tag:theconversation.com,2011:/uk/topics/fukushima-150/articlesFukushima – The Conversation2024-02-21T13:18:35Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2199502024-02-21T13:18:35Z2024-02-21T13:18:35ZPotato plant radiation sensors could one day monitor radiation in areas surrounding power plants<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/575459/original/file-20240213-24-b1fnxo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C16%2C3642%2C2714&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Fields of genetically modified potato plants could detect radiation. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/f4df32b6c6354b5389fd59adaae707aa?ext=true">AP Photo/John Miller</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>While expanding nuclear energy production would provide carbon-free power and can help countries around the world meet their <a href="https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement">climate goals</a>, nuclear energy could also come with some inherent risk. Radioactive pollution damages the environment, and it’s nearly impossible to detect without specialized equipment. But what if plants growing in the facility’s surrounding area could detect radiation pollution?</p>
<p>The mechanical radiation detectors currently used, <a href="https://remm.hhs.gov/civilian.htm">called dosimeters</a>, aren’t completely reliable – during previous nuclear <a href="https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/chernobyl-accident.aspx">accidents such as Chernobyl</a>, they’ve failed or been <a href="https://www.spokesmanbooks.com/acatalog/Zhores_Medvedev.html">buried under rubble</a>. </p>
<p><a href="https://utia.tennessee.edu/person/?id=11899">Our team</a> of <a href="https://plantsciences.tennessee.edu/racheff/">plant scientists</a> at the University of Tennessee wanted to figure out alternatives to these mechanical radiation sensors to help address their historic failures, so we decided to build a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.14072">plant-based sensor for gamma radiation</a>. The sensor, called a phytosensor, is a potato plant that glows fluorescent green when exposed to radiation.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/MaaZjoHDvMo?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Dosimeters sense how large a dose of radiation something in an area exposed to radiation would absorb.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Historic sensor problems</h2>
<p>Current nuclear energy production is <a href="https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/safety-of-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx">considered safe by the World Nuclear Association</a>. But safety failures still happen, whether <a href="https://www.spokesmanbooks.com/acatalog/Zhores_Medvedev.html">from human error</a> or <a href="https://shop.elsevier.com/books/fukushima-accident/povinec/978-0-12-408132-1">natural disasters</a> such as earthquakes bringing the mechanical sensors offline – and that’s where our plant sensors could come in.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/571529/original/file-20240125-19-dnnjtj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A black and white photo showing a large explosion hole in a building, from an overhead view." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/571529/original/file-20240125-19-dnnjtj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/571529/original/file-20240125-19-dnnjtj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/571529/original/file-20240125-19-dnnjtj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/571529/original/file-20240125-19-dnnjtj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/571529/original/file-20240125-19-dnnjtj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/571529/original/file-20240125-19-dnnjtj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/571529/original/file-20240125-19-dnnjtj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Radiation sensors can help inform responses to nuclear accidents. Pictured is damage from the 1986 Chernobyl accident.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Volodymyr Repik</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Mechanical radiation detection equipment needs electrical power and regular maintenance, both of which make them less reliable during emergencies. A plant-based sensor wouldn’t require either of these.</p>
<p>The kinds of disasters that take mechanical sensors offline might damage the potato sensors but most likely wouldn’t kill an entire planted field of potatoes. As long as some plant cells are still alive, the plant could function as a radiation sensor. </p>
<p>Though potato plants are tough, some disasters, like a wildfire, would damage plant sensors more than mechanical sensors. While our sensors could supplement mechanical sensors, they wouldn’t completely replace their use. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/568097/original/file-20240106-22-l84j8b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Two small potato plants in green and two in gray, shown from overhead, in a square pot filled with soil" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/568097/original/file-20240106-22-l84j8b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/568097/original/file-20240106-22-l84j8b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/568097/original/file-20240106-22-l84j8b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/568097/original/file-20240106-22-l84j8b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/568097/original/file-20240106-22-l84j8b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/568097/original/file-20240106-22-l84j8b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/568097/original/file-20240106-22-l84j8b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Genetically modified potato plants acting as radiation sensors.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Stewart lab</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Plants as sensors</h2>
<p>Unlike mammals, plants can tolerate a lot of radiation before they die.
Potato plants, for example, can survive <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.14072">10 times the amount of radiation</a> that would kill a human. </p>
<p>We chose potato as our sensor organism because potato plants can tolerate high levels of radiation, they’re easy to grow using tubers and they can survive in a <a href="https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCL/visualize">variety of environments across the globe</a>. </p>
<p>Radiation exposure <a href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/tx000020e">damages DNA inside an organism’s cells</a>. When this happens in plants, they enter a “red alert” scenario and activate many DNA repair genes to fix the problem. </p>
<p>My colleagues and I co-opted the <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2015.00885">DNA damage response pathway</a> in potato plants so that when exposed to radiation, the potato leaves made a green fluorescent protein. This fluorescent protein causes the sensor plants to emit a unique green fluorescent glow when exposed to gamma radiation. </p>
<p>While the human eye can’t see the green signature, drones used for <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2023.107737">agricultural and environmental monitoring</a> can. The more green fluorescence produced by the plant, the higher the radiation intensity. So the sensors can tell you “yes, there’s radiation,” as well as roughly how much radiation there is. </p>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.14072">In our tests</a>, the plants reported radiation eight hours after exposure, but that was also the earliest our team was able to check them.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/571530/original/file-20240125-17-ug1yul.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A small drone flying over a crop field, with a house in the background." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/571530/original/file-20240125-17-ug1yul.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/571530/original/file-20240125-17-ug1yul.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/571530/original/file-20240125-17-ug1yul.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/571530/original/file-20240125-17-ug1yul.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/571530/original/file-20240125-17-ug1yul.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/571530/original/file-20240125-17-ug1yul.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/571530/original/file-20240125-17-ug1yul.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Drones, like the kinds used for agricultural monitoring, would be able to see whether the plants are lighting up, keeping humans out of the irradiated area.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/DronesAgriculture/ab91c96f7c134734a9f0fc41c003e93b/photo?Query=agricultural%20drone&mediaType=photo&sortBy=&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=130&digitizationType=Digitized&currentItemNo=17&vs=true&vs=true">AP Photo/Alex Brandon</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Based on our testing, the current radiation phytosensor can report a minimum total dose of <a href="https://remm.hhs.gov/gray_definition.htm">10 gray of radiation</a> – a very lethal dose for a human. The sensors reported radiation eight hours after exposure to it, and they continued to do so for 10 or more days, depending on dose. </p>
<p>Mechanical sensors can detect far lower radiation levels in real time, rather than as a cumulative dose like the phytosensors detect. This makes mechanical sensors ideal for everyday monitoring of dangerous radiation within a power plant, while phytosensors are better suited to monitor the larger areas of land around a power plant.</p>
<p>The current sensor could monitor radiation levels for the general public in an emergency scenario where radioactive material could be anywhere within a large disaster area. Chernobyl contaminated an area <a href="https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/chernobyl/faqs">about the size of Nebraska</a>, while Fukushima contaminated an <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9067/2/1/39">area about the size of New Jersey</a>. Most of this area had low-level contamination, with some hot spots.</p>
<p>Compared with mechanical sensors, phytosensors are slower and less sensitive, so they wouldn’t save anyone working inside the power plant, even if they were grown indoors. The current sensor could tell first responders where the hottest areas are during a large-scale disaster. After a disaster, it could inform regulators where it is safe for workers, and eventually the public, to return to. </p>
<p>We tested the sensor using an in-lab laser and camera, which are low-power and low-resolution devices. Actual drones with specialized detection systems would likely be able to detect lower radiation thresholds.</p>
<p>In addition to functioning similarly to mechanical radiation sensors, the potato-based radiation phytosensor is a living and growing organism that gets its energy from sunlight. This means that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.14072">the phytosensor is</a> self-repairing, self-propagating and self-powering, unlike mechanical sensors. Since potatoes grow from tubers, they don’t need to be replanted every year.</p>
<p>One obvious downside of the current sensor is that potato plants die in the winter, so during that season you’d lose the sensor. Our sensor gene potentially could be put into an evergreen species like a pine tree, but this sensor would need to be retested to understand its detection minimums and performance over time.</p>
<h2>Potential applications</h2>
<p>When used in combination with more sensitive mechanical sensors, the current radiation phytosensor could act as a fail-safe if a disaster <a href="https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-daiichi-accident.aspx">similar to Fukushima Daiichi</a> were to occur. </p>
<p>While there are many possibilities for incorporating phytosensors into our current monitoring systems, our team still has hurdles to cross before the plants can be deployed in the field. </p>
<p>First, nuclear regulators would have to determine whether this technology is safe and useful, given their expectations for radiation monitoring equipment. Then, the plant sensor would undergo rigorous evaluation by the USDA to determine whether the phytosensors would negatively affect ecosystems if released. </p>
<p>Overcoming these hurdles will require more research, which could take months given the growth time for plants. Despite the work ahead, radiation phytosensors could help protect people and the environment in the future as countries continue producing nuclear energy.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/219950/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Neal Stewart receives funding from federal organizations. This work was funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Neal Stewart is an inventor in plant biotechnology, though none of the technologies described in the Conversation article are patented. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robert Sears does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>What if plants in the area surrounding a nuclear reactor could act as radiation detectors, with the help of a drone?Robert Sears, Graduate Research Assistant in Plant Science, University of TennesseeNeal Stewart, Professor of Plant Sciences, University of TennesseeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2168912023-11-02T19:14:00Z2023-11-02T19:14:00ZIs nuclear the answer to Australia’s climate crisis?<p>In Australia’s race to net zero emissions, nuclear power has surged back into the news. Opposition leader Peter Dutton <a href="https://ipa.org.au/research/climate-change-and-energy/peter-dutton-address-to-ipa-members-sydney-7-july-2023">argues</a> nuclear is “the only feasible and proven technology” for cutting emissions. Energy Minister Chris Bowen insists Mr Dutton is promoting “<a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-18/energy-minister-says-nuclear-power-too-expensive/102868218">the most expensive form of energy</a>”.</p>
<p>Is nuclear a pragmatic and wise choice blocked by ideologues? Or is Mr Bowen right that promoting nuclear power is about as sensible as <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/radionational-breakfast/-unicorn-and-a-fantasy-energy-minister-slams-nuclear-energy/102866944">chasing “unicorns”</a>?</p>
<p>For someone who has not kept up with developments in nuclear energy, its prospects may seem to hinge on safety. Yet by any hard-nosed accounting, the risks from modern nuclear plants are orders of magnitude lower than those of fossil fuels.</p>
<p>Deep failures in design and operational incompetence caused the Chernobyl disaster. Nobody died at Three Mile Island or from Fukushima. Meanwhile, a Harvard-led study found <a href="https://seas.harvard.edu/news/2021/02/deaths-fossil-fuel-emissions-higher-previously-thought">more than one in six deaths globally</a> – around 9 million a year – are attributable to polluted air from fossil combustion.</p>
<p>Two more mundane factors help to explain why nuclear power has halved as a share of global electricity production since the 1990s. They are time and money.</p>
<p><iframe id="tc-infographic-973" class="tc-infographic" height="400px" src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/infographics/973/534c98def812dd41ac56cc750916e2922539729b/site/index.html" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>The might of Wright’s law</h2>
<p>There are four arguments against investment in nuclear power: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant">Olkiluoto 3</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Unit_3">Flamanville 3</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station">Hinkley Point C</a>, and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Plant">Vogtle</a>. These are the four major latest-generation plants completed or near completion in Finland, the United States, the United Kingdom and France respectively. </p>
<p>Cost overruns at these recent plants average over 300%, with more increases to come. The cost of Vogtle, for example, soared from US$14 billion to $34 billion (A$22-53 billion), Flamanville from €3.3 billion to €19 billion (A$5-31 billion), and <a href="https://illuminem.com/illuminemvoices/nuclear-economics-lessons-from-lazard-to-hinkley-point-c">Hinkley Point C</a> from £16 billion to as much as £70 billion (A$30-132 billion), including subsidies. Completion of Vogtle <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/vogtles-troubles-bring-us-nuclear-challenge-into-focus-2023-08-24/">has been delayed</a> by seven years, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/after-18-years-europes-largest-nuclear-reactor-start-regular-output-sunday-2023-04-15/">Olkiluoto</a> by 14 years, and <a href="https://www.nucnet.org/news/decree-sets-startup-deadline-of-2024-4-3-2020">Flamanville</a> by at least 12 years.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-beat-rollout-rage-the-environment-versus-climate-battle-dividing-regional-australia-213863">How to beat 'rollout rage': the environment-versus-climate battle dividing regional Australia</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>A fifth case is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgil_C._Summer_Nuclear_Generating_Station">Virgil C</a>, also in the US, for which US$9 billion (A$14 billion) was spent before cost overruns led the project to be abandoned. All three firms building these five plants – Westinghouse, EDF, and AREVA – went bankrupt or were nationalised. Consumers, companies and taxpayers <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/07/18/hinkley-points-cost-consumers-surges-50bn/">will bear the costs</a> for decades.</p>
<p>By contrast, average cost overruns for wind and solar are <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/we.2069">around zero</a>, the <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214629614000942">lowest</a> of all energy infrastructure.</p>
<p><a href="https://ark-invest.com/wrights-law/">Wright’s law</a> states the more a technology is produced, the more its costs decline. Wind and especially solar power and <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/battery-price-decline">lithium-ion batteries</a> have all experienced <a href="https://www.irena.org/News/pressreleases/2023/Aug/Renewables-Competitiveness-Accelerates-Despite-Cost-Inflation">astonishing cost declines</a> over the last two decades.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-australia-urgently-needs-a-climate-plan-and-a-net-zero-national-cabinet-committee-to-implement-it-213866">Why Australia urgently needs a climate plan and a Net Zero National Cabinet Committee to implement it</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>For nuclear power, though, Wright’s law has been inverted. The more capacity installed, the more costs have increased. Why? This <a href="https://www.cell.com/joule/pdf/S2542-4351(20)30458-X.pdf">2020 MIT study</a> found that safety improvements accounted for around 30% of nuclear cost increases, but the lion’s share was due to persistent flaws in management, design, and supply chains.</p>
<p>In Australia, such costs and delays would ensure that we miss our emissions reduction targets. They would also mean spiralling electricity costs, as the grid waited for generation capacity that did not come. For fossil fuel firms and their political friends, this is the real attraction of nuclear – another decade or two of sales at inflated prices.</p>
<h2>Comparing the cost of nuclear and renewables</h2>
<p>Nevertheless, nuclear advocates tell us we have no choice: wind and solar power are intermittent power sources, and the cost of making them reliable is too high.</p>
<p>But let’s compare the cost of reliably delivering a megawatt hour of electricity to the grid from nuclear versus wind and solar. According to both <a href="https://publications.csiro.au/rpr/download?pid=csiro:EP2022-5511&dsid=DS1">the CSIRO</a> and respected energy market analyst <a href="https://www.lazard.com/media/typdgxmm/lazards-lcoeplus-april-2023.pdf">Lazard Ltd</a>, nuclear power has a cost of A$220 to $350 per megawatt hour produced.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/beyond-juukan-gorge-how-first-nations-people-are-taking-charge-of-clean-energy-projects-on-their-land-213864">Beyond Juukan Gorge: how First Nations people are taking charge of clean energy projects on their land</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Without subsidies or state finance, the four plants cited above generally hit or exceed the high end of this range. By contrast, Australia is already building wind and solar plants at under <a href="https://reneweconomy.com.au/act-starts-to-bank-its-cheapest-wind-power-yet-in-next-stage-to-kick-out-fossil-fuels/">$45</a> and <a href="https://reneweconomy.com.au/nsw-gets-stunning-low-price-for-wind-and-solar-in-biggest-renewables-auction/">$35 per megawatt hour</a> respectively. That’s a tenth of the cost of nuclear.</p>
<p>The CSIRO has <a href="https://www.csiro.au/-/media/EF/Files/GenCost/GenCost2022-23Final_27-06-2023.pdf">modelled the cost</a> of renewable energy that is firmed – meaning made reliable, mainly via batteries and other storage technologies. It found the necessary transmission lines and storage would add only $25 to $34 per megawatt hour.</p>
<p>In short, a reliable megawatt hour from renewables costs around a fifth of one from a nuclear plant. We could build a renewables grid large enough to meet demand twice over, and still pay less than half the cost of nuclear.</p>
<h2>The future of nuclear: small modular reactors?</h2>
<p>Proponents of nuclear power pin their hopes on <a href="https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/what-are-small-modular-reactors-smrs#:%7E:text=Small%20modular%20reactors%20(SMRs)%20are,of%20traditional%20nuclear%20power%20reactors.">small modular reactors</a> (SMRs), which replace huge gigawatt-scale units with small units that offer the possibility of being produced at scale. This might allow nuclear to finally harness Wright’s law.</p>
<p>Yet commercial SMRs are years from deployment. The US firm <a href="https://www.nuscalepower.com/en">NuScale</a>, scheduled to build two plants in Idaho by 2030, has not yet broken ground, and on-paper costs have already <a href="https://ieefa.org/resources/eye-popping-new-cost-estimates-released-nuscale-small-modular-reactor">ballooned</a> to around A$189 per megawatt hour.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-original-and-still-the-best-why-its-time-to-renew-australias-renewable-energy-policy-213879">The original and still the best: why it's time to renew Australia's renewable energy policy</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>And SMRs are decades away from broad deployment. If early examples work well, in the 2030s there will be a round of early SMRs in the US and European countries that have existing nuclear skills and supply chains. If that goes well, we may see a serious rollout from the 2040s onwards.</p>
<p>In these same decades, solar, wind, and storage will still be descending the Wright’s law cost curve. Last year the Morrison government was spruiking the goal of getting solar below <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/ultra-low-cost-solar-power-a-priority-for-australia-20220108-p59msj.html">$15 per megawatt hour by 2030</a>. SMRs must achieve improbable cost reductions to compete.</p>
<p>Finally, SMRs may be necessary and competitive in countries with poor renewable energy resources. But Australia has the richest combined solar and wind resources in the world.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/too-hard-basket-why-climate-change-is-defeating-our-political-system-214382">Too hard basket: why climate change is defeating our political system</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Should we lift the ban?</h2>
<p>Given these realities, should Australia lift its ban on nuclear power? A repeal would have no practical effect on what happens in electricity markets, but it might have political effects. </p>
<p>A future leader might seek short-term advantage by offering enormous subsidies for nuclear plants. The true costs would arrive years after such a leader had left office. That would be tragic for Australia. With our unmatched solar and wind resources, we have the chance to deliver among the cheapest electricity in the developed world.</p>
<p>Mr Dutton may be right that the ban on nuclear is unnecessary. But in terms of getting to net zero as quickly and cheaply as possible, Mr Bowen has the relevant argument. To echo one assessment from the UK, nuclear for Australia would be “<a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-10-30/u-k-risks-looking-economically-insane-with-edf-nuclear-deal?">economically insane</a>”.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/216891/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Reuben Finighan is a research fellow at the Superpower Institute.</span></em></p>When Australia’s government and opposition argue over how to get to net zero emissions, nuclear power is the flashpoint. The argument against nuclear is stronger, but not for the obvious reason.Reuben Finighan, PhD candidate at the LSE and Research Fellow at the Superpower Institute, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2158362023-10-23T15:56:50Z2023-10-23T15:56:50ZDecontaminating Fukushima: have the billions spent been worth it?<p>The Chernobyl and (to a lesser extent) Fukushima nuclear accidents contaminated large areas of land with low-level radioactivity. After both accidents, huge efforts were taken to decontaminate the affected areas. </p>
<p>But a <a href="https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2301811120">recent study</a> at Fukushima raises doubts about whether these decontamination efforts were worthwhile. Less than one-third of the population has returned to the evacuated zones and extensive areas of forest in the region remain contaminated.</p>
<p>Following the accident at Fukushima Daiichi in 2011, approximately <a href="https://soil.copernicus.org/articles/5/333/2019/#section2">1,100 square kilometres</a> were evacuated, resulting in the relocation of more than 100,000 people from their homes. A contaminated area <a href="https://soil.copernicus.org/articles/5/333/2019/#section2">about eight times larger</a> remained inhabited, albeit subject to continuous radiation monitoring.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/fukushima-ten-years-on-from-the-disaster-was-japans-response-right-156554">Fukushima: ten years on from the disaster, was Japan's response right?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The dominant source of radiation exposure for people stemmed from gamma rays emitted by contaminated soils, pavements, roads and buildings. The objective of the decontamination operation was to ensure that the general public received an annual dose from Fukushima’s radioactivity of less than 1,000 microsieverts (µSv) above the natural background level. The average natural radiation dose in Japan <a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6498/ab73b1">stands at 2,200 µSv per year</a>.</p>
<p>Radiocaesium, which is the most important long-lived radioactive element emitted by the accident in terms of radiation dose, adheres to soil particles very strongly. Consequently, the decontamination of agricultural land primarily involved removing the top 5cm of soil. In urban areas, decontamination efforts entailed the removal of topsoil from sports fields, as well as sandblasting or pressure washing hard surfaces, and pressure washing drains and gutters. </p>
<p>These efforts <a href="https://www.pref.fukushima.lg.jp/uploaded/attachment/466744.pdf">reduced doses by about 60%</a> in residential areas and farmland, allowing people to return to their homes in a large part of the evacuated area. This is a far cry from Chernobyl, where extensive decontamination initiatives were ultimately abandoned, leaving huge evacuated areas that remain empty to this day. But was undertaking decontamination in Fukushima worthwhile? </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/554937/original/file-20231020-29-2lze65.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A map of the decontamination area in Fukushima." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/554937/original/file-20231020-29-2lze65.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/554937/original/file-20231020-29-2lze65.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=635&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/554937/original/file-20231020-29-2lze65.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=635&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/554937/original/file-20231020-29-2lze65.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=635&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/554937/original/file-20231020-29-2lze65.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=798&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/554937/original/file-20231020-29-2lze65.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=798&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/554937/original/file-20231020-29-2lze65.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=798&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A map of the decontamination area.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://josen.env.go.jp/en/decontamination/">Ministry of the Environment/Government of Japan</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Costs and benefits</h2>
<p>Decontaminating the land in Fukushima has cost <a href="https://soil.copernicus.org/articles/5/333/2019/#section3">tens of billions of dollars</a>. The process has, unfortunately, also caused substantial radiation exposure for the workers involved, and has generated <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00223131.2021.1974596?casa_token=9FVbYrMA-pgAAAAA%3AyvolWXRGBfsBUuNpIZTwCKK1OW33uMRa8HXKZzPZHfXTWYG3q4lhyOK7cA2ybEhoy1JK26vToDQ">huge amounts</a> of radioactive soil waste. But the question of whether to decontaminate land is complex and only partially related to scientific evidence.</p>
<p>On the one hand, decontamination <a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6498/acf504/meta">provides reassurance</a> that radiation is being “cleaned up” and that doses are being reduced. But it can also give the impression that low-level radiation is more dangerous than it actually is. </p>
<p>Dose rates were not dangerously high in many areas of Fukushima that were subject to decontamination. In fact, <a href="https://www.unscear.org/unscear/uploads/documents/unscear-reports/UNSCEAR_2020_21_Report_Vol.II-CORR.pdf">doses were relatively low</a> in the first year following the accident (less than 12,000 µSv), and these levels decreased significantly in subsequent years. </p>
<p>These levels fall within the <a href="https://www.unscear.org/docs/publications/2000/UNSCEAR_2000_Annex-B.pdf">natural range people are exposed to</a> from radioactivity in rocks, soils, building materials and cosmic radiation worldwide (typically between 1,000 µSv and 10,000 µSv per year, but sometimes higher). </p>
<p>On balance, I think the reassurance that contamination was being cleaned up was valuable in many areas where people remained living. Decontamination also allowed agricultural land to be returned to productive use more quickly. However, the process of removing topsoil had the side effect of <a href="https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=rn:48070955">damaging soil fertility</a>.</p>
<h2>Accidental rewilding</h2>
<p>In the evacuated zone where dose rates were around ten times higher, it’s less clear that decontamination was beneficial. Only 30% of people have returned to their homes in the decontaminated part of this area and much of the land in the most contaminated so-called “difficult to return zone” remains abandoned. </p>
<p>A better option may have been to declare most of this zone a nature reserve and allow managed rewilding of the area. Rewilding <a href="https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/fee.2149">is happening to a large extent anyway</a>, as it has <a href="https://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(15)00988-4.pdf">at Chernobyl</a>. It would also have avoided decontamination workers being exposed to radiation and allowed more financial support to help people relocate. </p>
<p>But this is a complex decision that needs to consider the views of many stakeholders, not least the evacuated people themselves.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/554564/original/file-20231018-23-f1tv9q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A fox with the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in the background." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/554564/original/file-20231018-23-f1tv9q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/554564/original/file-20231018-23-f1tv9q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/554564/original/file-20231018-23-f1tv9q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/554564/original/file-20231018-23-f1tv9q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/554564/original/file-20231018-23-f1tv9q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/554564/original/file-20231018-23-f1tv9q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/554564/original/file-20231018-23-f1tv9q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A fox within the Chernobyl exclusion zone.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/fox-goes-chernobyl-npp-on-background-1393369631">DL Community/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Fukushima’s contaminated forests</h2>
<p>The land in and around the region’s towns and villages has generally been decontaminated effectively. However, much of the Fukushima Prefecture (71%) is <a href="https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/57048">covered by forest</a>. Most of this forest remains contaminated.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/35012139">persistence of radiocaesium in ecosystems</a>, particularly in forests, has been known for many decades. Globally, radiocaesium levels in wild foodstuffs such as mushrooms, edible plants, game animals and freshwater fish tend to be higher than those found in agricultural systems.</p>
<p>Wild boar in certain regions of Germany, for instance, still exhibit radicaesium levels <a href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acs.est.3c03565">exceeding consumption limits</a> as a consequence of both Chernobyl and historical nuclear weapons testing. Restrictions on the consumption of forest products have lasted for decades following the Chernobyl incident. And they are <a href="https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/57048">expected to persist</a> in many forested areas of Fukushima too. </p>
<p>Radiocaesium lingers in forests due to the prevalence of organic soils and the absence of fertiliser application. Low nutrient levels facilitate the absorption of radiocaesium by plants. This is mainly attributed to radiocaesium’s chemical similarity to potassium, a crucial plant nutrient.</p>
<p>Forests do pose a wildfire risk. There have been many forest fires in the vicinity of Chernobyl since the accident. But radiation doses from smoke inhalation <a href="https://setac.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ieam.4424">are extremely low</a>, even for firefighters, and the fires have not significantly redistributed radioactivity.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A wild boar in a forest." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/554847/original/file-20231019-23-qq48o7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/554847/original/file-20231019-23-qq48o7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/554847/original/file-20231019-23-qq48o7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/554847/original/file-20231019-23-qq48o7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/554847/original/file-20231019-23-qq48o7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/554847/original/file-20231019-23-qq48o7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/554847/original/file-20231019-23-qq48o7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Wild boars roaming forests in Germany’s south contain high levels of radiocaesium.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/wildboar-natural-habitat-sus-scrofa-bavarian-1242323737">JaklZdenek/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There are no easy answers regarding clean up after a nuclear accident. Japan has made huge and often successful efforts to reduce radiation doses and reassure people living in or returning to the affected areas. But low-level radiation remains everywhere, particularly in forests. </p>
<p>We need to remember, though, that the radiation doses are almost always very low. The biological effects of radiation from nuclear accidents – primarily DNA damage – are the same as those from the natural radiation we are all exposed to from the food we eat and in our surrounding environment. While the dose rates for workers during an accident can be extremely high, those from radiation in the environment are low in the longer term.</p>
<p>Millions of people worldwide receive higher annual natural radiation doses than the residents of the Fukushima zones without even worrying about it.</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="Imagine weekly climate newsletter" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong><em>Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?</em></strong>
<br><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/newsletters/imagine-57?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=Imagine&utm_content=DontHaveTimeTop">Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead.</a> Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/newsletters/imagine-57?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=Imagine&utm_content=DontHaveTimeBottom">Join the 20,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.</a></em></p>
<hr><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/215836/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jim Smith is the founder and a Director of The Chernobyl Spirit Company, a social enterprise producing spirits from crops grown in areas affected by Chernobyl. Profits got to support Chernobyl affected areas in Ukraine.
More than 5 years ago Jim did small consultancy contracts on behalf of his University for various organisations including the Japan Atomic Energy Agency. He has previously had a grant from the UK Natural Environment Research Council, part funded by Radioactive Waste Management Limited. He currently has no relevant external funding and does not do external consultancy. </span></em></p>Japan has undertaken extensive efforts to decontaminate land in Fukushima – whether they were they right to do so is a complex question.Jim Smith, Professor of Environmental Science, University of PortsmouthLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2039202023-04-23T20:03:52Z2023-04-23T20:03:52ZSuzume builds on a long line of Japanese art exploring the impacts of trauma on the individual and the collective<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/522262/original/file-20230421-24-bpddu0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=8%2C0%2C1369%2C838&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">IMDB</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Makoto Shinkai has found a winning formula with the release of his newest anime Suzume, already the <a href="https://screenrant.com/suzume-one-piece-fourth-highest-grossing-anime-film/">fourth-highest-grossing anime film</a> of all time.</p>
<p>Shinkai released his debut animated feature film, The Place Promised in our Early Days, in 2004. Popularly referred to as the “<a href="https://www.cbr.com/hayao-miyazaki-makoto-shinkai-differences/">new Miyazaki</a>”, Shinkai is known for his detailed and realistic scenery. </p>
<p>His seventh feature film, Your Name (2016), about a pair of teenagers who have never met but randomly start swapping bodies, became an international sensation and brought Shinkai to mainstream attention.</p>
<p>In Suzume, the teenage titular character travels across Japan with a cat and a mysterious young-man-turned-talking-chair, sealing doors between worlds to prevent natural disasters.</p>
<p>In many ways, Suzume is light-hearted and action-filled, but at its core it is a tale of courage in the face of trauma.</p>
<p>Themes of disaster, loss and the environment are common across many of Shinkai’s films. But this film is his clearest exploration yet of the alignment of collective and personal trauma.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5pTcio2hTSw?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/miyazakis-legacy-is-sure-to-live-on-whether-or-not-he-retires-23780">Miyazaki's legacy is sure to live on ... whether or not he retires</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>The earthquake in art</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/tohoku-earthquake-and-tsunami/">2011 Japanese earthquake</a>, referred to colloquially as the “triple disaster” due to the subsequent tsunami and meltdown at the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Plant, looms omnipresent in contemporary Japanese fiction and film. </p>
<p>Kazuto Tatsuta’s manga <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichi-F">Ichi-F(いちえふ)</a> (2013-15) explored the author’s experience cleaning up after the disaster as a worker at the plant in 2011. </p>
<p>An archive of oral histories, photographs and real-time tweets about the disaster, named <a href="http://shinsai.mapping.jp/index_en.html">The East Japan Earthquake Archive</a>, includes oral testimonies geomapped onto a Google Earth map. </p>
<p>Chinese artist Ai Weiwei completed a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSkMGNOQXDg">Fukushima Art Project</a> in 2015, visiting the nuclear exclusion zone and installing two art installations in response.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/k1dZ8uVJq2o?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Fukushima 50 (2020) is a movie telling the story of how the employees of Fukushima Dai-ichi responded to the nuclear meltdown. Homeland (2014) is the story of a young man who returns to live in the no-go zone of Fukushima. Odayaka (2012) follows flatmates in Tokyo concerned about radiation and toxicity immediately after the earthquake.</p>
<p>Shinkai’s Your Name has been interpreted as his own indirect response to the catastrophe. In this anime, Taki’s hometown Itomori is wiped out by a comet – Shinkai’s reference to the earthquake.</p>
<p>Suzume is part of an ongoing project for many Japanese creators: to represent the trauma of disaster through a personal, empathetic story.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/fukushima-ten-years-on-from-the-disaster-was-japans-response-right-156554">Fukushima: ten years on from the disaster, was Japan's response right?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Exploring trauma</h2>
<p>There is more than one type of trauma. </p>
<p>There is the trauma experienced <a href="https://blueknot.org.au/resources/understanding-trauma-and-abuse/">by the individual</a>, and <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09555803.2014.915867">cultural trauma</a> shared among a wider population.</p>
<p>In Suzume, Shinkai tackles individual trauma, but the film also reflects a wider cultural trauma. </p>
<p>When she was five, Suzume lost her mother during the chaos following the 2011 earthquake and tsunami. Now 17, she carries the burden of this childhood trauma. </p>
<p>Memories of this event return in her dreams and as she nears her childhood home. But she is not just experiencing her own individual trauma. She shares the wider trauma of the memory of Fukushima and the earthquake with others. </p>
<p>When Suzume prevents new disaster by desperately remembering those who lived in these towns, she draws upon and connects with this collective memory and loss.</p>
<h2>The art of recovery</h2>
<p>The film follows Suzume’s journey to north-east Japan, beginning by ferry boat from Kyushu to Shikoku, then on to Kobe, Tokyo and Tohoku. </p>
<p>The threat of earthquakes is an everyday reality: notifications light up phones, crowds stand on sidewalks waiting to see what will happen, and then – after the shock – ordinary life returns. </p>
<p>Shinkai’s depiction of devastated countryside, destroyed homes and displaced ships in Suzume’s memories directly draws on footage that emerged from the Tohoku region in 2011, combining Shinkai’s trademark realism with a nation-wide memory of disaster.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/b0X98QYTwEo?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Although the film alludes to the nuclear accident through contaminated soil trucks in one scene, this is not the main focus. The focus is on the survivors of the earthquake and tsunami, which claimed <a href="https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/tohoku-earthquake-and-tsunami/">15,500 lives</a> and left 450,000 people homeless.</p>
<p>Suzume has limited but painful memories of this time when she lost both her mother and the world as she knew it. Her only record is a diary where she blacked out those days. </p>
<p>In Suzume, trauma is a “<a href="https://books.google.com.au/books?id=oLSuDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT292&lpg=PT292&dq=flora+keshgegian+black+holes&source=bl&ots=BNVfUiDgvN&sig=ACfU3U26MJYtLLS9e1woW60TPUyh_Ew55w&hl=ja&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjbmsS657L-AhXJcGwGHdavBEkQ6AF6BAgHEAM#v=onepage&q=flora%20keshgegian%20black%20holes&f=false">black hole</a>” in which there is no light and in which time does not pass. </p>
<p>This is depicted in the liminal space of <em>tokoyo</em> (“ever after”), a concept from Japanese mythology: a timeless space Suzume enters via wooden doors dotted across Japan. In mythology, <em>tokoyo</em> can also mean the place of the dead. In this film, Suzume became lost in the <em>tokoyo</em> as a girl. In returning to <em>tokoyo</em>, she can seek out and attempt to comfort her childhood self. </p>
<p>She can seek to comfort herself and understand the experience, but she cannot erase the tragic events or their impact.</p>
<h2>Moving forward</h2>
<p>Suzume could be seen as <a href="https://www.univ-oran2.dz/revuealtralang/index.php/altralang/article/view/87">scriptotherapy</a> – a story written to help the author come to terms with a traumatic event and rediscover a sense of control. </p>
<p>The film uses the journey across Japan, fantastical imagery and evocative <a href="https://open.spotify.com/album/6Ar5HxNWXtvraqs7FI7bYq?go=1&sp_cid=d42c4ca87fdd6047cd22e0d76b5316c2&utm_source=embed_player_p&utm_medium=desktop&nd=1">comedic music</a> to represent collective and personal healing. </p>
<p>Some of the film’s representations of trauma are a little too clean: ultimately, Suzume’s emotional release is fully achieved through returning an item tied to her lost mother to her younger self.</p>
<p>Yet the film stands its ground in the large collection of films and literature coming to terms with the memory of Japan’s 2011 triple disaster. It also invites consideration of how we might continue to heal from and memorialise our current era: how will we ultimately remember the trauma of the COVID pandemic and what stories will we tell?</p>
<p><em>Suzume is in Australian cinemas now.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/203920/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gwyn McClelland has previously received funding from the Japan Foundation, Tokyo. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Laura Emily Clark has previously received funding from the Japan Foundation, Sydney. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lili Pâquet does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Suzume stands its ground in the large collection of films and literature coming to terms with the memory of Japan’s 2011 triple disaster.Gwyn McClelland, Senior Lecturer, Japanese Studies, University of New EnglandLaura Emily Clark, Lecturer in Japanese, University of New EnglandLili Pâquet, Lecturer in Writing, University of New EnglandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2009022023-03-05T19:20:09Z2023-03-05T19:20:09ZNo, the Fukushima water release is not going to kill the Pacific Ocean<p>Japanese authorities are preparing to release treated radioactive wastewater into the Pacific Ocean, nearly 12 years after the Fukushima nuclear disaster. This will relieve pressure on more than 1,000 storage tanks, creating much-needed space for other vital remediation works. But the plan has attracted controversy. </p>
<p>At first glance, releasing radioactive water into the ocean does sound like a terrible idea. <a href="https://www.greenpeace.org/eastasia/blog/6540/a-quick-read-on-the-radioactive-water-in-fukushima-what-makes-it-different/">Greenpeace</a> feared the radioactivity released <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-54658379">might change human DNA</a>, <a href="https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202208/1272148.shtml">China</a> and <a href="https://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20210825001034">South Korea</a> expressed disquiet, while <a href="https://www.forumsec.org/2022/03/14/release-pacific-appoints-panel-of-independent-global-experts-on-nuclear-issues">Pacific Island nations</a> were concerned about further nuclear contamination of the Blue Pacific. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2022.106296">One academic publication</a> claimed the total global social welfare cost could exceed US$200 billion. </p>
<p>But the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/feb/15/fukushima-japan-insists-release-of-treated-water-is-safe-nuclear-disaster">Japanese government</a>, the International Atomic Energy Agency (<a href="https://www.iaea.org/topics/response/fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-accident/fukushima-daiichi-alps-treated-water-discharge">IAEA</a>) and <a href="https://theconversation.com/fukushima-to-release-wastewater-an-expert-explains-why-this-could-be-the-best-option-198173">independent scientists</a> have declared the planned release to be reasonable and safe. </p>
<p>Based on our collective professional experience in nuclear science and nuclear power, we have reached the same conclusion. Our assessment is based on the type of radioactivity to be released, the amount of radioactivity already present in the ocean, and the high level of independent oversight from the IAEA. </p>
<h2>How much water is there, and what’s in it?</h2>
<p>The storage tanks at Fukushima contain <a href="https://www.tepco.co.jp/en/decommission/progress/watertreatment/alps01/index-e.html">1.3 million tonnes of water</a>, equivalent to around 500 Olympic-sized swimming pools. </p>
<p>Contaminated water is produced daily by ongoing reactor cooling. Contaminated groundwater also collects in the basements of the damaged reactor buildings. </p>
<p>The water is being cleaned by a technology called ALPS, or Advanced Liquid Processing System. This removes the vast majority of the problematic elements. </p>
<p>The ALPS treatment can be repeated until concentrations are below regulatory limits. Independent monitoring by the IAEA will ensure all requirements are met before discharge. </p>
<p>The main radioactive contaminant remaining after treatment is tritium, a radioactive form of hydrogen (H) that is difficult to remove from water (H₂O). There is no technology to remove trace levels of tritium from this volume of water.</p>
<p>Tritium has a half-life of <a href="http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/resources/fact-sheets/tritium.cfm">12.3 years</a>, meaning 100 years passes before the radioactivity is negligible. It is unrealistic to store the water for such a long time as the volumes are too great. Extended storage also increases the risk of accidental uncontrolled release. </p>
<p>Like all radioactive elements, international standards exist for safe levels of tritium. For liquids, these are measured in Bq per litre, where one Bq (<a href="https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Becquerel">becquerel</a>) is defined as one radioactive decay per second. At the point of release, the Japanese authorities have chosen a conservative concentration limit of <a href="https://www.nra.go.jp/data/000418886.pdf">1,500Bq per litre</a>, seven times smaller than the World Health Organization’s recommended limit of <a href="https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/44584/9789241548151_eng.pdf">10,000Bq per litre</a> for drinking water. </p>
<h2>Why is it acceptable to release tritium into the ocean?</h2>
<p>One surprising thing about radiation is how common it is. Almost everything is radioactive to some degree, including air, water, plants, basements and granite benchtops. Even a long-haul airline flight supplies a few chest X-rays worth of radiation to everyone on board.</p>
<p>In the case of tritium, natural processes in the atmosphere generate <a href="https://www.irsn.fr/EN/Research/publications-documentation/radionuclides-sheets/environment/Pages/Tritium-environment.aspx">50-70</a> <a href="https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/prefixes.html">peta-becquerels (PBq)</a> of tritium every year. This number is difficult to grasp, so it’s helpful to think of it as grams of pure tritium. Using the conversion factor of 1PBq = 2.79g, we see that <a href="https://www.irsn.fr/EN/Research/publications-documentation/radionuclides-sheets/environment/Pages/Tritium-environment.aspx">150-200g</a> of tritium is created naturally each year.</p>
<p>Looking at the Pacific Ocean, around 8.4kg (<a href="https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02336283">3,000PBq</a>) of tritium is already in the water.
By comparison, the total amount of tritium in the Fukushima wastewater is vastly smaller, at around 3g (<a href="https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.abc1507">1PBq</a>).</p>
<p>Japanese authorities are not planning to release the water all at once. Instead, just 0.06g (<a href="https://www.nra.go.jp/data/000418886.pdf">22TBq</a>) of tritium is scheduled for release each year. Compared with the radioactivity already present in the Pacific, the planned annual release is a literal drop in the ocean.</p>
<p>The current levels of tritium radioactivity in the Pacific are not of concern, and so the small amount to be added by the Fukushima water won’t cause any harm. </p>
<p>What’s more, tritium only makes a tiny contribution to the total radioactivity of the oceans. Ocean radioactivity is mostly due to potassium, an element <a href="https://www.healthdirect.gov.au/potassium">essential for life</a> and present in all cells. In the Pacific Ocean there is <a href="http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Po-Re/Radionuclides-in-the-Ocean.html">7.4 million PBq</a> of radioactivity from potassium, more than 1,000 times greater than the amount due to tritium.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/nuclear-power-how-might-radioactive-waste-water-affect-the-environment-159483">Nuclear power: how might radioactive waste water affect the environment?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>How do other countries manage the discharge of tritium?</h2>
<p>All nuclear power plants produce some tritium, which is routinely discharged into the ocean and other waterways. The amount generated depends on the type of reactor. </p>
<p>Boiling water reactors, such as at Fukushima, produce relatively low quantities. When Fukushima was operating, the tritium discharge limit was set at <a href="https://www.nra.go.jp/data/000418886.pdf">22TBq per year</a>. That figure is <a href="https://www.nra.go.jp/data/000418886.pdf">far below</a> a level that could cause harm, but is reasonably achievable for this type of power plant. </p>
<p>In contrast, the UK Heysham nuclear power plant has a limit of <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/932885/Radioactivity_in_food_and_the_environment_2019_RIFE_25.pdf">1300TBq per year</a> because this type of gas-cooled reactor produces a lot of tritium. Heysham has been discharging tritium for 40 years without harm to people or the environment.</p>
<p>Annual tritium discharge at <a href="https://japan-forward.com/china-and-south-korea-too-release-nuclear-plant-wastewater-into-the-oceans/">nearby nuclear power plants</a> far exceeds what is proposed for Fukushima. The Fuqing plant in China discharged 52TBq in 2020, while the Kori plant in South Korea discharged 50TBq in 2018. </p>
<p>Each of these power plants releases more than twice the amount to be released from Fukushima.</p>
<h2>Are there other reasons for not releasing the water?</h2>
<p>Objections to the planned release have been the subject of widespread media coverage. <a href="https://time.com/6250415/fukushima-nuclear-waste-pacific-islands/">TIME</a> magazine recently explained how Pacific Island nations have been grappling for decades with the legacy of Cold War nuclear testing. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/26/if-its-safe-dump-it-in-tokyo-we-in-the-pacific-dont-want-japans-nuclear-wastewater">The Guardian</a> ran an opinion piece from Pacific activists, who argued if the waste was safe, then “dump it in Tokyo, test it in Paris, and store it in Washington, but keep our Pacific nuclear-free”.</p>
<p>But the Pacific has always contained radioactivity, from potassium in particular. The extra radioactivity to be added from the Fukushima water will make the most miniscule of differences. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/fukushima-ten-years-on-from-the-disaster-was-japans-response-right-156554">Fukushima: ten years on from the disaster, was Japan's response right?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Striking a different tone, The Pacific Island Forum <a href="https://www.forumsec.org/2022/03/14/release-pacific-appoints-panel-of-independent-global-experts-on-nuclear-issues/">commissioned a panel of experts</a> to provide independent technical advice and guidance, and help address concerns on the wastewater. The panel was critical of the quantity and quality of data from the Japanese authorities, and advised that <a href="https://www.forumsec.org/2022/11/16/release-expert-advises-deferment-on-japan-fukushima-discharge-dates/">Japan should defer</a> the impending discharge.</p>
<p>While we are sympathetic to the view that the scientific data could be improved, our assessment is the panel is unfairly critical of ocean release. </p>
<p>The main thing missing from the <a href="https://www.forumsec.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Annex-4-Expert-Panel-Memorandum-Summarizing-Our-Views-...-2022-08-11.pdf">report</a> is a sense of perspective. The public seminar from the expert panel, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzTjCgWlFRU">available on YouTube</a>, presents only a portion of the context we provide above. Existing tritium in the ocean isn’t discussed, and the dominance of potassium is glossed over. </p>
<p>The most reasonable comments regard the performance of ALPS. This is largely in the context of strontium-90 and cesium-137, both of which are legitimate isotopes of concern. </p>
<p>However, the panel implies that the authorities don’t know what is in the tanks, and that ALPS doesn’t work properly. There actually is a lot of public information on both topics. Perhaps it could be repackaged in a clearer way for others to understand. But the inferences made by the panel give the wrong impression. </p>
<p>The most important thing the panel overlooks is that the contaminated water can be repeatedly passed through ALPS until it is safe for release. For some tanks a single pass will suffice, while for others additional cycles are required.</p>
<h2>The big picture</h2>
<p>The earthquake was the <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222972/">primary environmental disaster</a>, and the planet will be dealing with the consequences for decades. In our view, the release of Fukushima wastewater does not add to the disaster.</p>
<p>It’s easy to understand why people are concerned about the prospect of radioactive liquid waste being released into the ocean. But the water is not dangerous. The nastiest elements have been removed, and what remains is modest compared with natural radioactivity.</p>
<p>We hope science will prevail and Japan will be allowed to continue the recovery process. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/radioactive-waste-isnt-going-away-weve-found-a-new-way-to-trap-it-in-minerals-for-long-term-storage-200255">Radioactive waste isn't going away. We've found a new way to trap it in minerals for long-term storage</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/200902/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nigel Marks is an Associate Professor in the Physics department at Curtin University. In 1996/97 he worked at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology (ANSTO) in the reactor division. He has received grants from the Australian Research Council, ANSTO and Los Alamos National Laboratory to study radiation processes in solids.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Brendan Kennedy is a Professor of Chemistry at the University of Sydney. He is a past president of the Australian Institute of Nuclear Science and Engineering. He is a long time user of advanced nuclear facilities in Europe, USA and Japan.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tony Irwin is a Chartered Engineer and Honorary Associate Professor ANU with extensive experience of reactor operations in the UK and Australia. Tony was the first Reactor Manager for ANSTO's OPAL reactor.</span></em></p>An independent assessment of Japan’s plan to release treated radioactive wastewater into the Pacific Ocean, nearly 12 years after the Fukushima nuclear disaster, finds it safe and reasonable.Nigel Marks, Associate Professor of Physics, Curtin UniversityBrendan Kennedy, Professor of Chemistry, University of SydneyTony Irwin, Honorary Associate Professor, Nuclear Reactors and Nuclear Fuel Cycle, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1782502022-03-06T08:24:09Z2022-03-06T08:24:09ZRussia’s nuclear power exports: will they stand the strain of the war in Ukraine?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/450001/original/file-20220304-23-1ekuk9m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Russias Novovoronezh plant in central Russia which is a sister project to Turkey's first nuclear power plant, the Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Sefa Karacan/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine has led to massive sanctions and resulted in heavy blows to its economy. It has also led to unprecedented condemnation of Russia’s leadership, as well as growing international isolation.</p>
<p>Regardless of the military outcome of the invasion, its aftermath will severely shake Russian diplomatic, trade and business initiatives with potential global partners. This includes the nuclear energy export sector, which is the preserve of the <a href="https://www.rosatom.ru/en/">Rosatom</a> state energy corporation.</p>
<p>Of the <a href="https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/reactors.html#tab=provider;construction=2011,2021">57 nuclear reactor constructions initiated between 2011 and 2022</a>, 13 involved Rosatom. Unlike China, the country most active in nuclear plant construction, ten of these were outside Russia’s borders, making it the world’s largest exporter in terms of nuclear plant development.</p>
<p>Interest in nuclear power plant construction <a href="https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/Highest-Number-of-Reactor-Closures-in-a-Decade.html">slumped in the wake of Fukushima incident</a> in 2011. The intervening years have also seen <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/dec/01/renewable-energy-has-another-record-year-of-growth-says-iea">fast growth in the solar and wind sectors</a>.</p>
<p>But there’s still a pool of nations that has shown keen interest in nuclear energy, such as <a href="https://www.arabnews.com/node/2025916/business-economy">Saudi Arabia</a> or, in Africa, <a href="https://allafrica.com/stories/202110250271.html">Rwanda</a>.</p>
<p>Rosatom has been <a href="https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2019-10-29-african-countries-rush-to-sign-nuclear-deals-with-russia/">extraordinarily active</a> trying to corner this shrinking market. Only last year <a href="https://www.bloombergquint.com/business/zimbabwe-signs-mou-with-russia-s-rosatom-to-tap-nuclear-energy">Zimbabwe signed an agreement with the company</a> where these commit to a vague form of nuclear energy cooperation.</p>
<p>Nations seeking to set up a nuclear plant invariably face major deterrents. These include very high and sometimes unpredictable building cost, and long construction times. New plants typically only start producing electricity 10 or more years after a project is initiated. </p>
<p>For most countries that means seeking long term loans of the order of $US 10 billion or more that later have to be repaid with interest.</p>
<p>The complexity of the technology and supply of processed nuclear fuel also effectively ties the client country into a dependence relationship with the country developing and servicing the nuclear plant. This can mean agreements typically stretch over 40 years. Such a partnership can only function if both countries enjoy long term stability.</p>
<p>As the invasion of Ukraine is destabilising Russia economically and increasingly leads it to international pariah status, any potential nuclear power partnerships have now become at best severely stressed, and at worst doomed to collapse.</p>
<h2>Russia’s nuclear energy vending strategy</h2>
<p>In the deals Rosatom has struck in the last ten years it has adopted a highly aggressive <a href="https://globalriskinsights.com/2015/10/russia-is-creating-a-global-nuclear-power-empire/">commercial expansion strategy</a>. </p>
<p>It starts with Russia, usually through its agency Rosatom, signing nuclear energy cooperation memoranda with a country that has shown interest in nuclear power. These then lobby for the agreements to be broadened into statements of intent to jointly build new nuclear plants.</p>
<p>Rosatom has a lot in the pipeline. It had already started building – or was expected to start construction soon – on <a href="https://www.rosatom.ru/en/investors/projects/">plants</a> in China, India, Bangladesh, Turkey, Hungary, Belarus, Finland and Egypt. In Africa, Russia <a href="https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2019-10-29-african-countries-rush-to-sign-nuclear-deals-with-russia/">has cooperation agreements</a> aspiring to eventually lead to nuclear build commitments with about twenty countries.</p>
<p>Russia has introduced attractive <a href="https://www.news24.com/citypress/business/russia-offers-soft-loan-to-fund-nuclear-20160429">low interest loans</a> for clients that are unable to afford the construction cost of a new nuclear plant. These loans typically require annual repayments that only start once a plant is operational, and continue for another 20 years or so years. And they are <a href="https://eu.boell.org/en/2021/04/26/russian-nuclear-power-whole-world-except-russia">heavily subsidised by the Russian state</a>.</p>
<p>Egypt’s El Dabaa project is a good <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-egypt-russia-nuclear-idUSKCN0YA1G5">example of how the loans are structured</a>. The loan is for US$ 25 billion, which is in theory projected to cover 85% of the building costs. The annual interest is 3%, with repayment kicking in in 2029 and continuing for 22 years thereafter.</p>
<h2>What if things go wrong</h2>
<p>Since the start of the attack on Ukraine, Russia has faced unprecedented international condemnation, sanctions and targeted blows to its economy.</p>
<p>An immediate consequence has been the suspension and possible termination of <a href="https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Fennovoima-Ukraine-events-put-Hanhikivi-at-major-r">Rosatom’s Hanhikivi project in Finland</a>. In Hungary, another European Union member, Rosatom’s Paks II nuclear plant <a href="https://hungarytoday.hu/debate-unfolds-over-hungarys-russia-financed-nuclear-power-plant-expansion/">is clearly in jeopardy</a>.</p>
<p>Other international projects will also come under increasing scrutiny. </p>
<p>The biggest threat to the Russian international nuclear power initiative will be to the financing of projects. An already weakened Russian economy hit by foreign sanctions and war costs is not going to be able to afford to offer the massive loans on which all its foreign nuclear projects depend. </p>
<p>In addition, a large part of the financing often comes from private companies. But they will now be deterred from investing in financially risky projects linked to Russia as they would then become themselves exposed to potential sanctioning and reputational damage.</p>
<p>Russian-driven nuclear developments are now also at a much greater risk of construction delays and cost escalations due to complications in material supplies procurement and financial transaction difficulties. The already <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-nuclear-power-for-african-countries-doesnt-make-sense-96031">significant long-term economic dangers</a> associated with mega-scale nuclear developments will now be multiplied, and shy away potential clients.</p>
<p>There is also a political dimension to the zeal with which Russia has been relentlessly driving its global nuclear power initiative. A country receiving a loan and reliant on Russia for keeping its electricity supply going now becomes very dependent, and has to maintain the goodwill of the Russian government. This can compromise a country’s independence.</p>
<p>Nigeria has just announced that it is <a href="https://www.vanguardngr.com/2022/03/fg-opens-bids-for-nuclear-power/">seeking to build nuclear facilities</a>. Under previous circumstances, Russia would have been a front runner in the award of this contract. Given the geopolitical situation and associated financing challenges, it now however becomes almost impossible to envisage a situation where Rosatom could pull off this project.</p>
<p>Similar situations will likely arise even in some cases where construction is already under way. For example, Egypt’s El Dabaa build also <a href="http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=88454">relies on other partners</a> that favour isolating Russia.</p>
<p>The era of Russian foreign nuclear builds is therefore soon likely to be over.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/178250/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Hartmut Winkler has received funding from the South African National Research Foundation. </span></em></p>Russia is a big player in the global nuclear power construction business. Why this era could soon be over.Hartmut Winkler, Professor of Physics, University of JohannesburgLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1621022021-06-24T11:38:22Z2021-06-24T11:38:22ZTsunamis, earthquakes, nuclear meltdowns and COVID-19 – what Japan has and hasn’t learned from centuries of disaster<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/406772/original/file-20210616-3759-yvi4ak.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C4199%2C2506&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Three weeks after the 9.0 magnitude quakre and subsequent tsunami struck Japan.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://webgate.epa.eu/webgate">EPA/Stephen Morrison</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>A decade on from <a href="https://www.japantimes.co.jp/tag/3-11/">3/11</a> – the <a href="https://theconversation.com/fukushima-why-we-need-to-look-back-thousands-of-years-to-get-better-at-predicting-earthquakes-156882">devastating earthquake</a>, tsunami and nuclear catastrophe that hit Japan – the country is again amid a crisis caused by COVID-19.</p>
<p>Japan’s already <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_disasters_in_Japan_by_death_toll">long experience</a> with hazards and disasters was expanded when it faced the catastrophic triple disaster of 3/11. Yet it does not seem like the potential lessons from how to respond to unforseen disasters of unprecedented size and scale have been applied when it comes to COVID.</p>
<p>When flexibility and fast decision making was needed, Japan’s government has been <a href="https://www.eastasiaforum.org/2020/04/25/probing-japans-slow-response-to-the-covid-19-crisis/">slow to act</a> against the pandemic. The response <a href="https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Comment/COVID-reveals-Japan-s-long-history-of-poor-crisis-management">lacked urgency</a> and was <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/26/asia/japan-covid-vaccination-program-intl-hnk-dst/index.html">extremely cautious</a>. With vaccinations getting underway in June 2021, Japan is finally coming closer to getting the pandemic under control, but it lags far behind other G7 countries.</p>
<p>The slow response – similar to a paralysed <a href="https://www.spf.org/en/global-data/book_fukushima.pdf">lack of action</a> during the nuclear disaster in 2011 – shows that even extensive experience and expertise in hazard mitigation and disaster management do not automatically translate into good pandemic management. It is clear that there are serious weaknesses in Japan’s bureaucratic disaster governance. </p>
<h2>‘Unprecedented’ disaster #1</h2>
<p>On March 11, 2011, the largest earthquake ever <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/17/world/asia/japan-earthquake---tsunami-fast-facts/index.html">recorded in Japan</a> (and <a href="https://www.usgs.gov/natural-hazards/earthquake-hazards/science/20-largest-earthquakes-world?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects">fourth in the world</a>) struck off the coast of the country. It caused a tsunami that killed more than <a href="https://www.reconstruction.go.jp/english/topics/GEJE/">20,000 people</a>, devastated communities along 500km of coastline and led to a nuclear <a href="https://theconversation.com/fukushima-seven-years-later-case-closed-93448">meltdown</a> at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. </p>
<p>Japan has an extensive history and experience facing and responding to earthquakes and tsunamis and because of this it is one of the most earthquake-prepared countries in the world. Few buildings constructed after Japan’s 1981 seismic building code were damaged, <a href="https://www.kenken.go.jp/english/contents/topics/pdf/report_ujnr2011.pdf">even by this mega-quake</a>. But, <a href="https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/17107">exceeding all predictions</a>, the tsunami destroyed places believed to be safe, causing tragic loss of life even among people who had escaped to <a href="https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/tjem/229/4/229_287/_html/-char/en">evacuation centres</a>, and overwhelmed disaster response <a href="https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/207516/9789290615682_eng.pdf">capacity</a>.</p>
<p>At 2:46pm on Friday, March 11, the shaking started. In Japan, earthquakes are measured and reported by not only their magnitude, but also on a scale that measures their shaking intensity from 1 to 7. This is called the <a href="https://www.japantimes.co.jp/japan-disaster-information/shindo-seismic-intensity/"><em>shindo</em></a> scale. For example, at shindo 6, people are thrown to the ground. On March 11, the earthquake hit <a href="https://www.nippon.com/en/japan-data/311data1201/">shindo 7</a> in some areas.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Listen to Elizabeth Maly on <a href="https://podfollow.com/the-conversation-weekly/view">The Conversation Weekly</a> podcast episode: <a href="https://theconversation.com/fire-tsunami-pandemic-how-to-ensure-societies-learn-lessons-from-disaster-podcast-163194">Fire, tsunami, pandemic: how to ensure societies learn lessons from disaster</a>.</em></p>
<iframe src="https://embed.acast.com/60087127b9687759d637bade/60d362150ad90f001b674192?cover=true" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay" width="100%" height="110"></iframe>
<hr>
<h2>‘A black wave’</h2>
<p>The shaking itself was scary, lasting six minutes that seemed like an eternity, but that was nothing compared to what was coming. In some places, the first tsunami wave arrived within 30 minutes. A tsunami is more like a moving wall of water than a wave in the ocean. Once the tsunami overtops levees or sea walls, water rises quickly in the streets and travels faster than a car. As it moves, it picks up oil, debris – all the parts of the cities it is destroying. </p>
<p>People described the tsunami as a black wave, a wall of water, a cloud of dust, a terrifying sound. On YouTube, you can see many <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cys8581RSXE">videos</a> from that day, filmed by survivors who managed to reach higher places. They show the sea level rising in harbours and then waters rushing into towns. </p>
<p>Tsunamis are not one, but multiple waves that come in and recede again and again; breaking and pulling houses, buildings, cars – everything – out to sea. In many of these videos, you can hear people yelling “tsunami” or “this is the end”, or yelling to people below to run away. In much of this region, which has experienced multiple tsunamis in the past, many people evacuated to the designated places on higher ground. </p>
<p>But some made decisions <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/24/the-school-beneath-the-wave-the-unimaginable-tragedy-of-japans-tsunami">which turned out to be fatal</a>: to go back to get supplies or blankets to keep warm, or to go to check on family first before evacuating. Some people tried to evacuate by car and were overcome by the tsunami. Others were washed out to sea. Around <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/mar/21/japan-earthquake-death-toll-18000">18,000</a> people lost their lives in the tsunami directly – a figure that jumps to more than <a href="https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-daiichi-accident.aspx">20,000</a> when including related deaths that took place later.</p>
<p>It was still cold in March, and it snowed that night. People who spent it outside stranded on rooftops, speak of the clear sky, of being cold and wet. With blackouts, there was no electricity and as phone systems were also not working, there was no way to share or get information about the safety of people in other places. </p>
<p>Some areas remained cut off for days, as people stayed in evacuation centres, sleeping on the floor of school gymnasiums, or with extended family and neighbours in houses above the devastation. More than <a href="https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2015/03/10/editorials/tohoku-slowly-on-the-mend/">400,000 houses</a> were damaged, some with only the concrete foundations remaining. Homes and other buildings were reduced to huge piles of debris strewn across the landscape.</p>
<p>But even as rescue workers and relief supplies were arriving for tsunami evacuees, inside the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, things were going from bad to worse. The plant had lost power and it was losing the ability to cool its reactors. At that time, it was not clear what was happening – but it was later confirmed that nuclear meltdowns happened in three reactors.</p>
<p>After several explosions, evacuation orders were issued and then upgraded for the surrounding communities. Without clear coordination or an organised plan (<a href="http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14262688">then or even now</a>), initial evacuation orders were issued for areas depending on their distance from the nuclear power plant. It turned out that this did not match the heavier areas of contamination caused by the wind patterns on that day. </p>
<p>Evacuation from the nuclear disaster area was chaotic. Some people evacuated on their own, some towns tried to evacuate together. Evacuation was especially difficult for residents of nursing or care facilities, many of whom <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0137906">lost their lives</a>. It was hard to find available areas, especially since many evacuation centres were already at capacity with tsunami evacuees. Nuclear evacuees often moved multiple times in their evacuation.</p>
<p>Even ten years later, there are still some areas where people are <a href="https://www.nippon.com/en/japan-data/h00954/">not allowed</a> to return because of radioactive contamination. Many other people do not want to return even with assurances of safety, especially those with young families. </p>
<h2>Building back</h2>
<p>Although 3/11 was unprecedented, the Japanese government drew from past disasters and existing legal frameworks to develop a standardised menu of <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13753-020-00268-9">funded programmes</a> to rebuild destroyed communities. In the name of building back safer, massive <a href="https://www.nippon.com/en/in-depth/d00684/">infrastructure</a> has drastically altered the landscape. Sea walls have been built, land raised and mountains cut into to relocate houses and communities out of reach of future tsunamis. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"991704685680750592"}"></div></p>
<p>But questions remain over the long-term effects of these recovery projects and the changes inflicted on tsunami-stricken communities. For those affected by the nuclear disaster, programmes that focus on “hometown recovery” (rebuilding housing and community infrastructure within former municipalities) struggle to address issues of radioactive contamination, indefinite displacement and <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/fukushima-tragic-legacy-radioactive-soil">un-inhabitability</a> in towns where residents cannot, or choose not to, return. </p>
<p>One strength of Japan’s disaster response and reconstruction is standardisation – emphasising “equal” support to all. Decisions made at the top are implemented through an efficient, if slow, bureaucratic process. Japan has detailed legal frameworks and <a href="https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/681491468038643305/pdf/793630BRI0drm000Box377374B00Public0.pdf">standardised disaster management policies</a>, and <a href="https://gakkai.chiku-bousai.jp/english.html">community disaster management plans</a> are promoted across the country. For housing recovery after 3/11, policies were based on standardised compensation for damaged homes and support for new housing across the region. </p>
<p>During COVID-19, the <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-02/from-abenomics-to-abenomask-japan-mask-plan-meets-with-derision">highly-ridiculed</a> policy to send two (very small) masks to each household in the county (regardless of the household size or local pandemic conditions) is a perfect example of a policy that was fair and the same for all, yet <a href="https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2020/05/ede4deecf584-abenomasks-wont-reach-all-households-this-month-govt.html">slow</a> and not responsive to actual needs. </p>
<p>The flip side of this precision and standardisation is a lack of flexibility or incentive for developing creative solutions. This system is incapable of moving quickly, decisive action, or course corrections. Detailed manuals with rote responses that can be practised could be effective for a reoccurring event such as heavy rains, typhoons, blackouts, or even small earthquakes – but they are useless in an unpredicted crisis. </p>
<p>It is difficult for this system to address massive and complex problems such as those created by the nuclear disaster. The slow moving governmental bureaucracy has proved itself even less capable of responding decisively to control the spread of an unknown pandemic virus, which does not fall under Japan’s well established laws and policies governing disaster management. </p>
<h2>‘Unknowable’ hazards</h2>
<p>Both the nuclear accident and the pandemic were unpredicted and “unknowable” disasters, especially in the early days of each crisis. We grew to understand more over time.</p>
<p>In the days after the tsunami, the world wondered what was happening inside the Fukushima nuclear power plant – efforts to cover up the fact it was actually a nuclear <a href="https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20160617/p2a/00m/0na/013000c">meltdown</a> were only officially admitted <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35650625">five years later</a>. While the path of radioactive particles was known, this data was <a href="https://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/gaiko/oda/files/000415120.pdf">not shared</a> with the public, or used to direct evacuation – in some cases people unknowingly remained in, or were evacuated to areas, with higher contamination.</p>
<p>Like radiation, COVID-19 is an invisible risk. While both radiation and virus exposure can be silently carried in our bodies without our knowledge, the window when potential health impacts become known is much shorter with COVID-19. In both cases, though, unsure about what risks they were exposed to and lacking proactive government actions, people made their own judgements about risk and safety. </p>
<p>With an official COVID-19 death toll of just over <a href="https://covid19.who.int/region/wpro/country/jp">14,000</a>, and daily deaths rarely much over 100, in Japan the pandemic has not reached the tragic levels seen elsewhere. The health care system has been stretched in some places, but never collapsed. This means that people in Japan are fortunate compared to those in many other countries, yet many of those lives may have been saved with more effective pandemic management.</p>
<p>In the face of uncertain risks and unknowable hazards, the Japanese government’s approach to COVID-19 and the nuclear disaster show some similarities, with official narratives shaped through the use of selective information. </p>
<p>For example, COVID-19 case numbers and data have been released daily – but they <a href="https://safecast.org/2020/04/uncertainties-about-japans-covid-19-data/">don’t include all tests</a>. Policies that focus on <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03518-4">contact tracing</a> while <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/29/world/asia/japan-coronavirus.html">avoiding widespread testing</a> were intended to reduce the number of people going to hospitals. So – as explained by global health expert <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ywc2vt1RVIM">Kenji Shibuya</a> – rather than a public health approach, Japan was focused on preserving the functions of the health care system. While this may have been a valid goal, it could not effectively control the virus after widespread community infection. </p>
<p>The Japanese government has continuously <a href="https://www.teach311.org/2020/07/09/maly/">downplayed the risk of COVID-19</a> (as it did with the nuclear disaster) prioritising economic activity while promoting an image of “<a href="https://www.teach311.org/2020/07/09/maly/">COVID-safe</a>” Japan, both inside and outside of the country. Without real lockdowns or stay-at-home orders, Japan’s <a href="https://apnews.com/article/yoshihide-suga-tokyo-osaka-coronavirus-pandemic-japan-754dc02e08a19728429c55c381fd84b3">COVID-19 states of emergency</a> limit business hours for bars and restaurants and large gatherings. People are asked to practice “self-restraint” and avoid crowded and congested places.</p>
<p>Existing cultural factors such as widespread mask-wearing, keeping physically distanced, high levels of sanitation and rule-following may have contributed to slowing the spread of COVID-19 in Japan. Some experts and officials fell back on <a href="https://www.japanpolicyforum.jp/diplomacy/pt20200605162619.html">culturalist</a> and even <a href="https://www.asianstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/The-Pandemic-Perspectives-on-Asia.pdf">racial superiority</a> reasons for this perceived Japanese exceptionalism. However, by the end of 2020 it was clear that Japan’s strategies <a href="https://time.com/5922918/japan-covid-19-cases-fatigue/">were not working</a>. </p>
<p>With the number of seriously ill COVID patients <a href="https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2021/05/02/national/japan-coronavirus-may2/">peaking in May 2021</a> and vaccinations for the elderly only just getting started in June, <a href="https://toyokeizai.net/sp/visual/tko/covid19/en.html">cases</a> continuing to rise and the <a href="https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/backstories/1660/">state of emergency extended</a> for much of the country, it is becoming harder to see Japan’s pandemic management as something to emulate. </p>
<p>Despite this, the national government has been vowing to get <a href="https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Japan-s-Suga-vows-to-bring-COVID-19-under-control">COVID under control</a> and promising the world that Tokyo will still hold the Olympics from July 2021.</p>
<h2>Olympic redemption?</h2>
<p>The shadow of the 2020 Tokyo Olympics was already present after the nuclear accident, when in 2013 the prime minister assured the world that <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-olympics-presentation-tokyo/tokyo-reassures-ioc-over-fukushima-fears-idUSBRE9860CO20130907">Japan was safe</a> while securing Tokyo’s bid to host the games. Only days later it was revealed that massive amounts of radioactive groundwater had been <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/after-snatching-olympics-japan-suddenly-admits-fukushima-not-under-control-begs-for-international-help-2013-10">leaking into the sea</a>. </p>
<p>Downplaying risks to create an image of safety both in Japan and globally was a core government strategy. This message became inextricably linked to hosting the Tokyo Olympics (an economic opportunity as well as an ultimate chance to present Japan in a positive way to the world). Initially, the “<a href="https://www.reconstruction.go.jp/2020portal/eng/reconst-olympic/">Recovery Olympics</a>” were framed to show successful recovery after 3/11 (an idea that many found to be <a href="https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/03/10/national/recovery-olympics-moniker-2020-games-rubs-3-11-evacuees-wrong-way/">offensive</a> to disaster survivors still facing many challenges). </p>
<p>Then in 2020, with the Olympics finally around the corner, the pandemic struck. Japan made every effort to <a href="https://apnews.com/article/b696bb41fe5e807ba2a99b09c910f16e">avoid the eventual postponement</a> of the Tokyo Games to 2021. Now, they have been reframed as a way to show the world Japan’s triumph over the pandemic.</p>
<p>With Tokyo under an extended state of emergency into June, <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-57240044">questions</a> lingered as to whether the postponed games would go on as scheduled from July 2021 and if teams will come. There has even been speculation that the Olympics could result in a <a href="https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/sports/japan-reassures-olympics-can-be-safe-extended-state-emergency-eyed-2021-05-27/">new virus mutation</a> </p>
<p>With a few notable exceptions, the places that were able to act quickly to effectively control the spread of COVID-19 were those with experience handling the SARS pandemic, such as <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/03/hong-kong-sars-china-coronavirus-covid19/608131/">Hong Kong</a> and <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41590-021-00908-2">Taiwan</a>.</p>
<p>While Japan has expert knowledge and a national infectious disease research centre, without a national government agency such as the <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/">CDC</a> in the United States, the COVID-19 response was ad-hoc. Several expert committees were set up to advise the government; the national response was led by the minister of economics. This is a telling factor of Japan’s response, although Japan is no way unique among countries of the world that struggled to balance the control of disease with impact on their economy.</p>
<p>In Japan, natural hazards are precisely predicted and calculated, with hazard maps of local areas mailed to residents. From a young age, children learn what to do in the case of an earthquake, and there is high awareness of disasters in the general public as well as private and public sectors. The <em>shinkansen</em> (bullet train) automatically stops seconds after an earthquake is detected, and cell phones automatically issue a warning for anyone in the area. With standardised policies in place, risk events are confirmed and conveyed, warnings are disseminated, and pre-existing plans are activated to set up evacuation facilities and give out relief supplies.</p>
<p>Yet, Japan shows us that disaster management experience does not automatically translate to effective pandemic management, at least not on a national level. Japanese disaster management and response is technologically proficient, with expertise and precise calculations and efficient systems to calculate and issue warnings and implement safety measures.</p>
<p>But disaster management that is based on planning for specific expected events is not flexible. Effective response to natural or technical hazards – or pandemic diseases – requires competent national leadership as well as suitable localised responses. Most importantly, as <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-environment-disasters-un-idUSKBN26X18O">natural hazards continue to grow</a> and become even more unpredictable with climate change, the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210111-what-could-the-next-pandemic-be">next global pandemic</a> or disaster may be here soon. The ability to respond quickly and with flexibility may be the most important factor to avoid repeating the failures of COVID-19 and a potentially even greater loss of life.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>This article is part of a series on recovering from the pandemic in a way that makes societies more resilient and able to deal with future challenges. Read more of our coverage <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/resilient-recovery-series-106366">here</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/162102/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Elizabeth Maly does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Japan has a long experience of hazards and disasters. Yet it does not seem like all lessons have been applied when it comes to COVID.Elizabeth Maly, Associate Professor, International Research Institute of Disaster Science, Tohoku UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1594832021-04-30T13:25:22Z2021-04-30T13:25:22ZNuclear power: how might radioactive waste water affect the environment?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/396838/original/file-20210423-21-mdo7ik.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://pixabay.com/photos/nuclear-power-plant-cooling-tower-4535761/">Markus Distelrath/Pixabay </a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>It’s been just over a decade since the fourth most powerful earthquake of the modern era triggered a tsunami that struck <a href="https://theconversation.com/fukushima-ten-years-on-from-the-disaster-was-japans-response-right-156554">Fukushima</a> on the eastern coastline of Japan, causing <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-fukushima-quake-may-be-an-echo-of-the-2011-disaster-and-a-warning-for-the-future-155293">thousands of deaths</a> and leaving hundreds of thousands unable to return home. That tsunami was also responsible for the world’s worst nuclear accident since the Chernobyl disaster. </p>
<p>When the 14-metre wave flooded the Fukushima Daiichi plant, it shut down emergency generators, triggering a series of heat-induced meltdowns. Now, the Japanese government’s <a href="https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/04/1089852">decision</a> to allow the release of more than one million tonnes of radioactive water from the plant into the ocean has <a href="https://www.greenpeace.org/international/press-release/47207/the-japanese-governments-decision-to-discharge-fukushima-contaminated-water-ignores-human-rights-and-international-maritime-law/#:%7E:text=Tokyo%2C%20Japan%20%E2%80%93%20Greenpeace%20Japan%20strongly,Plant%20into%20the%20Pacific%20Ocean.">divided</a>
<a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2021/04/12/japan-will-release-radioactive-fukushima-water-into-the-ocean/?sh=41a0de7874c4">opinion</a>.</p>
<p>Water is a vital tool for all nuclear power stations: it’s used to cool their heat-generating radioactive cores. During the cooling process, the water becomes contaminated with <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/chemistry/radionuclides#:%7E:text=Radionuclides%20are%20species%20of%20atoms,or%20gamma%20rays%20(%CE%B3)">radionuclides</a> – unstable atoms with excess energy – and must be filtered to remove as many radionuclides as possible. </p>
<p>The filtered water is then stored in huge steel tanks or released into nearby bodies of water. As huge amounts of water are required by every plant, most nuclear facilities are built on coastlines – or, in the case of Chernobyl, surrounded by huge lakes. That way, filtered waste water can be discharged into the ocean or lake once it’s been assessed and confirmed safe by authorities. </p>
<p>This is how workers at Fukushima dealt with waste water while the plant was operating. But since the tsunami hit in 2011, authorities have used more than a <a href="https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/asia-pacific/japan-to-release-1-million-tonnes-of-contaminated-fukushima-water-into-sea-1.4535983#:%7E:text=Nearly%201.3%20million%20tonnes%20of,and%20space%20is%20running%20out.">million tonnes</a> of water to try and cool the plant’s disabled reactors, which are still hot thanks to the long-term release of energy from the nuclear power source.
All that radioactive water – which is more contaminated than standard waste water – has to go somewhere. The decision to release it into the oceans is – some would argue – the most pragmatic long-term solution. </p>
<h2>What could the impacts be?</h2>
<p>The process of filtering and diluting the huge amounts of water to meet safety standards will take a few years to complete. Then, we’d usually expect the water to be released gradually in small volumes through coastal pipelines. That way, any potential effects of releasing the radioactive waste will be minimised. However, the fact is that we don’t know <em>exactly</em> what those effects will be on marine – or human – life, given the sheer volume of water set to be released from the Fukushima plant.</p>
<p><a href="https://meridian.allenpress.com/radiation-research/article-abstract/177/5/693/150125">Our own research</a> has shown that a number of marine species could have their DNA damaged through extended exposure to radionuclides in seawater. It’s important to note that our conclusions are mostly drawn from studies in the lab, rather than in the real world; when a nuclear accident takes place, human safety takes priority and biological assessment often takes place decades after the original event. </p>
<p>That being said, our experiments with both marine and freshwater mussels found that when radionuclides are present in seawater alongside commonly-occurring metals like copper, the DNA damage caused by radionuclides to the mussels was <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09553002.2020.1823032">increased</a>. Much, much more research is needed to understand the effects of exposure to different types of radionuclides on different species.</p>
<p>In the meantime, <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-56728068">anger</a> towards Japan’s decision from fishing communities is understandable. In a world where global dependence on fisheries for food is <a href="https://c402277.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/publications/982/files/original/Report_food_and_fish_Final.pdf?1484256747">increasing</a> – and at least 10% of the world’s population <a href="https://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/sites/default/files/publications/contribution_of_fisheries_to_food_and_nutrition_security_0.pdf">depend on fisheries</a> for their livelihood – a potentially contaminated environment could result in a contaminated food chain, raising consumer concerns.</p>
<p>We also know that around 95% of cancers in humans are triggered by <a href="https://www.oatext.com/which-environment-makes-cancer.php">exposure to toxic substances</a> present in the environment, food included. If these substances damage genetic material within our cells, that damage must be repaired. Otherwise, the damaged cell either dies or divides. And when the latter happens, the damage – which can cause genetic mutations – is passed on to dividing cells in a process that may lead to diseases like cancer. </p>
<p>If that genetic damage happens to egg or sperm cells, it may be passed down from parent to child, triggering new diseases in future generations. To neutralise these complex threats, it’s key to ensure that only safe levels of nuclear waste are being released into the ocean.</p>
<h2>Where do we go from here?</h2>
<p>As new nuclear plants emerge in the effort to tackle climate change, the need for transparency when it comes to nuclear technology has never been greater: especially if we are to build public confidence in the benefits of nuclear energy. </p>
<p>When nuclear reactors are mentioned, it’s disasters which tend to spring to mind. Yet considering the long history of nuclear power generation, serious accidents – involving loss of life and severe damage to the environment – are <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3132367/">extraordinarily rare</a>. The huge amounts of data gathered from each disaster site have enabled powerful advances in nuclear security, making future accidents even less likely. Meanwhile, waste from the world’s nuclear reactors is being <a href="https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/radioactive-waste-management.aspx">managed safely</a> every day, although long-term solutions to waste disposal still pose a challenge. </p>
<p>Rapidly developing technology like <a href="https://theconversation.com/nuclear-fusion-building-a-star-on-earth-is-hard-which-is-why-we-need-better-materials-155917">nuclear fusion</a> – mimicking the Sun’s way of generating energy by fusing hydrogen atoms to form helium, and converting that helium into energy – may eventually slash generation of nuclear waste. There’s also room for improvement of our existing nuclear facilities to help minimise waste generation: for example, by forcing radioactive byproducts to decay faster.</p>
<p>But while we still rely on nuclear power, the most urgent priority is to set internationally accepted regulations for radiation exposure levels across different species. After all, we are what we eat: our health as a global community depends on the health of the environment, and a contaminated ocean knows no geographical or political borders.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/159483/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Awadhesh Jha has received funding from the European Commission Horizon 2020, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, the Natural Environment Research Council and the pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca.</span></em></p>Why do nuclear plants produce radioactive water – and what happens when that water gets into the ocean?Awadhesh Jha, Professor of Genetic Toxicology and Ecotoxicology, University of PlymouthLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1568822021-03-10T15:18:01Z2021-03-10T15:18:01ZFukushima: why we need to look back thousands of years to get better at predicting earthquakes<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/388838/original/file-20210310-13-4x81pt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=210%2C168%2C5237%2C3463&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The aftermath of Fukushima.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/tsunami-04302011-fukushima-japan-646886158">Shutterstock/ Fly_and_Dive</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Ten years ago, on March 11 2011, a devastating earthquake occurred along part of a fault that scientists believe had not ruptured for more than a thousand years. The quake triggered a tsunami that caused more than 15,000 deaths in Japan, as well as a <a href="https://theconversation.com/10-years-after-fukushima-safety-is-still-nuclear-powers-greatest-challenge-155541">serious nuclear accident</a> at a power plant in Fukushima. </p>
<p>It’s common for earthquakes to occur along faults that haven’t ruptured for hundreds or thousands of years. This is because rates of tectonic movement along individual faults vary from less than a millimetre up to several centimetres per year. During damaging earthquakes, a fault can slip a metre or more – <a href="https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017JB014749">more than 20 metres</a> in the 2011 Japan earthquake – within seconds of the event starting. It could take hundreds or thousands of years to store enough stress on a fault before such an event occurs. </p>
<p>These long intervals between damaging earthquakes make assessing fault risks tricky, because much of the data informing our estimates of hazard is from historical records dating back hundreds of years at most. </p>
<p>But Earth holds the secrets to millions of years of earthquakes in its rocks. Studying them – and bringing the data together – we can develop a better idea of where the next big earthquake might happen.</p>
<p>We have only been using modern scientific instruments to measure and monitor earthquakes, and recording the data, for the last hundred years or so. Written records of earthquakes go back several hundred years.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="The side of rocks showing lines of different types of rock and fault lines." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/388786/original/file-20210310-21-6ebpd5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=327%2C129%2C5190%2C3604&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/388786/original/file-20210310-21-6ebpd5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388786/original/file-20210310-21-6ebpd5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388786/original/file-20210310-21-6ebpd5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388786/original/file-20210310-21-6ebpd5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388786/original/file-20210310-21-6ebpd5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388786/original/file-20210310-21-6ebpd5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Fault lines.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/fault-lines-colorful-layers-sandstone-useful-321094349">Shutterstock/Chris Curtis</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But basing hazard calculations on the events that occurred in a relatively short time period – relative to the long-term average time between earthquakes on individual faults – may cause us to miss data from faults that have not ruptured. For example, in the central Apennines, Italy, the 2016 Amatrice earthquake that killed three hundred people occurred along a known fault that hadn’t hosted a historical earthquake.</p>
<p>Historical earthquakes give us clues about what types of earthquake can occur in certain spots. In the same region as the 2011 great east Japan earthquake and tsunami, the Sanriku earthquake occurred, in AD869. </p>
<h2>Geological data</h2>
<p>There is longer-term evidence, though, that can help. This comes through geologists analysing the physical structures of faults and looking at changes in the shape of the Earth’s surface caused by movements occurring over millions of years. Such data can be used to identify deformation that has occurred through multiple earthquakes over many millennia. </p>
<p>Techniques include tracing the same dated surface, sediment or structure that has been displaced across a fault and using this to measure how much movement has taken place over a time period either measured directly or inferred through relative timing of different geological events. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/fukushima-ten-years-on-from-the-disaster-was-japans-response-right-156554">Fukushima: ten years on from the disaster, was Japan's response right?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>We can also use sediments to identify past tsunamis. In Japan, researchers have found tsunami deposits buried under beaches and along shorelines showing the extent of where past tsunami have reached, giving us clues about their locations and size. </p>
<p>So why is such data traditionally not fully used in hazard and risk calculations? The problem is that such data can be difficult to collect and may not have sufficient detail to show which faults or parts of a fault have moved faster than others. Where it’s possible to obtain relevant and detailed data, it may not be easy for those who model hazards – trying to predict the likelihood of new events – to use.</p>
<h2>Bringing the data together</h2>
<p>I’m part of a group that aims to fix that accessibility gap, so that those calculating risk can integrate evidence across tens of thousands of years into their models. We’ve formed an international team bringing together those with expertise in collecting primary data on the ground and those with the modelling skills to calculate hazard and risk. </p>
<p>Our first endeavour has been to <a href="https://doi.pangaea.de/10.1594/PANGAEA.922582">create a database</a> which brings together our mapping of fault and rates of fault slip in an open-access format. We use this data to identify which faults pose the highest risk at particular sites. </p>
<p>For example, looking at the town of L'Aquila which suffered heavy damage <a href="https://theconversation.com/laquila-earthquake-scientists-freed-but-political-lessons-remain-34506">in the 2009 earthquake</a>, preliminary findings show that it’s not just the faults closest to the city that pose a threat. Significant risk comes from fast-moving faults further away like the fault that crosses the Fucino basin responsible for <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2020.626401">the 1915 earthquake</a> that killed 33,000 people.</p>
<p>What can we do to help reduce earthquake risk? A first step is having good data about hazard and risk so that governments, civil protection authorities, insurers and residents can identify where to prioritise resources. </p>
<p>We can’t currently predict earthquakes – giving exact times and dates of when and where they will occur – and it’s not clear if we ever will be able to with precision. </p>
<p>But, we can provide probabilistic modelling identifying where events are more likely and the highest damage is expected. Incorporating long-term evidence can provide a better understanding of the science behind earthquake hazard than using relatively short historical records alone. As in most geological problems, we need to use every possible clue we can to solve the enigma of earthquake occurrence.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/156882/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Joanna Faure Walker works at UCL Institute for Risk and Disaster Reduction. She receives funding from NERC and the Great British Sasakawa Foundation.</span></em></p>The fault line that ruptured causing the Fukushima disaster hadn’t done so for over 1,000 years.Joanna Faure Walker, Senior Lecturer, Risk & Disaster Reduction, UCLLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1552932021-02-15T04:31:59Z2021-02-15T04:31:59ZThe Fukushima quake may be an echo of the 2011 disaster — and a warning for the future<p>A <a href="https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us6000dher/executive">7.1 magnitude earthquake</a> was recorded off the coast of Fukushima Prefecture in northeastern Japan on Saturday night, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/13/japan-earthquake-strikes-near-eastern-coast">injuring around 100 people</a>, closing roads and trains, and leaving almost a million people without electricity overnight.</p>
<p>It came almost 10 years after the nearby <a href="https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/official20110311054624120_30/executive#executive">Tohoku quake of March 2011</a>, a magnitude 9.0 earthquake that caused a catastrophic tsunami and resulted in thousands of deaths and a nuclear reactor meltdown.</p>
<p>In the hours after Saturday’s quake, there were several aftershocks up to magnitude 5, and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/13/world/asia/earthquake-japan-fukushima.html">officials warned</a> there could be more to come. </p>
<p>The Japan Meteorological Agency said the quake itself was an aftershock of the 2011 event. That might seem odd, but aftershocks of a major earthquake can persist for <a href="https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10175614">years and even decades</a>.</p>
<h2>How do you know if it’s an aftershock?</h2>
<p>The earthquake occurred in what’s a called a “subduction zone”, where the Pacific tectonic plate slides under the plate on which northern Japan sits at a rate of <a href="https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2001GC000252">7 to 10 cm per year</a>. It’s an area where there are a <a href="https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/tectonic/images/japan_tsum.pdf">lot of earthquakes</a>. It was a structurally simple earthquake: what’s called a “thrust” or “reverse slip” quake, in which rock above the fault moves up and over the rock below the fault.</p>
<p>In areas with low seismic activity, we can recognise aftershock patterns for years and decades after a major quake. The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Christchurch_earthquake">Christchurch earthquake of 2016</a>, for example, was an aftershock of the 2010 quake. Some scientists think aftershock sequences in regions like the eastern USA and Australia may persist for <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nature08502">centuries</a>. </p>
<p>In these seismically quiet places, it’s relatively easier to spot aftershocks. The main hallmark is that the rate of quakes in an area is higher after a major quake than it was before. When the rate of quakes has dropped back to what it was originally, we say the aftershocks have stopped.</p>
<p>However, in places like Japan with high seismic activity, it can be hard to say whether one earthquake is an aftershock of another. </p>
<p>On one hand, the rates of aftershocks reduced to pre-2011 rates within about 3 years of the Tohoku earthquake and thus the sequence may have concluded.</p>
<p>On the other hand, rates of seismic activity were continuing to decrease in a fashion consistent with an ongoing aftershock sequence. And Saturday’s earthquake appears to have occurred in an area that generated fewer immediate aftershocks following the 2011 event, suggesting this earthquake could have occurred as rupture of a remaining “sticky part” of the 2011 fault that generated the Tohoku earthquake. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/underground-sounds-why-we-should-listen-to-earthquakes-5798">Underground sounds: why we should listen to earthquakes</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>So was this an aftershock?</h2>
<p>It’s certainly plausible that Saturday’s quake was an aftershock. </p>
<p>The 2011 quake was enormous — the largest ever recorded in Japan, and the fourth-largest worldwide since modern record-keeping began around 1900. It released around 1,000 times as much energy as Saturday’s earthquake, and created a rupture more than 500 km long with 10s of meters of slip. But the slip on the fault was not uniform and seismic activity continued in some areas that did not fail entirely in that earthquake.</p>
<p>Given all this, it’s almost certain there will be <em>some</em> relationship between the two quakes.</p>
<p><iframe id="inSQL" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/inSQL/1/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>What’s more, there have been relatively few aftershocks of the 2011 quake close to where this one happened. This suggests it might have been a “balancing out” of stresses.</p>
<p>On the other hand, there have been several magnitude 7 quakes over the past century within 100 kilometres or so of this one, so it’s hardly out of the ordinary.</p>
<p>A definite answer on whether this was an aftershock or not will require detailed analysis of the quake and others in the region.</p>
<h2>What we can learn from this</h2>
<p>A quake like this one can be a valuable reminder of how important it is to learn the lessons of a disaster. </p>
<p>The earthquake generated very strong shaking in areas of Japan that were severely affected by the 2011 earthquake shaking and tsunami. Effects such as <a href="https://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/glossary/?term=liquefaction">liquefaction</a> are likely to have occurred again. </p>
<p>People sometimes think a big quake relieves stress built up in Earth’s crust and you can relax afterwards. In reality, it’s the opposite. When you have a big quake, there’s a higher probability you’ll have more to come. Subsequent earthquakes, whether they adhere to statistical definitions of aftershocks or not, can induce <a href="http://www.drquigs.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/TECTONO.pdf">recurrent hazards</a> that cause more damage to buildings and infrastructure and present risks to human life. </p>
<p>After a disaster, it is critical to act to reduce future exposure and vulnerability to future disasters through actions such as more considered <a href="https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/20/3361/2020/nhess-20-3361-2020.html">land-use planning</a> informed in part by better maps of seismic hazards, <a href="https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2014.0373">enhancing coastal protection</a> through engineering of sea-walls and breakwaters and using vegetation, and making sure that warning and evacuation protocols are efficient and effective. </p>
<p>Japan is a world leader in many of these aspects, and the <a href="https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2014.0373">lessons learned from Tohoku</a> are likely to have generated outcomes that minimised some of the loss and damage that could have otherwise occurred from Saturday’s earthquake.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/japans-latest-tsunami-reaction-shows-lessons-learned-from-previous-disasters-69212">Japan's latest tsunami reaction shows lessons learned from previous disasters</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/155293/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mark Quigley does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Aftershocks of a major earthquake can continue for years or even decades.Mark Quigley, Associate Professor of Earthquake Science, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1483372020-10-22T18:58:35Z2020-10-22T18:58:35ZJapan plans to dump a million tonnes of radioactive water into the Pacific. But Australia has nuclear waste problems, too<p>The Japanese government recently announced <a href="https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2020/10/fe0fae3622a5-urgent-japan-to-release-treated-water-from-fukushima-plant-into-sea.html">plans</a> to release into the sea more than 1 million tonnes of radioactive water from the severely damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant.</p>
<p>The move has sparked global outrage, including from UN Special Rapporteur Baskut Tuncak who recently <a href="https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2020/07/1145e5b3970f-opinion-fukushima-nuclear-waste-decision-also-a-human-rights-issue.html?phrase=Tuncak&words=Tuncak">wrote</a>, </p>
<blockquote>
<p>I urge the Japanese government to think twice about its legacy: as a true champion of human rights and the environment, or not.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Alongside our <a href="https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2017/press-release/">Nobel Peace Prize-winning work</a> promoting nuclear disarmament, we have worked for decades to minimise the health harms of nuclear technology, including site visits to Fukushima since 2011. We’ve concluded Japan’s plan is unsafe, and not based on evidence.</p>
<p>Japan isn’t the only country with a nuclear waste problem. The Australian government <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/federal-labor-divided-over-plans-to-block-sa-s-nuclear-waste-dump-facility-20201005-p5628p.html">wants to send</a> nuclear waste to a site in regional South Australia — a risky plan that has been widely criticised. </p>
<h2>Contaminated water in leaking tanks</h2>
<p>In 2011, a massive earthquake and tsunami resulted in the meltdown of four large nuclear reactors, and extensive damage to the reactor containment structures and the buildings which house them. </p>
<p>Water must be poured on top of the damaged reactors to keep them cool, but in the process, it becomes highly contaminated. Every day, 170 tonnes of highly contaminated water are added to storage on site. </p>
<p>As of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/16/japan-to-release-1m-tonnes-of-contaminated-fukushima-water-into-the-sea">last month</a>, this totalled 1.23 million tonnes. Currently, this water is stored in more than 1,000 tanks, many hastily and poorly constructed, with a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/21/world/asia/worst-spill-in-6-months-at-fukushima.html">history of leaks</a>.</p>
<h2>How does radiation harm marine life?</h2>
<p>If radioactive material leaks into the sea, ocean currents can disperse it widely. The radioactivity from Fukushima has already caused widespread <a href="https://science.sciencemag.org/content/338/6106/480">contamination</a> of fish caught off the coast, and was even detected in <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/109/24/9483.full.pdf?sid=9dd4d12">tuna</a> caught off California.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/four-things-you-didnt-know-about-nuclear-waste-134004">Four things you didn’t know about nuclear waste</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Ionising radiation <a href="http://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/n3873/pdf/ch09.pdf">harms all organisms</a>, causing genetic damage, developmental abnormalities, tumours and reduced fertility and fitness. For tens of kilometres along the coast from the damaged nuclear plant, the diversity and number of organisms have been <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/srep20416">depleted</a>.</p>
<p>Of particular concern are long-lived radioisotopes (unstable chemical elements) and those which concentrate up the food chain, such as cesium-137 and strontium-90. This can lead to fish being thousands of times <a href="https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2013/03/01/Radioactive-fish-caught-near-nuclear-plant/91811362176136/">more radioactive</a> than the water they swim in.</p>
<h2>Failing attempts to de-contaminate the water</h2>
<p>In recent years, a water purification system — known as advanced liquid processing — has been used to treat the contaminated water accumulating in Fukushima to try to reduce the 62 most important contaminating radioisotopes. </p>
<p>But it hasn’t been very effective. To date, <a href="https://www.meti.go.jp/english/earthquake/nuclear/decommissioning/pdf/20200210_alps.pdf">72% of the treated water</a> exceeds the regulatory standards. Some treated water has been shown to be almost 20,000 times higher than what’s allowed.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-cherry-trees-of-fukushima-113979">The cherry trees of Fukushima</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>One important radioisotope not removed in this process is tritium — a radioactive form of hydrogen with a half-life of 12.3 years. This means it takes 12.3 years for half of the radioisotope to decay.</p>
<p>Tritium is a <a href="https://monographs.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/mono100D.pdf">carcinogenic</a> byproduct of nuclear reactors and reprocessing plants, and is routinely released both into the water and air. </p>
<p>The Japanese government and the reactor operator plan to meet regulatory limits for tritium by diluting contaminated water. But this does not reduce the overall amount of radioactivity released into the environment. </p>
<h2>How should the water be stored?</h2>
<p>The Japanese Citizens Commission for Nuclear Energy is an independent organisation of engineers and researchers. It says once water is treated to reduce all significant isotopes other than tritium, it should <a href="http://eng.ccnejapan.com/?p=76">be stored</a> in 10,000-tonne tanks on land.</p>
<p>If the water was stored for 120 years, tritium levels would decay to less than 1,000th of the starting amount, and levels of other radioisotopes would also reduce. This is a relatively short and manageable period of time, in terms of nuclear waste. </p>
<p>Then, the water could be safely released into the ocean. </p>
<h2>Nuclear waste storage in Australia</h2>
<p>Australians currently face our own nuclear waste problems, stemming from our nuclear reactors and rapidly expanding nuclear medicine export business, which produces radioisotopes for medical diagnosis, some treatments, scientific and industrial purposes.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-should-explore-nuclear-waste-before-we-try-domestic-nuclear-power-121361">Australia should explore nuclear waste before we try domestic nuclear power</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>This is what happens at our national <a href="https://www.ansto.gov.au/news/nuclear-medicine-facility">nuclear facility</a> at Lucas Heights in Sydney. The vast majority of Australia’s nuclear waste is stored on-site in a dedicated facility, managed by those with the best expertise, and monitored 24/7 by the Australian Federal Police. </p>
<p>But the Australian government <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/indigenous/nuclear-dump-politics-stilltoxic/news-story/a424aec46e50231d3977621b370cc550">plans to</a> change this. It wants to transport and temporarily store nuclear waste at a facility at Kimba, in regional South Australia, for an indeterminate period. We believe the Kimba plan involves unnecessary multiple handling, and shifts the nuclear waste problem onto future generations. </p>
<p>The proposed storage facilities in Kimba are <a href="https://www.arpansa.gov.au/understanding-radiation/radiation-sources/more-radiation-sources/radioactive-waste-safety">less safe than disposal</a>, and this plan is well below <a href="https://www.iaea.org/resources/safety-standards">world’s best practice</a>. </p>
<p>The infrastructure, staff and expertise to manage and monitor radioactive materials in Lucas Heights were developed over decades, with all the resources and emergency services of Australia’s largest city. These capacities cannot be quickly or easily replicated in the remote rural location of Kimba. What’s more, <a href="https://media.nti.org/documents/global_incidents_trafficking_2018.pdf">transporting</a> the waste raises the risk of theft and accident.</p>
<p>And in recent months, the CEO of regulator ARPANSA told a senate inquiry there is capacity to store nuclear waste at Lucas Heights <a href="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/auscon/pages/17921/attachments/original/1600049351/Kimba_brief.pdf?1600049351">for several more decades</a>. This means there’s <a href="https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;orderBy=customrank;page=2;query=hanson-young%20(Dataset:commsen,commrep,commjnt,estimate,commbill%20SearchCategory_Phrase:%22committees%22);rec=2;resCount=Default">ample time</a> to properly plan final disposal of the waste. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r6500">legislation</a> before the Senate will deny interested parties the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/oct/05/labors-position-on-nuclear-waste-bill-means-uncertainty-remains-over-south-australian-site">right to judicial review</a>. The plan also disregards <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/2019/11/21/unanimous-no-vote-traditional-owners-sas-proposed-nuclear-waste-dump">unanimous opposition</a> by Barngarla Traditional Owners. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/uranium-mines-harm-indigenous-people-so-why-have-we-approved-a-new-one-116262">Uranium mines harm Indigenous people – so why have we approved a new one?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The Conversation contacted Resources Minister Keith Pitt who insisted the Kimba site will consolidate waste from more than 100 places into a “safe, purpose-built, state-of-the-art facility”. He said a separate, permanent disposal facility will be established for intermediate level waste in a few decades’ time.</p>
<p>Pitt said the government continues to seek involvement of Traditional Owners. He also said the Kimba community <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-01/kimba-farm-eyre-peninsula-chosen-for-nuclear-dump/11920514">voted in favour</a> of the plan. However, the voting process was <a href="https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/reportsen/024458/toc_pdf/NationalRadioactiveWasteMagagementAmendment(SiteSpecificationCommunityFundandOtherMeasures)Bill2020%5BProvisions%5D.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf">criticised</a> on a number of grounds, including that it excluded landowners living relatively close to the site, and entirely excluded Barngarla people.</p>
<h2>Kicking the can down the road</h2>
<p>Both Australia and Japan should look to nations such as Finland, which deals with nuclear waste more responsibly and has studied potential sites for decades. It plans to <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-08/finns-to-bury-nuclear-waste-in-worlds-costliest-tomb/7488588">spend 3.5 billion euros (A$5.8 billion)</a> on a deep geological disposal site.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/risks-ethics-and-consent-australia-shouldnt-become-the-worlds-nuclear-wasteland-61380">Risks, ethics and consent: Australia shouldn't become the world's nuclear wasteland</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Intermediate level nuclear waste like that planned to be moved to Kimba contains extremely hazardous materials that must be strictly isolated from people and the environment for at least 10,000 years. </p>
<p>We should take the time needed for an open, inclusive and evidence-based planning process, rather than a quick fix that avoidably contaminates our shared environment and creates more problems than it solves. </p>
<p>It only kicks the can down the road for future generations, and does not constitute responsible radioactive waste management. </p>
<hr>
<p>The following are additional comments provided by Resources Minister Keith Pitt in response to issues raised in this article (comments added after publication):</p>
<blockquote>
<p>(The Kimba plan) will consolidate waste into a single, safe, purpose-built, state-of-the-art facility. It is international best practice and good common sense to do this.</p>
<p>Key indicators which showed the broad community support in Kimba included 62 per cent support in the local community ballot, and 100 per cent support from direct neighbours to the proposed site.</p>
<p>In assessing community support, the government also considered submissions received from across the country and the results of Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation’s own vote.</p>
<p>The vast majority of Australia’s radioactive waste stream is associated with nuclear medicine production that, on average, two in three Australians will benefit from during their lifetime.</p>
<p>The facility will create a new, safe industry for the Kimba community, including 45 jobs in security, operations, administration and environmental monitoring.</p>
</blockquote><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/148337/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tilman Ruff is co-president of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, founding chair of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, both Nobel Peace laureates, and a member of the Medical Association for Prevention of War and Public Health Association of Australia. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Margaret Beavis is co-chair of ICAN Australia and Vice President of the Medical Association for Prevention of War. </span></em></p>Japan’s plan is a terrible idea, but so is our government’s plan to send nuclear waste to South Australia temporarily.Tilman Ruff, Associate Professor, Education and Learning Unit, Nossal Institute for Global Health, School of Population and Global Health, The University of MelbourneMargaret Beavis, Tutor, Principles of Clinical Practice. Melbourne Medical School, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1139792019-03-29T01:01:03Z2019-03-29T01:01:03ZThe cherry trees of Fukushima<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264943/original/file-20190320-93028-ejsabd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C7%2C4954%2C3285&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The "Miharu Takizakura", a weeping cherry tree over a thousand years old. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/fr/image-photo/night-scenery-illuminated-miharu-takizakura-thousandyearold-1066840772">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>It’s 2019 and for many, the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster has become a distant memory. In the West, the event is <a href="https://theconversation.com/fukushima-seven-years-later-case-closed-93448">considered to be over</a>. Safety standards have been audited and concerns about the sector’s security and viability officially addressed.</p>
<p>Still, the date remains traumatic. It reminds us of our fragility in the face of overpowering natural forces, and those that we unleashed ourselves. A vast area of Japan was contaminated, tens of thousands of people were forced from their homes, businesses closed. The country’s nuclear power plants were temporarily shut down and fossil fuel consumption rose sharply to compensate.</p>
<p>There’s also much work that remains to be done. Dismantling and decontamination will take several decades and <a href="https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/Seven-years-on-no-end-in-sight-for-Fukushima-s-long-recovery">many unprecedented challenges remain</a>. Reactors are still being cooled, spent fuel must be removed, radioactive water has to be treated. Radioactivity measurements on site cannot be ignored, and are a cause for concern for the more than 6,000 people working there. Still, the risk of radiation may be secondary given the ongoing risk of earthquakes and tsunamis.</p>
<p>Surprisingly, for many Japanese the disaster has a different connotation – it’s seen as having launched a renaissance.</p>
<h2>Rebuilding the world</h2>
<p>Our research team became aware of the need to re-evaluate our ideas about the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster during a visit in March 2017. As we toured the site, we discovered a hive of activity – a place where a new relationship between man, nature and technology is being built. The environment is completely artificial: all vegetation has been eradicated and the neighbouring hills are covered by concrete. Yet, at the heart of this otherworldly landscape there are cherry trees – and they were in full bloom. Curious, we asked the engineer who accompanied us why they were still there. His answer was intriguing. The trees will not be removed, even though they block access routes for decontamination equipment.</p>
<p>Cherry trees have many meanings for the Japanese. Since ancient times, they have been associated with 気 (<em>ki</em>, or life force) and, in some sense, reflect the Japanese idea of time as never-ending reinvention. A striking example is that in the West we exhibit objects in museums, permanently excluding them from everyday life. This is happen in Japan. For example, the treasures making up the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sh%C5%8Ds%C5%8Din">Shōsō-in collection</a> are only exhibited once each year and the purpose is not to represent the past, but to show that these objects are still in the present. Another illustration is the <a href="https://www.meijimura.com/english/">Museum Meiji-mura</a>, where more than 60 buildings from the Meiji era (1868-1912) have been relocated. The idea of ongoing reinvention is manifested in buildings that have retained their original function: visitors can send a postcard from a 1909 post office or ride on an 1897 steam locomotive.</p>
<p>We can better understand the relationship between this perception of time and events at Fukushima Daiichi by revisiting the origins of the country’s nuclear-power industry. The first facility was a British Magnox reactor, operational from 1966 to 1998. In 1971, construction of the country’s first boiling-water reactor was supervised by the US firm General Electric. These examples illustrate that for Japan, nuclear power is a technology that comes from elsewhere.</p>
<p>When the Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami struck in 2011, Japan’s inability to cope with the unfolding events at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant stunned the world. Eight years having passed, for the Japanese it is the nation’s soul that must be resuscitated. Not by the rehabilitation of a defective “foreign” object, but by the creation of new, “made in Japan” technologies. Such symbolism not only refers to the work being carried out by the plant’s operator, the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), but also reflects Japanese society.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/262936/original/file-20190308-155499-7vwdwl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/262936/original/file-20190308-155499-7vwdwl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/262936/original/file-20190308-155499-7vwdwl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=920&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/262936/original/file-20190308-155499-7vwdwl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=920&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/262936/original/file-20190308-155499-7vwdwl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=920&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/262936/original/file-20190308-155499-7vwdwl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1156&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/262936/original/file-20190308-155499-7vwdwl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1156&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/262936/original/file-20190308-155499-7vwdwl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1156&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A photo selected for the NHK Fukushima cherry-tree competition.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">NHK/MCJP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The miraculous cherry tree</h2>
<p>Since 2012, the Japanese public media organisation NHK has organised the “Fukushima cherry tree” photo competition to symbolise national reconstruction. Yumiko Nishimoto’s <a href="https://ideas.ted.com/five-years-on-fukushima-residents-share-their-stories/">“Sakura Project”</a> has the same ambition. Before the Fukushima disaster, Nishimoto lived in the nearby town of Naraha. Her family was evacuated and she was only able to return in 2013. Once home, she launched a national appeal for donations to plant 20,000 cherry trees along the prefecture’s 200-kilometre coastline. The aim of the 10-year project is simply to restore hope among the population and the “determination to create a community”, Nishimoto has said. The idea captured the country’s imagination and approximately a thousand volunteers turned up to plant the first trees.</p>
<p>More recently, the “Miharu Takizakura” cherry tree has made headlines. More than 1,000 years old and growing in land contaminated by the accident, its presence is seen as a miracle and it attracts <a href="https://www.nippon.com/en/views/b053101/venerable-blossoms-miharu-takizakura-in-fukushima.html">tens of thousands of visitors</a>. The same sentiment is embodied in the <a href="https://tokyo2020.org/en/games/torch/olympic/">Olympic torch relay</a>, which will start from Fukushima on March 26, 2020, for a 121-day trip around Japanese prefectures during the cherry-blossom season.</p>
<h2>Fukushima, the flipside of Chernobyl?</h2>
<p>This distinctly Japanese perception of Fukushima contrasts with its interpretation by the West, and suggests that we re-examine the links between Fukushima and Chernobyl. Many saw the Fukushima disaster as Chernobyl’s twin – another example of the radioactive “evil”, a product of the industrial hubris that had dug the grave of the Soviet Union.</p>
<p>In 1986 the fatally damaged Chernobyl reactor was encased in a sarcophagus and the surrounding area declared a <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47227767">no-go zone</a>. Intended as a temporary structure, in 2017 the sarcophagus was in turn covered by the <a href="https://www.ebrd.com/what-we-do/sectors/nuclear-safety/chernobyl-new-safe-confinement.html">“New Safe Confinement”</a>, a monumental structure designed to keep the site safe for 100 years. This coffin in a desert continues to terrify a population that is regularly told that it marks the dawn of a new era for safety.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/266357/original/file-20190328-139364-1qg85ay.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/266357/original/file-20190328-139364-1qg85ay.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266357/original/file-20190328-139364-1qg85ay.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266357/original/file-20190328-139364-1qg85ay.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266357/original/file-20190328-139364-1qg85ay.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266357/original/file-20190328-139364-1qg85ay.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266357/original/file-20190328-139364-1qg85ay.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Two IAEA agents examine work Unit 4 of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station (April 17, 2013).</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/iaea_imagebank/8657963686/in/photostream/">Greg Webb/IAEA</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>At the institutional level, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) responded to Chernobyl with the concept of <a href="https://www.iaea.org/publications/3753/safety-culture">“safety culture”</a>. The idea was to resolve, once and for all, the issue of nuclear power plant safety. Here, the Fukushima accident had little impact: Infrastructure was damaged, the lessons learned were incorporated into safety standards, and resolutions were adopted to <a href="https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub1710-ReportByTheDG-Web.pdf">bring closure</a>. In the end, the disaster was unremarkable – no more than a detour from standard procedures that had been established following Chernobyl. For the IAEA, <a href="https://theconversation.com/fukushima-seven-years-later-case-closed-93448">the case is closed</a>. The same applies to the nuclear sector as a whole, where business has resumed more or less as usual.</p>
<p>To some extent, Japan has fallen in line with these ideas. The country is improving compliance with international regulations and increased its contribution to the IAEA’s work on earthquake response. But this Western idea of linear time is at odds with the country’s own understanding of the disaster’s framework. For many Japanese, events are still unfolding.</p>
<p>While Chernobyl accelerated the collapse of the Soviet Union, Fukushima Daiichi has become a showcase for the Japanese government. The idea of ongoing reinvention extends to the entire region, through a policy of repopulation. Although <a href="https://www.irsn.fr/EN/publications/thematic-safety/fukushima/fukushima-2016/Pages/Fukushima-in-2016-Evacuees-situation-and-social-consequences.aspx">highly controversial</a>, this approach stands in stark contrast to Chernobyl, which remains isolated and abandoned.</p>
<p>Other differences are seen in the reasons given for the causes of the accident: The IAEA concluded that the event was due to a lack of safety culture – in other words, organisational failings led to a series of unavoidable effects that could have been predicted – while Japanese scientists either drew an analogy with events that occurred during the Second World War, or attributed the accident to the characteristics of the Japanese people.</p>
<p>Before one dismisses such conclusions as irrational, it’s essential to think again about the meaning of the Fukushima disaster.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/113979/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Les auteurs ne travaillent pas, ne conseillent pas, ne possèdent pas de parts, ne reçoivent pas de fonds d'une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n'ont déclaré aucune autre affiliation que leur organisme de recherche.</span></em></p>In 2011 the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster struck Japan. Eight years later, Fukushima is perceived in very different ways by the West and by Japan.Franck Guarnieri, Directeur du Centre de recherche sur les risques et les crises, Mines Paris - PSLAurélien Portelli, Chargé d’enseignement recherche en histoire des risques industriels, Mines Paris - PSLSébastien Travadel, Chargé de recherche en ingénierie et sécurité industrielle, Centre de recherche sur les risques et les crises, Mines Paris - PSLLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/995242018-08-19T14:40:24Z2018-08-19T14:40:24ZHow are nuclear risks managed in France?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/226449/original/file-20180706-122256-uo34py.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C17%2C1500%2C855&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Inside a power-plant cooling tower. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Jakob Madsen/Unsplash</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>It will take a long time to learn all the lessons from Fukushima nuclear disaster, and even longer to bring about a change in the practices and principles of nuclear risk governance. Yet several major themes are already emerging in France.</p>
<p>March 11, 2018, marked the seven-year anniversary of Fukushima, when the Northeast coast of Japan was struck by a record magnitude 9 earthquake, followed by a tsunami. These natural disasters led to an industrial disaster, a nuclear accident rated 7, the highest level on the <a href="https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89chelle_internationale_des_%C3%A9v%C3%A9nements_nucl%C3%A9aires">INES scale</a>, at the Dai-ichi nuclear power plant in Fukushima.</p>
<p>In the aftermath of the disaster, the world was stunned at the realisation of the seriousness and suddenness of this event, which, according to Jacques Repussard, director general of the French <a href="http://www.irsn.fr/FR/Pages/Home.aspx">Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety</a> (IRSN) requires us to “imagine the unimaginable and prepare for it.” It confronts all those involved in nuclear safety with a critical challenge: how can we guarantee safety in the midst of unexpected events?</p>
<p>Beyond its unpredictable nature, this accident served as a brutal and particularly relevant reminder that nuclear energy, more than any other technology or industry, transcends all borders, whether they be geographic, temporal, institutional or professional. The consequences of nuclear accidents extend well beyond the borders of a region or a country and remain present for hundreds or even thousands of years, thus exceeding any “human” time scale.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/208764/original/file-20180303-65507-sm4iha.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/208764/original/file-20180303-65507-sm4iha.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=391&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208764/original/file-20180303-65507-sm4iha.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=391&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208764/original/file-20180303-65507-sm4iha.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=391&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208764/original/file-20180303-65507-sm4iha.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=491&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208764/original/file-20180303-65507-sm4iha.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=491&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208764/original/file-20180303-65507-sm4iha.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=491&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">La Hague nuclear waste reprocessing plant.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Jean‑Marie Taillat/Wikimedia</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Fukushima revealed that the safety of socio-technical systems with this level of complexity cannot be limited to only to a few stakeholders, nor can it be ensured without creating strong and transparent ties between a multitude of stakeholders, including nuclear operators, citizens, safety authorities, technical support, and government services. Fukushima calls into question the nature and quality of the relationships between these multiple stakeholders and demands that we reconsider nuclear risk governance practices, including in France, and then rethink the boundaries of the “ecosystem of nuclear safety,” to use the term proposed by Benoît Journé.</p>
<h2>Learning from nuclear accidents: a long-term process</h2>
<p>Immediately after the accident, the entire community of international experts worked to manage the crisis and to understand the dynamics of the accident in terms of its technical, human and socio-organizational aspects. A few months later, the European Commission asked nuclear countries to carry out what it termed “stress-tests” aimed at assessing nuclear facilities’ ability to withstand external stress (such as major weather events) and serious technical malfunctions. In France, this led to the launch of safety assessment reports (ECS) for the country’s nuclear facilities.</p>
<p>While the technical causes of the Fukushima accident were quickly understood, socio-organizational causes were also identified. The Japanese Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission found that the “collusion between the government, the regulators and TEPCO, and the lack of governance by said parties” was one of the major causes of the disaster. The accident also highlighted the importance of involving civil society participants in risk prevention and in risk management preparation very early on.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/208772/original/file-20180303-65544-ivkb7l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/208772/original/file-20180303-65544-ivkb7l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208772/original/file-20180303-65544-ivkb7l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208772/original/file-20180303-65544-ivkb7l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208772/original/file-20180303-65544-ivkb7l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208772/original/file-20180303-65544-ivkb7l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208772/original/file-20180303-65544-ivkb7l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Volunteers from the town of Minamisoma, near the nuclear power plant.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Hajime Nakano/Flickr</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Above all, it reveals the long-term need to plan and get equipped to manage a nuclear accident. Far too often, efforts concentrate on the emergency phase, the days or weeks immediately following the accident, leaving local stakeholders virtually on their own in the “post-accident” phase. Yet this phase involves major problems, involving, for example, the consumption of basic foodstuffs (water, milk, etc.), displacing populations and cultivating potentially contaminated land.</p>
<p>After the Three Mile Island (1979) and Chernobyl (1986) accidents caused the human and organizational aspects of safety measures to be considered, Fukushima marks a new era focused on examining inter-organizational relations and the long-term methods for managing nuclear risks.</p>
<h2>The need for openness toward civil society</h2>
<p>Although this term is sometimes criticized and even mocked as being a popular buzzword, nuclear risk “governance” refers to a very practical reality involving all the stakeholders, measures and policies that are mobilized to guide the decisions made primarily by the public authorities and the nuclear operators to better manage nuclear risks and help ensure greater transparency of these risks. This implies the need to reflect on how each stakeholder can participate, the material and immaterial resources that could enable this participation and software that could support and help coordinate it.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/208766/original/file-20180303-65533-1ap8j6q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/208766/original/file-20180303-65533-1ap8j6q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=343&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208766/original/file-20180303-65533-1ap8j6q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=343&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208766/original/file-20180303-65533-1ap8j6q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=343&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208766/original/file-20180303-65533-1ap8j6q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=431&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208766/original/file-20180303-65533-1ap8j6q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=431&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208766/original/file-20180303-65533-1ap8j6q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=431&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Public awareness, organized by the Nuclear Safety Authority.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">ASN</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In this sense, Fukushima serves as a powerful reminder of the need for greater transparency and greater involvement of civil society participants. Contrary to popular belief, the longstanding institutional stakeholders in the nuclear industry are aware of the need for greater openness to civil society. In 2012 Jacques Repussard stated: “Nuclear energy must be brought out of the secrecy of executive boards and ministerial cabinets.” And as early as 2006, the French Nuclear Safety and Transparency Act confirmed this desire to involve civil society stakeholders in nuclear safety issues, particularly by creating <a href="https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_locale_d'information">local information committees</a> (CLI), although some regret that this text has only been half-heartedly implemented.</p>
<p>Of course, bringing about a change in practices and pushing the boundaries is not an easy thing, since the nuclear industry has often been described, sometimes rightly, as a world frozen in time. It continues to be burdened by its history. For a long time, nuclear safety was an issue reserved only for a small group of stakeholders, sometimes referred to as “authorized” experts, and traces of these practices are still visible today. This characteristic is embodied in the extremely centralized safety organization. Even the French word for a nuclear power plant, <em>“centrale nucléaire”</em> attests to the prominence given to centralization.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/209387/original/file-20180307-146691-dp8hyb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/209387/original/file-20180307-146691-dp8hyb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/209387/original/file-20180307-146691-dp8hyb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/209387/original/file-20180307-146691-dp8hyb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/209387/original/file-20180307-146691-dp8hyb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/209387/original/file-20180307-146691-dp8hyb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/209387/original/file-20180307-146691-dp8hyb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">French nuclear power plants.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Domaina/Wikimedia</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>One thing is for sure, there must be an ongoing dialog between the communities. This implies taking the heat out of the debates and moving beyond the futile and often exaggerated divide between the pro- and anti-nuclear camps.</p>
<p>A form of governance founded on open dialog and the recognition of citizen expertise is gradually emerging. The challenge for longstanding stakeholders is to help increase this citizen expertise. The <a href="http://web.imt-atlantique.fr/x-ssg/projetagoras">Agoras</a> project (improvement of the governance of organizations and stakeholder networks for nuclear safety) questions governance practices, but also seeks to create a place for dialog and collective reflection. A symposium organised in late 2017 provided the first opportunity for implementing this approach through discussions organized between academic researchers and operational and institutional stakeholders, and a 2018 symposium will continue this initiative.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/99524/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stéphanie Tillement received funding from Investissements d'Avenir and the ANR, as part of the RSNR program.</span></em></p>Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima demonstrated the difficulty of managing a disaster at a nuclear power plant. What is the situation in France?Stéphanie Tillement, Sociologue, IMT Atlantique – Institut Mines-TélécomLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/934482018-03-19T21:00:26Z2018-03-19T21:00:26ZFukushima seven years later: case closed?<p>On March 11, 2011, a <a href="https://www.oecd-nea.org/news/2011/NEWS-04.html">nuclear disaster struck Japan</a>. The 9.0 magnitude Tohoku earthquake triggered a 15-meter tidal wave, which hit the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant approximately 45 minutes later. The plant’s power was knocked out and the backup generators crippled. After the emergency batteries were exhausted, three of the plant’s six reactors soon overheated, and at least two of the cores melted down, releasing <a href="https://www.britannica.com/event/Fukushima-accident">immense amounts of radiation</a>. While the reactors are now in theory stabilised, the work to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/19/science/japan-fukushima-nuclear-meltdown-fuel.html">understand and contain the damage continues</a>.</p>
<p>In the seven years that have elapsed since the disaster, much has been written and said about its causes. Yet expert reports have paid little attention to the extensive testimony of <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/japanese-hero-who-saved-fukushima-plant-from-total-meltdown-dies-of-cancer-8698357.html">Masao Yoshida</a>, who was plant manager at the time and passed away in 2013.</p>
<p>One can only wonder about the decisions Yoshida had to make between March 11 and 15, 2011, to avoid the worst. And his gripping account calls into question some of the keystone principles of nuclear safety.</p>
<h2>A ‘made in Japan’ disaster?</h2>
<p>The international community and the Japanese themselves quickly characterized the disaster as one that was <a href="https://www.nirs.org/wp-content/uploads/fukushima/naiic_report.pdf">“made in Japan”</a>, meaning it was enabled by two circumstances specific to Japan: the country’s exposure to environmental hazards (earthquakes and tsunamis) and its cultural acceptance of collusion – real or imaginary – between corporations and government.</p>
<p>Management of the accident, both by its operator, the Tepco Group, and the Japanese government, has been <a href="https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub1710-ReportByTheDG-Web.pdf">condemned as ineffectual</a>. Serious failings were attributed to Tepco, which was unable to prevent a nuclear meltdown and subsequent explosions. A rare bright point was the <a href="https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/10/09/national/remembering-fukushima-plant-chief-helped-prevent-catastrophe/">heroism of those working on the ground</a>, who risked their own lives to avert an even greater disaster.</p>
<p>Calling Fukushima a “made in Japan” disaster focuses attention on the failures of a socio-technical system apparently disconnected from industry good practices and the norms of the <a href="https://www.iaea.org">International Atomic Energy Agency</a> (IAEA). Moreover, its extraordinary scale allows it to be filed in the same historic category as another “aberrant” accident, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/26/chernobyl-nuclear-disaster-ukraine-marks-30th-anniversary">Chernobyl</a>. The latter was attributed to gross Soviet negligence, implicitly reinforcing a utopian vision of a safe and reliable nuclear industry. But do the nature of the Fukushima disaster and the specificity of its causes really make it an exception?</p>
<p>There have been a wide range of official inquiries. In Japan, reports were issued by both a <a href="http://www.cas.go.jp/jp/seisaku/icanps/eng/final-report.html">governmental investigation</a> and a <a href="https://www.nirs.org/wp-content/uploads/fukushima/naiic_report.pdf">parliamentary commission</a>. Investigations were also conducted by the <a href="https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub1710-ReportByTheDG-Web.pdf">International Atomic Energy Agency</a> (IAEA), the American <a href="https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18294/lessons-learned-from-the-fukushima-nuclear-accident-for-improving-safety-of-us-nuclear-plants">Nuclear Regulatory Commission</a> (NRC), and the <a href="https://www.oecd-nea.org/nsd/pubs/2016/7284-five-years-fukushima.pdf">Nuclear Energy Agency</a> of the OECD.</p>
<p>These analyses chiefly focused on the impact of the earthquake and subsequent tsunami on the nuclear power plant, the way the crisis was managed by the operator and the authorities, and on the cooperation between those onsite (emergency services) and offsite (Tepco staff). Hundreds of thousands of pages of reports have been published as a result. Ultimately, authorities unanimously concluded that upholding IAEA norms alone guarantees nuclear safety.</p>
<p>But the majority of the thousand-plus hearings given by the people involved have remained confidential. This is troubling: Why would a democratic society allow hearings given to a parliamentary commission to remain secret?</p>
<p>During the Japanese government’s investigation, Fukushima Daiichi plant manager Masao Yoshida was interviewed for more than 28 hours, over 13 sessions. His testimony was only made public in September 2014 after critical reporting by Japanese media. Printed in Japanese on A4 paper, <a href="https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/09/11/national/yoshida-transcripts-on-fukushima-nuclear-crisis-released/#.WqqUSWduzEQ">it filled more than 400 pages</a>.</p>
<h2>Shedding new light on the story</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://www.carnot-mines.eu/en/carnot-mines-tv/%C3%A9conomie-management-soci%C3%A9t%C3%A9/crisis-and-risk-research-centre-crc-mines-paristech">Risk and Crisis Research Centre</a> of the Mines ParisTech engineering school <a href="https://hal-mines-paristech.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01715922">translated Yoshida’s testimony into French</a>, the first complete version in a language other than Japanese. (A <a href="http://www.asahi.com/special/yoshida_report/en/">partial English translation</a> exists, made available by the Japanese daily <em>Asahi Shimbun</em>, but it proved to be inaccurate on several crucial points, and is highly controversial.)</p>
<p>Given that <a href="https://www.oecd-nea.org/general/profiles/france.html">France generates 76% of its electricity with nuclear power</a>, the task of a complete translation should have been undertaken by a nuclear-sector operator. None volunteered, however, no doubt asserting that all had already been said and settled. The Fukushima investigators all followed a pre-set formula, apparently designed solely to confirm hypotheses that would put events down to purely technical causes. Yet Yoshida responded to the investigators’ questions from an entirely different point of view, attributing his decisions and actions to the brutal struggle between men (himself and his staff) and technology or, more precisely, the machines (the reactors) that had suddenly gone out of control.</p>
<p>The brutal reality of the situation in March 2011 was that it was no longer a question of managing a crisis, applying established procedures or rolling out plan A or plan B. Day after agonising day, the Fukushima Daiichi power plant was an island, plunged into darkness, without electricity or emergency diesel generators, and almost completely devoid of resources.</p>
<p>Largely left to their own devices, Yoshida and the plant’s staff risked their lives at every moment. Wearing stiflingly hot protective wear and buffeted by aftershocks, they searched for slightest sound or visual clue in the absence of measurement data. Groping around the labyrinth of the ruined plant, they sought, more or less with success, to protect themselves from radioactive contamination in order to continue their work.</p>
<p>During the hearings, Yoshida confided his fears, doubts and beliefs. He lauded the commitment of his colleagues inside the plant, even as he deplored the absence or incompetence of those outside – Tepco headquarters, the government, the regulatory authority, and so on.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/210635/original/file-20180315-104642-rv78wt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/210635/original/file-20180315-104642-rv78wt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/210635/original/file-20180315-104642-rv78wt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/210635/original/file-20180315-104642-rv78wt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/210635/original/file-20180315-104642-rv78wt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/210635/original/file-20180315-104642-rv78wt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/210635/original/file-20180315-104642-rv78wt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">IAEA experts, charged with reviewing Japan’s plans for the Fukushima nuclear facility, leave Unit 4 in 2013.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/iaea_imagebank/8657963646/in/photolist-9qApwP-hkxzwj-qcinzK-qSYjtY-9ujHrk-GtmYaE-ajtMUQ-oYE8Rd-qhqLVD-hkyAsz-pXZski-ec5jXh-pga2Gv-reep8K-e2p1Zy-9ydk2c-9rwJeq-kUyVKv-dTSBAK-dTSBrn-kUAzpC-dTYeWG-dTSE7P-dTSAXx-dTSDcK-hTpLP4-e2igrB-h71KKV-kUxZBH-a1EUvT-e2oZTE-rataxS-dTSBER-dTYhu5-dTSCVx-dTSE2v-dTYfC1-dTYeLf-dTYeNN-dTSBRr-9re6DX-dTYhrm-dTSDUx-dTYgew-dTYf8u-dTYhbW-dTYhRu-dTSBnZ-dTYhq9-dTSCkT">IAEA/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The emotional intensity of his account is both striking and moving. It shatters the all-too-bureaucratic certitudes that underestimate the complexities of situations, to the point of ignoring our humanity: the workers were facing the possibility of their own deaths and, above all, the deaths of their colleagues, their families and everything dear to them.</p>
<p>Almost miraculously, after four days of desperate efforts, the worst – the explosion of the Daiichi reactors, which could have threatened those at the close-by Daini and Onagawa plants as well – was narrowly avoided. Yet we have learnt almost nothing from this catastrophe, and the much larger one that was averted.</p>
<h2>Beyond safety margins</h2>
<p>Of course, <a href="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-12090-4_14">re-examining safety standards</a> is important, as are “hard core” safety systems (a kind of fortified line of defence against external onslaughts) and the costly installation of <a href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21555-can-diverse-power-backups-boost-nuclear-plant-safety/">diverse backup power generators</a>. Such measures certainly increase safety margins, but what about the bigger picture?</p>
<p>The creation of “special nuclear forces”, such as France’s <a href="http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-EDFs-emergency-response-force-in-place-1203144.html">nuclear rapid action force</a> (FARN), is a perfect example of such a mind-set. They are on-call to restore installations in accordance with regulations on radiation exposure. But what will such teams do if levels of radioactivity are above those set out in the legislation? Could we count on their commitment, as Japan did for that of Masao Yoshida and his staff, at once heroes and victims, sacrificed willingly or under orders, in order to prevent a nuclear apocalypse?</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Translated from the French by Alice Heathwood for <a href="http://www.fastforword.fr/">Fast for Word</a> and Leighton Walter Kille</em>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/93448/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Franck Guarnieri ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d'une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n'a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.</span></em></p>On March 11, 2011, a nuclear disaster struck Japan. Translated testimony by the power plant’s manager reveals how close the world came to a greater catastrophe – and how much there is to be learned.Franck Guarnieri, Directeur du Centre de recherche sur les risques et les crises, Mines Paris - PSLLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/898882018-01-25T13:35:33Z2018-01-25T13:35:33ZWhy decommissioning South Africa’s Koeberg nuclear plant won’t be easy<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/203176/original/file-20180124-72597-tqcoxg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Koeberg Nuclear Power Plant.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=11986995">Paul Scott/Wikimedia Commons</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Africa’s <a href="https://www.quora.com/How-many-nuclear-reactors-are-in-Africa-South-Africa-has-two-which-are-used-for-commercial-purposes">only operational nuclear power plant</a> is in an area called <a href="https://www.iol.co.za/news/politics/koeberg-sas-ill-starred-nuclear-power-plant-269096">Koeberg</a>, outside Cape Town in South Africa. The life span of the plant was originally meant to end in 2024. But after an upgrade it’s now expected to operate until around 2044. </p>
<p>In theory it could be shut down, or decommissioned, earlier than if, for example, there was a spike in <a href="http://www.dw.com/en/germanys-nuclear-phase-out-explained/a-39171204">anti-nuclear sentiment</a>, it becomes <a href="http://www.beyondnuclear.org/reactors-are-closing/">unprofitable</a> or a serious <a href="https://ejatlas.org/conflict/the-fast-breeder-reacton-monju-japan">technical failure</a> developed.</p>
<p>Koeberg has two units, each generating 930 MW, which contribute about 4% of <a href="https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2017-10-08-op-ed-eskom-a-laggard-in-electricity-utility-transition/#.WmHdEryWbcs">South Africa’s power capacity</a>. They were built by French developer Framatome, now called <a href="http://www.new.areva.com/">Areva</a>.</p>
<p>The funding for decommissioning, which is an expensive process, needs to be secured well in advance. Failing to decommission the site properly would saddle Cape Town with a dangerous radiation hazard for generations to come.</p>
<p>Responsibility for Koeberg’s site rehabilitation rests with its operator, the state electricity utility, <a href="http://www.eskom.co.za/Pages/Landing.aspx">Eskom</a>. For now decommissioning Koeberg is not a priority for Eskom’s <a href="https://www.fin24.com/Economy/Eskom/breaking-new-eskom-chair-announced-20180120">newly appointed board</a> given its need to deal with the <a href="https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/opinion/editorials/2018-01-16-editorial-what-is-eskom-hiding-from-us/">financial pressure</a> and allegations <a href="https://www.fin24.com/Economy/Eskom/live-state-capture-inquiry-begins-with-focus-on-eskom-20171017">of corruption</a> the utility is facing.</p>
<p>But it will nevertheless need to start planning soon. </p>
<h2>The decommissioning process</h2>
<p>There are three stages in the rehabilitation of a nuclear facility.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The plant must be dismantled. This is complicated because most of the material in and around the plant is <a href="http://www2.lbl.gov/abc/Basic.html">radioactive</a> to varying degrees and therefore dangerous to anything exposed to it. Radioactivity reduces with time, but for some isotopes commonly found in <a href="https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/radwaste.html">nuclear waste,</a> the drop in radiation levels can be very slow. Because of this a plant will only be dismantled years after it’s been switched off.</p></li>
<li><p>The dangerous nuclear waste, or high level waste <a href="http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/fuel-recycling/processing-of-used-nuclear-fuel.aspx">must be reprocessed</a>. Most of the material stays dangerous for decades but some isotopes retain high levels of radiation levels for thousands of years. A portion of nuclear waste can be converted into reusable or less radioactive forms through nuclear engineering processes. These processes are complex and there are only a few facilities in the world that can perform them. This means that South Africa’s high level waste will have to be transported overseas. Reprocessing facilities include <a href="http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2017/ph241/wang2/">La Hague</a> in France and the Russian Mayak site, thought to be responsible for the 2017 <a href="https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/node/3260">ruthenium leak</a> incident.</p></li>
<li><p>The remaining nuclear waste must be secured in storage, virtually forever. This needs an isolated site that can’t be damaged by natural disasters or other processes that could cause radioactive material to seep into the surrounding environment, especially ground water. This final storage need is a massive headache worldwide. An example is the German <a href="http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/the-curse-of-gorleben-germany-s-endless-search-for-a-nuclear-waste-dump-a-672147.html">Gorleben</a> final repository site. It’s been the scene of protests for decades, preventing any further storage of waste on the site.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>There are a handful of cases where the first two stages <a href="http://www.power-technology.com/projects/maine/">have been completed</a>, typically over <a href="http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/decommissioning-nuclear-facilities.aspx">periods of ten years</a>. But completing the final storage phase of nuclear waste hasn’t been achieved for any former plants. Their most hazardous waste is still in temporary storage, sometimes even on site.</p>
<h2>Decommissioning Koeberg</h2>
<p>The complexity, time frame and cost of decommissioning can differ greatly. A minor research reactor is far easier to deal with than a disaster site like Japan’s Fukushima, where the cleanup is now estimated to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tepco-fukushima-costs/japan-nearly-doubles-fukushima-disaster-related-cost-to-188-billion-idUSKBN13Y047">cost</a> around <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-38131248">USD$180 billion.</a></p>
<p>The Koeberg decommissioning scenario should rather be based on plants of similar age and size in the process of closure in Europe and North America. </p>
<p>Researchers in <a href="http://energypost.eu/how-much-will-it-really-cost-to-decommission-the-aging-french-nuclear-fleet/">France, Germany and the UK</a> have calculated widely different costs for nuclear cleanups (including waste disposal) in their countries. The potential cost of decommissioning a site comparable to Koeberg according to the French costing model would be R8.4 billion. Some analysts say this is <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-edf-nuclearpower/edf-defends-nuclear-decommissioning-cost-estimate-idUSKBN15G498">unrealistically low</a>. The German model puts the number at around R39 billion and the UK model at R76 billion.</p>
<p>Models based on estimates for Belgium and Canada translate to a Koeberg decommissioning cost of <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/france-engie/update-1-engies-provisions-for-belgian-nuclear-to-rise-by-1-8-bln-euros-idUSL5N1E81YV">R48 billion</a> and <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-nuclear-reactor-shutdown-will-cost-1-8-billion-1.1159201">R50 billion</a> respectively, while a recent local determination puts the figure at <a href="https://mg.co.za/article/2016-09-19-what-sa-will-do-with-highly-toxic-nuclear-waste-is-a-secret-as-is-the-mooted-nuclear-fleet">R35 billion</a>.</p>
<p>All nuclear power plants accredited by the International Atomic Energy Agency must regularly <a href="http://www-pub.iaea.org/books/iaeabooks/12204/Model-Regulations-for-Decommissioning-of-Facilities">set aside funds</a> to finance the eventual decommissioning. By 2016, Eskom had paid <a href="https://www.timeslive.co.za/sunday-times/news/2016-05-08-koeberg-eskom-aims-for-greenfield-cleanup/">R10.9 billion</a> into a trust for this purpose. </p>
<p>But these provisions seem insufficient and the utility will probably need to raise additional funding to shut down Koeberg.</p>
<p>Eskom is responsible to pay for the site’s rehabilitation, but not for final waste disposal. The funding of that process ultimately becomes the <a href="https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2017-05-17-qa-exploring-south-africas-proposed-nuclear-new-build/#.WmcZpLyWbcs">responsibility of the state</a>.</p>
<h2>Waste from Koeberg</h2>
<p>The arrangement is that low and intermediate-level nuclear waste is transported to a site called <a href="https://mg.co.za/article/2014-10-02-nuclear-waste-is-going-nowhere-slowly">Vaalputs</a> in sparsely populated Namakwaland, about 500 km north of Cape Town. High-level waste is kept <a href="http://www.eskom.co.za/Whatweredoing/ElectricityGeneration/KoebergNuclearPowerStation/Pages/Waste_Reracking.aspx">on site in Koeberg</a> in what are known as fuel pools.</p>
<p>South Africa <a href="https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/opinion/2016-09-20-where-will-sa-put-lethal-nuclear-waste/">doesn’t have storage facilities</a> for its high-level waste. Like the rest of the world, construction of nuclear plants was initiated without a specific waste disposal plan, with the understanding that each country would manage and pay for it themselves.</p>
<p>Unfortunately South Africa is likely to approach decommissioning Koeberg in the same way other countries have done it – by effectively leaving the waste on site indefinitely in <a href="http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2011/ph241/madres1/">temporary storage facilities</a>. This avoids the expense of waste processing as well as making difficult political decisions. But it passes the problem to future generations while continuing to expose the nuclear plant’s neighbourhood to contamination risk. This is a <a href="https://koebergalert.org/nuclear-waste/">serious</a> risk at Koeberg given that it’s a mere 30 km from the Cape Town city centre.</p>
<p>Koeberg’s decommissioning is an awkward reality that cannot be ignored for much longer. This should become the main focus for nuclear professionals in South Africa, rather than new plants. Eskom and other parties in the energy space need to develop detailed, credible decommissioning work plans with realistic costing scenarios and funding strategies. A crisis can be avoided, but only through early and proper planning.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/89888/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Hartmut Winkler receives funding from the NRF. He is a member of Save South Africa and OUTA, but writes this article in his personal capacity</span></em></p>For South Africa decommissioning its nuclear plant Koeberg is a reality that cannot be ignored much longer.Hartmut Winkler, Professor of Physics, University of JohannesburgLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/830242017-08-24T23:00:13Z2017-08-24T23:00:13ZWorth reading in the Trump era: Nuclear nightmares, authoritarianism and climate change<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/183380/original/file-20170824-18715-1200hm2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=544%2C241%2C2436%2C1519&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Assumptions, authoritarianism and errors are just a few of the ways in which the world could be confronted by a nuclear disaster, physicist and disarmament expert MV Ramana suggests in his book reviews.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/explosion-nuclear-bomb-over-city-410259007">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Editor’s note: The Conversation Canada asked our academic authors to share some recommended reading. In this instalment, MV Ramana, a nuclear physicist and disarmament expert who wrote about <a href="https://theconversation.com/small-nuclear-power-reactors-future-or-folly-81252">small nuclear reactors</a>, looks at a mix of new and recent books on nuclear disaster, weapons, authoritarianism and climate change.</em> </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/183367/original/file-20170824-18715-id9cba.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/183367/original/file-20170824-18715-id9cba.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/183367/original/file-20170824-18715-id9cba.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=882&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183367/original/file-20170824-18715-id9cba.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=882&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183367/original/file-20170824-18715-id9cba.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=882&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183367/original/file-20170824-18715-id9cba.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1109&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183367/original/file-20170824-18715-id9cba.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1109&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183367/original/file-20170824-18715-id9cba.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1109&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"><em>My Nuclear Nightmare</em> by Naoto Kan.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/Resources/titles/80140100930800/Images/80140100930800L.jpg">Handout</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30455027-my-%20nuclear-nightmare"><em>My Nuclear Nightmare</em></a></h2>
<p><em>Leading Japan Through the Fukushima Disaster to a Nuclear-Free Future</em></p>
<p>By Naoto Kan. Translated from Japanese by Jeffrey S. Irish. (Non-fiction. Hardcover, 2017. Cornell University Press.) </p>
<p>On March 11, 2011, following a massive earthquake and tsunami, nuclear reactors at Fukushima, Japan, lost electrical power and all cooling systems stopped functioning. The malfunction led to meltdowns of three reactor cores, and multiple explosions involving hydrogen gas that were seen live around the world.</p>
<p>The resulting radioactive contamination spread over a large area, and forced the evacuation of about 160,000 people from their homes, many of whom still cannot return because their neighbourhoods continue to have unacceptably high levels of radiation. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people are expected to develop fatal cancers as a result of exposure to radiation from the accident. </p>
<p>Naoto Kan was the prime minister of Japan during this critical period and this book, published in Japanese in 2012 and newly available in English, offers his inside perspective of how events unfolded at the highest levels. </p>
<p>Kan reveals how little even powerful individuals and institutions like him and the government can do in the face of a major nuclear accident. If a society like Japan that is so well-prepared for natural disasters like earthquakes is unable to deal with a severe nuclear accident like Fukushima, there is little doubt that no country would have been able to do much better. </p>
<p>Kan’s account is testimony of the prevalence of the safety myth: the comforting but illusionary idea that technology can prevent nuclear accidents. Sadly, that myth continues to prevail not just in Japan but in most countries that are operating or constructing nuclear power plants. </p>
<p> </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/183368/original/file-20170824-24217-1qmrg69.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/183368/original/file-20170824-24217-1qmrg69.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/183368/original/file-20170824-24217-1qmrg69.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=921&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183368/original/file-20170824-24217-1qmrg69.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=921&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183368/original/file-20170824-24217-1qmrg69.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=921&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183368/original/file-20170824-24217-1qmrg69.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1157&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183368/original/file-20170824-24217-1qmrg69.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1157&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183368/original/file-20170824-24217-1qmrg69.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1157&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"><em>Command and Control</em> by Eric Schlosser.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/303337/command-and-control-by-eric-schlosser/9780143125785/">Handout</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6452798-command-and-control"><em>Command and Control</em></a></h2>
<p><em>Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety</em></p>
<p>By Eric Schlosser (Non-fiction. Paperback, 2014. Penguin.)</p>
<p>The Damascus accident started when a missile technician dropped a socket from a socket-wrench while servicing a Titan II inter-continental ballistic missile (ICBM) in a silo in rural Arkansas. The socket hit the missile, puncturing its outer layer, causing a fuel leak that eventually sparked a powerful explosion that engulfed and propelled out of the silo the multi-megaton thermonuclear warhead. Fortunately, the warhead itself did not explode. </p>
<p>The Sept. 18, 1980, incident was just one of the many close calls involving nuclear weapons that the world has experienced. Going through these experiences, it’s hard to attribute the fact that there have been no accidental nuclear explosions to anything but blind luck. </p>
<p>Eric Schlosser, an award-winning American journalist and author, has produced a very readable account of accidents and near-misses, as well as the decades-long history of trying to control these risks through technological and institutional fixes. </p>
<p><em>Command and Control</em> reminds us of the extraordinary danger posed by the large nuclear arsenals possessed by many countries around the world — most importantly, the United States and Russia. </p>
<p>At a time when Donald Trump and North Korea’s Kim Jong Un are trading aggressive rhetoric and increasing tensions in East Asia and elsewhere, this book raises a further warning: The mere existence of nuclear arsenals — even during periods of low political tension — brings with them the risk of nuclear weapon use, deliberately or inadvertently, along with horrendous consequences. </p>
<p> </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/183369/original/file-20170824-23353-8n6uip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/183369/original/file-20170824-23353-8n6uip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/183369/original/file-20170824-23353-8n6uip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183369/original/file-20170824-23353-8n6uip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183369/original/file-20170824-23353-8n6uip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183369/original/file-20170824-23353-8n6uip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183369/original/file-20170824-23353-8n6uip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183369/original/file-20170824-23353-8n6uip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"><em>Unmaking the Bomb</em> by Harold A. Fieveson et al.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/9780262529723.jpg">Handout</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22104557-unmaking-the-bomb"><em>Unmaking the Bomb</em></a></h2>
<p><em>A Fissile Material Approach to Nuclear Disarmament and Nonproliferation</em></p>
<p>By Harold A. Feiveson, Alexander Glaser, Zia Mian, Frank N. von Hippel (Non-fiction. Hardcover, 2014. MIT Press.)</p>
<p>The threat of nuclear warfare with North Korea, thanks to the posturing by Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un, makes me, like many others, ponder the question of how to rid the world of these hugely destructive weapons. </p>
<p>In contrast to proposals for nuclear disarmament that focus on diplomacy and international relations, this book by four physicists at Princeton University (my former colleagues) offers a more technical road map for nuclear disarmament: Namely, through the control and elimination of highly enriched uranium and plutonium — the fissile materials that are the essential ingredients of all nuclear weapons. </p>
<p>The connection is laid out in the introduction of the book: “If we are to reduce the threat from nuclear weapons, we must deal with the dangers posed by the production, stockpiling, and use of fissile materials. Unmaking the bomb requires eliminating the fissile materials that make nuclear weapons possible.”</p>
<p><em>Unmaking the Bomb</em> provides useful background material for the present crisis in East Asia by presenting some of the most reliable publicly available information on the nuclear facilities in North Korea and the United States (as well as the eight other countries confirmed to possess nuclear weapons) and the best independent estimates of their stockpiles of highly enriched uranium and plutonium. </p>
<p>It also reminds us that most nuclear programs grow by borrowing technology from other states, and that the acquisition of nuclear technology for supposedly civilian purposes can be a stepping stone to a nuclear weapons program. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/183372/original/file-20170824-18740-1xabidb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/183372/original/file-20170824-18740-1xabidb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/183372/original/file-20170824-18740-1xabidb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=916&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183372/original/file-20170824-18740-1xabidb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=916&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183372/original/file-20170824-18740-1xabidb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=916&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183372/original/file-20170824-18740-1xabidb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1151&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183372/original/file-20170824-18740-1xabidb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1151&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183372/original/file-20170824-18740-1xabidb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1151&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"><em>The Rise of Hindu Authoritarianism</em> by Achin Vanaik.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Handout</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30805651-the-rise-of-hindu-authoritarianism"><em>The Rise of Hindu Authoritarianism</em></a></h2>
<p><em>Secular Claims, Communal Realities</em></p>
<p>By Achin Vanaik (Non-fiction. Hardcover, 2017. Verso Books.)</p>
<p>The last few years have seen victories by right wing, authoritarian political parties and leaders in multiple countries. The same phenomenon in India, the “world’s largest democracy,” should be — and is — cause for worry. </p>
<p>In 1998, when the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) came to power for the first time (if one discounts a brief stint in 1996), one of its earliest decisions was to test nuclear weapons, which has since led to well over a billion people living under a nuclear shadow. </p>
<p>The year before the BJP’s rise, Achin Vanaik’s book, <em>The Furies of Indian Communalism: Religion, Modernity, and Secularization</em>, was published. Vanaik — a writer, social activist, former professor at the University of Delhi, and Delhi-based fellow of the Transnational Institute in Amsterdam — has now updated and expanded that work significantly.</p>
<p>In this updated edition, he traces the transformation of the BJP from a relatively fringe position on the political spectrum to becoming the dominant national-level party replacing the Congress, and implanting itself and its ideology “in the country’s structures and institutions.” </p>
<p><em>The Rise of Hindu Authoritarianism</em> not only explores in great detail the growing communalization of the political arena and civil society, it also delineates what an oppositional and transformative project might look like. </p>
<p> </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/183370/original/file-20170824-18734-1q8521.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/183370/original/file-20170824-18734-1q8521.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/183370/original/file-20170824-18734-1q8521.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183370/original/file-20170824-18734-1q8521.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183370/original/file-20170824-18734-1q8521.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183370/original/file-20170824-18734-1q8521.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183370/original/file-20170824-18734-1q8521.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183370/original/file-20170824-18734-1q8521.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"><em>The Great Derangement</em> by Amitav Ghosh.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/G/bo22265507.html">Handout</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/29362082-the-great-derangement"><em>The Great Derangement</em></a></h2>
<p><em>Climate Change and the Unthinkable</em></p>
<p>By Amitav Ghosh (Non-fiction. Cloth, 2016. University of Chicago Press.)</p>
<p>Climate change has rightly come to be seen as one of the greatest challenges — if not the single greatest challenge — confronting the world today. There is an endless stream of academic papers and books, reports by local, national and international bodies, newspaper stories and documentaries on the subject. And yet climate change has appeared only sparingly in the world of fiction and literature. </p>
<p>It is the curious absence of climate change in these latter genres that novelist and writer Amitav Ghosh explored in a series of lectures delivered at the University of Chicago, which were subsequently published in the form of this book.</p>
<p>Ghosh traces this literary absence to “peculiar forms of resistance that climate change presents to what is now regarded as serious fiction,” but then goes on to explore the histories of imperialism, colonialism and capitalism that have brought humanity to what he terms “the Great Derangement.” </p>
<p>Reading this book makes it clear, at least to me, that climate change is not a problem that can be dealt with through some clever technological inventions or some neat-looking financial instrument, but will require us to fundamentally reshape our economic, political and international structures.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/83024/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>MV Ramana does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A nuclear physicist and disarmament expert recommends reading on nuclear disasters, weapons, authoritarianism and climate change.MV Ramana, Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security at the Liu Institute for Global Issues, University of British ColumbiaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/622072017-04-11T10:46:14Z2017-04-11T10:46:14ZNuclear power is set to get a lot safer (and cheaper) – here’s why<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/164675/original/image-20170410-8840-1h3pomw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/g/Daniel+Prudek">Daniel Prudek/shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>High-profile disasters such as Chernobyl and Fukushima have given nuclear power a bad name. Despite 60 years of nuclear generation without major accidents in many countries including Britain and France, many people have <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15864806">serious concerns</a> about the safety of nuclear energy and the impact of the radioactive waste it generates. The <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/new-nuclear-power-in-uk-would-be-the-worlds-most-costly-says-report">very high capital cost</a> of building a plant is also seen as a significant barrier, particularly given recent low oil prices. Plans to build a new British plant at Hinkley Point in Somerset are facing fresh opposition after it emerged the estimated lifetime costs had <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/07/hinkley-point-c-nuclear-plant-costs-up-to-37bn">risen to £37 billion</a>.</p>
<p>Yet the high priority of reducing carbon emissions thanks to climate change means nuclear power looks more important than ever. Luckily, the next generation of reactors could hold the answer. With more in-built safety systems and a way to reuse old fuel, they are set to make nuclear power safer and, potentially, cheaper.</p>
<p>Human error and a natural disaster played major roles in <a href="http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/chernobyl-accident.aspx">the Chernobyl</a> <a href="http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a6721/fukushima-nuclear-disaster-what-went-wrong-5508927/">and Fukushima</a> incidents, respectively. But in both cases, the failures occurred when the plants could no longer keep the reactors cool enough. At Chernobyl this was because of deliberate action and human error, and at Fukushima because the backup generators to drive the cooling pumps had been destroyed as a result of the tsunami.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/164682/original/image-20170410-8851-1wze8tq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/164682/original/image-20170410-8851-1wze8tq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/164682/original/image-20170410-8851-1wze8tq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/164682/original/image-20170410-8851-1wze8tq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/164682/original/image-20170410-8851-1wze8tq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/164682/original/image-20170410-8851-1wze8tq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/164682/original/image-20170410-8851-1wze8tq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Chernobyl devastation.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/abandoned-carousel-ferris-amusement-park-center-407332825?src=E5mDXciM7bQvu05ej5EJEg-1-0">Kateryna Upit/shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>An important reason why nuclear power is so expensive is the complex engineering, exacting standards, and advanced manufacturing technology that is used to ensure safe operation. For example, plants usually sit on a “<a href="http://www.nuclear-power.net/nuclear-power-plant/nuclear-island/">nuclear island</a>” of reinforced concrete that acts as a stable base for the plant and provides a barrier of last resort in case radioactive material is released. The pressure vessel at the core of the plant is made from carefully alloyed and fabricated steel to prevent it from becoming brittle from the decades’ worth of radiation it has to endure. </p>
<h2>Modern reactors are safer</h2>
<p>Today’s reactor designs also have far more safety features than older installations. These range from duplicate emergency cooling systems to <a href="http://www.areva.com/EN/operations-5338/purposedesigned-to-prevent-internal-hazards.html">prevent overheating</a> even if some systems fail, through to so-called “core catchers” that would <a href="http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Core-catcher-for-Akkuyu-3009201401.html">contain the reactor core</a> in a worst-case meltdown event.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/New-Plants/AP1000-PWR/Safety/Passive-Safety-Systems">Some designs</a> will cool passively in the event of a loss of power to the cooling circuit (as happened at Fukushima). The heat from the core will gradually dissipate from the walls of the pressure vessel and through the cooling circuit by convection. The reactors that are being constructed today benefit from 60 years of experience gained in the design and operation of nuclear power plants around the world.</p>
<p>But future reactor technologies –- so-called <a href="http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/generation-iv-nuclear-reactors.aspx">“Gen IV” designs</a> – offer even better inherent safety. One of their key features are fully passive cooling systems so the reactor is never dependent on external power for safety. The reactor is carefully designed so that overheating actually reduces, rather than increases, the power output of the core. The core and cooling systems are not pressurised, and using liquids other than water for cooling prevents the risk of creating hydrogen: both of which drastically reduce the risk of explosions <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/partial-meltdowns-hydrogen-explosions-at-fukushima-nuclear-power-plant/">as occurred at Fukushima</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/164681/original/image-20170410-8851-143fnau.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/164681/original/image-20170410-8851-143fnau.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=416&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/164681/original/image-20170410-8851-143fnau.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=416&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/164681/original/image-20170410-8851-143fnau.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=416&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/164681/original/image-20170410-8851-143fnau.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=523&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/164681/original/image-20170410-8851-143fnau.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=523&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/164681/original/image-20170410-8851-143fnau.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=523&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Power plant of the future.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Next_Generation_Nuclear_Plant.jpg">Idaho National Laboratory/Wikimedia Commons</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Gen IV reactors will also allow more efficient use of nuclear fuel. The fuel in <a href="http://areva.com/news/liblocal/docs/Breves/BR-2010-06-28-EN.pdf">current reactor designs</a> is used only once and then disposed of, which produces radioactive waste that will take hundreds of millennia to decay to a safe level. But this waste contains valuable resources of fissile material that can be reprocessed into new fuel. Burning this fuel in specialised “fast” reactors provides would be much more efficient and generate waste that decays safely <a href="https://whatisnuclear.com/articles/recycling.html">within just a hundred years</a> or so. It would also move us towards a closed fuel-cycle that would greatly extend the lifetime of the Earth’s uranium reserves.</p>
<h2>More power plants equals cheaper power</h2>
<p>Another of the factors that makes nuclear power plants so expensive is that we haven’t built very many in recent years. This means that there is no industrial supply chain of companies with the expertise to manufacture the technology, reducing competition and limiting economies of scale.</p>
<p>For the few plants that have been built, there have <a href="http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-Flamanville-EPR-vessel-anomalies-under-scrutiny-0704154.html">often been issues</a> in construction quality as the project has progressed: with the concrete for the nuclear island, the welding of heat exchanger pipework, or the composition of the steel used for the pressure vessel. These have needed expensive fixes or investigation to assure regulators that safety hasn’t been compromised.</p>
<p>So one way to reduce the costs of nuclear power plant is simply to build more of them. There are economies of scale in terms of having identical designs with the same requirements for construction, fuelling, operation and maintenance. In the UK in particular, attention is shifting towards so-called <a href="https://theconversation.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about-mini-nuclear-reactors-56647">small modular reactors</a>, or SMRs, that produce less power but that have lower upfront capital construction costs.</p>
<p>Perhaps if the latest technology can also convince the public nuclear power has become safer, there will be the appetite to build enough plants to bring the costs down even more.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/62207/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Fitzpatrick receives funding from the Lloyd’s Register Foundation, a charitable foundation helping to protect life and property by supporting engineering-related education, public engagement and the application of research. </span></em></p>The next generation of reactors provide in-built safety systems and a way to reuse old fuel.Michael Fitzpatrick, Pro-Vice-Chancellor and Lloyd's Register Foundation Chair in Structural Integrity and Systems Performance, Coventry UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/729232017-03-10T04:21:11Z2017-03-10T04:21:11ZHow disaster relief efforts could be improved with game theory<p>The number of disasters has doubled globally since the 1980s, with the damage and losses estimated at <a href="https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/9480.pdf">an average US$100 billion a year </a>since the new millennium, and <a href="http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0470444967.html">the number of people affected also growing</a>. </p>
<p>Hurricane Katrina in 2005 was the costliest natural disaster in the U.S., with estimates between <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/23/us/hurricane-katrina-statistics-fast-facts/">$100 billion and $125 billion</a>. The death toll of Katrina is still being debated, but we know that at least <a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2015/08/28/no-one-knows-how-many-people-died-in-katrina">2,000 were killed</a>, and thousands were left homeless.</p>
<p>Worldwide, the toll is staggering. The triple disaster of an earthquake, tsunami and nuclear meltdown that started March 11, 2011 in Fukushima, Japan <a href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/fukushima-thousands-have-died-thousands-more-will-die/5469979">killed thousands</a>, as did the 2010 Haiti earthquake.</p>
<p>The challenges to disaster relief organizations, including nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), are immense. The majority operate under a single, common, humanitarian principle of protecting the vulnerable, reducing suffering and supporting the quality of life. At the same time, they need to compete for financial funds from donors to ensure their own sustainability.</p>
<p>This competition is intense. The number of registered U.S. nonprofit organizations increased <a href="http://gradworks.umi.com/37/24/3724707.html">from 12,000 in 1940 to more than 1.5 million in 2012</a>. Approximately <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10479-011-0967-3">$300 billion</a> are donated to charities in the United States each year. </p>
<p>At the same time, many stakeholders believe that humanitarian aid has not been as successful in delivering on its goals<a href="http://bit.ly/2n3Utwv"> due to a lack of coordination among NGOs</a>, which results in duplication of services.</p>
<p>My team and I have been looking at a novel way to improve how we respond to natural disasters. One solution might be game theory.</p>
<h2>Getting the right supplies to those in need is daunting</h2>
<p>The need for improvement is strong. </p>
<p>Within three weeks following the 2010 earthquake in Haiti,<a href="http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR300/RR304/RAND_RR304.sum.pdf"> 1,000 NGOs were operating in Haiti</a>. News media attention of insufficient water supplies resulted in immense donations to the Dominican Red Cross to assist its island neighbor. As a result, <a href="http://transp.rpi.edu/%7EHUM-LOG/Doc/Vault/HaitiReport.pdf">Port-au-Prince was saturated with cargo and gifts-in-kind</a>, so that shipments from the Dominican Republic had to be halted for multiple days. After the Fukushima disaster, <a href="http://transp.rpi.edu/%7EHUM-LOG/Doc/Vault/Japan.pdf">there were too many blankets and items of clothing shipped</a> and even broken bicycles.</p>
<p>In fact, about <a href="http://transp.rpi.edu/%7EHUM-LOG/Doc/Vault/matcon.pdf">60 percent</a> of the items that arrive at a disaster site are nonpriority items. Rescue workers then waste precious time dealing with these nonpriority supplies, whereas victims suffer because they do not receive the critical needs supplies in a timely manner. </p>
<p>The delivery and processing of wrong supplies also adds to the congestion at transportation and distribution nodes, overwhelms storage capabilities and results <a href="http://bit.ly/2n3LUS7">in further delays of necessary items</a>. The flood of donated inappropriate materiel in response to a disaster is often referred to as the second disaster. </p>
<p>The economics of disaster relief, on the supply side, is challenged as people need to secure donations and ensure the financial sustainability of their organizations. On the demand side, the victims’ needs must be fulfilled in a timely manner while avoiding wasteful duplication and congestion in terms of logistics. </p>
<h2>Game theory in disasters</h2>
<p>Game theory is a powerful tool for the modeling and analysis of complex behaviors of competing decision-makers. It received a tremendous boost from the contributions of the Nobel laureate John Nash. </p>
<p>Game theory has been used in numerous disciplines, from economics, operations research and management science, to even political science. </p>
<p>In the context of disaster relief, however, there has been little work done in harnessing the scope of game theory. It is, nevertheless, <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10479-011-1038-5">clear that disaster relief organizations compete for financial funds</a> and donors respond to <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092552730900365X">the visibility of the organizations in the delivery of relief supplies to victims</a> through media coverage of disasters. </p>
<p>We <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1366554516303283">modeled the costs</a> incurred in delivering relief supplies, including congestion, the gain from delivering goods (since these NGOs are nonprofits and also wish to do good), plus the financial donations they stand to acquire from media exposure at the disaster sites and compete for. </p>
<p>These comprised each NGO’s “utility” function, which each sought to individually maximize. The NGOs also faced constraints in the volume of relief supplies that they had prepositioned and could distribute to victims of the disaster.</p>
<p>We examined two scenarios:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>When the NGOs were free from satisfying common minimum and maximum amounts of the relief item demands at points of need (a Nash Equilibrium model); </p></li>
<li><p>When the NGOs had to make sure they delivered the minimum needed supplies at each demand point for the victims but did not exceed the maximum amounts set by a higher-level organization.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Such constraints guarantee that the victims would be served appropriately while, at the same time, minimizing materiel convergence and congestion associated with unnecessary supplies (a Generalized Nash Equilibrium model because of the common/shared constraints). Such bounds would correspond to policies imposed by a higher-level humanitarian or governmental organization. </p>
<h2>Policies and implications</h2>
<p>We used a case study of Hurricane Katrina, because of its historic catastrophic nature. </p>
<p>We built the models using publicly available data, with the NGOs corresponding to the Red Cross, the Salvation Army and “Other” NGOs collectively. Since Louisiana suffered the brunt of the damages, we selected, as demand points, 10 parishes in Louisiana. </p>
<p>Applying computer-based algorithms, we computed the relief item flows and the utilities of the NGOs in the noncooperative games without imposed policies in the form of bounds (Nash Equilibrium) and with (Generalized Nash Equilibrium).</p>
<h2>An actionable framework for NGO decision-makers</h2>
<p>A comparison of the outcomes under the Nash and Generalized Nash Equilibria quantifiably showed that coordination is critical to achieving better outcomes in humanitarian relief operations. </p>
<p>The Generalized Nash solution is not only capable of eliminating the possibility of having under- or over-supply, it guarantees – through competition – the efficient allocation of resources once the minimum requirements are met. </p>
<p>Without such imposed bounds, relief organizations may choose an “easy” route in delivering supplies because it is less costly, rather than the route that will end in a destination where there are the most in need. </p>
<p>Therefore, the game theory framework has significant benefits both for the disaster victims and for the NGOs. In addition, we also demonstrated that, under certain circumstances, the Generalized Nash solution is capable of attracting more donations than the unrestricted, competitive solution.</p>
<p>Our study has numerous implications to guide coordinating authorities. It provides a strong argument for the importance of these coordinating bodies in successful humanitarian relief efforts. </p>
<p>Specifically, our research demonstrates that, if authorities can impose the constraints on upper and lower demand levels for relief supplies, they can provide an effective mechanism to improve the disaster response. Response teams need a certain amount of supplies to save lives but not so much that it results in congestion and waste.</p>
<p>Governmental agencies or NGOs need to come together to set these values.</p>
<p>The Generalized Nash Equilibrium Game Theory model provides managers of NGOs with a strategic framework to analyze their interactions with other NGOs, while also providing insights into their own operations. Moreover, as our study reveals, the framework answers fundamental questions that every NGO must address: (1) How and where should we provide aid? and (2) How can we finance those operations? A computer-based model that can answer these questions provides an actionable framework for NGO decision-makers. </p>
<p>Our study further suggests that, despite the competition among NGOs for fundraising, there are strong reasons for them to collaborate, thereby strengthening their disaster response and achieving better results for those in need. In fact, our game theory analysis quantifiably shows that cooperation among NGOs may increase financial donations to all NGOs.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/72923/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anna Nagurney does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>March 11 marks the anniversary of the Fukushima earthquake. Natural disasters here in the US also have wreaked havoc. There may be a way to improve response to these natural disasters.Anna Nagurney, John F. Smith Memorial Professor of Operations Management, UMass AmherstLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/730422017-03-09T15:30:55Z2017-03-09T15:30:55ZSix years after Fukushima, much of Japan has lost faith in nuclear power<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/159827/original/image-20170307-14969-1xsy1rk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Anti-nuclear demonstration in front of the Japanese Diet, June 22, 2012.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/sandocap/7419803648/in/photostream/">Matthias Lambrecht/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Six years have passed since the <a href="http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-accident.aspx">Fukushima nuclear disaster</a> on March 11, 2011, but Japan is still dealing with its impacts. <a href="http://www.meti.go.jp/english/earthquake/nuclear/decommissioning/">Decommissioning</a> the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant poses unprecedented technical challenges. More than 100,000 people were evacuated but only about 13 percent have returned home, although the government has announced that it is <a href="http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/03/11/national/nuclear-refugees-tell-distrust-pressure-return-fukushima/#.WL2e7RIrI0o">safe to return</a> to some evacuation zones. </p>
<p>In late 2016 the government estimated total costs from the nuclear accident at about <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-tepco-fukushima-costs-idUSKBN13Y047">22 trillion yen</a>, or about US$188 billion – approximately twice as high as its previous estimate. The government is developing a plan under which consumers and citizens will bear some of those costs through higher electric rates, taxes or both. </p>
<p>The Japanese public has <a href="http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2015/03/08/japans-contaminated-fukushima-debate-four-years-on/">lost faith</a> in nuclear safety regulation, and a majority favors phasing out nuclear power. However, Japan’s current energy policy assumes nuclear power will play a role. To move forward, Japan needs to find a <a href="http://journals.rienner.com/doi/abs/10.5555/0258-9184-39.4.591?code=lrpi-site">new way of making decisions</a> about its energy future. </p>
<h2>Uncertainty over nuclear power</h2>
<p>When the earthquake and tsunami struck in 2011, Japan had 54 operating nuclear reactors which produced about one-third of its electricity supply. After the meltdowns at Fukushima, Japanese utilities shut down their 50 intact reactors one by one. In 2012 then-Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda’s government announced that it would try to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/15/world/asia/japan-will-try-to-halt-nuclear-power-by-the-end-of-the-2030s.html">phase out all nuclear power</a> by 2040, after existing plants reached the end of their 40-year licensed operating lives.</p>
<p>Now, however, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who took office at the end of 2012, says that Japan “<a href="http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/east-asia/article/1922953/shinzo-abe-says-japan-cannot-do-without-nuclear-power-eve">cannot do without</a>” nuclear power. Three reactors have started back up under new standards issued by Japan’s <a href="https://www.nsr.go.jp/english/">Nuclear Regulation Authority</a>, which was created in 2012 to regulate nuclear safety. One was shut down again due to legal challenges by citizens groups. Another 21 restart applications are under review.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/159650/original/image-20170306-20775-sirpxc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/159650/original/image-20170306-20775-sirpxc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=305&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159650/original/image-20170306-20775-sirpxc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=305&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159650/original/image-20170306-20775-sirpxc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=305&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159650/original/image-20170306-20775-sirpxc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=383&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159650/original/image-20170306-20775-sirpxc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=383&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159650/original/image-20170306-20775-sirpxc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=383&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=27912">U.S. Energy Information Administration</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In April 2014 the government released its <a href="http://www.enecho.meti.go.jp/en/category/others/basic_plan/pdf/4th_strategic_energy_plan.pdf">first post-Fukushima strategic energy plan</a>, which called for keeping some nuclear plants as baseload power sources – stations that run consistently around the clock. The plan did not rule out building new nuclear plants. The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), which is responsible for national energy policy, published a <a href="http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-Plan-sets-out-Japans-energy-mix-for-2030-0306154.html">long-term plan</a> in 2015 which suggested that nuclear power should produce 20 to 22 percent of Japan’s electricity by 2030. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, thanks mainly to strong energy conservation efforts and increased energy efficiency, total electricity demand has been falling since 2011. There has been no power shortage even without nuclear power plants. The price of electricity rose by more than 20 percent in 2012 and 2013, but then stabilized and even declined slightly as consumers reduced fossil fuel use.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/159654/original/image-20170306-20753-1x7obyh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/159654/original/image-20170306-20753-1x7obyh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159654/original/image-20170306-20753-1x7obyh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159654/original/image-20170306-20753-1x7obyh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159654/original/image-20170306-20753-1x7obyh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=534&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159654/original/image-20170306-20753-1x7obyh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=534&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159654/original/image-20170306-20753-1x7obyh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=534&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.eia.gov/beta/international/analysis.cfm?iso=JPN">U.S. Energy Information Administration</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Japan’s <a href="http://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/law/detail/?vm=04&id=123&re=02">Basic Energy Law</a> requires the government to release a strategic energy plan every three years, so debate over the new plan is expected to start sometime this year.</p>
<h2>Public mistrust</h2>
<p>The most serious challenge that policymakers and the nuclear industry face in Japan is a loss of public trust, which remains low six years after the meltdowns. In a 2015 <a href="http://www.jaero.or.jp/data/01jigyou/pdf/tyousakenkyu27/r2015.pdf">poll</a> by the pro-nuclear <a href="http://www.jaero.or.jp/index_en.html">Japan Atomic Energy Relations Organization</a>, 47.9 percent of respondents said that nuclear energy should be abolished gradually and 14.8 percent said that it should be abolished immediately. Only 10.1 percent said that the use of nuclear energy should be maintained, and a mere 1.7 percent said that it should be increased.</p>
<p>Another <a href="http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201610180076.html">survey</a> by the newspaper Asahi Shimbun in 2016 was even more negative. Fifty-seven percent of the public opposed restarting existing nuclear power plants even if they satisfied new regulatory standards, and 73 percent supported a phaseout of nuclear power, with 14 percent advocating an immediate shutdown of all nuclear plants.</p>
<h2>Who should pay to clean up Fukushima?</h2>
<p>METI’s <a href="https://www.bloombergquint.com/business/2016/12/09/japan-fukushima-cost-seen-nearly-doubling-to-21-5-trillion-yen">22 trillion yen</a> estimate for total damages from the Fukushima meltdowns is equivalent to about one-fifth of Japan’s annual general accounting budget. About 40 percent of this sum will cover decommissioning the crippled nuclear reactors. Compensation expenses account for another 40 percent, and the remainder will pay for decontaminating affected areas for residents. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/159829/original/image-20170307-14963-1xvnu9c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/159829/original/image-20170307-14963-1xvnu9c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159829/original/image-20170307-14963-1xvnu9c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159829/original/image-20170307-14963-1xvnu9c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159829/original/image-20170307-14963-1xvnu9c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159829/original/image-20170307-14963-1xvnu9c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159829/original/image-20170307-14963-1xvnu9c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">International Atomic Energy Agency experts review plans for decommissioning the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, April 17, 2013.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/iaea_imagebank/8657963646">Greg Webb, IAEA/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Under a special <a href="https://www.oecd-nea.org/law/fukushima/7089-fukushima-compensation-system-pp.pdf">financing scheme</a> enacted after the Fukushima disaster, Tepco, the utility responsible for the accident, is expected to pay cleanup costs, aided by favorable government-backed financing. However, with cost estimates rising, the government has <a href="http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2016/12/23/editorials/cost-cleaning-fukushima/#.WL3M5BIrI0o">proposed</a> to have Tepco bear roughly 70 percent of the cost, with other electricity companies contributing about 20 percent and the government – that is, taxpayers – paying about 10 percent. </p>
<p>This decision has generated criticism both from experts and consumers. In a December 2016 poll by the business newspaper <a href="http://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXMZO10387410X01C16A2000000/">Nihon Keizai Shimbun</a>, one-third of respondents (the largest group) said that Tepco should bear all costs and no additional charges should be added to electricity rates. Without greater transparency and accountability, the government will have trouble convincing the public to share in cleanup costs.</p>
<h2>Other nuclear burdens: Spent fuel and separated plutonium</h2>
<p>Japanese nuclear operators and governments also must find safe and secure ways to manage growing stockpiles of irradiated nuclear fuel and weapon-usable separated plutonium. </p>
<p>At the end of 2016 Japan had <a href="http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-g-n/japan-nuclear-fuel-cycle.aspx">14,000 tons</a> of spent nuclear fuel stored at nuclear power plants, filling about 70 percent of its onsite storage capacity. Government policy calls for reprocessing spent fuel to recover its plutonium and uranium content. But the fuel storage pool at <a href="http://www.jnfl.co.jp/en/about/publication/file/reprocessing_plant.pdf">Rokkasho</a>, Japan’s only commercial reprocessing plant, is nearly full, and a planned interim storage facility at Mutsu has not started up yet. </p>
<p>The best option would be to move spent fuel to <a href="http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201702140004.html">dry cask storage</a>, which withstood the earthquake and tsunami at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. Dry cask storage is <a href="http://www.powermag.com/dry-cask-storage-booming-for-spent-nuclear-fuel/">widely used</a> in many countries, but Japan currently has it at only a few nuclear sites. In my view, increasing this capacity and finding a candidate site for final disposal of spent fuel are urgent priorities. </p>
<p>Japan also has nearly <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/17/opinion/japans-plutonium-problem.html?_r=0">48 tons of separated plutonium</a>, of which 10.8 tons are stored in Japan and 37.1 tons are in France and the United Kingdom. Just one ton of separated plutonium is enough material to make more than 120 crude nuclear weapons. </p>
<p>Many countries have expressed <a href="http://www.asiapacificinitiative.org/obama-adviser-raises-concerns-about-japans-plutonium-stockpile/">concerns</a> about Japan’s plans to store plutonium and use it in nuclear fuel. Some, <a href="http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/japans-huge-stockpiles-of-plutonium-pose-risks-china-daily">such as China</a>, worry that Japan could use the material to quickly produce nuclear weapons. </p>
<p>Now, when Japan has only two reactors operating and its future nuclear capacity is uncertain, there is less rationale than ever to continue separating plutonium. Maintaining this policy could increase security concerns and regional tensions, and might spur a “plutonium race” in the region.</p>
<p>As a close observer of Japanese nuclear policy decisions from both inside and outside of the government, I know that change in this sector does not happen quickly. But in my view, the Abe government should consider fundamental shifts in nuclear energy policy to recover public trust. Staying on the current path may undermine Japan’s economic and political security. The top priority should be to initiate a national debate and a comprehensive assessment of Japan’s nuclear policy.</p>
<p><em>Editor’s note: This article has been corrected to reflect the fact that one ton of separated plutonium is enough to produce more than 120 crude nuclear weapons.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/73042/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tatsujiro Suzuki directs Nagasaki University's Research Center for Nuclear Weapons Abolition, which receives funding from Japan's Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport. He is a special visiting researcher at the Japan Center for Economic Research. From 1996 through 2009 he was an Associate Vice President of the Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry, which receives funding from Japanese utilities, and from 2010 through 2014 he was a Vice Chairman of the Japan Atomic Energy Commission.</span></em></p>Nuclear power was a cornerstone of Japan’s energy strategy for decades, until the Fukushima disaster. The current government wants to keep some nuclear reactors open, but has lost public support.Tatsujiro Suzuki, Professor and Director, Research Center for Nuclear Weapons Abolition, Nagasaki UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/692412016-11-23T11:05:45Z2016-11-23T11:05:45ZJapan earthquake: social aftershocks of Fukushima disaster are still being felt<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/147047/original/image-20161122-10967-t6k0l6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A fishing boat washed inland by the 2011 Tsunami next to a shrine inside the Fukushima nuclear exclusion zone. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Thom Davies</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>At 5.59am local time on November 22, Fukushima was hit by a <a href="http://www.jma.go.jp/jma/indexe.html">7.4</a> magnitude earthquake, triggering a tsunami warning. For residents in the same region of Japan devastated by the major 2011 <a href="https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/hazard/11mar2011.html">Tōhoku</a> earthquake and its tsunami, the threat of a renewed disaster was very real. </p>
<p>The tsunami warning was <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-38059371">lifted</a> a few hours later, and the earthquake was later <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-38061313">declared</a> a long-term aftershock from the larger quake five years ago. But for people still coming to terms with that disaster and its aftermath, this new earthquake will severely test their resilience once again. </p>
<p>On March 11 2011, the 9.0 magnitude earthquake created a 15-metre tsunami that inundated the Fukushima Daiichi (Fukushima I) nuclear power station. Power was disabled to three reactors, which caused a serious <a href="http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-accident.aspx">nuclear accident</a> as cooling systems failed. Large quantities of radiation were immediately released into the environment and approximately <a href="http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-accident.aspx">100,000</a> people were evacuated. </p>
<p>The long-term social consequences of the original Fukushima Daiichi accident have been <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/02/world/asia/japans-nuclear-refugees-still-stuck-in-limbo.html">broad and far-reaching</a>. Perception of <a href="https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/the-risk-society-and-beyond/book205997">risk</a>, the likelihood of exposure to danger, has been at the heart of social controversy after the 2011 disaster. Radiation is invisible, and it is challenging to understand or percieve a threat that can only be detected by specialist scientific equipment. Often women and children are hit the hardest by this, regardless of socioeconomic status. </p>
<p>The concept of <em>Fūhyōhigai</em>, or the “harmful rumour”, was initially used by the media and local government to dismiss local women’s concerns about radiation exposure as weak and unscientific. However, this led to a cultural shift by women known as Fukushima’s <a href="https://www.dukeupress.edu/radiation-brain-moms-and-citizen-scientists/?viewby=title">“radiation brain moms”</a>, who purchased monitoring equipment and took matters into their own hands, forming citizen radiation monitoring organisations <a href="http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2016/02/13/how-citizen-science-changed-the-way-fukushima-radiation-is-reported/">(CRMOs)</a>. </p>
<p>By forming these groups of resistance, self-help and support, women rejected their culture’s social norms of obedience and subservience, that could have suppressed them from cultivating outrage over injustice and inequality. Participation in CRMOs has decreased over time, as the social memory of Fukushima Daiichi fades, but citizen science initiatives such as <a href="http://blog.safecast.org/about/">Safecast</a> still provide useful information to many. </p>
<p>The recent earthquake temporarily halted the cooling system at the nearby <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/world/asia/japan-earthquake.html?_r=0">Fukushima Daini</a> (Fukushima II) reactor, and so there is likely to be a resurgence in monitoring, and a reunion of these support networks. Regardless of what happens now, there has already been a positive seismic shift in attitudes by both the government and scientists toward concerned mothers and community monitoring. </p>
<h2>Living in ‘temporary’ permanence</h2>
<p>Many impacts of the 2011 disaster have been hidden away in the private spaces of everyday life, with the tragedy putting <a href="https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/atomic-divorce-how-japans-nuclear-disaster-is-breaking-up-marriages">enormous strain on family relations</a>. Not only were thousands of families displaced from their homes, evacuation has meant the separation of family groups. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/146991/original/image-20161122-21709-qgy8y0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/146991/original/image-20161122-21709-qgy8y0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/146991/original/image-20161122-21709-qgy8y0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/146991/original/image-20161122-21709-qgy8y0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/146991/original/image-20161122-21709-qgy8y0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=500&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/146991/original/image-20161122-21709-qgy8y0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=500&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/146991/original/image-20161122-21709-qgy8y0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=500&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Two girls play on a swing next to a radiation monitor and their temporary housing in Minamisōma, Fukushima prefecture. Photograph by Thom Davies.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Where once three generations could live together in Fukushima’s close-knit rural villages, relocation to cramped prefabricated temporary housing has meant many are forced to live apart. Today, five years after the disaster, 174,000 people are still displaced in a state of “temporary” permanence. Disconnection from the familiarity of place and family, as well as the constant worry about radiation risk, even threatens marital relationships. “Atomic divorce” (<em>Genpatsu rikon</em>) is <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/24/divorce-after-fukushima-nuclear-disaster">on the rise</a>, with disagreements on radiation safety, or whether to relocate back to territory now deemed “decontaminated”. News of the recent earthquake will doubtless have jogged memories and resurfaced hidden tensions.</p>
<p>The Japanese government is gradually declaring sections of the 20km nuclear exclusion zone safe and habitable. Despite this, the desire to move back to previously contaminated land has been <a href="https://toxicnews.org/2016/05/03/fukushima-and-the-right-not-to-return-nuclear-displacement-in-a-system-for-hometown-recovery/">underwhelming</a>. For example, four months after Naraha Town was declared safe in September last year, only 6% of former inhabitants decided to move home to one of Fukushima’s many atomic “<a href="http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-fukushima-ghost-town-20160310-story.html">ghost towns</a>”. </p>
<p>In the town of Minamisōma, on the northern edge of the exclusion zone, thousands of mothers and children have <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/minamisoma-the-long-road-to-recovery-for-the-city-that-was-all-but-swept-away-by-2011-tsunami-a6921761.html">refused to return</a>, despite societal pressure not to “betray” their home communities. </p>
<h2>Nuclear uncertainty</h2>
<p>While Japan’s tsunami warning system <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2016/11/21/13710204/japan-earthquake-tsunami-fukushima-daini-nuclear-plant-2016">worked well</a>, there is still considerable uncertainty surrounding the consequences and likelihood of a further natural hazard causing a nuclear accident in Japan. </p>
<p>The 2011 Fukushima Daiichi accident had already permanently changed the Japanese nuclear landscape. The government has undergone a process of gradual <a href="http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-g-n/japan-nuclear-power.aspx">nuclear decommissioning</a> since October 2011, and Fukushima Daaichi and Dai-ni no longer produce energy. Yet, Japan is still heavily reliant on nuclear energy and since 2015 has <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/15/japan-restarts-second-nuclear-reactor-despite-public-opposition">restarted two</a> of its nuclear reactors, with 24 other reactors in the process of restart approvals.</p>
<p>While social resilience to emergencies has improved since 2011 in Japan, the social aftershocks of Fukushima Daaichi are ongoing. Though many advances have been made that emancipate vulnerable populations and provide increased connectivity, it remains to be seen how much these new technologies and attitudes have improved social resilience and reduced the likelihood of anxiety within the community of Fukushima.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/69241/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Becky Alexis-Martin receives funding from the Aged Veterans Fund. She is the Principal Investigator of the UK Nuclear Families project, and explores the social and cultural impacts of nuclear weapons testing. She works closely with the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association and the NCCF.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Thom Davies receives funding from the ERC, working on a project called 'Toxic Expertise' and has previously been funded by the Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science. He has conducted research in Fukushima and Chernobyl.</span></em></p>Those communities affected by the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident are having their resilience tested once again.Becky Alexis-Martin, Research Fellow in Human and Social Sciences, University of SouthamptonThom Davies, Research Fellow in the Department of Sociology, University of WarwickLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/692132016-11-22T22:29:57Z2016-11-22T22:29:57ZIs Fukushima still safe after the latest earthquake?<p>We all remember March 11, 2011, when the magnitude-9.0 <a href="https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/poster/2011/20110311.php">Great East Japan earthquake</a> triggered a <a href="http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Fukushima_faced_14-metre_tsunami_2303113.html">14-metre tsunami</a> that flooded the <a href="http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/f1/index-e.html">Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant</a>. Four of the six reactors on site were badly damaged, <a href="http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear/24-hours-at-fukushima/0">three suffering core meltdowns</a>.</p>
<p>Also affected by the tsunami, but to a much lesser extent, were the four reactors at the <a href="https://www4.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/f2/index-e.html">Fukushima Daini nuclear power plant</a>, roughly 11km further south. That site was partially flooded, but sufficient safety systems were still available to shut down and cool the reactors safely.</p>
<p>At 5.59 am local time on Tuesday the tsunami alarms sounded again, as a magnitude-6.9 earthquake 10km off the coast shook the area. Just over half an hour later the resulting tsunami hit the Fukushima coast – but this one was barely a metre high, and well below the height of the 5.7m seawall, meaning that Fukushima’s nuclear plants were spared another flood. </p>
<p>However, the earthquake caused a circulation pump in the used fuel cooling pond of Fukushima Daini reactor 3 to <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-22/japan-earthquake-prompts-tsunami-warning-blog/8044796">shut down</a>. After checking the system, the pump was restarted after 99 minutes, and operator TEPCO said the plant had suffered no lasting damage. </p>
<p>The situation might have been more serious were it not for the fact that Fukushima Daini, like most of Japan’s nuclear power stations, has been out of action ever since the disaster at its neighbouring station prompted Japan to shut down all of its nuclear reactors for safety checking and upgrades.</p>
<p>Although all of Daini’s systems have since been restored, its reactors have not been restarted. All the fuel has been removed from the reactors and is stored in cooling ponds – which is where the circulation pump failed that normally pushes water through a heat exchanger for cooling. </p>
<p>Because of the low residual heat in the used fuel, the reported temperature rise was less than 1°C during the 99-minute outage. Without cooling, the temperature of the cooling pool would be expected to <a href="http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-Fukushima-earthquake-leaves-nuclear-plants-unaffected-2211167.html">rise by 0.2°C per hour</a>. It would therefore take more than a week without cooling before the normal operating range of 65°C would be exceeded, and this would still be far below the fuel melting point of <a href="http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-accident.aspx">around 2,800°C</a>.</p>
<p>There has been no reported damage from the latest earthquake at the Fukushima Daiichi plant where decommissioning work continues (although it was briefly stopped in response to the earthquake). As of 11am on Tuesday, <a href="http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/f1/pla/2016/images/table_summary-e.pdf">plant parameters</a> show reactor cooling systems operating normally with reactor temperatures of 20-25°C, again far below any dangerous levels. Again, the low amount of residual heat in the fuel means that any changes on loss of cooling are slow. This is in stark contrast to the situation in 2011 where loss of cooling to the operating reactors led to fuel <a href="http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-accident.aspx">melting in less than four hours</a>.</p>
<h2>Is Japan’s nuclear power coming back?</h2>
<p>Before the 2011 meltdowns, there were 54 nuclear power reactors operating in Japan. Since then, only three reactors have completed all of the required modifications and safety inspections and returned to operation, and one of these is currently shut down for routine refuelling. Currently 42 reactors will potentially be restarted, 24 of which are slowly going through the <a href="http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-accident.aspx">restart approval process</a>.</p>
<p>The extent of modifications to avoid possible damage from tsunamis is illustrated by the work that Chubu Electric Power Company is <a href="http://hamaoka.chuden.jp/english/provision/shikichinai.html">carrying out at its Hamaoka nuclear power plant</a> in Japan’s southeast Shizuoka prefecture. This year Chubu has completed construction of a huge seawall, 22m high and 1.6km long, which together with other safety upgrades will cost about 400 billion yen (A$4.9 billion).</p>
<p>After TEPCO faced accusations that it <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/13/world/asia/tepco-admits-failure-in-acknowledging-risks-at-nuclear-plant.html?_r=0">failed to take full account of the tsunami risk at Fukushima</a>, Japan is clearly taking no chances next time around.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/69213/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tony Irwin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The latest earthquake off Japan’s east coast was an ominous reminder of the 2011 Fukushima disaster. But despite a technical hitch at one of Fukushima’s other reactors, there was no repeat this time.Tony Irwin, Visiting Lecturer, Nuclear Reactors and Nuclear Fuel Cycle, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/692122016-11-22T05:36:21Z2016-11-22T05:36:21ZJapan’s latest tsunami reaction shows lessons learned from previous disasters<p>Parts of Japan were on tsunami alert today following a <a href="http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us10007b88#executive">magnitude 6.9 earthquake</a> off the east coast of the country. </p>
<p>This was the first real test for Japan since the <a href="http://www.livescience.com/39110-japan-2011-earthquake-tsunami-facts.html">2011 earthquake</a> which led to a deadly tsunami. The destruction led to a meltdown at the Fukushima nuclear power plant.</p>
<p>Paul Somerville, from Risk Frontiers at Macquarie University, said this latest earthquake was caused by a normal fault associated with faults in and around the Japan trench subduction zone. </p>
<p>The seafloor moved and a small tsunami was generated, largely because this was a much smaller earthquake than 2011, about 40 times smaller, and it released about 250 times less energy.</p>
<p>Having said that, the type of tsunami it produced was pretty much the same, but with wave heights certainly not expected to exceed 3.0 metres and actually appearing to not exceed about 1.5 m in the end.</p>
<h2>Be prepared</h2>
<p>This was the kind of tsunami that Japan is used to and is prepared for, but with the earthquake occurring close to the Fukushima nuclear power plant and with the world watching to see how they responded, this was to a certain extent a trial by media.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/we-should-have-been-prepared-for-the-fukushima-tsunami-5735">lessons learned from 2011</a> saw higher seawalls, more effective public education and evacuation protocols, a beefed-up response from the nuclear industry and so on, but would it pass the test? </p>
<p>In a sense, this was the perfect tsunami to test everybody – the expected wave heights were on the cusp of being potentially catastrophic if a seawall failed or people did not heed the warnings. </p>
<p>The good news is that Japan came through this with flying colours. It wasn’t long after the earthquake hit that the tsunami warnings were <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-22/japan-tsunami-warning-after-quake-strikes-off-fukushima/8044766">later downgraded</a>.</p>
<p>Undoubtedly there will have been one or two glitches, but the tsunami was managed well by a country that has experienced more of these events that any of us would ever like to contemplate. Japan accounts for about <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-03-11/key-facts-earthquakes-in-japan/2661842">20% of the world’s earthquakes of magnitude 6 or greater</a>, and many of these generate tsunamis. </p>
<h2>Waiting for the next one</h2>
<p>We were all right to be nervous, there has been a lot happening in and around the Pacific Ring of Fire lately. But it’s comforting to know Japan can at least cope with these smaller incidents. As can probably most of the other countries sitting on the edge of the Ring of Fire. After all, Chile had a <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8540289.stm">big one in 2010</a> and <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8281616.stm">Samoa in 2009</a>. </p>
<p>But a question mark must remain over countries such as Australia. Tsunamis are not really something we worry about too much, but they do <a href="https://theconversation.com/making-waves-the-tsunami-risk-in-australia-60623">affect us from time to time</a>.</p>
<p>If we judge our response by what happened following the tsunami warning for the 2010 Chilean event, then quite frankly we fail dismally. Hundreds of <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-02-28/tsunami-reaches-australia-after-chile-quake/345652">people rushed down to areas</a> like Bondi Beach to see any waves.</p>
<p>It is not the fault of the warning system, but rather our ability (the public) to treat these warnings with respect. </p>
<p>We can undoubtedly expect more quakes around Japan and all parts of the Pacific Ring of Fire. The enduring question is always, where will it happen and how big will it be?</p>
<h2>Another quake hits New Zealand</h2>
<p>As I write we have just had another reasonably large earthquake <a href="http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us10007ba5#executive">off the SE corner of the North Island</a> of New Zealand.</p>
<p>Yes, this is probably associated with all of the activity that has <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-happened-in-new-zealands-magnitude-7-5-earthquake-68733">happened around Kaikoura</a> since last week’s earthquake.</p>
<p>Is this building up to something? Possibly. On the other hand, it is winding down a bit for now? Possibly too. </p>
<p>What we can be sure of is that there will most definitely be more large devastating earthquakes and tsunamis. Many of these will be associated with the Pacific Ring of Fire, but not all of them.</p>
<p>How we <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-how-to-prepare-for-a-tsunami-64824">manage, prepare and adapt</a> for such events will show whether we have learned from the previous disasters experienced by other countries or whether we see them as some type of reality TV show that could never happen here.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/69212/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>James Goff has previously received funding from the Australian Research Council. </span></em></p>Japan’s response to a tsunami threat following major earthquake shows it has learned much from past events, including the deadly quake and tsunami that disabled the Fukushima nuclear power plant.James Goff, Honorary Professor of Tsunami Research, PANGEA Research Centre, UNSW Australia, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/672432016-11-11T07:25:27Z2016-11-11T07:25:27ZJapan’s politics is opening up to women, but don’t expect a feminist revolution yet<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/144568/original/image-20161104-27923-14138bm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The appointment of three women to politically powerful roles is symbolically significant for Japanese women.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/shibuya246/4101855251/">Shibuya246/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Three women have in recent months been appointed to politically powerful positions in Japan. But even as seeing women in positions of power becomes less unusual in the country, gender parity is a long way off.</p>
<p>Renho Murata (commonly known as Renho) is the new <a href="http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/09/15/national/politics-diplomacy/renho-elected-leader-of-main-opposition-democratic-party/">leader of the opposition Democratic Party</a>; Koike Yuriko beat her two male competitors to become <a href="http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/08/01/national/politics-diplomacy/tokyo-elects-former-environment-minister-yuriko-koike-as-citys-first-female-governor/#.WBhHi-F96qA">Tokyo’s first female governor</a>; and Japan’s Ministry of Defense is, for only the second time, being led by a woman — <a href="http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/08/03/national/politics-diplomacy/abes-defense-minister-pick-sparks-concern-relations-south-korea/#.WBhIAOF96qA">Inada Tomomi</a> (Koike Yuriko was defense minister from July to August 2007). </p>
<p>The appointment of the these women to leadership positions suggests a shift in the role and status of women in Japanese politics, and in society more generally. And <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/15/world/asia/japan-women-renho-murata.html?_r=0">some have wondered</a> if the surge means that a woman prime minister could be around the corner. But this is no revolution. </p>
<h2>National shame</h2>
<p>There’s an increasing sense of embarrassment among Japanese political leaders about the nation’s position in <a href="http://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXLASDF25H07_V21C16A0EE8000/">global rankings of female political and economic empowerment</a>. </p>
<p>Women heads of state have emerged in several G8 countries and also in neighbouring countries, such as <a href="http://world.time.com/2012/12/19/strongmans-daugther-chosen-as-south-koreas-first-female-president/">South Korea</a> and <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-36339276">Taiwan</a>. Japan, by contrast, has the lowest proportion of women in its national legislative assembly <a href="http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/world.htm">among OECD countries</a>; only <a href="http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21703286-yuriko-koike-combines-nationalism-and-steely-ambition-tokyo-gets-its-first-female-governor">9.3% of Lower House seats</a> are occupied by women. </p>
<p>The nation also has the <a href="https://www.oecd.org/gender/data/genderwagegap.htm">second largest gender pay gap</a>, after South Korea. Women comprise <a href="http://www.gender.go.jp/research/kenkyu/sankakujokyo/pdf/saishin.pdf">less than 2% of the nation’s mayors, less than 10% of company heads and only 18% of court judges</a>.</p>
<p>For a country that’s so advanced in other <a href="http://hdr.undp.org/en/composite/HDI">human development indices</a>, such as health and life expectancy, these statistics <a href="https://www.weforum.org/reports/global-gender-gap-report-2015/">paint a troubling picture of enduring gender inequality</a>. </p>
<p>The fact that Koike, Renho and Inada have reached positions of political leadership is a positive sign of change. It is also symbolically significant for Japanese women and representative democracy. But do they herald the beginning of a feminist political utopia in Japan? A glimpse of their backgrounds and motivations may give us a hint. </p>
<h2>The governor</h2>
<p>Tokyo’s first female governor Koike Yuriko’s <a href="http://politicoscope.com/2016/08/02/japan-yuriko-koike-biography-and-profile/">political background is in national politics</a>. Before throwing her hat in the ring for the office of Tokyo governor, she was a member of the long-ruling government party, the Liberal Democratic Party, and had a seat in the national legislative assembly. </p>
<p>She was influential in the preparation of policies to better utilise women’s labour largely as a strategy of improving the economy, so her commitment to “women’s empowerment” is unquestionable. She is interested in encouraging women to participate more in the workforce and <a href="http://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Economy/Policy-Politics/Tokyo-must-reform-boost-role-of-women-to-attract-investment-Gov.-Koike-says?page=2">take an active part in the capitalist economy</a>.</p>
<p>Tokyoites can expect to see reform of working conditions at the metropolitan government. More specifically, they can expect an improvement in working hours and increased employment of women. </p>
<p>Koike has also expressed a commitment to the many <a href="http://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Economy/Policy-Politics/Tokyo-must-reform-boost-role-of-women-to-attract-investment-Gov.-Koike-says">issues surrounding daycare for children</a> that have an adverse effect on working families, and especially on women. Specifically, she has spoken of her commitment to solving the problem of the long waiting lists for daycare in the city and to implementing measures to prevent accidents at daycare centres. </p>
<p>Tokyo women have great expectations of Koike but she is not necessarily an advocate of women’s rights for their sake. She’s certainly keen to see more women contribute to the economy and to help ensure employers can “utilise” women more effectively. </p>
<p>But there’s silence regarding ideas about alleviating poverty among women, or implementing expanded support to victims of sexual violence. Only time will tell whether Koike’s historic appointment as the first woman to govern Tokyo will have any effect on tackling the nation’s deeply embedded gender inequality.</p>
<h2>The defence minister</h2>
<p>Japan’s new defence minister, Inada Tomomi, is a close ally of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. Both Abe and Inada are members of Japan’s powerful nationalist lobby group, Japan Conference, a vocal <a href="http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/08/03/national/politics-diplomacy/abes-defense-minister-pick-sparks-concern-relations-south-korea/#.WBxndOF94dU">denier of the validity and legitimacy</a> of “comfort women’s” claims to compensation. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/08/03/national/politics-diplomacy/abe-looks-retain-key-ministers-reshuffle-defense-chief-pick-may-irk-beijing-seoul/#.WCQRDOF94dV">Abe has faced criticism</a> from both outside and inside Japan for his decision to appoint Inada (who was elected to the House of Representatives in September 2005) to the post of defence minister. </p>
<p>Abe’s decision might reflect a possible desire to appease the female voting public. Japanese women are generally <a href="http://www.shinfujin.gr.jp/english/newsletter/nl_no36.pdf">opposed to national involvement in war</a> and therefore the Abe administration’s moves to revise Japan’s pacifist constitution. They were <a href="https://www.facebook.com/mothers.no.war/?hc_ref=PAGES_TIMELINE&fref=nf">particularly opposed to the decision</a> this year to send Self Defence Forces to South Sudan. </p>
<p>When women reach politically powerful positions, especially if they are in the early stage of their careers, they run the <a href="http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201610290019.html">risk of not being taken as seriously</a> as their male counterparts, and of being open to attack. This has been <a href="http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/news-opinion/senior-women-politics-vs-men-9002804">noted in other countries as well</a>, and women in Japan are no strangers to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/02/japan-women-sexually-harassed-at-work-report-finds">harassment and abuse at the hands of their male colleagues</a>. </p>
<p>But Inada seems to be protected by her friend Abe to the point of being coached by him from the sidelines, so to speak, during fierce questioning from the opposition. </p>
<h2>The party leader</h2>
<p>Renho, the new leader of the Democratic Party, follows in the footsteps of the political path-breaker of Doi Takako, who <a href="http://countrystudies.us/japan/125.htm">led the Japan Socialist Party</a> (JSP) when it was the main political opposition from 1986 to 1991, and again from 1996 to 2003. </p>
<p>Renho has capitalised on being a woman in her political campaigns by <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/16/world/asia/japan-renho-murata-democratic-party.html?_r=1">referring to her experience as a mother</a> of twins. Her powerful oratory skills and direct humour endear her to the public. </p>
<p>Her main challenge is arguably to unify her party and transform it into one that’s regarded by voters as a viable alternative to the Liberal Democratic Party. Renho’s decision to <a href="http://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20160916/p2g/00m/0dm/059000c">appoint former prime minister Noda Yoshihiko</a> as her party’s secretary general, second only in power to her, perhaps indicates her desire to pay it safe. </p>
<p>Many in the party were <a href="http://asia.nikkei.com/print/article/202441">highly critical of the appointment</a> because they partially blame him for the party’s loss of its brief hold on government in the 2012 general election.</p>
<h2>The road ahead</h2>
<p>So, can Japanese women expect improvement in their lives with Koike, Inada and Renho in charge? </p>
<p>When it comes to parity in the workplace, they can certainly expect reforms, and it’s important to have women in visible leadership positions. But it’s also important to acknowledge that <a href="http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21703286-yuriko-koike-combines-nationalism-and-steely-ambition-tokyo-gets-its-first-female-governor">Japanese women are ambivalent</a> towards these three leaders. </p>
<p>Neither Koike, Inada or Renho represent the majority of women – or the majority of Japanese people more generally – when it comes to pacifism and nuclear energy. These are <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/20/opinions/japan-military-opinion-berger/">two of the most politically significant issues</a> in Japan today. </p>
<p>The majority support the pacifist constitution, which was promulgated in 1947, and are opposed to nuclear energy — a topic that has become increasingly important since the triple disaster at Fukushima on March 11 2011. </p>
<p>Until women who are more in tune with the majority of Japan’s voting public are elected to power, we shouldn’t expect too many significant changes.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/67243/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Even though three women have recently been appointed to powerful positions in Japanese politics, gender parity in the country is a long way off.Emma Dalton, Lecturer in Japanese, La Trobe UniversityMari Miura, Professor of Politics, Sophia UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/584522016-04-26T15:22:27Z2016-04-26T15:22:27ZWhat we learned from Chernobyl about how radiation affects our bodies<p>The world has never seen a nuclear accident as severe as the one that unfolded when a reactor exploded in Chernobyl on April 26 1986, sending vast amounts of radiation into the skies around Ukraine, Belarus and Russia.</p>
<p>The planet had experienced massive releases like this before, in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. But Chernobyl-related radiation exposure had a more protracted character. </p>
<p>It was the first time in history that such a large population, particularly at a very young age, was exposed to radioactive isotopes, namely iodine-131 and cesium-137, not just through direct exposure, but through eating contaminated food as well. </p>
<p>In 2006, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.22037/full">published estimates</a> of how many excess cancers would occur as a result of this contamination. </p>
<p>While noting that these estimates are subject to substantial uncertainty, the authors found that 1,000 cases of thyroid cancer and 4,000 cases of other cancers had already been caused by the accident. They further estimated that by 2065, 16,000 cases of thyroid cancer and 25,000 cases of other cancers could be attributed to the effects of Chernobyl radiation.</p>
<p>Research on the health impact of the Chernobyl disaster has mainly focused on <a href="http://journals.lww.com/health-physics/Abstract/2007/11000/THYROID_CANCER_INCIDENCE_AMONG_PEOPLE_LIVING_IN.15.aspx">thyroid cancer</a>, in particular in those exposed to radioactive iodine isotopes in childhood and adolescence. Large amounts of iodine-131 were released into the atmosphere after the explosion, and children were exposed by consuming locally produced milk and vegetables.</p>
<p>Efforts were made to better understand the mechanisms of radiation-induced thyroid cancer and which factors could modify the radiation risk. This allowed us to identify a molecular “radiation fingerprint”, which can point to changes that are specific to radiation exposure, as opposed to any other factors. </p>
<p>Studies were also conducted to evaluate the risk of <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19138033">haematological malignancies</a> – tumours that affect the blood, bone marrow, lymph, and lymphatic system – in children and Chernobyl clean-up workers in the three most affected countries. Studies of cancer incidence and mortality, <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3107017/">cardiovascular diseases</a> and all-cause mortality were also conducted on clean-up workers. Although of variable quality, the list of studies done on people affected by the blast is long. </p>
<h2>What we found</h2>
<p>Today, there is an overall agreement among scientist that thyroid cancers increased following exposure to radiation in childhood and adolescence. Several studies have also indicated an increase in <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16614710">haematological malignancies</a> and thyroid cancer in Chernobyl clean-up workers.</p>
<p><a href="http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/121/1/ehp.1204996.pdf">Findings</a> on radiation-associated risk both for chronic lymphocytic leukaemia and other types of leukaemia in clean-up workers were reported in 2013. Before then, chronic lymphocytic leukaemia was not considered to be sensitive to radiation. Further research will be required to confirm these findings. </p>
<p>Some studies focused on non-cancer health consequences of exposure to radiation. <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17390731">Convincing results</a> on eye lens cataracts among Chernobyl clean-up workers led to the revision and considerable reduction in the recommended radiation dose limit for the lens of the eye. </p>
<p>Chernobyl also led to a greater knowledge on optimising treatment and follow-up of survivors of <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18049222">acute radiation sickness</a>. A better understanding of thyroid cancer radiation risks allowed us to respond better to other disasters, such as Fukushima, to minimise potential adverse health consequences.</p>
<h2>What we still don’t know</h2>
<p>Despite these important findings, many grey areas still remain. For example, we still have no convincing evidence for childhood leukaemia associated with Chernobyl. It is unclear if this is due to methodological limitations or for other reasons. </p>
<p>Nor do we know how radiation risk changes over time after a someone is exposed as a child, as a longer follow-up study is required. We also don’t yet understand the potential transgenerational affects on children born to exposed parents. </p>
<p>The need for more research is immense, yet funding is declining. We need a sustainable approach to Chernobyl health research – similar to that taken after the <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC33856/">Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings in Japan</a>. Without this, it is unlikely that the true impact of Chernobyl will ever be fully understood.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/58452/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ausrele Kesminiene ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d'une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n'a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.</span></em></p>Chernobyl is already responsible for up to 5,000 cases of cancer in Europe.Ausrele Kesminiene, Deputy Section Head Section of Environment and Radiation at IARC, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/579422016-04-25T13:49:12Z2016-04-25T13:49:12ZForget Fukushima: Chernobyl still holds record as worst nuclear accident for public health<p>The 1986 Chernobyl and 2011 Fukushima nuclear power plant accidents both share the notorious distinction of attaining the highest accident rating on the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) <a href="http://www-ns.iaea.org/tech-areas/emergency/ines.asp">scale of nuclear accidents</a>. No other reactor incident has ever received this Level 7 “major accident” designation in the history of nuclear power. Chernobyl and Fukushima earned it because both involved core meltdowns that released significant amounts of radioactivity to their surroundings.</p>
<p>Both of these accidents involved evacuation of hundreds of thousands of residents. Both still have people waiting to return to their homes. And both left a legacy of large-scale radioactive contamination of the environment that will persist for years to come, despite ongoing cleanup efforts.</p>
<p>So the tendency is to think of these accidents as similar events that happened in different countries, 25 years apart.</p>
<p>But the IAEA scale isn’t designed to measure public health impact. In terms of health ramifications, these two nuclear accidents were not even in the same league. While <a href="http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/a_e/fukushima/faqs-fukushima/en/">Fukushima</a> involved radioactivity exposures to hundred of thousands of people, <a href="http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/index1.html">Chernobyl</a> exposed hundreds of millions. And millions of those received substantially more exposure than the people of Fukushima.</p>
<p>On the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the April 26, 1986 Chernobyl accident in Ukraine, we do well to reflect on the health burden it caused – and compare it with what we expect to see from Japan’s Fukushima nuclear accident. As I report in my book “<a href="http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10691.html">Strange Glow: The Story of Radiation</a>,” from a public health standpoint, there’s really no comparison between the two events. </p>
<h2>Higher doses of radiation, more health harm</h2>
<p>Chernobyl was by far the worst reactor accident of all time. A total of 127 reactor workers, firemen and emergency personnel on site sustained radiation doses sufficient to cause radiation sickness (over 1,000 mSv); some received doses high enough to be lethal (over 5,000 mSv). Over the subsequent six months, <a href="http://pegasusbooks.com/books/atomic-accidents-9781605984926-hardcover">54 died from their radiation exposure</a>. And it’s been estimated that 22 of the 110,645 cleanup workers may have <a href="https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2012/11/13087/chernobyl-cleanup-workers-had-significantly-increased-risk-leukemia">contracted fatal leukemias</a> over the next 25 years.</p>
<p>In contrast, at Fukushima, there were no radiation doses high enough to produce radiation sickness, even among the reactor core workers. Two Fukushima workers who had leaky respirators received effective doses of <a href="http://pegasusbooks.com/books/atomic-accidents-9781605984926-hardcover">590 mSv and 640 mSv</a>. That’s above the Japanese occupational limit for conducting lifesaving rescue work (250 mSv), but still below the threshold for radiation sickness (1,000 mSv). Due to their exposure, the two workers’ lifetime cancer risks will <a href="http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10691.html">increase about 3 percent</a> (from the 25 percent background cancer risk rate to about 28 percent), but they are unlikely to experience other health consequences.</p>
<p>Beyond just the plant workers, over 572 million people among 40 different countries got at least some exposure to Chernobyl radioactivity. (Neither the United States nor Japan was among the exposed countries.) It took two decades to fully assess the cancer consequences to these people. Finally, in 2006, an international team of scientists completed a comprehensive <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ijc.22037">analysis of the dose and health data</a> and reported on the cancer deaths that could be attributed to Chernobyl radioactivity.</p>
<p>Their detailed analysis included countrywide estimates of individual radiation doses in all 40 exposed countries, and regionwide estimates for the most highly contaminated regions of the most highly contaminated countries (Belarus, Russian Federation and Ukraine).</p>
<p>Using statistical models, the scientists predicted a total of 22,800 radiation-induced cancers, excluding thyroid cancers, among this group of 572 million people. Thyroid cancer warranted separate special scrutiny, as we will discuss presently; this hormonally important gland is uniquely affected by a specific radioactive isotope, iodine-131.</p>
<p>So that’s 22,800 non-thyroid cancers in addition to the approximately 194 million cancer cases that would normally be expected in a population of that size, even in the absence of a Chernobyl accident. The increase from 194,000,000 to 194,022,800 is a 0.01 percent rise in the overall cancer rate. That’s too small to have any measurable impact on the cancer incidence rates for any national cancer registries, so these predicted values will likely remain theoretical.</p>
<h2>Chernobyl’s iodine-131 thyroid effects far worse</h2>
<p>Unfortunately, at Chernobyl, the one type of cancer that could have easily been prevented was not. The population surrounding Chernobyl was not warned that iodine-131 – a radioactive fission product that can enter the food chain – had contaminated milk and other locally produced agricultural products. Consequently, people ate iodine-131-contaminated food, resulting in thyroid cancers.</p>
<p>For the local population, iodine-131 exposure was a worst-case scenario because they were already <a href="http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/backgrounder/en/">suffering from an iodine-deficient diet</a>; their <a href="http://www.thyroid.org/iodine-deficiency/">iodine-starved thyroids</a> sucked up any iodine that became available. This extremely unfortunate situation would not have happened in countries such as the United States or Japan, where diets are richer in iodine.</p>
<p>Thyroid cancer is rare, with a low background incidence compared to other cancers. So excess thyroid cancers due to iodine-131 can be more readily spotted in cancer registries. And this, in fact, has been the case for Chernobyl. Beginning five years after the accident, an increase in the rate of thyroid cancers started and continued rising over the following decades. Scientists estimate that there will ultimately be about <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ijc.22037">16,000 excess thyroid cancers</a> produced as a result of iodine-131 exposure from Chernobyl.</p>
<p>At Fukushima, in contrast, there was much less iodine-131 exposure. The affected population was smaller, local people were advised to avoid local dairy products due to possible contamination and they did not have iodine-deficient diets.</p>
<p>Consequently, typical radiation doses to the thyroid were low. Iodine-131 uptake into the thyroids of exposed people was measured and the <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep00507">doses were estimated to average</a> just 4.2 mSv for children and 3.5 mSv for adults – levels comparable to annual background radiation doses of approximately 3.0 mSv per year.</p>
<p>Contrast this to Chernobyl, where a significant proportion of the local population received thyroid doses in excess of 200 mSv – 50 times more – well high enough to see appreciable amounts of excess thyroid cancer. So at Fukushima, where iodine-131 doses approached background levels, we wouldn’t expect thyroid cancer to present the problem that it did at Chernobyl. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, there has already been one report that <a href="http://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20160307/p2a/00m/0na/022000c">claims there is an increase</a> in thyroid cancer among Fukushima residents at just four years post-accident. That’s earlier than would be expected based on the <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6601860">Chernobyl experience</a>. And the study’s design has been criticized as flawed for a number of scientific reasons, including the <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/mystery-cancers-are-cropping-children-aftermath-fukushima">comparison methods used</a>. Thus, this report of excess thyroid cancers must be considered suspect <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jjco/hyv191">until better data arrive</a>.</p>
<h2>Chernobyl has no comparison</h2>
<p>In short, Chernobyl is by far the worst nuclear power plant accident of all time. It was a totally human-made event – <a href="http://pegasusbooks.com/books/atomic-accidents-9781605984926-hardcover">a “safety” test gone terribly awry</a> – made worse by incompetent workers who did all the wrong things when attempting to avert a meltdown.</p>
<p>Fukushima in contrast, was an unfortunate natural disaster – caused by a tsunami that flooded reactor basements – and the workers acted responsibly to mitigate the damage despite loss of electrical power.</p>
<p>April 26, 1986 was the darkest day in the history of nuclear power. Thirty years later, there is no rival that comes even close to Chernobyl in terms of public health consequences; certainly not Fukushima. We must be vigilant to ensure nothing like Chernobyl ever happens again. We don’t want to be “celebrating” any more anniversaries like this one.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/57942/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Timothy J. Jorgensen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The meltdown at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in 1986 exposed 572 million people to radiation. No other nuclear accident holds a candle to that level of public health impact.Timothy J. Jorgensen, Director of the Health Physics and Radiation Protection Graduate Program and Associate Professor of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.