Fukushima nuclear disaster was 'man-made' says damning new report

Run_to_da_hills

Two aspects of looking at this, was it man's negligence that was partially responsible for this or was the whole incident deliberately caused by man?.

The nuclear accident at Fukushima in Japan last year was a ‘man-made disaster’ and not completely caused by the devastating tsunami, a new report has said.

The Japanese parliamentary panel today submitted its final report on the catastrophe. The probe is the third of its kind in Japan since the world’s worst nuclear crisis in a generation.

In a damning report, the Diet’s Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission said:

‘The TEPCO Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant accident was the result of collusion between the government, the regulators and TEPCO, and the lack of governance by said parties.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2169061/Fukushima-nuclear-disaster-man-says-damning-new-report.html

The Tsunami and follow up explosions were deliberate according to this report.

http://www.pakalertpress.com/2012/07/05/311-was-japans-911-its-all-documented-folks/

3/11 was Japan’s 9/11. It’s all documented folks!

Not saying I agree with this theory but there are certainly some very interesting photos and points raised that would definitely not find its way into main stream media.

Cookie_Monster

‘The TEPCO Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant accident was the result of collusion between the government, the regulators and TEPCO, and the lack of governance by said parties.’

so it was an accident but at the same time deliberate?

zenno

Well you could say it was man-made because why would you build all your nuclear power plants exactly on top of an earthquake fault-line.

They obviously knew there was a huge faultline directly under where they built them all. Very lacking of common sense to do so do you not think. Would you build your house on top of a nuclear bomb ? of course not but they did something similar.

Duiske

zenno wrote: »

Well you could say it was man-made because why would you build all your nuclear power plants exactly on top of an earthquake fault-line.

They obviously knew there was a huge faultline directly under where they built them all. Very lacking of common sense to do so do you not think. Would you build your house on top of a nuclear bomb ? of course not but they did something similar.

Apart from power being cut the plant suffered relatively little damage from both the quake and the tsunami. I think part of the man-made issue comes from the fact that the back-up generators were placed in the basement of the plant, and were knocked out when the basements flooded. They also had a plan in place to cover all the generators being knocked out, connector points that would allow for mobile generators being brought into the site and hooked into the system. Here's where it gets a bit stupid though. The connection points for the mobile generators were beside the generators, in the flooded basement. In the end it came down to bad emergency planning. Quite simply, inaccessible basement = meltdown.

Jonny7

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

T

The Tsunami and follow up explosions were deliberate according to this report.

The report is not saying the Tsunami was man-made, its saying there was negligence in the location of the reactor, etc. Bad planning basically.

NOT A GIANT SECRET TSUNAMI MACHINE.

Jonny7

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

T

Not saying I agree with this theory but there are certainly some very interesting photos and points raised that would definitely not find its way into main stream media.

Go to news.google.ie type in "fukushima".

endacl

Of course it was 'man-made'. A nuclear reactor is not a natural feature of any landscape. Men made it. Well, i'd imagine there were women involved too, but you get my gist.

What's your point?

Run_to_da_hills

You obviously didn't bother reading the link.

Jonny7 wrote: »

Go to news.google.ie type in "fukushima".

Find me this in any mainstream newspaper.

http://www.jimstonefreelance.com/fukushimatoptext.jpg

Jonny7 wrote: »

The report is not saying the Tsunami was man-made, its saying there was negligence in the location of the reactor, etc. Bad planning basically.

NOT A GIANT SECRET TSUNAMI MACHINE.

Underwater Nuclear explosions as the article suggested

Run_to_da_hills

endacl wrote: »

You won't find it in a mainstream newspaper. Because its bonkers. That's what the internet is for. It's an outlet for bonkers.

So you would call that high definition aerial view of the devastated Fukushima power plant as bonkers?

Monty Burnz

Perhaps we should make a list of disasters that aren't man-made - it would be very short!

endacl

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

endacl wrote: »

You won't find it in a mainstream newspaper. Because its bonkers. That's what the internet is for. It's an outlet for bonkers.

So you would call that high definition aerial view of the devastated Fukushima power plant as bonkers?

That's a high definition aerial view? The one in your op? Have you redefined 'high definition'?

The graphic you quoted isn't bonkers. It's just a colourful picture. A bonkers interpretation of the graphic is, well.....

Bonkers.

JustinDee

"Man made", eh?
"Caused by man" or "man's fault". This means deliberate, does it?
Oh dear . . .

Run_to_da_hills

JustinDee wrote: »

"Man made", eh?
"Caused by man" or "man's fault". This means deliberate, does it?
Oh dear . . .

Prepare for a another possible Fukushima.

Explosives discovered on forklift at Swedish Nuke Plant.

http://www.woodtv.com/dpps/news/international/swedish-police-baffled-by-explosives-near-nukes-wd12-jgr_4214070

Different mainstream press version of the story which states that the explosives were found on a vehicle outside the premises.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/explosives-found-near-swedish-nuclear-plant-7873542.html

endacl

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

JustinDee wrote: »

"Man made", eh?
"Caused by man" or "man's fault". This means deliberate, does it?
Oh dear . . .

Prepare for a another possible Fukushima.

Explosives discovered on forklift at Swedish Nuke Plant.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/explosives-found-near-swedish-nuclear-plant-7873542.html

Well done. Find one more and you have a pattern.

Tell you what....

Answer the 666/999 question (that is, engage in discussion), and I'll engage in discussion.

Monty Burnz

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Prepare for a another possible Fukushima.

Explosives discovered on forklift at Swedish Nuke Plant.

http://www.woodtv.com/dpps/news/international/swedish-police-baffled-by-explosives-near-nukes-wd12-jgr_4214070

Different mainstream press version of the story which states that the explosives were found on a vehicle outside the premises.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/explosives-found-near-swedish-nuclear-plant-7873542.html

FALSE FLAG!

endacl

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Prepare for a another possible Fukushima.

Explosives discovered on forklift at Swedish Nuke Plant.

http://www.woodtv.com/dpps/news/international/swedish-police-baffled-by-explosives-near-nukes-wd12-jgr_4214070

Different mainstream press version of the story which states that the explosives were found on a vehicle outside the premises.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/explosives-found-near-swedish-nuclear-plant-7873542.html

FALSE FLAG!

Are you working for 'them' by any chance?

Well?

Monty...?

JustinDee

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Prepare for a another possible Fukushima.

Explosives discovered on forklift at Swedish Nuke Plant.

http://www.woodtv.com/dpps/news/international/swedish-police-baffled-by-explosives-near-nukes-wd12-jgr_4214070

Different mainstream press version of the story which states that the explosives were found on a vehicle outside the premises.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/explosives-found-near-swedish-nuclear-plant-7873542.html

Oh ffs.
Its as if you wish it was all a big conspiracy. Sometimes sh*t just happens. Sh*t like tsunamis and earthquakes. I guess you have to witness one of either to fathom them.

Jonny7

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

You obviously didn't bother reading the link.

I was referring to the Daily Mail link

Underwater Nuclear explosions as the article suggested

How do you know it wasn't Godzilla? or have someone not written an "article" on that yet?

endacl

Godzilla? Now that would just be silly.

On the other hand, there has now been a radioactive discharge into the sea off the Japanese coast...

Watch this space!

Joshua J

endacl wrote: »

Godzilla? Now that would just be silly.

On the other hand, there has now been a radioactive discharge into the sea off the Japanese coast...

Watch this space!

Dude why is every second post in this thread some spammy smart assed comment from you?. Unfortunately for everyone you're not very funny. Give it a rest eh.

Monty Burnz

endacl wrote: »

Are you working for 'them' by any chance?

Well?

Monty...?

I would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for you pesky kids.

endacl

Joshua J wrote: »

endacl wrote: »

Godzilla? Now that would just be silly.

On the other hand, there has now been a radioactive discharge into the sea off the Japanese coast...

Watch this space!

Dude why is every second post in this thread some spammy smart assed comment from you?. Unfortunately for everyone you're not very funny. Give it a rest eh.

Follow some similar threads. You'll figure it out.

Sorry you're not enjoying my contributions. I'll do better in future.

;-)

hooradiation

zenno wrote: »

Well you could say it was man-made because why would you build all your nuclear power plants exactly on top of an earthquake fault-line.

They obviously knew there was a huge faultline directly under where they built them all. Very lacking of common sense to do so do you not think. Would you build your house on top of a nuclear bomb ? of course not but they did something similar.

Not even close to being similar, really.

The major failure for fukushima was placing the backup generators in the basement and their subsequent flooding.
Bad disaster plans have nothing to do with the physical proximity vis-a-vis fault lines. That aside, the plant stood up very well to an earthquake orders of magnitude beyond what it was specced to stand up to and the accompanying tsunami.
Of course, that doesn't really matter too much when your backup generators get flooded, but the concept that "Durr, building near faultlines is bad!" is nonsense.

Monty Burnz

It's interesting that Japan has an image as a high-tech, futuristic country, but when you go there and learn a bit about the place they are absolutely 3rd world in some respects. The levels of routine corruption there put Fianna Fail in the shade.

An example that may be relevant in this case is the situation in Japan where there is a practice whereby the civil servants responsible for regulating a particular industry are usually hired by the companies they are used to regulate when they retire from the civil service. So the guys who are supposed to be working to protect the public are - by the time they get to senior positions in the regulatory bodies - just killing time until they earn the big money from these companies, or at worst are already working for the interests of these companies they are supposed to be regulating. They practically invented regulatory capture in Japan.

Monty Burnz

Monty Burnz wrote: »

An example that may be relevant in this case is the situation in Japan where there is a practice whereby the civil servants responsible for regulating a particular industry are usually hired by the companies they are used to regulate when they retire from the civil service. So the guys who are supposed to be working to protect the public are - by the time they get to senior positions in the regulatory bodies - just killing time until they earn the big money from these companies, or at worst are already working for the interests of these companies they are supposed to be regulating. They practically invented regulatory capture in Japan.

Is that just a Japanese phenomenon? It's pretty damn common in the west as well.

shedweller

Kobe, 1995:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VF3iJBLzjRs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWtA-TxRO7A

Japan 2011 (exact location unknown):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdO7E3soWNY

Japan 2011(location also unknown):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWb0MF5liIk

That doesn't look like a 9.0 to me. I've been in a 6.3 and it moved more than that.


Here's a table of the richter scale:

And another:

Now, we can go on about how much better modern building techniques are but that doesn't cut the mustard i'm afraid.
Suspicious shed is suspicious......:)

hooradiation

Look at two sets of youtube videos and going "that doesn't look like an earthquake of X magnitude" cuts even less mustard.

It was measured by at least two agencies that I know of (the JMA and the USGC) so unless you've something more compelling than eyeballing some youtube clips to go against, i think you're overestimating your ability to discern at a glance the moment magnitude of an earthquake.

Cookie_Monster

Perspective.

Christchurch got hit by a 7.0 and was flattened. New Plymouth got hit by a 7.0 last week and there was no damage. Why? Depth makes all the difference, quakes can be same magnitude but shallow ones cause far more movement and damage.

daelight

Conspiracy Theory? Not at all. The ineptness and collusion between government and cartels such as TEPCO is well known and documented in this country. The report is clear and factual, there is no consipracy.

3/11 is our 9/11? Nice sensational play on dates, must have taken you months to cobble that together.

shedweller

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Perspective.

Christchurch got hit by a 7.0 and was flattened. New Plymouth got hit by a 7.0 last week and there was no damage. Why? Depth makes all the difference, quakes can be same magnitude but shallow ones cause far more movement and damage.

You are of course, correct. But the movement of objects on the ground is a very good indicator of how much the ground is moving, is it not. So if those objects aren't moving a lot in the 2011 videos i posted above then, i believe, it was simply not a 9.0 where the video was shot. I've been trying to understand how an earthquakes strength decays with distance from the epicentre. Perhaps somebody can enlighten me.

Monty Burnz

shedweller wrote: »

You are of course, correct. But the movement of objects on the ground is a very good indicator of how much the ground is moving, is it not. So if those objects aren't moving a lot in the 2011 videos i posted above then, i believe, it was simply not a 9.0 where the video was shot. I've been trying to understand how an earthquakes strength decays with distance from the epicentre. Perhaps somebody can enlighten me.

Why would the US geological survey (and other agencies) lie about this though?

shedweller

Beats me. I just said that where the shop was with yer one holding onto stuff was not experiencing a 9.0 or anywhere near that. It may have been 9.0 out under the sea, but it sure as hell didnt look like a 9.0 in that shop or in many other street scene or domestic videos i have seen. Maybe i lucked out and missed the ones showing much stronger forces?

Monty Burnz

shedweller wrote: »

Beats me. I just said that where the shop was with yer one holding onto stuff was not experiencing a 9.0 or anywhere near that. It may have been 9.0 out under the sea, but it sure as hell didnt look like a 9.0 in that shop or in many other street scene or domestic videos i have seen. Maybe i lucked out and missed the ones showing much stronger forces?

Well either your looking at random videos on Youtube where you don't even know the location is a foolproof method of measuring quakes, or there is a massive conspiracy amongst geologists worldwide to exaggerate the size of the earthquake that caused the tsunami. Of course that would require you to explain the cause of the tsunami too.

Occam's Razor.

shedweller

Just two choices???!!
Look, all i'm saying is that before the tsunami reached land, everything looked reasonably ok. Sure, people were getting out of there but i dont recall seeing too many fallen buildings or broken roads ahead of the tsunami. Thus indicating that the quake had dissipated by the time it reached there. It wasnt exactly a shallow one if i remember right.

Monty Burnz

shedweller wrote: »

Just two choices???!!
Look, all i'm saying is that before the tsunami reached land, everything looked reasonably ok. Sure, people were getting out of there but i dont recall seeing too many fallen buildings or broken roads ahead of the tsunami. Thus indicating that the quake had dissipated by the time it reached there. It wasnt exactly a shallow one if i remember right.

That seems to be more or less what happened though - the earthquake alone didn't cause the disaster, and without the tsunami they would have gotten away with it. Here's the intro from the Wiki article:

The plant comprises six separate boiling water reactors originally designed by General Electric (GE), and maintained by the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO). At the time of the quake, Reactor 4 had been de-fuelled while 5 and 6 were in cold shutdown for planned maintenance.[8] The remaining reactors shut down automatically after the earthquake, and emergency generators came online to control electronics and coolant systems. The tsunami broke the reactors' connection to the power grid and also resulted in flooding of the rooms containing the emergency generators. Consequently those generators ceased working, causing eventual power loss to the pumps that circulate coolant water in the reactor ceased to work, causing the reactors to overheat due to the high decay heat that normally continues for a short time, even after a nuclear reactor shut down. The flooding and earthquake damage hindered external assistance.

So basically it seems that there would have been no problem if the place had just been hit by the earthquake - they could have kept everything cool with energy from the national electricity grid, and there would have been no meltdown. But the tsunami smashed these lines and their own generators, and hey presto, you have a nuclear disaster on your hands.

hooradiation

shedweller wrote: »

You are of course, correct. But the movement of objects on the ground is a very good indicator of how much the ground is moving, is it not. So if those objects aren't moving a lot in the 2011 videos i posted above then, i believe, it was simply not a 9.0 where the video was shot. I've been trying to understand how an earthquakes strength decays with distance from the epicentre. Perhaps somebody can enlighten me.

While it makes sense to think that earthquakes are at their most violent at the epicentre and then fall off uniformly from there, it turns out that's exactly not the case.

This kind of covers it, but basically you can be at two different points the same distance from the epicentre and experience varying severities of a disturbance.

But really, it was the Tsunami that did the damage, as Monty Burnz has pointed out.

shedweller

Thanks. Now, to the issue of cooling the reactor. The diesel generator sets flooded and all cooling was supposedly lost. But there is another line of defence. The HCPI, RHR, RCIC systems: http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/images/handouts_110810_04-e.pdf

This is driven by steam from the reactor itself and fed from the bottom of the reactor. So this would have kept running until the last drop of water left through the relief valve. Sorry, should have.

Monty Burnz

shedweller wrote: »

Thanks. Now, to the issue of cooling the reactor. The diesel generator sets flooded and all cooling was supposedly lost. But there is another line of defence. The HCPI system: http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/images/handouts_110810_04-e.pdf

This is driven by steam from the reactor itself and fed from the bottom of the reactor. So this would have kept running until the last drop of water left through the relief valve. Sorry, should have.

It seems that it can't do it on it's own - I don't know much about this stuff, but from what I'm reading here it suggests that it would only work for a very short time as without normal cooling systems, you are left with a closed system:

You should really look up descriptions of these systems, their interrelations are more complicated than that. RCIC is used for the immediate phase of cooling when the turbine and reactor trips and the condenser and its (seawater in this case) cooling loops are no longer available. RCIC dumps the reactor heat as steam to the pressure suppression pool.
RHR/LPCI is then used to actually remove heat from containment to outside of the unit with the aid of the “ultimate heat sink”, seawater in this case. RCIC and HPCI cool just the core and dump the heat to the pressure suppression pool, from where it must be eventually removed. In any accident where feedwater pumps and RHR are completely unavailable, the third and last option to cool contaiment is to vent.
If at some point the RPV pressure had gone above what RCIC/HCPI turbo pumps (using steam turbines) require, that would not have helped to cool the pressure suppression pool, but to heat and drain it further instead. Whether that would have been a good idea at a certain point of time would have depended on the temperatures and pressures of the RPV and PSP as well as the RPV water level.
Without RHR you essentially have a closed system which is going to keep heating up regardless of how you circulate the water and steam back and forth inside. Which is why they had to vent to reduce the pressure and then introduce outside water source (starting with the unit fire pump) to make up for the boiled water.

shedweller

It's just a pity there are no pictures or video from the plant itself that show the damage before the explosions.

shedweller

shedweller wrote: »

I've been trying to understand how an earthquakes strength decays with distance from the epicentre. Perhaps somebody can enlighten me.

Are you saying you don't believe it does?

shedweller

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you saying you don't believe it does?

I do, of course! But how much over what distance. So i can better understand what strength it was when it reached the power plant.
Someone above posted that rock type introduces many variables to this and that is very understandable.