Misguided safety assumptions key factor at Fukushima: IAEA

“Since the accident, Japan has reformed its regulatory system to better meet international standards. It gave regulators clearer responsibilities and greater authority,” Amano said.

“There can be no grounds for complacency about nuclear safety in any country. Some of the factors that contributed to the Fukushima Daiichi accident were not unique to Japan.”

If there are no grounds for complacency then why is Fukushima Daiichi Not contained. It has been 4 years and Daiichi is still polluting and contamination Japans' land and sea. The peoples' health should be a primary concern.

The IAEA report, published late Monday, criticised safety assumptions by the nuclear plant operators that were not challenged by regulators or the government.

JEA is in charge of the Nuclear Industry Operations and are in charge of the decommissioning as it were of Fukushima Daiichi but I do not think JEA is following Article 12(1) of the ICESCR, which states:

“The State Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.” This means that the right to health is recognized. Eloquently stated by Minister Taro Yamamoto in his speech to Parliament.

The Cabinet Committee 13 March, 2014 “The problem of radiation exposure and Mr. Anand Grover’s recommendations (the United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on the right to health)”. 2014.3.13

https://www.taro-yamamoto.jp/english/4408

Oh codswallips. There is lots of evidence that they knew not to build on a river, on a fault line and in an area that experiences tsunamis periodically. Just like Sendai in Kyushu, perched between two active volcanoes. The IAEA is 100% for promotion of nuclear energy even though it is failed technology. Now they are saying that they don't believe the numbers of Kanto/Tohoku children affected will increase. Jap govt says nobody is affected...

Misguided safety assumptions key factor at Fukushima: IAEA

And nothing has changed! They are still misguided!

But possibly the biggest factor was the “widespread assumption in Japan that its nuclear power plants were so safe that an accident of this magnitude was simply unthinkable”, IAEA director general Yukiya Amano said in the report of more than 1,200 pages.

This kind of "thinking" is prevalent in a LOT of Japan Inc & the J-govt's "thinking" & its causing all sorts of problems all over the place!

"Unthinkable" sounds a bit like "unsinkable" and we all know what happened to the ship dubbed that.

Misguided safety assumption ???? Like 40 years ago when they were warned that they should put the emergency units higher up on the hill. This would cost an extra $2 million, so they didn't.

And they still think it is unthinkable!

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Even now some make misguided safety assumptions. That is why Sendai is starting up again.

I'm a huge fan of nuclear power in general, but I'm increasingly of the opinion that Japan is just not the right place for fission-based reactors that have radioactive fuel and byproducts. You just can't put these facilities at low elevations on coastlines susceptible to tsunamis, on one of the world's most active fault lines, and think "don't worry it won't break and spew radiation everywhere".

Epic levels of hubris.

A misguided faith in the complete safety of atomic power was a key factor in Japan’s 2011 Fukushima accident, the U.N. nuclear watchdog said in its most comprehensive report on the disaster.

Actually, "misguided" is a nice, politically coorect term. The more accurate word would be "blind". Like much of Japan, the atomic power industry, and TEPCO in particular, simply turned a blind eye to the potential dangers, because it was easier to do so, and better for Japan Inc.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) pointed to numerous failings, including unclear responsibilities among regulators along with weaknesses in plant design and in disaster-preparedness.

Again, making them no different from much, if not all, of Japan Inc. Jst look at what Toshiba is going through, and you see the same systimatic failings -- unclear responsibilities, weaknesses in "design", and no abiliity to manage a disaster. When is Japan Inc. going to wake up?

A misguided faith in the complete safety of atomic power was a key factor in Japan’s 2011 Fukushima accident, the U.N. nuclear watchdog said in its most comprehensive report on the disaster.

Typical statement for this pro-industry organization. This was a corporation in which management made cost-cutting business decision at the expense of public safety. Not "misguided" and not "blind", as one poster suggests, but rather criminally negligent.

Unthinkable. But predictable, it was on TV in 2003 X-day Japan, unthinkable. And yet silly ideas with phony science like Global Warming are embraced. Totally ridiculous that humanity could influence climate change as if it were a static model to be easily adjusted or tweaked one way or the other. Its all about the money.

Shimizu and some others really should be serving time in prison.

Are you listening, down there in Sendai?

Put. it into perspective, the man in charge was iand is a company man who's sole purpose is the protection. od the company 'not' the public.

Tbi

So how many were killed? Oh, none. Three Mile Island? None. Chernobyl? Low hundreds, ultimate figure couple of thousand. Six thousand die each year mining coal. You know, the stuff that feeds over 20 new power stations Germany is building to replace the "unsafe" nuclear plants it is shutting down.

Not misguided safety assumptions but HUBRIS.

The myth of nuclear safety myth rises again. The accident was caused by the failure to adequately defend the plant from the risk of a tsunami in the Pacific ocean. Belief in the safety of nuclear power, whether justified or not, had no connection to the financial, corporate decision to not do so. By what logic does anybody say "I believe this technology is safe, so I'm not going to bother protecting it from natural disasters"? In fact, if somebody had a strong belief in the safety of the technology they would have had MORE incentive to make sure nothing happened to the plant, not less, because they would want to avoid giving any ammunition to the opponents of the technology if something did happen. Ammunition that those opponents have been running with for four and a half years now. The "safety myth" myth is just another of the many made up media narratives about Fukushima, only surprise is to see it parroted by the IAEA.

Guy_Jean_DailleultSEP. 03, 2015 - 09:36AM JSTBy what logic does anybody say "I believe this technology is safe, so I'm not going to bother protecting it from natural disasters"?

It's been safe for over 40 years. How many experts (domestic or international experts) predicted 16 meter tsunami? Nobody.

@sfjp330

It's been safe for over 40 years. How many experts (domestic or international experts) predicted 16 meter tsunami? >Nobody.

Yanosuke Hirai, who stressed the importance of a higher seawall at Onaga Nuclear Plant, sure seemed to predict higher tsunamis and force appropriate safety measures. Onaga was closer to the epicenter of the Tohoku quake yet didn't suffer a meltdown like Fukushima did.

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2012/08/how_tenacity_a_wall_saved_a_ja.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onagawa_Nuclear_Power_Plant

Noble713 SEP. 03, 2015 - 01:58PM JST Yanosuke Hirai, who stressed the importance of a higher seawall at Onaga Nuclear Plant, sure seemed to predict higher tsunamis and force appropriate safety measures.

Problem was not the seawalls. The real problem was that Fukushima-Daiichi was built at an elevation of 10 meters by reducing ground which initially stood at 35 meters above sea level to facilitate the transportation of equipment to the construction site and the pumping of seawater for the reactor’s cooling systems.