An earthquake here? Are you serious?
- .... the power plant, which has seven reactors, was built on the assumption that no active fault lies beneath the location. ...The plant was built under the assumption that the maximum temblor to hit the area would be around 6.5 in magnitude. ... The fault that caused Monday's 6.8-magnitude earthquake off the Chuetsu region of Niigata Prefecture runs directly below Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant, experts have found.
http://www.asahi.com/english/Herald-asahi/TKY200707180649.html
- In 2005, the Tokyo High Court rejected a lawsuit by local residents seeking to revoke a state permit on the installation of the No. 1 reactor at the seven-reactor power station. The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that an active fault exists near the station, saying that what they claimed to be an active fault did not even amount to a fault and could not cause a quake.
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20070719a1.html
- Operator Tokyo Electric Power Co. said the seismic acceleration recorded at the plant was much greater than the levels predicted for that location. Asia's largest electric utility had built the reactors at the world's largest nuclear plant to government standards that only require a resistance to epicentral earthquakes of a magnitude 6.5. Monday's earthquake had a recorded magnitude of 6.8 and its epicenter was located 16 km from the compound, which stretches along the coast from the city of Kashiwazaki to the village of Kariwa. ... A north-south acceleration of 267-311 gals was recorded, compared with the predicted maximum level of 167-274 gals, while an east-west acceleration of 322-680 gals was logged, much larger than the anticipated top range of 167-273 gals, it said. A metric gal is 1 cm per second squared. The No. 1 rector recorded the largest accelerations — 311 gals north-south and 322 gals east-west. A vertical acceleration of 205-488 gals was recorded at the seven-reactor compound, with six of the seven reactors topping the anticipated 273 gals, the utility said.
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/rss/nn20070720a1.html
- Officials at the plant conceded earlier that they had not foreseen the possibility of an earthquake as powerful as the magnitude-6.8 temblor that hit Monday. They also said the utility hadn't known about the nearby offshore fault line in which the quake occurred.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/19/AR2007071900190_2.html?sub=AR
- It also has been revealed through aftershock analysis by a group of experts from institutes including the National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Prevention, based in Tsukuba, Ibaraki Prefecture, that it is likely the fault that caused the earthquake stretches directly under the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant.
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/20070719TDY01002.htm
- TEPCO surveyed the sea bottom with sonic waves before 1988 when it applied for construction permits for the No. 6 and 7 reactors. The company found four faults on the sea bottom 19 to 39 kilometers from the nuclear power plant. But when TEPCO was designing the reactors and other key parts of the plant, it concluded that the four faults could be regarded as inactive.
http://www.asahi.com/english/Herald-asahi/TKY200707180144.html
- The vibration of the earthquake, which surpassed quake-resistance levels, reached an acceleration of 680 gals at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant.
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/20070718TDY02002.htm
- The Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power station is designed to withstand an earthquake caused by an unknown active fault up to a magnitude of 6.5, casting into doubt the assumptions made about the strength of a possible temblor at the time the plant was planned. An increase of 0.2 in magnitude translates into a roughly twofold increase in energy released. The latest quake registered magnitude 6.8.
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20070719a1.html
Tags:
Opinions expressed in comment section are the opinions of the author only. Report inappropriate comments to webmaster at anarchyjapan.com.
I'm not trying to minimize
I'm not trying to minimize the seriousness of the issue here but I think it's a bit hysterical to suggest "Is the plant spewing out dangerous radiation right now?" given that the core and other critical parts of the reactor withstood the earthquake and did not leak. It was the non-critical parts of the plant that could not withstand the quake. Still, when I saw footage of all those yellow drums in a heap, I couldn't help but think of Montgomery Burns.
Vimy, Whether I am
Vimy,
Whether I am hysterical or not is not relevant to the issue. I've quoted newspaper articles that make the following claims:
1. The plant was made to withstand a 6.5 quake.
2. The quake that struck was 6.8.
3. A lawsuit seeking to revoke TEPCO's permit formed its basis on the claim there was an active fault near by. The Tokyo High Court rejected this claim.
4. We are now being told that this claim or one like is actually true.
Rather than concern yourself over my psychological state, please give me a link to some information that contradicts any of the above.
Does it not stand to reason that if the plant was built to endure a 6.5 quake and the quake had been a 7, we might now be facing a more serious problem?
Why do you ask 7? Is that the
Why do you ask 7? Is that the likely maximum?
Christopher, The media
Christopher,
The media reported that the plant was designed to withstand a 6.5 earthquake. Wouldn't that be the maximum then?
The plant did withhold a 6.8 earthquake, but that was just good fortune, right? Would the result have been the same if the quake had been 6.9 or 7.0? I don't know. I'm assuming that if the plant was designed to withstand a 6.5 quake, no one knows. This is what I regard as the problem.
Is there any information out there that says the plant would be able to withstand something greater than a 6.5 earthquake?
Whoa, where did I contradict
Whoa, where did I contradict you in my post? You've laid out the facts and I agree with them, but to suggest that the reactor is "spewing out radiation" days after the accident has been contained is sloppy.
I'm no apologist for the nuclear power industry and this latest accident brings Japan's energy industry into serious question. Japan can't hope to generate a good potion of its power via nuclear means unless is stops with the cover ups and comes clean with the public.
Vimy, It was not my intent to
Vimy,
It was not my intent to suggest that any reactor is spewing out radiation.
I stated:
"Is the plant spewing out dangerous radiation right now? This would seem to be not the case. Is that because of careful planning? No, more like dumb luck."
This can be read the following way.
Was there a serious leakage of radiation? Is there one now?
No to both questions. (As far as I know ...)
Was that because of careful planning on the part of TEPCO?
No, it was not.
Then why wasn't there a serious leak?
Dumb luck. The plant held together despite not being prepared for such a strong quake, and because the quake wasn't even stronger than it could have been.
I was attempting to be a bit caustic in my phrasing, but it was not my intent to suggest that radiation was currently spewing from the facility.
I'm sincerely sorry if that's the way you took it.
[...] power plant. This will
[...] power plant. This will take more than one entry, so in this entry let’s focus on one issue.An earthquake here? Are you serious? (0.354) Tags: [...]
What I meant was: what is the
What I meant was: what is the likely maximum earthquake the power plant is likely to experience? Clearly designing the plant for 6.5 was not sufficient, so I'm wondering what would be sufficient.
[...] Dioguardi at Liberal
[...] Dioguardi at Liberal Japan has posted a couple of round-ups (here and here) on the crisis at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant following the recent [...]
Regarding what would be a
Regarding what would be a sufficient level of protection for a nuclear power plant, I don't know the answer to this.
I think we should keep in mind the example of the Titanic not having enough life boats because it was unsinkable.
Maybe there is no sufficient level of safety. How safe was the three mile island plant or the Chernobyl plant?
Matt, Have you seen the
Matt,
Have you seen the reports here:
http://www.meti.go.jp/english/
Post new comment