DOCSLIB.ORG

The Fukushima Daiichi Accident Technical Volume 3

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Fukushima Daiichi Accident Technical Volume 3 The Fukushima Daiichi Accident Daiichi Fukushima The The Fukushima Daiichi Accident Technical Volume 3/5 Technical Volume 3/5 Emergency Preparedness and Response Emergency Preparedness and Response Preparedness Emergency PO Box 100, Vienna International Centre 1400 Vienna, Austria Printed in Austria ISBN 978–92–0–107015–9 (set) 1 THE FUKUSHIMA DAIICHI ACCIDENT TECHNICAL VOLUME 3 EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE i The following States are Members of the International Atomic Energy Agency: AFGHANISTAN GERMANY OMAN ALBANIA GHANA PAKISTAN ALGERIA GREECE PALAU ANGOLA GUATEMALA PANAMA ARGENTINA GUYANA PAPUA NEW GUINEA ARMENIA HAITI PARAGUAY AUSTRALIA HOLY SEE PERU AUSTRIA HONDURAS PHILIPPINES AZERBAIJAN HUNGARY POLAND BAHAMAS ICELAND PORTUGAL BAHRAIN INDIA QATAR BANGLADESH INDONESIA REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA BELARUS IRAN, ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF ROMANIA BELGIUM IRAQ RUSSIAN FEDERATION BELIZE IRELAND RWANDA BENIN ISRAEL SAN MARINO BOLIVIA, PLURINATIONAL ITALY SAUDI ARABIA STATE OF JAMAICA SENEGAL BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA JAPAN SERBIA BOTSWANA JORDAN SEYCHELLES BRAZIL KAZAKHSTAN SIERRA LEONE BRUNEI DARUSSALAM KENYA SINGAPORE BULGARIA KOREA, REPUBLIC OF SLOVAKIA BURKINA FASO KUWAIT SLOVENIA BURUNDI KYRGYZSTAN SOUTH AFRICA CAMBODIA LAO PEOPLE’S DEMOCRATIC SPAIN CAMEROON REPUBLIC SRI LANKA CANADA LATVIA SUDAN CENTRAL AFRICAN LEBANON SWAZILAND REPUBLIC LESOTHO SWEDEN CHAD LIBERIA SWITZERLAND CHILE LIBYA SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC CHINA LIECHTENSTEIN TAJIKISTAN COLOMBIA LITHUANIA CONGO LUXEMBOURG THAILAND COSTA RICA MADAGASCAR THE FORMER YUGOSLAV CÔTE D’IVOIRE MALAWI REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA CROATIA MALAYSIA TOGO CUBA MALI TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CYPRUS MALTA TUNISIA CZECH REPUBLIC MARSHALL ISLANDS TURKEY DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC MAURITANIA UGANDA OF THE CONGO MAURITIUS UKRAINE DENMARK MEXICO UNITED ARAB EMIRATES DJIBOUTI MONACO UNITED KINGDOM OF DOMINICA MONGOLIA GREAT BRITAIN AND DOMINICAN REPUBLIC MONTENEGRO NORTHERN IRELAND ECUADOR MOROCCO UNITED REPUBLIC EGYPT MOZAMBIQUE OF TANZANIA EL SALVADOR MYANMAR UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ERITREA NAMIBIA URUGUAY ESTONIA NEPAL UZBEKISTAN ETHIOPIA NETHERLANDS VENEZUELA, BOLIVARIAN FIJI NEW ZEALAND REPUBLIC OF FINLAND NICARAGUA VIET NAM FRANCE NIGER YEMEN GABON NIGERIA ZAMBIA GEORGIA NORWAY ZIMBABWE The Agency’s Statute was approved on 23 October 1956 by the Conference on the Statute of the IAEA held at United Nations Headquarters, New York; it entered into force on 29 July 1957. The Headquarters of the Agency are situated in Vienna. Its principal objective is “to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world’’. THE FUKUSHIMA DAIICHI ACCIDENT TECHNICAL VOLUME 3 EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE iii COPYRIGHT NOTICE All IAEA scientific and technical publications are protected by the terms of the Universal Copyright Convention as adopted in 1952 (Berne) and as revised in 1972 (Paris). The copyright has since been extended by the World Intellectual Property Organization (Geneva) to include electronic and virtual intellectual property. Permission to use whole or parts of texts contained in IAEA publications in printed or electronic form must be obtained and is usually subject to royalty agreements. Proposals for non- commercial reproductions and translations are welcomed and considered on a case-by-case basis. Enquiries should be addressed to the IAEA Publishing Section at: Marketing and Sales Unit, Publishing Section International Atomic Energy Agency Vienna International Centre PO Box 100 1400 Vienna, Austria Fax: +43 1 2600 29302 Tel.: +43 1 2600 22417 Email: [email protected] http://www.iaea.org/books ©IAEA, 2015 Printed by the IAEA in Austria August 2015 STI/PUB/1710 IAEA Library Cataloguing in Publication Data The Fukushima Daiichi accident — Vienna : International Atomic Energy Agency, 2015. v. ; 30 cm. STI/PUB/1710 ISBN 978–92–0–107015–9 (set) Includes bibliographical references. 1. Nuclear reactor accidents — Analysis. 2. Nuclear power plants — Accidents — Analysis. 3. Nuclear reactor accidents — Japan — Fukushima-ken. 4. Radioactive pollution — Health aspects — Japan — Fukushima-ken. 5. Radioactive waste management. 6. Emergency management. I. International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEAL 15–00988 EDITORIAL NOTE This publication has been prepared from contributions submitted by many international experts to the five Working Groups for the preparation of the technical volumes. The content does not necessarily reflect the views of IAEA Member States, or the organizations nominating experts. Great care has been taken to maintain the accuracy of information contained in this publication. Neither the IAEA, nor its Member States, however, assume any responsibility for consequences that may arise from its use, nor are any warranties made of any kind in connection with this publication. This publication is not intended to address issues of responsibility, legal or otherwise, for acts or omissions on the part of any person or entity. Extracts from this publication may be freely used elsewhere, provided that acknowledgement of the source is made. If any attribution in this publication indicates that the information (including photographs and graphics) is from a source or site external to the IAEA, permission for reuse must be sought from the originating source. The use of particular designations of countries or territories does not imply any judgement by the IAEA as to the legal status of such countries or territories, or of the delimitation of their boundaries, or of their authorities and institutions. The mentioning of names of specific companies or products, whether or not indicated as registered, does not imply any intention to infringe proprietary rights, nor should it be construed as an endorsement or recommendation on the part of the IAEA. The IAEA assumes no responsibility for the accuracy or continued existence of URLs for external or third party Internet web sites referred to in this publication and does not guarantee that any content on such web sites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate. v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Financial assistance was provided by Canada, Japan, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. In-kind contributions were received from Argentina, Australia, Belarus, Brazil, Canada, China, Cuba, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, the Philippines, Poland, the Russian Federation, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the Syrian Arab Republic, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, the United Republic of Tanzania and the United States of America. In-kind contributions were also received from the European Commission, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the International Commission on Radiological Protection, the International Labour Organization, the International Nuclear Safety Group, the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, the World Association of Nuclear Operators and the World Meteorological Organization. The Government of Japan provided invaluable support by making available a considerable amount of information, arranging for Japanese experts to support the work on the report and ensuring logistical assistance for bilateral meetings in Japan. The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation supported the IAEA by sharing the relevant database of references from its 2013 report and allowing information and figures from this report to be reproduced. The IAEA thanks the large number of experts who were involved in this report. It is the result of the dedicated efforts of many people. All participants listed at the end of this technical volume made valuable contributions, but a particularly heavy load was borne by the Co-Chairs and coordinators of the working groups. The efforts of many expert reviewers, including members of the International Technical Advisory Group, are also gratefully acknowledged. vi THE REPORT ON THE FUKUSHIMA DAIICHI ACCIDENT At the IAEA General Conference in September 2012, the Director General announced that the IAEA would prepare a report on the Fukushima Daiichi accident. He later stated that this report would be “an authoritative, factual and balanced assessment, addressing the causes and consequences of the accident, as well as lessons learned”.1 The report is the result of an extensive international collaborative effort involving five working groups with about 180 experts from 42 Member States (with and without nuclear power programmes) and several international bodies. This ensured a broad representation of experience and knowledge. An International Technical Advisory Group provided advice on technical and scientific issues. A Core Group, comprising IAEA senior level management, was established to give direction and to facilitate the coordination and review. Additional internal and external review mechanisms were also instituted. The organizational structure for the preparation of this publication is illustrated in Fig. 1. FIG. 1. IAEA organizational structure for the preparation of the report on The Fukushima Daiichi Accident. The Report by the Director General consists of an Executive Summary and a Summary Report. It draws on five detailed technical volumes prepared by international experts and on the contributions of the many experts and international
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Greetingsfrom Koriyama City
    ‘Nunobiki Plateau Wind Farm’: boasting 33 wind turbines with the height of roughly 100 meters, one of the largest scale wind farms in Japan Greetings from Koriyama City -Toward a future-oriented and mutually-beneficial relationship between the cities of Essen and Koriyama- Business Creation Division City of Koriyama, JAPAN City of Koriyama, Fukushima Prefecture JAPAN 1 Geographical Features of Koriyama City -Two Cities of Essen and Koriyama- 2nd most populous in Fukushima Prefecture and 3rd most populous in Tohoku Region ‘Economic Capital City in Fukushima Prefecture’, boasting its Essen City biggest retail sales and largest number of retail businesses in the prefecture Largest number of agricultural households in Fukushima State of North Rhine- Prefecture, boasting biggest rice production in the prefecture Westphalia 51 Degrees 37 Degrees Koriyama City Fukushima Prefecture Koriyama City Central urban area of Koriyama City (the west exit of Koriyama Station) City of Koriyama, Fukushima Prefecture JAPAN 2 History of the Development of Koriyama City -Transition from a city of power generation to city of renewable energy and medical devices- ５．Great East Japan ６．Restoration Earthquake and Nuclear Accident from the disasters, at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear promoting renewable Power Station in 2011 energy and medical device development Oyasuba Burial Mound, built in the Fukushima Renewable Energy early Kofun Period (250 AD-538 AD) Institute, AIST (FREA) opened in April 2014 Building with its first floor collapsed due to the fierce earthquake ４．People gathered, schools and banks established, Fukushima Medical Device Development Numagami Hydroelectric Power Station, laid Support Center (FMDDSC) the foundation of Koriyama’s development railroaded to become the center of Fukushima Prefecture opened in November 2016 ３．New industry revolution, cotton and chemical industries flourished by hydro electric power generation, Hodogaya Chemical Co., LTD.
    [Show full text]
  • The Fukushima Nuclear Accident and Crisis Management
    e Fukushima Nuclearand Crisis Accident Management e Fukushima The Fukushima Nuclear Accident and Crisis Management — Lessons for Japan-U.S. Alliance Cooperation — — Lessons for Japan-U.S. Alliance Cooperation — — Lessons for Japan-U.S. September, 2012 e Sasakawa Peace Foundation Foreword This report is the culmination of a research project titled ”Assessment: Japan-US Response to the Fukushima Crisis,” which the Sasakawa Peace Foundation launched in July 2011. The accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant that resulted from the Great East Japan Earthquake of March 11, 2011, involved the dispersion and spread of radioactive materials, and thus from both the political and economic perspectives, the accident became not only an issue for Japan itself but also an issue requiring international crisis management. Because nuclear plants can become the target of nuclear terrorism, problems related to such facilities are directly connected to security issues. However, the policymaking of the Japanese government and Japan-US coordination in response to the Fukushima crisis was not implemented smoothly. This research project was premised upon the belief that it is extremely important for the future of the Japan-US relationship to draw lessons from the recent crisis and use that to deepen bilateral cooperation. The objective of this project was thus to review and analyze the lessons that can be drawn from US and Japanese responses to the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, and on the basis of these assessments, to contribute to enhancing the Japan-US alliance’s nuclear crisis management capabilities, including its ability to respond to nuclear terrorism.
    [Show full text]
  • Paper Sludge Carbon As an Adsorbent for Fukushima Radiocontaminated Paddy Soil
    applied sciences Article Paper Sludge Carbon as an Adsorbent for Fukushima Radiocontaminated Paddy Soil Ai Van Tran 1,* and Makoto Yanaga 2 1 Corelex SanEi Co. Ltd., Agoyama 775-1, Shizuoka Prefecture, Fujinomiya City 418-0037, Japan 2 Center for Radioscience Education and Research, Faculty of Science, Shizuoka University, 836 Ohya, Suruga-ku, Shizuoka City 422-8529, Japan; [email protected]; Tel.: +81-54-238-4804 * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +81-544-23-0303 Received: 28 August 2020; Accepted: 15 September 2020; Published: 17 September 2020 Abstract: Radiocontaminated soil in a paddy field in the Iitate village in Fukushima was treated with an industrial paper sludge carbon (PSC) prior to growing rice in May 2011. The results showed that the sum of the activity concentrations of 134Cs and 137Cs in the polished rice harvested in October 2011 was 30 Bq kg 1, a level much lower than the Japanese governmental safeguard value of 100 Bq kg 1. · − · − Upon contacting with the contaminated soil, the contents of calcium, magnesium, copper, potassium, and barium in the PSC were decreased. Among the PSCs impregnated with various chlorides and sulfates of the previously mentioned minerals, potassium chloride, copper sulfate, magnesium sulfate, and potassium sulfate yielded higher decontamination degrees compared to the original PSC. The results imply that radioactive cesium in the soil exchanges cations with these minerals. Keywords: paper sludge carbon; decontamination; rice; ion exchange; 134Cs; 137Cs 1. Introduction As the radiocontaminated soil from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident in 1986 is concerned, Guillitte and co-workers [1] proposed countermeasures such as the removal of contaminated surface soil, spraying contaminated canopies with detergents or cleaning agents, defoliation and removal of fallen leaves, as well as plowing after clear felling and prior to planting.
    [Show full text]
  • March 2011 Earthquake, Tsunami and Fukushima Nuclear Accident Impacts on Japanese Agri-Food Sector
    Munich Personal RePEc Archive March 2011 earthquake, tsunami and Fukushima nuclear accident impacts on Japanese agri-food sector Bachev, Hrabrin January 2015 Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/61499/ MPRA Paper No. 61499, posted 21 Jan 2015 14:37 UTC March 2011 earthquake, tsunami and Fukushima nuclear accident impacts on Japanese agri-food sector Hrabrin Bachev1 I. Introduction On March 11, 2011 the strongest recorded in Japan earthquake off the Pacific coast of North-east of the country occurred (also know as Great East Japan Earthquake, 2011 Tohoku earthquake, and the 3.11 Earthquake) which triggered a powerful tsunami and caused a nuclear accident in one of the world’s largest nuclear plant (Fukushima Daichi Nuclear Plant Station). It was the first disaster that included an earthquake, a tsunami, and a nuclear power plant accident. The 2011 disasters have had immense impacts on people life, health and property, social infrastructure and economy, natural and institutional environment, etc. in North-eastern Japan and beyond [Abe, 2014; Al-Badri and Berends, 2013; Biodiversity Center of Japan, 2013; Britannica, 2014; Buesseler, 2014; FNAIC, 2013; Fujita et al., 2012; IAEA, 2011; IBRD, 2012; Kontar et al., 2014; NIRA, 2013; TEPCO, 2012; UNEP, 2012; Vervaeck and Daniell, 2012; Umeda, 2013; WHO, 2013; WWF, 2013]. We have done an assessment of major social, economic and environmental impacts of the triple disaster in another publication [Bachev, 2014]. There have been numerous publications on diverse impacts of the 2011 disasters including on the Japanese agriculture and food sector [Bachev and Ito, 2013; JA-ZENCHU, 2011; Johnson, 2011; Hamada and Ogino, 2012; MAFF, 2012; Koyama, 2013; Sekizawa, 2013; Pushpalal et al., 2013; Liou et al., 2012; Murayama, 2012; MHLW, 2013; Nakanishi and Tanoi, 2013; Oka, 2012; Ujiie, 2012; Yasunaria et al., 2011; Watanabe A., 2011; Watanabe N., 2013].
    [Show full text]
  • 10 Years Since the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster
    10 YEARS SINCE THE FUKUSHIMA NUCLEAR DISASTER By Philip White February 2021 Philip White was international liaison officer for the Tokyo-based Citizens' Nuclear Information Center at the time of the Fukushima nuclear accident. In 2014 he completed a PhD on public participation in Japan's nuclear energy policy-forming process. 1. Remembering the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster 2. How the disaster unfolded 3. What's the situation now? Evacuees ‒ Health issues ‒ Liability and compensation ‒ Decontamination of the environment and agriculture ‒ Radioactive water and fishing ‒ Decommissioning of nuclear power plants ‒ Cost 4. Post-Fukushima energy policy 5. Putting it in perspective References 1. Remembering the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster Ten years ago, three of the nuclear reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station suffered melt downs in the days following a Magnitude 9 earthquake that struck off the northeast coast of Japan on 11 March 2011. Along with the 1986 nuclear accident at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Station in the former Soviet Union, it was one of the two worst nuclear power accidents in history. On the tenth anniversary, it is important that we remember what happened then and what has happened since. It is in the interests of those who caused the accident that we forget. We must refuse to do so, for the sake of the victims and to prevent more disasters in future. The most important take-home message is that the disaster is far from over. In order to win the bid for the (now postponed) 2020 Olympics, then Prime Minister Abe asserted that the nuclear accident was 'under control'.
    [Show full text]
  • Fukushima Daiichi 2011-2021 the Decontamination Myth and a Decade of Human Rights Violations
    Fukushima Daiichi 2011-2021 The decontamination myth and a decade of human rights violations March 2021 01 Contents Executive summary 1 The reality of contamination in Fukushima 2 The decontamination myth 3 Greenpeace surveys 4 Areas where evacuation orders have been lifted – Iitate and Namie 5 Iitate district 6 Namie town and district 7 Namie ‘difficult-to-return’ exclusion zone 8 Strontium-90 – an additional threat 9 Ten years of evacuation, displacement and human rights violations 10 The future of difficult-to-return exclusion zones 11 Conclusion and recommendations Endnotes Cover: Nuclear waste storage area in Iitate, Fukushima prefecture. (October 1, 2017) Page 2-3: Greenpeace survey team in Namie, Fukushima prefecture. (March 26, 2011) © Christian Åslund / Greenpeace 02 Acknowledgements Radiation survey team 2020 Report team 2021 Coordinator and Lead Radiation Protection: Survey data compilation: Jan Vande Putte, Greenpeace Belgium Mai Suzuki, Greenpeace Japan and Mai Suzuki, Greenpeace Japan Researcher: Daisuke Miyachi, Greenpeace Japan Report and analysis : Shaun Burnie, Greenpeace East Asia; Technical support: Jan Vande Putte, Greenpeace Jan vande Putte, Greenpeace Belgium; and Heinz Smital, Belgium and Heinz Smital, Greenpeace Germany Greenpeace Germany Communication/photography support: Review and Editing: Dr Rianne Teule (Greenpeace RPA Mitsuhisa Kawase, Greenpeace Japan coordinator); Kazue Suzuki, Greenpeace Japan; Insung Lee, Greenpeace East Asia; Caroline Roberts Survey teams 2011-2020 Photographs: Christian Aslund; Shaun
    [Show full text]
  • Fukushima Prefecture Training Camp Guidebook
    Fukushima Prefecture Training Camp a i n i n g t a g e o f T r C a m p s i n F Guidebook d v a n U K U S k e A H I M A T a ! ! T a k e H I M A A d v a n F U K U S t a g e o f T r a i n i n g C a m p s i n Message from the Governor of Fukushima Prefecture Support Messages Ms. Yuko Arimori Olympic medalist Profile highlights ▪ Silver medalist, Barcelona 1992 Olympic Women’s Marathon ▪ Bronze medalist, Atlanta 1996 Olympic Women’s Marathon ▪ Honored in 2010 with IOC Women and Sport Awards for the first time as a Japanese Current positions: Specified NPO “Hearts of Gold” Founder and Representative Director; President & CEO, Special Olympics Nippon Foundation; Director, Japan Professional Football League; Health Ambassador appointed by Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare; Visiting Professor, Shujitsu University; Visiting On behalf of all citizens of Fukushima Prefecture, let me express my Professor, Nippon Sport Science University; Shakunage Ambassador for Fukushima Prefecture, among other positions CONTENTS heartfelt gratitude for the great support, cooperation and encouragement you have extended to us from around the world since our prefecture I’d like Athletes from around the world Message from the Governor was severely stricken by the Great East Japan Earthquake on March 11, to give children in Fukushima dreams. of Fukushima Prefecture … 1 2011. Support Messages ………… 2 It is true that Fukushima Prefecture still faces some Introduction of problems remaining in the wake of the Great Fukushima Prefecture ……… 3 We, residents of Fukushima Prefecture, have been deeply impressed East Japan Earthquake in 2011.
    [Show full text]
  • New Stage Towards Reconstruction & Revitalization
    Eliminating Negative Reputation Impact ～ Reconstruction from Nuclear Disaster & the History of Safety and Revitalization of Fukushima ～ April, 2020 New Stage towards Reconstruction & Revitalization Status of the Areas under Evacuation Order in Fukushima ○Dimension of areas under evacuation order is about 2.4% of the whole prefecture （about 0.09% of Japan’s total land area). ○People in 97.6% of the prefecture can live a normal life. Areas under Evacuation Order (notes) Areas where returning is difficult（No entry in principle, No overnight stays） Source: Fukushima Prefectural website Approx. 133km TEPCO Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station Approx. 166km Source: Created by the Reconstruction Agency based on materials from Fukushima Prefecture and the Support Team for Residents Affected by Nuclear Incidents Changes in Air Dose Rate ○The average air dose rate*1 within 80km from TEPCO Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station decreased by about 78%*2 compared to levels in November 2011. Legend Air dose rates at 1m in height from the ground surface (μSv/h) （ex.）The air dose rate in Fukushima city is now lower than 1/20 of what it was immediately after the Great East Japan Earthquake in 2011 Range where Great East Japan measurement results were not obtained Earthquake November 2011 Most recent data: http://radioactivity.nsr.go.jp/en/ September 2019 *1Measured at 1m in height from the ground surface Changes in Air Dose Rate(Fukushima city) *2The target area is divided into 250-m grid meshes and the value is calculated from the ratio of the measurement results in the central point of each grid mesh.
    [Show full text]
  • Tomography of the 2011 Iwaki Earthquake (M 7.0) and Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Area
    Solid Earth, 3, 43–51, 2012 www.solid-earth.net/3/43/2012/ Solid Earth doi:10.5194/se-3-43-2012 © Author(s) 2012. CC Attribution 3.0 License. Tomography of the 2011 Iwaki earthquake (M 7.0) and Fukushima nuclear power plant area P. Tong1,2, D. Zhao1, and D. Yang2 1Department of Geophysics, Tohoku University, Sendai 980-8578, Japan 2Department of Mathematical Sciences, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China Correspondence to: P. Tong ([email protected]), D. Zhao ([email protected]) Received: 12 December 2011 – Published in Solid Earth Discuss.: 22 December 2011 Revised: 2 February 2012 – Accepted: 6 February 2012 – Published: 14 February 2012 Abstract. High-resolution tomographic images of the crust zone but also in regions far away from the epicenter, and so and upper mantle in and around the area of the 2011 Iwaki the seismic activity in the crust of the overriding plate west of earthquake (M 7.0) and the Fukushima nuclear power plant the source area has increased significantly after the Tohoku- are determined by inverting a large number of high-quality oki mainshock that ruptured the megathrust zone beneath the arrival times with both the finite-frequency and ray tomog- Pacific Ocean (Okada et al., 2011). raphy methods. The Iwaki earthquake and its aftershocks The Iwaki earthquake (M 7.0) occurred in a previous seis- mainly occurred in a boundary zone with strong variations micity gap on 11 April 2011 and it was one of the ma- in seismic velocity and Poisson’s ratio. Prominent low- jor aftershocks following the Tohoku-oki mainshock and the velocity and high Poisson’s ratio zones are revealed under the strongest one hit the Japan land area.
    [Show full text]
  • The Failed Nuclear Risk Governance: Reflections on the Boundary Between Misfortune and Injustice in the Case of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster Hiroyuki Tosa
    The Failed Nuclear Risk Governance: Reflections on the Boundary between Misfortune and Injustice in the case of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster Hiroyuki Tosa Abstract Although technological progress has greatly created the possibilities for the expanded reach of risk management, its newly manufactured uncertainty may bring about a big scale of catastrophe. In order to control risk of the nature, the human ironically may create a hybrid monster that the human cannot control. Te Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster also can be described as a hybrid monster, in which natural and technological elements combine to produce uncontrollable risks that may have disastrous consequences. Tis article scrutinizes the politics of the boundary between calculable risks and unpredictable uncertainty as well as the politics of the boundary between misfortune and injustice by focusing upon the lineage of a hybrid monster such as the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. Following the check of implications of a hybrid monster, we will interrogate historical lineage. Tird we will examine the way in which technocratic politics of <risk/uncertainty> would infuence the boundary between misfortune and injustice. Fourth we will scrutinize problems with the probabilist way of thinking, which tends to suppress the risk of nuclear technology. Finally we shed a light on technocratic governance forcing the people to become resilient. As recent Science and Technology Studies (STS) literature suggests that sci- entifc and technical knowledge needs to be seen as situated in social and material spaces(Simondo 2010, 204, O’Malley 2004), political interests would shape the presentation of scientifc facts and predictions in areas of high uncertainty(Heazle 2010, Jasanof 1990, 6) and the confguration of political actors in each country may bring about the diferent perceptions of risk and its related diferent regulatory policy(Jasanof 2005, Brickman, Jasanof, and Ilgen 1985, Vogel 2012, Jasanof 2012, 23–58).
    [Show full text]
  • Fukushima Nuclear Disaster – Implications for Japanese Agriculture and Food Chains
    Munich Personal RePEc Archive Fukushima nuclear disaster – implications for Japanese agriculture and food chains Bachev, Hrabrin and Ito, Fusao Institute of Agricultural Economics, Sofia, Tohoku University, Sendai 3 September 2013 Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/49462/ MPRA Paper No. 49462, posted 03 Sep 2013 08:50 UTC Fukushima Nuclear Disaster – Implications for Japanese Agriculture and Food Chains1 Hrabrin Bachev, Professor, Institute of Agricultural Economics, Sofia, Bulgaria2 Fusao Ito, Professor, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan 1. Introduction On March 11, 2011 at 14:46 JST the Great East Japan Earthquake occurred with the epicenter around 70 kilometers east of Tōhoku. It was the most powerful recorded earthquake ever hit Japan with a magnitude of 9.03 Mw. The earthquake triggered powerful tsunami that reached heights of up to 40 meters in Miyako, Iwate prefecture and travelled up to 10 km inland in Sendai area. The earthquake and tsunami caused many casualties and immense damages in North-eastern Japan. According to some estimates that is the costliest natural disaster in the world history [Kim]. Official figure of damages to agriculture, forestry and fisheries alone in 20 prefectures amounts to 2,384.1 billion yen [MAFF]. The earthquake and tsunami caused a nuclear accident3 in one of the world’s biggest nuclear power stations - the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, Okuma and Futaba, Fukushima prefecture. After cooling system failure three reactors suffered large explosions and level 7 meltdowns leading to releases of huge radioactivity into environment [TEPCO]. Radioactive contamination has spread though air, rains, dust, water circulations, wildlife, garbage disposals, transportation, and affected soils, waters, plants, animals, infrastructure, supply and food chains in immense areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Steps for Revitalization in Fukushima
    Steps for Revitalization in Fukushima December 25th, 2020 edition Hoping for the early containment of COVID-19 and the revitalization of the town Fireworks were set off in the Ogawara district of Okuma Town with these two hopes. It was the first fireworks display since the Great East Japan Earthquake and the nuclear disaster. Oct. 2020（Okuma Town） Fukushima Prefecture Fukushima Prefecture disaster situation – Earthquake and tsunami damage The Great East Japan Earthquake occurred on March 11, 2011. Centered off the Sanriku coast in North Eastern Japan, its magnitude was a record high of M9.0, measuring a 7 on the JMA seismic intensity scale. It caused serious damage to the entire Prefecture with heavy shaking and a large tsunami that struck a wide area along the coast. Disaster status after the earthquake and tsunami ◆Status of housing damage【As of 2020.12.7】 ■Totally destroyed: 15,435 houses ■Half destroyed: 82,783 houses Extensive damage caused by Status of housing Tsunami：Namie Town damage：Fukushima City ◆ Cost of damage in Fukushima Prefecture 【As of 2020.7.6】 Reported cost of damage for public works About JPY facilities 316.2 billion Reported amount of damage on agricultural, About JPY forestry and fishery facilities 275.3 billion Reported amount of damage on educational About JPY facilities 37.9 billion Total of reported amount of damage on public About JPY facilities 629.4 billion ■Areas under the jurisdiction of the prefectural government: for the 30km radius surrounding the ◆Disaster status in Fukushima Prefecture Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station (F1NPS), damage 【As of 2020.12.7】 costs were estimated based on aerial photographs.
    [Show full text]