May 2012

The year that the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant was commissioned over 41-years ago, international governments and their agencies, including the USA warned that light-waterreactors were an accident waiting to happen if their cooling systems failed, resulting in a nuclear explosion that would scatter radioactive fallout over a wide area. The warning was ignored! One of many such communities clustered within 50 miles of the Fukushima Daiichi plant is the Iitate village some 24 miles northwest of the level 7 nuclear disaster, whereas 12-months after the events of March 11th, 2011 shocked the world, is deserted. Recent levels checked in the village show 13.26 microsieverts an hour (13.26 mSv/h) 100X more than a natural radiation backgrounddipping the probe into flowing water from a culvert the level shot off the scale. Iitate sitting on a plateau in the hills of the Fukushima Prefecture is a perfect example of the influence by the nuclear power industry over local and federal governments across the world. A small population of less than 7,000 living in an area 90 square miles that firmly believed the industry and their government representatives that a possibility of a nuclear accident was less than 1:1,000,0000 in other words few and far between dont sweat it. Another prime example of this disregard for the peoples safety is the village of Miharu 30miles directly west of the plant, where the establishment of radiation levels today is not being carried out by professionals but ordinary local people, most elderly, who have been issued crude

radiation measuring equipment (max 10 mSv/h). In their daily task of maintaining their crops they test the produce along with the soil, the results range from more than scary to zip. It seems old hat today in the USA, where an effort being made by the corporations pushing towards less government regulations and their mantra that they are self-regulating to point to the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster that now looms large over the failings of the government and the very private enterprise that twisted and turned nuclear designs and regulations to achieve the maximum buck for the nuclear industry. What I found interesting or even criminal was the initial reaction to the disaster by the sitting government to led the charge in rebuilding confidence in the public towards nuclear power versus responding to the people who were caught up in the disaster, innocent beyond compare, yet ignored by the Japanese corporate hierarchy although populations around the world can expect the same from their government and various industries that operate within their borders, including the United States of America or should I say, especially! To attempt to count the red flags trailing along behind TEPCO detailing the potential issues surrounding their operation for the last couple of decades would entail volumes, issues such as the crucial design and construction vulnerabilities at the Fukushima Daiichi reactor design, this coupled with the corporate governance issues supported by the country government, in addition a very weak management team stuffed with lawyers whose primary function was eliminate as many nuclear control issues as possible, then there was the numerous incidents of major blatant fraud and daily cover-ups, the obvious lack of regulatory oversight brought on by direct collusion with the very government agencies tasked with enforcing the regulations. As late as 2009 professionals in various organizations outside of direct government control, Universities, geological enterprises both internal and external to Japan, presented data and strong debates in front of the Parliament warming of strong earthquakes within the Fukushima coastline presentations and arguments that were stricken from the public record as being alarmist in nature and would never take place. In Fukushima we witnessed a massive failure of human institutions tasked to be fully aware and to acknowledge the reality of a nuclear event, we also see a failure and concerted reluctance to enforce safety standards, and last but the largest failure to protect the public and the environment caused by such tragedies. It should be noted that 100% of all nuclear accidents have been the direct result of institutional failures, including Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.

The vulnerabilities of the Mark 1 Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) containment design is well known in the industry and by the regulatory agencies across the globe, including Japan yet TEPCO and in its collusion with various governments agencies in Japan have repeatedly ignored the warnings as such the design and construction errors that were made at the Fukushima Daiichi plant build in 1970 were carried forward for more than 40-years simply because officials did not want to alter or change the status quo.

The free enterprise system has been around since before the Industrial Age, this we know for a fact - in this case Japans Nuclear Industry and Safety Agency (NISA) stuck between a heavy governmental mandate and TEPCOs pressure to minimize expenses, the NISA failed to enforce existing standards and to respond to advancements in scientific knowledge on how to reduce accidents and earthquake and subsequent tsunami risks. It is no secret to the rest of the world that the Fukushima Daiichi disaster has shown in a big manner the on-going belief by some in the idea of safe nuclear power, especially under the mandates of a maximum return for the investment dollar, has gone out-the-window.

Although throughout the industry the mantra has been that the chance of severe reactor accident is acceptably low at lets say one meltdown in one million years, the data to-date demonstrates that such an accident has occurred every seven-years, hardly a million years in my opinion. Unlike an oil spill somewhere in America - a level 7 nuclear accident affects the entire world, for this reason there is an international agency that imposes through its Convention of Nuclear Safety a set of guidelines and strict regulations structured towards the protection of the population and the environment unfortunately they lack a mechanism for the enforcement of those regulations. One of which is the separation of bodies in-country tasked to promote nuclear safety, a major fault in most societies, especially in Japan. Evidence surfaced of this collusion in the public eye after the accident at Fukushima, where the international community was unable to identify and reign in the collusion between the Japanese nuclear industry and its regulator. Yet is wasnt but less than three-years ago that in Japan, Brazil, India and South Africa that the industry shot into the spotlight and scrutiny of the Convention on Nuclear Safety review conference, with support from the international press, that their regulatory bodies were considered too close to the organizations that promote nuclear energy in other words the manufacturers of reactors and the construction firms who built the plants, and operated and maintained them, such as TEPCO named specifically in reports from Japan. In Japan alone, the nuclear industry is found to be so wrapped around the controlling regulatory bodies that to attempt at drawing a line between them is an impossibility in this the now familiar mantra screamed is that why would they do anything to disrupt their cash flow, thereby they are strongly self-regulated in maintaining safety of people and the environment that they live insort of rings hollow doesnt it. It wasnt always like it was found in the aftermath of Fukushima, whereas over time the dual objectives of promoting nuclear power and at the same time being the watchdog over nuclear safety became so close that the watchdog role slipped below the horizon. For instance, the Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI) oversees both the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA), which regulates the safety of nuclear power, and the Agency of Natural Resources and Energy, which has a strong mandate to promote the growth of nuclear power. But this isnt news in Japan, where the government and industry have a long and sustained history of intermarriage strong isnt the wrong word, it is incestuous! They even have a word

in their language that describes it amakudari, which translates as descent from heaven. It describes the practice of high-ranking government officials acquiring high-paying positions in the industry they once regulated, while top industry officials are appointed to government advisory committees to shape government policy this practice is the primary reason of the erosion Japans nuclear safety program. In other words a practice where the safety regulator and the nuclear operator wear the same make and brand of wedding bands, reminds one of the US government and it role in regulating the oil, gas and coal industry as in events such as the accident in the Gulf of Mexico. With amakudari in we found that the safety regulator and the reactor operator were more than just familiar and/or mutually supportive of each other, whereas the story surrounding the nuclear industry grew to such a level it bordered on mythology where the true facts behind the reality of its safety was broadcast to the media and the public so many times, the creators of the myth actually believed their creations. On the 11th of March it all came tumbling down and the events following the accident really showed the behind the curtain self-regulatory environment that Japan was leaning on was not only false but was now effecting not only their conclave of illusionists but the entire Pacific Rim. TEPCO enjoyed a long period hiding behind the skirts of the well placed interlocked industry and government regulators, both government and TEPCO withholding problematic and disturbing information about the safety of it reactors, in some cases buried from the prying eyes of the very regulators and most of all from public that was paying to-dollar for their service. Even after being exposed during the past decade or two the NISA, when they were made aware of that the pubic new of the failure of TEPCO and the NISA to bring the facts to light, the NISA continued to tolerate TEPCOs behavior in not following common sense rules and regulations of the nuclear industry. Whereas NISA went as far as to create specific standards that permitted the continued operation of facilities that fell below standards they should have been operating with or bysuch lax regulatory conditions further created a situation where TEPCO felt they could continue to falsify, omit and withhold information on safety and plant inspection records. In August 2002 (for example) it was revealed that TEPCO had been falsifying inspection records in order to hide the facts that there were found cracks in the reactor systems of 13 out of 17 of their nuclear stations, including the Fukushima Daiichi reactors in this selfregulatory environment the Japanese nuclear regulator did NOT conduct its own inspections, relying on TEPCO the corporation to provide the crucial safety inspections, whether the government trusted that TEPCO would be honest in their reporting is not the crime, the criminal

act being that the inspections were and are the responsibility of the nuclear regulatory agency of the government the very same government who was and is charged with maintaining the safety of the population of Japan and their environment. Time would prove that TEPCO employees, under pressure from highly placed managers, had been falsifying inspection records as far back as the early 1980s, yet even after the cover-up was revealed, the regulators dismissed the concerns about increased accident risk based on calculations presented by TEPCO. In response to the deception, the NISA adopted a special defect standard that allowed the companys reactors to continue their operation. In 2002 TEPCO was found to have cheated again, falsifying test data on the containment system, whereas air was leaking out of the pressurized units at the Fukushima Daiichi Unit #1, this in the early 1990s. Preliminary tests on the containment integrity showed that the sealing system was inadequate, on the 20th of Sept, 2002 documentation recorded over cover-ups in the recirculation pipe system in eight of TEPCOs reactors as well as the Onagawa Unit #1 owned and operated by the Tohoku Electric Power Company and the Hamaoka Unit #1 of the Chubu Electric Power Company within the same pile deeply buried documentation was found that in addition to the preceding, that cracks were identified in the core shroud at the Onagawa Unit #1, the Hamaoka Unit #4, the Tsuruga Unit #1 (Japan Atomic Power Company), and the Shimane Unit #1 in this the revelations demonstrated that it wasnt just TEPCO that was hiding violations it was the entire nuclear industry in Japan. In particular the governing agency of nuclear power safety in Japan, NISA, setup loaded questions at a public consultant press conference numerous times in-country, whereas encouraged TEPCO to plant positive questions in public hearings on nuclear projects and their safety. The findings were revealed by an independent committee brought together in 2006. And then we have the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which was founded in 1957 under the flag of the United Nations, whereas today most of us believe it primary mandate is to secure the safety of the worlds population when it comes Nuclear Energy and the public safety nothing could be further from the truth, whereas it original mandate is to be a watchdog over nuclear weapons. Its over mandate is an explicit and well documented position of promoting the spread of nuclear power, its status declared clearly at the front of their UN Charter. With this mandate we see that just like some national regulatory agencies it limps along with the same mess that they represent, a dedicated and inherent conflict of interest, where it

is expected to regulate a possible life threatening technology, the same technology that it is charged with promoting. In this shadow world of dual responsibility it is realized that the IAEA can never go so far with its regulations for safety that they could become an obstacle to the expansion of the nuclear power industry. Riding along with their charter is the fact that they do NOT have the enforcement power or the jurisdiction over the nuclear power industry in any country therefore they are as effective only to the point where they can recommend, this based on a very low set of standards in order to mix and dance with all countries in the UN membership. Three-hundred and thirty-six hours after the nuclear disaster began unfolding at Fukushima the IAEA finally showed up, and even then they dual role became apparent, it was to be 24hours later that a locally independent team measuring radiation levels in the village of Iitate some 24-miles northwest of the plant made the announcement that the levels were so high that they by-far exceeded the amount for evacuation the Japanese government spokesperson Mr Nishimura immediately claimed the readings were unreliable and rejected them. On March 30th, the IAEA confirmed that the radiation levels at Iitate outside of the government set distance of 7.7 mile evacuation zone were above evacuation limits and urged the Japanese government to reassess their original rejection. To no avail the Japanese government rejected the findings and suggestion of the IAEA, whereas Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said that the situation did not immediately require such action. Two days later the IAEA retracted its previous declaration or statement, where they fell back on the excuse that recomputation done on the additional date provided by Japan showed that the average figure was below the evacuation standard set by the IAEA. It wasnt until April 22nd, three-weeks later, that the Japanese government finally acknowledged the magnitude of the situation in Iitate and ordered the evacuation. The preceding demonstrates the structural problem within the IAEA since its very beginning in 1957 where it pushes politics ahead of science and most always ahead of the supposed protection of public health. In other words, it is NOT and independent organization whereby it aligns itself with positions taken by this government or that one. A distinctive attitude evidenced in its more detailed reports following their arrival in Japan after the Fukushima accident morphed out-of-control. Out of fear from the world-wide-media, they convened a conference involving the actors in the nuclear power industry in Japan, it was an invitation only conference with the public and

the pressed barred, and in addition did not allow access to the independent engineering or independent scientific scholars who had their concerns about the nuclear monster sitting on the shores of the Pacific a few miles up the coast from Tokyo. Thereby it became a touchy feeling meeting of the experts who had over the years ignored warnings about the possibility of an accident such as what took place at Fukushima. So there, organizations and their staff who had uncovered serious or significant flaws in Japans regulatory process and its emergency management response to a Level 7 nuclear accident were prohibited from participating what was touted as comprehensive and objective scientific review it turned into a dog and pony show of the greatest kind that resulted in the IAEA congratulating the Japanese participants in their magnificent handling of the accident and that the IAEA could find no fault and would recommend NO structural changes in Japans nuclear safety programBingo! Politics at it best damn the consequences! It is of no surprise to anyone that on Sept 12th, 2011 that the IAEA urged the Japanese leaders and their nuclear experts to take measures to restore public confidence in the safety of nuclear production it is of particular note that they did NOT urge the leaders to protect or secure the safety of their population but instead put out the familiar mantra that nuclear energy was as safe as it could be. In this they stated (9-12-2011) The reactors at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station have achieved a cold shutdown condition and are in a stable state and the release of radioactive material is under control. Fact as of today, May 5th, 2012 the nuclear reactors are not in cold shutdown, are not in a stable state, and the release of radioactive material still continues to contaminate the ocean as well as migrate through the ground water, in addition it continues to contaminate food sources in various and unexpected locations, including green tea, rice, beef and other stables of the Japanese and their limited export market, such as sheet seaweed which in strong demand in the California marketplace. One year before the Fukushima Daiichi accident the IAEA held an international workshop and reached a published conclusion that in 2007 the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa situation was evaluated by the NISA, JNES, TEPCO and a large number of specialized institutions and Universities as well as experts in different fields, and that the regulations were reviewed and properly applied in this they failed to identify any of the institutional problems and deficiencies in the Japanese nuclear regulatory process, on the contrary it praised Japan as an example that other agencies and governments should follow.

What should have the public learned from the Fukushima Daiichi disaster, a lesson that is showing the man-on-the-street that left to self-regulation or with their influence in government agencies the corporations chase the bottom-line with complete disregard for the safety of the population within the sphere of their operation and earths environment, a dirty fact that every hard-core high-flying right-winger will deny and carry to their grave screaming that the corporate world cannot survive by operating in such a manner. The failure noted within the Japanese regulatory system is just not endemic in Japan, although the lack of expected results of the Japanese nuclear industries close relationship with the governing agencies has proved to an eye-opening experience for all of us yet, only if we examine that relationship and why it existed. One of the published reasons for the thigh scenario is the super-close affiliation that the regulators had with the governments policy to promote nuclear policy, this leading to an almost godly link with the nuclear operators there is no doubt that there should be an attachment between the operators and the regulators, this is just good business especially when it comes to the safety of the population. Yet, over the decades the relationship grew to such a

magnitude that the government adapted to the fact that some of the operators were a part of the regulatory agency a fact more further from truth than the regulators realized or even wanted to. With this we have since seen that the Japanese regulators lost their ability too objectively assess the risks assigned to the industry, in most cases depending on data being supplied from the operators to define and assess their operations and in doing so were practically blindsided on the 11th of March. I write, practically, where over the same decades the regulators and the industry were brought to the public forum and found to be guilty in numerous occasions of hiding harmful data to the nuclear industry. The risk calculated by the scientists in the nuclear industry varies on such a scale that it is difficult to calculate using normal methods, in this we find that all of the industry defines the risk purely as a mathematical problem, thereby introducing physical and mythical factors at will. One outcome of the Fukushima Daiichi disaster was the reaffirmation of the publics skepticism of the calculated risk claims, while some organizations such as Greenpeace call for greater public participation to eliminate the echo chamber effect found within the industry, translation allow knowledgeable scholars, engineers and public leaders into Masonic type

conferences now held across the globe, not only in dealing with nuclear energy but any industry that has the possibility of effecting the population and the environment fat chance I say! Various disciplines in the field of safety in the design of nuclear power acknowledge the fact that a 100% safe design of any nuclear power plant is cost prohibitive, just as they are positive that suitable plateau can be achieved that will permit the operator to recaptured its investment over a limited amount of time. What is found today, as in Chernobyl, Three-mile Island, and Fukushima was a criminal disregard to the construction of the facility base on designs that would have not allowed or at least reduced the impact of the resultant accidents at each. In order for this to happen, it becomes more than apparent that the regulatory agencies have to construct a wall between the industry and themselves, not to a point of a complete separation, but one that allows a educated calculation of the risk of any endeavor that will effect humanity and one that will allow the operator to achieve various levels of profitability. We see today spread across the free enterprise system to many rubber stamp procedures, in this we also see in the West that if any agency makes an attempt to change this, they are immediately branded as against free enterprise along with the mantra that if a change is allowed millions of jobs will be lost. I firmly believe that Industry as a whole has the ability to provide a much better umbrella to the public from which it has grown, unfortunately in todays world of $1.00 in today and $2.00 out tomorrow, most major industries have turned a stiff shoulder to procedures that will maintain a respectable degree of safety to the public and to the protection of the environment.