Japan fails to create revamped nuclear regulatory agency by target date

[bananas]

Source: Associated Press

TOKYO — Japan’s government has failed to create a revamped nuclear regulatory agency by the promised date, April 1, amid political infighting, raising questions about its commitment to bolstering oversight in the wake of last year’s nuclear crisis.

Authorities have been accused of lax regulation and supervision of Japan’s 54 nuclear reactors after a massive earthquake and tsunami led to a meltdown of three reactors at the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant in the world’s worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl.

<snip>

Previous investigations into the Fukushima accident have found evidence of lax supervision by NISA, cozy relations with utilities and delays in upgrading safety measures.

On Monday, an NSC member told the same parliamentary committee that NISA repeatedly tried to block her commission’s efforts in 2006 to upgrade nuclear accident management plans, saying it would cause unnecessary safety concerns and additional costs.

<snip>

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/japan-fails-to-create-revamped-nuclear-regulatory-agency-by-target-date/2012/04/02/gIQALiCaqS_story.html

[NNadir]

1. I wonder if Japan has a building regulatory agency.

The accident at Fukushima, despite the usual obsessions and fetishes from anti-nukes, killed infinitely less people than buildings.

I have personally heard, though, of an anti-nuke who gives a rat's ass about the 20,000 people who died in the 9.0 earthquake and 15 meter tsunami from buildings.

According to this obsessive set, the only people who died from the earthquake and tsunami were all killed by radiation.

This of course, would indicate that the 9.0 earthquake and tsunami - at least according to anti-nukes - was harmless.

Another thing I have never heard about is a rote anti-nuke giving a rat's ass about the 3.3 million people who died from air pollution last year.

Actually in a place called "reality," notably uninhabited by earthquake cheering anti-nukes, the vast majority of energy related deaths from the Fukushima earthquake will involve the replacement of the reactors with dangerous fossil fuel facilities.

Predictably, of course, the earthquake is actually a wet dream for anti-nukes, even though they have developed no similar fantasies for the Indian Ocean tsunami or the renewable energy disaster at Banqiao, which killed more than 200,000 in a single week.

[happerbolic]

2. The warning on the back of the can reads:....

...if ringing in ear persists, seek medical attention immediately... and whatever you do keep matches or any open flame/spark out of the room until proper ventilation is provided....

[Kelvin Mace]

3. You are correct about the death toll at the moment

The death toll and illness from cancers down the road however...

Then there is the problem of rendering thousands of square kilometers uninhabitable for the next several decades or more. The problem that the reactors are still lethally radioactive and another earthquake could crack them open and make things far worse.

Aside from that, everything is peachy.

I am anti-nuke as long as safety is sacrificed for profit. I do not see earthquakes as a "wet dream", but a tragedy compounded by greed at Tepco.

As for Banqaiao, ANY large construction project poorly planned, built by incompetent people, with shoddy material is a public hazard.

I don't want to see more dams or more fossil plants. What I want to see is solar, wind and geothermal get the same "tax incentives" and "subsidies" as the nukes, and the extraction industry.

[Art_from_Ark]

4. Japan has some pretty tough building standards

I have translated quite a few Japanese research papers about how seismic standards were improved in the aftermath of the 1995 Kobe/South Hanshin earthquake. People in this area (Tokyo Metro) will often tear down a house and rebuild within 30 years or so because of structural weakening due to earthquakes. It wasn't the earthquake that did so much damage-- it was the tsunami that came after it. You might have sturdy home foundations, but they will still be no match against a 30- or 40- or 50-foot-high fast-moving wall of water