October 12, 2011
US strategy influence on Japan’s nuclear energy policy (Part 10)
According to a U.S. campaign to promote the safety of nuclear power, a major accident at a reactor would be as likely as Yankee Stadium being hit by a meteorite and the risk of death from atomic power is 1,000-10,000 times less than the risk of death from an airplane crash or from hydropower generation.
Potentially dangerous
The Japanese government and power companies also followed this line. They touted that the chances of a nuclear accident are extremely low or that it could not happen. They were until recently reassuring the general public with what is referred to as the “probabilistic safety assessment (PSA)”. This also came from the United States.
In October 1975, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) released a report on reactor safety study titled “An Assessment of Accident Risks in U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plant (WASH-1400)”. It is said that the report established the PSA as accurate.
Norman C. Rasmussen, a professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, at a lecture he gave in Tokyo in May 1976 proudly stated that he estimated the probability of a core meltdown at one in 20,000 reactor-years, and that he came up this figure based on the experience that there had been no such an accident in 200 reactor-years.
However, just 3 years after that, in March 1979, a core meltdown occurred at the Three Mile Island plant.
A report submitted by the accident commission to the U.S. President at that time, Jimmy Carter, admits, “After many years of operation of nuclear power plants, with no evidence that any member of the general public has been hurt, the belief that nuclear power plants are sufficiently safe grew into a conviction.” It went on to suggest, “This attitude much be changed to one that says nuclear power is by its nature potentially dangerous.”
The “safety myth” includes a “multiple protection argument” under which a 4- or 5-layered-protection-barrier prevents radiation from leaking outside. The Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents, however, proved this argument to be unfounded.
‘N-powered aircraft carriers safe’
The “probabilistic safety assessment (PSA)” method and the “multiple protection” argument are still used to deceive Japanese citizens. On the occasion of the deployment of the U.S. nuclear-powered aircraft carrier George Washington at the U.S. Yokosuka base (Kanagawa Pref.), the United States repeatedly put forward these arguments asserting safety.
Not long after the Fukushima accident, the U.S. government on April 18 gave Japan its “explanation” in regard to “safety”.
“U.S. naval reactors have an outstanding record of over 145 million miles safely steamed on nuclear power, and they have amassed over 6,300 reactor-years of safe operation,” and “There are at least four barriers that work to keep radioactivity inside nuclear powered warships.”
Such a self-serving “explanation” can convince only a few local residents. Voices against the nuclear warship are growing day by day, with shouts of “Don’t make the Miura Peninsula a second Fukushima!”
* * *
Nuclear power generation was brought into Japan as part of the global nuclear strategy of the U.S. Eisenhower administration. The big business circles in both Japan and the United States latched onto this momentum and created the present-day system after denouncing any objections.
Breaking away from nuclear power generation will open the way for a major change in Japan’s security and energy policy which are currently under the influence and control of the United States and big business.
(End)
According to a U.S. campaign to promote the safety of nuclear power, a major accident at a reactor would be as likely as Yankee Stadium being hit by a meteorite and the risk of death from atomic power is 1,000-10,000 times less than the risk of death from an airplane crash or from hydropower generation.
Potentially dangerous
The Japanese government and power companies also followed this line. They touted that the chances of a nuclear accident are extremely low or that it could not happen. They were until recently reassuring the general public with what is referred to as the “probabilistic safety assessment (PSA)”. This also came from the United States.
In October 1975, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) released a report on reactor safety study titled “An Assessment of Accident Risks in U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plant (WASH-1400)”. It is said that the report established the PSA as accurate.
Norman C. Rasmussen, a professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, at a lecture he gave in Tokyo in May 1976 proudly stated that he estimated the probability of a core meltdown at one in 20,000 reactor-years, and that he came up this figure based on the experience that there had been no such an accident in 200 reactor-years.
However, just 3 years after that, in March 1979, a core meltdown occurred at the Three Mile Island plant.
A report submitted by the accident commission to the U.S. President at that time, Jimmy Carter, admits, “After many years of operation of nuclear power plants, with no evidence that any member of the general public has been hurt, the belief that nuclear power plants are sufficiently safe grew into a conviction.” It went on to suggest, “This attitude much be changed to one that says nuclear power is by its nature potentially dangerous.”
The “safety myth” includes a “multiple protection argument” under which a 4- or 5-layered-protection-barrier prevents radiation from leaking outside. The Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents, however, proved this argument to be unfounded.
‘N-powered aircraft carriers safe’
The “probabilistic safety assessment (PSA)” method and the “multiple protection” argument are still used to deceive Japanese citizens. On the occasion of the deployment of the U.S. nuclear-powered aircraft carrier George Washington at the U.S. Yokosuka base (Kanagawa Pref.), the United States repeatedly put forward these arguments asserting safety.
Not long after the Fukushima accident, the U.S. government on April 18 gave Japan its “explanation” in regard to “safety”.
“U.S. naval reactors have an outstanding record of over 145 million miles safely steamed on nuclear power, and they have amassed over 6,300 reactor-years of safe operation,” and “There are at least four barriers that work to keep radioactivity inside nuclear powered warships.”
Such a self-serving “explanation” can convince only a few local residents. Voices against the nuclear warship are growing day by day, with shouts of “Don’t make the Miura Peninsula a second Fukushima!”
* * *
Nuclear power generation was brought into Japan as part of the global nuclear strategy of the U.S. Eisenhower administration. The big business circles in both Japan and the United States latched onto this momentum and created the present-day system after denouncing any objections.
Breaking away from nuclear power generation will open the way for a major change in Japan’s security and energy policy which are currently under the influence and control of the United States and big business.
(End)
