preview

Fukushima Disaster

Satisfactory Essays
On March 11, 2011 one of nature’s greatest disasters hit the country of Japan. A 9.0 earthquake struck the northeastern coast sending a series of tsunamis hurdling towards Japan. The destruction and death was appalling. The death toll had been estimated near 28,500 by one point, however after some missing people were found the estimated number was 19,300 by the end of 2011 (Pletcher, 2013). The amount devastation was greater than had been witnessed for some time. The decisions after would need to be made quickly and precisely in order to foster an effort to relieve the suffering of many. Environmental needs and concerns were going to be prodigious after the tsunami washed away houses, destroyed sanitation means and carried death and disease into the mainland. It would be up to the people of Japan and relief sent by many countries to respond to this disaster as diligently as possible. One main focus of all the infrastructures that had been compromised were on the Fukushima nuclear power plants operated by the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO). “The plants were slammed by a series of seven tsunamis, some as high as 15 meters (49ft) (Fecht). Power was lost to the nuclear plants and diesel generators kicked in to cool the reactor. Unfortunately, the generators were compromised when hit by aftermath tsunamis. A state of emergency was issued and the evacuation began. TEPCO had a daunting task to keep the reactors under control. On March 12 a hydrogen explosion blew off the roof to Unit 1. “TEPCO began to inject seawater, which corrodes pumps and pipelines, as a substitute coolant into Unit 1; water levels fall in Unit 2” (Fecht). Cesium 137 and Iodine 131 which are radioactive are detected near the plant. It was obvious that TEP... ... middle of paper ... ... did he make the right decision making these claims. The end result he was hoping for would be similar to his actions. To bring much needed revenue to Japan. He also wanted to see the world to trust that Japan had all things under control. It would be argued that this was not the right thing to do considering the how the efforts were going so far to this point. It was later refuted that the comments made about the situation being under control by the Prime Minister was only referring to some unexpected leaks from some storage tanks at the sight. TEPCO also restated they were talking about water levels in the bay were under legal limits. (YOSHIDA, 2013) Both the Prime Minister and TEPCO were quick to contest and make “damage control” to the claims previously made. Would they have corrected them if nobody would have pointed the out the differences in there claims?
Get Access