Fukushima Coverup: Nuclear Reactor Core Meltdown
Now it is rather official. Back in March 2011, as events unfolded, we were not told the truth. We saw the explosions at the Fukushima nuclear reactors live on TV. But we were not told the rest of the story:
TOKYO (Kyodo) -- The head of Tokyo Electric Power Co. apologized
Tuesday over his predecessor's instruction not to use the term "core
meltdown" in describing the situation at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear
complex in the early days of the crisis, calling the instruction a
"coverup."
"It is extremely regrettable. People are justified in thinking it a
coverup," TEPCO President Naomi Hirose said at a press conference in
Tokyo.
The remarks came after a report published last Thursday said then
President Masataka Shimizu instructed a vice president, who was taking
part in a press conference on March 14, 2011, not to use "core meltdown"
in describing the state of damaged reactors.
The report suggested that efforts were made to make the nuclear
crisis look less severe than it actually was at a time when attention
was riveted on the condition of the six-reactor complex following a
massive earthquake and tsunami that devastated northeastern Japan on
March 11, 2011.
http://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20160621/p2g/00m/0dm/079000c
A much better article covering this story over at the Mainichi:
Editorial: Probe into Fukushima nuke plant's 'meltdown' cover-up lacks credibility
(Mainichi Japan)
A third-party panel set up by Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) to
investigate a 2011 accident at its tsunami-hit Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear
Power Plant has released a report that then TEPCO President Masataka
Shimizu had ordered that the company never use the phrase, "reactor core
meltdown."
It is highly problematic for the head of a company that caused a
serious accident, which could threaten the lives and health of people,
to issue an order that could be taken as covering up the seriousness of
the disaster. The vice president in charge of the nuclear power business
and other executives, as well as some employees, deserve criticism that
they followed such an instruction.
Considering that the cover-up allegations surfaced more than five
years after the outbreak of the nuclear disaster, it is difficult to
believe that TEPCO has regained the public's confidence in itself.
The term "Reactor core meltdown" is scientifically a vague phrase.
Still, TEPCO's in-house manual on nuclear power generation states that
if over 5 percent of the core of a reactor is damaged, it should be
recognized as a meltdown. If TEPCO had followed this definition, the
company could have deemed three days after the outbreak of the crisis
that core meltdowns had occurred in the plant's No. 1 and 3 reactors.
However, it was not until two months later that TEPCO officially
admitted that meltdowns had occurred at the power station. Furthermore,
it was as late as this past February that the existence of the in-house
manual came to light.
TEPCO had initially claimed that it was unaware of the existence of
the manual but a certain number of employees knew about the manual. The
utility had also explained that the firm did not make a clear decision
not to admit that meltdowns occurred at the Fukushima plant. However,
since the president issued such an order, it is natural to suspect that
the firm covered up the meltdowns.
Questions should also be raised over the way the third-party
investigative panel conducted the probe. Its investigative report
suggests that Shimizu issued the order under pressure from the prime
minister's office. "It is assumed that the company understood that it
had been asked by the prime minister's office to exercise caution about
publicly acknowledging that reactor core meltdowns occurred," the report
states. However, the panel had failed to even question the then prime
minister or chief Cabinet secretary. The panel later explained that it
had neither the authority nor the time to question these top officials.
It is extremely sloppy that the panel suggested that there was
political intervention into TEPCO's response to the accident based only
on presumptions, as it is an important point. It could give the public
the impression that the panel shifted the blame away from TEPCO to the
prime minister's office.
Moreover, the report says it cannot be recognized that the company
had intentionally concealed the existence of the definition of reactor
core meltdowns in the manual for five years, hinting that the panel
sided with the power company. As such, it is difficult to trust the
panel.
These problems apparently remind the public that there are limits to
investigations by third-party panels, such as those conducted into
money scandals involving former Tokyo Gov. Yoichi Masuzoe and House of
Representatives member Yuko Obuchi. Even if these bodies are called
"third-party" fact-finding panels, it is highly questionable how far
they are independent since these are set up by those involved in
scandals.
Those involved in wrongdoing should not use third-party panels they
set up to justify their practices or evade responsibility.
Comments