1

National University of Science

Fukushima Daiichi Power Plant Disaster

Submitted to: Assistant Professor Sadia Riaz

We declare that this is our own and work and that all contributions from
other persons have been appropriately identified acknowledged
 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction........................................................................................................3
Describing the Mess............................................................................................3
Separating the Parts............................................................................................4
Reason of Blast Occurrence.................................................................................5
Social Effects of disaster......................................................................................6
Government’s role...............................................................................................7
Conclusion...........................................................................................................8
References...........................................................................................................9
 3

Introduction

It is currently years since the tsunami that immersed the upper east bank of terrain Japan

made the loss of four reactors at the Fukushima nuclear plant causing fractional emergency and

introduction of spent fuel stores and the resulting arrival of radiation into environment and sea

(Yamanaka, Fukuyama, & Sakata 2011). This accident, as well, has been evaluated level 7 due to

the emission of radioactive products which affected a substantial encompassing region is

foreseen to be significantly not as much as that at Chernobyl. By any retribution, Fukushima like

its Ukrainian antecedent is a calamitous occasion, making far-reaching environmental

annihilation, uprooting of the populace, financial disaster, social interruption, and mental injury

(Balonov & Bouville 2011). Furthermore, it is ending up obvious that these effects, similar to

those of Chernobyl, are probably not going to be passing yet will endure far into what's to come.

The reality is that a disaster on this scale has obscure results that ask us to think about some

ethical inquiries concerning our relationship to the fate of human culture and, undoubtedly to the

earth we live about nuclear applications.

Describing the Mess

On 11th March 2011 forty-six minutes past two, the greatest earthquake in Japanese

history and the world hit the country. The epicenter was around seventy kilometers East side of

Tohoku with a magnitude of 9.03 Megawatts. The earthquake caused a powerful tsunami that

traveled more than ten kilometers inside the Sendai area and extended the heights of more than

forty meters in Miyako. The Tsunami and earthquake caused adverse negativities including

colossal damages on property and casualties all over North-Eastern Japan. According to the

official damage figures released by the Japanese government, damages in fisheries, forestry and
 4

agriculture amounted to 2385.1 billion Yen. The tsunami and earthquake also caused a nuclear

accident in the world's largest nuclear power stations, that is; Futaba, Okuma, and Fukushima

Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. The three reactors suffered substantial cooling system failure

accordingly releasing enormous radioactivity to the environment (TEPCO). Radioactive

contamination spread through water circulation, dust, air, animals, plants and affected soils

regardless to say the long-term effects of such a phenomenon as devastating to the ecosystem,

health, and resources alike. The levels of radiations in food products, air, sewage systems, and

soils have been measured, monitored and assessed in the affected places by various agencies, and

its impacts on household livelihood, natural environment, human health, and economy similarly

documented.

Separating the Parts

According to Aoki & Rothwell (2013), direct radiation exposure lead to contamination of

Agri-food products, crops and livestock by radionuclides. One week after the accident, the

Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare broadcasted that, levels of radioactivity in milk produced

around the Fukushima area has exceeded the legal limits. For instance, on 21 st March the spinach

planted in the open air of Kitaibaraki (75 kilometers south of Fukushima) were found to contain

24000 kg-1 s-1 and 690 kg-1 s-1 of iodine and cesium respectively. Distribution of Kakina and

Spinach was restricted in Fukushima prefectures, Totigi, Ibaraki, and Gunma. Specific samples

of beef also showed an excess concentration of iodine above the required levels, more so; farms

100km away from the Fukushima nuclear plant. Before July 2011 it was found that 2900 cows fed

on cesium contaminated food. Taking milk or eating vegetables with either a higher

concentration of iodine or cesium posed a significant health threat to the lives of many Japanese
 5

citizens. By August 2013, more than 40 children have been reported to have been diagnosed with

thyroid cancer after taking Agri-food products exposed to direct radiation.

Figure 1. Power Plant during disaster. Source (https://sites.suffolk.edu/jstraka/2015/10/30/fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-

Reason of Blast Occurrence

The Fukushima nuclear accident has helped other countries to develop nuclear safety

systems. An hour after the earthquake, the tsunami struck over the coast side and destroyed

diesel generators. Reactor core isolation pump and diesel generators failed thus melted the

reactor cores in the three vessels. Zirconium sheath of fuel was overheated thus reacted with

steam over water to form hydrogen gas in the reactor vessel (Morita et al.., 2018). After some

days, the cauldrons had to be emitted; thus, harmful materials were released from vessel core.

Apart from hydrogen that over pressurized the container, Japanese reactors lacked venting filters

hence hydrogen emission within the plant further augmented radioactivity dispersion. From this

mistake, it has enabled the United States and France to deploy survivable safety systems at each
 6

nuclear plant. Furthermore, the European community has recommended their member states to

evaluate each of their nuclear plant power for safety precautions that emerged from Fukushima

accident mistake.

Figure 2. Anatomy of the blasts. Source:(http://howonearthradio.org/archives/440)

Social Effects of disaster

Kim & Kim (2013) assert that exposure to radiation led to the rise of radiation-related

stigma cases, depression and psychosocial distress among North Eastern Japanese citizens. For

instance, in a city North of Fukushima known as Minamisoma city, three-quarter of the residents

were reported to fear radiation exposure, thus avoided local products, consuming tap water and

less participation of outdoor activities immediately after the accident. Marks (2016) found that

until now, local products have been opposed in school food services by the parents even after an

assurance from the government that the products have undergone extensive screening. The

ministry of education also reported that the cases of bullying had been witnessed among children
 7

who evacuated outside Fukushima after the accident. For instance, a male student evacuated

from Kanagawa prefecture to Yokohama city, was kicked and hit by his fellow class members

and forced to pay 1.6 million yen to his aggressors to avoid physical torture and abuse. Such

bullying acts have also been reported in other places like Kanagawa, Chiba and Niigata

prefecture. These acts have ignited questions about radiations effects to psychosocial distress,

depression and post-traumatic disorder in Japan.

Government’s role

Fukushima accident also ensured the government reached the citizens and educate them

about radiation knowledge. Among the reasons for prejudice and stigma in Japan before was

because radiation knowledge had not reached the general public. Most people know that

exposure to high doses of radiation can lead to; fear and harmful effects on the body.

Nonetheless, inadequate knowledge may lead to embellished attempts to protect oneself from

anxiety and radiation misunderstandings according to Aoki and Rothwell (2013). After the

accident, thousands of residents showed up in radiation forum sponsored by Japanese local

governments.

Minamisoma city local government offered private radiation screenings to the residents

for free every year after the accident. Through the screening, they provide education to citizens

and counseling concerning radiation exposure. This helped a lot of Japanese citizens since they

were able to deal with stress accompanied by radiation exposure and thus, they were guided on

how they could overcome other side effects accompanied with exposure to radiations (Marks,

2016).
 8

From this article we learn that nuclear energy can and will never be safe. It's evident from

the essay that the accident led to the destruction of property, evacuation of people from their

homes, people's mistrust of nuclear energy and energy shortage. This shows that nuclear

specialists have a difficult task to undertake to ensure that; melted fuels are recovered, cleaning

up contaminated areas, decommissioning of damaged reactors and improving the safety of

current nuclear plants. Apart from that, various investigations have been carried out since 2011

concerning the incident, and most of them have come up with a similar conclusion, that;

industries lobby for promotion of their interests over those of the public thus compromising

safety.

Conclusion

Finally, there is need to develop formal institutional mechanisms for filtering scientific

knowledge, gathering, analyzing and advising governments on how to operate certain plants with

the safety attention it requires to avoid industries lobbying for their selfish interests. Such models

exist in United Kingdom Scientific Advisory Group of Emergencies (UKSAGE) and the United

Nations Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Lastly, by adopting these

mechanisms, it will help Japan and any other nation to put safety effective systems in their

industries.

In conclusion, despite the accidents that have occurred like the 2011 Fukushima disaster,

the nuclear energy discussion has remained to be an ethical issue in which most governments

have agreed with. The nuclear assets bring across risks that endanger people involved that causes

chronic diseases and even deaths. The people that support nuclear energy will argue that this is

the only alternative to save the environment since nuclear power does not emit carbon into the
 9

atmosphere. It is essential to weigh the pros and cons of nuclear energy to avoid accidents in the

future. From the ethic point of view, there is a future, but that future should not include nuclear.

References

Aoki, M., & Rothwell, G. (2013). A comparative institutional analysis of the Fukushima nuclear

disaster: Lessons and policy implications. Energy Policy, 53, 240-247.

Balonov, M., & Bouville, A. (2011). Radiation Exposures Due to the Chernobyl

Accident. Encyclopedia of Environmental Health, 709-720. doi:10.1016/b978-0-444-

52272-6.00086-6

Holt, M., Campbell, R. J., & Nikitin, M. B. (2012). Fukushima nuclear disaster (pp. 7-5700).

Congressional Research Service.

Kim, Y., Kim, M., & Kim, W. (2013). Effect of the Fukushima nuclear disaster on global public

acceptance of nuclear energy. Energy Policy, 61, 822-828.

Marks, A. R. (2016). The Fukushima nuclear disaster is ongoing. The Journal of clinical

investigation, 126(7), 2385-2387.

Morita, T., Nomura, S., Furutani, T., Leppold, C., Tsubokura, M., Ozaki, A., ... & Oikawa, T.

(2018). Demographic transition and factors associated with remaining in place after the

2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster and related evacuation orders. PloS one, 13(3),

e0194134.
 10

Yamanaka, M., Fukuyama, S., & Sakata, K. (2011). ICONE19-43329 Evaluation of Fuel

Damage Frequency Resulting from Loss of Spent Fuel Pool Cooling. The Proceedings

of the International Conference on Nuclear Engineering (ICONE), 2011.19(0),

_ICONE1943-_ICONE1943. doi:10.1299/jsmeicone.2011.19.icone1943_146