One Year Later; Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami

March 11, 2012 | Filed under Japan,Media,Natural Disasters | Posted by

On March 11th, 2011, at 14:46 JST, the Pacific Plate moved, thrusting up and eastward the plate on which Honshu Japan sits.  The Earthquake registered 9.0 on the Richter scale and was the fifth largest earthquake recorded since records have been kept, and the most powerful to strike Japan.

The earthquake, while massive and damaging, was far less lethal than the tsunami it spawned.

The Tsunami started coming ashore 26 minutes later.  The swell in open water was as much as 29 feet high, and the run up recorded on shore was as much as 79 feet.  Entire villages were swept away.

The death toll remains uncertain.  At least 15,850 died, another 3,827 are known to be missing and are presumed dead.  92% of the bodies recovered were determined to have drowned.  Another 1,331 deaths are ascribed to the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami.

The Press rapidly moved on from these horrific numbers to the greater threat…

The threat of Nuclear Disaster.

One year later, the “Nuclear Disaster” has claimed no lives.  None.  Zero.

Japan is still reeling from the destruction and loss of life from the twin disasters of earthquake and tsunami.  The greatest human impact from the “Nuclear Disaster” has been a shortage of electricity.

 

 

« « Americans with Disabilities Act Necessity: Conservative, White, Male Bloggers NEED a Federal Subsidy
Of Tomorrow » »

Shortlink:

Posted by on March 11, 2012.
Filed under Japan, Media, Natural Disasters.
Tagged with: • .


You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/EU5DQWQTTHTPO4A4ZYSL3AAV2U Adjoran

    Precisely correct – despite ill-conceived design and idiotic contingency plans – the back-up generators to cool the reactors were stored in basements, and flooded out – there was no apocalypse, no crisis even while the media went ballistic.

    Yet all of the supposedly “green” solutions cause multiple problems, create pollution in unforeseen ways, and always fail to deliver as promised.

  • Commander_Chico

    Regular Chico readers know I am a supporter of nuclear power.  Shutting down all of Japan’s reactors was an overreaction and will probably be reversed.

    But acting like nothing happened is taking it too far.  First, there will be excess cancer deaths in the years ahead.   Second, evacuating a 20 kilometer radius is a tremendous loss.  Third, the clean-up is costing tens of billions of dollars.

    As the Blue Oyster Cult said:

    History shows again and again how nature points up the folly of man

    Godzilla!

    • Sky__Captain

       Add to it that it will be decades before the site is completely cleaned up due to the radiation.

      • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

        It takes decades to completely decommission and deconstruct any land based nuclear plant which has reached end of life.

        • Sky__Captain

          That is quite true.
          However, I would think in this case the damage to the plant from the earthquake/tsunami and the melting of the fuel would make it a bit more difficult and time-consuming.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Probably, but also probably less so than you think.

            In the end the Fukushima plants survived the earthquake (which was in excess of design tolerance) without issue, while the tsunami (even further outside of design tolerance) caused critical damage.  Despite which the plants failed in a predictable and containable manner despite being outside of their worst case design criteria.

            One year on, zero deaths and zero radiological health issues.

          • Sky__Captain

             Rodney, I see down in this thread that you have actual experience in this field.

            I defer to your experience.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

             I do not claim the mantle of “expert.”

          • Sky__Captain

            No, but you do have real world experience, which is much more than I have to go on.

            My knowledge in nuclear reactors is only what I have read in books/magazines/the internet.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            “Expert” = someone who actually knows more about the subject than you do. 

            As opposed to someone who will willingly bullshit you and try to pass themselves off as an expert.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ryan-Murphy/100001624276605 Ryan Murphy

      I suggest you look at what the actual current estimated increase in cancer rates is. Really, I think you should.  You might be, in the least, surprised.

    • jim_m

      I would take all estimates of clean up etc with a very large grain of (iodized) salt.  I recall claims that it would take decades before the first plant life would return to Mt St Helens.  It took a year.  They said it would take years to clean up ground zero.  It was done in less than 2.  People routinely assume that the current state is permanent and that man is incapable of overcoming disaster.  People are gullible in that way.

      • Commander_Chico

        Yeah, but the Japanese are removing topsoil from hundreds of square miles.  That’s gotta be expensive.

        • jim_m

           and stupid. and pointless.  But irrational fear has lead people to do lots of stupid stuff. 

      • GarandFan

         I have a WWII newspaper.  It was printed right after the atomic bombs were dropped.  One expert stated “it will be over 100 years before grass will grow there again”.

        “Experts”, gotta love ‘em.

        • SoBeRight

          You’re making a strong case for no nuclear power plants. “Who can trust what the ‘experts’ tell us about the safety of nuclear power?”

          But I don’t agree with that position. I say build ‘em but make sure they are safe as can be and as insulated from terrorist attack as is needed.

          Not as insulated from terrorist attack “as is possible” but build in the safeguards to make them terrorist proof. And if that level of safety isn’t possible, don’t build them until it is.

          • jim_m

            Exactly.  You cannot make anything “terrorist proof”.  It is an impossible standard meant to ensure that no progress is ever made.  You may not consciously realize what you are doing, but you are demanding the impossible and then claiming that “I’m all for it, but the rest of the world just cannot comply with my reasonable objections.”

            Screw you fanatic.  The perfect is always the enemy of the good.  Make it as good as you can today and improve it for the future. Your demand is a recipe to keep people in the dark ages.

          • SoBeRight

            No – you can’t imagine how to make it terrorist proof, but it needs to be. Not impossible, nothing is impossible.

            Not perfect, just better than our enemies capabilities to attack.

            You can’t imagine it so you say its impossible. We need to keep people like you out of the decision-making process, and only go forward if the benefits outweigh the liabilities.

            And we’re not in the dark ages now, buffoon. So let’s keep it that way and not make boneheaded stupid mistakes like building nuclear plants with soft underbellies.

            Amazing how the right rails against “terrorists” then are so eager to build and install places of vulnerability for them to attack and destroy much and kill many.

          • jim_m

             That’s what I’m talking about, but you were the one saying “Terrorist proof”.  Nothing can be made terrorist proof.  You can only take the best safeguards that you can. 

            The problem with he left is that no matter how many safeguards you put in place there are never enough.  You say that I should not be in charge of safeguards?  Too bad for you that I work n a profession where I have to pass an FBI background check because of those safeguards.  Too bad for you that I have already been in that position.

            I believe in reasonable, practical and affordable safeguards, put in place by informed and rational people.  Not irrational, knee-jerk bullshit from idiots like you.

          • SoBeRight

            And that’s why nuclear plants aren’t being built in our country.

            The right starts from the position of defeat, that they can’t stop terrorists from attacking a nuclear plant  – and clearly doesn’t have any interest in actually trying. Oh sure – lip service – “affordable safeguards” lol… they’ll accept “affordable safeguards” as long as they don’t cut into the profit margin of the corporations involved – just blow it out your ass if you want safeguards for the American people that are as strong as the safeguards Republicans want in place to protect the profits of the corporations involved…

            This week gasoline is over $4 a gallon so let’s build, baby, build, and not bother to insure that they are safe enough to withstand terrorist attacks.

            Talk about knee-jerk jerks…

            It’s fine to say “let’s not build them if we can’t afford to make them safe” but building nuclear plants where public safety is pushed down in favor of making the project “profit friendly” is absurd.

            But that’s the right for you… profits above people – every -single -time.

          • jim_m

             My point is that we can build them safely.  My point is that Luddites like you are what prevent us from having real energy independence. 

            You reflexively jump to the “profits not people” BS.  The  position in favor of he people is to develope access to energy so people can afford to heat heir homes and drive their cars.  Leftists like you want to price people out of car and home ownership by making energy scarce.

            The compassionate answer is to develop it smartly and to not let imbeciles from the left stop us from making the progress we need to.

            There will always be risk.  We need to make them safe enough to prevent unnecessary risk, but to do so in a manner that does not price energy out of the reach of most Americans.

            But the left doesn’t care.  They portray any attempt at a rational compromise as dangerous and careless.  They claim that any desire o make people’s lives better is actually a greedy attempt t profit off of them.

            You disgust me in your pious and ignorant beliefs.  It’s ironic that you recently criticized the Catholics for being backwards and ignorant since that is exactly what you want with regard to energy.  You want this country to revert to a preindustrial state.

          • jim_m

             I’m all for reasonable precautions.  your position is that no matter how many precautions it isn’t enough.  Your position is an excuse to avoid actually taking action to make people’s lives better.

          • SoBeRight

            No, “just enough” and “the right amount of safety precautions” is the correct amount.

            “Affordable Safeguards”  aren’t enough. We need safety, not lip service and profit-watching.

            I get that cheap electricity is more important than American lives to you, but people come first, not corporations.

            And if it can’t be done safely it shouldn’t be done at all – but I do believe it can be done safely.

            You disagree that it needs to be safe from terrorist attack because you think that’s impossible.

            Another example of how the right is defeated before they even start.

          • SoBeRight

            Solar, wind, even algae fuels — yeah, those are pre-industrial technologies.

            And forget nuclear plants that are safe. can’t be done – just build, baby, build…

          • jim_m

             Nuclear plants can be safe.  In fact when was the last one that you saw fall victim to a terrorist attack?

            Fact is that you are asking for affordable safety plus whatever it takes to make real energy inaccessible for the masses.  You are believing in he bullshit leftist unicorn fart technology that would require millions of acres of land to produce the energy we need.

            You are asking for us to forego a proven technology for something else that you know you will ultimately find objections to.

            It is dishonest and you know it.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            you argue with a ghost.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            “Not perfect, just better than our enemies capabilities to attack.”

            And better than our ability to theorize about an attack.

            “Yes, we’ve been able to design a facility that will withstand two sequential truck bombs, an attack by a hundred RPG wielding terrorists, and a 747 flying into it a 500 MPH.”

            “What about 2 747s, 5 truck bombs, and two hundred terrorists with man-portable rockets?”

            “We didn’t design for that…”

            “… FUCKERS!  If I can imagine it, so can they!!!   That’s the right for you… profits above people – every -single -time!!!121!!!!”

            Hell. Don’t take out the reactor. Take out the transformer farm instead. They’re usually very visable, and unarmored, it’ll take months to fix, and the sudden disruption might crash the grid for states around.

          • GarandFan

             Odd. I said nothing about nuke plants or whether I was for or against them.  Merely made a comment about the pronunciations of “experts”.  It’s amazing the assumptions you make.

            Here, I’ll throw you another bone.  Al Gore is full of crap.

          • SoBeRight

            Odd. I didn’t say that you were for them or against them

            You’re making a strong case for no nuclear power plants. “Who can trust what the ‘experts’ tell us about the safety of nuclear power?”

            But I don’t agree with that position. I say build ‘em but make sure they are safe as can be and as insulated from terrorist attack as is needed.

            Not as insulated from terrorist attack “as is possible” but build in the safeguards to make them terrorist proof. And if that level of safety isn’t possible, don’t build them until it is.

            Where in that comment did I say you were supporting new plant construction or not?

            Hint. I didn’t, but look all you want.

            All I’m saying is that your position that experts can’t be trusted is one that builds a case for no new plant construction – whether you know or agree or not — and that I disagree with that.

            We need new plant construction – we just need to keep profit-protecting Republicans away from the discussion of “how safe is safe enough.”

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ryan-Murphy/100001624276605 Ryan Murphy

        I’m actually with you on this.

        • jim_m

          Well, I’m not entirely irrational.

  • jim_m

    Fact remains that nuclear power is far safer than the vast majority of the ignorant left(but I repeat myself) will admit it to be. 

    We look back at one of the most severe natural disasters in centuries and see that virtually none of the claims of the left happened.  It didn’t cause a nuclear explosion.   It didn’t melt down to the center of the earth.  Yes, there will be a contaminated area and an exclusion zone, but I will wager that the area designated ends up being far larger than really necessary.  Hiroshima and Nagasaki were reoccupied and we haven’t heard running stories of three headed children.  Just saying.

    The enviro left will use this as an excuse to block any and all nuclear power plant construction.   They will look at the fact that a once in a millennium event and decide that such events are too commonplace to allow for nuclear power o continue to serve mankind.

    • SoBeRight

      Way too early to assess the full outcome.

      And the people closest to the disaster are exercising a lot more caution than you are.

      Veteran fish seller Yoshito Shimada is under siege. At a grocery store in Tokyo’s Shibuya district, mothers pushing strollers demand proof that the daily catch isn’t from the waters off the stricken Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant.

      “I tell them the government checks the fish for radiation, but they don’t trust elected officials, or anyone,” said Shimada, his blue shirt stained with fish blood. “A year after the disaster, Japan is still afraid of its own food.”

      Even in Tokyo, more than 200 miles from the northeastern region devastated by the March 11, 2011, earthquake and tsunami that caused radiation to spew from the nuclear plant, residents fear that local schoolyards are laced with dangerous isotopes.

      Citizen collectives wander streets with dosimeters to make sure their
      neighborhoods remain radiation-free, conducting spot checks on fish and
      produce.

      • jim_m

         Yes people are cautious because of fear mongering by the press.  To be certain there are risks and things to be concerned about. 

        Having lived near Lake Michigan I understand the risks of heavy metals and fish consumption.  Those are perhaps even more so in a nation where fish make a far larger portion of he daily diet.  But we weren’t talking about what was on the dinner table, but the insane idea that we should skim the surface of top soil and inter the soil in some dumping ground for centuries.  We were talking about the problems of modern risk tolerance that make it impossible for reasonable risks to be taken. 

        If we applied the same standards today as in 1945 Hiroshima and Nagasaki would be ghost towns.  That would have been most unfortunate.

        • SoBeRight

          They’re cautious out of a need to be cautious.

          Blaming the press is so 2008.

  • Vagabond661

    I once saw before and after pictures of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in comparison to what was happening in Detroit. If they were real it was stunning. I imagine one could take the best photographs of one and the worst of the other to make their point, but I did do a google map and looked at some of the streets in Nagasaki. They looked fine to me, a casual observer. Anyone been over to Japan? Are you still glowing?

  • http://twitter.com/MaggieW65 MaggieW65

    The energy and will the japanese have shown is awesome.

  • TomInCali

     >One year later, the “Nuclear Disaster” has claimed no lives.  None.  Zero.

    Until people start dying. Just because there wasn’t a nuclear explosion doesn’t mean the event claimed zero lives. Not to say that the entire countryside is doomed, but check back in 5 years with the families of those working at the plant and see if they agree that it claimed no lives. Perhaps you should visit a nuclear plant and request to enter the core chamber. Then you can walk out unharmed and tell everyone how safe it is. For a while, anyway.

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

      Well, Tom, lets look at an equivalent nuclear incident 25+ years on.

      How many died in the first year from radiological effects of Chernobyl?

      How many died after the first year from from radiological effects of Chernobyl?

      How many attributable cancers and leukemia’s have developed in the area surrounding Chernobyl?  How many of those resulted in death?

      • TomInCali

        What is your argument? That radiation leaks during nuclear power plant accidents carry no risk? Estimates are between 100-1000 radiation-related deaths expected in the next few years. Perhaps they made the same predictions about Chernobyl… I don’t know. Fukushima was certainly not the disaster that people initially feared, but it’s a bit premature to declare zero related fatalities.

        • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

           I’ll be sure to answer your questions just as soon as you answer mine (and in so doing, answer most of your own).

          • TomInCali

            OK, if you want me to Google it for you instead of you making your case on your own… the number of premature deaths attributed to Chernobyl range from wildly from 3,000 to 985,000, according to the source and timing of the study. In addition, there were 6,000 thyroid cases reported as of 2005, and “many of those cancers were most likely caused by radiation exposures shortly after the accident”. “The incidence of leukemia in the general population… does not appear to be elevated.”

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Assessing_the_disaster.27s_effects_on_human_health

            I can’t get a sense of how many premature deaths were evident after just one year. But even it was zero, given the now-known long-term effects, it hardly seems reasonable to tout a “zero deaths after one year” statistic for Fukushima as meaningful.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            The estimates range wildly, you say?

            That ought to tell you something right there.

            It also ought to tell you something else – that, in the end, EVERYONE dies of something.  Heart disease.  Cancer.  (My mother had breast and thyroid cancer – yet lived to 93.)  Alcoholism.  Auto accidents.  Freezing.  Electrocution.  Toxin exposures. Drowning. Food poisoning… everyone dies of something, nobody get out of here alive.

            From der wiki…

            “Around 4.4 million households in northeastern Japan were left without electricity and 1.5 million without water.[30]”

            The National Police Agency has confirmed 15,854 deaths,[24] 9,677 injured,[25] and 3,155 people missing[26] across eighteen prefectures.[158][159]

            I think it fair to say the majority of the missing are dead.  So we’re looking at almost 19,000 dead, hundreds of thousands of people’s lives have been affected, stressors of all sorts have undoubtedly shortened lifetimes as well  -  hell, how much has the lack of electricity from the power plant shortened people’s lives, or the trauma of losing friends and family? How would you even BEGIN to measure those effects?

            And you’re rattling on about possible premature deaths from radiation.  How would you even begin to enumerate them?  “They were in the area, they died, so it must be radiation that did it!”?

            I’d worry more over my drive home each day.  Statistically, it’s much more likely to kill me.

          • TomInCali

            >Statistically, it’s much more likely to kill me.

            I’m surprised at your reference to statistics, since in the paragraph immediately prior you scoffed at the ability to observe a correlation between increased radiation exposure and increased incidents of cancer. The rest of your post was just about non-radiation effects, and therefore irrelevant to the discussion.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            No – what I’m pointing out to you is that compared to everything ELSE, potential problems down the line from radiation are negligible.

          • TomInCali

            Yep. As I said, irrelevant to the discussion of whether zero deaths just one year after a nuclear accident is something to crow about.

          • jim_m

            No.  Actually it is contrary to your position.  Not only are the first year deaths irrelevant but so are the following years since the death toll from other causes related to the tsunami and power disruption are far more significant. 

            Also, early deaths are a good indicator of how severe the radiation exposure is.  Few deaths is a very good indicator that the risk is pretty low.

          • TomInCali

            You’re the one introducing a comparison of other causes of death into the discussion. That’s not the topic. The deaths from the nuclear accident will likely be non-zero. Even the low number from the wildly varying estimates is 3,000. If you want to argue that that’s insignificant compared to deaths by, say, dog bite, you’re welcome to. But that’s not this discussion.

          • jim_m

            The problem with radiation deaths at Chernobyl is that many were due to the insane levels of exposure that emergency personel were subjected to.  Such levels would not be seen elsewhere due to the fact that no one is using graphite reactors (so the kind of explosion seen is virtually impossible to create) and no one would be so callous about human life to sacrifice people in such a cruel way.

            Also, it was reported that the soviets disguised radiation related deaths by classifying them as due to other causes so any etsimates of the death toll are nothing but guess work.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            “As of mid-2005, however, fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster, almost all being highly exposed rescue workers, many who died within months of the accident but others who died as late as 2004.” per the WHO.

            The best figure I’ve seen is 154 for directly attributable deaths to date.

            Thyroid cancer (generally treatable and with a 96% survival rate at 5 years and 92% survival rate at 30 years) are at 6,000.  No other cancers or leukemia statistically above background have been detected.

            Fukushima has had NO cases of acute radiation sickness and zero deaths in the first year.

            One should thus expect that the longer term consequences of Fukushima will be statistically insignificant bordering on the statistically undetectable.

          • herddog505

            Would it be fair to say that we really don’t know that much about the long-term effects of radiation?  Or, more to the point, what we DO know is (A) based on a relatively small data set and (B) involves a lot of “worst case” planning?

            We KNOW that very high doses of radiation will kill fairly quickly (within a few days to a few weeks).  But much lower doses?  Is it possible to say, perhaps years later, that exposure to radiation caused a person to die?

            I think of my grandfather, who worked at Oak Ridge during the war.  He died of cancer.  Was it due to his work there and exposure to (among other things) beryllium*?  Or was it his smoking habit?  Or the fact that he was eighty-nine years old?

            This (ahem) confusion is seen in the incredible spread of the numbers of deaths attributed to Chernobyl: the studies that show the higher numbers are attributing practically every death among people who were exposed, no matter how slightly, to the accident.  That strikes me as a little unreasonable if not outright alarmist.

            ====

            (*) Yes, I know: beryllium in not radioactive.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            It would be fair to say that the limited pool of experience we do have tends to indicate the overall long term effects are far less serious than even the mid line estimates have been up to this time, and orders of magnitude less serious than the worst case predictions published with such abandon in the press.

          • herddog505

            The Press… guys with English and Journalism degrees reporting on nuclear physics, oncology and radiation epidemiology.

            Is it just me, or is there something wrong with that?

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

             Hey now…  I have a BS in English Literature…

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

      Oh, and Tom, I lived and worked for 60 days at a time no further than 300 feet from an operating nuclear reactor (as did everyone else I worked with at that time), and regularly passed within 20 feet of the operating reactor itself.

      • TomInCali

        During a core meltdown, and with compromised containment between you and the core? Unless your answer is yes, I’m again, not sure what your argument is.

        • jim_m

          I think the point is that people who work around nuclear reactors actually know something about how they work.  My father melted down reactors for a living as part of his job at Argonne Natl lab.  Water reactors, such as the one at Fukushima, are pretty damn safe even in a melt down. 

          The fact that such an extreme situation could hapen with all safety and redundant systems destroyed and nothing more serious happened than what we have seen is a tesimony to how safe the technology really is. 

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Exactly, and that on a thirty year old design that exceeded design tolerance on both earthquake and tsunami but which still failed in a predictable and containable manner.