national

Fukushima situation stable but still precarious, regulator says

28 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2012.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

28 Comments
Login to comment

The fuel rods need to be removed for reprocessing or disposal. The rods need to be removed from site. Once that happens #4 can be sealed as well as #5 and #6. The Americans need to take lead as they can make decisions.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Not trustworthy!

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Wonders why they can not use remote control technology?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

I don't know what's going on there, but frankly that most of people in other countries don't want to touch any food produced near the place or even whole Japen! people just don't believe them deep in mind.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Stable? What about the contamination that has already been spread throughout Japan (into the food, water and air) and beyond? Nothing is stable. People are being poisoned on a daily basis all in the name of $$.

7 ( +10 / -3 )

The "stable but precarious" remark doesn't appear to clarify much. Disclosure of the government's official "To Do" checklist in relative detail with target dates and periodic updates for better objective transparency and reinforced public monitoring should be in order in my view.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Umm... What does "stable but precarious" mean? Those are opposites. Precarious is defined as "dependent on chance; uncertain." So the situation is safe but dangerous. OK, thanks Japanese officials for befuddling the situation with clarity.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Whats the bet that over the next decade as Fukushima gets off the front pages and more reactors come to the end of their 40 year old limit , the N village will come up with "special circumstances" for majority of these old N plants to keep them running. Selective memory will ensure no decision maker will clearly remember ( or they will missinterperet ) the current government`s " intention" to adhere strictly to the 40 year rule. I really wonder whether J public will be able to keep " the establishment " in check or whether they will be rolled over again.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

@combinibento- my thoughts exactly! Oxymoron headline. "Stable but precarious" "safe but unsafe" Such clear and concise information

3 ( +3 / -0 )

A French acquaintance of mine told me that the French press have been reporting closely on the precarity of the situation (obviously France's heavy reliance on nuclear energy makes it more than a little curious about Fukushima). French journalists have been reporting that Reactor #4 in particular poses the biggest risk and if there is a moderately high quake near the plant, the whole thing could collapse, causing it to emit enormous amounts of radiation. Don't know how accurate that assessment is but it sure does sound scary! My French friend then asked me a very good question, "why aren't those TEPCO guys responsible for this behind bars already?" Couldn't agree more. Incompetence can be an extremely dangerous thing, especially when it comes to areas like nuclear energy.

Zichi have you read or seen a similar story in the western press?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

The reason that the TEPCO guys aren't behind bars, is that the willful incompetence did not exist solely at TEPCO. If the responsible at TEPCO were sent behind bars, then a large part of the nuclear village would have to go with them.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Zen student: ""why aren't those TEPCO guys responsible for this behind bars already?"

Because it's Japan. Instead of being in jail, people like Shimizu are now being paid extremely high salaries (and this is after the golden parachutes, of course) as 'professional consultants' at other companies.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

Waves hand "These are not the radiation spots you are looking for".

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Stable but precarious? What?

Either make an announcement, or don't make one. Don'r say opposites and expect us to say, "thank you very much".

I saw a TV show yesterday, which was fascinating but dull.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

NRA head Shuichi Tanaka last week said it would impose tighter safety standards for nuclear plants. Japan’s 50 reactors were shut after the disaster.

Same job different name, expect nothing to change.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

At first glance I thought "why would JT re-post an old government statement as a new article?"

My reason is because IIRC, last year, just a few weeks after the disaster, the Fukushima plants were declared stable and in "cold shutdown conditions".

2 ( +2 / -0 )

In other words,We don't know what we are doing and we are moving things along like a regular construction job.

1) We don't know what to do

2) We are lost and confused as you

3) Let's LIE to the public ( we've already perfected it )

4) We are not going in to the repercussions we've done already

5) Lawsuits ? We're already broke beyond compare

2 ( +2 / -0 )

It took over 25 years to take Chernobyl off line. This is not an over night proccess.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The Americans need to take lead as they can make decisions.

Anyone else laugh at this??

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Um - What's ... >"stable but precarious"?

No, actually

rather stable but precarious. Is that clearer but more confusing?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Quote: The plant operator, Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO), has taken extra safeguards and reinforcement measures, Oshima said. “A lot of precaution, a lot of care, a lot of attention is still very much needed,” he told reporters after meeting U.N. nuclear agency chief Yukiya Amano in Vienna.

Well, they need a sea wall there. They have built sea walls elsewhere pretty quickly. A couple of years at most. It could be done right away to protect this open wound against any future tsunami.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The usual definition of stability does not stand up to scrutiny here, the ‘stability’ being lauded here equates to a ball on the outside of the top of a can which is on its side. That's how stable it is. The slightest input could destabilize any one of the numerous ongoing catastrophes. Any ONE of them. Any real definition of stability would see a square block placed on the inside of the can, not a ball balanced precariously on the outside. There is no ‘cold shutdown’. That requires a reactor. There aren’t any in Units 1, 2 or 3. Just corium masses. The ad-hoc, dead-ending approaches are still in no way enough. Get the fuel OUT of the storage pools. Concrete in the corium masses at the bottom of 1, 2 and 3 --a precedent has been set at Chernobyl’s No 4 Reactor, that’s what they did and it stop emitting radiation --then build the sarcophagus. Let’s not forget that radiation is still being released. Humans cannot go into the reactor buildings of most of the Units. The monster is very much alive and threatening. No to nuclear energy.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The no 4 reactor is no longer that - it is a complete ruin.

There isn't a roof and from what I can see there aren't any existing walls on one side of the reactor building at all.

It looks as if the building could collapse at any moment.......

Surely, the government should be readying for this eventuality?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sometimes you have to go abroad looking for news to bring back. Al Jazeera tells how the plant is trying to deal with bulging quantities of radioactive water.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2012/10/2012102510561941251.html

1 ( +1 / -0 )

"Stable, but still precarious." That's like a guy who falls (or, rather, climbs) into the lions' area, and in front of him is a lion. The lion is not moving, but he's thinking: "am i peckish or not?"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You can get an egg to stand upright.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites