On 2011-05-02 [+0900 JST], at 12:52 AM, Stephen Kelner wrote:

> I sent my signature and additional remark, of course; it's unquestionably the least we can do.

Thanks a lot for signing it and for your thoughtful reply.

> I am saddened that the government (and of course TEPCO) is continuing to try and proclaim an extremely unsafe situation to be "not immediately injurious."

Something very odd is happening in Fukushima. While children in the affected areas are forced to accept the 20 miliSv/year limit (counting the external exposure only), some days ago, TEPC reported that a woman in her fifties working at the Fukushima plant had been exposed to the radio activity of 17.55 miliSv, which is three times greater than the legal limit for women working at nuclear installations (5 miliSv for 3 month). What is yet more astonishing is that, of this 17.55 miliSv, 13.6 miliSv is internal exposure estimated for 50 years from now.
<http://www.asahi.com/national/update/0427/TKY201104270212.html> (in Japanese)

> You are probably already aware of this, but for those who are not, TEPCO has a long history of inadequate inspections and lying about them.  They have consistently been fraudulent in their maintenance and reporting thereof.  They have continued this practice at the worst possible time:  when we know there is something wrong, and we need accurate data more than ever.

Yes, and the same criticism goes to the Japanese government. For example, they have concealed 5000 simulation results generated by SPEEDI (System for Prediction of Environmental Emergency Dose Information) in fear of people's panic -- but it's not the information but the lack of information that causes a panic, no? Well, only a limited number of people would have understood what those results mean. However, based on them, the government should have been able to warn us to protect ourselves when and where a significant dose fallout is predicated.

> I was shocked when the US government carefully (to avoid offending our good ally) noted that we would have put a larger boundary around the plant than the Japanese government did.  That indicated to me just how significantly things were being "whitewashed" (that is, painted over positively) - that we felt compelled to contradict the Japanese government publicly, no matter how politely it was done.

Ah but personally I was not shocked. I think it is an embassy's most important duty to protect their citizens in foreign countries. So, IIRC, they -- including Japanese embassies in foreign countries -- used to estimate a risk much more severely than the domestic government. And I think the American embassy's recommendation saved also a certain number of Japanese people who were very rightly doubtful of what the Japanese government was saying: the recommendation turned out to be very accurate.
<http://ow.ly/i/aN0j/original> (50 miles = 80 Km)

And that recommendation was very mild in comparison with that by French, Swiss, German embassies which recommended their citizens to escape not only from Tohoku area to which Fukushima belongs but also from Kanto area including Tokyo and Yokohama, i.e. 300 Km (= nearly 200 miles) from the Fukushima plant. From Japan if possible.

BTW, following the French embassy's recommendation, on 14th March, we, my wife and me, escaped from Yokohama to Fukui, then to Kanazawa, where we had stayed for 8 days. Please remember that, in that time, the worst scenario was more than probable as you see in documents written by an ex-Toshiba-engineer who was involved in designing the containment building of the Fukushima plant's third reactor.
<http://www.shippai.org/shippai/html/index.php?name=news559> (in Japanese)

> Personally, I wish we could make some progress on fusion power.

Agreed totally.

> Coincidentally, right before this terrible event occurred, I had read a book called Atomic Awakening, by nuclear engineer James Mahaffey,

> "The reactors used at Fukushima have a history that goes back to 1952, and nuclear power plant safety concerns and emergency plans have been studied since 1957. There are reasons why this particular plant, among 17 in Japan, had continuous emergencies when none of the others did. Japan's continued nuclear power expansion may not be deterred by this natural disaster, and there are reasons for that as well."

And another Toshiba engineer said: when building the Fukushima plant, Japanese engineers had no experience about reactors, so they just adopted GE's design which had not took account of the possible attack by strong earthquakes specific to our country.

> My sympathies for your troubles, Kino.

Thank you again for your kindness.


Kino