national

U.S. scientists find lessons from Fukushima nuclear crisis

28 Comments
By Mari Yamaguchi

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

© Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

28 Comments
Login to comment

They can start by getting their facts straight. They were not partial meltdowns.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

It's unfortunate that our traditional method of learning (i.e. making mistakes and learning from them) doesn't lend itself too well to the new fields of technology we are dealing with.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Good to see this.

As for the meltdowns Onniyama - please, tell us the facts. With references too if you please.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

cabadaje-san,

It's unfortunate that our traditional method of learning (i.e. making mistakes and learning from them) doesn't lend itself too well to the new fields of technology we are dealing with.

So true.

It's pretty important to be alive at the end of the mistake in order to learn from the mistakes.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Can somebody explain to me what they mean by 'safety CULTURE'????? Zichi maybe?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Well, it's nice to see that somebody is trying to learn ...

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Firstly, the events at Fukushima were not a crisis but a disaster. The ongoing radiation leakage is moving ever onward and poisoning more and more of the earth. The escape of radiation on this scale is not able to be remedied. The solution lies outside our ability to construct. Instead of looking at the facts and coming to the conclusion that nuclear power is unmanageable the scientists have already concluded that it can be made safer.

Initially, if something is inherently dangerous it can hardly be made safer can it?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

The 22 members of the National Academy of Sciences will be aware of how Sandy tested their own plants in the eastern US just recently.

If any of them are bored and looking for more understanding they could spend many happy and useful hours reading the articles and comments here on JT !

0 ( +1 / -1 )

zichiNov. 28, 2012 - 05:06PM JST

Reactors 1-3 had more than 80% meltdowns and melt throughs, that according to TEPCO. We have already been down that road so many times on this forum.

And what constitutes a partial or total meltdown? Views will vary.

And also, we have seen contradictory data on this forum, so such things are still open to discussion.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

“We have to study safety culture, but frankly speaking at the moment we do not have enough resources, enough time, or enough personnel,”...oh, wow reassuring.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Can somebody explain to me what they mean by 'safety CULTURE'?????

Basically safety being the primary concern for an organisation. That means finding and tracking risks and hazards, calculating probabilities of occurrence and their severity, i.e. what can go wrong, how, how likely and how bad? It usually requires a dedicated independent safety department whose sole role is the promulgation, tracking and enforcement of safety in the company.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Nuclear power in a country with as many severe earthquakes as Japan is simply not a good idea.

Read on:

http://www.japanfocus.org/-David-McNeill/3849

2 ( +3 / -1 )

U.S. scientists find lessons from Fukushima nuclear crisis

And our city killed a new nuke plant project. We are already shifting to green energy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

From the US INPO definition of Safety Culture: An organization’s values and behaviors—modeled by its leaders and internalized by its members—that serve to make nuclear safety the overriding priority. http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/enforcement/hro-sc-collins.pdf The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) recognizes the importance of nuclear plant operators establishing and maintaining a strong safety culture -- a work environment where management and employees are dedicated to putting safety first. In a January 24, 1989 policy statement (Federal Register), the Commission described its expectations for such a safety culture and how it supports the agency’s mission to protect public health and safety. http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/enforcement/safety-culture.html#background

2 ( +2 / -0 )

He said the group is still in “an investigative stage” and the process will go on for a long time.

They learn nothing. Trust me. These scientists are on sabbatical, spending governmental money, getting daily allowance, having sushi and good time in Japan. I wish I was there.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

“We have to study safety culture, but frankly speaking at the moment we do not have enough resources, enough time, or enough personnel,” he said.

Welcome to Japan's deki-nai culture. I've heard similar excuses before and what it really means is that deep down these people do not want to rock the boat. The nuclear industry is a tight group of business people and so-called experts who lied and lied about the true nature of the Fukushima disaster. Their circle includes construction companies who build nuclear reactors and academics who are basically ad men. A "safety culture" would put the incomes of the whole lot a risk.

A true "safety culture" would honestly look at nuclear power as outdated and intrinsically dangerous.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Welcome to Japan's deki-nai culture.

. This is the best described post about Japan today. America is a country of CAN DO attitude and culture. America does a big thing to move country forward to Green Energy while we have more oil reserve than Saudi. As we know it is the right thing to do for the next generations and we are willing to take risks.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/nov/13/business/la-fi-us-saudi-oil-20121113

U.S. to become world's largest oil producer by 2020

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Kabukilover, I agreed with your whole post until the middle of the last line where your personal opinion kicked in.

If you would allow me to rewrite it borrowing from Michael Mann two posts above yours:

A true "safety culture" would honestly look at nuclear power ...and... make nuclear safety the overriding priority".

Now the overriding priority might indeed end up meaning that these two - nuclear power and a seismically active archipelago - do not go together under any circumstances, but that is what the committee and the logic should decide.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

zichiNov. 28, 2012 - 09:46PM JST

According to most nuclear scientists, engineers etc more than 70% makes it a total meltdown.

Which at least suggests that it is not firmly defined. My 1995 dictionary of Science and Technology doesn't even have the terms "total meltdown" nor "partial meltdown", just "melt down".

So I guess YMMV.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

zichiNov. 28, 2012 - 09:50PM JST

The safety standards at the atomic plants needs to be based on possibilities and not on probabilities.

And what does that mean? As an ex-Safety Engineer what I can say is you look at the possible ways a device or system can go wrong and how probable it is that the event is going to happen. You also factor in how severe the consequences are, so that improbable risks are covered.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I actually agree with you zichi, but as I pointed out - from a Safety Engineering perspective "based on possibilities and not on probabilities" seems meaningless.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I have looked at it, but as I was just trying to point out "probabilities instead of possibilities" is just a meaningless mantra unless accompanied by some explanations.

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