A blunt report on Japanese TV about the Fukushima Unit 4 Spent Fuel Pool and the possible end of Tokyo

How commercial TV covered the hazard of the Unit 4 Spent Fuel Pool at Fukushima Daiichi: A segment of the program Morning Bird, broadcast by TV Asahi on March 8, 2012

Over the summer, the Fukushima Daiichi catastrophe came back as a major story in world media. There was alarming news about large leaks of radioactive water, and each story carried mention of the potential of a larger disaster that could happen if the spent fuel rods of unit four are not safely removed. (For full coverage, go to the interview Arnie Gundersen on the radio show Nuclear Hotseat.)

Eighteen months ago, at the one year anniversary of the catastrophe, the journalist Toru Tamakawa hosted a panel discussion on Japanese TV about the perilous condition of Fukushima Daiichi Unit 4 Spent Fuel Pool. The segment includes an interview with Hiroaki Koide, professor at the Research Reactor Institute, Kyoto University.

At one time there was an English-subtitled version of this report on Youtube, but TV Asahi had it removed. For some reason, they haven’t done the same thing with the French-subtitled version which is still at the link above.

I translated the report into English, but decided not to upload an English-subtitled version on Youtube. It could be taken down at any time, and I wanted to preserve the report as a historical document.

The report is significant because it shows that the mainstream media is not always lamestream media. This report was broadcast on a major commercial network, for a target audience of housewives and senior citizens and whoever else is home during the day. The standard theory in media studies says that the purpose of such programming is to keep the audience comfortably stimulated with mild controversies, but not with extreme topics that could diminish interest in the advertised goods. But in this case there was a crack in the usual facade, as the host of the report told the panel and the viewers that there is a high chance that the accident could still turn bad and spell “the end” for northern Japan and Tokyo. It kind of spoils one’s motivation to buy luxury brand soaps. People overseas might wonder how people can live with this knowledge from day to day, but it's not that much different than the threat of nuclear annihilation that we've all lived with for sixty years. President Kennedy said it was like a Sword of Damocles above our heads. Now we have two.

This report shows that the media cannot take all the blame for public apathy on this issue. The very shocking and disturbing truth of the situation has been shown to the public. Other aspects of social control and mass psychology must explain why there hasn't been more widespread opposition to the mishandling of the Fukushima Daiichi catastrophe. One thing I can fault the journalist and the panelists for is their naïve view that they could change things by voting for someone different, or that proper action will be taken if the matter is debated in parliament. They have too much faith. The passage of time has proven that the government is more interested in building Olympic facilities than in telling the nation the truth of the Fukushima catastrophe. It’s more likely that nothing will improve until there is a mass movement to block government plans. When the Soviet bloc was collapsing, it was solidarity movements and general strikes that brought change for workers and for Chernobyl victims (see my earlier post on the book Chernobyl: Crime without Punishment). Such a trend is yet to materialize in Japan.

Transcript: Morning Bird, TV Asahi, March 8, 2012

IN THE STUDIO, SPEAKING TO THE PANEL
Tamakawa:	You might think it’s been a year now, it’s over, but actually it’s been only a year, and it’s far from over. The real cause of the accident has still not been identified. The results of the National Diet of Japan Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission (NAIIC) have not yet been published. Yet the government is talking of restarting nuclear power plants. I have to ask exactly what lessons they have learned from this accident. I ask you whether the Fukushima Daiichi site is really safe at this time. They speak as if the accident has been resolved, but look at this. The two big political parties hope to restart reactors, but is the accident really resolved?  For example, Unit 4. Professor Koide of Kyoto University is one of the experts most concerned about it. He says it is the most dangerous aspect of the situation. Here’s the actual state of Unit 4. You can see that it practically has no walls. They were blown out by the explosion. It’s a ruin, and inside it is the spent fuel storage pool. Until here, the space is taken up by the reactor, and here, beside it, is the storage pool. 1,500 rods of spent fuel are stored here, 2.8 times more than in a reactor. These rods have to be constantly cooled. So what will happen if an earthquake strikes and water begins to leak out of this pool? I asked this question to Professor Koide. Please listen to his answer.
INTERVIEW WITH PROFESSOR KOIDE
Koide:	As you see, this is the spent fuel pool with numerous spent fuel rods stored in it. If a strong earthquake comes, these walls could collapse, the water could spill out, and the rods would no longer be cooled. So they would begin to melt, probably entirely. An enormous amount of radioactivity would be released without any way to contain it. We don’t know when an earthquake could come.
Tamakawa:	Couldn’t we just build another pool beside the old one and transfer the rods into it before an earthquake strikes?
Koide:	If you removed a fuel rod and lifted it through the open air, an enormous amount of radiation would be released. It would kill everyone working there.
Tamakawa:	It’s that strong?
Koide:	Yes.
IN THE STUDIO, SPEAKING TO THE PANEL
Tamakawa:	So the spent fuel rods are in the pool, but that doesn’t mean that we are safely done with them. They continue to produce heat and deadly levels of radiation if they are exposed to air. They are not dangerous now only because they are under water and the radiation is blocked. As you saw in the video, I asked why we couldn’t simply move the rods to a new storage pool. First, let’s look at how they transfer the spent fuel rods in normal circumstances. The rods are at first inside the reactor. Then they are transferred to the spent fuel pool. At first, they lower a large container into the water. Then they do the transfer underwater. They put a cover on it, then they hoist the container out of the pool. But now, because of the earthquake, this crane no longer exists. So how are they going to do it?
INTERVIEW WITH PROFESSOR KOIDE
Koide:	You see here there is a giant crane which is used to raise and lower the container, but this can no longer be used. So there’s a lot of work to be done. First, they have to take out the debris and other things that have fallen into the pool. Next, they have to build a new crane to lower the container into the pool. They have to prepare some way to do that from the outside of the building. They will have to lower the container into the pool and transfer the rods, and many of them appear to be damaged. Then they have to pull them up and out of the pool. All this is going to take years to complete.
Tamakawa:	And what will happen if an earthquake occurs during that time?
Koide:	That will be the end.
Tamakawa:	The end?
Koide:	Yes.
IN THE STUDIO, SPEAKING TO THE PANEL
Tamakawa:	You see: the end.
Panelist 1:	Unbelievable.
Tamakawa:	So it’s a serious problem. TEPCO knows this is the most serious problem. And today, as if this was announced just in time for our program, TEPCO has announced its plan for this operation. It could begin taking out the spent fuel as early as January next year [2013]. So if an earthquake happens before that time, perhaps not even a very big one, the pool could crack and leak, and it would be, as Professor Koide said, “the end.” That means the end for a large area, including Tokyo.
Panelist 1:	And unbelievably, they are talking about restarting nuclear power plants.
Tamakawa:	I think it is out of the question to restart them before the NAIIS report comes out, and before the new regulatory agency has a chance to assess the report.
Panelist 2:	For such an important issue, the opposition parties should question what the government plans to do, but in this case even the opposition parties want to restart nuclear power plants. They all want to make use of the power plants again.
Tamakawa:	But there are people within each party who disagree with this policy.
Panelist 2:	But they are the minority, aren’t they?
Tamakawa:	No, this is not the case. There are people who think the same way even inside the party in power (DPJ), but there are also people who want to restart.
Panelist 1:	I want to vote again.
Panelist 2:	They talk of restarting after they have obtained the consent of local affected communities, but actually all of Japan, and even neighboring countries, are part of the “local affected communities.” It isn’t just the vicinity of the power plant that should be considered as affected.
Panelist 3:	We have to recognize that the accident is far from being resolved. The crisis is in fact ongoing.
Tamakawa:	That’s right, and I have a correction to make. The removal won’t start until December next year [2013] at the earliest, not January as I said before.
Panelist 3:	December next year? Seriously?
Tamakawa:	Yes. Sorry, what I said before was too optimistic.
Panelist 1:	About those members of parliament who want the restarts – I want them to resign.
Panelist 3:	We’ve got to rethink this problem.
Panelist 2:	I want the names of all those members who want the restarts. I want to ask them about their opinions.
Tamakawa:	Well, I hope this issue will be discussed in parliament soon.