The Fukushima Diiachi Nuclear Disaster in the light of the 1967 AEC Ergen Report and ensuring controversy

fuk history

The period of time covered by the history of LOCA/ECCS controversy includes the period in which the first of the Fukushima Diiachi reactors were approved for sale by the USA and were constructed and brought on line in Japan.

The AEC commissioned the Ergen Report, which was completed in 1967. This identified the need for Emergency Core Cooling Systems which worked. The AEC attempted to keep its safety concerns in this regard secret. By the 1970s however, the issue had become public knowledge. From the above history of the Fukushima Diiachi site, it can be seen that the construction of the TEPCO reactors began in the same time span in which the AEC held safety fears and radiation release fears arising from inadequate core cooling in situations of damage or break down.

The role of the Price Anderson Act which limited the liability of US nuclear operators may have contributed to the publically dismissive attitude of nuclear authorities to the issues. This attitude has continued down the decades. The fear is kept secret and those who dare admit it in public are expelled from the industry.

The events of March 2011 were the first full scale test of an ECCS off shore from the USA and are universally applicable:

The entire mass media/nuclear industry narrative since March 2011 is a technical concoction aimed at denying the relevance of the corrupt history of LOCA/ECCS/Meltdown research and development.

The big secret, which is an open secret, is that the ECCS does not work. Knowing this, the industry realized that containment failure was inevitable. The method of minimizing the public perception of harm related to redefining the health impacts of radionuclide release and by nuclear industry claiming medical expertise it never had, never had a mandate for and by which it used and uses false medical claims which were shown to be false in the 1920s and 1930s.

Regardless of whether the March 2011 nuclear disaster was caused by pipe break or failed cooling pumps, the ECCS should have worked. The reactors are fitted with self contained steam powered turbines to pump emergency coolant to the core. Contrary to what the industry has said since the late 60s and 1970s, the ECCS is proven by the 20 March 2011 disaster, the ECCS to be a fraud. This was proven 3 times in March 2011. 3 x in row. LIterally. It can be shown that the industry lied in 1963, 67-69, 1970 and every year since.

The timeline of the Fukushima Disaster commenced with the US decision to upscale nuclear power plants to commercial sizes. The problems envisaged in this move related to cooling sufficiency in all situations, including situations of equipment failure and containment in cases where cooling failed. By the late 1960s the internal radiation release fears held by nuclear authorities and nuclear operators in the USA and the consequent internal discussion were becoming public. By 1967 the AEC commission Ergen Report into Emergency Core Cooling Systems had been published. By 1971 many scientists and members of the public held grave fears for the AEC/industry plans. The plans for containment and ECCS had not been tested full scale. The dismal predictions indicated by the results of semi scale tests further drove the debate. By 1975 public opposition in the USA had grown.

The first Fukushima Diiachi reactor had begun construction in 1967, the year of the AEC Ergen report which called for a solution to the problem of Emergency Core Cooling System issue. The joint venture between GE and TEPCO achieved commercial opposition on 26 March 1971.

In the same year, AEC employee Ralph Lapp highlighted the problems of “nuclear plumbing” as he called the issue, and in the New Year Times stated that Nuclear reactors were too dangerous to site near cities. Fukushima Prefecture at that time was largely an agricultural rural area.

If the reactors were too dangerous to place near large population centres, does this mean that rural communities are safe when they are located down wind of nuclear reactors? No it does not.

For as long as the Fukushima Diiachi plants have operated, they have been the result of the assurances of nuclear industry that 1. The ECCS would prevent disaster 2. Containment would work.

Regardless of the cause of the cooling failure, both the ECCS and containment failed in March 2011. Three times in a row.

The reactors and the industry failed the test. All safety assurances and technical manuals are now seen for what they are, sales pamphlets.

It is little wonder that in 1999 contracts for the promotion of hormesis were let by US DOE. For it was obvious that given the result of failed ECCS is failed containment, the industry would have to continue minimizing the perceived impact of containment breach. Presenting exposure to core material suffered by the general public as a health benefit has been the last desperate measure of the industry to convince the public that the ability to watch TV and make coffee comes with the certainty of knowing that when the local reactors fail, the plutonium and cesium and strontium etc is good for you.

It is of course a false claim.

In can be seen that the whole thrust of the nuclear industry’s undertakings in the matter of emergency core cooling system implementation and in the industry’s implementation of containment has one purpose in mind: to achieve sales.

Any customer has objections to any proposed purchase as presented by a salesman.

In answer to the objection “The core may melt”, the sales pitch in reply involves the invocation of the ECCS. Where the customer may have doubts about this, the salesman replies, “well there’s a containment building. We don’t want to kill you all. Even if it does break up and explode and melt, well its good for you. Radiation is a vitamin.”

Are they sure about that? It just so happens that nuclear reactors require that line.

The key to the long term deception is the question what really happened at Three Mile Island and what were the real results.

Meltdown and core contents venting is a natural tendency of nuclear reactors. This is why ECCS and containment are specified. The trouble is, they don’t work.

Contrary to the media presentations which have haunted the airwaves since March 2011, the past is very relevant to today. For had honesty prevailed in 1967 and had that honesty persisted, commercial reactors would never have gone on sale. The outcomes of March 2011 in Japan are predictable.

Thanks Bob, whoever you are.

A reading of the actual events which occurred as a result of the 3 Mile Island disaster is probably needed in order to understand the response to the Fukushima Diiachi disaster.

It is plain to see that given the false guarantees, the Fukushima Diiachi Nuclear Disaster was not “uniquely Japanese”. It can happen anywhere. The route cause of the disaster is the decision by the US government to promote nuclear power in Japan and its authorization of the sale of the reactors destined for Japan. And the Ergen Report and all that flowed from it confirms this gross negligence.

One Response to “The Fukushima Diiachi Nuclear Disaster in the light of the 1967 AEC Ergen Report and ensuring controversy”

  1. CaptD Says:

    I think it is important to note that the USA is still pushing Nuclear, despite the fact that Fukushima proved the Nature can destroy any land based nuclear reactor, any place anytime 24/7/365!

    Now the Japanese people literally have N☢ say in Nuclear issues, because their Gov’t. is at the mercy of the Nuclear Industry and their Utility “Gangs”…

    They all are now living in a “Nuclear Police State”!

    Must read article: The Nuclear Mafia Derails Democracy in Japan

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: