Jump to content

Investigations into the Fukushima nuclear accident: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Rescuing 3 sources. #IABot
Rescuing 3 sources. #IABot
Line 127: Line 127:
<!-- <ref name="autogenerated5">{{cite press release |url=http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11031403-e.html|title=TEPCO press release 3|work=Tepco|date=14 March 2011| archiveurl = http://www.webcitation.org/5y9y9Zkw3 | archivedate = 2011-04-23| deadurl=no}}</ref> -->
<!-- <ref name="autogenerated5">{{cite press release |url=http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11031403-e.html|title=TEPCO press release 3|work=Tepco|date=14 March 2011| archiveurl = http://www.webcitation.org/5y9y9Zkw3 | archivedate = 2011-04-23| deadurl=no}}</ref> -->


<!-- <ref name="kyodonews59">{{cite news|url=http://web.archive.org/web/20110320225038/http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/77959.html|title=Crisis continues at Fukushima nuclear plant as fuel rods exposed again|agency=Kyodo News |accessdate=23 March 2011}}</ref> -->
<!-- <ref name="kyodonews59">{{cite news|url=http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/77959.html |title=Crisis continues at Fukushima nuclear plant as fuel rods exposed again |agency=Kyodo News |accessdate=23 March 2011 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110320225038/http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/77959.html |archivedate=20 March 2011 }}</ref> -->




<!-- <ref name="autogenerated8">{{cite news|author=Hiroko Tabuchi, Keith Bradsher, Matt Wald|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/world/asia/15nuclear.html|title=Japan Faces Prospect of Nuclear Catastrophe as Workers Leave Plant|work=The New York Times |date=14 March 2011}} {{dead link|date=May 2014}}</ref> -->
<!-- <ref name="autogenerated8">{{cite news|author=Hiroko Tabuchi, Keith Bradsher, Matt Wald |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/world/asia/15nuclear.html |title=Japan Faces Prospect of Nuclear Catastrophe as Workers Leave Plant |work=The New York Times |date=14 March 2011 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20121102141306/http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/world/asia/15nuclear.html |archivedate=2 November 2012 }} </ref> -->


<!-- <ref name="nhk">NHK, 15 March 2011.</ref> -->
<!-- <ref name="nhk">NHK, 15 March 2011.</ref> -->
Line 142: Line 142:
<!-- <ref name='BBC TEPCO "mistake"'>{{cite news|author=Worthington, Mark|title=Japan nuclear crisis: Radiation spike report 'mistaken'|url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12875327|work=BBC |accessdate=27 March 2011|date=27 March 2011| archiveurl = http://web.archive.org/web/20130823092804/http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12875327 | archivedate = 2013-08-23| deadurl=no}}</ref> -->
<!-- <ref name='BBC TEPCO "mistake"'>{{cite news|author=Worthington, Mark|title=Japan nuclear crisis: Radiation spike report 'mistaken'|url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12875327|work=BBC |accessdate=27 March 2011|date=27 March 2011| archiveurl = http://web.archive.org/web/20130823092804/http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12875327 | archivedate = 2013-08-23| deadurl=no}}</ref> -->


<!-- <ref name="Kyodo 100,000k higher">{{cite news|title=Woes deepen over radioactive water at nuke plant, sea contamination|url=http://web.archive.org/web/20110327215748/http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/81375.html|agency=Kyodo News Network|accessdate=27 March 2011|date=28 March 2011}}</ref> -->
<!-- <ref name="Kyodo 100,000k higher">{{cite news|title=Woes deepen over radioactive water at nuke plant, sea contamination |url=http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/81375.html |agency=Kyodo News Network |accessdate=27 March 2011 |date=28 March 2011 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110327215748/http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/81375.html |archivedate=27 March 2011 }}</ref> -->


<!-- <ref name="a10">{{cite web |url=http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/29_05.html |title=TEPCO faces challenge in cooling reactor |work=.nhk.or.jp |date=29 March 2011 |accessdate=7 April 2011|archiveurl = http://www.webcitation.org/60Z80WNOE |archivedate = 2011-07-30|deadurl=yes}}</ref> -->
<!-- <ref name="a10">{{cite web |url=http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/29_05.html |title=TEPCO faces challenge in cooling reactor |work=.nhk.or.jp |date=29 March 2011 |accessdate=7 April 2011|archiveurl = http://www.webcitation.org/60Z80WNOE |archivedate = 2011-07-30|deadurl=yes}}</ref> -->

Revision as of 21:26, 31 March 2016

Investigations into the Fukushima nuclear accident
Satellite image on 16 March 2011 of the four damaged reactor buildings
Date11 March 2011 (2011-03-11)
LocationŌkuma, Fukushima, Japan
Coordinates37°25′17″N 141°1′57″E / 37.42139°N 141.03250°E / 37.42139; 141.03250
OutcomeINES Level 7 (ratings by Japanese authorities as of 11 April)[1][2]
Non-fatal injuries37 with physical injuries,[3]
2 workers taken to hospital with radiation burns[4]
File:Japan Nuclear power plants map.gif
External videos
video icon 24 hours live camera for Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster on YouTube, certified by Tokyo Electric Power Co. Inc.

The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster (福島第一原子力発電所事故, Fukushima Dai-ichi (pronunciationⓘ) genshiryoku hatsudensho jiko) was a series of equipment failures, nuclear meltdowns, and releases of radioactive materials at the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant, following the Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami on 11 March 2011.[5][6] It is the largest nuclear disaster since the Chernobyl disaster of 1986.[7]

The plant comprises six separate boiling water reactors originally designed by General Electric (GE), and maintained by the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO). At the time of the quake, Reactor 4 had been de-fueled while 5 and 6 were in cold shutdown for planned maintenance.[8] Immediately after the earthquake, the remaining reactors 1-3 shut down automatically, and emergency generators came online to control electronics and coolant systems. However the tsunami following the earthquake quickly flooded the low-lying rooms in which the emergency generators were housed. The flooded generators failed, cutting power to the critical pumps that must continuously circulate coolant water through a nuclear reactor for several days in order to keep it from melting down after being shut down. As the pumps stopped, the reactors overheated due to the normal high radioactive decay heat produced in the first few days after nuclear reactor shutdown (smaller amounts of this heat normally continue to be released for years, but are not enough to cause fuel melting).

At this point, only prompt flooding of the reactors with seawater could have cooled the reactors quickly enough to prevent meltdown. Salt water flooding was delayed because it would ruin the costly reactors permanently. Flooding with seawater was finally commenced only after the government ordered that seawater be used, and at this point it was already too late to prevent meltdown.[9]

As the water boiled away in the reactors and the water levels in the fuel rod pools dropped, the reactor fuel rods began to overheat severely, and to melt down. In the hours and days that followed, Reactors 1, 2 and 3 experienced full meltdown.[10][11]

In the intense heat and pressure of the melting reactors, a reaction between the nuclear fuel metal cladding and the remaining water surrounding them produced explosive hydrogen gas. As workers struggled to cool and shut down the reactors, several hydrogen-air chemical explosions occurred.[12][13]

Concerns about the repeated small explosions, the atmospheric venting of radioactive gasses, and the possibility of larger explosions led to a 20 km (12 mi)-radius evacuation around the plant. During the early days of the accident workers were temporarily evacuated at various times for radiation safety reasons. At the same time, sea water that had been exposed to the melting rods was returned to the sea heated and radioactive in large volumes for several months until recirculating units could be put in place to repeatedly cool and re-use a limited quantity of water for cooling. The earthquake damage and flooding in the wake of the tsunami hindered external assistance. Electrical power was slowly restored for some of the reactors, allowing for automated cooling.[14]

Japanese officials initially assessed the accident as Level 4 on the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES) despite the views of other international agencies that it should be higher. The level was later raised to 5 and eventually to 7, the maximum scale value.[15][16] The Japanese government and TEPCO have been criticized in the foreign press for poor communication with the public and improvised cleanup efforts.[17][18][19] On 20 March, the Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano announced that the plant would be decommissioned once the crisis was over.

The Japanese government estimates the total amount of radioactivity released into the atmosphere was approximately one-tenth as much as was released during the Chernobyl disaster.[20] Significant amounts of radioactive material have also been released into ground and ocean waters. Measurements taken by the Japanese government 30–50 km from the plant showed caesium-137 levels high enough to cause concern,[21] leading the government to ban the sale of food grown in the area. Tokyo officials temporarily recommended that tap water should not be used to prepare food for infants.[22][23] In May 2012, TEPCO reported that at least 900 PBq had been released "into the atmosphere in March last year [2011] alone" although it has been said staff may have been told to lie, and give false readings to try and cover up true levels of radiation.[24][25]

A few of the plant's workers were severely injured or killed by the disaster conditions resulting from the earthquake. There were no immediate deaths due to direct radiation exposures, but at least six workers have exceeded lifetime legal limits for radiation and more than 300 have received significant radiation doses. Predicted future cancer deaths due to accumulated radiation exposures in the population living near Fukushima have ranged from none[26] to 100[27] to a non-peer-reviewed "guesstimate"[28] of 1,000.[20] On 16 December 2011, Japanese authorities declared the plant to be stable, although it would take decades to decontaminate the surrounding areas and to decommission the plant altogether.[29] On 5 July 2012, the parliament appointed The Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission (NAIIC) submitted its inquiry report to the Japanese parliament,[30] while the government appointed Investigation Committee on the Accident at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Stations of Tokyo Electric Power Company submitted its final report to the Japanese government on 23 July 2012.[31] Tepco admitted for the first time on October 12, 2012 that it had failed to take stronger measures to prevent disasters for fear of inviting lawsuits or protests against its nuclear plants.[32][33][34][35]

Investigations

File:Nuclear plants Japan in 2011.svg
Position of Japanese atomic plants and spreading of tsunami

On 7 June 2011 a government-appointed committee of 10 people convened to investigate the accident. The panel was headed by Yotaro Hatamura, professor emeritus of the University of Tokyo, and included Yukio Takasu, Michio Furukawa, the mayor of Kawamata, Fukushima, and author Kunio Yanagida, considered an expert on crisis management.[36][37]

As part of the government inquiry, the House of Representatives of Japan's special science committee directed TEPCO to submit to them its manuals and procedures for dealing with reactor accidents. TEPCO responded by submitting manuals with most of the text blotted out. In response, the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency ordered TEPCO to resubmit the manuals by 28 September 2011 without hiding any of the content. TEPCO replied that it would comply with the order.[38]

On 24 October NISA published a large portion of Tokyo Electric Power Company's procedural manuals for nuclear accidents. These were the manuals that the operator of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant earlier did send to the Lower House with most of the contents blacked out, saying that this information should be kept secret to protect its intellectual property rights, and that disclosure would offer information to possible terrorists. NISA ordered TEPCO to send the manuals without any redaction, as the law orders. 200 pages were released from the accident procedural manuals used for Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. All their contents were published, only the names of individuals were left out.

From these documents could be concluded:

  • TEPCO did not make sufficient preparations to cope with critical nuclear accidents.
  • After the batteries and power supply boards were inundated on 11 March, almost all electricity sources were lost
  • TEPCO did not envision such a power failure or any kind of prolonged power loss.
  • TEPCO thought that in a serious incident, venting pressure in the reactor containment vessels or carrying out other safety procedures would still be possible, because emergency power sources would still be available.

The agency said, the decision to publish the manuals was taken, for transparency in the search what caused the nuclear accident in Fukushima and also to establish better safety measures for the future.[39]

On 24 October 2011 the first meeting was held by a group of 6 nuclear energy specialists invited by NISA to discuss the lessons to be learned from the accidents in Fukushima. Their first remarks were:

  • Japanese nuclear power plants should have multiple power sources
  • plants should be able to maintain electricity during an earthquake or other emergencies
  • TEPCO should examine why the equipment failed to work and should take appropriate actions to prevent such failures in the future

According to professor Tadashi Narabayashi of the Hokkaido University Graduate School, plant operators should arrange emergency power supplies with other utilities. These discussion should be completed in March 2012, to be able to implement their conclusions into the new safety-regulations by the new nuclear safety agency to be launched in April 2012.[40]

The Investigation Committee on the Accident at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Stations of Tokyo Electric Power Company was formed 7 June 2011 by the Japanese government as an independent body to investigate the Fukushima Daiichi disaster.[41] The Investigation Committee issued an interim report in December 2011, and is expected to issue its final report summer, 2012. The interim report was "a scathing assessment of the response to the Fukushima disaster", in which the investigative panel "blamed the central government and the Tokyo Electric Power Co., saying both seemed incapable of making decisions to stem radiation leaks as the situation at the coastal plant worsened in the days and weeks after the disaster".[42]

In February 2012, an independent investigation into the accident by the Rebuild Japan Initiative Foundation said that "In the darkest moments of last year's nuclear accident, Japanese leaders did not know the actual extent of damage at the plant and secretly considered the possibility of evacuating Tokyo, even as they tried to play down the risks in public". The government was preparing for the possibility of having to evacuate Tokyo while assuring its millions of residents that everything was under control.[43]

Officials revealed in interviews that they were grappling the possibility of a "demonic chain reaction": If Fukushima collapsed and released enough radiation, it was possible that other nearby nuclear power plants would have to be abandoned and could also collapse, thereby necessitating the evacuation of one of the world's largest cities.[44]

A 2012 report in The Economist said that the response to Fukushima has, so far, been inadequate, as many questions remain. One of the more worrying is how much damage the earthquake did to the reactors:[45]

It is claimed that they weathered the quake, but some experts, such as Masashi Goto, a retired nuclear engineer, argue that there is evidence of significant damage that speeded up the subsequent meltdown. Analysis of the spread of fallout suggests that the first releases came very soon after the tsunami hit, if not before. With quakes a more constant threat than monster tsunamis, these are the sort of lessons that Japan’s "nuclear village" needs to learn.[45]

Oregon's United States Senator Ron Wyden toured the plant and issued a statement that the situation was "worse than reported." He sent a letter to Japanese Ambassador Ichiro Fujisaki urging Japan to seek international help to relocate spent fuel rods stored in unsound structures and prevent leakage of dangerous nuclear material.[46][47]

TEPCO released its final internal investigation report on 20 June 2012. In the report, TEPCO complained that top politicians, including the prime minister, interfered with recovery efforts during the initial stages of the disaster by making specific requests that were out of touch with what was actually taking place at the plant. TEPCO concluded that the direct cause of the accident was the tsunami which knocked out the reactors' cooling system. TEPCO also admitted that it was at fault in not being prepared for the situation, but said that its workers did the best they could "amid unprecedented circumstances."[48]

On 5 July 2012, the National Diet of Japan Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission released an executive summary report[49] of The Fukushima Nuclear Accident. The report "blames Japanese culture for the fundamental causes of the disaster."[50][51][52][53] The panel is due to deliver its final report at the end of July.[50]

See also

Notes

References

  1. ^ Negishi, Mayumi (12 April 2011). "Japan raises nuclear crisis severity to highest level". Reuters. Archived from the original on 12 November 2013. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ "Fukushima accident upgraded to severity level 7". IEEE Spectrum. 12 April 2011. Archived from the original on 11 March 2014. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  3. ^ "IAEA Update on Japan Earthquake". Archived from the original on 12 March 2011. Retrieved 16 March 2011. As reported earlier, a 400 millisieverts (mSv) per hour radiation dose observed at Fukushima Daiichi occurred between 1s 3 and 4. This is a high dose-level value, but it is a local value at a single location and at a certain point in time. The IAEA continues to confirm the evolution and value of this dose rate. It should be noted that because of this detected value, non-indispensable staff was evacuated from the plant, in line with the Emergency Response Plan, and that the population around the plant is already evacuated. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  4. ^ "Radiation-exposed workers to be treated at Chiba hospital". Kyodo News. 25 March 2011. Archived from the original on 17 February 2013. Retrieved 17 April 2011. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  5. ^ "Japan's unfolding disaster 'bigger than Chernobyl'". New Zealand Herald. 2 April 2011.
  6. ^ "Explainer: What went wrong in Japan's nuclear reactors". IEEE Spectrum. 4 April 2011. Archived from the original on 4 July 2011. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  7. ^ "Analysis: A month on, Japan nuclear crisis still scarring" International Business Times (Australia). 9 April 2011, retrieved 12 April 2011; excerpt, According to James Acton, Associate of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, "Fukushima is not the worst nuclear accident ever but it is the most complicated and the most dramatic...This was a crisis that played out in real time on TV. Chernobyl did not." Template:WebCite
  8. ^ Black, Richard (15 March 2011). "Reactor breach worsens prospects". BBC Online. Archived from the original on 16 March 2011. Retrieved 23 March 2011. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  9. ^ F. Tanabe, Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology, 2011, volume 48, issue 8, pages 1135 to 1139
  10. ^ "3 nuclear reactors melted down after quake, Japan confirms". CNN. 7 June 2011. Archived from the original on 14 April 2014. Retrieved 13 July 2011. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  11. ^ "'Melt-through' at Fukushima? / Govt report to IAEA suggests situation worse than meltdown". Yomiuri. 8 June 2011. Archived from the original on 15 June 2011. Retrieved 8 June 2011. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  12. ^ "Fukushima nuclear accident update log, updates of 15 March 2011". IAEA. 15 March 2011. Archived from the original on 9 April 2011. Retrieved 8 May 2011. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  13. ^ Hydrogen explosions Fukushima nuclear plant: what happened? Template:Wayback
  14. ^ Stricken reactors may get power Sunday, The Wall Street Journal, 19 March 2011 Template:Wayback
  15. ^ Justin McCurry. Japan raises nuclear alert level to seven. The Guardian. 12 April 2011 Template:Wayback
  16. ^ 'Now radiation in Japan is as bad as radiation level is raised to 7 for only the second time in history' Daily Mail 12 April 2011.
  17. ^ Wagner, Wieland (15 March 2011). "Problematic public relations: Japanese leaders leave people in the dark". Der Spiegel. Archived from the original on 15 April 2011. Retrieved 19 March 2011. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  18. ^ "China urges Japan's openness amid panic buying of salt". Channel NewsAsia. Agence France-Presse. 17 March 2011. Retrieved 17 March 2011.
  19. ^ Veronika Hackenbroch, Cordula Meyer and Thilo Thielke (5 April 2011). "A hapless Fukushima clean-up effort". Der Spiegel. Archived from the original on 6 April 2011. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  20. ^ a b Frank N. von Hippel (September/October 2011 vol. 67 no. 5). "The radiological and psychological consequences of the Fukushima Daiichi accident". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. pp. 27–36. Archived from the original on 2011-12-20. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  21. ^ "Caesium fallout from Fukushima rivals Chernobyl". New Scientist. Archived from the original on 30 March 2011. Retrieved 30 March 2011. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  22. ^ Japan mulls Fukushima food ban: IAEA, Reuters, 19 March 2011 Template:WebCite
  23. ^ Justin McCurry in Osaka (23 March 2010). "Tokyo water unsafe for infants after high radiation levels detected". The Guardian. London. Archived from the original on 8 April 2011. Retrieved 23 March 2011. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  24. ^ "TEPCO puts radiation release early in Fukushima crisis at 900 PBq". Kyodo News. 24 May 2012. Archived from the original on 24 May 2012. Retrieved 24 May 2012. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  25. ^ Kevin Krolicki (24 May 2012). "Fukushima radiation higher than first estimated". Reuters. Archived from the original on 15 October 2013. Retrieved 24 May 2012. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  26. ^ "Trauma, Not Radiation, Is Key Concern In Japan". NPR. 9 March 2012. Archived from the original on 9 March 2014. Retrieved 15 April 2012. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  27. ^ Caracappa, Peter F. (28 June 2011), "Fukushima Accident: Radioactive Releases and Potential Dose Consequences" (PDF), ANS Annual Meeting, retrieved 13 September 2011
  28. ^ "The Cost of Fear: The Framing of a Fukushima Report". 15 March 2012. Archived from the original on 5 May 2014. Retrieved 15 April 2012. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  29. ^ "Japan PM says Fukushima nuclear site finally stabilised". BBC Online. 16 December 2011. Archived from the original on 20 February 2014. Retrieved 7 January 2012. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  30. ^ National Diet of Japan Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission. "国会事故調 | 東京電力福島原子力発電所事故調査委員会のホームページ". National Diet of Japan Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission. Archived from the original on 19 January 2013. Retrieved 9 July 2012. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  31. ^ "UPDATE: Government panel blasts lack of 'safety culture' in nuclear accident". The Asahi Shimbun. 23 July 2012. Archived from the original on 13 April 2014. Retrieved 29 July 2012. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  32. ^ Fackler, Martin (12 October 2012). "Japan Power Company Admits Failings on Plant Precautions". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 6 October 2014. Retrieved 13 October 2012. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  33. ^ Sheldrick, Aaron (12 October 2012). "Fukushima operator must learn from mistakes, new adviser says". Reuters. Archived from the original on 9 March 2014. Retrieved 13 October 2012. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  34. ^ Yamaguchi, Mari (12 October 2012). "Japan utility agrees nuclear crisis was avoidable". Boston.com. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 5 October 2013. Retrieved 13 October 2012. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  35. ^ "Japanese nuclear plant operator admits playing down risk". CNN Wire Staff. CNN. 12 October 2012. Archived from the original on 9 March 2014. Retrieved 13 October 2012. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  36. ^ Ito, Masami, "Official probe begins into nuclear disaster", Japan Times, 8 June 2011, p. 1. Template:WebCite
  37. ^ Investigation Committee on the Accident at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Stations of Tokyo Electric Power Company Template:WebCite
  38. ^ Jiji Press, "Tepco must submit reactor accident manuals without deleted portions", Japan Times, 28 September 2011, p. 2.
  39. ^ NHK-world (24 October 2011) Parts of TEPCO's accident manuals made public. Template:WebCite
  40. ^ NKH-world (24 October 2011)Nuke energy experts discuss technological issues. Template:Wayback
  41. ^ Ito, Masami, "Official probe begins into nuclear disaster", Japan Times, 8 June 2011, p. 1. Template:WebCite
  42. ^ "Report: U.S. nuclear renaissance unlikely after Fukushima". LA Times. 28 December 2011. Archived from the original on 24 January 2014. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  43. ^ Martin Fackler (27 February 2012). "Japan Weighed Evacuating Tokyo in Nuclear Crisis". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 26 June 2012. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  44. ^ Krista Mahr (29 February 2012). "Fukushima Report: Japan Urged Calm While It Mulled Tokyo Evacuation". Time. Archived from the original on 30 May 2012. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  45. ^ a b "Blow-ups happen: Nuclear plants can be kept safe only by constantly worrying about their dangers". The Economist. 10 March 2012. Archived from the original on 12 April 2014. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  46. ^ Phred Dvorak, Fukushima Daiichi’s Achilles Heel: Unit 4′s Spent Fuel?, Wall Street Journal, 17 April 2012. Template:Wayback
  47. ^ After Tour of Fukushima Nuclear Power Station, Wyden Says Situation Worse than Reported, from Office of United States Senator Ron Wyden, 16 April 2012. Template:Wayback
  48. ^ Nagata, Kazuaki, "Tepco lashes prime minister's office", Japan Times, 21 June 2012, p. 1 Template:Wayback
  49. ^ The Fukushima Nuclear Accident - Executive summary (PDF). Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission (Report). The National Diet of Japan. July 2012. Archived from the original (PDF) on 10 July 2012. Retrieved 5 July 2012. {{cite report}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  50. ^ a b Wakatsuki, Yoko. "Japanese parliament report: Fukushima nuclear crisis was 'man-made'". CNN. Archived from the original on 2014-02-03. Retrieved 7/5/2012. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  51. ^ Tabuchi, Hiroko (5 July 2012). "Inquiry Declares Fukushima Crisis a Man-Made Disaster". The New York Times. Retrieved 5 July 2012.
  52. ^ Hiyama, Hiroshi (7/5/2012). "Japan's Fukushima nuclear disaster 'man-made,' probe decides". The Globe and Mail. Toronto. Archived from the original on 2012-07-05. Retrieved 7/5/2012. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  53. ^ Inajima, Tsuyoshi (07/5/2012). "Fukushima Disaster Was Man-Made, Investigation Finds". Bloomberg News. Archived from the original on 2014-05-06. Retrieved 07/5/2012. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Fukushima Daichi nuclear disaster.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Investigations_into_the_Fukushima_nuclear_accident&oldid=712922197"