The main argument that Sonja makes is that there does not exist any international organization with capabilities and expertise to respond to nuclear disasters. Further, with talk of forming such an organization/team since Fukushima, any international nuclear disaster strike team will need to have good relations with the communities and workers that they help as well as good communication at the international level to see the maximum effective response.
The author mainly draws from experience in organizational theory & disaster social issues as well as citing many specialists in the nuclear world as well as those who have hands on experience in disaster response.
How did it happen (complete failure of cooling and reactors exploding)?
Although the earthquakes killed workers and wreaked havoc on the region, Japans’ nuclear plants were not compromised by the quakes. It was only the tsunami that caused Fukushima Daiichi 1, 2, & 3’s power and backup power to fail, allowing the meltdown to take place. (world-nuclearworld-nuclear.org)
Why was radioactive water released (purposely) into the ocean as stated in the article?
I found that although radioactive water was never “purposely” released into the ocean, it was known that it would likely end up there due to the failed ocean barrier wall. The water came from the necessity of cooling the overheated plants to prevent further meltdown and further contamination. The good news is that by 2012 the water within the Fukushima area was considered non-toxic to humans and aquatic species that live there. However, less is known about the effects on the ocean floor, where the radioactive matter is collecting in the sediment. (cnn.com)
What (if anything) has been done to further an international response team/plan for nuclear emergencies?
While my research turned up little results for international response development, countries have been developing their own response teams. China will have a national nuclear response team by the end of 2018 which will be made up of over 300 individuals and will meet the requirements for an international response team. This makes sense since China has more nuclear power plants than any other country in the world and expects to double its nuclear output over the next few decades. (firedirect.net)
The author of this article is Sonja D. Schmid. Sonja has degrees in science, technology and society (STS) as well as experience in organizational theory, disaster social issues, and studied risk in relation to different societies and cultures throughout the world.
1) “Mismanagement was not the only charge mounted against the Japanese Utility that operated the reactors at Fukushima Diichi, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO). In the aftermath of the disaster, international media charged workers at the plant, alternatingly, with a lack of expertise to handle the situation adequately, and with a lack of courage, when they retreated temporarily under the threat of dangerously high radiation levels.”
2) “But emergency preparedness is hardly ever considered ‘good enough’ in retrospect, especially after a disaster in which so many lives were lost or shattered.”
3) “Within the nuclear industry, an almost exclusive emphasis on accident avoidance has given way to a new strategy of accident preparedness and response.”
The author uses a wide variety of news and journal sources to make their point. Everything from the New York Times to East Asian Science. It also cites many volumes on disaster preparedness. For example, “The Chernobyl Accident: a Case Study in International Law Regulation State Responsibility for Transboundary”. The sources tell me that the article was developed around the news at the time and works that dealt with handling of disasters from the past. For me, this furthers the case that the author is making: that the way we have been doing things in the past is not working.
1) Fukushima proved current standard ineffective. Fukushima was the worst nuclear accident since the Chernobyl incident over 25 years ago. Hundreds of thousands of people had to be relocated due to the radiation leaks—many to this day. The effects of the hundreds of thousands of gallons of radiation contaminated water released into the ocean are still not fully known.
2) International groups called for agency to enforce as no current candidate is feasible. IAEA is large enough but not fully trusted to be the host as it promotes nuclear use and appeared to praise TEPCO and the handling of the Fukushima incident. The World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO) is a better candidate but still faces the problem of appearing as a secretive organization keeping its member companies confidential. WANO also currently lacks the size and resources to build an international nuclear disaster strike team.
3) The author stresses that good communication and cooperation are required for success of such an organization. For a response team to work at the international level, sharing of different countries’ reactor designs and other various trade secrets would be crucial. The expertise from operators, responders, and other professionals who have had hands-on experience from Fukushima and other nuclear disasters. It would take a sizable amount of funding for such an organization and maintain the capabilities as the author described.
The author uses a wide variety of news and journal sources to make their point. Everything from the New York Times to East Asian Science. It also cites many volumes on disaster preparedness. For example, “The Chernobyl Accident: a Case Study in International Law Regulation State Responsibility for Transboundary”. The sources tell me that the article was developed around the news at the time and works that dealt with handling of disasters from the past. For me, this furthers the case that the author is making: that the way we have been doing things in the past is not working.
The main argument that Sonja makes is that there does not exist any international organization with capabilities and expertise to respond to nuclear disasters. Further, with talk of forming such an organization/team since Fukushima, any international nuclear disaster strike team will need to have good relations with the communities and workers that they help as well as good communication at the international level to see the maximum effective response.
This article has been referenced and discussed by Vital Source and “Nuclear power after 3/11: Looking back and thinking ahead” (University of York) as well as Zotero and Disaster-sts.