Sunday May 27, 2012

JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION

IAEA green lights Japan's reactor tests

National Jan. 31, 2012 - 05:20PM JST ( 36 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Order by Time Order by Popularity

36 Comments

2

Ted BarreraJan. 31, 2012 - 03:55PM JST

Anyone surprised by this?
1

deepstar6Jan. 31, 2012 - 03:57PM JST

So you listen to IAEA more than your own people...
5

oikawaJan. 31, 2012 - 04:01PM JST

officials fear possible electricity shortfalls unless reactors are brought back online

I've heard this is complete BS, that there is plenty of electricity being generated, and that the mooted cuts and power cuts that did occur were only a means of generating sympathy for the government/TEPCo at the time of the crisis, and nuclear power in general. True?
0

HategoboJan. 31, 2012 - 04:01PM JST

"safety assessments are **GENERALLY **consistent with IAEA safety standards,” the delegation said in a statement.

The operative word is "generally". Does this mean that some of the NISA standards do not meet IAEA standards? Perhaps a bit more digging JT.
1

yokattaJan. 31, 2012 - 04:06PM JST

Is this country people listen to established authority organizations ie. IAEA not of course the views of its own peoples.
4

deepstar6Jan. 31, 2012 - 04:10PM JST

CONGRATULATIONS!! You got those little green lights from IAEA. Can you see those HUGE RED lights from your own country men?
3

ElvensilvanJan. 31, 2012 - 04:14PM JST

While this sounds good, the government and NISA still has to make the test criteria, type and results available to the public for scrutiny, criticisms and general review.

People are really more concerned with the qualifications of the tests designed, created and supervised by groups who are all pro-nuclear. More people have been questioning the tests, one of them a member of IAEA itself.
-1

deepstar6Jan. 31, 2012 - 04:20PM JST

The government’s Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) called on the IAEA to assess the stringency of the so-called stress tests to which all reactors are subjected before being given the green light to resume operations.

Usually the so called stress tests are given to products in lab while they are under development. Once commercially released they should be only quality inspected.

What you have done is stressed the existing commercial nuclear reactor and induced some more fatigue. You are still going to use the same stress test induced and fatigue induced reactor. Now when nature strikes back what guarantee do you have?
1

miyazawa3Jan. 31, 2012 - 04:33PM JST

No body Trust When it's Come from IAEA.....

It is one of the most corrupted UN agency today.
2

FarmboyJan. 31, 2012 - 04:48PM JST

Farmboy green-lights this article, or he might greenlight this article, but he would never green light this article. In any case the IAEA has Atomic Energy as its middle name, so that should tell you that they aren't going to be pushing solar radios.
0

marcelitoJan. 31, 2012 - 04:55PM JST

Not like IAEA is an impartial agency is it...this announcement was a forgone conclusion.
2

Darren BrannanJan. 31, 2012 - 05:04PM JST

The IAEA.. New drug pusher on the block and the drug is energy. At whatever price to push the nuclear cause. The same folk who have spasms if nuke and Iran or North Korea are mentioned in the same breath. Hardly an unbiased organisation. Japan must be safe so they can push their agenda on big potential markets like Australia and South America etc. i am not pro or anti nuclear but these guys are a business and are far from impartial. Their vouching of safety just ensures their continued existence.
2

Blair HerronJan. 31, 2012 - 05:23PM JST

Technically speaking, those nuclear reactors might be safer than before. The problem is how the government handled this disastrous situation.

Edano kept saying "There is no immediate health hazard." (what about long term health hazard?) For the first couple days, he said, "3km away from the plant is safe enough." But a week later, "Sorry, 20km away is safe." Later on, "Sorry, 30km..." 2 months later, "According to SPEEDI data (that I was hiding for 2 months), Iitate-mura that I told people to evacuate was the most radiated place..."

They decided to hide the worst case scenario report.

There are no records of meetings.

The government is the one that need to be tested. Unless the government officials pass the disaster control stress test, they won't get public approval.
0

yildirayJan. 31, 2012 - 05:50PM JST

No body Trust When it's Come from IAEA.....It is one of the most corrupted UN agency today.

Any evidence to back that up?
6

zichiJan. 31, 2012 - 05:56PM JST

The IAEA pro nuke boys state the reactors are safe after visiting just two NPP's? They didn't actually inspect any reactors nor the associated safety systems, the emergency manuals, run worse case scenario's or even check the level of training given to plant operators.

The stress tests are in two parts, both computer models but most power companies haven't completed the second part.

All 54 reactors are no safer than before 3/11. Nothing was done to actually improve their safety. Although the reactors are safer in cold shut down than when in operation.

At least three NPP's were damaged by the 3/11 earthquake and tsunami. Both NPP's at Fukushima were damaged. The damage to the 40-year old reactors at Fukushima 1 lead to the fuel rod melt downs causing the worse nuclear disaster in the history of the country.

The NPP at Onagawa was also damaged by the 3/11 earthquake. Lost of coolant and a major fire in the turbine hall. A leak of radioactive water spilled from pools holding spent nuclear fuel rods. On March 13, 2011, levels of radiation on site reached 21μSv/hour.

750 million terabecquerels of radiation were released contaminating 8% or 30,000 sq kms of total land mass, with Fukushima receiving the greatest level of contamination. The leak of over 100,000 tons of highly radioactive waste water into the ocean makes it the worse marine nuclear disaster in the world.

Parts of the food chain have become contaminated.

The Fukushima plant continues to leak radiation at 70 million becquerels per hour.

The government hid a report that last summer and again this coming summer there would be no power shortages even with nuclear energy. Recently, the government have stated that.

The Fukushima reactors were 40 years old or almost 40 years old so I oppose any extension beyond 30-years. The government plan is to allow all power companies to apply for a 20 year extension and a reactor life cycle of 60 years.

Reactors are no safer today than one year ago!
0

yildirayJan. 31, 2012 - 06:27PM JST

The IAEA pro nuke boys state the reactors are safe after visiting just two NPP's?

No, they have not said that.
3

zichiJan. 31, 2012 - 06:36PM JST

yiidiray,

you are correct but that's the impression most people will have. They said the stress tests were consistent with their own IAEA tests.
2

The_TrueJan. 31, 2012 - 06:38PM JST

hahahahaha... i knew that was going to happen, why you think the JGov agreed to it?
0

yildirayJan. 31, 2012 - 06:46PM JST

They said the stress tests were consistent with their own IAEA tests.

Doesn't mean all the reactors will be verified as "safe" though (although, admittedly, it really wouldn't surprise me if they were all green-lit in the end without full disclosure of results...)
2

smithinjapanJan. 31, 2012 - 06:50PM JST

"the world’s worst since Chernobyl a quarter of a century ago—has not directly claimed any lives."

Excuse me? Yes, it HAS directly claimed lives. Four people have died so far while working clean up. Not necessarily the result of radiation, no, but they died as a result of being there and working too hard -- which means being there to work on the disaster.

You watch... deaths in the future that are a direct result of this nuclear catastrophy and going to be pinned on something lese. Hirano is already setting this up when he says "sickness/injury caused by the Fukushima incident will be harder to judge in the future", or something near that.
5

zichiJan. 31, 2012 - 07:14PM JST

The headline is misleading since the iAEA didn't green light anything, they have to cover their own backs.

TEPCO is the 4th largest power company in the world. It couldn't build and run safe atomic power plants. I have no trust in any other Japanese power company to do better.
5

zichiJan. 31, 2012 - 07:33PM JST

Piping and support structures at the No. 5 reactor of the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant did not have sufficient anti-quake strength under new government standards revised in 2006. That's five years before the 3/11 nuclear disaster. The reactor went online in 1978.
0

gaijinTechieJan. 31, 2012 - 07:40PM JST

That's the worst what Tepco will get from their own future amakudari: “Develop comprehensive accident management programs" when there actually was none! "... in the area of severe accident management,” that Tepco refused to even consider!

So, Amano's yes-men were fed and wined and womened for a couple of days by Tepco, and... did somebody actually expect a different report? IAEA under Amano is a joke and the worst kind of puppet for a national company, a kind of an achievement for an international organization.
5

zichiJan. 31, 2012 - 07:51PM JST

The IAEA didn't visit any TEPCO plants?
1

Wayne RobinsonJan. 31, 2012 - 08:22PM JST

Japan should make it law for every building to have solar power installed and offshore tidal wave and wind power would be of immense value. For me it is just common sence but why there is no movement in this direction? And to speak about it suddenly you are Japan bashing....ahhhfgghh!!
1

Blair HerronJan. 31, 2012 - 10:17PM JST

The IAEA didn't visit any TEPCO plants?

I don't think any IAEA members visited Fukushima this time.

It seems like IAEA visit was simply a public relations exercise.

IAEA will NOT set up an office in Fukushima. Japanese government asked IAEA to set up an office there, but IAEA has not decided anything yet.

There is no pro-nuke PR office necessary!!!

http://jen.jiji.com/jc/eng?g=eco&k=2012013100113
4

zichiJan. 31, 2012 - 10:21PM JST

In Fukui in 1949 there was an earthquake which killed nearly 4,000 people. 21 years later, nuclear plants were built. Fukui has 2 fault lines, so why were the reactors allowed to be built? Its not like they didn't know about the history of earthquakes and fault lines.

Today, Fukui is know has Nuclear Alley with 13 reactors in 4 plants plus the Monju fast breeder reactor.

The Tokai earthquake is well documented but the Hamaoka nuclear plant was still built in a dangerous location?
0

Blair HerronJan. 31, 2012 - 10:32PM JST

zichi, you said there is an investigation going on to TEPCO. Who is investigating? Government or private? I can't find any information on that.
0

YuriOtaniJan. 31, 2012 - 11:14PM JST

Only on the mainland do locals communities have to give their consent. If they were located on Okinawa they would all be back online.
3

zichiJan. 31, 2012 - 11:23PM JST

Someone commented a few weeks ago there's no legal requirement to take the consent of the prefecture governor before restarting a reactor. In 2006, Kansai electric restarted a reactor without seeking local approval.
3

zichiJan. 31, 2012 - 11:46PM JST

This was the guy with his finger on the pulse following the 3/11 nuclear disaster.

"Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said amount of leaked radiation would likely be small."

he also stated,

"No danger to health".
0

nandakandamandaFeb. 01, 2012 - 12:50AM JST

zichi, your flu better now? On Jan 27th here in JT National news it was reported that "On Thursday, an IAEA team visited a plant in the town of Ohi to check whether officials at operator Kansai Electric Power Co had correctly done the tests at two reactors. The tests are designed to assess whether plants can withstand earthquakes, tsunamis, loss of power or other emergencies, and suggest changes to improve safety.Their visit, at Japan’s invitation, appeared aimed at reassuring a skeptical public that authorities are taking the necessary precautions before bringing nuclear plants back on line. After the visit, IAEA team leader James Lyons said its assessment would be released at the end of the month but deciding whether to restart the reactors was up to the Japanese government."

The workers there in Ohi fired up a diesel generator and black smoke rose into the sky, I remember seeing in one news report, with the workers wearing white boots in the snow. This was to show the IAEA team that back-up generators would work in an emergency.

So yes, they did visit a plant, but I expect the whole thing was stage managed for them and they must have been more than a little embarrassed at the lack of a) transparency, b) freedom of movement, and c) intelligible information.
3

zichiFeb. 01, 2012 - 01:11AM JST

nandakandaamanda.

Thank you, still got flu but almost gone. I know the IAEA inspectors visited the Ohi NPP and about the diesel generator. I was pointing out to someone that they didn't visit a TEPCO plant.

The whole thing is just a PR stunt!
0

nandakandamandaFeb. 01, 2012 - 12:16PM JST

Ah, ta for that zichi, my misunderstanding. Their carry-on baggage must have contained rubber stamps and green flashlights.
-7

horrifiedFeb. 01, 2012 - 03:58PM JST

But the watchdog said further tests of the reactors should also look at how the utilities operating them would deal with a worst-case scenario.

I had to reread it from the start to figure out who "the watchdog" was supposed to be. I could only find a mention of IAEA and NISA. No mention of a watchdog organization.
0

ElvensilvanFeb. 01, 2012 - 04:43PM JST

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster#Safety_history

Look at what I found ... more of TEPCO and government's mismanagement in relation to the Fukushima NPP with IAEA in the background.

In a way, I think I'm getting tired running after shadows of hope ... hope that TEPCO and the Japanese government may someday be responsible enough to learn from the past.