or science? - Springer. Link.springer.com (1946-12-12). Retrieved on 2013-09-06. Jump up ^ Key studies used to support cancer risk assessment questioned - Calabrese - 2011 - Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis -Wiley Online Library. Onlinelibrary.wiley.com (2011-07-22). Retrieved on 2013-09-06. Jump up ^ Welch, H. Gilbert; Woloshin, Steve; Schwartz, Lisa A. (2011). Overdiagnosed: Making People Sick in the Pursuit of Health. Beacon Press. pp. 61–34. ISBN 0-8070-2200-4. Jump up ^ "Fukushima kids have skyrocketing number of thyroid abnormalities - report". Russia Times. 18 February 2013. Jump up ^ "More suspected and confirmed cases of thyroid cancer diagnosed in Fukushima children". Asahi. 13 November 2013. Jump up ^ cancer.org Thyroid Cancer By the American Cancer Society. In turn citing: AJCC Cancer Staging Manual (7th ed). Jump up ^ Brumfiel, Geoff (10 September 2012). "Fukushima's doses tallied". Retrieved 23 May 2013. Jump up ^ Zablotska, Lydia (8 November 2012). "Chernobyl Cleanup Workers Had Significantly Increased Risk of Leukemia". UCSF. ^ Jump up to: a b "Disturbing thyroid cancer rise in Fukushima minors". RT. 21 August 2013. ^ Jump up to: a b "Radioactivity and thyroid cancer* Christopher Reiners Clinic and Polyclinic of Nuclear Medicine University of Würzburg. See Figure 1. Thyroid cancer Incidence in children and adolescents from Belarus after the Chernobyl accident". Jump up ^ "Chernobyl: the true scale of the accident. 20 Years Later a UN Report Provides Definitive Answers and Ways to Repair Lives". Jump up ^ Sugimoto T, Shinozaki T, Miyamoto Y Aftershocks Associated With Impaired Health Caused by the Great East Japan Disaster Among Youth Across Japan: A National Cross-Sectional Survey Interact J Med Res 2013;2(2):e31 URL: http://www.i-jmr.org/2013/2/e31/ doi:10.2196/ijmr.2585 ^ Jump up to: a b Studying the Fukushima Aftermath: 'People Are Suffering from Radiophobia' - SPIEGEL ONLINE. Spiegel.de (2011-08-19). Retrieved on 2013-09-06. ^ Jump up to: a b "Evacuees of Fukushima village report split families, growing frustration". Mainichi Daily News. 30 January 2012. Jump up ^ Katherine Harmon (2 March 2012). "Japan's Post-Fukushima Earthquake Health Woes Go Beyond Radiation Effects". Nature. Jump up ^ Michael Moyer (21 June 2011). "Are Babies Dying in the Pacific Northwest Due to Fukushima? A Look at the Numbers". Blogs. Jump up ^ "Rain raises fear of more contamination at Fukushima". 4 Jun 2011. Jump up ^ "about the situation at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant". 3 Feb 2014. Jump up ^ "estimates claims burden from earthquake in Japan at around €1.5bn". Munich Re. 22 March 2011. Retrieved 24 April 2011. Jump up ^ Swiss Re provides estimate of its claims costs from Japan earthquake and tsunami, Swiss Re, news release, 21 March 2011 Jump up ^ Kazuaki Nagata (3 January 2012). "Fukushima meltdowns set nuclear energy debate on its ear". The Japan Times. Jump up ^ Tsuyoshi Inajima and Yuji Okada (28 Oct 2011). "Nuclear Promotion Dropped in Japan Energy Policy After Fukushima". Bloomberg. Jump up ^ Mari Yamaguchi (September 2011). "Kenzaburo Oe, Nobel Winner Urges Japan To Abandon Nuclear Power". Huffington Post. Jump up ^ Japanese nuclear plant survived tsunami, offers clues. Reuters. Retrieved on 2013-09-06. Jump up ^ "Fukushima Starts Long Road To Recovery". NPR. 2012-03-10. Retrieved 2012-04-16. Jump up ^ "Neon city goes dim as power shortage threatens traffic lights and telephones in Tokyo". news.com.au. 15 March 2011. Jump up ^ Yuri Kageyama, dealing with power shortage. Associated Press, 22 May 2011 Jump up ^ Benjamin K. Sovacool (2011). Contesting the Future of Nuclear Power: A Critical Global Assessment of Atomic Energy, World Scientific, p. 287. Jump up ^ Denis Gray (6 April 2011). "Activists call for renewable energy at UN meeting". The Guardian (London). Jump up ^ Chisaki Watanabe (26 August 2011). "Japan Spurs Solar, Wind Energy With Subsidies, in Shift From Nuclear Power". Bloomberg. Jump up ^ Mycle Schneider (9 September 2011). "Fukushima crisis: Can Japan be at the forefront of an authentic paradigm shift?". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. ^ Jump up to: a b "Japan Plans Floating Wind Power Plant". Breakbulk. 16 September 2011. Retrieved 12 October 2011. Jump up ^ Elaine Kurtenbach. "Japan starts up offshore wind farm near Fukushima" The Sydney Morning Herald, 12 November 2013. Accessed: 11 November 2013. Jump up ^ Joshua S Hill (2013-12-11). "Canadian Solar Signs Loan Agreement For Japan Development". CleanTechnica. Retrieved 2013-12-30. Jump up ^ Carol J. Williams (14 September 2012). "In wake of Fukushima disaster, Japan to end nuclear power by 2030s". LA Times. Jump up ^ Gerhardt, Tina (22 July 2012). "After Fukushima, Nuclear Power on Collision Course With Japanese Public". Alternet. Retrieved 8 August 2013. Jump up ^ "Abe dismisses Koizumi’s call for zero nuclear power plants". Asahi Shimbun. 2013-10-25. Retrieved 2013-12-30. Jump up ^ "Supporters of zero nuclear power "irresponsible": Abe". Jump up ^ "Most Japan cities hosting nuclear plants OK restart: survey". Bangkok Post. Retrieved 2013-12-30. Jump up ^ United Press International (2 June 2013). "60,000 protest Japan's plan to restart nuclear power plants". UPI Asia. Jump up ^ "Japan's Fuel Costs May Rise to 7.5 Trillion Yen, Meti Estimates". Jump up ^ Maeda, Risa. "Japanese nuclear plant survived tsunami, offers clues". Reuters. Retrieved 2013-10-27. Jump up ^ IAEA Expert Team Concludes Mission to Onagawa NPP Jump up ^ Japanese nuclear plant ‘remarkably undamaged’ in earthquake – UN atomic agency. Jump up ^ Hydrogen fix for Japanese reactors Jump up ^ Hydrogen recombiners at all 20 NPC plants to avoid Fukushima. Sanjay Jog | Mumbai 7 April 2011 Last Updated at 00:29 IST Jump up ^ CFD analysis of passive autocatalytic recombiner interaction with atmosphere. Archive Kerntechnik - Issue 2011/02. Jump up ^ "Nuclear chief: U.S. plants safer after Japan crisis. March 10, 2013". Jump up ^ "Vents and Filtering Strategies Come to Forefront in Fukushima Response Nuclear Energy Insight. Fall 2012". Jump up ^ "TEPCO implements new safety measures in bid to restart Niigata reactors". Jump up ^ "Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant shown to reporters". Jump up ^ Nuclear power plant operator in China orders backup batteries for installation at plants 7 September 2012 Jump up ^ China’s Guangdong Nuclear Power Corp Announces Orders for BYD Battery Back-up for Nuclear Plants Jump up ^ The Notstand building, a bunkered facility which could support all of the plant systems for at least 72 hours given a severe flood or earthquake which could take out the normal power and cooling facilities. I asked Martin Richner, the head of risk assessment, why Beznau spent so much money on the Notstand building when there was no regulation or government directive to do so. Martin answered me, "Woody, we live here." Jump up ^ "A PRA Practioner Looks at the Fukushima Daiichi Accident". Jump up ^ "2012 20th International Conference on Nuclear Engineering and the ASME 2012 Power Conference". Jump up ^ "Gen III reactor design 04/06/2011 By Brian Wheeler Associate Editor". Jump up ^ "Nuclear Science and Techniques 24 (2013) 040601 Study on the long-term passive cooling extension of AP1000 reactor". Jump up ^ "Areas to which evacuation orders have been issued". August 7, 2013. Jump up ^ "Designating and Rearranging the Areas of Evacuation (pg 7)". ^ Jump up to: a b "U.N. atom body wants wider nuclear safety checks". Reuters. 15 August 2011. Jump up ^ Brasor, Philip, "Public wary of official optimism", Japan Times, 11 March 2012, p. 11. ^ Jump up to: a b Norimitsu Onishi (8 August 2011). "Japan Held Nuclear Data, Leaving Evacuees in Peril". The New York Times. ^ Jump up to: a b Charles Digges (10 August 2011). "Japan ignored its own radiation forecasts in days following disaster, imperiling thousands". Bellona. Jump up ^ "Analysis: A month on, Japan nuclear crisis still scarring," International Business Times (Australia). 9 April 2011, retrieved 12 April 2011; excerpt, According to James Acton, Associate of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, "Fukushima is not the worst nuclear accident ever but it is the most complicated and the most dramatic ... This was a crisis that played out in real time on TV. Chernobyl did not." Jump up ^ HASEGAWA, KOICHI. 2012 "Facing Nuclear Risks: Lessons from the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster." International Journal of Japanese Sociology 21(1):84-91. Retrieved from EBSCOhost on 12 November 2012 Jump up ^ Hiroko Tabuchi (13 July 2011). "Japan Premier Wants Shift Away From Nuclear Power". The New York Times. Jump up ^ Naoto Kan (2013-10-28). "Encountering the Fukushima Daiichi Accident". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 2013-11-09. Jump up ^ (dutch)Nu.nl (22 August 2011)Area around Fukushima maybe a forbidden zone for decades to come Jump up ^ The Guardian (22 August 2011)residents may never return to radiation-hit homes Jump up ^ Earthquake Report – JAIF, No. 45: 20:00, 7 April. JAIF / NHK, 7 April 2011, archived from original on 9 April 2011, Retrieved 9 April 2011. Jump up ^ Al-Jazeera English: Citizen group tracks down Japan's radiation (10 August 2011) Jump up ^ Safecast Organization Official Blog Jump up ^ Franken, Pieter (17 January 2014). Volunteers Crowdsource Radiation Monitoring to Map Potential Risk on Every Street in Japan. Interview with Amy Goodman. Democracy Now!. Tokyo, Japan. Retrieved 17 January 2014. Jump up ^ UC Berkeley Nuclear Engineering Air Monitoring Station | The Nuclear Engineering Department at UC Berkely web site Jump up ^ 14 March 2011 (14 March 2011). "USS Ronald Reagan Exposed to Radiation". Navy Handbook. Retrieved 18 March 2011. Jump up ^ "IAEA sees slow nuclear growth post Japan". UPI. 23 September 2011. Jump up ^ Julie Makinen, Ralph Vartabedian (9 April 2011). "Containing a calamity creates another nuclear nightmare". Sydney Morning Herald. Jump up ^ Nucléaire : une trentaine de réacteurs dans le monde risquent d'être fermés Les Échos, published 12 April 2011, accessed 15 April 2011 Jump up ^ "Gauging the pressure". The Economist. 28 April 2011. Jump up ^ RAFAEL POCH (31/05/2011). "Merkel se despide de lo nuclear y anuncia una revolución en renovables" (in Spanish). LAVANGUARDIA.com. Retrieved 26 January 2014. Jump up ^ "Italy nuclear: Berlusconi accepts referendum blow". BBC News. 14 June 2011. Retrieved 26 January 2014. Jump up ^ Rob Broomby (11 January 2014). "France struggles to cut down on nuclear power". BBC News Magazine. Retrieved 26 January 2014. Jump up ^ Damian, Carrington (23 June 2011). "Citizens across world oppose nuclear power, poll finds". The Guardian. Retrieved 26 January 2014. Jump up ^ "Fukushima nuclear accident 'man-made', not natural disaster". Bloomberg L.P. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 9 July 2012. Jump up ^ "Japan says Fukushima disaster was 'man-made'". Al Jazeera and agencies. AL Jazeera English. 5 July 2012. Retrieved 9 July 2012. Jump up ^ "Official website of the Investigation Committee on the Accident at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Stations of Tokyo Electric Power Company". Retrieved 29 July 2012. "This committee was established with the aim of conducting an investigation to determine the causes of the accident that occurred at Fukushima Daiichi and Daini Nuclear Power Stations of Tokyo Electric Power Company, and those of the damages generated by the accident, and thereby making policy proposals designed to prevent the expansion of the damages and the recurrence of similar accidents in the future." ^ Jump up to: a b "Japan nuclear plants 'still not safe'". Al Jazeera Online. 23 July 2012. Retrieved 29 July 2012. Jump up ^ "Japan, TEPCO ignored atomic accident risks due to 'myth of nuclear safety': Report". Asian News International (ANI). News Track India. 23 July 2012. Retrieved 29 July 2012. Jump up ^ Mitsuru Obe and Eleanor Warnock (23 July 2012). "Japan Panel Says Plant Operator Falls Short on Nuclear Safety". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 30 July 2012. Jump up ^ Tsuyoshi Inajima and Yuji Okada (23 July 2012). "Fukushima Investigators Say More Study Needed on What Went Wrong". Bloomsberg Businessweek. Retrieved 29 July 2012. Jump up ^ Hancocks, Paula (23 July 2012). "New report criticizes TEPCO over Fukushima nuclear crisis". CNN. Retrieved 29 July 2012. Jump up ^ Kazuaki Nagata (24 July 2012). "Government, Tepco again hit for nuke crisis". The Japan Times. Retrieved 29 July 2012. References[edit]

WHO (2013). Health risk assessment from the nuclear accident after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami. ISBN 978 92 4 150513 0. Retrieved December 2013. External links[edit]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Fukushima Daichi nuclear disaster. Investigation[edit] The Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission Report website in English Executive summary of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission Report Investigation Committee on the accidents at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Station of Tokyo Electric Power Company Video[edit] Webcam Fukushima nuclear power plant I, Unit 1 through Unit 4 Inside the slow and dangerous clean up of the Fukushima nuclear crisis Drawing and Imagery[edit] TerraFly Timeline Aerial Imagery of Fukushima Nuclear Reactor after 2011 Tsunami and Earthquake In graphics: Fukushima nuclear alert, as provided by the BBC, 9 July 2012 Other[edit] TEPCO News Releases, Tokyo Electric Power Company "Reassessment of Fukushima Nuclear Accident and Outline of Nuclear Safety Reform Plan(Interim Report)" by TEPCO Nuclear Reform Special Task Force.14 December 2012 [show] v t e 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami [show] v t e Nuclear power in Japan [show] v t e Asia pollution topics Categories: 2011 in the environment2011 industrial disastersFukushima Daiichi nuclear disasterCivilian nuclear power accidentsFukushima PrefectureNuclear accidents and incidents Navigation menu Create accountLog inArticleTalkReadEditView history

Main page Contents Featured content Current events Random article Donate to Wikipedia Wikimedia Shop Interaction Help About Wikipedia Community portal Recent changes Contact page Tools Print/export Languages العربية Беларуская Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ Български Brezhoneg Català Чӑвашла Čeština Cymraeg Dansk Deutsch Eesti Ελληνικά Español Euskara فارسی Français Gaeilge Galego 한국어 Hrvatski Bahasa Indonesia Italiano עברית Basa Jawa Latviešu Magyar മലയാളം Bahasa Melayu Nederlands 日本語 Norsk bokmål Occitan ਪੰਜਾਬੀ Polski Português Română Rumantsch Русский Simple English Slovenčina Slovenščina Српски / srpski Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски Suomi Svenska தமிழ் ไทย Türkçe Українська Tiếng Việt 粵語 中文 Edit links This page was last modified on 1 April 2014 at 18:32. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. Privacy policyAbout WikipediaDisclaimersContact WikipediaDevelopersMobile viewWikimedia Foundation Powered by MediaWiki Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia "Fukushima nuclear disaster" redirects here. For the incidents at Fukushima Daini (Fukushima II), see Fukushima Daini Nuclear Power Plant. See also: Timeline of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster and Fukushima disaster cleanup Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster Fukushima I by Digital Globe.jpg Image on 16 March 2011 of the four damaged reactor buildings. From right to left: Unit 1,2,3,4. Hydrogen-air explosions occurred in Unit 4,3 and 1 causing the building damage, while a vent in Unit 2's wall, with water vapor/"steam" clearly visible, preventing a similar explosion. Date 11 March 2011 Location Ōkuma, Fukushima, Japan Coordinates 37°25′17″N 141°1′57″E Outcome INES Level 7 (Major accident)[1][2] Injuries 37 with physical injuries,[3][not in citation given] 2 workers taken to hospital with radiation burns[4][5]

External video

24 hours live camera for Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster on YouTube, certified by Tokyo Electric Power Co. Inc.

The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster (福島第一原子力発電所事故 Fukushima Daiichi (About this sound pronunciation) genshiryoku hatsudensho jiko?) was a catastrophic failure at the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant on 11 March 2011, resulting in a meltdown of three of the plant's six nuclear reactors.[6] The failure occurred when the plant was hit by the tsunami triggered by the Tōhoku earthquake;[7] the plant began releasing substantial amounts of radioactive materials beginning on 12 March,[8] becoming the largest nuclear incident since the 1986 Chernobyl disaster and the second (with Chernobyl) to measure Level 7 on the International Nuclear Event Scale,[9] initially releasing an estimated 10-30% of the earlier incident's radiation.[10] In August 2013, it was stated that the massive amount of radioactive water is among the most pressing problems that are affecting the cleanup process, which is expected to take decades. There have been continued spills of contaminated water at the plant, and some into the sea. Plant workers are trying to lower the leaks using measures such as building chemical underground walls, but they have not improved substantially.[11] Although no short term radiation exposure fatalities were reported,[12] some 300,000 people evacuated the area, approximately 18,500 people died due to the earthquake and tsunami, and as of August 2013 approximately 1,600 deaths were related to the evacuation conditions, such as living in temporary housing and hospital closures.[13] The exact cause of the majority of these evacuation-related deaths were unspecified because that would hinder the deceased relatives' application for financial compensation.[14][15] The World Health Organization indicated that evacuees were exposed to so little radiation that radiation-induced health impacts are likely to be below detectable levels,[16] and that any additional cancer risk from radiation was small—extremely small, for the most part—and chiefly limited to those living closest to the Nuclear power plant.[17] A 2013 WHO report predicts that for populations living in the most affected areas there is a 70% higher risk of developing thyroid cancer for girls exposed as infants (but experts said the overall risk was small: the radiation exposure means about 1.25 out of every 100 girls in the area could develop thyroid cancer over their lifetime, instead of the natural rate of about 0.75 percent), a 7% higher risk of leukemia in males exposed as infants, a 6% higher risk of breast cancer in females exposed as infants and a 4% higher risk, overall, of developing solid cancers for females.[12] The World Health Organization stated that a 2013 thyroid ultrasound screening programme was, due to the screening effect, likely to lead to an increase in recorded thyroid cases due to early detection of non-symptomatic disease cases.[18] This screening program found that more than a third (36%) of children in the Prefecture have abnormal growths in their thyroid glands, however whether these growths can be attributed to exposure to nuclear radiation has not yet been proven.[19] The Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission found the nuclear disaster was "manmade" and that its direct causes were all foreseeable. The report also found that the plant was incapable of withstanding the earthquake and tsunami. TEPCO, regulators Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) and NSC and the government body promoting the nuclear power industry (METI), all failed to meet the most basic safety requirements, such as assessing the probability of damage, preparing for containing collateral damage from such a disaster, and developing evacuation plans.[20][21] A separate study by Stanford researchers found that Japanese plants operated by the largest utility companies were particularly unprotected against potential tsunamis.[7] Contents [hide] 1 Overview of incident 2 Background 2.1 Regulation 3 Plant description 3.1 Cooling requirements 3.2 Cooling systems 3.3 Backup generators 3.4 Central fuel storage areas 3.5 Zircaloy 3.6 Safety issues 3.6.1 1967: Layout of the emergency-cooling system 3.6.2 1976: Falsification of safety records 3.6.3 1991: Back-up generator of reactor 1 flooded 3.6.4 2008: Tsunami study ignored 3.7 Location 4 Events 4.1 Earthquake 4.2 Tsunami 4.3 Evacuation 4.4 Units 1, 2 and 3 4.4.1 Core meltdowns 4.5 Units 4, 5 and 6 4.5.1 Unit 4 4.5.2 Units 5 and 6 4.6 Central fuel storage areas 4.7 Contamination 5 Response 5.1 Poor communication and delays 6 Event rating 7 Aftermath 7.1 Risks from radiation 7.2 Thyroid screening program 7.2.1 Chernobyl comparison 7.3 Effects on evacuees 7.4 Radiation releases 7.5 Insurance 7.6 Energy policy implications 7.7 Equipment, facility and operational changes 8 Reactions 8.1 Japan 8.2 International 8.3 Investigations 8.3.1 NAIIC 8.3.2 Investigation Committee 9 See also 10 Notes 11 References 12 External links 12.1 Investigation 12.2 Video 12.3 Drawing and Imagery 12.4 Other Overview of incident[edit]

The plant comprised six separate boiling water reactors originally designed by General Electric (GE) and maintained by the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO). Units 2 through 6 were BWR-4, while unit 1 was the slightly older BWR-3 design.[22] All six were housed in Mark 1 containment building designs.[23] At the time of the earthquake, reactor 4 had been de-fueled and reactors 5 and 6 were in cold shutdown for planned maintenance.[24] Immediately after the earthquake, following government regulations, the remaining reactors 1–3 automatically SCRAMmed; control rods shut down sustained fission reactions. Although fission stops almost immediately with a SCRAM, fission products in the fuel continue to release decay heat, initially about 6.5% of full reactor power. This is still enough to require active reactor cooling for several days to keep the fuel rods below their melting points. In Generation II reactors like the GE Mark I, cooling system failure may lead to a meltdown even in a SCRAMmed reactor.[25] Coincident with the SCRAM emergency generators were automatically activated to power electronics and cooling systems. The tsunami arrived some 50 minutes after the initial earthquake. The 14 meter high tsunami overwhelmed the plant's seawall, which was only 10 m high,[7] with the moment of the tsunami striking being caught on camera.[26] The tsunami water quickly flooded the low-lying rooms in which the emergency generators were housed.[27] The diesel generators were flooded and began to fail soon after, their job being taken over by emergency battery-powered systems. When the batteries ran out the next day on 12 March, active cooling systems stopped, and the reactors began to heat up. The power failure also meant that many of the reactor control instruments also failed.[25] As workers struggled to supply power to the reactors' coolant systems and control rooms, multiple hydrogen-air chemical explosions occurred from 12 March to 15 March.[25][28][29] It is estimated that the hot zirconium fuel cladding-water reaction in reactors 1-3 produced 800 to 1000 kilograms of hydrogen gas each, which was vented out of the reactor pressure vessel and mixed with the ambient air. The gas eventually reached explosive concentration limits in units 1 and 3. Either piping connections between units 3 and 4 or from the zirconium reaction in unit 4 itself,[30] unit 4 also filled with hydrogen. Explosions occurred in the upper secondary containment building in all three reactors.[31] TEPCO admitted for the first time on October 12, 2012 that it had failed to take stronger measures to prevent disasters for fear of inviting lawsuits or protests against its nuclear plants.[32][33][34][35] There are no clear plans for decommissioning the plant, but the plant management estimate is thirty or forty years.[36] On 22 July 2013, more than two years after the incident, it was revealed that the plant is leaking radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean. This had been denied by TEPCO.[37] The report prompted Japanese Prime Minister Shinzō Abe to order the government to step in.[38] On 20 August, in a further incident, it was announced that 300 metric tons of heavily radioisotope-contaminated water had leaked from a storage tank.[39] On 26 August, the government took charge of emergency measures to prevent further radioactive water leaks. Background[edit]

A national program to develop robots for use in nuclear emergencies was terminated in midstream[when?] as a way of implying that they were unneeded. Japan, supposedly a leader in robotics, had none to send into Fukushima when the crisis began. The Japanese government sent a request for robots developed by the US military to help deal with the crisis. The robots went into the plants, and took pictures to help assess the situation. But they couldn't perform human tasks. Following Fukushima, efforts to develop humanoid robots that could supplement relief efforts have accelerated dramatically.[40] Similarly, Japan's Nuclear Safety Commission said in its safety guidelines for light-water nuclear facilities that "the potential for extended loss of power need not be considered.".[41] Regulation[edit] Three investigations into the Fukushima disaster showed the man-made nature of the catastrophe and its roots in regulatory capture associated with a "network of corruption, collusion, and nepotism".[42][43] Regulatory capture refers to the "situation where regulators charged with promoting the public interest defer to the wishes and advance the agenda of the industry or sector they ostensibly regulate". Those with a vested interest in specific policy or regulatory outcomes lobby regulators and influence their choices and actions. Regulatory capture explains why some of the risks of operating nuclear power reactors in Japan were systematically downplayed and mismanaged so as to compromise operational safety.[43] Critics argue that the government shares blame with the regulatory agency for not heeding warnings and for not ensuring the independence of the oversight function.[44] The New York Times alleged that the Japanese nuclear regulatory system sided with and promoted the nuclear industry because of amakudari ('descent from heaven') in which senior regulators accepted high paying jobs at companies they once oversaw. To protect their potential future position in the industry, regulators sought to avoid taking positions that upset or embarrass the companies. TEPCO's position as the largest electrical utility in Japan made it the most desirable position for retiring regulators. Typically the "most senior officials went to work at Tepco, while those of lower ranks ended up at smaller utilities".[45] In August 2011, several top energy officials were fired by the Japanese government; affected positions included the Vice-minister for Economy, Trade and Industry; the head of the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, and the head of the Agency for Natural Resources and Energy.[46] Plant description[edit]

Main article: Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant

Fukushima Daiichi I nuclear powerplant site close-up.

Map of Japan's electricity distribution network, showing incompatible systems between regions. Fukushima is in the 50 Hertz Tohoku region.

Simplified cross-section sketch of a typical BWR Mark I containment as used in units 1 to 5. Key: RPV: reactor pressure vessel. DW: dry well enclosing reactor pressure vessel. WW: wet well - torus-shaped all around the base enclosing steam suppression pool. Excess steam from the dry well enters the wet well water pool via downcomer pipes. SFP: spent fuel pool area. SCSW: secondary concrete shield wall.

The Fukushima I (Daiichi) Nuclear Power Plant consists of six GE light water, boiling water reactors (BWR) with a combined power of 4.7 gigawatts, making Fukushima Daiichi one of the world's 25 largest nuclear power stations. Fukushima Daiichi was the first GE-designed nuclear plant to be constructed and run entirely by the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO). Reactor 1 is a 439 MWe type (BWR-3) reactor constructed in July 1967. It commenced operation on 26 March 1971.[47] It was designed to withstand an earthquake with a peak ground acceleration of 0.18 g (1.74 m/s2) and a response spectrum based on the 1952 Kern County earthquake.[48] Reactors 2 and 3 are both 784 MWe type BWR-4. Reactor 2 commenced operating in July 1974, and reactor 3 in March 1976. The earthquake design basis for all units ranged from 0.42 g (4.12 m/s2) to 0.46 g (4.52 m/s2).[49][50] All units were inspected after the 1978 Miyagi earthquake when the ground acceleration reached 0.125 g (1.22 m/s2) for 30 seconds, but no damage to the critical parts of the reactor was discovered.[48] Units 1–5 have a Mark 1 type (light bulb torus) containment structure; unit 6 has Mark 2 type (over/under) containment structure.[48] In September 2010, reactor 3 was partially fueled by mixed-oxides (MOX).[51] At the time of the accident, the units and central storage facility contained the following numbers of fuel assemblies:[52] Location Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4 Unit 5 Unit 6 Central Storage Reactor Fuel Assemblies 400 548 548 0 548 764 0 Spent Fuel Assemblies[53] 292 587 514 1331 946 876 6375[54] Fuel UO 2 UO 2 UO 2/MOX UO 2 UO 2 UO 2 UO 2 New Fuel Assemblies[55] 100 28 52 204 48 64 N/A There is no MOX fuel in any of the cooling ponds. The only MOX fuel is loaded in the Unit 3 reactor. Cooling requirements[edit]

Diagrammatic representation of the cooling systems of a BWR. See also: Decay heat – Power reactors in shutdown and Nuclear reactor safety systems These reactors generate electricity by using the heat of the fission reaction to create steam. When the reactor stops operating, the radioactive decay of unstable isotopes continues to generate heat for a time. This decay and the decay heat that results requires continued cooling.[56][57] Initially this decay heat amounts to approximately 6% of the amount produced by fission,[56] decreasing over several days before reaching cold shutdown levels.[58] Exhausted fuel rods that have reached cold shutdown temperatures typically require several years in a spent fuel pool before they can be safely transferred to dry cask storage vessels.[59] The decay heat in the unit 4 spent fuel pool had the capacity to boil about 70 tonnes of water per day (12 gallons per minute).[60] On 16 April 2011, TEPCO declared that cooling systems for units 1-4 were beyond repair and would have to be replaced.[61] Cooling systems[edit] In the reactor core, circulation is accomplished via high pressure systems that cycle water between the reactor pressure vessel and heat exchangers. These systems then transfer heat to a secondary heat exchanger via the essential service water system, using water that is pumped out to sea or an onsite cooling tower.[62] When the reactor is not producing electricity, cooling pumps can be powered by other reactor units, the grid or by diesel generators or batteries.[63][64] Units 2 and 3 were equipped with steam-turbine driven emergency core cooling systems that can be directly operated by steam produced by decay heat and which can inject water directly into the reactor.[65] Some electrical power is needed to operate valves and monitoring systems. Unit 1 was equipped with a different cooling system, the "Isolation Condenser" or "IC", which is entirely passive. This consists of a series of pipes run from the reactor core to the inside of a large tank of water. When the valves are opened, steam flows upward to the IC where the cool water in the tank condenses the steam back to water, and it runs under gravity back to the reactor core. For reasons that are not entirely clear, unit 1's IC was operated only intermittently during the emergency. Backup generators[edit] Two emergency diesel generators were available for each of units 1–5 and three for unit 6.[66] In the late 1990s, three additional backup generators for units 2 and 4 were placed in new buildings located higher on the hillside, to comply with new regulatory requirements. All six units were given access to these generators, but the switching stations that sent power from these backup generators to the reactors' cooling systems for units 1 through 5 were still in the poorly protected turbine buildings. All three of the generators added in the late 1990s were operational after the tsunami. If the switching stations had been moved to inside the reactor buildings or to other flood-proof locations, power would have been provided by these generators to the reactors' cooling systems.[67] The reactor's emergency diesel generators and DC batteries, crucial components in powering cooling systems after a power loss, were located in the basements of the reactor turbine buildings, in accordance with GE's specifications. Mid-level engineers expressed concerns that this left them vulnerable to flooding.[68] Fukushima I was not designed for such a large tsunami,[69][70] nor had the reactors been modified when concerns were raised in Japan and by the IAEA.[71] Fukushima II was also struck by the tsunami. However, it had incorporated design changes that improved its resistance to flooding, reducing flood damage. Generators and related electrical distribution equipment were located in the watertight reactor building, so that power from the electricity grid was being used by midnight.[72] Seawater pumps for cooling were protected from flooding, and although 3 of 4 initially failed, they were restored to operation.[73] Central fuel storage areas[edit] Used fuel assemblies taken from reactors are initially stored for at least 18 months in the pools adjacent to their reactors. They can then be transferred to the central fuel storage pond.[3] Fukushima I's storage area contains 6375 fuel assemblies. After further cooling, fuel can be transferred to dry cask storage, which has shown no signs of abnormalities.[74] Zircaloy[edit] Many of the internal components and fuel assembly cladding are made from zircaloy. At normal operating temperatures of approximately 300 °C (572 °F), zircaloy is inert. However, above 500 degrees celsius in the presence of steam,[75] zircaloy undergoes an exothermic oxidizing reaction and produces free hydrogen gas. The reaction between the zirconium and the fuel can lower the fuel's melting point and thus speed up a core melt.[76] Safety issues[edit] 1967: Layout of the emergency-cooling system[edit]

Fukushima reactor control room. On 27 February 2012, NISA ordered TEPCO to report by 12 March 2012 regarding its reasoning in changing the piping layout for the emergency cooling system. These changes were made after the plans were registered in 1966 and the beginning of construction. The original plans separated the piping systems for two reactors in the isolation condenser from each other. However, the application for approval of the construction plan showed the two piping systems connected outside the reactor. The changes were not noted, in violation of regulations.[77] After the tsunami, the isolation condenser should have taken over the function of the cooling pumps, by condensing the steam from the pressure vessel into water to be used for cooling the reactor. But the condenser did not function properly and TEPCO could not confirm whether a valve was opened. 1976: Falsification of safety records[edit] Fukushima Daiichi was central to a falsified-records scandal that led to the departure of senior TEPCO executives. It also led to disclosures of previously unreported problems,[78] although testimony by Dale Bridenbaugh, a lead GE designer, claimed that GE was warned of major design flaws in 1976, resulting in the resignations of several GE designers who protested GE's negligence.[79][80][81] In 2002, TEPCO admitted falsifying safety records for unit 1. The scandal and a fuel leak at Fukushima Daini forced the company to shut all 17 of its reactors.[82] A power board distributing electricity to temperature control valves was not examined for 11 years. Inspections did not cover cooling systems devices such as water pump motors and diesel generators.[83] 1991: Back-up generator of reactor 1 flooded[edit] On 30 October 1991, one of two backup generators of reactor 1 failed, after flooding in the reactor's basement. Seawater used for cooling leaked into the turbine building from a corroded pipe at 20 cubic meters per hour, as reported by former employees in December 2011. An engineer was quoted as saying that he informed his superiors and of the possibility that a tsunami could damage the generators. TEPCO installed doors to prevent water from leaking into the generator rooms. The Japanese Nuclear Safety Commission commented that it would revise its safety guidelines and would require the installation of additional power sources. On 29 December 2011, TEPCO admitted all these facts: its report mentioned that the room was flooded through a door and some holes for cables, but the power supply was not cut off by the flooding, and the reactor was stopped for one day. One of the two power sources was completely submerged, but its drive mechanism had remained unaffected.[84] 2008: Tsunami study ignored[edit] In 2007, TEPCO set up a department to supervise its nuclear facilities. Until June 2011 its chairman was Masao Yoshida, the Fukushima Daiichi chief. A 2008 in-house study identified an immediate need to better protect the facility from flooding by seawater. This study mentioned the possibility of tsunami-waves up to 10.2 metres (33 ft). Headquarters officials insisted that such a risk was unrealistic and did not take the prediction seriously.[85][verification needed] A Mr. Okamura of the Active Fault and Earthquake Research Center urged TEPCO and NISA to review their assumption of possible tsunami heights based on a tenth century earthquake, but it was not seriously considered at that time.[86] The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission warned of a risk of losing emergency power in 1991 (NUREG-1150) and NISA referred to the report in 2004. No action to mitigate the risk was taken.[87] Location[edit] The plant was located in Japan, which, like the rest of the Pacific Rim, is in an active seismic zone. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had expressed concern about the ability of Japan's nuclear plants to withstand seismic activity. At a 2008 meeting of the G8's Nuclear Safety and Security Group in Tokyo, an IAEA expert warned that a strong earthquake with a magnitude above 7.0 could pose a "serious problem" for Japan's nuclear power stations.[88] The region had experienced three earthquakes of magnitude greater than 8, including the 869 Jogan Sanriku earthquake, the 1896 Meiji-Sanriku earthquake, and the 1933 Sanriku earthquake.[citation needed] Events[edit]

Further information: Timeline of the Fukushima I nuclear accidents and 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami Earthquake[edit]

Position of Japanese nuclear power stations as they relate to the epicenter of the quake and the tsunami that followed. Fukushima I was the second closest power station to the epicenter of the earthquake, after Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant. The 9.0 MW Tōhoku earthquake occurred at 14:46 on Friday, 11 March 2011 with epicenter near Honshu Island.[89] It produced maximum ground g-forces of 0.56, 0.52, 0.56 (5.50, 5.07 and 5.48 m/s2) at units 2, 3 and 5 respectively. This exceeded their design tolerances of 0.45, 0.45 and 0.46 g (4.38, 4.41 and 4.52 m/s2). The shock values were within the design tolerances at units 1, 4 and 6.[50] When the earthquake struck, units 1, 2 and 3 were operating, but units 4, 5 and 6 had been shut down for periodic inspection.[49][90] Reactors 1, 2 and 3 immediately underwent an automatic shutdown (called SCRAM).[91][92] When the reactors shut down, the plant stopped generating electricity, cutting off power.[93] One of the two connections to off-site power for units 1–3 also failed,[93] so 13 on-site emergency diesel generators began providing power.[94] Tsunami[edit]

The height of the tsunami that struck the station approximately 30 minutes after the earthquake. A:Power station buildings B:peak height of tsunami C:Ground level of site D:average sea level E: Sea Wall to block waves. The earthquake triggered a 13-to-15-metre (43 to 49 ft) maximum height tsunami that arrived approximately 50 minutes later. The waves overtopped the plant's 10 metres (33 ft) seawall,[95][96][97] flooding the basements of the turbine buildings and disabling the emergency diesel generators[66][98][99] at approximately 15:41.[93][100] TEPCO then notified authorities of a "first level emergency".[91] The switching stations that provided power from the three backup generators located higher on the hillside failed when the building that housed them flooded.[67] Power for control systems switched over to batteries that were designed to last about eight hours.[101] Further batteries and mobile generators were dispatched to the site. They were delayed by poor road conditions and the first arrived only at 21:00 11 March,[94][102] almost six hours after the tsunami. Multiple unsuccessful attempts were made to connect portable generating equipment to power water pumps. The failure was attributed to flooding at the connection point in the Turbine Hall basement and the absence of suitable cables.[98] TEPCO switched its efforts to installing new lines from the grid.[103] One generator at unit 6 resumed operation on 17 March, while external power returned to units 5 and 6 only on 20 March.[104] Evacuation[edit] The government initially set in place a 4-stage evacuation process: a prohibited access area out to 3 km, an on-alert area 3–20 km and an evacuation prepared area 20–30 km. On day one nearly 134,000 people were evacuated from the prohibited access and on-alert areas. Four days later an additional 354,000 were evacuated from the prepared area. Later, Prime Minister Kan instructed people within the on-alert area to leave, and urged those in the prepared area to stay indoors.[105][106] The latter groups were urged to evacuate on 25 March.[107] The 20 kilometer exclusion zone was guarded by only lightly manned roadblocks.[108] Units 1, 2 and 3[edit]

The suspected location of molten fuel inside Unit 1, according to the MAAP report from November 2011. Most of the fuel from Unit 1 is assumed to be at the bottom of the Primary Containment Vessel (PCV), where it is estimated to be "well cooled down". [icon] This section requires expansion. (August 2013) See also: Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster (Unit 1 Reactor), Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster (Unit 2 Reactor), and Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster (Unit 3 Reactor) In reactors 1, 2 and 3, overheating caused a reaction between the water and the zircaloy, creating hydrogen gas. On 12 March, an explosion in Unit 1 was caused by the ignition of the hydrogen, destroying the upper part of the building. On 14 March, a similar explosion occurred in the Reactor 3 building, blowing off the roof and injuring eleven people. On the 15th, an explosion in the Reactor 2 building damaged it and part of the Reactor 4 building. Core meltdowns[edit]

The suspected location of molten fuel inside Unit 2 and Unit 3, according to the MAAP report from November 2011. Most of the fuel from Unit 2 and Unit 3 is assumed to have remained in the Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV), where it is estimated to be "cooled sufficiently". On 16 March TEPCO estimated that 70% of the fuel in Unit 1 had melted, and 33% in Unit 2, further suspecting that Unit 3's core might also be damaged.[109] In the TEPCO report of the Modular Accident Analysis Program (MAAP) from November 2011 further estimates are made to the state and location of the fuel.[110] The report came to the conclusion that the Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) in Unit 1 (commonly known as the reactor core) had been damaged during the disaster, and that "significant amounts" of molten fuel had fallen into the bottom of the Primary Containment Vessel (PCV) – the erosion of the concrete of the PCV by the molten fuel after the core meltdown was estimated to have been stopped in approx. 0.7 metres (2 ft 4 in) depth, with the thickness of the containment being 7.6 metres (25 ft). Gas sampling done before the report detected no signs of an ongoing reaction of the fuel with the concrete of the PCV and all the fuel in Unit 1 was estimated to be "well cooled down, including the fuel dropped on the bottom of the reactor". Furthermore the MAAP report showed that fuel in Unit 2 and Unit 3 had melted, however less than Unit 1, and fuel was presumed to be still in the RPV, with no significant amounts of fuel fallen to the bottom of the PCV. The report further suggested that "there is a range in the evaluation results" from "all fuel in the RPV (none fuel fallen to the PCV)" in Unit 2 and Unit 3, to "most fuel in the RPV (some fuel in PCV)". For Unit 2 and Unit 3 it was estimated that the "fuel is cooled sufficiently". The larger damage in Unit 1 in comparison with the other two units was according to the report due to longer time that no cooling water was injected in Unit 1, which resulted in much more decay heat to accumulate – for about 1 day there was no water injection for Unit 1, while Unit 2 and Unit 3 had only a quarter of a day without water injection. There exists some uncertainty about the amount of damage the reactors sustained during the meltdown – Tepco revised the numbers several times. In November 2013 Mari Yamaguchi reported for Associated Press that there are computer simulations which show that "the melted fuel in Unit 1, whose core damage was the most extensive, has breached the bottom of the primary containment vessel and even partially eaten into its concrete foundation, coming within about 30 centimeters (one foot) of leaking into the ground" – a Kyoto University nuclear engineer said with regards to these estimates: "We just can't be sure until we actually see the inside of the reactors."[111] According to a December 2013 report TEPCO estimated for Unit 1 that "the decay heat must have decreased enough, the molten fuel can be assumed to remain in PCV (Primary container vessel)".[112] Units 4, 5 and 6[edit] Main article: Fukushima Daiichi units 4, 5 and 6

Aerial view of the station in 1975, showing separation between units 5 and 6, and 1-4. ・Unit 6, not completed until 1979, is seen under construction. Unit 4[edit] All fuel rods from unit 4 had been transferred to the spent fuel pool on an upper floor of the reactor building prior to the tsunami. On 15 March, an explosion damaged the fourth floor rooftop area of unit 4, creating two large holes in a wall of the outer building. It was reported that water in the spent fuel pool might be boiling. Radiation inside the unit 4 control room prevented workers from staying there for long periods. Visual inspection of the spent fuel pool on 30 April revealed no significant damage to the rods. A radiochemical examination of the pond water confirmed that little of the fuel had been damaged.[113] In October 2012, the former Japanese Ambassador to both Switzerland and Senegal Mitsuhei Murata said that ground under Fukushima unit 4 was sinking, and the structure may collapse.[114][115] Units 5 and 6[edit] Reactors 5 and 6 were also not operating when the earthquake struck. Unlike reactor 4, their fuel rods remained in the reactor. The reactors had been closely monitored, as cooling processes were not functioning well.[citation needed] Central fuel storage areas[edit] On 21 March, temperatures in the fuel pond had risen slightly, to 61 °C and water was sprayed over the pool.[3] Power was restored to cooling systems on 24 March and by 28 March temperatures were reported down to 35 °C.[116] Contamination[edit] Main article: Radiation effects from Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster Sub article: Comparison of Fukushima and Chernobyl nuclear accident with detailed tables inside

Map of contaminated areas around the plant (22 March – 3 April 2011).

Fukushima dose rate comparison to other incidents and standards, with graph of recorded radiation levels and specific accident events from 11 to 30 March.

Radiation measurements from Fukushima Prefecture, March 2011

Seawater-contamination along coast with Caesium-137, from 21 March until 5 May 2011 (Source: GRS)

Radiation hotspot in Kashiwa, February 2012. Radioactive material was released from the containment vessels for several reasons: deliberate venting to reduce gas pressure; deliberate discharge of coolant water into the sea; and uncontrolled events. Concerns about the possibility of a large scale release led to a 20 kilometres (12 mi) exclusion zone around the power plant and recommendations that people within the surrounding 20–30 km zone stay indoors. Later, the UK, France and some other countries told their nationals to consider leaving Tokyo, in response to fears of spreading contamination.[117] Trace amounts of radiation, including iodine-131, caesium-134 and caesium-137, were widely observed.[118][119][120] Between 21 March and mid-July around 2.7 × 1016 Bq of caesium-137 (about 8.4 kg) entered the ocean, about 82 percent having flowed into the sea before 8 April.[121] This emission of radioactivity into the sea represents the most important individual emission of artificial radioactivity into the sea ever observed. However, the Fukushima coast has some of the world's strongest currents and these transported the contaminated waters far into the Pacific Ocean, thus causing great dispersion of the radioactive elements. The results of measurements of both the seawater and the coastal sediments led to the supposition that the consequences of the accident, in terms of radioactivity, would be minor for marine life as of autumn 2011 (weak concentration of radioactivity in the water and limited accumulation in sediments). On the other hand, significant pollution of sea water along the coast near the nuclear plant might persist, because of the continuing arrival of radioactive material transported towards the sea by surface water running over contaminated soil. Organisms that filter water and fish at the top of the food chain are, over time, the most sensitive to caesium pollution. It is thus justified to maintain surveillance of marine life that is fished in the coastal waters off Fukushima. Despite caesium isotopic concentration in the waters off of Japan being 10 to 1000 times above concentration prior to the accident, radiation risks are below what is generally considered harmful to marine animals and human consumers.[122] A monitoring system operated by the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) tracked the spread of radioactivity on a global scale. Radioactive isotopes were picked up by over 40 monitoring stations.[123] On 12 March, radioactive releases first reached a CTBTO monitoring station in Takasaki, Japan, around 200 km away. The radioactive isotopes appeared in eastern Russia on 14 March and the west coast of the United States two days later. By day 15, traces of radioactivity were detectable all across the northern hemisphere. Within one month, radioactive particles were noted by CTBTO stations in the southern hemisphere.[124][125] Estimates of radioactivity released ranged from 10-40%[10][126][127][128] of that of Chernobyl's. The significantly contaminated area was 10[10]-12%[126] that of Chernobyl.[10][129][130] In March 2011, Japanese officials announced that "radioactive iodine-131 exceeding safety limits for infants had been detected at 18 water-purification plants in Tokyo and five other prefectures".[131] On 21 March the first restrictions were placed on the distribution and consumption of contaminated items.[132] As of July 2011, the Japanese government was unable to control the spread of radioactive material into the nation's food supply. Radioactive material was detected in food produced in 2011, including spinach, tea leaves, milk, fish and beef, up to 200 miles from the plant. 2012 crops did not show signs of radioactivity contamination. Cabbage, rice[133] and beef showed insignificant radiation levels. A Fukushima-produced rice market in Tokyo was accepted by consumers as safe.[133] On 24 August 2011, the Nuclear Safety Commission (NSC) of Japan published the results of the recalculation of the total amount of radioactive materials released into the air during the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station. The total amounts released between 11 March and 5 April were revised downwards to 130 PBq (petabecquerels) for iodine-131 and 11 PBq for caesium-137, which is about 11% of Chernobyl emissions. Earlier estimations were 150 PBq and 12 PBq.[134][135] In 2011 scientists working for the Japan Atomic Energy Agency, Kyoto University and other institutes, recalculated the amount of radioactive material released into the ocean: between late March through April they found a total of 15 PBq for the combined amount of iodine-131 and caesium-137, more than triple the 4.72 PBq estimated by TEPCO. The company had calculated only the direct releases into the sea. The new calculations incorporated the portion of airborne radioactive substances that entered the ocean as rain.[136] In the first half of September 2011 TEPCO estimated radiation release at some 200 MBq (megabecquerels) per hour. This was approximately one four-millionth that of March.[137] Traces of iodine-131 were detected in several Japanese prefectures in November[138] and December 2011.[139] According to the French Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety, between 21 March and mid-July around 27 PBq of caesium-137 entered the ocean, about 82 percent before 8 April. This emission represents the most important individual oceanic emissions of artificial radioactivity ever observed. The Fukushima coast has one of the world's strongest currents (Kuroshio Current). It transported the contaminated waters far into the Pacific Ocean, dispersing the radioactivity. As of late 2011 measurements of both the seawater and the coastal sediments suggested that the consequences for marine life would be minor. Significant pollution along the coast near the plant might persist, because of the continuing arrival of radioactive material transported to the sea by surface water crossing contaminated soil. The possible presence of other radioactive substances, such as strontium-90 or plutonium, has not been sufficiently studied. Recent measurements show persistent contamination of some marine species (mostly fish) caught along the Fukushima coast.[140] Migratory pelagic species are highly effective and rapid transporters of radiation throughout the ocean. Elevated levels of 134 Cs appeared in migratory species off the coast of California that were not seen pre-Fukushima.[141] As of March 2012, no cases of radiation-related ailments had been reported. Experts cautioned that data was insufficient to allow conclusions on health impacts. Michiaki Kai, professor of radiation protection at Oita University of Nursing and Health Sciences, stated, "If the current radiation dose estimates are correct, (cancer-related deaths) likely won't increase."[142] In May 2012, TEPCO released their estimate of cumulative radiation releases. An estimated 538.1 PBq of iodine-131, caesium-134 and caesium-137 was released. 520 PBq was released into the atmosphere between 12–31 March 2011 and 18.1 PBq into the ocean from 26 March – 30 September 2011. A total of 511 PBq of iodine-131 was released into both the atmosphere and the ocean, 13.5 PBq of caesium-134 and 13.6 PBq of caesium-137.[143] TEPCO reported that at least 900 PBq had been released "into the atmosphere in March last year [2011] alone".[144][145] In August 2012, researchers found that 10,000 nearby residents had been exposed to less than 1 millisievert of radiation, significantly less than Chernobyl residents.[146] As of October 2012 radiation was still leaking into the ocean. Fishing in the waters around the site was still prohibited, and the levels of radioactive 134Cs and 137Cs in the fish caught were not lower than immediately after the disaster.[147] On 26 October 2012 TEPCO admitted that it could not stop radioactive material entering the ocean, although emission rates had stabilised. Undetected leaks could not be ruled out, because the reactor basements remained flooded. The company was building a 2,400-foot-long steel and concrete wall between the site and the ocean, reaching 100 feet below ground, but it would not be finished before mid-2014. Around August 2012 two greenling were caught close to shore. They contained more than 25,000 becquerels of caesium-137 per kilogram, the highest measured since the disaster and 250 times the government's safety limit.[148][149] On 22 July 2013 it was revealed that the plant continued to leak radioactive water into the ocean, something long suspected by local fishermen and independent investigators.[37] TEPCO had previously denied that this was happening. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzō Abe ordered the government to step in.[38] On 20 August, in a further incident, it was announced that 300 metric tons of heavily contaminated water had leaked from a storage tank,[39] approximately the same amount of water as one eighth (1/8) of that found in an Olympic-size swimming pool.[150][151] The 300 metric tons of water was radioactive enough to be hazardous to nearby staff, and the leak was assessed as Level 3 on the International Nuclear Event Scale.[152] On 26 August, the government took charge of emergency measures to prevent further radioactive water leaks, reflecting their lack of confidence in TEPCO.[153] As of 2013, about 400 tonnes per day of cooling water was being pumped into the reactors. Another 400 tonnes of groundwater was seeping into the structure. Some 800 tonnes of water per day was removed for treatment, half of which was reused for cooling and half diverted to storage tanks.[154] Ultimately the contaminated water, after treatment to remove radionuclides other than tritium, may have to dumped into Pacific.[36] TEPCO intend to create an underground ice wall to reduce the rate contaminated groundwater reaches the sea.[155] In February 2014, NHK reported that TEPCO was reviewing its radiation data, after finding much higher levels of radiation than was reported earlier. TEPCO now says that levels of 5 million becquerels of strontium per liter were detected in groundwater collected in July 2013 and not 900,000 becquerels, as initially reported.[156][157] In March 2014, numerous news sources, including NBC,[158] began predicting that the radioactive underwater Plume_(hydrodynamics) traveling through the Pacific Ocean would reach the western seaboard of the Continental_United_States. Though the common story was that the amount of radioactivity would be harmless and temporary once it arrived, many Website had alternative perspectives on the situation, pointing to abnormally high levels of radiation on the beach in places like San Francisco,[159] radiation in US milk found hundreds of times higher than federal standards,[160] rainwater discovered over 100 times higher than normal levels by the UC Berkeley nuclear engineering program,[161] and various pictures of mutated animals and plants found in various states that had been reported after the incident. The scientific community, and state and federal agencies, however, have generally assured both Californians and Americans that there are no health risks present, though officials are actively monitoring the situation. Response[edit]

Government agencies and TEPCO were unprepared for the "cascading nuclear disaster".[162] The tsunami that "began the nuclear disaster could and should have been anticipated and that ambiguity about the roles of public and private institutions in such a crisis was a factor in the poor response at Fukushima".[162] In March 2012, Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda said that the government shared the blame for the Fukushima disaster, saying that officials had been blinded by a false belief in the country's "technological infallibility", and were taken in by a "safety myth". Noda said "Everybody must share the pain of responsibility".[163] According to Naoto Kan, Japan's prime minister during the tsunami, the country was unprepared for the disaster, and nuclear power plants should not have been built so close to the ocean.[164] Kan acknowledged flaws in authorities' handling of the crisis, including poor communication and coordination between nuclear regulators, utility officials and the government. He said the disaster "laid bare a host of an even bigger man-made vulnerabilities in Japan's nuclear industry and regulation, from inadequate safety guidelines to crisis management, all of which he said need to be overhauled".[164] Physicist and environmentalist Amory Lovins said: Japan's "rigid bureaucratic structures, reluctance to send bad news upwards, need to save face, weak development of policy alternatives, eagerness to preserve nuclear power's public acceptance, and politically fragile government, along with TEPCO's very hierarchical management culture, also contributed to the way the accident unfolded. Moreover, the information Japanese people receive about nuclear energy and its alternatives has long been tightly controlled by both TEPCO and the government".[165] Poor communication and delays[edit] The Japanese government did not keep records of key meetings during the crisis.[166] Data from SPEEDI (System for Prediction of Environmental Emergency Dose Information) were emailed to the prefectural government, but not shared with others. Emails from NISA to Fukushima covering 12 March 11:54 PM to 16 March 9 AM holding vital information for evacuation and health advisories went unread and were deleted. The data was not used because the disaster countermeasure office regarded the data as "useless because the predicted amount of released radiation is unrealistic."[167] The Investigation Committee on the Accident at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Stations of Tokyo Electric Power Company's interim report stated that Japan's response was flawed by "poor communication and delays in releasing data on dangerous radiation leaks at the facility". The report blamed Japan's central government as well as TEPCO, "depicting a scene of harried officials incapable of making decisions to stem radiation leaks as the situation at the coastal plant worsened in the days and weeks following the disaster".[168] The report said poor planning worsened the disaster response, noting that authorities had "grossly underestimated tsunami risks" that followed the magnitude 9.0 earthquake. The 12.1 metres (40 ft) high tsunami that struck the plant was double the height of the highest wave predicted by officials. The erroneous assumption that the plant's cooling system would function after the tsunami worsened the disaster. "Plant workers had no clear instructions on how to respond to such a disaster, causing miscommunication, especially when the disaster destroyed backup generators.".[168] In February 2012, the Rebuild Japan Initiative Foundation described how Japan's response was hindered by a loss of trust between the major actors: Prime Minister Kan, TEPCO's Tokyo headquarters and the plant manager. The report said that these conflicts "produced confused flows of sometimes contradictory information".[169][170] According to the report, Kan delayed the cooling of the reactors by questioning the choice of seawater instead of fresh water, accusing him of micromanaging response efforts and appointing a small, closed, decision-making staff. The report stated that the Japanese government was slow to accept assistance from U.S. nuclear experts.[171] A 2012 report in The Economist said: "The operating company was poorly regulated and did not know what was going on. The operators made mistakes. The representatives of the safety inspectorate fled. Some of the equipment failed. The establishment repeatedly played down the risks and suppressed information about the movement of the radioactive plume, so some people were evacuated from more lightly to more heavily contaminated places".[172] From 17 to 19 March 2011, US military aircraft measured radiation within a 45-km radius of the site. The data recorded 125 microsieverts per hour of radiation as far as 25 km (15.5 mi) northwest of the plant. The US provided detailed maps to the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI) on 18 March and to the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) two days later, but officials did not act on the information.[173] The data were not forwarded to the prime minister's office or the Nuclear Safety Commission (NSC), nor were they used to direct the evacuation. Because a substantial portion of radioactive materials reached ground to the northwest, residents evacuated in this direction were unnecessarily exposed to radiation. According to NSC chief Tetsuya Yamamoto, "It was very regrettable that we didn't share and utilize the information." Itaru Watanabe, of the Science and Technology Policy Bureau, blamed the US for not releasing the data.[174] After the Americans published their map on 23 March, Japan published fallout maps compiled from ground measurements and SPEEDI the same day. On 19 June 2012 science minister Hirofumi Hirano stated that his "job was only to measure radiation levels on land" and that the government would study whether disclosure could have helped in the evacuation efforts.[175] Event rating[edit]

Main article: Accident rating of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster

Comparison of radiation levels for different nuclear events. The incident was rated 7 on the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES).[176] This scale runs from 0, indicating an abnormal situation with no safety consequences, to 7, indicating an accident causing widespread contamination with serious health and environmental effects. Prior to Fukushima, the Chernobyl disaster was the only level 7 event on record, while the Three Mile Island accident was a level 5. A 2012 analysis of the intermediate and long-lived radiation released found about 10-20% of that released from the Chernobyl disaster.[177][178] Approximately 15 PBq of caesium-137 was released;[179] compared with approximately 85 PBq of caesium-137 at Chernobyl,[180] indicating the release of 24 kilograms (53 lb) of caesium-137.[181] Unlike Chernobyl, all the Japanese reactors were in concrete containment vessels, which limited the release of strontium-90, americium-241 and plutonium, which were among the radioisotopes released by the earlier incident.[177][180] Some 500 PBq of iodine-131 were released,[179] compared to approximately 1,760 PBq at Chernobyl.[180] Iodine-131 has a half life of 8.02 days; decaying into a stable nucleide. After ten half lives (80.2 days) 99.9% has decayed to xenon-131, a stable isotope.[182] Aftermath[edit]

Main article: Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster casualties No deaths followed short term radiation exposure, while approximately 16,000 people died due to the earthquake and tsunami. Risks from radiation[edit] Very few cancers would be expected as a result of accumulated radiation exposures,[183][184][185] even though people in the area worst affected by Japan's Fukushima nuclear accident have a slightly higher risk of developing certain cancers such as leukemia, solid cancers, thyroid cancer and breast cancer.[12] Estimated effective doses from the accident outside of Japan are considered to be below (or far below) the dose levels regarded as very small by the international radiological protection community.[186] In 2013 WHO reported that area residents who were evacuated were exposed to so little radiation that radiation induced health impacts were likely to be below detectable levels.[16][187] The health risks were calculated by applying conservative assumptions, including the conservative Linear no-threshold model of radiation exposure, a model that assumes even the smallest amount of radiation exposure will cause a negative health effect.[188][189] The report indicated that for those infants in the most affected areas, lifetime cancer risk would increase by about 1%,[190][191] It predicted that populations in the most contaminated areas faced a 70% higher relative risk of developing thyroid cancer for females exposed as infants, and a 7% higher relative risk of leukemia in males exposed as infants and a 6% higher relative risk of breast cancer in females exposed as infants.[17] One-third of involved emergency workers would have increased cancer risks.[192][193] Cancer risks for fetuses were similar to those in 1 year old infants.[194] The estimated cancer risk to children and adults was lower than infants.[195] The stated risks were relative and not absolute. The baseline risk of thyroid cancer in females is 0.75%, predicted to increase to 1.25%, a "70% higher relative risk":[193] These percentages represent estimated relative increases over the baseline rates and are not absolute risks for developing such cancers. Due to the low baseline rates of thyroid cancer, even a large relative increase represents a small absolute increase in risks. For example, the baseline lifetime risk of thyroid cancer for females is just (0.75%)three-quarters of one percent and the additional lifetime risk estimated in this assessment for a female infant exposed in the most affected location is (0.5%)one-half of one percent.[193] Stanford University professor Mark Z. Jacobson and colleague John Ten Hoeve suggested that according to the linear no-threshold model (LNT model) the accident would most likely cause 130 cancer deaths.[196][197] Radiation epidemiologist Roy Shore countered that estimating health effects from the LNT model "is not wise because of the uncertainties".[198] The LNT model greatly overestimated casualties from Chernobyl, Hiroshima or Nagasaki; instead. Evidence that the LNT model was invalid has existed since 1946 and was suppressed by Nobel Prize winner Hermann Muller.[199][200][201] Thyroid screening program[edit] As part of the ultrasound screening program, 36% of children in 2012 were found to have abnormal growths in their thyroid glands, but whether this is due to the effects of nuclear radiation is undetermined.[19][18] The overwhelming majority of thyroid growths are benign growths that will never cause symptoms, illness or death, even if nothing is ever done about the growth. Autopsy studies on people who died from other causes show that more than one third of adults technically have a thyroid growth/cancer.[202] According to the Tenth Report of the Fukushima Prefecture Health Management Survey released in February 2013, more than 40% of children screened around Fukushima prefecture were diagnosed with thyroid abnormalities and that 10 of 186 eligible are suspected of having thyroid cancer as a result of the exposed radiation.[203] As of August 2013, there have been more than 40 children newly diagnosed with thyroid cancer and other cancers in Fukushima prefecture as a whole. In November 2013, another report from the Fukushima Prefectural Government revealed that more children have been diagnosed with confirmed or suspected thyroid cancer. The number of children diagnosed with thyroid cancer was 59. Furthermore, the report claims that in Fukushima prefecture, 12 people per 100,000 who were aged 18 or younger at the time of the accident developed thyroid cancer. This figure is contrasted by a 2007 figure where 1.7 people per 100,000 in the general population between the ages of 15 and 19 contracted the cancer according to statistics taken in four prefectures, including nearby Miyagi. [204] The World Health Organization stated that a 2013 thyroid ultrasound screening programme was, due to the screening effect, likely to lead to an increase in recorded thyroid cases due to early detection of non-symptomatic disease cases.[18] This screening program found that more than a third (36%) of children in the Prefecture have abnormal growths in their thyroid glands, however whether these growths can be attributed to exposure to nuclear radiation has not yet been proven.[19] Thyroid cancer is one of the most survivable cancers, with an approximate 94% survival rate after first diagnosis. That rate increases to a 100% survival rate with catching it early.[205] Chernobyl comparison[edit] Radiation deaths at Chernobyl were also statistically undetectable. Only 0.1% of the 110,000 cleanup workers surveyed had as of 2012 developed leukemia, although not all cases resulted from the accident.[206][207] Data from Chernobyl showed that there was a steady then sharp increase in thyroid cancer rates following the disaster in 1986, but whether this data can be directly compared to Fukushima is yet to be determined.[208][209] Chernobyl thyroid cancer incidence rates did not begin to increase above the prior baseline value of about 0.7 cases per 100,000 people per year until 1989 to 1991, 3–5 years after the incident in both adolescent and child age groups.[208][209] From 1989 to 2005, an excess of 4,000 children and adolescent cases of thyroid cancer were observed. Nine of these had died as of 2005, a 99% survival rate.[210] Effects on evacuees[edit] Evacuation decreased perceived health status.[211] In the former Soviet Union many patients with negligible radioactive exposure after the Chernobyl disaster displayed extreme anxiety about radiation exposure. They developed many psychosomatic problems, including radiophobia along with an increase in fatalistic alcoholism. As Japanese health and radiation specialist Shunichi Yamashita noted:[212] We know from Chernobyl that the psychological consequences are enormous. Life expectancy of the evacuees dropped from 65 to 58 years -- not [predominately] because of cancer, but because of depression, alcoholism and suicide. Relocation is not easy, the stress is very big. We must not only track those problems, but also treat them. Otherwise people will feel they are just guinea pigs in our research.[212] A survey by the Iitate local government obtained responses from approximately 1,743 evacuees within the evacuation zone. The survey showed that many residents are experiencing growing frustration, instability and an inability to return to their earlier lives. Sixty percent of respondents stated that their health and the health of their families had deteriorated after evacuating, while 39.9% reported feeling more irritated compared to before the disaster.[213] Summarizing all responses to questions related to evacuees' current family status, one-third of all surveyed families live apart from their children, while 50.1% live away from other family members (including elderly parents) with whom they lived before the disaster. The survey also showed that 34.7% of the evacuees have suffered salary cuts of 50% or more since the outbreak of the nuclear disaster. A total of 36.8% reported a lack of sleep, while 17.9% reported smoking or drinking more than before they evacuated.[213] Stress often manifests in physical ailments, including behavioral changes such as poor dietary choices, lack of exercise and sleep deprivation. Survivors, including some who lost homes, villages and family members, were found likely face mental health and physical challenges. Much of the stress came from lack of information and from relocation.[214] A Mainichi Shimbun survey computed that of some 300,000 evacuees, approximately 1,600 deaths related to the evacuation conditions, such as living in temporary housing and hospital closures that had occurred as of August 2013, a number comparable to the 1,599 deaths directly caused by the earthquake and tsunami in the Prefecture. The exact causes of these evacuation related deaths were not specified, because according to the municipalities, that would hinder relatives applying for compensation.[14][15] While some articles have drawn an effect on the mortality rate for infants in the Pacific Northwest since the crisis, Scientific American revealed that the underlying statistical analysis was questionable.[215] Radiation releases[edit] In June 2011, TEPCO stated the amount of contaminated water in the complex had increased due to substantial rainfall.[216] On 13 February 2014, TEPCO reported 37,000 becquerels of cesium-134 and 93,000 becquerels of cesium-137 were detected per liter of groundwater sampled from a monitoring well.[217] Insurance[edit] According to reinsurer Munich Re, the private insurance industry will not be significantly affected by the disaster.[218] Swiss Re similarly stated, "Coverage for nuclear facilities in Japan excludes earthquake shock, fire following earthquake and tsunami, for both physical damage and liability. Swiss Re believes that the incident at the Fukushima nuclear power plant is unlikely to result in a significant direct loss for the property & casualty insurance industry."[219] Energy policy implications[edit]

The number of nuclear power plant constructions started each year, from 1954 to 2013. Note the increase in new constructions from 2007 to 2010, before a decline following the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster.

Anti-nuclear power plant rally on 19 September 2011 at the Meiji Shrine complex in Tokyo. By March 2012, one year after the disaster, all but two of Japan's nuclear reactors had been shut down; some had been damaged by the quake and tsunami. Authority to restart the others after scheduled maintenance throughout the year was given to local governments, who in all cases decided against. According to The Japan Times, the disaster changed the national debate over energy policy almost overnight. "By shattering the government's long-pitched safety myth about nuclear power, the crisis dramatically raised public awareness about energy use and sparked strong anti-nuclear sentiment". A June 2011 Asahi Shimbun poll of 1,980 respondents found that 74% answered "yes" to whether Japan should gradually decommission all 54 reactors and become nuclear-free.[220] An energy white paper, approved by the Japanese Cabinet in October 2011, says "public confidence in safety of nuclear power was greatly damaged" by the disaster and called for a reduction in the nation's reliance on nuclear power. It also omitted a section on nuclear power expansion that was in the previous year's policy review.[221] Michael Banach, the current Vatican representative to the IAEA, told a conference in Vienna in September 2011 that the disaster created new concerns about the safety of nuclear plants globally. Auxiliary Bishop of Osaka Michael Goro Matsuura said this incident should cause Japan and other countries to abandon nuclear projects. He called on the worldwide Christian community to support this anti-nuclear campaign. Statements from Bishops' conferences in Korea and the Philippines called on their governments to abandon atomic power. Author Kenzaburō Ōe, who received a Nobel prize in literature, urged Japan to abandon its reactors.[222] The nuclear plant closest to the epicenter of the earthquake, the Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant, successfully withstood the cataclysm. According to Reuters it may serve as a "trump card" for the nuclear lobby, providing evidence that it is possible for a correctly designed and operated nuclear facility to withstand such a cataclysm.[223]

Electricity generation by source in Japan (month-level data). Nuclear energy's contribution declined steadily throughout 2011 due to shutdowns and has been replaced with thermal power stations such as fossil gas and coal power plants. Units 3 and 4 at Ohi Nuclear Power Plant are the only two Japanese reactors which have so far met the new safety rules and thus continue to operate. The loss of 30% of the country's generating capacity led to much greater reliance on liquified natural gas and coal.[224] Unusual conservation measures were undertaken. In the immediate aftermath, nine prefectures served by TEPCO experienced power rationing.[225] The government asked major companies to reduce power consumption by 15%, and some shifted their weekends to weekdays to smooth power demand.[226] Converting to a nuclear-free gas and oil energy economy would cost tens of billions of dollars in annual fees. One estimate is that even including the disaster, more lives would have been lost if Japan had used coal or gas plants instead of nuclear.[196] Many energy policy analysts have begun calling for a phase-out of nuclear power in Japan, including Amory Lovins, who claimed, "Japan is poor in fuels, but is the richest of all major industrial countries in renewable energy that can meet the entire long-term energy needs of an energy-efficient Japan, at lower cost and risk than current plans. Japanese industry can do it faster than anyone — if Japanese policymakers acknowledge and allow it".[165] Benjamin K. Sovacool asserted that Japan could have exploited instead its renewable energy base. Japan has a total of "324 GW of achievable potential in the form of onshore and offshore wind turbines (222 GW), geothermal power plants (70 GW), additional hydroelectric capacity (26.5 GW), solar energy (4.8 GW) and agricultural residue (1.1 GW)."[227] Environmental activists at a 2011 United Nations meeting in Bangkok used the disaster to promote renewable energy.[228] In August 2011, the Japanese Government passed a bill to subsidize electricity from renewable sources. This legislation, effective 1 July 2012, requires utilities to buy electricity generated by renewable sources including solar, wind and geothermal at above-market rates.[229] In September 2011, Mycle Schneider said that the disaster can be understood as a unique chance "to get it right" on energy policy. "Germany – with its nuclear phase-out decision based on a highly successful renewable energy program – and Japan – having suffered a painful shock but possessing unique technical capacities and societal discipline – can be at the forefront of an authentic paradigm shift toward a truly sustainable, low-carbon and nuclear-free energy policy".[230] As of September 2011, Japan planned to build a pilot offshore floating wind farm, with six 2-megawatt turbines, off the Fukushima coast.[231] The first became operational in November 2013.[232] After the evaluation phase is complete in 2016, "Japan plans to build as many as 80 floating wind turbines off Fukushima by 2020."[231] In 2012, Prime Minister Kan said the disaster made it clear to him that "Japan needs to dramatically reduce its dependence on nuclear power, which supplied 30% of its electricity before the crisis, and has turned him into a believer of renewable energy".[citation needed] Sales of solar panels in Japan rose 30.7% to 1,296 megawatts in 2011, helped by a government scheme to promote renewable energy. Canadian Solar received financing for its plans to build a factory in Japan with capacity of 150 megawatts, scheduled to begin production in 2014.[233] As of September 2012, most Japanese people supported the elimination of nuclear power,[234] and Prime Minister Noda and the Japanese government announced plans to make the country nuclear-free by the 2030s. They announced the end of new construction of nuclear power plants and a 40-year limit on existing nuclear plants, Nuclear plant restarts must meet safety standards of the new independent regulatory authority. The plan requires investing $500 billion over 20 years.[235] On 16 December 2012, Japan held a general election. Voters gave the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) a clear victory. Shinzō Abe became Prime Minister. Abe supported nuclear power, saying that leaving the plants closed was costing the country 4 trillion yen per year in higher costs.[236] The comment came after Junichiro Koizumi, who chose Abe to succeed him as premier, made a recent statement to urge the government to take a stance against using nuclear power.[237] A survey of local mayors by the Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper in January 2013 found that most of them from cities hosting nuclear plants would agree to restarting the reactors, provided the government could guarantee their safety.[238] More than 30,000 people marched on 2 June 2013, in Tokyo against restarting nuclear power plants. Marchers had gathered more than 8 million petition signatures opposing nuclear power.[239] In October 2013, it was reported that TEPCO and eight other Japanese power companies were paying approximately 3.6 trillion yen (37 billion dollars) more in combined imported fossil fuel costs compared to 2010, before the accident, to make up for the missing power.[240] Equipment, facility and operational changes[edit] A number of nuclear reactor safety system lessons emerged from the incident. The most obvious was that in tsunami-prone areas, a power station's sea wall must be adequately tall and robust.[7] At the Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant, closer to the epicenter of the 11 March earthquake and tsunami,[241] the sea wall was 14 meters tall and successfully withstood the tsunami, preventing serious damage and radiation releases.[242][243] Nuclear power station operators around the world began to install Passive Auto-catalytic hydrogen Recombiners ("PARs"), which do not require electricity to operate.[244][245][246] PARs work much like the catalytic converter on the exhaust of a car to turn potentially explosive gases such as hydrogen into water. Had such devices been positioned at the top of Fukushima I's reactor and containment buildings, where hydrogen gas collected, the explosions would not have occurred and the releases of radioactive isotopes would arguably have been much less.[27] Unpowered filtering systems on containment building vent lines, known as Filtered Containment Venting Systems (FCVS) can safely catch radioactive materials and thereby allow reactor core de-pressurization, with steam and hydrogen venting with minimal radiation emissions.[27][247] Filtration using an external water tank system is the most common in European countries, with the water tank positioned outside the containment building.[248] In October 2013, the owners of Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power station began installing wet filters and other safety systems, with completion anticipated in 2014.[249][250] In generation II reactors in flood or tsunami prone areas, a 3+ day supply of back-up batteries has become an infomal industry standard.[251][252] Another change is to harden the location of back-up diesel generator rooms with water-tight, blast-resistant doors and heat sinks, similar to those used by nuclear submarines.[27] The oldest operating nuclear power station in the world, Beznau, which has been operating since 1969, has a 'Notstand' hardened building designed to support all of its systems independently for 72 hours in the event of an earthquake or severe flooding. This system was built prior to Fukushima Daiichi.[253][254] Upon a station blackout, like the one that occurred after Fukushima's back-up battery supply was exhausted,[255] many already constructed Generation III reactors adopt the principle of passive nuclear safety. They take advantage of convection (hot water tends to rise) and gravity (water tends to fall) to ensure an adequate supply of cooling water and do not require pumps to handle the decay heat.[256][257] Reactions[edit]

Japan[edit] Main article: Japanese reaction to Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster

Japan towns, villages, and cities in and around the Daiichi nuclear plant exclusion zone. The 20 km and 30 km areas had evacuation and shelter in place orders, and additional administrative districts that had an evacuation order are highlighted. However the above map's factual accuracy is called into question as only the southern portion of Kawamata district had evacuation orders. More accurate maps are available.[258][259] Japanese authorities later admitted to lax standards and poor oversight.[260] They took fire for their handling of the emergency and engaged in a pattern of withholding and denying damaging information.[260][261][262][263] Authorities allegedly wanted to "limit the size of costly and disruptive evacuations in land-scarce Japan and to avoid public questioning of the politically powerful nuclear industry". Public anger emerged over an "official campaign to play down the scope of the accident and the potential health risks".[262][263][264] In many cases, the Japanese government's reaction was judged to be less than adequate by many in Japan, especially those who were living in the region. Decontamination equipment was slow to be made available and then slow to be utilized. As late as June 2011, even rainfall continued to cause fear and uncertainty in eastern Japan because of its possibility of washing radiation from the sky back to earth.[citation needed] To assuage fears, the government enacted an order to decontaminate over a hundred areas with a level contamination greater than or equivalent to one millisievert of radiation. This is a much lower threshold than is necessary for protecting health. The government also sought to address the lack of education on the effects of radiation and the extent to which the average person was exposed.[265] Previously a proponent of building more reactors, Kan took an increasingly anti-nuclear stance following the disaster. In May 2011, he ordered the aging Hamaoka Nuclear Power Plant closed over earthquake and tsunami concerns, and said he would freeze building plans. In July 2011, Kan said, "Japan should reduce and eventually eliminate its dependence on nuclear energy".[266] In October 2013, he said that if the worst-case scenario had been realized, 50 million people within a 250-kilometer radius would have had to evacuate.[267] On 22 August 2011, a government spokesman mentioned the possibility that some areas around the plant "could stay for some decades a forbidden zone". According to Yomiuri Shimbun the Japanese government was planning to buy some properties from civilians to store waste and materials that had become radioactive after the accidents.[268][269] Chiaki Takahashi, Japan's foreign minister, criticized foreign media reports as excessive. He added that he could "understand the concerns of foreign countries over recent developments at the nuclear plant, including the radioactive contamination of seawater".[270] Due to frustration with TEPCO and the Japanese government "providing differing, confusing, and at times contradictory, information on critical health issues"[271] a citizen's group called "Safecast" recorded detailed radiation level data in Japan.[272][273] The Japanese government "does not consider nongovernment readings to be authentic". The group uses off-the-shelf Geiger counter equipment. A simple Geiger counter is a contamination meter and not a dose rate meter. The response differs too much between different radioisotopes to permit a simple GM tube for dose rate measurements when more than one radioisotope is present. A thin metal shield is needed around a GM tube to provide energy compensation to enable it to be used for dose rate measurements. For gamma emitters either an ionization chamber, a gamma spectrometer or an energy compensated GM tube are required. Members of the Air Monitoring station facility at the Department of Nuclear Engineering at the University of Berkeley, California have tested many environmental samples in Northern California.[274] International[edit] Main article: International reaction to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster

Evacuation flight departs Misawa.

U.S. Navy humanitarian flight undergoes radioactive decontamination The international reaction to the disaster was diverse and widespread. Many inter-governmental agencies immediately offered help, often on an ad hoc basis. Responders included IAEA, World Meteorological Organization and the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization.[275] In September 2011, IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano said the Japanese nuclear disaster "caused deep public anxiety throughout the world and damaged confidence in nuclear power".[276] Many countries advised their nationals to leave Tokyo.[277] Events at Fukushima "cast doubt on the idea that even an advanced economy can master nuclear safety".[278] Following the disaster, the IAEA halved its estimate of additional nuclear generating capacity to be built by 2035.[279] Anti-nuclear demonstrations were followed by a significant reevaluation of existing nuclear power programs in many countries. Germany closed off its old nuclear power reactors and decided to phase the rest out by 2022.[280] Italy held a national referendum, in which 94 percent voted against the government's plan to build new nuclear power plants.[281] The same happened in Switzerland, and later Belgium. In France the strongly pro-nuclear government was defeated in a national election and with 70 percent of the public opposing nuclear in some polls, it was replaced by a government promising to radically reduce reliance on nuclear power.[282] In June 2011 an opinion poll from Ipsos MORI reveled that 62% of the citizens of 24 different countries across the world were opposed to nuclear energy.[283] Nuclear power plans were abandoned in Malaysia, the Philippines, Kuwait and Bahrain, or radically changed, as in Taiwan. China suspended its nuclear development programme, but restarted it on a reduced basis in late 2012 with the government approving a ‘small number’ of projects in each of the following five years. The initial plan had been to increase the nuclear contribution from 2 to 4 percent of electricity by 2020, but renewable energy already supplied 17 percent of China’s electricity and, post-Fukushima, it seemed likely that most of the 15 percent of non-fossil energy that China aims to use by 2020 will be from renewables.[citation needed] Stock prices of energy companies reliant on nuclear sources dropped, while renewable energy companies increased. In the United States output from renewable energy had already overtaken that from nuclear and after Fukushima some proposed nuclear projects collapsed. With renewables booming and nuclear costs rising, it seemed as if nuclear contribution will progressively fall.[citation needed] New nuclear projects were proceeding in some countries. The United Kingdom was still planning a major nuclear expansion. So is Russia. Despite massive protests, India is also pressing ahead with a large nuclear programme, as is South Korea.[citation needed] Investigations[edit] NAIIC[edit] Main article: National Diet of Japan Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission The Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission (NAIIC) was the first independent investigation commission by the National Diet in the 66-year history of Japan's constitutional government. Fukushima "cannot be regarded as a natural disaster," the NAIIC panel's chairman, Tokyo University professor emeritus Kiyoshi Kurokawa, wrote in the inquiry report. "It was a profoundly man-made disaster -- that could and should have been foreseen and prevented. And its effects could have been mitigated by a more effective human response."[284] "Governments, regulatory authorities and Tokyo Electric Power [TEPCO] lacked a sense of responsibility to protect people's lives and society," the Commission said. "They effectively betrayed the nation's right to be safe from nuclear accidents.[285] The Commission recognized that the affected residents were still struggling and facing grave concerns, including the "health effects of radiation exposure, displacement, the dissolution of families, disruption of their lives and lifestyles and the contamination of vast areas of the environment". Investigation Committee[edit] Main article: Investigation Committee on the Accident at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Stations of Tokyo Electric Power Company The purpose of the Investigation Committee on the Accident at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Stations (ICANPS) was to identify the disaster's causes and propose policies designed to minimize the damage and prevent the recurrence of similar incidents.[286] The 10 member, government-appointed panel included scholars, journalists, lawyers and engineers.[287][288] It was supported by public prosecutors and government experts[289] and released its final, 448-page[290] investigation report on 23 July 2012.[21][291] The panel's report faulted an inadequate legal system for nuclear crisis management, a crisis-command disarray caused by the government and TEPCO, and possible excess meddling on the part of the Prime Minister's office in the crisis' early stage.[292] The panel concluded that a culture of complacency about nuclear safety and poor crisis management led to the nuclear disaster.[287] See also[edit]

List of civilian nuclear accidents Lists of nuclear disasters and radioactive incidents Timeline of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster Comparison of Fukushima and Chernobyl nuclear accidents Fukushima disaster cleanup Notes[edit]

Jump up ^ Negishi, Mayumi (12 April 2011). "Japan raises nuclear crisis severity to highest level". Reuters. Jump up ^ "Fukushima accident upgraded to severity level 7". IEEE Spectrum. 12 April 2011. ^ Jump up to: a b c "IAEA Update on Japan Earthquake". Retrieved 16 March 2011. "As reported earlier, a 400 millisieverts (mSv) per hour radiation dose observed at Fukushima Daiichi occurred between 1s 3 and 4. This is a high dose-level value, but it is a local value at a single location and at a certain point in time. The IAEA continues to confirm the evolution and value of this dose rate. It should be noted that because of this detected value, non-indispensable staff was evacuated from the plant, in line with the Emergency Response Plan, and that the population around the plant is already evacuated." Jump up ^ McCurry, Justin (24 March 2011). "Japan nuclear plant workers in hospital after radiation exposure". The Guardian. Retrieved 16 December 2013. Jump up ^ "Radiation-exposed workers to be treated at Chiba hospital". Kyodo News. 25 March 2011. Retrieved 17 April 2011.[dead link] Jump up ^ Wakatsuki, Yoko (20 February 2014). "New radioactive water leak at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi plant". cnn.com. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Phillip Lipscy, Kenji Kushida, and Trevor Incerti. 2013. "The Fukushima Disaster and Japan’s Nuclear Plant Vulnerability in Comparative Perspective." Environmental Science and Technology 47 (May), 6082-6088. Jump up ^ "Explainer: What went wrong in Japan's nuclear reactors". IEEE Spectrum. 4 April 2011. Jump up ^ "Analysis: A month on, Japan nuclear crisis still scarring" International Business Times (Australia). 9 April 2011, retrieved 12 April 2011; excerpt, According to James Acton, Associate of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, "Fukushima is not the worst nuclear accident ever but it is the most complicated and the most dramatic...This was a crisis that played out in real time on TV. Chernobyl did not." ^ Jump up to: a b c d Frank N. von Hippel (September/October 2011 vol. 67 no. 5). "The radiological and psychological consequences of the Fukushima Daiichi accident". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. pp. 27–36. Jump up ^ "Japan nuclear plant suffers worst radioactive water leak". cbcnews. 08/02/13. Retrieved 12/02/13. ^ Jump up to: a b c Nebehay, Stephanie (28 February 2013). "Higher cancer risk after Fukushima nuclear disaster: WHO". Reuters. Jump up ^ See Template:2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami casualties dead for updates and references for total casualties of this event. ^ Jump up to: a b Smith, Alexander (10 September 2013). "Fukushima evacuation has killed more than earthquake and tsunami, survey says". Retrieved 11 September 2013. ^ Jump up to: a b "Stress-induced deaths in Fukushima top those from 2011 natural disasters". ^ Jump up to: a b WHO 2013, p. 92. ^ Jump up to: a b http://science.time.com/2013/03/01/meltdown-despite-the-fear-the-health-risks-from-the-fukushima-accident-are-minimal/#ixzz2MnbjhPmv Meltdown: Despite the Fear, the Health Risks from the Fukushima Accident Are Minimal Time magazine article which includes a link to the WHO report, and explains the report in laymans terms. ^ Jump up to: a b c WHO 2013, p. 87-88. ^ Jump up to: a b c Ryall, Julian (19 July 2012). "Nearly 36pc of Fukushima children diagnosed with thyroid growths". The Telegraph UK. Jump up ^ National Diet of Japan Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission. "国会事故調 | 東京電力福島原子力発電所事故調査委員会のホームページ". National Diet of Japan Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission. Retrieved 9 July 2012. ^ Jump up to: a b "UPDATE: Government panel blasts lack of 'safety culture' in nuclear accident". The Asahi Shimbun. 23 July 2012. Retrieved 29 July 2012. Jump up ^ "Fukushima Event PCTRAN Analysis", Micro-Simulation Technology, April 2011 Jump up ^ "General Electric Knew Its Nuclear Reactor Design Was Unsafe … So Why Isn’t GE Getting Any Heat for Fukushima?" Jump up ^ Black, Richard (15 March 2011). "Reactor breach worsens prospects". BBC Online. Retrieved 23 March 2011. ^ Jump up to: a b c "OECD Timeline for the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident". Jump up ^ W. Maschek, A. Rineiski, M. Flad, V. Kriventsev, F. Gabrielli, K. Morita. "Recriticality, a Key Phenomenon to investigate in Core Disruptive Accident Scenarios of Current and Future Fast Reactor Designs". IAEA & Institute for Nuclear and Energy Technologies (IKET). Note: See picture in the upper left corner of page 2. ^ Jump up to: a b c d 24 Hours at Fukushima A blow-by-blow account of the worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl By Eliza Strickland Posted 31 Oct 2011 Jump up ^ "Fukushima nuclear accident update log, updates of 15 March 2011". IAEA. 15 March 2011. Retrieved 8 May 2011. Jump up ^ Hydrogen explosions Fukushima nuclear plant: what happened? Jump up ^ "MELCOR Model of the Spent Fuel Pool of Fukushima Dai-ichi Unit 4". Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Jump up ^ page 6 http://eetd-seminars.lbl.gov/sites/eetd-seminars.lbl.gov/files/Fukushima1_Technical_Perspective_LBL_EEDT_04052011-1.pdf What happened at Fukushima a Technical Perspective. Nuclear Regulatory Commission page 11, 26, 29. Jump up ^ Fackler, Martin (12 October 2012). "Japan Power Company Admits Failings on Plant Precautions". The New York Times. Retrieved 13 October 2012. Jump up ^ Sheldrick, Aaron (12 October 2012). "Fukushima operator must learn from mistakes, new adviser says". Reuters. Retrieved 13 October 2012. Jump up ^ Yamaguchi, Mari (12 October 2012). "Japan utility agrees nuclear crisis was avoidable". Boston.com. Associated Press. Retrieved 13 October 2012. Jump up ^ "Japanese nuclear plant operator admits playing down risk". CNN Wire Staff. CNN. 12 October 2012. Retrieved 13 October 2012. ^ Jump up to: a b Justin Mccurry (10 March 2014). "Fukushima operator may have to dump contaminated water into Pacific". The Guardian. Retrieved 10 March 2014. ^ Jump up to: a b Fukushima Plant Admits Radioactive Water Leaked To Sea. Huffingtonpost.com. Retrieved on 2013-09-06. ^ Jump up to: a b Adelman, Jacob. (2013-08-07) Abe Pledges Government Help to Stem Fukushima Water Leaks. Bloomberg. Retrieved on 2013-09-06. ^ Jump up to: a b "Wrecked Fukushima storage tank leaking highly radioactive water". Reuters. 20 August 2013. Retrieved 21 August 2013. Jump up ^ "Disaster response robots", Open Minds blog, featuring BBC Documentary Jump up ^ Yoichi Funabashi (11 March 2012). "The End of Japanese Illusions". New York Times. Jump up ^ Richard Tanter (October–December 2013, Vol. 37, No. 4). "After Fukushima: A Survey of Corruption in the Global Nuclear Power Industry". Asian Perspective. ^ Jump up to: a b Jeff Kingston (10 September 2012). "Japan’s Nuclear Village". Japan Focus. Jump up ^ Kaufmann, Daniel and Veronika Penciakova (17 March 2011). "Japan's triple disaster: Governance and the earthquake, tsunami and nuclear crises". Brookings Institution. Jump up ^ Culture of complicity tied to stricken nuclear plant, NYTimes, 27 April 2011 Jump up ^ "Japan to fire 3 top nuclear officials – CNN". Articles.cnn.com. 4 August 2011. Retrieved 11 August 2011. Jump up ^ "Fukushima Daiichi Information Screen". Icjt.org. Retrieved 15 March 2011. ^ Jump up to: a b c Brady, A. Gerald (1980). "An Investigation of the Miyagi-ken-oki, Japan, earthquake of June 12, 1978". In Ellingwood, Bruce. United States Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards. NBS special publication 592. p. 123. ^ Jump up to: a b "The record of the earthquake intensity observed at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station and Fukushima Daini Nuclear Power Station (Interim Report)". TEPCO (Press release). 1 April 2011. ^ Jump up to: a b "Fukushima faced 14-metre tsunami". World Nuclear News. 24 March 2011. Retrieved 24 March 2011. Jump up ^ "Fukushima to Restart Using MOX Fuel for First Time". Nuclear Street. 17 September 2010. Retrieved 12 March 2011. Jump up ^ Martin, Alex, "Lowdown on nuclear crisis and potential scenarios", Japan Times, 20 March 2011, p. 3. Jump up ^ "Fukushima: Background on Fuel Ponds" (PDF). Retrieved 23 November 2013. Jump up ^ "No. 1 fuel pool power to be restored: Tepco". Retrieved 20 March 2013. Jump up ^ "NISA – The 2011 off the Pacific coast of Tohoku Pacific Earthquake and the seismic damage to the NPPs, pg 35" (PDF). Retrieved 24 April 2011. ^ Jump up to: a b Grier, Peter (16 March 2011). "Meltdown 101: Why is Fukushima crisis still out of control?". Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 27 March 2011. Jump up ^ Helman, Christopher (15 March 2011). "Explainer: What caused the incident at Fukushima-Daiichi". Forbes. Retrieved 7 April 2011. Jump up ^ DOE fundamentals handbook – Decay heat, Nuclear physics and reactor theory at the Wayback Machine (archived March 16, 2011), Vol. 2, module 4, p. 61. Jump up ^ "What if it happened here?". Somdnews.com. Retrieved 7 April 2011. Jump up ^ "More on spent fuel pools at Fukushima". Allthingsnuclear.org. 21 March 2011. Retrieved 7 April 2011. Jump up ^ Higgins, Andrew, "disorder intensified Japan's crisis", The Washington Post, 19 April 2011, Retrieved 21 April 2011. Jump up ^ Pre-construction safety report – Sub-chapter 9.2 – Water Systems. AREVA NP / EDF, published 2009-06-29, Retrieved 23 March 2011. Jump up ^ Mike Soraghan (24 March 2011). "Japan disaster raises questions about backup power at US nuclear plants". The New York Times. Greenwire. Retrieved 7 April 2011. Jump up ^ "Regulatory effectiveness of the station blackout rule" (PDF). Retrieved 7 April 2011. Jump up ^ "Why has it become impossible for Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Station to cool reactor core?". Shimbun.denki.or.jp. Archived from the original on 2011-04-27. Retrieved 7 April 2011. ^ Jump up to: a b "The 2011 off the Pacific coast of Tohoku Pacific Earthquake and the seismic damage to the NPPs" (PDF). Retrieved 13 July 2011. ^ Jump up to: a b Shirouzu, Norihiko (1 July 2011). "Wall Street Journal: Design Flaw Fueled Nuclear Disaster". Online.wsj.com. Retrieved 13 July 2011. Jump up ^ Yoshida, Reiji, "GE plan followed with inflexibility", Japan Times, 14 July 2011, p. 1. Jump up ^ Arita, Eriko, "Disaster analysis you may not hear elsewhere", Japan Times, 20 March 2011, p. 12. Jump up ^ Agence France-Presse/Jiji Press, "Tsunami that knocked out nuke plant cooling systems topped 14 meters", Japan Times, 23 March 2011, p. 2. Jump up ^ "IAEA warned Japan over nuclear quake risk: WikiLeaks". physorg.com. Retrieved 26 March 2011. Jump up ^ "Plant Status of Fukushima Daini Nuclear Power Station (as of 0 AM March 12th )", TEPCO, end of day 11 April. Jump up ^ Fukushima No. 1 plant designed on 'trial-and-error' basis, Asahi Shimbun, 7 April 2011. Jump up ^ "Spraying continues at Fukushima Daiichi". 18 March 2011. Retrieved 19 March 2011. Jump up ^ "The Japanese Nuclear Emergency – Sydney Technical Presentation". Engineers Australia. 6 June 2011. Retrieved 22 August 2011.[dead link] Jump up ^ B. Cox, JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MATERIALS, PELLET CLAD INTERACTION (PCI) FAILURES OF ZIRCONIUM ALLOY FUEL CLADDING – A REVIEW, 1990, volume 172, pages 249–292 Jump up ^ The Mainichi Shimbun (28 28 February 2012)TEPCO ordered to report on change in piping layout at Fukushima plant Jump up ^ Norihiko Shirouzu and Rebecca Smith (16 March 2011). "Plant's design, safety record are under scrutiny". The Wall Street Journal. Jump up ^ "Environment: The San Jose Three". TIME Magazine. 16 February 1976. Retrieved 3 March 2012 Jump up ^ "Environment: The Struggle over Nuclear Power". TIME Magazine. 8 March 1976. Retrieved 3 March 2012. Jump up ^ ABC News. "Fukushima: Mark 1 Nuclear Reactor Design Caused GE Scientist To Quit In Protest". Retrieved 15 March 2011. Jump up ^ "Special report-fuel storage, safety issues vexed Japan plant". Reuters. 22 March 2011. Jump up ^ "Operator of Fukushima nuke plant admitted to faking repair records". Herald Sun. Australia. 20 March 2011. Retrieved 24 April 2011. Jump up ^ NHK-world (29 December 2011) Fukushima plant's backup generator failed in 1991. JAIF (30 December 2011)Eathquake report 304:Fukushima plant's backup generator failed in 1991. The Mainichi Daily News (30 December 2011) TEPCO neglected anti-flood measures at Fukushima plant despite knowing risk. Jump up ^ "TEPCO did not act on tsunami risk projected for nuclear plant |". Jagadees.wordpress.com. 2012-02-13. Retrieved 2013-12-30. Jump up ^ "AFERC urged to review assumption on Tsunami in 2009". Yomiuri News Paper. 11 March 2011. Retrieved 14 September 2013. Jump up ^ "Fukushima Nuclear Accident - U.S. NRC warned a risk on emergency power 20 years ago". Bloomberg L.P. 16 March 2011. Retrieved 14 September 2013. Jump up ^ "IAEA warned Japan over nuclear quake risk: WikiLeaks". physorg.com. Daily Telegraph. 17 March 2011. Jump up ^ "Magnitude 9.0 – near the East coast of Honshu, Japan". Earthquake.usgs.gov. Retrieved 17 March 2011. Jump up ^ "Plant Status of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station (as of 0AM March 12th )". TEPCO (Press release). 12 March 2011. Retrieved 13 March 2011. ^ Jump up to: a b "Occurrence of a specific incident stipulated in Article 10, Clause 1 of the Act on "Special measures concerning nuclear emergency preparedness (Fukushima Daiichi)"". TEPCO (Press release). 11 March 2011. Retrieved 13 March 2011. Jump up ^ Associated Press, "How the first 24 hours shaped Fukushima nuclear crisis", Japan Times, 7 July 2011, p. 3. ^ Jump up to: a b c "TEPCO press release 3". Tepco (Press release). 11 March 2011. ^ Jump up to: a b TEPCO tardy on N-plant emergency: National: Daily Yomiuri Online (The Daily Yomiuri). Yomiuri.co.jp (12 April 2011). Retrieved 30 April 2011. Jump up ^ Eric Talmadge (1 July 2011). "AP: First 24 hours shaped Japan nuke crisis". Google.com. Retrieved 13 July 2011. Jump up ^ Japan Meteorological Agency|Tsunami Warnings/Advisories, Tsunami Information. Jma.go.jp. Retrieved 30 April 2011. Jump up ^ Bloomberg, "Tepco revises tsunami's height to 15 meters", 10 April 2011, ^ Jump up to: a b David Sanger and Matthew Wald, Radioactive releases in Japan could last months, experts say. The New York Times 13 March 2011 Jump up ^ "Massive earthquake hits Japan". World Nuclear News. 11 March 2011. Retrieved 13 March 2011.; "Japan earthquake update (2030 CET)". International Atomic Energy Agency. 11 March 2011. Retrieved 12 March 2011. Jump up ^ Bloomberg L.P., "Time not on workers' side as crisis raced on", Japan Times, 5 May 2011, p. 3. Jump up ^ Inajima, Tsuyoshi; Okada, Yuji (11 March 2011). "Japan Orders Evacuation From Near Nuclear Plant After Quake". Bloomberg BusinessWeek. Retrieved 11 March 2011. Jump up ^ "Japan Earthquake Update (2210 CET)". International Atomic Energy Agency (Press release). 11 March 2011. Retrieved 12 March 2011. Jump up ^ Magnier, Mark et al. (16 March 2011). "New power line could restore cooling systems at Fukushima Daiichi plant". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 19 March 2011. Jump up ^ "Stabilisation at Fukushima Daiichi". World-nuclear-news.org. 20 March 2011. Retrieved 24 April 2011. Jump up ^ Richard Black (15 March 2011). "Japan quake: Radiation rises at Fukushima nuclear plant". BBC Online. Retrieved 15 March 2011. Jump up ^ "Japan's PM urges people to clear 20-km zone around Fukushima NPP (Update-1)". RIA Novosti. Retrieved 15 March 2011. Jump up ^ Makinen, Julie (25 March 2011). "Japan steps up nuclear plant precautions; Kan apologizes". Los Angeles Times. Jump up ^ Herman, Steve (12 April 2011). "VOA Correspondent Reaches Crippled Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant". VOA. Retrieved 5 March 2014. Jump up ^ Fukushima Timeline scientificamerican.com Jump up ^ The Evaluation Status of Reactor Core Damage at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station Units 1 to 3 November 30, 2011 Tokyo Electric Power Company Jump up ^ Uncertainties abound in Fukushima decommissioning. Phys.org. 19 Nov 2013. Jump up ^ Most of fuel NOT remaining in reactor1 core / Tepco "but molten fuel is stopped in the concrete base" Fukushima-Diary.com Jump up ^ "Most fuel in Fukushima 4 pool undamaged". world nucler news. 14 April 2011. Retrieved 27 January 2012. Jump up ^ "Japan Diplomat: Ground underneath Fukushima Unit 4 is sinking — More than 30 inches in some areas — Now in danger of collapse". ENENews. Retrieved 24 October 2012. "Due to its ground has been sinking, reactor 4 is now endangered in collapse. … According to secretary of former Prime Minister Kan, the ground level of the building has been sinking 80 cm … unevenly. Because the ground itself has the problem, whether the building can resist a quake bigger than M6 still remains a question." Jump up ^ "Gundersen: Japan ambassador confirms Fukushima Unit 4 is sinking unevenly — Building "may begin to be tilting"". ENENews. Retrieved 24 October 2012. "So I have been able to confirm that there is unequal sinking at Unit 4, not just the fact the site sunk by 36 inches immediately after the accident, but also that Unit 4 continues to sink something on the order of 0.8 meters, or around 30 inches." Jump up ^ "Seismic Damage Information (the 61st Release)". Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency. 29 March 2011. Retrieved 12 April 2011. Jump up ^ Cresswell, Adam (16 March 2011). "Stealthy, silent destroyer of DNA". The Australian Jump up ^ Fukushima radioactive fallout nears Chernobyl levels – 24 March 2011. New Scientist. Retrieved 30 April 2011. Jump up ^ Report: Emissions from Japan plant approach Chernobyl levels, USA Today, 24 March 2011 Jump up ^ Doughton, Sandi. (5 April 2011) Local News|Universities come through in monitoring for radiation|Seattle Times Newspaper. Seattletimes.nwsource.com. Retrieved 30 April 2011. Jump up ^ IRSN (26 October 2011). "Synthèse actualisée des connaissances relatives à l'impact sur le milieu marin des rejets radioactifs du site nucléaire accidenté de Fukushima Dai-ichi". Retrieved 3 January 2012. Jump up ^ Buesseler, Ken O.; Jayne, Steven R.; Fisher, Nicholas S.; Rypina, Irina I.; Baumann, Hannes; Baumann, Zofia; Breier, Crystaline F.; Douglass, Elizabeth M.; George, Jennifer; MacDonald, Alison M.; Miyamoto, Hiroomi; Nishikawa, Jun; Pike, Steven M.; Yoshida, Sashiko (2012). "Fukushima-derived radionuclides in the ocean and biota off Japan". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109 (16): 5984–8. doi:10.1073/pnas.1120794109. PMC 3341070. PMID 22474387. Jump up ^ "CTBTO to Share Data with IAEA and WHO". CTBTO Press Release 18 March 2011. Retrieved 17 May 2012. Jump up ^ "Fukushima-Related Measurements by the CTBTO". CTBTO Press Release 13 April 2011. Retrieved 17 May 2012. Jump up ^ "CTBTO Trakcs Fukushima's Radioactive Release". Animation CTBTO YouTube Channel. Retrieved 17 May 2012. ^ Jump up to: a b No-Man's Land Attests to Japan's Nuclear Nightmare. ABC News, 27. December 2011. Jump up ^ "Reactor accident Fukushima – New international study". Norwegian Institute for Air Research. 21 October 2011. Retrieved 20 January 2012. Jump up ^ David Guttenfelder (27 December 2011). "No-man's land attests to Japan's nuclear nightmare". theStar.com (Toronto). Retrieved 20 January 2012. Jump up ^ Kyodo News, "Radioactivity Dispersal Distance From Fukushima 1/10th Of Chernobyl's", 13 March 2012, (wire service report), "The data showed, for example, more than 1.48 million becquerels of radioactive caesium per square meter was detected in soil at a location some 250 kilometers away from the Chernobyl plant. In the case of the Fukushima Daiichi plant, the distance was much smaller at about 33 km, the officials said." Jump up ^ Hongo, Jun, "Fukushima soil fallout far short of Chernobyl", Japan Times, 15 March 2012, p. 1. Jump up ^ Michael Winter (24 March 2011). "Report: Emissions from Japan plant approach Chernobyl levels". USA Today. Jump up ^ Hamada, Nobuyuki. "Safety regulations of food and water implemented in the first year following the Fukushima nuclear accident". Oxford Journals. Retrieved 30 November 2013. ^ Jump up to: a b "福島産の新米、東京で販売開始　全袋検査に合格". 共同 Nikkei Kyodo news. 2012-09-01. Retrieved 18 April 2013. Jump up ^ JAIF (5 September 2011) NSC Recalculates Total Amount of Radioactive Materials Released Jump up ^ INES (the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale) Rating on the Events in Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Station by the Tohoku District – off the Pacific Ocean Earthquake. NISA/METI, 12 April 2011, archived from Original. Jump up ^ JAIF (9 September 2011) Radioactive release into sea estimated triple Jump up ^ JAIF 20 September 2011 Earthquake-report 211: A new plan set to reduce radiation emissions Jump up ^ Possibility of recriticality again, Fukushima Diary Jump up ^ Increasing leakage of Iodine-131, Fukushima Diary Jump up ^ IRSN (26 October 2011). "Synthèse actualisée des connaissances relatives à l'impact sur le milieu marin des rejets radioactifs du site nucléaire accidenté de Fukushima Dai-ichi". Retrieved 3 January 2012 Jump up ^ Daniel J. Madigan, Zofia Baumann, and Nicholas S. Fisher (29 May 2012). "Pacific bluefin tuna transport Fukushima-derived radionuclides from Japan to California". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109 (24): 9483–9486. doi:10.1073/pnas.1204859109. PMC 3386103. PMID 22645346 Jump up ^ Aoki, Mizuho, "Tohoku fears nuke crisis evacuees gone for good", Japan Times, 8 March 2012, p. 1. Jump up ^ TEPCO Press Release. "The Estimated Amount of Radioactive Materials Released into the Air and the Ocean Caused by Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station Accident Due to the Tohoku-Chihou-Taiheiyou-Oki Earthquake (As of May 2012)". TEPCO. Retrieved 24 May 2012. Jump up ^ Kevin Krolicki (24 May 2012). "Fukushima radiation higher than first estimated". Reuters. Retrieved 24 May 2012. Jump up ^ "TEPCO puts radiation release early in Fukushima crisis at 900 PBq". Kyodo News. 24 May 2012. Archived from the original on 8 Jul 2012. Retrieved 24 May 2012. Jump up ^ Boytchev, Hristio, "First study reports very low internal radioactivity after Fukushima disaster", Washington Post, 15 August 2012 Jump up ^ Ken O. Buesseler (26 October 2012). "Fishing for Answers off Fukushima". Science 338 (6106): 480–482. doi:10.1126/science.1228250. PMID 23112321. Jump up ^ "Fish Off Japan's Coast Said to Contain Elevated Levels of Cesium". New York Times Asia Pacific. 25 October 2012. Retrieved 28 October 2012. Jump up ^ (Dutch) Nu.nl (26 oktober 2012) Tepco sluit niet uit dat centrale Fukushima nog lekt Jump up ^ Volume of a Swimming Pool The Physics Factbook™ Edited by Glenn Elert -- Written by his students An educational, Fair Use website."2,500,000 liters" Jump up ^ Given that an Olympic swimming pool is 50 by 25 by 2 meters. It therefore contains 2,500 cubic meters of water. Each cubic meter of water is one metric ton. Jump up ^ "Japan nuclear agency upgrades Fukushima alert level". BBC. 21 August 2013. Retrieved 21 August 2013. Jump up ^ Takashi Hirokawa, Jacob Adelman, Peter Langan and Yuji Okada (26 August 2013). "Fukushima Leaks Prompt Government to 'Emergency Measures' (1)". Businessweek (Bloomberg). Retrieved 27 August 2013. Jump up ^ "Japan seeks outside help for contaminated water". World Nuclear News. 26 September 2013. Retrieved 1 October 2013. Jump up ^ "How TEPCO plans to build an ice wall at Fukushima". Nuclear Engineering International. 18 February 2014. Retrieved 19 February 2014. Jump up ^ date=9 February 2014. "TEPCO to review erroneous radiation data". NKH World. NHK. Retrieved 2014-02-09. "Tokyo Electric Power Company, or TEPCO, says it has detected a record high 5 million becquerels per liter of radioactive strontium in groundwater collected last July from one of the wells close to the ocean. ... Based on the result, levels of radioactive substances that emit beta particles are estimated to be 10 million becquerels per liter, which is more than 10 times the initial reading." Jump up ^ date=9 February 2014. "TEPCO to Review Erroneous Radiation Data". Yomiuri Online. Yomiuri Shimbun. Retrieved 2014-02-09. "On February 6, TEPCO announced that 5 million Bq/Liter of radioactive strontium was detected from the groundwater sample taken on June 5 last year from one of the observation wells on the embankment of Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant. The density is 160,000 times that of the legal limit for release into the ocean, and it is about 1,000 times that of the highest density in the groundwater that had been measured so far (5,100 Bq/L). TEPCO didn't disclose the result of measurement of strontium alone, as the company believed there was a possibility that the result of measurement was wrong. As to this particular sample, TEPCO had announced on July last year that the sample had contained 900,000 Bq/L of all-beta including strontium. On February 6, TEPCO explained that they had "underestimated all of the results of high-density all-beta, which exceeded the upper limit of measurement." This particular sample may contain about 10 million Bq/L of all-beta, according to TEPCO. The company recently switched to a different method of analysis that uses diluted samples when the density of radioactive materials is high." Jump up ^ http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/fukushimas-radioactive-ocean-plume-due-reach-us-waters-2014-f8C11050755 Jump up ^ http:// https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcQLxT49ZP0 Jump up ^ http://foodmatters.tv/articles-1/fukushima-radiation-taints-us-milk-supplies-at-levels-300-percent-higher-than-epa-maximums Jump up ^ http://www.businessinsider.com/san-francisco-rainwater-radiation-181-times-above-us-drinking-water-standard-2011-4 ^ Jump up to: a b Yoichi Funabashi and Kay Kitazawa (1 March 2012). "Fukushima in review: A complex disaster, a disastrous response". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Jump up ^ Hiroko Tabuchi (3 March 2012). "Japanese Prime Minister Says Government Shares Blame for Nuclear Disaster". The New York Times. ^ Jump up to: a b "AP Interview: Japan woefully unprepared for nuclear disaster, ex-prime minister says". ctv.ca. 17 February 2012. ^ Jump up to: a b Amory Lovins (2011). "Soft Energy Paths for the 21st Century". Jump up ^ "Japan did not keep records of nuclear disaster meetings". BBC Online. 27 January 2012. Jump up ^ "Fukushima Pref. deleted 5 days of radiation dispersion data just after meltdowns". The Mainichi Shimbun. 22 March 2012.[dead link] ^ Jump up to: a b "Report: Japan, utility at fault for response to nuclear disaster". LA Times. 26 December 2011. Jump up ^ Martin Fackler (27 February 2012). "Japan Weighed Evacuating Tokyo in Nuclear Crisis". The New York Times. Jump up ^ Yoshida, Reiji (17 March 2012). "Kan hero, or irate meddler?". Japan Times. p. 2. Jump up ^ Hongo, Jun (29 February 2012). "Panel lays bare Fukushima recipe for disaster". Japan Times. p. 1. Jump up ^ "Blow-ups happen: Nuclear plants can be kept safe only by constantly worrying about their dangers". The Economist. 10 March 2012. Jump up ^ Kyodo News (20 June 2012). "Japan sat on U.S. radiation maps showing immediate fallout from nuke crisis". Japan Times. p. 1. Jump up ^ "Japan failed to use U.S. radiation data gathered after nuke crisis". The Mainichi Shimbun. 18 June 2012. Jump up ^ Japan Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc. (JAIF) (19 June 2012). "Earthquake report 447"[dead link] Jump up ^ "NISA News Release April 12, 2011" (PDF). Retrieved 24 April 2011. ^ Jump up to: a b Directly comparing Fukushima to Chernobyl : Nature News Blog. Blogs.nature.com (2013-01-31). Retrieved on 2013-02-13. Jump up ^ Austria (12 April 2011). "IAEA Fukushima Nuclear Accident Update Log – Updates of 12 April 2011". Iaea.org. Retrieved 24 April 2011. ^ Jump up to: a b Press Release | The Estimated Amount of Radioactive Materials Released into the Air and the Ocean Caused by Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station Accident Due to the Tohoku-Chihou-Taiheiyou-Oki Earthquake (As of May 2012). TEPCO. Retrieved on 2013-02-13. ^ Jump up to: a b c Chapter II The release, dispersion and deposition of radionuclides - Chernobyl: Assessment of Radiological and Health Impact. Oecd-nea.org. Retrieved on 2013-02-13. Jump up ^ Cesium-137: A Deadly Hazard. Large.stanford.edu (2012-03-20). Retrieved on 2013-02-13. Jump up ^ Isotopic ratio of radioactive iodine (129I/131I) released from Fukushima Daiichi NPP accident Jump up ^ Brumfiel, Geoffrey (23 May 2012). "World Health Organization weighs in on Fukushima". Nature (journal). Retrieved 20 March 2013. Jump up ^ Brumfiel, Geoff. "Fukushima: Fallout of fear". Nature 493 (7432): 290–293. doi:10.1038/493290a. PMID 23325191. Jump up ^ Brumfiel, Geoff. "PRINT - FUKUSHIMA". Nature 485 (7399): 423–424. doi:10.1038/485423a. PMID 22622542. Jump up ^ WHO 2013, p. 42. Jump up ^ WHO News release "Global report on Fukushima nuclear accident details health risks" Jump up ^ Frequently asked questions on the Fukushima health risk assessment, questions 3 & 4 Jump up ^ WHO 2013, p. 83. Jump up ^ "Global report on Fukushima nuclear accident details health risks" Jump up ^ "WHO: Slight cancer risk after Japan nuke accident". Jump up ^ "WHO report: cancer risk from Fukushima is low". Nuclear Engineering International. 1 March 2013. Retrieved 6 March 2013. ^ Jump up to: a b c Walsh, Bryan. (2013-03-01) WHO Report Says That Fukushima Nuclear Accident Posed Minimal Risk to Health | TIME.com. Science.time.com. Retrieved on 2013-09-06. Jump up ^ WHO 2013, pp. 70, 79-80. Jump up ^ WHO 2013, p. 13. ^ Jump up to: a b Dennis Normile (27 July 2012). "Is Nuclear Power Good for You?". Science 337 (6093): 395. doi:10.1126/science.337.6093.395-b. Jump up ^ John E. Ten Hoeve and Mark Z. Jacobson (2012). "Worldwide health effects of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident". Energy & Environmental Science 5 (9): 8743. doi:10.1039/c2ee22019a. Retrieved 18 July 2012. Jump up ^ Normile, D. (2011). "Fukushima Revives the Low-Dose Debate". Science 332 (6032): 908–910. doi:10.1126/science.332.6032.908. PMID 21596968. edit Jump up ^ researcher points to suppression of evidence on radiation effects by 1946 Nobel Laureate. Eurekalert.org (2011-09-20). Retrieved on 2013-09-06. Jump up ^ Muller’s Nobel lecture on dose–response for ionizing radiation: ideology or science? - Springer. Link.springer.com (1946-12-12). Retrieved on 2013-09-06. Jump up ^ Key studies used to support cancer risk assessment questioned - Calabrese - 2011 - Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis -Wiley Online Library. Onlinelibrary.wiley.com (2011-07-22). Retrieved on 2013-09-06. Jump up ^ Welch, H. Gilbert; Woloshin, Steve; Schwartz, Lisa A. (2011). Overdiagnosed: Making People Sick in the Pursuit of Health. Beacon Press. pp. 61–34. ISBN 0-8070-2200-4. Jump up ^ "Fukushima kids have skyrocketing number of thyroid abnormalities - report". Russia Times. 18 February 2013. Jump up ^ "More suspected and confirmed cases of thyroid cancer diagnosed in Fukushima children". Asahi. 13 November 2013. Jump up ^ cancer.org Thyroid Cancer By the American Cancer Society. In turn citing: AJCC Cancer Staging Manual (7th ed). Jump up ^ Brumfiel, Geoff (10 September 2012). "Fukushima's doses tallied". Retrieved 23 May 2013. Jump up ^ Zablotska, Lydia (8 November 2012). "Chernobyl Cleanup Workers Had Significantly Increased Risk of Leukemia". UCSF. ^ Jump up to: a b "Disturbing thyroid cancer rise in Fukushima minors". RT. 21 August 2013. ^ Jump up to: a b "Radioactivity and thyroid cancer* Christopher Reiners Clinic and Polyclinic of Nuclear Medicine University of Würzburg. See Figure 1. Thyroid cancer Incidence in children and adolescents from Belarus after the Chernobyl accident". Jump up ^ "Chernobyl: the true scale of the accident. 20 Years Later a UN Report Provides Definitive Answers and Ways to Repair Lives". Jump up ^ Sugimoto T, Shinozaki T, Miyamoto Y Aftershocks Associated With Impaired Health Caused by the Great East Japan Disaster Among Youth Across Japan: A National Cross-Sectional Survey Interact J Med Res 2013;2(2):e31 URL: http://www.i-jmr.org/2013/2/e31/ doi:10.2196/ijmr.2585 ^ Jump up to: a b Studying the Fukushima Aftermath: 'People Are Suffering from Radiophobia' - SPIEGEL ONLINE. Spiegel.de (2011-08-19). Retrieved on 2013-09-06. ^ Jump up to: a b "Evacuees of Fukushima village report split families, growing frustration". Mainichi Daily News. 30 January 2012. Jump up ^ Katherine Harmon (2 March 2012). "Japan's Post-Fukushima Earthquake Health Woes Go Beyond Radiation Effects". Nature. Jump up ^ Michael Moyer (21 June 2011). "Are Babies Dying in the Pacific Northwest Due to Fukushima? A Look at the Numbers". Blogs. Jump up ^ "Rain raises fear of more contamination at Fukushima". 4 Jun 2011. Jump up ^ "about the situation at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant". 3 Feb 2014. Jump up ^ "estimates claims burden from earthquake in Japan at around €1.5bn". Munich Re. 22 March 2011. Retrieved 24 April 2011. Jump up ^ Swiss Re provides estimate of its claims costs from Japan earthquake and tsunami, Swiss Re, news release, 21 March 2011 Jump up ^ Kazuaki Nagata (3 January 2012). "Fukushima meltdowns set nuclear energy debate on its ear". The Japan Times. Jump up ^ Tsuyoshi Inajima and Yuji Okada (28 Oct 2011). "Nuclear Promotion Dropped in Japan Energy Policy After Fukushima". Bloomberg. Jump up ^ Mari Yamaguchi (September 2011). "Kenzaburo Oe, Nobel Winner Urges Japan To Abandon Nuclear Power". Huffington Post. Jump up ^ Japanese nuclear plant survived tsunami, offers clues. Reuters. Retrieved on 2013-09-06. Jump up ^ "Fukushima Starts Long Road To Recovery". NPR. 2012-03-10. Retrieved 2012-04-16. Jump up ^ "Neon city goes dim as power shortage threatens traffic lights and telephones in Tokyo". news.com.au. 15 March 2011. Jump up ^ Yuri Kageyama, dealing with power shortage. Associated Press, 22 May 2011 Jump up ^ Benjamin K. Sovacool (2011). Contesting the Future of Nuclear Power: A Critical Global Assessment of Atomic Energy, World Scientific, p. 287. Jump up ^ Denis Gray (6 April 2011). "Activists call for renewable energy at UN meeting". The Guardian (London). Jump up ^ Chisaki Watanabe (26 August 2011). "Japan Spurs Solar, Wind Energy With Subsidies, in Shift From Nuclear Power". Bloomberg. Jump up ^ Mycle Schneider (9 September 2011). "Fukushima crisis: Can Japan be at the forefront of an authentic paradigm shift?". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. ^ Jump up to: a b "Japan Plans Floating Wind Power Plant". Breakbulk. 16 September 2011. Retrieved 12 October 2011. Jump up ^ Elaine Kurtenbach. "Japan starts up offshore wind farm near Fukushima" The Sydney Morning Herald, 12 November 2013. Accessed: 11 November 2013. Jump up ^ Joshua S Hill (2013-12-11). "Canadian Solar Signs Loan Agreement For Japan Development". CleanTechnica. Retrieved 2013-12-30. Jump up ^ Carol J. Williams (14 September 2012). "In wake of Fukushima disaster, Japan to end nuclear power by 2030s". LA Times. Jump up ^ Gerhardt, Tina (22 July 2012). "After Fukushima, Nuclear Power on Collision Course With Japanese Public". Alternet. Retrieved 8 August 2013. Jump up ^ "Abe dismisses Koizumi’s call for zero nuclear power plants". Asahi Shimbun. 2013-10-25. Retrieved 2013-12-30. Jump up ^ "Supporters of zero nuclear power "irresponsible": Abe". Jump up ^ "Most Japan cities hosting nuclear plants OK restart: survey". Bangkok Post. Retrieved 2013-12-30. Jump up ^ United Press International (2 June 2013). "60,000 protest Japan's plan to restart nuclear power plants". UPI Asia. Jump up ^ "Japan's Fuel Costs May Rise to 7.5 Trillion Yen, Meti Estimates". Jump up ^ Maeda, Risa. "Japanese nuclear plant survived tsunami, offers clues". Reuters. Retrieved 2013-10-27. Jump up ^ IAEA Expert Team Concludes Mission to Onagawa NPP Jump up ^ Japanese nuclear plant ‘remarkably undamaged’ in earthquake – UN atomic agency. Jump up ^ Hydrogen fix for Japanese reactors Jump up ^ Hydrogen recombiners at all 20 NPC plants to avoid Fukushima. Sanjay Jog | Mumbai 7 April 2011 Last Updated at 00:29 IST Jump up ^ CFD analysis of passive autocatalytic recombiner interaction with atmosphere. Archive Kerntechnik - Issue 2011/02. Jump up ^ "Nuclear chief: U.S. plants safer after Japan crisis. March 10, 2013". Jump up ^ "Vents and Filtering Strategies Come to Forefront in Fukushima Response Nuclear Energy Insight. Fall 2012". Jump up ^ "TEPCO implements new safety measures in bid to restart Niigata reactors". Jump up ^ "Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant shown to reporters". Jump up ^ Nuclear power plant operator in China orders backup batteries for installation at plants 7 September 2012 Jump up ^ China’s Guangdong Nuclear Power Corp Announces Orders for BYD Battery Back-up for Nuclear Plants Jump up ^ The Notstand building, a bunkered facility which could support all of the plant systems for at least 72 hours given a severe flood or earthquake which could take out the normal power and cooling facilities. I asked Martin Richner, the head of risk assessment, why Beznau spent so much money on the Notstand building when there was no regulation or government directive to do so. Martin answered me, "Woody, we live here." Jump up ^ "A PRA Practioner Looks at the Fukushima Daiichi Accident". Jump up ^ "2012 20th International Conference on Nuclear Engineering and the ASME 2012 Power Conference". Jump up ^ "Gen III reactor design 04/06/2011 By Brian Wheeler Associate Editor". Jump up ^ "Nuclear Science and Techniques 24 (2013) 040601 Study on the long-term passive cooling extension of AP1000 reactor". Jump up ^ "Areas to which evacuation orders have been issued". August 7, 2013. Jump up ^ "Designating and Rearranging the Areas of Evacuation (pg 7)". ^ Jump up to: a b "U.N. atom body wants wider nuclear safety checks". Reuters. 15 August 2011. Jump up ^ Brasor, Philip, "Public wary of official optimism", Japan Times, 11 March 2012, p. 11. ^ Jump up to: a b Norimitsu Onishi (8 August 2011). "Japan Held Nuclear Data, Leaving Evacuees in Peril". The New York Times. ^ Jump up to: a b Charles Digges (10 August 2011). "Japan ignored its own radiation forecasts in days following disaster, imperiling thousands". Bellona. Jump up ^ "Analysis: A month on, Japan nuclear crisis still scarring," International Business Times (Australia). 9 April 2011, retrieved 12 April 2011; excerpt, According to James Acton, Associate of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, "Fukushima is not the worst nuclear accident ever but it is the most complicated and the most dramatic ... This was a crisis that played out in real time on TV. Chernobyl did not." Jump up ^ HASEGAWA, KOICHI. 2012 "Facing Nuclear Risks: Lessons from the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster." International Journal of Japanese Sociology 21(1):84-91. Retrieved from EBSCOhost on 12 November 2012 Jump up ^ Hiroko Tabuchi (13 July 2011). "Japan Premier Wants Shift Away From Nuclear Power". The New York Times. Jump up ^ Naoto Kan (2013-10-28). "Encountering the Fukushima Daiichi Accident". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 2013-11-09. Jump up ^ (dutch)Nu.nl (22 August 2011)Area around Fukushima maybe a forbidden zone for decades to come Jump up ^ The Guardian (22 August 2011)residents may never return to radiation-hit homes Jump up ^ Earthquake Report – JAIF, No. 45: 20:00, 7 April. JAIF / NHK, 7 April 2011, archived from original on 9 April 2011, Retrieved 9 April 2011. Jump up ^ Al-Jazeera English: Citizen group tracks down Japan's radiation (10 August 2011) Jump up ^ Safecast Organization Official Blog Jump up ^ Franken, Pieter (17 January 2014). Volunteers Crowdsource Radiation Monitoring to Map Potential Risk on Every Street in Japan. Interview with Amy Goodman. Democracy Now!. Tokyo, Japan. Retrieved 17 January 2014. Jump up ^ UC Berkeley Nuclear Engineering Air Monitoring Station | The Nuclear Engineering Department at UC Berkely web site Jump up ^ 14 March 2011 (14 March 2011). "USS Ronald Reagan Exposed to Radiation". Navy Handbook. Retrieved 18 March 2011. Jump up ^ "IAEA sees slow nuclear growth post Japan". UPI. 23 September 2011. Jump up ^ Julie Makinen, Ralph Vartabedian (9 April 2011). "Containing a calamity creates another nuclear nightmare". Sydney Morning Herald. Jump up ^ Nucléaire : une trentaine de réacteurs dans le monde risquent d'être fermés Les Échos, published 12 April 2011, accessed 15 April 2011 Jump up ^ "Gauging the pressure". The Economist. 28 April 2011. Jump up ^ RAFAEL POCH (31/05/2011). "Merkel se despide de lo nuclear y anuncia una revolución en renovables" (in Spanish). LAVANGUARDIA.com. Retrieved 26 January 2014. Jump up ^ "Italy nuclear: Berlusconi accepts referendum blow". BBC News. 14 June 2011. Retrieved 26 January 2014. Jump up ^ Rob Broomby (11 January 2014). "France struggles to cut down on nuclear power". BBC News Magazine. Retrieved 26 January 2014. Jump up ^ Damian, Carrington (23 June 2011). "Citizens across world oppose nuclear power, poll finds". The Guardian. Retrieved 26 January 2014. Jump up ^ "Fukushima nuclear accident 'man-made', not natural disaster". Bloomberg L.P. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 9 July 2012. Jump up ^ "Japan says Fukushima disaster was 'man-made'". Al Jazeera and agencies. AL Jazeera English. 5 July 2012. Retrieved 9 July 2012. Jump up ^ "Official website of the Investigation Committee on the Accident at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Stations of Tokyo Electric Power Company". Retrieved 29 July 2012. "This committee was established with the aim of conducting an investigation to determine the causes of the accident that occurred at Fukushima Daiichi and Daini Nuclear Power Stations of Tokyo Electric Power Company, and those of the damages generated by the accident, and thereby making policy proposals designed to prevent the expansion of the damages and the recurrence of similar accidents in the future." ^ Jump up to: a b "Japan nuclear plants 'still not safe'". Al Jazeera Online. 23 July 2012. Retrieved 29 July 2012. Jump up ^ "Japan, TEPCO ignored atomic accident risks due to 'myth of nuclear safety': Report". Asian News International (ANI). News Track India. 23 July 2012. Retrieved 29 July 2012. Jump up ^ Mitsuru Obe and Eleanor Warnock (23 July 2012). "Japan Panel Says Plant Operator Falls Short on Nuclear Safety". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 30 July 2012. Jump up ^ Tsuyoshi Inajima and Yuji Okada (23 July 2012). "Fukushima Investigators Say More Study Needed on What Went Wrong". Bloomsberg Businessweek. Retrieved 29 July 2012. Jump up ^ Hancocks, Paula (23 July 2012). "New report criticizes TEPCO over Fukushima nuclear crisis". CNN. Retrieved 29 July 2012. Jump up ^ Kazuaki Nagata (24 July 2012). "Government, Tepco again hit for nuke crisis". The Japan Times. Retrieved 29 July 2012. References[edit]

WHO (2013). Health risk assessment from the nuclear accident after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami. ISBN 978 92 4 150513 0. Retrieved December 2013. External links[edit]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Fukushima Daichi nuclear disaster. Investigation[edit] The Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission Report website in English Executive summary of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission Report Investigation Committee on the accidents at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Station of Tokyo Electric Power Company Video[edit] Webcam Fukushima nuclear power plant I, Unit 1 through Unit 4 Inside the slow and dangerous clean up of the Fukushima nuclear crisis Drawing and Imagery[edit] TerraFly Timeline Aerial Imagery of Fukushima Nuclear Reactor after 2011 Tsunami and Earthquake In graphics: Fukushima nuclear alert, as provided by the BBC, 9 July 2012 Other[edit] TEPCO News Releases, Tokyo Electric Power Company "Reassessment of Fukushima Nuclear Accident and Outline of Nuclear Safety Reform Plan(Interim Report)" by TEPCO Nuclear Reform Special Task Force.14 December 2012 [show] v t e 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami [show] v t e Nuclear power in Japan [show] v t e Asia pollution topics Categories: 2011 in the environment2011 industrial disastersFukushima Daiichi nuclear disasterCivilian nuclear power accidentsFukushima PrefectureNuclear accidents and incidents Navigation menu Create accountLog inArticleTalkReadEditView history

Main page Contents Featured content Current events Random article Donate to Wikipedia Wikimedia Shop Interaction Help About Wikipedia Community portal Recent changes Contact page Tools Print/export Languages العربية Беларуская Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ Български Brezhoneg Català Чӑвашла Čeština Cymraeg Dansk Deutsch Eesti Ελληνικά Español Euskara فارسی Français Gaeilge Galego 한국어 Hrvatski Bahasa Indonesia Italiano עברית Basa Jawa Latviešu Magyar മലയാളം Bahasa Melayu Nederlands 日本語 Norsk bokmål Occitan ਪੰਜਾਬੀ Polski Português Română Rumantsch Русский Simple English Slovenčina Slovenščina Српски / srpski Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски Suomi Svenska தமிழ் Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia "Fukushima nuclear disaster" redirects here. For the incidents at Fukushima Daini (Fukushima II), see Fukushima Daini Nuclear Power Plant. See also: Timeline of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster and Fukushima disaster cleanup Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster Fukushima I by Digital Globe.jpg Image on 16 March 2011 of the four damaged reactor buildings. From right to left: Unit 1,2,3,4. Hydrogen-air explosions occurred in Unit 4,3 and 1 causing the building damage, while a vent in Unit 2's wall, with water vapor/"steam" clearly visible, preventing a similar explosion. Date 11 March 2011 Location Ōkuma, Fukushima, Japan Coordinates 37°25′17″N 141°1′57″E Outcome INES Level 7 (Major accident)[1][2] Injuries 37 with physical injuries,[3][not in citation given] 2 workers taken to hospital with radiation burns[4][5]

External video

24 hours live camera for Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster on YouTube, certified by Tokyo Electric Power Co. Inc.

The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster (福島第一原子力発電所事故 Fukushima Daiichi (About this sound pronunciation) genshiryoku hatsudensho jiko?) was a catastrophic failure at the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant on 11 March 2011, resulting in a meltdown of three of the plant's six nuclear reactors.[6] The failure occurred when the plant was hit by the tsunami triggered by the Tōhoku earthquake;[7] the plant began releasing substantial amounts of radioactive materials beginning on 12 March,[8] becoming the largest nuclear incident since the 1986 Chernobyl disaster and the second (with Chernobyl) to measure Level 7 on the International Nuclear Event Scale,[9] initially releasing an estimated 10-30% of the earlier incident's radiation.[10] In August 2013, it was stated that the massive amount of radioactive water is among the most pressing problems that are affecting the cleanup process, which is expected to take decades. There have been continued spills of contaminated water at the plant, and some into the sea. Plant workers are trying to lower the leaks using measures such as building chemical underground walls, but they have not improved substantially.[11] Although no short term radiation exposure fatalities were reported,[12] some 300,000 people evacuated the area, approximately 18,500 people died due to the earthquake and tsunami, and as of August 2013 approximately 1,600 deaths were related to the evacuation conditions, such as living in temporary housing and hospital closures.[13] The exact cause of the majority of these evacuation-related deaths were unspecified because that would hinder the deceased relatives' application for financial compensation.[14][15] The World Health Organization indicated that evacuees were exposed to so little radiation that radiation-induced health impacts are likely to be below detectable levels,[16] and that any additional cancer risk from radiation was small—extremely small, for the most part—and chiefly limited to those living closest to the Nuclear power plant.[17] A 2013 WHO report predicts that for populations living in the most affected areas there is a 70% higher risk of developing thyroid cancer for girls exposed as infants (but experts said the overall risk was small: the radiation exposure means about 1.25 out of every 100 girls in the area could develop thyroid cancer over their lifetime, instead of the natural rate of about 0.75 percent), a 7% higher risk of leukemia in males exposed as infants, a 6% higher risk of breast cancer in females exposed as infants and a 4% higher risk, overall, of developing solid cancers for females.[12] The World Health Organization stated that a 2013 thyroid ultrasound screening programme was, due to the screening effect, likely to lead to an increase in recorded thyroid cases due to early detection of non-symptomatic disease cases.[18] This screening program found that more than a third (36%) of children in the Prefecture have abnormal growths in their thyroid glands, however whether these growths can be attributed to exposure to nuclear radiation has not yet been proven.[19] The Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission found the nuclear disaster was "manmade" and that its direct causes were all foreseeable. The report also found that the plant was incapable of withstanding the earthquake and tsunami. TEPCO, regulators Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) and NSC and the government body promoting the nuclear power industry (METI), all failed to meet the most basic safety requirements, such as assessing the probability of damage, preparing for containing collateral damage from such a disaster, and developing evacuation plans.[20][21] A separate study by Stanford researchers found that Japanese plants operated by the largest utility companies were particularly unprotected against potential tsunamis.[7] Contents [hide] 1 Overview of incident 2 Background 2.1 Regulation 3 Plant description 3.1 Cooling requirements 3.2 Cooling systems 3.3 Backup generators 3.4 Central fuel storage areas 3.5 Zircaloy 3.6 Safety issues 3.6.1 1967: Layout of the emergency-cooling system 3.6.2 1976: Falsification of safety records 3.6.3 1991: Back-up generator of reactor 1 flooded 3.6.4 2008: Tsunami study ignored 3.7 Location 4 Events 4.1 Earthquake 4.2 Tsunami 4.3 Evacuation 4.4 Units 1, 2 and 3 4.4.1 Core meltdowns 4.5 Units 4, 5 and 6 4.5.1 Unit 4 4.5.2 Units 5 and 6 4.6 Central fuel storage areas 4.7 Contamination 5 Response 5.1 Poor communication and delays 6 Event rating 7 Aftermath 7.1 Risks from radiation 7.2 Thyroid screening program 7.2.1 Chernobyl comparison 7.3 Effects on evacuees 7.4 Radiation releases 7.5 Insurance 7.6 Energy policy implications 7.7 Equipment, facility and operational changes 8 Reactions 8.1 Japan 8.2 International 8.3 Investigations 8.3.1 NAIIC 8.3.2 Investigation Committee 9 See also 10 Notes 11 References 12 External links 12.1 Investigation 12.2 Video 12.3 Drawing and Imagery 12.4 Other Overview of incident[edit]

The plant comprised six separate boiling water reactors originally designed by General Electric (GE) and maintained by the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO). Units 2 through 6 were BWR-4, while unit 1 was the slightly older BWR-3 design.[22] All six were housed in Mark 1 containment building designs.[23] At the time of the earthquake, reactor 4 had been de-fueled and reactors 5 and 6 were in cold shutdown for planned maintenance.[24] Immediately after the earthquake, following government regulations, the remaining reactors 1–3 automatically SCRAMmed; control rods shut down sustained fission reactions. Although fission stops almost immediately with a SCRAM, fission products in the fuel continue to release decay heat, initially about 6.5% of full reactor power. This is still enough to require active reactor cooling for several days to keep the fuel rods below their melting points. In Generation II reactors like the GE Mark I, cooling system failure may lead to a meltdown even in a SCRAMmed reactor.[25] Coincident with the SCRAM emergency generators were automatically activated to power electronics and cooling systems. The tsunami arrived some 50 minutes after the initial earthquake. The 14 meter high tsunami overwhelmed the plant's seawall, which was only 10 m high,[7] with the moment of the tsunami striking being caught on camera.[26] The tsunami water quickly flooded the low-lying rooms in which the emergency generators were housed.[27] The diesel generators were flooded and began to fail soon after, their job being taken over by emergency battery-powered systems. When the batteries ran out the next day on 12 March, active cooling systems stopped, and the reactors began to heat up. The power failure also meant that many of the reactor control instruments also failed.[25] As workers struggled to supply power to the reactors' coolant systems and control rooms, multiple hydrogen-air chemical explosions occurred from 12 March to 15 March.[25][28][29] It is estimated that the hot zirconium fuel cladding-water reaction in reactors 1-3 produced 800 to 1000 kilograms of hydrogen gas each, which was vented out of the reactor pressure vessel and mixed with the ambient air. The gas eventually reached explosive concentration limits in units 1 and 3. Either piping connections between units 3 and 4 or from the zirconium reaction in unit 4 itself,[30] unit 4 also filled with hydrogen. Explosions occurred in the upper secondary containment building in all three reactors.[31] TEPCO admitted for the first time on October 12, 2012 that it had failed to take stronger measures to prevent disasters for fear of inviting lawsuits or protests against its nuclear plants.[32][33][34][35] There are no clear plans for decommissioning the plant, but the plant management estimate is thirty or forty years.[36] On 22 July 2013, more than two years after the incident, it was revealed that the plant is leaking radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean. This had been denied by TEPCO.[37] The report prompted Japanese Prime Minister Shinzō Abe to order the government to step in.[38] On 20 August, in a further incident, it was announced that 300 metric tons of heavily radioisotope-contaminated water had leaked from a storage tank.[39] On 26 August, the government took charge of emergency measures to prevent further radioactive water leaks. Background[edit]

A national program to develop robots for use in nuclear emergencies was terminated in midstream[when?] as a way of implying that they were unneeded. Japan, supposedly a leader in robotics, had none to send into Fukushima when the crisis began. The Japanese government sent a request for robots developed by the US military to help deal with the crisis. The robots went into the plants, and took pictures to help assess the situation. But they couldn't perform human tasks. Following Fukushima, efforts to develop humanoid robots that could supplement relief efforts have accelerated dramatically.[40] Similarly, Japan's Nuclear Safety Commission said in its safety guidelines for light-water nuclear facilities that "the potential for extended loss of power need not be considered.".[41] Regulation[edit] Three investigations into the Fukushima disaster showed the man-made nature of the catastrophe and its roots in regulatory capture associated with a "network of corruption, collusion, and nepotism".[42][43] Regulatory capture refers to the "situation where regulators charged with promoting the public interest defer to the wishes and advance the agenda of the industry or sector they ostensibly regulate". Those with a vested interest in specific policy or regulatory outcomes lobby regulators and influence their choices and actions. Regulatory capture explains why some of the risks of operating nuclear power reactors in Japan were systematically downplayed and mismanaged so as to compromise operational safety.[43] Critics argue that the government shares blame with the regulatory agency for not heeding warnings and for not ensuring the independence of the oversight function.[44] The New York Times alleged that the Japanese nuclear regulatory system sided with and promoted the nuclear industry because of amakudari ('descent from heaven') in which senior regulators accepted high paying jobs at companies they once oversaw. To protect their potential future position in the industry, regulators sought to avoid taking positions that upset or embarrass the companies. TEPCO's position as the largest electrical utility in Japan made it the most desirable position for retiring regulators. Typically the "most senior officials went to work at Tepco, while those of lower ranks ended up at smaller utilities".[45] In August 2011, several top energy officials were fired by the Japanese government; affected positions included the Vice-minister for Economy, Trade and Industry; the head of the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, and the head of the Agency for Natural Resources and Energy.[46] Plant description[edit]

Main article: Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant

Fukushima Daiichi I nuclear powerplant site close-up.

Map of Japan's electricity distribution network, showing incompatible systems between regions. Fukushima is in the 50 Hertz Tohoku region.

Simplified cross-section sketch of a typical BWR Mark I containment as used in units 1 to 5. Key: RPV: reactor pressure vessel. DW: dry well enclosing reactor pressure vessel. WW: wet well - torus-shaped all around the base enclosing steam suppression pool. Excess steam from the dry well enters the wet well water pool via downcomer pipes. SFP: spent fuel pool area. SCSW: secondary concrete shield wall.

The Fukushima I (Daiichi) Nuclear Power Plant consists of six GE light water, boiling water reactors (BWR) with a combined power of 4.7 gigawatts, making Fukushima Daiichi one of the world's 25 largest nuclear power stations. Fukushima Daiichi was the first GE-designed nuclear plant to be constructed and run entirely by the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO). Reactor 1 is a 439 MWe type (BWR-3) reactor constructed in July 1967. It commenced operation on 26 March 1971.[47] It was designed to withstand an earthquake with a peak ground acceleration of 0.18 g (1.74 m/s2) and a response spectrum based on the 1952 Kern County earthquake.[48] Reactors 2 and 3 are both 784 MWe type BWR-4. Reactor 2 commenced operating in July 1974, and reactor 3 in March 1976. The earthquake design basis for all units ranged from 0.42 g (4.12 m/s2) to 0.46 g (4.52 m/s2).[49][50] All units were inspected after the 1978 Miyagi earthquake when the ground acceleration reached 0.125 g (1.22 m/s2) for 30 seconds, but no damage to the critical parts of the reactor was discovered.[48] Units 1–5 have a Mark 1 type (light bulb torus) containment structure; unit 6 has Mark 2 type (over/under) containment structure.[48] In September 2010, reactor 3 was partially fueled by mixed-oxides (MOX).[51] At the time of the accident, the units and central storage facility contained the following numbers of fuel assemblies:[52] Location Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4 Unit 5 Unit 6 Central Storage Reactor Fuel Assemblies 400 548 548 0 548 764 0 Spent Fuel Assemblies[53] 292 587 514 1331 946 876 6375[54] Fuel UO 2 UO 2 UO 2/MOX UO 2 UO 2 UO 2 UO 2 New Fuel Assemblies[55] 100 28 52 204 48 64 N/A There is no MOX fuel in any of the cooling ponds. The only MOX fuel is loaded in the Unit 3 reactor. Cooling requirements[edit]

Diagrammatic representation of the cooling systems of a BWR. See also: Decay heat – Power reactors in shutdown and Nuclear reactor safety systems These reactors generate electricity by using the heat of the fission reaction to create steam. When the reactor stops operating, the radioactive decay of unstable isotopes continues to generate heat for a time. This decay and the decay heat that results requires continued cooling.[56][57] Initially this decay heat amounts to approximately 6% of the amount produced by fission,[56] decreasing over several days before reaching cold shutdown levels.[58] Exhausted fuel rods that have reached cold shutdown temperatures typically require several years in a spent fuel pool before they can be safely transferred to dry cask storage vessels.[59] The decay heat in the unit 4 spent fuel pool had the capacity to boil about 70 tonnes of water per day (12 gallons per minute).[60] On 16 April 2011, TEPCO declared that cooling systems for units 1-4 were beyond repair and would have to be replaced.[61] Cooling systems[edit] In the reactor core, circulation is accomplished via high pressure systems that cycle water between the reactor pressure vessel and heat exchangers. These systems then transfer heat to a secondary heat exchanger via the essential service water system, using water that is pumped out to sea or an onsite cooling tower.[62] When the reactor is not producing electricity, cooling pumps can be powered by other reactor units, the grid or by diesel generators or batteries.[63][64] Units 2 and 3 were equipped with steam-turbine driven emergency core cooling systems that can be directly operated by steam produced by decay heat and which can inject water directly into the reactor.[65] Some electrical power is needed to operate valves and monitoring systems. Unit 1 was equipped with a different cooling system, the "Isolation Condenser" or "IC", which is entirely passive. This consists of a series of pipes run from the reactor core to the inside of a large tank of water. When the valves are opened, steam flows upward to the IC where the cool water in the tank condenses the steam back to water, and it runs under gravity back to the reactor core. For reasons that are not entirely clear, unit 1's IC was operated only intermittently during the emergency. Backup generators[edit] Two emergency diesel generators were available for each of units 1–5 and three for unit 6.[66] In the late 1990s, three additional backup generators for units 2 and 4 were placed in new buildings located higher on the hillside, to comply with new regulatory requirements. All six units were given access to these generators, but the switching stations that sent power from these backup generators to the reactors' cooling systems for units 1 through 5 were still in the poorly protected turbine buildings. All three of the generators added in the late 1990s were operational after the tsunami. If the switching stations had been moved to inside the reactor buildings or to other flood-proof locations, power would have been provided by these generators to the reactors' cooling systems.[67] The reactor's emergency diesel generators and DC batteries, crucial components in powering cooling systems after a power loss, were located in the basements of the reactor turbine buildings, in accordance with GE's specifications. Mid-level engineers expressed concerns that this left them vulnerable to flooding.[68] Fukushima I was not designed for such a large tsunami,[69][70] nor had the reactors been modified when concerns were raised in Japan and by the IAEA.[71] Fukushima II was also struck by the tsunami. However, it had incorporated design changes that improved its resistance to flooding, reducing flood damage. Generators and related electrical distribution equipment were located in the watertight reactor building, so that power from the electricity grid was being used by midnight.[72] Seawater pumps for cooling were protected from flooding, and although 3 of 4 initially failed, they were restored to operation.[73] Central fuel storage areas[edit] Used fuel assemblies taken from reactors are initially stored for at least 18 months in the pools adjacent to their reactors. They can then be transferred to the central fuel storage pond.[3] Fukushima I's storage area contains 6375 fuel assemblies. After further cooling, fuel can be transferred to dry cask storage, which has shown no signs of abnormalities.[74] Zircaloy[edit] Many of the internal components and fuel assembly cladding are made from zircaloy. At normal operating temperatures of approximately 300 °C (572 °F), zircaloy is inert. However, above 500 degrees celsius in the presence of steam,[75] zircaloy undergoes an exothermic oxidizing reaction and produces free hydrogen gas. The reaction between the zirconium and the fuel can lower the fuel's melting point and thus speed up a core melt.[76] Safety issues[edit] 1967: Layout of the emergency-cooling system[edit]

Fukushima reactor control room. On 27 February 2012, NISA ordered TEPCO to report by 12 March 2012 regarding its reasoning in changing the piping layout for the emergency cooling system. These changes were made after the plans were registered in 1966 and the beginning of construction. The original plans separated the piping systems for two reactors in the isolation condenser from each other. However, the application for approval of the construction plan showed the two piping systems connected outside the reactor. The changes were not noted, in violation of regulations.[77] After the tsunami, the isolation condenser should have taken over the function of the cooling pumps, by condensing the steam from the pressure vessel into water to be used for cooling the reactor. But the condenser did not function properly and TEPCO could not confirm whether a valve was opened. 1976: Falsification of safety records[edit] Fukushima Daiichi was central to a falsified-records scandal that led to the departure of senior TEPCO executives. It also led to disclosures of previously unreported problems,[78] although testimony by Dale Bridenbaugh, a lead GE designer, claimed that GE was warned of major design flaws in 1976, resulting in the resignations of several GE designers who protested GE's negligence.[79][80][81] In 2002, TEPCO admitted falsifying safety records for unit 1. The scandal and a fuel leak at Fukushima Daini forced the company to shut all 17 of its reactors.[82] A power board distributing electricity to temperature control valves was not examined for 11 years. Inspections did not cover cooling systems devices such as water pump motors and diesel generators.[83] 1991: Back-up generator of reactor 1 flooded[edit] On 30 October 1991, one of two backup generators of reactor 1 failed, after flooding in the reactor's basement. Seawater used for cooling leaked into the turbine building from a corroded pipe at 20 cubic meters per hour, as reported by former employees in December 2011. An engineer was quoted as saying that he informed his superiors and of the possibility that a tsunami could damage the generators. TEPCO installed doors to prevent water from leaking into the generator rooms. The Japanese Nuclear Safety Commission commented that it would revise its safety guidelines and would require the installation of additional power sources. On 29 December 2011, TEPCO admitted all these facts: its report mentioned that the room was flooded through a door and some holes for cables, but the power supply was not cut off by the flooding, and the reactor was stopped for one day. One of the two power sources was completely submerged, but its drive mechanism had remained unaffected.[84] 2008: Tsunami study ignored[edit] In 2007, TEPCO set up a department to supervise its nuclear facilities. Until June 2011 its chairman was Masao Yoshida, the Fukushima Daiichi chief. A 2008 in-house study identified an immediate need to better protect the facility from flooding by seawater. This study mentioned the possibility of tsunami-waves up to 10.2 metres (33 ft). Headquarters officials insisted that such a risk was unrealistic and did not take the prediction seriously.[85][verification needed] A Mr. Okamura of the Active Fault and Earthquake Research Center urged TEPCO and NISA to review their assumption of possible tsunami heights based on a tenth century earthquake, but it was not seriously considered at that time.[86] The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission warned of a risk of losing emergency power in 1991 (NUREG-1150) and NISA referred to the report in 2004. No action to mitigate the risk was taken.[87] Location[edit] The plant was located in Japan, which, like the rest of the Pacific Rim, is in an active seismic zone. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had expressed concern about the ability of Japan's nuclear plants to withstand seismic activity. At a 2008 meeting of the G8's Nuclear Safety and Security Group in Tokyo, an IAEA expert warned that a strong earthquake with a magnitude above 7.0 could pose a "serious problem" for Japan's nuclear power stations.[88] The region had experienced three earthquakes of magnitude greater than 8, including the 869 Jogan Sanriku earthquake, the 1896 Meiji-Sanriku earthquake, and the 1933 Sanriku earthquake.[citation needed] Events[edit]

Further information: Timeline of the Fukushima I nuclear accidents and 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami Earthquake[edit]

Position of Japanese nuclear power stations as they relate to the epicenter of the quake and the tsunami that followed. Fukushima I was the second closest power station to the epicenter of the earthquake, after Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant. The 9.0 MW Tōhoku earthquake occurred at 14:46 on Friday, 11 March 2011 with epicenter near Honshu Island.[89] It produced maximum ground g-forces of 0.56, 0.52, 0.56 (5.50, 5.07 and 5.48 m/s2) at units 2, 3 and 5 respectively. This exceeded their design tolerances of 0.45, 0.45 and 0.46 g (4.38, 4.41 and 4.52 m/s2). The shock values were within the design tolerances at units 1, 4 and 6.[50] When the earthquake struck, units 1, 2 and 3 were operating, but units 4, 5 and 6 had been shut down for periodic inspection.[49][90] Reactors 1, 2 and 3 immediately underwent an automatic shutdown (called SCRAM).[91][92] When the reactors shut down, the plant stopped generating electricity, cutting off power.[93] One of the two connections to off-site power for units 1–3 also failed,[93] so 13 on-site emergency diesel generators began providing power.[94] Tsunami[edit]

The height of the tsunami that struck the station approximately 30 minutes after the earthquake. A:Power station buildings B:peak height of tsunami C:Ground level of site D:average sea level E: Sea Wall to block waves. The earthquake triggered a 13-to-15-metre (43 to 49 ft) maximum height tsunami that arrived approximately 50 minutes later. The waves overtopped the plant's 10 metres (33 ft) seawall,[95][96][97] flooding the basements of the turbine buildings and disabling the emergency diesel generators[66][98][99] at approximately 15:41.[93][100] TEPCO then notified authorities of a "first level emergency".[91] The switching stations that provided power from the three backup generators located higher on the hillside failed when the building that housed them flooded.[67] Power for control systems switched over to batteries that were designed to last about eight hours.[101] Further batteries and mobile generators were dispatched to the site. They were delayed by poor road conditions and the first arrived only at 21:00 11 March,[94][102] almost six hours after the tsunami. Multiple unsuccessful attempts were made to connect portable generating equipment to power water pumps. The failure was attributed to flooding at the connection point in the Turbine Hall basement and the absence of suitable cables.[98] TEPCO switched its efforts to installing new lines from the grid.[103] One generator at unit 6 resumed operation on 17 March, while external power returned to units 5 and 6 only on 20 March.[104] Evacuation[edit] The government initially set in place a 4-stage evacuation process: a prohibited access area out to 3 km, an on-alert area 3–20 km and an evacuation prepared area 20–30 km. On day one nearly 134,000 people were evacuated from the prohibited access and on-alert areas. Four days later an additional 354,000 were evacuated from the prepared area. Later, Prime Minister Kan instructed people within the on-alert area to leave, and urged those in the prepared area to stay indoors.[105][106] The latter groups were urged to evacuate on 25 March.[107] The 20 kilometer exclusion zone was guarded by only lightly manned roadblocks.[108] Units 1, 2 and 3[edit]

The suspected location of molten fuel inside Unit 1, according to the MAAP report from November 2011. Most of the fuel from Unit 1 is assumed to be at the bottom of the Primary Containment Vessel (PCV), where it is estimated to be "well cooled down". [icon] This section requires expansion. (August 2013) See also: Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster (Unit 1 Reactor), Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster (Unit 2 Reactor), and Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster (Unit 3 Reactor) In reactors 1, 2 and 3, overheating caused a reaction between the water and the zircaloy, creating hydrogen gas. On 12 March, an explosion in Unit 1 was caused by the ignition of the hydrogen, destroying the upper part of the building. On 14 March, a similar explosion occurred in the Reactor 3 building, blowing off the roof and injuring eleven people. On the 15th, an explosion in the Reactor 2 building damaged it and part of the Reactor 4 building. Core meltdowns[edit]

The suspected location of molten fuel inside Unit 2 and Unit 3, according to the MAAP report from November 2011. Most of the fuel from Unit 2 and Unit 3 is assumed to have remained in the Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV), where it is estimated to be "cooled sufficiently". On 16 March TEPCO estimated that 70% of the fuel in Unit 1 had melted, and 33% in Unit 2, further suspecting that Unit 3's core might also be damaged.[109] In the TEPCO report of the Modular Accident Analysis Program (MAAP) from November 2011 further estimates are made to the state and location of the fuel.[110] The report came to the conclusion that the Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) in Unit 1 (commonly known as the reactor core) had been damaged during the disaster, and that "significant amounts" of molten fuel had fallen into the bottom of the Primary Containment Vessel (PCV) – the erosion of the concrete of the PCV by the molten fuel after the core meltdown was estimated to have been stopped in approx. 0.7 metres (2 ft 4 in) depth, with the thickness of the containment being 7.6 metres (25 ft). Gas sampling done before the report detected no signs of an ongoing reaction of the fuel with the concrete of the PCV and all the fuel in Unit 1 was estimated to be "well cooled down, including the fuel dropped on the bottom of the reactor". Furthermore the MAAP report showed that fuel in Unit 2 and Unit 3 had melted, however less than Unit 1, and fuel was presumed to be still in the RPV, with no significant amounts of fuel fallen to the bottom of the PCV. The report further suggested that "there is a range in the evaluation results" from "all fuel in the RPV (none fuel fallen to the PCV)" in Unit 2 and Unit 3, to "most fuel in the RPV (some fuel in PCV)". For Unit 2 and Unit 3 it was estimated that the "fuel is cooled sufficiently". The larger damage in Unit 1 in comparison with the other two units was according to the report due to longer time that no cooling water was injected in Unit 1, which resulted in much more decay heat to accumulate – for about 1 day there was no water injection for Unit 1, while Unit 2 and Unit 3 had only a quarter of a day without water injection. There exists some uncertainty about the amount of damage the reactors sustained during the meltdown – Tepco revised the numbers several times. In November 2013 Mari Yamaguchi reported for Associated Press that there are computer simulations which show that "the melted fuel in Unit 1, whose core damage was the most extensive, has breached the bottom of the primary containment vessel and even partially eaten into its concrete foundation, coming within about 30 centimeters (one foot) of leaking into the ground" – a Kyoto University nuclear engineer said with regards to these estimates: "We just can't be sure until we actually see the inside of the reactors."[111] According to a December 2013 report TEPCO estimated for Unit 1 that "the decay heat must have decreased enough, the molten fuel can be assumed to remain in PCV (Primary container vessel)".[112] Units 4, 5 and 6[edit] Main article: Fukushima Daiichi units 4, 5 and 6

Aerial view of the station in 1975, showing separation between units 5 and 6, and 1-4. ・Unit 6, not completed until 1979, is seen under construction. Unit 4[edit] All fuel rods from unit 4 had been transferred to the spent fuel pool on an upper floor of the reactor building prior to the tsunami. On 15 March, an explosion damaged the fourth floor rooftop area of unit 4, creating two large holes in a wall of the outer building. It was reported that water in the spent fuel pool might be boiling. Radiation inside the unit 4 control room prevented workers from staying there for long periods. Visual inspection of the spent fuel pool on 30 April revealed no significant damage to the rods. A radiochemical examination of the pond water confirmed that little of the fuel had been damaged.[113] In October 2012, the former Japanese Ambassador to both Switzerland and Senegal Mitsuhei Murata said that ground under Fukushima unit 4 was sinking, and the structure may collapse.[114][115] Units 5 and 6[edit] Reactors 5 and 6 were also not operating when the earthquake struck. Unlike reactor 4, their fuel rods remained in the reactor. The reactors had been closely monitored, as cooling processes were not functioning well.[citation needed] Central fuel storage areas[edit] On 21 March, temperatures in the fuel pond had risen slightly, to 61 °C and water was sprayed over the pool.[3] Power was restored to cooling systems on 24 March and by 28 March temperatures were reported down to 35 °C.[116] Contamination[edit] Main article: Radiation effects from Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster Sub article: Comparison of Fukushima and Chernobyl nuclear accident with detailed tables inside

Map of contaminated areas around the plant (22 March – 3 April 2011).

Fukushima dose rate comparison to other incidents and standards, with graph of recorded radiation levels and specific accident events from 11 to 30 March.

Radiation measurements from Fukushima Prefecture, March 2011

Seawater-contamination along coast with Caesium-137, from 21 March until 5 May 2011 (Source: GRS)

Radiation hotspot in Kashiwa, February 2012. Radioactive material was released from the containment vessels for several reasons: deliberate venting to reduce gas pressure; deliberate discharge of coolant water into the sea; and uncontrolled events. Concerns about the possibility of a large scale release led to a 20 kilometres (12 mi) exclusion zone around the power plant and recommendations that people within the surrounding 20–30 km zone stay indoors. Later, the UK, France and some other countries told their nationals to consider leaving Tokyo, in response to fears of spreading contamination.[117] Trace amounts of radiation, including iodine-131, caesium-134 and caesium-137, were widely observed.[118][119][120] Between 21 March and mid-July around 2.7 × 1016 Bq of caesium-137 (about 8.4 kg) entered the ocean, about 82 percent having flowed into the sea before 8 April.[121] This emission of radioactivity into the sea represents the most important individual emission of artificial radioactivity into the sea ever observed. However, the Fukushima coast has some of the world's strongest currents and these transported the contaminated waters far into the Pacific Ocean, thus causing great dispersion of the radioactive elements. The results of measurements of both the seawater and the coastal sediments led to the supposition that the consequences of the accident, in terms of radioactivity, would be minor for marine life as of autumn 2011 (weak concentration of radioactivity in the water and limited accumulation in sediments). On the other hand, significant pollution of sea water along the coast near the nuclear plant might persist, because of the continuing arrival of radioactive material transported towards the sea by surface water running over contaminated soil. Organisms that filter water and fish at the top of the food chain are, over time, the most sensitive to caesium pollution. It is thus justified to maintain surveillance of marine life that is fished in the coastal waters off Fukushima. Despite caesium isotopic concentration in the waters off of Japan being 10 to 1000 times above concentration prior to the accident, radiation risks are below what is generally considered harmful to marine animals and human consumers.[122] A monitoring system operated by the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) tracked the spread of radioactivity on a global scale. Radioactive isotopes were picked up by over 40 monitoring stations.[123] On 12 March, radioactive releases first reached a CTBTO monitoring station in Takasaki, Japan, around 200 km away. The radioactive isotopes appeared in eastern Russia on 14 March and the west coast of the United States two days later. By day 15, traces of radioactivity were detectable all across the northern hemisphere. Within one month, radioactive particles were noted by CTBTO stations in the southern hemisphere.[124][125] Estimates of radioactivity released ranged from 10-40%[10][126][127][128] of that of Chernobyl's. The significantly contaminated area was 10[10]-12%[126] that of Chernobyl.[10][129][130] In March 2011, Japanese officials announced that "radioactive iodine-131 exceeding safety limits for infants had been detected at 18 water-purification plants in Tokyo and five other prefectures".[131] On 21 March the first restrictions were placed on the distribution and consumption of contaminated items.[132] As of July 2011, the Japanese government was unable to control the spread of radioactive material into the nation's food supply. Radioactive material was detected in food produced in 2011, including spinach, tea leaves, milk, fish and beef, up to 200 miles from the plant. 2012 crops did not show signs of radioactivity contamination. Cabbage, rice[133] and beef showed insignificant radiation levels. A Fukushima-produced rice market in Tokyo was accepted by consumers as safe.[133] On 24 August 2011, the Nuclear Safety Commission (NSC) of Japan published the results of the recalculation of the total amount of radioactive materials released into the air during the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station. The total amounts released between 11 March and 5 April were revised downwards to 130 PBq (petabecquerels) for iodine-131 and 11 PBq for caesium-137, which is about 11% of Chernobyl emissions. Earlier estimations were 150 PBq and 12 PBq.[134][135] In 2011 scientists working for the Japan Atomic Energy Agency, Kyoto University and other institutes, recalculated the amount of radioactive material released into the ocean: between late March through April they found a total of 15 PBq for the combined amount of iodine-131 and caesium-137, more than triple the 4.72 PBq estimated by TEPCO. The company had calculated only the direct releases into the sea. The new calculations incorporated the portion of airborne radioactive substances that entered the ocean as rain.[136] In the first half of September 2011 TEPCO estimated radiation release at some 200 MBq (megabecquerels) per hour. This was approximately one four-millionth that of March.[137] Traces of iodine-131 were detected in several Japanese prefectures in November[138] and December 2011.[139] According to the French Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety, between 21 March and mid-July around 27 PBq of caesium-137 entered the ocean, about 82 percent before 8 April. This emission represents the most important individual oceanic emissions of artificial radioactivity ever observed. The Fukushima coast has one of the world's strongest currents (Kuroshio Current). It transported the contaminated waters far into the Pacific Ocean, dispersing the radioactivity. As of late 2011 measurements of both the seawater and the coastal sediments suggested that the consequences for marine life would be minor. Significant pollution along the coast near the plant might persist, because of the continuing arrival of radioactive material transported to the sea by surface water crossing contaminated soil. The possible presence of other radioactive substances, such as strontium-90 or plutonium, has not been sufficiently studied. Recent measurements show persistent contamination of some marine species (mostly fish) caught along the Fukushima coast.[140] Migratory pelagic species are highly effective and rapid transporters of radiation throughout the ocean. Elevated levels of 134 Cs appeared in migratory species off the coast of California that were not seen pre-Fukushima.[141] As of March 2012, no cases of radiation-related ailments had been reported. Experts cautioned that data was insufficient to allow conclusions on health impacts. Michiaki Kai, professor of radiation protection at Oita University of Nursing and Health Sciences, stated, "If the current radiation dose estimates are correct, (cancer-related deaths) likely won't increase."[142] In May 2012, TEPCO released their estimate of cumulative radiation releases. An estimated 538.1 PBq of iodine-131, caesium-134 and caesium-137 was released. 520 PBq was released into the atmosphere between 12–31 March 2011 and 18.1 PBq into the ocean from 26 March – 30 September 2011. A total of 511 PBq of iodine-131 was released into both the atmosphere and the ocean, 13.5 PBq of caesium-134 and 13.6 PBq of caesium-137.[143] TEPCO reported that at least 900 PBq had been released "into the atmosphere in March last year [2011] alone".[144][145] In August 2012, researchers found that 10,000 nearby residents had been exposed to less than 1 millisievert of radiation, significantly less than Chernobyl residents.[146] As of October 2012 radiation was still leaking into the ocean. Fishing in the waters around the site was still prohibited, and the levels of radioactive 134Cs and 137Cs in the fish caught were not lower than immediately after the disaster.[147] On 26 October 2012 TEPCO admitted that it could not stop radioactive material entering the ocean, although emission rates had stabilised. Undetected leaks could not be ruled out, because the reactor basements remained flooded. The company was building a 2,400-foot-long steel and concrete wall between the site and the ocean, reaching 100 feet below ground, but it would not be finished before mid-2014. Around August 2012 two greenling were caught close to shore. They contained more than 25,000 becquerels of caesium-137 per kilogram, the highest measured since the disaster and 250 times the government's safety limit.[148][149] On 22 July 2013 it was revealed that the plant continued to leak radioactive water into the ocean, something long suspected by local fishermen and independent investigators.[37] TEPCO had previously denied that this was happening. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzō Abe ordered the government to step in.[38] On 20 August, in a further incident, it was announced that 300 metric tons of heavily contaminated water had leaked from a storage tank,[39] approximately the same amount of water as one eighth (1/8) of that found in an Olympic-size swimming pool.[150][151] The 300 metric tons of water was radioactive enough to be hazardous to nearby staff, and the leak was assessed as Level 3 on the International Nuclear Event Scale.[152] On 26 August, the government took charge of emergency measures to prevent further radioactive water leaks, reflecting their lack of confidence in TEPCO.[153] As of 2013, about 400 tonnes per day of cooling water was being pumped into the reactors. Another 400 tonnes of groundwater was seeping into the structure. Some 800 tonnes of water per day was removed for treatment, half of which was reused for cooling and half diverted to storage tanks.[154] Ultimately the contaminated water, after treatment to remove radionuclides other than tritium, may have to dumped into Pacific.[36] TEPCO intend to create an underground ice wall to reduce the rate contaminated groundwater reaches the sea.[155] In February 2014, NHK reported that TEPCO was reviewing its radiation data, after finding much higher levels of radiation than was reported earlier. TEPCO now says that levels of 5 million becquerels of strontium per liter were detected in groundwater collected in July 2013 and not 900,000 becquerels, as initially reported.[156][157] In March 2014, numerous news sources, including NBC,[158] began predicting that the radioactive underwater Plume_(hydrodynamics) traveling through the Pacific Ocean would reach the western seaboard of the Continental_United_States. Though the common story was that the amount of radioactivity would be harmless and temporary once it arrived, many Website had alternative perspectives on the situation, pointing to abnormally high levels of radiation on the beach in places like San Francisco,[159] radiation in US milk found hundreds of times higher than federal standards,[160] rainwater discovered over 100 times higher than normal levels by the UC Berkeley nuclear engineering program,[161] and various pictures of mutated animals and plants found in various states that had been reported after the incident. The scientific community, and state and federal agencies, however, have generally assured both Californians and Americans that there are no health risks present, though officials are actively monitoring the situation. Response[edit]

Government agencies and TEPCO were unprepared for the "cascading nuclear disaster".[162] The tsunami that "began the nuclear disaster could and should have been anticipated and that ambiguity about the roles of public and private institutions in such a crisis was a factor in the poor response at Fukushima".[162] In March 2012, Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda said that the government shared the blame for the Fukushima disaster, saying that officials had been blinded by a false belief in the country's "technological infallibility", and were taken in by a "safety myth". Noda said "Everybody must share the pain of responsibility".[163] According to Naoto Kan, Japan's prime minister during the tsunami, the country was unprepared for the disaster, and nuclear power plants should not have been built so close to the ocean.[164] Kan acknowledged flaws in authorities' handling of the crisis, including poor communication and coordination between nuclear regulators, utility officials and the government. He said the disaster "laid bare a host of an even bigger man-made vulnerabilities in Japan's nuclear industry and regulation, from inadequate safety guidelines to crisis management, all of which he said need to be overhauled".[164] Physicist and environmentalist Amory Lovins said: Japan's "rigid bureaucratic structures, reluctance to send bad news upwards, need to save face, weak development of policy alternatives, eagerness to preserve nuclear power's public acceptance, and politically fragile government, along with TEPCO's very hierarchical management culture, also contributed to the way the accident unfolded. Moreover, the information Japanese people receive about nuclear energy and its alternatives has long been tightly controlled by both TEPCO and the government".[165] Poor communication and delays[edit] The Japanese government did not keep records of key meetings during the crisis.[166] Data from SPEEDI (System for Prediction of Environmental Emergency Dose Information) were emailed to the prefectural government, but not shared with others. Emails from NISA to Fukushima covering 12 March 11:54 PM to 16 March 9 AM holding vital information for evacuation and health advisories went unread and were deleted. The data was not used because the disaster countermeasure office regarded the data as "useless because the predicted amount of released radiation is unrealistic."[167] The Investigation Committee on the Accident at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Stations of Tokyo Electric Power Company's interim report stated that Japan's response was flawed by "poor communication and delays in releasing data on dangerous radiation leaks at the facility". The report blamed Japan's central government as well as TEPCO, "depicting a scene of harried officials incapable of making decisions to stem radiation leaks as the situation at the coastal plant worsened in the days and weeks following the disaster".[168] The report said poor planning worsened the disaster response, noting that authorities had "grossly underestimated tsunami risks" that followed the magnitude 9.0 earthquake. The 12.1 metres (40 ft) high tsunami that struck the plant was double the height of the highest wave predicted by officials. The erroneous assumption that the plant's cooling system would function after the tsunami worsened the disaster. "Plant workers had no clear instructions on how to respond to such a disaster, causing miscommunication, especially when the disaster destroyed backup generators.".[168] In February 2012, the Rebuild Japan Initiative Foundation described how Japan's response was hindered by a loss of trust between the major actors: Prime Minister Kan, TEPCO's Tokyo headquarters and the plant manager. The report said that these conflicts "produced confused flows of sometimes contradictory information".[169][170] According to the report, Kan delayed the cooling of the reactors by questioning the choice of seawater instead of fresh water, accusing him of micromanaging response efforts and appointing a small, closed, decision-making staff. The report stated that the Japanese government was slow to accept assistance from U.S. nuclear experts.[171] A 2012 report in The Economist said: "The operating company was poorly regulated and did not know what was going on. The operators made mistakes. The representatives of the safety inspectorate fled. Some of the equipment failed. The establishment repeatedly played down the risks and suppressed information about the movement of the radioactive plume, so some people were evacuated from more lightly to more heavily contaminated places".[172] From 17 to 19 March 2011, US military aircraft measured radiation within a 45-km radius of the site. The data recorded 125 microsieverts per hour of radiation as far as 25 km (15.5 mi) northwest of the plant. The US provided detailed maps to the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI) on 18 March and to the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) two days later, but officials did not act on the information.[173] The data were not forwarded to the prime minister's office or the Nuclear Safety Commission (NSC), nor were they used to direct the evacuation. Because a substantial portion of radioactive materials reached ground to the northwest, residents evacuated in this direction were unnecessarily exposed to radiation. According to NSC chief Tetsuya Yamamoto, "It was very regrettable that we didn't share and utilize the information." Itaru Watanabe, of the Science and Technology Policy Bureau, blamed the US for not releasing the data.[174] After the Americans published their map on 23 March, Japan published fallout maps compiled from ground measurements and SPEEDI the same day. On 19 June 2012 science minister Hirofumi Hirano stated that his "job was only to measure radiation levels on land" and that the government would study whether disclosure could have helped in the evacuation efforts.[175] Event rating[edit]

Main article: Accident rating of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster

Comparison of radiation levels for different nuclear events. The incident was rated 7 on the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES).[176] This scale runs from 0, indicating an abnormal situation with no safety consequences, to 7, indicating an accident causing widespread contamination with serious health and environmental effects. Prior to Fukushima, the Chernobyl disaster was the only level 7 event on record, while the Three Mile Island accident was a level 5. A 2012 analysis of the intermediate and long-lived radiation released found about 10-20% of that released from the Chernobyl disaster.[177][178] Approximately 15 PBq of caesium-137 was released;[179] compared with approximately 85 PBq of caesium-137 at Chernobyl,[180] indicating the release of 24 kilograms (53 lb) of caesium-137.[181] Unlike Chernobyl, all the Japanese reactors were in concrete containment vessels, which limited the release of strontium-90, americium-241 and plutonium, which were among the radioisotopes released by the earlier incident.[177][180] Some 500 PBq of iodine-131 were released,[179] compared to approximately 1,760 PBq at Chernobyl.[180] Iodine-131 has a half life of 8.02 days; decaying into a stable nucleide. After ten half lives (80.2 days) 99.9% has decayed to xenon-131, a stable isotope.[182] Aftermath[edit]

Main article: Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster casualties No deaths followed short term radiation exposure, while approximately 16,000 people died due to the earthquake and tsunami. Risks from radiation[edit] Very few cancers would be expected as a result of accumulated radiation exposures,[183][184][185] even though people in the area worst affected by Japan's Fukushima nuclear accident have a slightly higher risk of developing certain cancers such as leukemia, solid cancers, thyroid cancer and breast cancer.[12] Estimated effective doses from the accident outside of Japan are considered to be below (or far below) the dose levels regarded as very small by the international radiological protection community.[186] In 2013 WHO reported that area residents who were evacuated were exposed to so little radiation that radiation induced health impacts were likely to be below detectable levels.[16][187] The health risks were calculated by applying conservative assumptions, including the conservative Linear no-threshold model of radiation exposure, a model that assumes even the smallest amount of radiation exposure will cause a negative health effect.[188][189] The report indicated that for those infants in the most affected areas, lifetime cancer risk would increase by about 1%,[190][191] It predicted that populations in the most contaminated areas faced a 70% higher relative risk of developing thyroid cancer for females exposed as infants, and a 7% higher relative risk of leukemia in males exposed as infants and a 6% higher relative risk of breast cancer in females exposed as infants.[17] One-third of involved emergency workers would have increased cancer risks.[192][193] Cancer risks for fetuses were similar to those in 1 year old infants.[194] The estimated cancer risk to children and adults was lower than infants.[195] The stated risks were relative and not absolute. The baseline risk of thyroid cancer in females is 0.75%, predicted to increase to 1.25%, a "70% higher relative risk":[193] These percentages represent estimated relative increases over the baseline rates and are not absolute risks for developing such cancers. Due to the low baseline rates of thyroid cancer, even a large relative increase represents a small absolute increase in risks. For example, the baseline lifetime risk of thyroid cancer for females is just (0.75%)three-quarters of one percent and the additional lifetime risk estimated in this assessment for a female infant exposed in the most affected location is (0.5%)one-half of one percent.[193] Stanford University professor Mark Z. Jacobson and colleague John Ten Hoeve suggested that according to the linear no-threshold model (LNT model) the accident would most likely cause 130 cancer deaths.[196][197] Radiation epidemiologist Roy Shore countered that estimating health effects from the LNT model "is not wise because of the uncertainties".[198] The LNT model greatly overestimated casualties from Chernobyl, Hiroshima or Nagasaki; instead. Evidence that the LNT model was invalid has existed since 1946 and was suppressed by Nobel Prize winner Hermann Muller.[199][200][201] Thyroid screening program[edit] As part of the ultrasound screening program, 36% of children in 2012 were found to have abnormal growths in their thyroid glands, but whether this is due to the effects of nuclear radiation is undetermined.[19][18] The overwhelming majority of thyroid growths are benign growths that will never cause symptoms, illness or death, even if nothing is ever done about the growth. Autopsy studies on people who died from other causes show that more than one third of adults technically have a thyroid growth/cancer.[202] According to the Tenth Report of the Fukushima Prefecture Health Management Survey released in February 2013, more than 40% of children screened around Fukushima prefecture were diagnosed with thyroid abnormalities and that 10 of 186 eligible are suspected of having thyroid cancer as a result of the exposed radiation.[203] As of August 2013, there have been more than 40 children newly diagnosed with thyroid cancer and other cancers in Fukushima prefecture as a whole. In November 2013, another report from the Fukushima Prefectural Government revealed that more children have been diagnosed with confirmed or suspected thyroid cancer. The number of children diagnosed with thyroid cancer was 59. Furthermore, the report claims that in Fukushima prefecture, 12 people per 100,000 who were aged 18 or younger at the time of the accident developed thyroid cancer. This figure is contrasted by a 2007 figure where 1.7 people per 100,000 in the general population between the ages of 15 and 19 contracted the cancer according to statistics taken in four prefectures, including nearby Miyagi. [204] The World Health Organization stated that a 2013 thyroid ultrasound screening programme was, due to the screening effect, likely to lead to an increase in recorded thyroid cases due to early detection of non-symptomatic disease cases.[18] This screening program found that more than a third (36%) of children in the Prefecture have abnormal growths in their thyroid glands, however whether these growths can be attributed to exposure to nuclear radiation has not yet been proven.[19] Thyroid cancer is one of the most survivable cancers, with an approximate 94% survival rate after first diagnosis. That rate increases to a 100% survival rate with catching it early.[205] Chernobyl comparison[edit] Radiation deaths at Chernobyl were also statistically undetectable. Only 0.1% of the 110,000 cleanup workers surveyed had as of 2012 developed leukemia, although not all cases resulted from the accident.[206][207] Data from Chernobyl showed that there was a steady then sharp increase in thyroid cancer rates following the disaster in 1986, but whether this data can be directly compared to Fukushima is yet to be determined.[208][209] Chernobyl thyroid cancer incidence rates did not begin to increase above the prior baseline value of about 0.7 cases per 100,000 people per year until 1989 to 1991, 3–5 years after the incident in both adolescent and child age groups.[208][209] From 1989 to 2005, an excess of 4,000 children and adolescent cases of thyroid cancer were observed. Nine of these had died as of 2005, a 99% survival rate.[210] Effects on evacuees[edit] Evacuation decreased perceived health status.[211] In the former Soviet Union many patients with negligible radioactive exposure after the Chernobyl disaster displayed extreme anxiety about radiation exposure. They developed many psychosomatic problems, including radiophobia along with an increase in fatalistic alcoholism. As Japanese health and radiation specialist Shunichi Yamashita noted:[212] We know from Chernobyl that the psychological consequences are enormous. Life expectancy of the evacuees dropped from 65 to 58 years -- not [predominately] because of cancer, but because of depression, alcoholism and suicide. Relocation is not easy, the stress is very big. We must not only track those problems, but also treat them. Otherwise people will feel they are just guinea pigs in our research.[212] A survey by the Iitate local government obtained responses from approximately 1,743 evacuees within the evacuation zone. The survey showed that many residents are experiencing growing frustration, instability and an inability to return to their earlier lives. Sixty percent of respondents stated that their health and the health of their families had deteriorated after evacuating, while 39.9% reported feeling more irritated compared to before the disaster.[213] Summarizing all responses to questions related to evacuees' current family status, one-third of all surveyed families live apart from their children, while 50.1% live away from other family members (including elderly parents) with whom they lived before the disaster. The survey also showed that 34.7% of the evacuees have suffered salary cuts of 50% or more since the outbreak of the nuclear disaster. A total of 36.8% reported a lack of sleep, while 17.9% reported smoking or drinking more than before they evacuated.[213] Stress often manifests in physical ailments, including behavioral changes such as poor dietary choices, lack of exercise and sleep deprivation. Survivors, including some who lost homes, villages and family members, were found likely face mental health and physical challenges. Much of the stress came from lack of information and from relocation.[214] A Mainichi Shimbun survey computed that of some 300,000 evacuees, approximately 1,600 deaths related to the evacuation conditions, such as living in temporary housing and hospital closures that had occurred as of August 2013, a number comparable to the 1,599 deaths directly caused by the earthquake and tsunami in the Prefecture. The exact causes of these evacuation related deaths were not specified, because according to the municipalities, that would hinder relatives applying for compensation.[14][15] While some articles have drawn an effect on the mortality rate for infants in the Pacific Northwest since the crisis, Scientific American revealed that the underlying statistical analysis was questionable.[215] Radiation releases[edit] In June 2011, TEPCO stated the amount of contaminated water in the complex had increased due to substantial rainfall.[216] On 13 February 2014, TEPCO reported 37,000 becquerels of cesium-134 and 93,000 becquerels of cesium-137 were detected per liter of groundwater sampled from a monitoring well.[217] Insurance[edit] According to reinsurer Munich Re, the private insurance industry will not be significantly affected by the disaster.[218] Swiss Re similarly stated, "Coverage for nuclear facilities in Japan excludes earthquake shock, fire following earthquake and tsunami, for both physical damage and liability. Swiss Re believes that the incident at the Fukushima nuclear power plant is unlikely to result in a significant direct loss for the property & casualty insurance industry."[219] Energy policy implications[edit]

The number of nuclear power plant constructions started each year, from 1954 to 2013. Note the increase in new constructions from 2007 to 2010, before a decline following the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster.

Anti-nuclear power plant rally on 19 September 2011 at the Meiji Shrine complex in Tokyo. By March 2012, one year after the disaster, all but two of Japan's nuclear reactors had been shut down; some had been damaged by the quake and tsunami. Authority to restart the others after scheduled maintenance throughout the year was given to local governments, who in all cases decided against. According to The Japan Times, the disaster changed the national debate over energy policy almost overnight. "By shattering the government's long-pitched safety myth about nuclear power, the crisis dramatically raised public awareness about energy use and sparked strong anti-nuclear sentiment". A June 2011 Asahi Shimbun poll of 1,980 respondents found that 74% answered "yes" to whether Japan should gradually decommission all 54 reactors and become nuclear-free.[220] An energy white paper, approved by the Japanese Cabinet in October 2011, says "public confidence in safety of nuclear power was greatly damaged" by the disaster and called for a reduction in the nation's reliance on nuclear power. It also omitted a section on nuclear power expansion that was in the previous year's policy review.[221] Michael Banach, the current Vatican representative to the IAEA, told a conference in Vienna in September 2011 that the disaster created new concerns about the safety of nuclear plants globally. Auxiliary Bishop of Osaka Michael Goro Matsuura said this incident should cause Japan and other countries to abandon nuclear projects. He called on the worldwide Christian community to support this anti-nuclear campaign. Statements from Bishops' conferences in Korea and the Philippines called on their governments to abandon atomic power. Author Kenzaburō Ōe, who received a Nobel prize in literature, urged Japan to abandon its reactors.[222] The nuclear plant closest to the epicenter of the earthquake, the Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant, successfully withstood the cataclysm. According to Reuters it may serve as a "trump card" for the nuclear lobby, providing evidence that it is possible for a correctly designed and operated nuclear facility to withstand such a cataclysm.[223]

Electricity generation by source in Japan (month-level data). Nuclear energy's contribution declined steadily throughout 2011 due to shutdowns and has been replaced with thermal power stations such as fossil gas and coal power plants. Units 3 and 4 at Ohi Nuclear Power Plant are the only two Japanese reactors which have so far met the new safety rules and thus continue to operate. The loss of 30% of the country's generating capacity led to much greater reliance on liquified natural gas and coal.[224] Unusual conservation measures were undertaken. In the immediate aftermath, nine prefectures served by TEPCO experienced power rationing.[225] The government asked major companies to reduce power consumption by 15%, and some shifted their weekends to weekdays to smooth power demand.[226] Converting to a nuclear-free gas and oil energy economy would cost tens of billions of dollars in annual fees. One estimate is that even including the disaster, more lives would have been lost if Japan had used coal or gas plants instead of nuclear.[196] Many energy policy analysts have begun calling for a phase-out of nuclear power in Japan, including Amory Lovins, who claimed, "Japan is poor in fuels, but is the richest of all major industrial countries in renewable energy that can meet the entire long-term energy needs of an energy-efficient Japan, at lower cost and risk than current plans. Japanese industry can do it faster than anyone — if Japanese policymakers acknowledge and allow it".[165] Benjamin K. Sovacool asserted that Japan could have exploited instead its renewable energy base. Japan has a total of "324 GW of achievable potential in the form of onshore and offshore wind turbines (222 GW), geothermal power plants (70 GW), additional hydroelectric capacity (26.5 GW), solar energy (4.8 GW) and agricultural residue (1.1 GW)."[227] Environmental activists at a 2011 United Nations meeting in Bangkok used the disaster to promote renewable energy.[228] In August 2011, the Japanese Government passed a bill to subsidize electricity from renewable sources. This legislation, effective 1 July 2012, requires utilities to buy electricity generated by renewable sources including solar, wind and geothermal at above-market rates.[229] In September 2011, Mycle Schneider said that the disaster can be understood as a unique chance "to get it right" on energy policy. "Germany – with its nuclear phase-out decision based on a highly successful renewable energy program – and Japan – having suffered a painful shock but possessing unique technical capacities and societal discipline – can be at the forefront of an authentic paradigm shift toward a truly sustainable, low-carbon and nuclear-free energy policy".[230] As of September 2011, Japan planned to build a pilot offshore floating wind farm, with six 2-megawatt turbines, off the Fukushima coast.[231] The first became operational in November 2013.[232] After the evaluation phase is complete in 2016, "Japan plans to build as many as 80 floating wind turbines off Fukushima by 2020."[231] In 2012, Prime Minister Kan said the disaster made it clear to him that "Japan needs to dramatically reduce its dependence on nuclear power, which supplied 30% of its electricity before the crisis, and has turned him into a believer of renewable energy".[citation needed] Sales of solar panels in Japan rose 30.7% to 1,296 megawatts in 2011, helped by a government scheme to promote renewable energy. Canadian Solar received financing for its plans to build a factory in Japan with capacity of 150 megawatts, scheduled to begin production in 2014.[233] As of September 2012, most Japanese people supported the elimination of nuclear power,[234] and Prime Minister Noda and the Japanese government announced plans to make the country nuclear-free by the 2030s. They announced the end of new construction of nuclear power plants and a 40-year limit on existing nuclear plants, Nuclear plant restarts must meet safety standards of the new independent regulatory authority. The plan requires investing $500 billion over 20 years.[235] On 16 December 2012, Japan held a general election. Voters gave the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) a clear victory. Shinzō Abe became Prime Minister. Abe supported nuclear power, saying that leaving the plants closed was costing the country 4 trillion yen per year in higher costs.[236] The comment came after Junichiro Koizumi, who chose Abe to succeed him as premier, made a recent statement to urge the government to take a stance against using nuclear power.[237] A survey of local mayors by the Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper in January 2013 found that most of them from cities hosting nuclear plants would agree to restarting the reactors, provided the government could guarantee their safety.[238] More than 30,000 people marched on 2 June 2013, in Tokyo against restarting nuclear power plants. Marchers had gathered more than 8 million petition signatures opposing nuclear power.[239] In October 2013, it was reported that TEPCO and eight other Japanese power companies were paying approximately 3.6 trillion yen (37 billion dollars) more in combined imported fossil fuel costs compared to 2010, before the accident, to make up for the missing power.[240] Equipment, facility and operational changes[edit] A number of nuclear reactor safety system lessons emerged from the incident. The most obvious was that in tsunami-prone areas, a power station's sea wall must be adequately tall and robust.[7] At the Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant, closer to the epicenter of the 11 March earthquake and tsunami,[241] the sea wall was 14 meters tall and successfully withstood the tsunami, preventing serious damage and radiation releases.[242][243] Nuclear power station operators around the world began to install Passive Auto-catalytic hydrogen Recombiners ("PARs"), which do not require electricity to operate.[244][245][246] PARs work much like the catalytic converter on the exhaust of a car to turn potentially explosive gases such as hydrogen into water. Had such devices been positioned at the top of Fukushima I's reactor and containment buildings, where hydrogen gas collected, the explosions would not have occurred and the releases of radioactive isotopes would arguably have been much less.[27] Unpowered filtering systems on containment building vent lines, known as Filtered Containment Venting Systems (FCVS) can safely catch radioactive materials and thereby allow reactor core de-pressurization, with steam and hydrogen venting with minimal radiation emissions.[27][247] Filtration using an external water tank system is the most common in European countries, with the water tank positioned outside the containment building.[248] In October 2013, the owners of Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power station began installing wet filters and other safety systems, with completion anticipated in 2014.[249][250] In generation II reactors in flood or tsunami prone areas, a 3+ day supply of back-up batteries has become an infomal industry standard.[251][252] Another change is to harden the location of back-up diesel generator rooms with water-tight, blast-resistant doors and heat sinks, similar to those used by nuclear submarines.[27] The oldest operating nuclear power station in the world, Beznau, which has been operating since 1969, has a 'Notstand' hardened building designed to support all of its systems independently for 72 hours in the event of an earthquake or severe flooding. This system was built prior to Fukushima Daiichi.[253][254] Upon a station blackout, like the one that occurred after Fukushima's back-up battery supply was exhausted,[255] many already constructed Generation III reactors adopt the principle of passive nuclear safety. They take advantage of convection (hot water tends to rise) and gravity (water tends to fall) to ensure an adequate supply of cooling water and do not require pumps to handle the decay heat.[256][257] Reactions[edit]

Japan[edit] Main article: Japanese reaction to Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster

Japan towns, villages, and cities in and around the Daiichi nuclear plant exclusion zone. The 20 km and 30 km areas had evacuation and shelter in place orders, and additional administrative districts that had an evacuation order are highlighted. However the above map's factual accuracy is called into question as only the southern portion of Kawamata district had evacuation orders. More accurate maps are available.[258][259] Japanese authorities later admitted to lax standards and poor oversight.[260] They took fire for their handling of the emergency and engaged in a pattern of withholding and denying damaging information.[260][261][262][263] Authorities allegedly wanted to "limit the size of costly and disruptive evacuations in land-scarce Japan and to avoid public questioning of the politically powerful nuclear industry". Public anger emerged over an "official campaign to play down the scope of the accident and the potential health risks".[262][263][264] In many cases, the Japanese government's reaction was judged to be less than adequate by many in Japan, especially those who were living in the region. Decontamination equipment was slow to be made available and then slow to be utilized. As late as June 2011, even rainfall continued to cause fear and uncertainty in eastern Japan because of its possibility of washing radiation from the sky back to earth.[citation needed] To assuage fears, the government enacted an order to decontaminate over a hundred areas with a level contamination greater than or equivalent to one millisievert of radiation. This is a much lower threshold than is necessary for protecting health. The government also sought to address the lack of education on the effects of radiation and the extent to which the average person was exposed.[265] Previously a proponent of building more reactors, Kan took an increasingly anti-nuclear stance following the disaster. In May 2011, he ordered the aging Hamaoka Nuclear Power Plant closed over earthquake and tsunami concerns, and said he would freeze building plans. In July 2011, Kan said, "Japan should reduce and eventually eliminate its dependence on nuclear energy".[266] In October 2013, he said that if the worst-case scenario had been realized, 50 million people within a 250-kilometer radius would have had to evacuate.[267] On 22 August 2011, a government spokesman mentioned the possibility that some areas around the plant "could stay for some decades a forbidden zone". According to Yomiuri Shimbun the Japanese government was planning to buy some properties from civilians to store waste and materials that had become radioactive after the accidents.[268][269] Chiaki Takahashi, Japan's foreign minister, criticized foreign media reports as excessive. He added that he could "understand the concerns of foreign countries over recent developments at the nuclear plant, including the radioactive contamination of seawater".[270] Due to frustration with TEPCO and the Japanese government "providing differing, confusing, and at times contradictory, information on critical health issues"[271] a citizen's group called "Safecast" recorded detailed radiation level data in Japan.[272][273] The Japanese government "does not consider nongovernment readings to be authentic". The group uses off-the-shelf Geiger counter equipment. A simple Geiger counter is a contamination meter and not a dose rate meter. The response differs too much between different radioisotopes to permit a simple GM tube for dose rate measurements when more than one radioisotope is present. A thin metal shield is needed around a GM tube to provide energy compensation to enable it to be used for dose rate measurements. For gamma emitters either an ionization chamber, a gamma spectrometer or an energy compensated GM tube are required. Members of the Air Monitoring station facility at the Department of Nuclear Engineering at the University of Berkeley, California have tested many environmental samples in Northern California.[274] International[edit] Main article: International reaction to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster

Evacuation flight departs Misawa.

U.S. Navy humanitarian flight undergoes radioactive decontamination The international reaction to the disaster was diverse and widespread. Many inter-governmental agencies immediately offered help, often on an ad hoc basis. Responders included IAEA, World Meteorological Organization and the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization.[275] In September 2011, IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano said the Japanese nuclear disaster "caused deep public anxiety throughout the world and damaged confidence in nuclear power".[276] Many countries advised their nationals to leave Tokyo.[277] Events at Fukushima "cast doubt on the idea that even an advanced economy can master nuclear safety".[278] Following the disaster, the IAEA halved its estimate of additional nuclear generating capacity to be built by 2035.[279] Anti-nuclear demonstrations were followed by a significant reevaluation of existing nuclear power programs in many countries. Germany closed off its old nuclear power reactors and decided to phase the rest out by 2022.[280] Italy held a national referendum, in which 94 percent voted against the government's plan to build new nuclear power plants.[281] The same happened in Switzerland, and later Belgium. In France the strongly pro-nuclear government was defeated in a national election and with 70 percent of the public opposing nuclear in some polls, it was replaced by a government promising to radically reduce reliance on nuclear power.[282] In June 2011 an opinion poll from Ipsos MORI reveled that 62% of the citizens of 24 different countries across the world were opposed to nuclear energy.[283] Nuclear power plans were abandoned in Malaysia, the Philippines, Kuwait and Bahrain, or radically changed, as in Taiwan. China suspended its nuclear development programme, but restarted it on a reduced basis in late 2012 with the government approving a ‘small number’ of projects in each of the following five years. The initial plan had been to increase the nuclear contribution from 2 to 4 percent of electricity by 2020, but renewable energy already supplied 17 percent of China’s electricity and, post-Fukushima, it seemed likely that most of the 15 percent of non-fossil energy that China aims to use by 2020 will be from renewables.[citation needed] Stock prices of energy companies reliant on nuclear sources dropped, while renewable energy companies increased. In the United States output from renewable energy had already overtaken that from nuclear and after Fukushima some proposed nuclear projects collapsed. With renewables booming and nuclear costs rising, it seemed as if nuclear contribution will progressively fall.[citation needed] New nuclear projects were proceeding in some countries. The United Kingdom was still planning a major nuclear expansion. So is Russia. Despite massive protests, India is also pressing ahead with a large nuclear programme, as is South Korea.[citation needed] Investigations[edit] NAIIC[edit] Main article: National Diet of Japan Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission The Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission (NAIIC) was the first independent investigation commission by the National Diet in the 66-year history of Japan's constitutional government. Fukushima "cannot be regarded as a natural disaster," the NAIIC panel's chairman, Tokyo University professor emeritus Kiyoshi Kurokawa, wrote in the inquiry report. "It was a profoundly man-made disaster -- that could and should have been foreseen and prevented. And its effects could have been mitigated by a more effective human response."[284] "Governments, regulatory authorities and Tokyo Electric Power [TEPCO] lacked a sense of responsibility to protect people's lives and society," the Commission said. "They effectively betrayed the nation's right to be safe from nuclear accidents.[285] The Commission recognized that the affected residents were still struggling and facing grave concerns, including the "health effects of radiation exposure, displacement, the dissolution of families, disruption of their lives and lifestyles and the contamination of vast areas of the environment". Investigation Committee[edit] Main article: Investigation Committee on the Accident at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Stations of Tokyo Electric Power Company The purpose of the Investigation Committee on the Accident at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Stations (ICANPS) was to identify the disaster's causes and propose policies designed to minimize the damage and prevent the recurrence of similar incidents.[286] The 10 member, government-appointed panel included scholars, journalists, lawyers and engineers.[287][288] It was supported by public prosecutors and government experts[289] and released its final, 448-page[290] investigation report on 23 July 2012.[21][291] The panel's report faulted an inadequate legal system for nuclear crisis management, a crisis-command disarray caused by the government and TEPCO, and possible excess meddling on the part of the Prime Minister's office in the crisis' early stage.[292] The panel concluded that a culture of complacency about nuclear safety and poor crisis management led to the nuclear disaster.[287] See also[edit]

List of civilian nuclear accidents Lists of nuclear disasters and radioactive incidents Timeline of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster Comparison of Fukushima and Chernobyl nuclear accidents Fukushima disaster cleanup Notes[edit]

Jump up ^ Negishi, Mayumi (12 April 2011). "Japan raises nuclear crisis severity to highest level". Reuters. Jump up ^ "Fukushima accident upgraded to severity level 7". IEEE Spectrum. 12 April 2011. ^ Jump up to: a b c "IAEA Update on Japan Earthquake". Retrieved 16 March 2011. "As reported earlier, a 400 millisieverts (mSv) per hour radiation dose observed at Fukushima Daiichi occurred between 1s 3 and 4. This is a high dose-level value, but it is a local value at a single location and at a certain point in time. The IAEA continues to confirm the evolution and value of this dose rate. It should be noted that because of this detected value, non-indispensable staff was evacuated from the plant, in line with the Emergency Response Plan, and that the population around the plant is already evacuated." Jump up ^ McCurry, Justin (24 March 2011). "Japan nuclear plant workers in hospital after radiation exposure". The Guardian. Retrieved 16 December 2013. Jump up ^ "Radiation-exposed workers to be treated at Chiba hospital". Kyodo News. 25 March 2011. Retrieved 17 April 2011.[dead link] Jump up ^ Wakatsuki, Yoko (20 February 2014). "New radioactive water leak at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi plant". cnn.com. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Phillip Lipscy, Kenji Kushida, and Trevor Incerti. 2013. "The Fukushima Disaster and Japan’s Nuclear Plant Vulnerability in Comparative Perspective." Environmental Science and Technology 47 (May), 6082-6088. Jump up ^ "Explainer: What went wrong in Japan's nuclear reactors". IEEE Spectrum. 4 April 2011. Jump up ^ "Analysis: A month on, Japan nuclear crisis still scarring" International Business Times (Australia). 9 April 2011, retrieved 12 April 2011; excerpt, According to James Acton, Associate of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, "Fukushima is not the worst nuclear accident ever but it is the most complicated and the most dramatic...This was a crisis that played out in real time on TV. Chernobyl did not." ^ Jump up to: a b c d Frank N. von Hippel (September/October 2011 vol. 67 no. 5). "The radiological and psychological consequences of the Fukushima Daiichi accident". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. pp. 27–36. Jump up ^ "Japan nuclear plant suffers worst radioactive water leak". cbcnews. 08/02/13. Retrieved 12/02/13. ^ Jump up to: a b c Nebehay, Stephanie (28 February 2013). "Higher cancer risk after Fukushima nuclear disaster: WHO". Reuters. Jump up ^ See Template:2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami casualties dead for updates and references for total casualties of this event. ^ Jump up to: a b Smith, Alexander (10 September 2013). "Fukushima evacuation has killed more than earthquake and tsunami, survey says". Retrieved 11 September 2013. ^ Jump up to: a b "Stress-induced deaths in Fukushima top those from 2011 natural disasters". ^ Jump up to: a b WHO 2013, p. 92. ^ Jump up to: a b http://science.time.com/2013/03/01/meltdown-despite-the-fear-the-health-risks-from-the-fukushima-accident-are-minimal/#ixzz2MnbjhPmv Meltdown: Despite the Fear, the Health Risks from the Fukushima Accident Are Minimal Time magazine article which includes a link to the WHO report, and explains the report in laymans terms. ^ Jump up to: a b c WHO 2013, p. 87-88. ^ Jump up to: a b c Ryall, Julian (19 July 2012). "Nearly 36pc of Fukushima children diagnosed with thyroid growths". The Telegraph UK. Jump up ^ National Diet of Japan Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission. "国会事故調 | 東京電力福島原子力発電所事故調査委員会のホームページ". National Diet of Japan Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission. Retrieved 9 July 2012. ^ Jump up to: a b "UPDATE: Government panel blasts lack of 'safety culture' in nuclear accident". The Asahi Shimbun. 23 July 2012. Retrieved 29 July 2012. Jump up ^ "Fukushima Event PCTRAN Analysis", Micro-Simulation Technology, April 2011 Jump up ^ "General Electric Knew Its Nuclear Reactor Design Was Unsafe … So Why Isn’t GE Getting Any Heat for Fukushima?" Jump up ^ Black, Richard (15 March 2011). "Reactor breach worsens prospects". BBC Online. Retrieved 23 March 2011. ^ Jump up to: a b c "OECD Timeline for the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident". Jump up ^ W. Maschek, A. Rineiski, M. Flad, V. Kriventsev, F. Gabrielli, K. Morita. "Recriticality, a Key Phenomenon to investigate in Core Disruptive Accident Scenarios of Current and Future Fast Reactor Designs". IAEA & Institute for Nuclear and Energy Technologies (IKET). Note: See picture in the upper left corner of page 2. ^ Jump up to: a b c d 24 Hours at Fukushima A blow-by-blow account of the worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl By Eliza Strickland Posted 31 Oct 2011 Jump up ^ "Fukushima nuclear accident update log, updates of 15 March 2011". IAEA. 15 March 2011. Retrieved 8 May 2011. Jump up ^ Hydrogen explosions Fukushima nuclear plant: what happened? Jump up ^ "MELCOR Model of the Spent Fuel Pool of Fukushima Dai-ichi Unit 4". Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Jump up ^ page 6 http://eetd-seminars.lbl.gov/sites/eetd-seminars.lbl.gov/files/Fukushima1_Technical_Perspective_LBL_EEDT_04052011-1.pdf What happened at Fukushima a Technical Perspective. Nuclear Regulatory Commission page 11, 26, 29. Jump up ^ Fackler, Martin (12 October 2012). "Japan Power Company Admits Failings on Plant Precautions". The New York Times. Retrieved 13 October 2012. Jump up ^ Sheldrick, Aaron (12 October 2012). "Fukushima operator must learn from mistakes, new adviser says". Reuters. Retrieved 13 October 2012. Jump up ^ Yamaguchi, Mari (12 October 2012). "Japan utility agrees nuclear crisis was avoidable". Boston.com. Associated Press. Retrieved 13 October 2012. Jump up ^ "Japanese nuclear plant operator admits playing down risk". CNN Wire Staff. CNN. 12 October 2012. Retrieved 13 October 2012. ^ Jump up to: a b Justin Mccurry (10 March 2014). "Fukushima operator may have to dump contaminated water into Pacific". The Guardian. Retrieved 10 March 2014. ^ Jump up to: a b Fukushima Plant Admits Radioactive Water Leaked To Sea. Huffingtonpost.com. Retrieved on 2013-09-06. ^ Jump up to: a b Adelman, Jacob. (2013-08-07) Abe Pledges Government Help to Stem Fukushima Water Leaks. Bloomberg. Retrieved on 2013-09-06. ^ Jump up to: a b "Wrecked Fukushima storage tank leaking highly radioactive water". Reuters. 20 August 2013. Retrieved 21 August 2013. Jump up ^ "Disaster response robots", Open Minds blog, featuring BBC Documentary Jump up ^ Yoichi Funabashi (11 March 2012). "The End of Japanese Illusions". New York Times. Jump up ^ Richard Tanter (October–December 2013, Vol. 37, No. 4). "After Fukushima: A Survey of Corruption in the Global Nuclear Power Industry". Asian Perspective. ^ Jump up to: a b Jeff Kingston (10 September 2012). "Japan’s Nuclear Village". Japan Focus. Jump up ^ Kaufmann, Daniel and Veronika Penciakova (17 March 2011). "Japan's triple disaster: Governance and the earthquake, tsunami and nuclear crises". Brookings Institution. Jump up ^ Culture of complicity tied to stricken nuclear plant, NYTimes, 27 April 2011 Jump up ^ "Japan to fire 3 top nuclear officials – CNN". Articles.cnn.com. 4 August 2011. Retrieved 11 August 2011. Jump up ^ "Fukushima Daiichi Information Screen". Icjt.org. Retrieved 15 March 2011. ^ Jump up to: a b c Brady, A. Gerald (1980). "An Investigation of the Miyagi-ken-oki, Japan, earthquake of June 12, 1978". In Ellingwood, Bruce. United States Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards. NBS special publication 592. p. 123. ^ Jump up to: a b "The record of the earthquake intensity observed at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station and Fukushima Daini Nuclear Power Station (Interim Report)". TEPCO (Press release). 1 April 2011. ^ Jump up to: a b "Fukushima faced 14-metre tsunami". World Nuclear News. 24 March 2011. Retrieved 24 March 2011. Jump up ^ "Fukushima to Restart Using MOX Fuel for First Time". Nuclear Street. 17 September 2010. Retrieved 12 March 2011. Jump up ^ Martin, Alex, "Lowdown on nuclear crisis and potential scenarios", Japan Times, 20 March 2011, p. 3. Jump up ^ "Fukushima: Background on Fuel Ponds" (PDF). Retrieved 23 November 2013. Jump up ^ "No. 1 fuel pool power to be restored: Tepco". Retrieved 20 March 2013. Jump up ^ "NISA – The 2011 off the Pacific coast of Tohoku Pacific Earthquake and the seismic damage to the NPPs, pg 35" (PDF). Retrieved 24 April 2011. ^ Jump up to: a b Grier, Peter (16 March 2011). "Meltdown 101: Why is Fukushima crisis still out of control?". Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 27 March 2011. Jump up ^ Helman, Christopher (15 March 2011). "Explainer: What caused the incident at Fukushima-Daiichi". Forbes. Retrieved 7 April 2011. Jump up ^ DOE fundamentals handbook – Decay heat, Nuclear physics and reactor theory at the Wayback Machine (archived March 16, 2011), Vol. 2, module 4, p. 61. Jump up ^ "What if it happened here?". Somdnews.com. Retrieved 7 April 2011. Jump up ^ "More on spent fuel pools at Fukushima". Allthingsnuclear.org. 21 March 2011. Retrieved 7 April 2011. Jump up ^ Higgins, Andrew, "disorder intensified Japan's crisis", The Washington Post, 19 April 2011, Retrieved 21 April 2011. Jump up ^ Pre-construction safety report – Sub-chapter 9.2 – Water Systems. AREVA NP / EDF, published 2009-06-29, Retrieved 23 March 2011. Jump up ^ Mike Soraghan (24 March 2011). "Japan disaster raises questions about backup power at US nuclear plants". The New York Times. Greenwire. Retrieved 7 April 2011. Jump up ^ "Regulatory effectiveness of the station blackout rule" (PDF). Retrieved 7 April 2011. Jump up ^ "Why has it become impossible for Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Station to cool reactor core?". Shimbun.denki.or.jp. Archived from the original on 2011-04-27. Retrieved 7 April 2011. ^ Jump up to: a b "The 2011 off the Pacific coast of Tohoku Pacific Earthquake and the seismic damage to the NPPs" (PDF). Retrieved 13 July 2011. ^ Jump up to: a b Shirouzu, Norihiko (1 July 2011). "Wall Street Journal: Design Flaw Fueled Nuclear Disaster". Online.wsj.com. Retrieved 13 July 2011. Jump up ^ Yoshida, Reiji, "GE plan followed with inflexibility", Japan Times, 14 July 2011, p. 1. Jump up ^ Arita, Eriko, "Disaster analysis you may not hear elsewhere", Japan Times, 20 March 2011, p. 12. Jump up ^ Agence France-Presse/Jiji Press, "Tsunami that knocked out nuke plant cooling systems topped 14 meters", Japan Times, 23 March 2011, p. 2. Jump up ^ "IAEA warned Japan over nuclear quake risk: WikiLeaks". physorg.com. Retrieved 26 March 2011. Jump up ^ "Plant Status of Fukushima Daini Nuclear Power Station (as of 0 AM March 12th )", TEPCO, end of day 11 April. Jump up ^ Fukushima No. 1 plant designed on 'trial-and-error' basis, Asahi Shimbun, 7 April 2011. Jump up ^ "Spraying continues at Fukushima Daiichi". 18 March 2011. Retrieved 19 March 2011. Jump up ^ "The Japanese Nuclear Emergency – Sydney Technical Presentation". Engineers Australia. 6 June 2011. Retrieved 22 August 2011.[dead link] Jump up ^ B. Cox, JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MATERIALS, PELLET CLAD INTERACTION (PCI) FAILURES OF ZIRCONIUM ALLOY FUEL CLADDING – A REVIEW, 1990, volume 172, pages 249–292 Jump up ^ The Mainichi Shimbun (28 28 February 2012)TEPCO ordered to report on change in piping layout at Fukushima plant Jump up ^ Norihiko Shirouzu and Rebecca Smith (16 March 2011). "Plant's design, safety record are under scrutiny". The Wall Street Journal. Jump up ^ "Environment: The San Jose Three". TIME Magazine. 16 February 1976. Retrieved 3 March 2012 Jump up ^ "Environment: The Struggle over Nuclear Power". TIME Magazine. 8 March 1976. Retrieved 3 March 2012. Jump up ^ ABC News. "Fukushima: Mark 1 Nuclear Reactor Design Caused GE Scientist To Quit In Protest". Retrieved 15 March 2011. Jump up ^ "Special report-fuel storage, safety issues vexed Japan plant". Reuters. 22 March 2011. Jump up ^ "Operator of Fukushima nuke plant admitted to faking repair records". Herald Sun. Australia. 20 March 2011. Retrieved 24 April 2011. Jump up ^ NHK-world (29 December 2011) Fukushima plant's backup generator failed in 1991. JAIF (30 December 2011)Eathquake report 304:Fukushima plant's backup generator failed in 1991. The Mainichi Daily News (30 December 2011) TEPCO neglected anti-flood measures at Fukushima plant despite knowing risk. Jump up ^ "TEPCO did not act on tsunami risk projected for nuclear plant |". Jagadees.wordpress.com. 2012-02-13. Retrieved 2013-12-30. Jump up ^ "AFERC urged to review assumption on Tsunami in 2009". Yomiuri News Paper. 11 March 2011. Retrieved 14 September 2013. Jump up ^ "Fukushima Nuclear Accident - U.S. NRC warned a risk on emergency power 20 years ago". Bloomberg L.P. 16 March 2011. Retrieved 14 September 2013. Jump up ^ "IAEA warned Japan over nuclear quake risk: WikiLeaks". physorg.com. Daily Telegraph. 17 March 2011. Jump up ^ "Magnitude 9.0 – near the East coast of Honshu, Japan". Earthquake.usgs.gov. Retrieved 17 March 2011. Jump up ^ "Plant Status of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station (as of 0AM March 12th )". TEPCO (Press release). 12 March 2011. Retrieved 13 March 2011. ^ Jump up to: a b "Occurrence of a specific incident stipulated in Article 10, Clause 1 of the Act on "Special measures concerning nuclear emergency preparedness (Fukushima Daiichi)"". TEPCO (Press release). 11 March 2011. Retrieved 13 March 2011. Jump up ^ Associated Press, "How the first 24 hours shaped Fukushima nuclear crisis", Japan Times, 7 July 2011, p. 3. ^ Jump up to: a b c "TEPCO press release 3". Tepco (Press release). 11 March 2011. ^ Jump up to: a b TEPCO tardy on N-plant emergency: National: Daily Yomiuri Online (The Daily Yomiuri). Yomiuri.co.jp (12 April 2011). Retrieved 30 April 2011. Jump up ^ Eric Talmadge (1 July 2011). "AP: First 24 hours shaped Japan nuke crisis". Google.com. Retrieved 13 July 2011. Jump up ^ Japan Meteorological Agency|Tsunami Warnings/Advisories, Tsunami Information. Jma.go.jp. Retrieved 30 April 2011. Jump up ^ Bloomberg, "Tepco revises tsunami's height to 15 meters", 10 April 2011, ^ Jump up to: a b David Sanger and Matthew Wald, Radioactive releases in Japan could last months, experts say. The New York Times 13 March 2011 Jump up ^ "Massive earthquake hits Japan". World Nuclear News. 11 March 2011. Retrieved 13 March 2011.; "Japan earthquake update (2030 CET)". International Atomic Energy Agency. 11 March 2011. Retrieved 12 March 2011. Jump up ^ Bloomberg L.P., "Time not on workers' side as crisis raced on", Japan Times, 5 May 2011, p. 3. Jump up ^ Inajima, Tsuyoshi; Okada, Yuji (11 March 2011). "Japan Orders Evacuation From Near Nuclear Plant After Quake". Bloomberg BusinessWeek. Retrieved 11 March 2011. Jump up ^ "Japan Earthquake Update (2210 CET)". International Atomic Energy Agency (Press release). 11 March 2011. Retrieved 12 March 2011. Jump up ^ Magnier, Mark et al. (16 March 2011). "New power line could restore cooling systems at Fukushima Daiichi plant". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 19 March 2011. Jump up ^ "Stabilisation at Fukushima Daiichi". World-nuclear-news.org. 20 March 2011. Retrieved 24 April 2011. Jump up ^ Richard Black (15 March 2011). "Japan quake: Radiation rises at Fukushima nuclear plant". BBC Online. Retrieved 15 March 2011. Jump up ^ "Japan's PM urges people to clear 20-km zone around Fukushima NPP (Update-1)". RIA Novosti. Retrieved 15 March 2011. Jump up ^ Makinen, Julie (25 March 2011). "Japan steps up nuclear plant precautions; Kan apologizes". Los Angeles Times. Jump up ^ Herman, Steve (12 April 2011). "VOA Correspondent Reaches Crippled Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant". VOA. Retrieved 5 March 2014. Jump up ^ Fukushima Timeline scientificamerican.com Jump up ^ The Evaluation Status of Reactor Core Damage at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station Units 1 to 3 November 30, 2011 Tokyo Electric Power Company Jump up ^ Uncertainties abound in Fukushima decommissioning. Phys.org. 19 Nov 2013. Jump up ^ Most of fuel NOT remaining in reactor1 core / Tepco "but molten fuel is stopped in the concrete base" Fukushima-Diary.com Jump up ^ "Most fuel in Fukushima 4 pool undamaged". world nucler news. 14 April 2011. Retrieved 27 January 2012. Jump up ^ "Japan Diplomat: Ground underneath Fukushima Unit 4 is sinking — More than 30 inches in some areas — Now in danger of collapse". ENENews. Retrieved 24 October 2012. "Due to its ground has been sinking, reactor 4 is now endangered in collapse. … According to secretary of former Prime Minister Kan, the ground level of the building has been sinking 80 cm … unevenly. Because the ground itself has the problem, whether the building can resist a quake bigger than M6 still remains a question." Jump up ^ "Gundersen: Japan ambassador confirms Fukushima Unit 4 is sinking unevenly — Building "may begin to be tilting"". ENENews. Retrieved 24 October 2012. "So I have been able to confirm that there is unequal sinking at Unit 4, not just the fact the site sunk by 36 inches immediately after the accident, but also that Unit 4 continues to sink something on the order of 0.8 meters, or around 30 inches." Jump up ^ "Seismic Damage Information (the 61st Release)". Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency. 29 March 2011. Retrieved 12 April 2011. Jump up ^ Cresswell, Adam (16 March 2011). "Stealthy, silent destroyer of DNA". The Australian Jump up ^ Fukushima radioactive fallout nears Chernobyl levels – 24 March 2011. New Scientist. Retrieved 30 April 2011. Jump up ^ Report: Emissions from Japan plant approach Chernobyl levels, USA Today, 24 March 2011 Jump up ^ Doughton, Sandi. (5 April 2011) Local News|Universities come through in monitoring for radiation|Seattle Times Newspaper. Seattletimes.nwsource.com. Retrieved 30 April 2011. Jump up ^ IRSN (26 October 2011). "Synthèse actualisée des connaissances relatives à l'impact sur le milieu marin des rejets radioactifs du site nucléaire accidenté de Fukushima Dai-ichi". Retrieved 3 January 2012. Jump up ^ Buesseler, Ken O.; Jayne, Steven R.; Fisher, Nicholas S.; Rypina, Irina I.; Baumann, Hannes; Baumann, Zofia; Breier, Crystaline F.; Douglass, Elizabeth M.; George, Jennifer; MacDonald, Alison M.; Miyamoto, Hiroomi; Nishikawa, Jun; Pike, Steven M.; Yoshida, Sashiko (2012). "Fukushima-derived radionuclides in the ocean and biota off Japan". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109 (16): 5984–8. doi:10.1073/pnas.1120794109. PMC 3341070. PMID 22474387. Jump up ^ "CTBTO to Share Data with IAEA and WHO". CTBTO Press Release 18 March 2011. Retrieved 17 May 2012. Jump up ^ "Fukushima-Related Measurements by the CTBTO". CTBTO Press Release 13 April 2011. Retrieved 17 May 2012. Jump up ^ "CTBTO Trakcs Fukushima's Radioactive Release". Animation CTBTO YouTube Channel. Retrieved 17 May 2012. ^ Jump up to: a b No-Man's Land Attests to Japan's Nuclear Nightmare. ABC News, 27. December 2011. Jump up ^ "Reactor accident Fukushima – New international study". Norwegian Institute for Air Research. 21 October 2011. Retrieved 20 January 2012. Jump up ^ David Guttenfelder (27 December 2011). "No-man's land attests to Japan's nuclear nightmare". theStar.com (Toronto). Retrieved 20 January 2012. Jump up ^ Kyodo News, "Radioactivity Dispersal Distance From Fukushima 1/10th Of Chernobyl's", 13 March 2012, (wire service report), "The data showed, for example, more than 1.48 million becquerels of radioactive caesium per square meter was detected in soil at a location some 250 kilometers away from the Chernobyl plant. In the case of the Fukushima Daiichi plant, the distance was much smaller at about 33 km, the officials said." Jump up ^ Hongo, Jun, "Fukushima soil fallout far short of Chernobyl", Japan Times, 15 March 2012, p. 1. Jump up ^ Michael Winter (24 March 2011). "Report: Emissions from Japan plant approach Chernobyl levels". USA Today. Jump up ^ Hamada, Nobuyuki. "Safety regulations of food and water implemented in the first year following the Fukushima nuclear accident". Oxford Journals. Retrieved 30 November 2013. ^ Jump up to: a b "福島産の新米、東京で販売開始　全袋検査に合格". 共同 Nikkei Kyodo news. 2012-09-01. Retrieved 18 April 2013. Jump up ^ JAIF (5 September 2011) NSC Recalculates Total Amount of Radioactive Materials Released Jump up ^ INES (the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale) Rating on the Events in Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Station by the Tohoku District – off the Pacific Ocean Earthquake. NISA/METI, 12 April 2011, archived from Original. Jump up ^ JAIF (9 September 2011) Radioactive release into sea estimated triple Jump up ^ JAIF 20 September 2011 Earthquake-report 211: A new plan set to reduce radiation emissions Jump up ^ Possibility of recriticality again, Fukushima Diary Jump up ^ Increasing leakage of Iodine-131, Fukushima Diary Jump up ^ IRSN (26 October 2011). "Synthèse actualisée des connaissances relatives à l'impact sur le milieu marin des rejets radioactifs du site nucléaire accidenté de Fukushima Dai-ichi". Retrieved 3 January 2012 Jump up ^ Daniel J. Madigan, Zofia Baumann, and Nicholas S. Fisher (29 May 2012). "Pacific bluefin tuna transport Fukushima-derived radionuclides from Japan to California". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109 (24): 9483–9486. doi:10.1073/pnas.1204859109. PMC 3386103. PMID 22645346 Jump up ^ Aoki, Mizuho, "Tohoku fears nuke crisis evacuees gone for good", Japan Times, 8 March 2012, p. 1. Jump up ^ TEPCO Press Release. "The Estimated Amount of Radioactive Materials Released into the Air and the Ocean Caused by Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station Accident Due to the Tohoku-Chihou-Taiheiyou-Oki Earthquake (As of May 2012)". TEPCO. Retrieved 24 May 2012. Jump up ^ Kevin Krolicki (24 May 2012). "Fukushima radiation higher than first estimated". Reuters. Retrieved 24 May 2012. Jump up ^ "TEPCO puts radiation release early in Fukushima crisis at 900 PBq". Kyodo News. 24 May 2012. Archived from the original on 8 Jul 2012. Retrieved 24 May 2012. Jump up ^ Boytchev, Hristio, "First study reports very low internal radioactivity after Fukushima disaster", Washington Post, 15 August 2012 Jump up ^ Ken O. Buesseler (26 October 2012). "Fishing for Answers off Fukushima". Science 338 (6106): 480–482. doi:10.1126/science.1228250. PMID 23112321. Jump up ^ "Fish Off Japan's Coast Said to Contain Elevated Levels of Cesium". New York Times Asia Pacific. 25 October 2012. Retrieved 28 October 2012. Jump up ^ (Dutch) Nu.nl (26 oktober 2012) Tepco sluit niet uit dat centrale Fukushima nog lekt Jump up ^ Volume of a Swimming Pool The Physics Factbook™ Edited by Glenn Elert -- Written by his students An educational, Fair Use website."2,500,000 liters" Jump up ^ Given that an Olympic swimming pool is 50 by 25 by 2 meters. It therefore contains 2,500 cubic meters of water. Each cubic meter of water is one metric ton. Jump up ^ "Japan nuclear agency upgrades Fukushima alert level". BBC. 21 August 2013. Retrieved 21 August 2013. Jump up ^ Takashi Hirokawa, Jacob Adelman, Peter Langan and Yuji Okada (26 August 2013). "Fukushima Leaks Prompt Government to 'Emergency Measures' (1)". Businessweek (Bloomberg). Retrieved 27 August 2013. Jump up ^ "Japan seeks outside help for contaminated water". World Nuclear News. 26 September 2013. Retrieved 1 October 2013. Jump up ^ "How TEPCO plans to build an ice wall at Fukushima". Nuclear Engineering International. 18 February 2014. Retrieved 19 February 2014. Jump up ^ date=9 February 2014. "TEPCO to review erroneous radiation data". NKH World. NHK. Retrieved 2014-02-09. "Tokyo Electric Power Company, or TEPCO, says it has detected a record high 5 million becquerels per liter of radioactive strontium in groundwater collected last July from one of the wells close to the ocean. ... Based on the result, levels of radioactive substances that emit beta particles are estimated to be 10 million becquerels per liter, which is more than 10 times the initial reading." Jump up ^ date=9 February 2014. "TEPCO to Review Erroneous Radiation Data". Yomiuri Online. Yomiuri Shimbun. Retrieved 2014-02-09. "On February 6, TEPCO announced that 5 million Bq/Liter of radioactive strontium was detected from the groundwater sample taken on June 5 last year from one of the observation wells on the embankment of Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant. The density is 160,000 times that of the legal limit for release into the ocean, and it is about 1,000 times that of the highest density in the groundwater that had been measured so far (5,100 Bq/L). TEPCO didn't disclose the result of measurement of strontium alone, as the company believed there was a possibility that the result of measurement was wrong. As to this particular sample, TEPCO had announced on July last year that the sample had contained 900,000 Bq/L of all-beta including strontium. On February 6, TEPCO explained that they had "underestimated all of the results of high-density all-beta, which exceeded the upper limit of measurement." This particular sample may contain about 10 million Bq/L of all-beta, according to TEPCO. The company recently switched to a different method of analysis that uses diluted samples when the density of radioactive materials is high." Jump up ^ http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/fukushimas-radioactive-ocean-plume-due-reach-us-waters-2014-f8C11050755 Jump up ^ http:// https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcQLxT49ZP0 Jump up ^ http://foodmatters.tv/articles-1/fukushima-radiation-taints-us-milk-supplies-at-levels-300-percent-higher-than-epa-maximums Jump up ^ http://www.businessinsider.com/san-francisco-rainwater-radiation-181-times-above-us-drinking-water-standard-2011-4 ^ Jump up to: a b Yoichi Funabashi and Kay Kitazawa (1 March 2012). "Fukushima in review: A complex disaster, a disastrous response". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Jump up ^ Hiroko Tabuchi (3 March 2012). "Japanese Prime Minister Says Government Shares Blame for Nuclear Disaster". The New York Times. ^ Jump up to: a b "AP Interview: Japan woefully unprepared for nuclear disaster, ex-prime minister says". ctv.ca. 17 February 2012. ^ Jump up to: a b Amory Lovins (2011). "Soft Energy Paths for the 21st Century". Jump up ^ "Japan did not keep records of nuclear disaster meetings". BBC Online. 27 January 2012. Jump up ^ "Fukushima Pref. deleted 5 days of radiation dispersion data just after meltdowns". The Mainichi Shimbun. 22 March 2012.[dead link] ^ Jump up to: a b "Report: Japan, utility at fault for response to nuclear disaster". LA Times. 26 December 2011. Jump up ^ Martin Fackler (27 February 2012). "Japan Weighed Evacuating Tokyo in Nuclear Crisis". The New York Times. Jump up ^ Yoshida, Reiji (17 March 2012). "Kan hero, or irate meddler?". Japan Times. p. 2. Jump up ^ Hongo, Jun (29 February 2012). "Panel lays bare Fukushima recipe for disaster". Japan Times. p. 1. Jump up ^ "Blow-ups happen: Nuclear plants can be kept safe only by constantly worrying about their dangers". The Economist. 10 March 2012. Jump up ^ Kyodo News (20 June 2012). "Japan sat on U.S. radiation maps showing immediate fallout from nuke crisis". Japan Times. p. 1. Jump up ^ "Japan failed to use U.S. radiation data gathered after nuke crisis". The Mainichi Shimbun. 18 June 2012. Jump up ^ Japan Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc. (JAIF) (19 June 2012). "Earthquake report 447"[dead link] Jump up ^ "NISA News Release April 12, 2011" (PDF). Retrieved 24 April 2011. ^ Jump up to: a b Directly comparing Fukushima to Chernobyl : Nature News Blog. Blogs.nature.com (2013-01-31). Retrieved on 2013-02-13. Jump up ^ Austria (12 April 2011). "IAEA Fukushima Nuclear Accident Update Log – Updates of 12 April 2011". Iaea.org. Retrieved 24 April 2011. ^ Jump up to: a b Press Release | The Estimated Amount of Radioactive Materials Released into the Air and the Ocean Caused by Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station Accident Due to the Tohoku-Chihou-Taiheiyou-Oki Earthquake (As of May 2012). TEPCO. Retrieved on 2013-02-13. ^ Jump up to: a b c Chapter II The release, dispersion and deposition of radionuclides - Chernobyl: Assessment of Radiological and Health Impact. Oecd-nea.org. Retrieved on 2013-02-13. Jump up ^ Cesium-137: A Deadly Hazard. Large.stanford.edu (2012-03-20). Retrieved on 2013-02-13. Jump up ^ Isotopic ratio of radioactive iodine (129I/131I) released from Fukushima Daiichi NPP accident Jump up ^ Brumfiel, Geoffrey (23 May 2012). "World Health Organization weighs in on Fukushima". Nature (journal). Retrieved 20 March 2013. Jump up ^ Brumfiel, Geoff. "Fukushima: Fallout of fear". Nature 493 (7432): 290–293. doi:10.1038/493290a. PMID 23325191. Jump up ^ Brumfiel, Geoff. "PRINT - FUKUSHIMA". Nature 485 (7399): 423–424. doi:10.1038/485423a. PMID 22622542. Jump up ^ WHO 2013, p. 42. Jump up ^ WHO News release "Global report on Fukushima nuclear accident details health risks" Jump up ^ Frequently asked questions on the Fukushima health risk assessment, questions 3 & 4 Jump up ^ WHO 2013, p. 83. Jump up ^ "Global report on Fukushima nuclear accident details health risks" Jump up ^ "WHO: Slight cancer risk after Japan nuke accident". Jump up ^ "WHO report: cancer risk from Fukushima is low". Nuclear Engineering International. 1 March 2013. Retrieved 6 March 2013. ^ Jump up to: a b c Walsh, Bryan. (2013-03-01) WHO Report Says That Fukushima Nuclear Accident Posed Minimal Risk to Health | TIME.com. Science.time.com. Retrieved on 2013-09-06. Jump up ^ WHO 2013, pp. 70, 79-80. Jump up ^ WHO 2013, p. 13. ^ Jump up to: a b Dennis Normile (27 July 2012). "Is Nuclear Power Good for You?". Science 337 (6093): 395. doi:10.1126/science.337.6093.395-b. Jump up ^ John E. Ten Hoeve and Mark Z. Jacobson (2012). "Worldwide health effects of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident". Energy & Environmental Science 5 (9): 8743. doi:10.1039/c2ee22019a. Retrieved 18 July 2012. Jump up ^ Normile, D. (2011). "Fukushima Revives the Low-Dose Debate". Science 332 (6032): 908–910. doi:10.1126/science.332.6032.908. PMID 21596968. edit Jump up ^ researcher points to suppression of evidence on radiation effects by 1946 Nobel Laureate. Eurekalert.org (2011-09-20). Retrieved on 2013-09-06. Jump up ^ Muller’s Nobel lecture on dose–response for ionizing radiation: ideology or science? - Springer. Link.springer.com (1946-12-12). Retrieved on 2013-09-06. Jump up ^ Key studies used to support cancer risk assessment questioned - Calabrese - 2011 - Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis -Wiley Online Library. Onlinelibrary.wiley.com (2011-07-22). Retrieved on 2013-09-06. Jump up ^ Welch, H. Gilbert; Woloshin, Steve; Schwartz, Lisa A. (2011). Overdiagnosed: Making People Sick in the Pursuit of Health. Beacon Press. pp. 61–34. ISBN 0-8070-2200-4. Jump up ^ "Fukushima kids have skyrocketing number of thyroid abnormalities - report". Russia Times. 18 February 2013. Jump up ^ "More suspected and confirmed cases of thyroid cancer diagnosed in Fukushima children". Asahi. 13 November 2013. Jump up ^ cancer.org Thyroid Cancer By the American Cancer Society. In turn citing: AJCC Cancer Staging Manual (7th ed). Jump up ^ Brumfiel, Geoff (10 September 2012). "Fukushima's doses tallied". Retrieved 23 May 2013. Jump up ^ Zablotska, Lydia (8 November 2012). "Chernobyl Cleanup Workers Had Significantly Increased Risk of Leukemia". UCSF. ^ Jump up to: a b "Disturbing thyroid cancer rise in Fukushima minors". RT. 21 August 2013. ^ Jump up to: a b "Radioactivity and thyroid cancer* Christopher Reiners Clinic and Polyclinic of Nuclear Medicine University of Würzburg. See Figure 1. Thyroid cancer Incidence in children and adolescents from Belarus after the Chernobyl accident". Jump up ^ "Chernobyl: the true scale of the accident. 20 Years Later a UN Report Provides Definitive Answers and Ways to Repair Lives". Jump up ^ Sugimoto T, Shinozaki T, Miyamoto Y Aftershocks Associated With Impaired Health Caused by the Great East Japan Disaster Among Youth Across Japan: A National Cross-Sectional Survey Interact J Med Res 2013;2(2):e31 URL: http://www.i-jmr.org/2013/2/e31/ doi:10.2196/ijmr.2585 ^ Jump up to: a b Studying the Fukushima Aftermath: 'People Are Suffering from Radiophobia' - SPIEGEL ONLINE. Spiegel.de (2011-08-19). Retrieved on 2013-09-06. ^ Jump up to: a b "Evacuees of Fukushima village report split families, growing frustration". Mainichi Daily News. 30 January 2012. Jump up ^ Katherine Harmon (2 March 2012). "Japan's Post-Fukushima Earthquake Health Woes Go Beyond Radiation Effects". Nature. Jump up ^ Michael Moyer (21 June 2011). "Are Babies Dying in the Pacific Northwest Due to Fukushima? A Look at the Numbers". Blogs. Jump up ^ "Rain raises fear of more contamination at Fukushima". 4 Jun 2011. Jump up ^ "about the situation at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant". 3 Feb 2014. Jump up ^ "estimates claims burden from earthquake in Japan at around €1.5bn". Munich Re. 22 March 2011. Retrieved 24 April 2011. Jump up ^ Swiss Re provides estimate of its claims costs from Japan earthquake and tsunami, Swiss Re, news release, 21 March 2011 Jump up ^ Kazuaki Nagata (3 January 2012). "Fukushima meltdowns set nuclear energy debate on its ear". The Japan Times. Jump up ^ Tsuyoshi Inajima and Yuji Okada (28 Oct 2011). "Nuclear Promotion Dropped in Japan Energy Policy After Fukushima". Bloomberg. Jump up ^ Mari Yamaguchi (September 2011). "Kenzaburo Oe, Nobel Winner Urges Japan To Abandon Nuclear Power". Huffington Post. Jump up ^ Japanese nuclear plant survived tsunami, offers clues. Reuters. Retrieved on 2013-09-06. Jump up ^ "Fukushima Starts Long Road To Recovery". NPR. 2012-03-10. Retrieved 2012-04-16. Jump up ^ "Neon city goes dim as power shortage threatens traffic lights and telephones in Tokyo". news.com.au. 15 March 2011. Jump up ^ Yuri Kageyama, dealing with power shortage. Associated Press, 22 May 2011 Jump up ^ Benjamin K. Sovacool (2011). Contesting the Future of Nuclear Power: A Critical Global Assessment of Atomic Energy, World Scientific, p. 287. Jump up ^ Denis Gray (6 April 2011). "Activists call for renewable energy at UN meeting". The Guardian (London). Jump up ^ Chisaki Watanabe (26 August 2011). "Japan Spurs Solar, Wind Energy With Subsidies, in Shift From Nuclear Power". Bloomberg. Jump up ^ Mycle Schneider (9 September 2011). "Fukushima crisis: Can Japan be at the forefront of an authentic paradigm shift?". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. ^ Jump up to: a b "Japan Plans Floating Wind Power Plant". Breakbulk. 16 September 2011. Retrieved 12 October 2011. Jump up ^ Elaine Kurtenbach. "Japan starts up offshore wind farm near Fukushima" The Sydney Morning Herald, 12 November 2013. Accessed: 11 November 2013. Jump up ^ Joshua S Hill (2013-12-11). "Canadian Solar Signs Loan Agreement For Japan Development". CleanTechnica. Retrieved 2013-12-30. Jump up ^ Carol J. Williams (14 September 2012). "In wake of Fukushima disaster, Japan to end nuclear power by 2030s". LA Times. Jump up ^ Gerhardt, Tina (22 July 2012). "After Fukushima, Nuclear Power on Collision Course With Japanese Public". Alternet. Retrieved 8 August 2013. Jump up ^ "Abe dismisses Koizumi’s call for zero nuclear power plants". Asahi Shimbun. 2013-10-25. Retrieved 2013-12-30. Jump up ^ "Supporters of zero nuclear power "irresponsible": Abe". Jump up ^ "Most Japan cities hosting nuclear plants OK restart: survey". Bangkok Post. Retrieved 2013-12-30. Jump up ^ United Press International (2 June 2013). "60,000 protest Japan's plan to restart nuclear power plants". UPI Asia. Jump up ^ "Japan's Fuel Costs May Rise to 7.5 Trillion Yen, Meti Estimates". Jump up ^ Maeda, Risa. "Japanese nuclear plant survived tsunami, offers clues". Reuters. Retrieved 2013-10-27. Jump up ^ IAEA Expert Team Concludes Mission to Onagawa NPP Jump up ^ Japanese nuclear plant ‘remarkably undamaged’ in earthquake – UN atomic agency. Jump up ^ Hydrogen fix for Japanese reactors Jump up ^ Hydrogen recombiners at all 20 NPC plants to avoid Fukushima. Sanjay Jog | Mumbai 7 April 2011 Last Updated at 00:29 IST Jump up ^ CFD analysis of passive autocatalytic recombiner interaction with atmosphere. Archive Kerntechnik - Issue 2011/02. Jump up ^ "Nuclear chief: U.S. plants safer after Japan crisis. March 10, 2013". Jump up ^ "Vents and Filtering Strategies Come to Forefront in Fukushima Response Nuclear Energy Insight. Fall 2012". Jump up ^ "TEPCO implements new safety measures in bid to restart Niigata reactors". Jump up ^ "Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant shown to reporters". Jump up ^ Nuclear power plant operator in China orders backup batteries for installation at plants 7 September 2012 Jump up ^ China’s Guangdong Nuclear Power Corp Announces Orders for BYD Battery Back-up for Nuclear Plants Jump up ^ The Notstand building, a bunkered facility which could support all of the plant systems for at least 72 hours given a severe flood or earthquake which could take out the normal power and cooling facilities. I asked Martin Richner, the head of risk assessment, why Beznau spent so much money on the Notstand building when there was no regulation or government directive to do so. Martin answered me, "Woody, we live here." Jump up ^ "A PRA Practioner Looks at the Fukushima Daiichi Accident". Jump up ^ "2012 20th International Conference on Nuclear Engineering and the ASME 2012 Power Conference". Jump up ^ "Gen III reactor design 04/06/2011 By Brian Wheeler Associate Editor". Jump up ^ "Nuclear Science and Techniques 24 (2013) 040601 Study on the long-term passive cooling extension of AP1000 reactor". Jump up ^ "Areas to which evacuation orders have been issued". August 7, 2013. Jump up ^ "Designating and Rearranging the Areas of Evacuation (pg 7)". ^ Jump up to: a b "U.N. atom body wants wider nuclear safety checks". Reuters. 15 August 2011. Jump up ^ Brasor, Philip, "Public wary of official optimism", Japan Times, 11 March 2012, p. 11. ^ Jump up to: a b Norimitsu Onishi (8 August 2011). "Japan Held Nuclear Data, Leaving Evacuees in Peril". The New York Times. ^ Jump up to: a b Charles Digges (10 August 2011). "Japan ignored its own radiation forecasts in days following disaster, imperiling thousands". Bellona. Jump up ^ "Analysis: A month on, Japan nuclear crisis still scarring," International Business Times (Australia). 9 April 2011, retrieved 12 April 2011; excerpt, According to James Acton, Associate of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, "Fukushima is not the worst nuclear accident ever but it is the most complicated and the most dramatic ... This was a crisis that played out in real time on TV. Chernobyl did not." Jump up ^ HASEGAWA, KOICHI. 2012 "Facing Nuclear Risks: Lessons from the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster." International Journal of Japanese Sociology 21(1):84-91. Retrieved from EBSCOhost on 12 November 2012 Jump up ^ Hiroko Tabuchi (13 July 2011). "Japan Premier Wants Shift Away From Nuclear Power". The New York Times. Jump up ^ Naoto Kan (2013-10-28). "Encountering the Fukushima Daiichi Accident". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 2013-11-09. Jump up ^ (dutch)Nu.nl (22 August 2011)Area around Fukushima maybe a forbidden zone for decades to come Jump up ^ The Guardian (22 August 2011)residents may never return to radiation-hit homes Jump up ^ Earthquake Report – JAIF, No. 45: 20:00, 7 April. JAIF / NHK, 7 April 2011, archived from original on 9 April 2011, Retrieved 9 April 2011. Jump up ^ Al-Jazeera English: Citizen group tracks down Japan's radiation (10 August 2011) Jump up ^ Safecast Organization Official Blog Jump up ^ Franken, Pieter (17 January 2014). Volunteers Crowdsource Radiation Monitoring to Map Potential Risk on Every Street in Japan. Interview with Amy Goodman. Democracy Now!. Tokyo, Japan. Retrieved 17 January 2014. Jump up ^ UC Berkeley Nuclear Engineering Air Monitoring Station | The Nuclear Engineering Department at UC Berkely web site Jump up ^ 14 March 2011 (14 March 2011). "USS Ronald Reagan Exposed to Radiation". Navy Handbook. Retrieved 18 March 2011. Jump up ^ "IAEA sees slow nuclear growth post Japan". UPI. 23 September 2011. Jump up ^ Julie Makinen, Ralph Vartabedian (9 April 2011). "Containing a calamity creates another nuclear nightmare". Sydney Morning Herald. Jump up ^ Nucléaire : une trentaine de réacteurs dans le monde risquent d'être fermés Les Échos, published 12 April 2011, accessed 15 April 2011 Jump up ^ "Gauging the pressure". The Economist. 28 April 2011. Jump up ^ RAFAEL POCH (31/05/2011). "Merkel se despide de lo nuclear y anuncia una revolución en renovables" (in Spanish). LAVANGUARDIA.com. Retrieved 26 January 2014. Jump up ^ "Italy nuclear: Berlusconi accepts referendum blow". BBC News. 14 June 2011. Retrieved 26 January 2014. Jump up ^ Rob Broomby (11 January 2014). "France struggles to cut down on nuclear power". BBC News Magazine. Retrieved 26 January 2014. Jump up ^ Damian, Carrington (23 June 2011). "Citizens across world oppose nuclear power, poll finds". The Guardian. Retrieved 26 January 2014. Jump up ^ "Fukushima nuclear accident 'man-made', not natural disaster". Bloomberg L.P. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 9 July 2012. Jump up ^ "Japan says Fukushima disaster was 'man-made'". Al Jazeera and agencies. AL Jazeera English. 5 July 2012. Retrieved 9 July 2012. Jump up ^ "Official website of the Investigation Committee on the Accident at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Stations of Tokyo Electric Power Company". Retrieved 29 July 2012. "This committee was established with the aim of conducting an investigation to determine the causes of the accident that occurred at Fukushima Daiichi and Daini Nuclear Power Stations of Tokyo Electric Power Company, and those of the damages generated by the accident, and thereby making policy proposals designed to prevent the expansion of the damages and the recurrence of similar accidents in the future." ^ Jump up to: a b "Japan nuclear plants 'still not safe'". Al Jazeera Online. 23 July 2012. Retrieved 29 July 2012. Jump up ^ "Japan, TEPCO ignored atomic accident risks due to 'myth of nuclear safety': Report". Asian News International (ANI). News Track India. 23 July 2012. Retrieved 29 July 2012. Jump up ^ Mitsuru Obe and Eleanor Warnock (23 July 2012). "Japan Panel Says Plant Operator Falls Short on Nuclear Safety". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 30 July 2012. Jump up ^ Tsuyoshi Inajima and Yuji Okada (23 July 2012). "Fukushima Investigators Say More Study Needed on What Went Wrong". Bloomsberg Businessweek. Retrieved 29 July 2012. Jump up ^ Hancocks, Paula (23 July 2012). "New report criticizes TEPCO over Fukushima nuclear crisis". CNN. Retrieved 29 July 2012. Jump up ^ Kazuaki Nagata (24 July 2012). "Government, Tepco again hit for nuke crisis". The Japan Times. Retrieved 29 July 2012. References[edit]

WHO (2013). Health risk assessment from the nuclear accident after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami. ISBN 978 92 4 150513 0. Retrieved December 2013. External links[edit]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Fukushima Daichi nuclear disaster. Investigation[edit] The Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission Report website in English Executive summary of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission Report Investigation Committee on the accidents at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Station of Tokyo Electric Power Company Video[edit] Webcam Fukushima nuclear power plant I, Unit 1 through Unit 4 Inside the slow and dangerous clean up of the Fukushima nuclear crisis Drawing and Imagery[edit] TerraFly Timeline Aerial Imagery of Fukushima Nuclear Reactor after 2011 Tsunami and Earthquake In graphics: Fukushima nuclear alert, as provided by the BBC, 9 July 2012 Other[edit] TEPCO News Releases, Tokyo Electric Power Company "Reassessment of Fukushima Nuclear Accident and Outline of Nuclear Safety Reform Plan(Interim Report)" by TEPCO Nuclear Reform Special Task Force.14 December 2012 [show] v t e 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami [show] v t e Nuclear power in Japan [show] v t e Asia pollution topics Categories: 2011 in the environment2011 industrial disastersFukushima Daiichi nuclear disasterCivilian nuclear power accidentsFukushima PrefectureNuclear accidents and incidents Navigation menu Create accountLog inArticleTalkReadEditView history

Main page Contents Featured content Current events Random article Donate to Wikipedia Wikimedia Shop Interaction Help About Wikipedia Community portal Recent changes Contact page Tools Print/export Languages العربية Беларуская Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ Български Brezhoneg Català Чӑвашла Čeština Cymraeg Dansk Deutsch Eesti Ελληνικά Español Euskara فارسی Français Gaeilge Galego 한국어 Hrvatski Bahasa Indonesia Italiano עברית Basa Jawa Latviešu Magyar മലയാളം Bahasa Melayu Nederlands 日本語 Norsk bokmål Occitan ਪੰਜਾਬੀ Polski Português Română Rumantsch Русский Simple English Slovenčina Slovenščina Српски / srpski Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски Suomi Svenska தமிழ் ไทย Türkçe Українська Tiếng Việt 粵語 中文 Edit links This page was last modified on 1 April 2014 at 18:32. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. Privacy policyAbout WikipediaDisclaimersContact WikipediaDevelopersMobile viewWikimedia Foundation Powered by MediaWiki ไทย Türkçe Українська Tiếng Việt 粵語 中文 Edit links This page was last modified on 1 April 2014 at 18:32. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. Privacy policyAbout WikipediaDisclaimersContact WikipediaDevelopersMobile viewWikimedia Foundation Powered by MediaWiki

Background

A national program to develop robots for use in nuclear emergencies was terminated in midstream as a way of implying that they were unneeded. Japan, supposedly a leader in robotics, had none to send into Fukushima when the crisis began. The Japanese government sent a request for robots developed by the US military to help deal with the crisis. The robots went into the plants, and took pictures to help assess the situation. But they couldn't perform human tasks. Following Fukushima, efforts to develop humanoid robots that could supplement relief efforts have accelerated dramatically.

Similarly, Japan's Nuclear Safety Commission said in its safety guidelines for light-water nuclear facilities that "the potential for extended loss of power need not be considered.".

Regulation

Three investigations into the Fukushima disaster showed the man-made nature of the catastrophe and its roots in regulatory capture associated with a "network of corruption, collusion, and nepotism". Regulatory capture refers to the "situation where regulators charged with promoting the public interest defer to the wishes and advance the agenda of the industry or sector they ostensibly regulate". Those with a vested interest in specific policy or regulatory outcomes lobby regulators and influence their choices and actions. Regulatory capture explains why some of the risks of operating nuclear power reactors in Japan were systematically downplayed and mismanaged so as to compromise operational safety.

Critics argue that the government shares blame with the regulatory agency for not heeding warnings and for not ensuring the independence of the oversight function. The New York Times alleged that the Japanese nuclear regulatory system sided with and promoted the nuclear industry because of amakudari ('descent from heaven') in which senior regulators accepted high paying jobs at companies they once oversaw. To protect their potential future position in the industry, regulators sought to avoid taking positions that upset or embarrass the companies. TEPCO's position as the largest electrical utility in Japan made it the most desirable position for retiring regulators. Typically the "most senior officials went to work at Tepco, while those of lower ranks ended up at smaller utilities".

In August 2011, several top energy officials were fired by the Japanese government; affected positions included the Vice-minister for Economy, Trade and Industry; the head of the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, and the head of the Agency for Natural Resources and Energy.

Plant description

Main article: Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant

• 
  Fukushima Daiichi I nuclear powerplant site close-up.
• 
  Map of Japan's electricity distribution network, showing incompatible systems between regions. Fukushima is in the 50 Hertz Tohoku region.
• 
  Simplified cross-section sketch of a typical BWR Mark I containment as used in units 1 to 5.
  Key:
  RPV: reactor pressure vessel.
  DW: dry well enclosing reactor pressure vessel.
  WW: wet well - torus-shaped all around the base enclosing steam suppression pool. Excess steam from the dry well enters the wet well water pool via downcomer pipes.
  SFP: spent fuel pool area.
  SCSW: secondary concrete shield wall.

The Fukushima I (Daiichi) Nuclear Power Plant consists of six GE light water, boiling water reactors (BWR) with a combined power of 4.7 gigawatts, making Fukushima Daiichi one of the world's 25 largest nuclear power stations. Fukushima Daiichi was the first GE-designed nuclear plant to be constructed and run entirely by the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO).

Reactor 1 is a 439 MWe type (BWR-3) reactor constructed in July 1967. It commenced operation on 26 March 1971. It was designed to withstand an earthquake with a peak ground acceleration of 0.18 g (1.74 m/s²) and a response spectrum based on the 1952 Kern County earthquake. Reactors 2 and 3 are both 784 MWe type BWR-4. Reactor 2 commenced operating in July 1974, and reactor 3 in March 1976. The earthquake design basis for all units ranged from 0.42 g (4.12 m/s²) to 0.46 g (4.52 m/s²).

All units were inspected after the 1978 Miyagi earthquake when the ground acceleration reached 0.125 g (1.22 m/s²) for 30 seconds, but no damage to the critical parts of the reactor was discovered.

Units 1–5 have a Mark 1 type (light bulb torus) containment structure; unit 6 has Mark 2 type (over/under) containment structure. In September 2010, reactor 3 was partially fueled by mixed-oxides (MOX).

At the time of the accident, the units and central storage facility contained the following numbers of fuel assemblies:

Location	Unit 1	Unit 2	Unit 3	Unit 4	Unit 5	Unit 6	Central Storage
Reactor Fuel Assemblies	400	548	548	0	548	764	0
Spent Fuel Assemblies	292	587	514	1331	946	876	6375
Fuel	UO 2	UO 2	UO 2/MOX	UO 2	UO 2	UO 2	UO 2
New Fuel Assemblies	100	28	52	204	48	64	N/A

There is no MOX fuel in any of the cooling ponds. The only MOX fuel is loaded in the Unit 3 reactor.

Cooling requirements

Diagrammatic representation of the cooling systems of a BWR.

See also: Decay heat – Power reactors in shutdown and Nuclear reactor safety systems

These reactors generate electricity by using the heat of the fission reaction to create steam. When the reactor stops operating, the radioactive decay of unstable isotopes continues to generate heat for a time. This decay and the decay heat that results requires continued cooling. Initially this decay heat amounts to approximately 6% of the amount produced by fission, decreasing over several days before reaching cold shutdown levels.

Exhausted fuel rods that have reached cold shutdown temperatures typically require several years in a spent fuel pool before they can be safely transferred to dry cask storage vessels.

The decay heat in the unit 4 spent fuel pool had the capacity to boil about 70 tonnes of water per day (12 gallons per minute). On 16 April 2011, TEPCO declared that cooling systems for units 1-4 were beyond repair and would have to be replaced.

Cooling systems

In the reactor core, circulation is accomplished via high pressure systems that cycle water between the reactor pressure vessel and heat exchangers. These systems then transfer heat to a secondary heat exchanger via the essential service water system, using water that is pumped out to sea or an onsite cooling tower.

When the reactor is not producing electricity, cooling pumps can be powered by other reactor units, the grid or by diesel generators or batteries.

Units 2 and 3 were equipped with steam-turbine driven emergency core cooling systems that can be directly operated by steam produced by decay heat and which can inject water directly into the reactor. Some electrical power is needed to operate valves and monitoring systems.

Unit 1 was equipped with a different cooling system, the "Isolation Condenser" or "IC", which is entirely passive. This consists of a series of pipes run from the reactor core to the inside of a large tank of water. When the valves are opened, steam flows upward to the IC where the cool water in the tank condenses the steam back to water, and it runs under gravity back to the reactor core. For reasons that are not entirely clear, unit 1's IC was operated only intermittently during the emergency.

Backup generators

Two emergency diesel generators were available for each of units 1–5 and three for unit 6.

In the late 1990s, three additional backup generators for units 2 and 4 were placed in new buildings located higher on the hillside, to comply with new regulatory requirements. All six units were given access to these generators, but the switching stations that sent power from these backup generators to the reactors' cooling systems for units 1 through 5 were still in the poorly protected turbine buildings. All three of the generators added in the late 1990s were operational after the tsunami. If the switching stations had been moved to inside the reactor buildings or to other flood-proof locations, power would have been provided by these generators to the reactors' cooling systems.

The reactor's emergency diesel generators and DC batteries, crucial components in powering cooling systems after a power loss, were located in the basements of the reactor turbine buildings, in accordance with GE's specifications. Mid-level engineers expressed concerns that this left them vulnerable to flooding.

Fukushima I was not designed for such a large tsunami, nor had the reactors been modified when concerns were raised in Japan and by the IAEA.

Fukushima II was also struck by the tsunami. However, it had incorporated design changes that improved its resistance to flooding, reducing flood damage. Generators and related electrical distribution equipment were located in the watertight reactor building, so that power from the electricity grid was being used by midnight. Seawater pumps for cooling were protected from flooding, and although 3 of 4 initially failed, they were restored to operation.

Central fuel storage areas

Used fuel assemblies taken from reactors are initially stored for at least 18 months in the pools adjacent to their reactors. They can then be transferred to the central fuel storage pond. Fukushima I's storage area contains 6375 fuel assemblies. After further cooling, fuel can be transferred to dry cask storage, which has shown no signs of abnormalities.

Zircaloy

Many of the internal components and fuel assembly cladding are made from zircaloy. At normal operating temperatures of approximately 300 °C (572 °F), zircaloy is inert. However, above 500 degrees celsius in the presence of steam, zircaloy undergoes an exothermic oxidizing reaction and produces free hydrogen gas. The reaction between the zirconium and the fuel can lower the fuel's melting point and thus speed up a core melt.

Safety issues

1967: Layout of the emergency-cooling system

Fukushima reactor control room.

On 27 February 2012, NISA ordered TEPCO to report by 12 March 2012 regarding its reasoning in changing the piping layout for the emergency cooling system. These changes were made after the plans were registered in 1966 and the beginning of construction.

The original plans separated the piping systems for two reactors in the isolation condenser from each other. However, the application for approval of the construction plan showed the two piping systems connected outside the reactor. The changes were not noted, in violation of regulations.

After the tsunami, the isolation condenser should have taken over the function of the cooling pumps, by condensing the steam from the pressure vessel into water to be used for cooling the reactor. But the condenser did not function properly and TEPCO could not confirm whether a valve was opened.

1976: Falsification of safety records

Fukushima Daiichi was central to a falsified-records scandal that led to the departure of senior TEPCO executives. It also led to disclosures of previously unreported problems, although testimony by Dale Bridenbaugh, a lead GE designer, claimed that GE was warned of major design flaws in 1976, resulting in the resignations of several GE designers who protested GE's negligence.

In 2002, TEPCO admitted falsifying safety records for unit 1. The scandal and a fuel leak at Fukushima Daini forced the company to shut all 17 of its reactors. A power board distributing electricity to temperature control valves was not examined for 11 years. Inspections did not cover cooling systems devices such as water pump motors and diesel generators.

1991: Back-up generator of reactor 1 flooded

On 30 October 1991, one of two backup generators of reactor 1 failed, after flooding in the reactor's basement. Seawater used for cooling leaked into the turbine building from a corroded pipe at 20 cubic meters per hour, as reported by former employees in December 2011. An engineer was quoted as saying that he informed his superiors and of the possibility that a tsunami could damage the generators. TEPCO installed doors to prevent water from leaking into the generator rooms.

The Japanese Nuclear Safety Commission commented that it would revise its safety guidelines and would require the installation of additional power sources. On 29 December 2011, TEPCO admitted all these facts: its report mentioned that the room was flooded through a door and some holes for cables, but the power supply was not cut off by the flooding, and the reactor was stopped for one day. One of the two power sources was completely submerged, but its drive mechanism had remained unaffected.

2008: Tsunami study ignored

In 2007, TEPCO set up a department to supervise its nuclear facilities. Until June 2011 its chairman was Masao Yoshida, the Fukushima Daiichi chief. A 2008 in-house study identified an immediate need to better protect the facility from flooding by seawater. This study mentioned the possibility of tsunami-waves up to 10.2 metres (33 ft). Headquarters officials insisted that such a risk was unrealistic and did not take the prediction seriously.

A Mr. Okamura of the Active Fault and Earthquake Research Center urged TEPCO and NISA to review their assumption of possible tsunami heights based on a tenth century earthquake, but it was not seriously considered at that time. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission warned of a risk of losing emergency power in 1991 (NUREG-1150) and NISA referred to the report in 2004. No action to mitigate the risk was taken.

Location

The plant was located in Japan, which, like the rest of the Pacific Rim, is in an active seismic zone. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had expressed concern about the ability of Japan's nuclear plants to withstand seismic activity. At a 2008 meeting of the G8's Nuclear Safety and Security Group in Tokyo, an IAEA expert warned that a strong earthquake with a magnitude above 7.0 could pose a "serious problem" for Japan's nuclear power stations. The region had experienced three earthquakes of magnitude greater than 8, including the 869 Jogan Sanriku earthquake, the 1896 Meiji-Sanriku earthquake, and the 1933 Sanriku earthquake.

Events

Further information: Timeline of the Fukushima I nuclear accidents and 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami

Earthquake

File:Nuclear plants Japan in 2011.svg

Position of Japanese nuclear power stations as they relate to the epicenter of the quake and the tsunami that followed. Fukushima I was the second closest power station to the epicenter of the earthquake, after Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant.

The 9.0 M_W Tōhoku earthquake occurred at 14:46 on Friday, 11 March 2011 with epicenter near Honshu Island. It produced maximum ground g-forces of 0.56, 0.52, 0.56 (5.50, 5.07 and 5.48 m/s²) at units 2, 3 and 5 respectively. This exceeded their design tolerances of 0.45, 0.45 and 0.46 g (4.38, 4.41 and 4.52 m/s²). The shock values were within the design tolerances at units 1, 4 and 6.

When the earthquake struck, units 1, 2 and 3 were operating, but units 4, 5 and 6 had been shut down for periodic inspection. Reactors 1, 2 and 3 immediately underwent an automatic shutdown (called SCRAM).

When the reactors shut down, the plant stopped generating electricity, cutting off power. One of the two connections to off-site power for units 1–3 also failed, so 13 on-site emergency diesel generators began providing power.

Tsunami

The height of the tsunami that struck the station approximately 30 minutes after the earthquake. A:Power station buildings B:peak height of tsunami C:Ground level of site D:average sea level E: Sea Wall to block waves.

The earthquake triggered a 13-to-15-metre (43 to 49 ft) maximum height tsunami that arrived approximately 50 minutes later. The waves overtopped the plant's 10 metres (33 ft) seawall, flooding the basements of the turbine buildings and disabling the emergency diesel generators at approximately 15:41.

TEPCO then notified authorities of a "first level emergency".

The switching stations that provided power from the three backup generators located higher on the hillside failed when the building that housed them flooded. Power for control systems switched over to batteries that were designed to last about eight hours. Further batteries and mobile generators were dispatched to the site. They were delayed by poor road conditions and the first arrived only at 21:00 11 March, almost six hours after the tsunami.

Multiple unsuccessful attempts were made to connect portable generating equipment to power water pumps. The failure was attributed to flooding at the connection point in the Turbine Hall basement and the absence of suitable cables. TEPCO switched its efforts to installing new lines from the grid. One generator at unit 6 resumed operation on 17 March, while external power returned to units 5 and 6 only on 20 March.

Evacuation

The government initially set in place a 4-stage evacuation process: a prohibited access area out to 3 km, an on-alert area 3–20 km and an evacuation prepared area 20–30 km. On day one nearly 134,000 people were evacuated from the prohibited access and on-alert areas. Four days later an additional 354,000 were evacuated from the prepared area. Later, Prime Minister Kan instructed people within the on-alert area to leave, and urged those in the prepared area to stay indoors. The latter groups were urged to evacuate on 25 March.

The 20 kilometer exclusion zone was guarded by only lightly manned roadblocks.

Units 1, 2 and 3

File:Fukushima MAAP Report Nov2011 – Unit 1.jpg

The suspected location of molten fuel inside Unit 1, according to the MAAP report from November 2011. Most of the fuel from Unit 1 is assumed to be at the bottom of the Primary Containment Vessel (PCV), where it is estimated to be "well cooled down".

See also: Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster (Unit 1 Reactor), Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster (Unit 2 Reactor), and Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster (Unit 3 Reactor)

In reactors 1, 2 and 3, overheating caused a reaction between the water and the zircaloy, creating hydrogen gas.

On 12 March, an explosion in Unit 1 was caused by the ignition of the hydrogen, destroying the upper part of the building.

On 14 March, a similar explosion occurred in the Reactor 3 building, blowing off the roof and injuring eleven people.

On the 15th, an explosion in the Reactor 2 building damaged it and part of the Reactor 4 building.

Core meltdowns

File:Fukushima MAAP Report Nov2011 – Unit 2 and Unit 3.jpg

The suspected location of molten fuel inside Unit 2 and Unit 3, according to the MAAP report from November 2011. Most of the fuel from Unit 2 and Unit 3 is assumed to have remained in the Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV), where it is estimated to be "cooled sufficiently".

On 16 March TEPCO estimated that 70% of the fuel in Unit 1 had melted, and 33% in Unit 2, further suspecting that Unit 3's core might also be damaged.

In the TEPCO report of the Modular Accident Analysis Program (MAAP) from November 2011 further estimates are made to the state and location of the fuel. The report came to the conclusion that the Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) in Unit 1 (commonly known as the reactor core) had been damaged during the disaster, and that "significant amounts" of molten fuel had fallen into the bottom of the Primary Containment Vessel (PCV) – the erosion of the concrete of the PCV by the molten fuel after the core meltdown was estimated to have been stopped in approx. 0.7 metres (2 ft 4 in) depth, with the thickness of the containment being 7.6 metres (25 ft). Gas sampling done before the report detected no signs of an ongoing reaction of the fuel with the concrete of the PCV and all the fuel in Unit 1 was estimated to be "well cooled down, including the fuel dropped on the bottom of the reactor".

Furthermore the MAAP report showed that fuel in Unit 2 and Unit 3 had melted, however less than Unit 1, and fuel was presumed to be still in the RPV, with no significant amounts of fuel fallen to the bottom of the PCV. The report further suggested that "there is a range in the evaluation results" from "all fuel in the RPV (none fuel fallen to the PCV)" in Unit 2 and Unit 3, to "most fuel in the RPV (some fuel in PCV)". For Unit 2 and Unit 3 it was estimated that the "fuel is cooled sufficiently". The larger damage in Unit 1 in comparison with the other two units was according to the report due to longer time that no cooling water was injected in Unit 1, which resulted in much more decay heat to accumulate – for about 1 day there was no water injection for Unit 1, while Unit 2 and Unit 3 had only a quarter of a day without water injection.

There exists some uncertainty about the amount of damage the reactors sustained during the meltdown – Tepco revised the numbers several times. In November 2013 Mari Yamaguchi reported for Associated Press that there are computer simulations which show that "the melted fuel in Unit 1, whose core damage was the most extensive, has breached the bottom of the primary containment vessel and even partially eaten into its concrete foundation, coming within about 30 centimeters (one foot) of leaking into the ground" – a Kyoto University nuclear engineer said with regards to these estimates: "We just can't be sure until we actually see the inside of the reactors."

According to a December 2013 report TEPCO estimated for Unit 1 that "the decay heat must have decreased enough, the molten fuel can be assumed to remain in PCV (Primary container vessel)".

Units 4, 5 and 6

Main article: Fukushima Daiichi units 4, 5 and 6

Aerial view of the station in 1975, showing separation between units 5 and 6, and 1-4.
・Unit 6, not completed until 1979, is seen under construction.

Unit 4

All fuel rods from unit 4 had been transferred to the spent fuel pool on an upper floor of the reactor building prior to the tsunami. On 15 March, an explosion damaged the fourth floor rooftop area of unit 4, creating two large holes in a wall of the outer building. It was reported that water in the spent fuel pool might be boiling. Radiation inside the unit 4 control room prevented workers from staying there for long periods. Visual inspection of the spent fuel pool on 30 April revealed no significant damage to the rods. A radiochemical examination of the pond water confirmed that little of the fuel had been damaged.

In October 2012, the former Japanese Ambassador to both Switzerland and Senegal Mitsuhei Murata said that ground under Fukushima unit 4 was sinking, and the structure may collapse.

Units 5 and 6

Reactors 5 and 6 were also not operating when the earthquake struck. Unlike reactor 4, their fuel rods remained in the reactor. The reactors had been closely monitored, as cooling processes were not functioning well.

Central fuel storage areas

On 21 March, temperatures in the fuel pond had risen slightly, to 61 °C and water was sprayed over the pool. Power was restored to cooling systems on 24 March and by 28 March temperatures were reported down to 35 °C.

Contamination

Main article: Radiation effects from Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster

Sub article: Comparison of Fukushima and Chernobyl nuclear accident with detailed tables inside

Map of contaminated areas around the plant (22 March – 3 April 2011).

Fukushima dose rate comparison to other incidents and standards, with graph of recorded radiation levels and specific accident events from 11 to 30 March.

Radiation measurements from Fukushima Prefecture, March 2011

Seawater-contamination along coast with Caesium-137, from 21 March until 5 May 2011 (Source: GRS)

Radiation hotspot in Kashiwa, February 2012.

Radioactive material was released from the containment vessels for several reasons: deliberate venting to reduce gas pressure; deliberate discharge of coolant water into the sea; and uncontrolled events. Concerns about the possibility of a large scale release led to a 20 kilometres (12 mi) exclusion zone around the power plant and recommendations that people within the surrounding 20–30 km zone stay indoors. Later, the UK, France and some other countries told their nationals to consider leaving Tokyo, in response to fears of spreading contamination. Trace amounts of radiation, including iodine-131, caesium-134 and caesium-137, were widely observed.

Between 21 March and mid-July around 2.7 × 10¹⁶ Bq of caesium-137 (about 8.4 kg) entered the ocean, about 82 percent having flowed into the sea before 8 April. This emission of radioactivity into the sea represents the most important individual emission of artificial radioactivity into the sea ever observed. However, the Fukushima coast has some of the world's strongest currents and these transported the contaminated waters far into the Pacific Ocean, thus causing great dispersion of the radioactive elements. The results of measurements of both the seawater and the coastal sediments led to the supposition that the consequences of the accident, in terms of radioactivity, would be minor for marine life as of autumn 2011 (weak concentration of radioactivity in the water and limited accumulation in sediments). On the other hand, significant pollution of sea water along the coast near the nuclear plant might persist, because of the continuing arrival of radioactive material transported towards the sea by surface water running over contaminated soil. Organisms that filter water and fish at the top of the food chain are, over time, the most sensitive to caesium pollution. It is thus justified to maintain surveillance of marine life that is fished in the coastal waters off Fukushima. Despite caesium isotopic concentration in the waters off of Japan being 10 to 1000 times above concentration prior to the accident, radiation risks are below what is generally considered harmful to marine animals and human consumers.

A monitoring system operated by the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) tracked the spread of radioactivity on a global scale. Radioactive isotopes were picked up by over 40 monitoring stations.

On 12 March, radioactive releases first reached a CTBTO monitoring station in Takasaki, Japan, around 200 km away. The radioactive isotopes appeared in eastern Russia on 14 March and the west coast of the United States two days later. By day 15, traces of radioactivity were detectable all across the northern hemisphere. Within one month, radioactive particles were noted by CTBTO stations in the southern hemisphere.

Estimates of radioactivity released ranged from 10-40% of that of Chernobyl's. The significantly contaminated area was 10-12% that of Chernobyl.

In March 2011, Japanese officials announced that "radioactive iodine-131 exceeding safety limits for infants had been detected at 18 water-purification plants in Tokyo and five other prefectures". On 21 March the first restrictions were placed on the distribution and consumption of contaminated items. As of July 2011, the Japanese government was unable to control the spread of radioactive material into the nation's food supply. Radioactive material was detected in food produced in 2011, including spinach, tea leaves, milk, fish and beef, up to 200 miles from the plant. 2012 crops did not show signs of radioactivity contamination. Cabbage, rice and beef showed insignificant radiation levels. A Fukushima-produced rice market in Tokyo was accepted by consumers as safe.

On 24 August 2011, the Nuclear Safety Commission (NSC) of Japan published the results of the recalculation of the total amount of radioactive materials released into the air during the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station. The total amounts released between 11 March and 5 April were revised downwards to 130 PBq (petabecquerels) for iodine-131 and 11 PBq for caesium-137, which is about 11% of Chernobyl emissions. Earlier estimations were 150 PBq and 12 PBq.

In 2011 scientists working for the Japan Atomic Energy Agency, Kyoto University and other institutes, recalculated the amount of radioactive material released into the ocean: between late March through April they found a total of 15 PBq for the combined amount of iodine-131 and caesium-137, more than triple the 4.72 PBq estimated by TEPCO. The company had calculated only the direct releases into the sea. The new calculations incorporated the portion of airborne radioactive substances that entered the ocean as rain.

In the first half of September 2011 TEPCO estimated radiation release at some 200 MBq (megabecquerels) per hour. This was approximately one four-millionth that of March. Traces of iodine-131 were detected in several Japanese prefectures in November and December 2011.

According to the French Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety, between 21 March and mid-July around 27 PBq of caesium-137 entered the ocean, about 82 percent before 8 April. This emission represents the most important individual oceanic emissions of artificial radioactivity ever observed. The Fukushima coast has one of the world's strongest currents (Kuroshio Current). It transported the contaminated waters far into the Pacific Ocean, dispersing the radioactivity. As of late 2011 measurements of both the seawater and the coastal sediments suggested that the consequences for marine life would be minor. Significant pollution along the coast near the plant might persist, because of the continuing arrival of radioactive material transported to the sea by surface water crossing contaminated soil. The possible presence of other radioactive substances, such as strontium-90 or plutonium, has not been sufficiently studied. Recent measurements show persistent contamination of some marine species (mostly fish) caught along the Fukushima coast. Migratory pelagic species are highly effective and rapid transporters of radiation throughout the ocean. Elevated levels of 134 Cs appeared in migratory species off the coast of California that were not seen pre-Fukushima.

As of March 2012, no cases of radiation-related ailments had been reported. Experts cautioned that data was insufficient to allow conclusions on health impacts. Michiaki Kai, professor of radiation protection at Oita University of Nursing and Health Sciences, stated, "If the current radiation dose estimates are correct, (cancer-related deaths) likely won't increase."

In May 2012, TEPCO released their estimate of cumulative radiation releases. An estimated 538.1 PBq of iodine-131, caesium-134 and caesium-137 was released. 520 PBq was released into the atmosphere between 12–31 March 2011 and 18.1 PBq into the ocean from 26 March – 30 September 2011. A total of 511 PBq of iodine-131 was released into both the atmosphere and the ocean, 13.5 PBq of caesium-134 and 13.6 PBq of caesium-137. TEPCO reported that at least 900 PBq had been released "into the atmosphere in March last year [2011] alone".

In August 2012, researchers found that 10,000 nearby residents had been exposed to less than 1 millisievert of radiation, significantly less than Chernobyl residents.

As of October 2012 radiation was still leaking into the ocean. Fishing in the waters around the site was still prohibited, and the levels of radioactive ¹³⁴Cs and ¹³⁷Cs in the fish caught were not lower than immediately after the disaster.

On 26 October 2012 TEPCO admitted that it could not stop radioactive material entering the ocean, although emission rates had stabilised. Undetected leaks could not be ruled out, because the reactor basements remained flooded. The company was building a 2,400-foot-long steel and concrete wall between the site and the ocean, reaching 100 feet below ground, but it would not be finished before mid-2014. Around August 2012 two greenling were caught close to shore. They contained more than 25,000 becquerels of caesium-137 per kilogram, the highest measured since the disaster and 250 times the government's safety limit.

On 22 July 2013 it was revealed that the plant continued to leak radioactive water into the ocean, something long suspected by local fishermen and independent investigators. TEPCO had previously denied that this was happening. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzō Abe ordered the government to step in.

On 20 August, in a further incident, it was announced that 300 metric tons of heavily contaminated water had leaked from a storage tank, approximately the same amount of water as one eighth (1/8) of that found in an Olympic-size swimming pool. The 300 metric tons of water was radioactive enough to be hazardous to nearby staff, and the leak was assessed as Level 3 on the International Nuclear Event Scale.

On 26 August, the government took charge of emergency measures to prevent further radioactive water leaks, reflecting their lack of confidence in TEPCO.

As of 2013, about 400 tonnes per day of cooling water was being pumped into the reactors. Another 400 tonnes of groundwater was seeping into the structure. Some 800 tonnes of water per day was removed for treatment, half of which was reused for cooling and half diverted to storage tanks. Ultimately the contaminated water, after treatment to remove radionuclides other than tritium, may have to dumped into Pacific. TEPCO intend to create an underground ice wall to reduce the rate contaminated groundwater reaches the sea.

In February 2014, NHK reported that TEPCO was reviewing its radiation data, after finding much higher levels of radiation than was reported earlier. TEPCO now says that levels of 5 million becquerels of strontium per liter were detected in groundwater collected in July 2013 and not 900,000 becquerels, as initially reported.

In March 2014, numerous news sources, including NBC, began predicting that the radioactive underwater Plume_(hydrodynamics) traveling through the Pacific Ocean would reach the western seaboard of the Continental_United_States. Though the common story was that the amount of radioactivity would be harmless and temporary once it arrived, many Website had alternative perspectives on the situation, pointing to abnormally high levels of radiation on the beach in places like San Francisco, radiation in US milk found hundreds of times higher than federal standards, rainwater discovered over 100 times higher than normal levels by the UC Berkeley nuclear engineering program, and various pictures of mutated animals and plants found in various states that had been reported after the incident. The scientific community, and state and federal agencies, however, have generally assured both Californians and Americans that there are no health risks present, though officials are actively monitoring the situation.

Response

Government agencies and TEPCO were unprepared for the "cascading nuclear disaster". The tsunami that "began the nuclear disaster could and should have been anticipated and that ambiguity about the roles of public and private institutions in such a crisis was a factor in the poor response at Fukushima". In March 2012, Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda said that the government shared the blame for the Fukushima disaster, saying that officials had been blinded by a false belief in the country's "technological infallibility", and were taken in by a "safety myth". Noda said "Everybody must share the pain of responsibility".

According to Naoto Kan, Japan's prime minister during the tsunami, the country was unprepared for the disaster, and nuclear power plants should not have been built so close to the ocean. Kan acknowledged flaws in authorities' handling of the crisis, including poor communication and coordination between nuclear regulators, utility officials and the government. He said the disaster "laid bare a host of an even bigger man-made vulnerabilities in Japan's nuclear industry and regulation, from inadequate safety guidelines to crisis management, all of which he said need to be overhauled".

Physicist and environmentalist Amory Lovins said: Japan's "rigid bureaucratic structures, reluctance to send bad news upwards, need to save face, weak development of policy alternatives, eagerness to preserve nuclear power's public acceptance, and politically fragile government, along with TEPCO's very hierarchical management culture, also contributed to the way the accident unfolded. Moreover, the information Japanese people receive about nuclear energy and its alternatives has long been tightly controlled by both TEPCO and the government".

Poor communication and delays

The Japanese government did not keep records of key meetings during the crisis. Data from SPEEDI (System for Prediction of Environmental Emergency Dose Information) were emailed to the prefectural government, but not shared with others. Emails from NISA to Fukushima covering 12 March 11:54 PM to 16 March 9 AM holding vital information for evacuation and health advisories went unread and were deleted. The data was not used because the disaster countermeasure office regarded the data as "useless because the predicted amount of released radiation is unrealistic."

The Investigation Committee on the Accident at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Stations of Tokyo Electric Power Company's interim report stated that Japan's response was flawed by "poor communication and delays in releasing data on dangerous radiation leaks at the facility". The report blamed Japan's central government as well as TEPCO, "depicting a scene of harried officials incapable of making decisions to stem radiation leaks as the situation at the coastal plant worsened in the days and weeks following the disaster". The report said poor planning worsened the disaster response, noting that authorities had "grossly underestimated tsunami risks" that followed the magnitude 9.0 earthquake. The 12.1 metres (40 ft) high tsunami that struck the plant was double the height of the highest wave predicted by officials. The erroneous assumption that the plant's cooling system would function after the tsunami worsened the disaster. "Plant workers had no clear instructions on how to respond to such a disaster, causing miscommunication, especially when the disaster destroyed backup generators.".

In February 2012, the Rebuild Japan Initiative Foundation described how Japan's response was hindered by a loss of trust between the major actors: Prime Minister Kan, TEPCO's Tokyo headquarters and the plant manager. The report said that these conflicts "produced confused flows of sometimes contradictory information". According to the report, Kan delayed the cooling of the reactors by questioning the choice of seawater instead of fresh water, accusing him of micromanaging response efforts and appointing a small, closed, decision-making staff. The report stated that the Japanese government was slow to accept assistance from U.S. nuclear experts.

A 2012 report in The Economist said: "The operating company was poorly regulated and did not know what was going on. The operators made mistakes. The representatives of the safety inspectorate fled. Some of the equipment failed. The establishment repeatedly played down the risks and suppressed information about the movement of the radioactive plume, so some people were evacuated from more lightly to more heavily contaminated places".

From 17 to 19 March 2011, US military aircraft measured radiation within a 45-km radius of the site. The data recorded 125 microsieverts per hour of radiation as far as 25 km (15.5 mi) northwest of the plant. The US provided detailed maps to the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI) on 18 March and to the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) two days later, but officials did not act on the information.

The data were not forwarded to the prime minister's office or the Nuclear Safety Commission (NSC), nor were they used to direct the evacuation. Because a substantial portion of radioactive materials reached ground to the northwest, residents evacuated in this direction were unnecessarily exposed to radiation. According to NSC chief Tetsuya Yamamoto, "It was very regrettable that we didn't share and utilize the information." Itaru Watanabe, of the Science and Technology Policy Bureau, blamed the US for not releasing the data.

After the Americans published their map on 23 March, Japan published fallout maps compiled from ground measurements and SPEEDI the same day. On 19 June 2012 science minister Hirofumi Hirano stated that his "job was only to measure radiation levels on land" and that the government would study whether disclosure could have helped in the evacuation efforts.

Event rating

Main article: Accident rating of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster

Comparison of radiation levels for different nuclear events.

The incident was rated 7 on the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES). This scale runs from 0, indicating an abnormal situation with no safety consequences, to 7, indicating an accident causing widespread contamination with serious health and environmental effects. Prior to Fukushima, the Chernobyl disaster was the only level 7 event on record, while the Three Mile Island accident was a level 5.

A 2012 analysis of the intermediate and long-lived radiation released found about 10-20% of that released from the Chernobyl disaster. Approximately 15 PBq of caesium-137 was released; compared with approximately 85 PBq of caesium-137 at Chernobyl, indicating the release of 24 kilograms (53 lb) of caesium-137.

Unlike Chernobyl, all the Japanese reactors were in concrete containment vessels, which limited the release of strontium-90, americium-241 and plutonium, which were among the radioisotopes released by the earlier incident.

Some 500 PBq of iodine-131 were released, compared to approximately 1,760 PBq at Chernobyl. Iodine-131 has a half life of 8.02 days; decaying into a stable nucleide. After ten half lives (80.2 days) 99.9% has decayed to xenon-131, a stable isotope.

Aftermath

Main article: Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster casualties

No deaths followed short term radiation exposure, while approximately 16,000 people died due to the earthquake and tsunami.

Risks from radiation

Very few cancers would be expected as a result of accumulated radiation exposures, even though people in the area worst affected by Japan's Fukushima nuclear accident have a slightly higher risk of developing certain cancers such as leukemia, solid cancers, thyroid cancer and breast cancer.

Estimated effective doses from the accident outside of Japan are considered to be below (or far below) the dose levels regarded as very small by the international radiological protection community.

In 2013 WHO reported that area residents who were evacuated were exposed to so little radiation that radiation induced health impacts were likely to be below detectable levels. The health risks were calculated by applying conservative assumptions, including the conservative Linear no-threshold model of radiation exposure, a model that assumes even the smallest amount of radiation exposure will cause a negative health effect. The report indicated that for those infants in the most affected areas, lifetime cancer risk would increase by about 1%, It predicted that populations in the most contaminated areas faced a 70% higher relative risk of developing thyroid cancer for females exposed as infants, and a 7% higher relative risk of leukemia in males exposed as infants and a 6% higher relative risk of breast cancer in females exposed as infants. One-third of involved emergency workers would have increased cancer risks.

Cancer risks for fetuses were similar to those in 1 year old infants. The estimated cancer risk to children and adults was lower than infants. The stated risks were relative and not absolute. The baseline risk of thyroid cancer in females is 0.75%, predicted to increase to 1.25%, a "70% higher relative risk":

These percentages represent estimated relative increases over the baseline rates and are not absolute risks for developing such cancers. Due to the low baseline rates of thyroid cancer, even a large relative increase represents a small absolute increase in risks. For example, the baseline lifetime risk of thyroid cancer for females is just (0.75%)three-quarters of one percent and the additional lifetime risk estimated in this assessment for a female infant exposed in the most affected location is (0.5%)one-half of one percent.

Stanford University professor Mark Z. Jacobson and colleague John Ten Hoeve suggested that according to the linear no-threshold model (LNT model) the accident would most likely cause 130 cancer deaths. Radiation epidemiologist Roy Shore countered that estimating health effects from the LNT model "is not wise because of the uncertainties". The LNT model greatly overestimated casualties from Chernobyl, Hiroshima or Nagasaki; instead. Evidence that the LNT model was invalid has existed since 1946 and was suppressed by Nobel Prize winner Hermann Muller.

Thyroid screening program

As part of the ultrasound screening program, 36% of children in 2012 were found to have abnormal growths in their thyroid glands, but whether this is due to the effects of nuclear radiation is undetermined. The overwhelming majority of thyroid growths are benign growths that will never cause symptoms, illness or death, even if nothing is ever done about the growth. Autopsy studies on people who died from other causes show that more than one third of adults technically have a thyroid growth/cancer.

According to the Tenth Report of the Fukushima Prefecture Health Management Survey released in February 2013, more than 40% of children screened around Fukushima prefecture were diagnosed with thyroid abnormalities and that 10 of 186 eligible are suspected of having thyroid cancer as a result of the exposed radiation. As of August 2013, there have been more than 40 children newly diagnosed with thyroid cancer and other cancers in Fukushima prefecture as a whole. In November 2013, another report from the Fukushima Prefectural Government revealed that more children have been diagnosed with confirmed or suspected thyroid cancer. The number of children diagnosed with thyroid cancer was 59. Furthermore, the report claims that in Fukushima prefecture, 12 people per 100,000 who were aged 18 or younger at the time of the accident developed thyroid cancer. This figure is contrasted by a 2007 figure where 1.7 people per 100,000 in the general population between the ages of 15 and 19 contracted the cancer according to statistics taken in four prefectures, including nearby Miyagi.

The World Health Organization stated that a 2013 thyroid ultrasound screening programme was, due to the screening effect, likely to lead to an increase in recorded thyroid cases due to early detection of non-symptomatic disease cases. This screening program found that more than a third (36%) of children in the Prefecture have abnormal growths in their thyroid glands, however whether these growths can be attributed to exposure to nuclear radiation has not yet been proven.

Thyroid cancer is one of the most survivable cancers, with an approximate 94% survival rate after first diagnosis. That rate increases to a 100% survival rate with catching it early.

Chernobyl comparison

Radiation deaths at Chernobyl were also statistically undetectable. Only 0.1% of the 110,000 cleanup workers surveyed had as of 2012 developed leukemia, although not all cases resulted from the accident.

Data from Chernobyl showed that there was a steady then sharp increase in thyroid cancer rates following the disaster in 1986, but whether this data can be directly compared to Fukushima is yet to be determined.

Chernobyl thyroid cancer incidence rates did not begin to increase above the prior baseline value of about 0.7 cases per 100,000 people per year until 1989 to 1991, 3–5 years after the incident in both adolescent and child age groups. From 1989 to 2005, an excess of 4,000 children and adolescent cases of thyroid cancer were observed. Nine of these had died as of 2005, a 99% survival rate.

Effects on evacuees

Evacuation decreased perceived health status.

In the former Soviet Union many patients with negligible radioactive exposure after the Chernobyl disaster displayed extreme anxiety about radiation exposure. They developed many psychosomatic problems, including radiophobia along with an increase in fatalistic alcoholism. As Japanese health and radiation specialist Shunichi Yamashita noted:

We know from Chernobyl that the psychological consequences are enormous. Life expectancy of the evacuees dropped from 65 to 58 years -- not [predominately] because of cancer, but because of depression, alcoholism and suicide. Relocation is not easy, the stress is very big. We must not only track those problems, but also treat them. Otherwise people will feel they are just guinea pigs in our research.

A survey by the Iitate local government obtained responses from approximately 1,743 evacuees within the evacuation zone. The survey showed that many residents are experiencing growing frustration, instability and an inability to return to their earlier lives. Sixty percent of respondents stated that their health and the health of their families had deteriorated after evacuating, while 39.9% reported feeling more irritated compared to before the disaster.

Summarizing all responses to questions related to evacuees' current family status, one-third of all surveyed families live apart from their children, while 50.1% live away from other family members (including elderly parents) with whom they lived before the disaster. The survey also showed that 34.7% of the evacuees have suffered salary cuts of 50% or more since the outbreak of the nuclear disaster. A total of 36.8% reported a lack of sleep, while 17.9% reported smoking or drinking more than before they evacuated.

Stress often manifests in physical ailments, including behavioral changes such as poor dietary choices, lack of exercise and sleep deprivation. Survivors, including some who lost homes, villages and family members, were found likely face mental health and physical challenges. Much of the stress came from lack of information and from relocation.

A Mainichi Shimbun survey computed that of some 300,000 evacuees, approximately 1,600 deaths related to the evacuation conditions, such as living in temporary housing and hospital closures that had occurred as of August 2013, a number comparable to the 1,599 deaths directly caused by the earthquake and tsunami in the Prefecture. The exact causes of these evacuation related deaths were not specified, because according to the municipalities, that would hinder relatives applying for compensation.

While some articles have drawn an effect on the mortality rate for infants in the Pacific Northwest since the crisis, Scientific American revealed that the underlying statistical analysis was questionable.

Radiation releases

In June 2011, TEPCO stated the amount of contaminated water in the complex had increased due to substantial rainfall. On 13 February 2014, TEPCO reported 37,000 becquerels of cesium-134 and 93,000 becquerels of cesium-137 were detected per liter of groundwater sampled from a monitoring well.

Insurance

According to reinsurer Munich Re, the private insurance industry will not be significantly affected by the disaster. Swiss Re similarly stated, "Coverage for nuclear facilities in Japan excludes earthquake shock, fire following earthquake and tsunami, for both physical damage and liability. Swiss Re believes that the incident at the Fukushima nuclear power plant is unlikely to result in a significant direct loss for the property & casualty insurance industry."

Energy policy implications

The number of nuclear power plant constructions started each year, from 1954 to 2013. Note the increase in new constructions from 2007 to 2010, before a decline following the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster.

Anti-nuclear power plant rally on 19 September 2011 at the Meiji Shrine complex in Tokyo.

By March 2012, one year after the disaster, all but two of Japan's nuclear reactors had been shut down; some had been damaged by the quake and tsunami. Authority to restart the others after scheduled maintenance throughout the year was given to local governments, who in all cases decided against. According to The Japan Times, the disaster changed the national debate over energy policy almost overnight. "By shattering the government's long-pitched safety myth about nuclear power, the crisis dramatically raised public awareness about energy use and sparked strong anti-nuclear sentiment". A June 2011 Asahi Shimbun poll of 1,980 respondents found that 74% answered "yes" to whether Japan should gradually decommission all 54 reactors and become nuclear-free. An energy white paper, approved by the Japanese Cabinet in October 2011, says "public confidence in safety of nuclear power was greatly damaged" by the disaster and called for a reduction in the nation's reliance on nuclear power. It also omitted a section on nuclear power expansion that was in the previous year's policy review.

Michael Banach, the current Vatican representative to the IAEA, told a conference in Vienna in September 2011 that the disaster created new concerns about the safety of nuclear plants globally. Auxiliary Bishop of Osaka Michael Goro Matsuura said this incident should cause Japan and other countries to abandon nuclear projects. He called on the worldwide Christian community to support this anti-nuclear campaign. Statements from Bishops' conferences in Korea and the Philippines called on their governments to abandon atomic power. Author Kenzaburō Ōe, who received a Nobel prize in literature, urged Japan to abandon its reactors.

The nuclear plant closest to the epicenter of the earthquake, the Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant, successfully withstood the cataclysm. According to Reuters it may serve as a "trump card" for the nuclear lobby, providing evidence that it is possible for a correctly designed and operated nuclear facility to withstand such a cataclysm.

Electricity generation by source in Japan (month-level data). Nuclear energy's contribution declined steadily throughout 2011 due to shutdowns and has been replaced with thermal power stations such as fossil gas and coal power plants. Units 3 and 4 at Ohi Nuclear Power Plant are the only two Japanese reactors which have so far met the new safety rules and thus continue to operate.

The loss of 30% of the country's generating capacity led to much greater reliance on liquified natural gas and coal. Unusual conservation measures were undertaken. In the immediate aftermath, nine prefectures served by TEPCO experienced power rationing. The government asked major companies to reduce power consumption by 15%, and some shifted their weekends to weekdays to smooth power demand. Converting to a nuclear-free gas and oil energy economy would cost tens of billions of dollars in annual fees. One estimate is that even including the disaster, more lives would have been lost if Japan had used coal or gas plants instead of nuclear.

Many energy policy analysts have begun calling for a phase-out of nuclear power in Japan, including Amory Lovins, who claimed, "Japan is poor in fuels, but is the richest of all major industrial countries in renewable energy that can meet the entire long-term energy needs of an energy-efficient Japan, at lower cost and risk than current plans. Japanese industry can do it faster than anyone — if Japanese policymakers acknowledge and allow it". Benjamin K. Sovacool asserted that Japan could have exploited instead its renewable energy base. Japan has a total of "324 GW of achievable potential in the form of onshore and offshore wind turbines (222 GW), geothermal power plants (70  GW), additional hydroelectric capacity (26.5 GW), solar energy (4.8 GW) and agricultural residue (1.1 GW)."

Environmental activists at a 2011 United Nations meeting in Bangkok used the disaster to promote renewable energy. In August 2011, the Japanese Government passed a bill to subsidize electricity from renewable sources. This legislation, effective 1 July 2012, requires utilities to buy electricity generated by renewable sources including solar, wind and geothermal at above-market rates.

In September 2011, Mycle Schneider said that the disaster can be understood as a unique chance "to get it right" on energy policy. "Germany – with its nuclear phase-out decision based on a highly successful renewable energy program – and Japan – having suffered a painful shock but possessing unique technical capacities and societal discipline – can be at the forefront of an authentic paradigm shift toward a truly sustainable, low-carbon and nuclear-free energy policy".

As of September 2011, Japan planned to build a pilot offshore floating wind farm, with six 2-megawatt turbines, off the Fukushima coast. The first became operational in November 2013. After the evaluation phase is complete in 2016, "Japan plans to build as many as 80 floating wind turbines off Fukushima by 2020." In 2012, Prime Minister Kan said the disaster made it clear to him that "Japan needs to dramatically reduce its dependence on nuclear power, which supplied 30% of its electricity before the crisis, and has turned him into a believer of renewable energy". Sales of solar panels in Japan rose 30.7% to 1,296 megawatts in 2011, helped by a government scheme to promote renewable energy. Canadian Solar received financing for its plans to build a factory in Japan with capacity of 150 megawatts, scheduled to begin production in 2014.

As of September 2012, most Japanese people supported the elimination of nuclear power, and Prime Minister Noda and the Japanese government announced plans to make the country nuclear-free by the 2030s. They announced the end of new construction of nuclear power plants and a 40-year limit on existing nuclear plants, Nuclear plant restarts must meet safety standards of the new independent regulatory authority. The plan requires investing $500 billion over 20 years.

On 16 December 2012, Japan held a general election. Voters gave the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) a clear victory. Shinzō Abe became Prime Minister. Abe supported nuclear power, saying that leaving the plants closed was costing the country 4 trillion yen per year in higher costs. The comment came after Junichiro Koizumi, who chose Abe to succeed him as premier, made a recent statement to urge the government to take a stance against using nuclear power. A survey of local mayors by the Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper in January 2013 found that most of them from cities hosting nuclear plants would agree to restarting the reactors, provided the government could guarantee their safety. More than 30,000 people marched on 2 June 2013, in Tokyo against restarting nuclear power plants. Marchers had gathered more than 8 million petition signatures opposing nuclear power.

In October 2013, it was reported that TEPCO and eight other Japanese power companies were paying approximately 3.6 trillion yen (37 billion dollars) more in combined imported fossil fuel costs compared to 2010, before the accident, to make up for the missing power.

Equipment, facility and operational changes

A number of nuclear reactor safety system lessons emerged from the incident. The most obvious was that in tsunami-prone areas, a power station's sea wall must be adequately tall and robust. At the Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant, closer to the epicenter of the 11 March earthquake and tsunami, the sea wall was 14 meters tall and successfully withstood the tsunami, preventing serious damage and radiation releases.

Nuclear power station operators around the world began to install Passive Auto-catalytic hydrogen Recombiners ("PARs"), which do not require electricity to operate. PARs work much like the catalytic converter on the exhaust of a car to turn potentially explosive gases such as hydrogen into water. Had such devices been positioned at the top of Fukushima I's reactor and containment buildings, where hydrogen gas collected, the explosions would not have occurred and the releases of radioactive isotopes would arguably have been much less.

Unpowered filtering systems on containment building vent lines, known as Filtered Containment Venting Systems (FCVS) can safely catch radioactive materials and thereby allow reactor core de-pressurization, with steam and hydrogen venting with minimal radiation emissions. Filtration using an external water tank system is the most common in European countries, with the water tank positioned outside the containment building. In October 2013, the owners of Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power station began installing wet filters and other safety systems, with completion anticipated in 2014.

In generation II reactors in flood or tsunami prone areas, a 3+ day supply of back-up batteries has become an infomal industry standard. Another change is to harden the location of back-up diesel generator rooms with water-tight, blast-resistant doors and heat sinks, similar to those used by nuclear submarines. The oldest operating nuclear power station in the world, Beznau, which has been operating since 1969, has a 'Notstand' hardened building designed to support all of its systems independently for 72 hours in the event of an earthquake or severe flooding. This system was built prior to Fukushima Daiichi.

Upon a station blackout, like the one that occurred after Fukushima's back-up battery supply was exhausted, many already constructed Generation III reactors adopt the principle of passive nuclear safety. They take advantage of convection (hot water tends to rise) and gravity (water tends to fall) to ensure an adequate supply of cooling water and do not require pumps to handle the decay heat.

Reactions

Japan

Main article: Japanese reaction to Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster

Japan towns, villages, and cities in and around the Daiichi nuclear plant exclusion zone. The 20 km and 30 km areas had evacuation and shelter in place orders, and additional administrative districts that had an evacuation order are highlighted. However the above map's factual accuracy is called into question as only the southern portion of Kawamata district had evacuation orders. More accurate maps are available.

Japanese authorities later admitted to lax standards and poor oversight. They took fire for their handling of the emergency and engaged in a pattern of withholding and denying damaging information. Authorities allegedly wanted to "limit the size of costly and disruptive evacuations in land-scarce Japan and to avoid public questioning of the politically powerful nuclear industry". Public anger emerged over an "official campaign to play down the scope of the accident and the potential health risks".

In many cases, the Japanese government's reaction was judged to be less than adequate by many in Japan, especially those who were living in the region. Decontamination equipment was slow to be made available and then slow to be utilized. As late as June 2011, even rainfall continued to cause fear and uncertainty in eastern Japan because of its possibility of washing radiation from the sky back to earth.

To assuage fears, the government enacted an order to decontaminate over a hundred areas with a level contamination greater than or equivalent to one millisievert of radiation. This is a much lower threshold than is necessary for protecting health. The government also sought to address the lack of education on the effects of radiation and the extent to which the average person was exposed.

Previously a proponent of building more reactors, Kan took an increasingly anti-nuclear stance following the disaster. In May 2011, he ordered the aging Hamaoka Nuclear Power Plant closed over earthquake and tsunami concerns, and said he would freeze building plans. In July 2011, Kan said, "Japan should reduce and eventually eliminate its dependence on nuclear energy". In October 2013, he said that if the worst-case scenario had been realized, 50 million people within a 250-kilometer radius would have had to evacuate.

On 22 August 2011, a government spokesman mentioned the possibility that some areas around the plant "could stay for some decades a forbidden zone". According to Yomiuri Shimbun the Japanese government was planning to buy some properties from civilians to store waste and materials that had become radioactive after the accidents. Chiaki Takahashi, Japan's foreign minister, criticized foreign media reports as excessive. He added that he could "understand the concerns of foreign countries over recent developments at the nuclear plant, including the radioactive contamination of seawater".

Due to frustration with TEPCO and the Japanese government "providing differing, confusing, and at times contradictory, information on critical health issues" a citizen's group called "Safecast" recorded detailed radiation level data in Japan. The Japanese government "does not consider nongovernment readings to be authentic". The group uses off-the-shelf Geiger counter equipment. A simple Geiger counter is a contamination meter and not a dose rate meter. The response differs too much between different radioisotopes to permit a simple GM tube for dose rate measurements when more than one radioisotope is present. A thin metal shield is needed around a GM tube to provide energy compensation to enable it to be used for dose rate measurements. For gamma emitters either an ionization chamber, a gamma spectrometer or an energy compensated GM tube are required. Members of the Air Monitoring station facility at the Department of Nuclear Engineering at the University of Berkeley, California have tested many environmental samples in Northern California.

International

Main article: International reaction to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster

Evacuation flight departs Misawa.

U.S. Navy humanitarian flight undergoes radioactive decontamination

The international reaction to the disaster was diverse and widespread. Many inter-governmental agencies immediately offered help, often on an ad hoc basis. Responders included IAEA, World Meteorological Organization and the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization.

In September 2011, IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano said the Japanese nuclear disaster "caused deep public anxiety throughout the world and damaged confidence in nuclear power". Many countries advised their nationals to leave Tokyo. Events at Fukushima "cast doubt on the idea that even an advanced economy can master nuclear safety". Following the disaster, the IAEA halved its estimate of additional nuclear generating capacity to be built by 2035.

Anti-nuclear demonstrations were followed by a significant reevaluation of existing nuclear power programs in many countries. Germany closed off its old nuclear power reactors and decided to phase the rest out by 2022. Italy held a national referendum, in which 94 percent voted against the government's plan to build new nuclear power plants. The same happened in Switzerland, and later Belgium. In France the strongly pro-nuclear government was defeated in a national election and with 70 percent of the public opposing nuclear in some polls, it was replaced by a government promising to radically reduce reliance on nuclear power. In June 2011 an opinion poll from Ipsos MORI reveled that 62% of the citizens of 24 different countries across the world were opposed to nuclear energy.

Nuclear power plans were abandoned in Malaysia, the Philippines, Kuwait and Bahrain, or radically changed, as in Taiwan. China suspended its nuclear development programme, but restarted it on a reduced basis in late 2012 with the government approving a ‘small number’ of projects in each of the following five years. The initial plan had been to increase the nuclear contribution from 2 to 4 percent of electricity by 2020, but renewable energy already supplied 17 percent of China’s electricity and, post-Fukushima, it seemed likely that most of the 15 percent of non-fossil energy that China aims to use by 2020 will be from renewables.

Stock prices of energy companies reliant on nuclear sources dropped, while renewable energy companies increased. In the United States output from renewable energy had already overtaken that from nuclear and after Fukushima some proposed nuclear projects collapsed. With renewables booming and nuclear costs rising, it seemed as if nuclear contribution will progressively fall.

New nuclear projects were proceeding in some countries. The United Kingdom was still planning a major nuclear expansion. So is Russia. Despite massive protests, India is also pressing ahead with a large nuclear programme, as is South Korea.

Investigations

NAIIC

Main article: National Diet of Japan Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission

The Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission (NAIIC) was the first independent investigation commission by the National Diet in the 66-year history of Japan's constitutional government.

Fukushima "cannot be regarded as a natural disaster," the NAIIC panel's chairman, Tokyo University professor emeritus Kiyoshi Kurokawa, wrote in the inquiry report. "It was a profoundly man-made disaster -- that could and should have been foreseen and prevented. And its effects could have been mitigated by a more effective human response." "Governments, regulatory authorities and Tokyo Electric Power [TEPCO] lacked a sense of responsibility to protect people's lives and society," the Commission said. "They effectively betrayed the nation's right to be safe from nuclear accidents.

The Commission recognized that the affected residents were still struggling and facing grave concerns, including the "health effects of radiation exposure, displacement, the dissolution of families, disruption of their lives and lifestyles and the contamination of vast areas of the environment".

Investigation Committee

Main article: Investigation Committee on the Accident at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Stations of Tokyo Electric Power Company

The purpose of the Investigation Committee on the Accident at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Stations (ICANPS) was to identify the disaster's causes and propose policies designed to minimize the damage and prevent the recurrence of similar incidents. The 10 member, government-appointed panel included scholars, journalists, lawyers and engineers. It was supported by public prosecutors and government experts and released its final, 448-page investigation report on 23 July 2012.

The panel's report faulted an inadequate legal system for nuclear crisis management, a crisis-command disarray caused by the government and TEPCO, and possible excess meddling on the part of the Prime Minister's office in the crisis' early stage. The panel concluded that a culture of complacency about nuclear safety and poor crisis management led to the nuclear disaster.

See also

• List of civilian nuclear accidents
• Lists of nuclear disasters and radioactive incidents
• Timeline of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster
• Comparison of Fukushima and Chernobyl nuclear accidents
• Fukushima disaster cleanup

References

• WHO (2013). Health risk assessment from the nuclear accident after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami (PDF). ISBN 978 92 4 150513 0. Retrieved December 2013. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

External links

Investigation

• The Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission Report website in English
• Executive summary of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission Report
• Investigation Committee on the accidents at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Station of Tokyo Electric Power Company

Video

• Webcam Fukushima nuclear power plant I, Unit 1 through Unit 4
• Inside the slow and dangerous clean up of the Fukushima nuclear crisis

Drawing and Imagery

• TerraFly Timeline Aerial Imagery of Fukushima Nuclear Reactor after 2011 Tsunami and Earthquake
• In graphics: Fukushima nuclear alert, as provided by the BBC, 9 July 2012

Other

• TEPCO News Releases, Tokyo Electric Power Company
• "Reassessment of Fukushima Nuclear Accident and Outline of Nuclear Safety Reform Plan(Interim Report)" by TEPCO Nuclear Reform Special Task Force.14 December 2012