Home | About | Donate

Fukushima: An Unnatural Disaster That Must Never Be Repeated


Fukushima: An Unnatural Disaster That Must Never Be Repeated

Arnie Gundersen

Four years have passed since the March 11 tragic triple meltdowns began at Fukushima Daiichi. There is no end in sight.

Let's be clear, the disaster at Fukushima Daiichi was manmade. Tokyo Electric (TEPCO) and indeed the entire nuclear industry worldwide act as if they are the victims of a natural disaster, but in fact the nuclear industry is the perpetrator of this travesty.


“Following the Fukushima Daiichi triple meltdown, governments around the world have destroyed their social contracts with their citizens by pressing for costly and risky nuclear power without regard for the health and welfare of generations to come.”

Although the subject of this article is the danger of Nuclear Power, Mr. Gundersen’s assessment also holds true with respect to all of the following:

  1. The gaming of the global economy due to the infusion of faux wealth products like bets on loans “valued” into the trillions in real currency denominations
  2. The trafficking in weaponry bound to cause more death, dismemberment, and poisoning of habitats
  3. The lax response to global warming sure to render more species (up to and including our own) extinct
  4. The legalization and proliferation of largely untested genetically modified foods (much of them, sans labeling)
  5. The spreading of war where wiser trade deals along with diplomacy could have resolved inflamed issues
  6. The continued investment in nuclear weapons

Indeed, elites have betrayed their contracts with citizens. Thankfully, all over the planet, people are mobilizing, protesting, and organizing against these merchants of death and their absolute (Easter Island-style) claims to resource depletion.


I wonder what he’s talking about. According to the Guardian’s list ( http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/mar/14/nuclear-power-plant-accidents-list-rank ) there haven’t been 5 events of any size, never mind things that could plausibly be characterised by the undefined but fear-inducing term “meltdown”, in the past 35 years.


Mairead claimed:

TJ says:
Well, now I understand why you failed physics. You can’t do math.

1 meltdown at TMI-II (the meltdown at Three Mile Island of which Gundersen testified to Congress over.)


1 meltdown at Chernobyl (which has turned to sponge and a billion dollar shield is being put over it.)


3 Three complete meltdowns at Fukushima Daichi (Tepco admitted no fuel was in the RPV’s).


Five Meltdowns in about the last 35 years (plus or minus a year).

Right, Mairead? Got it? It’s not fear-mongering, Mairead, it’s Simple Arithmetic.

But Nuclear Engineer and VP of fuel rack production Gundersen is way understating the meltdowns and dangerous FUBARS of that period. He only denoted the big ones. What about:

March 28, 1979 — INES Level 5 - Middletown, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, United States - Partial meltdown
Equipment failures and worker mistakes contributed to a loss of coolant and a partial core meltdown at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station 15 km (9 miles) southeast of Harrisburg. 2 Million people were exposed when the government’s own witness admitted that 10 percent of Ten million curries present escaped containment. The medical staff fled since all radiation readings inside and out were off-scale high.

March 13, 1980 - INES Level 4 - Orléans, France - Nuclear materials leak
A brief power excursion in Reactor A2 led to a rupture of fuel bundles and a release (8 x 1010 Bq) of nuclear materials at the Saint-Laurent Nuclear Power Plant. The reactor was repaired and continued operation until its decommissioning in 1992. [19]

March, 1981 — INES Level 2 - Tsuruga, Japan - Overexposure of workers
More than 100 workers were exposed to doses of up to 155 millirem per day radiation during repairs of a nuclear power plant, violating the company’s limit of 100 millirems (1 mSv) per day. [20]

September 23, 1983 — INES Level 4 - Buenos Aires, Argentina - Accidental criticality
An operator error during a fuel plate reconfiguration in an experimental test reactor led to an excursion of 3Ă—1017 fissions at the RA-2 facility. The operator absorbed 2000 rad (20 Gy) of gamma and 1700 rad (17 Gy) of neutron radiation which killed him two days later. Another 17 people outside of the reactor room absorbed doses ranging from 35 rad (0.35 Gy) to less than 1 rad (0.01 Gy).[21] pg103[22]

April 26, 1986 — INES Level 7 - Prypiat, Ukraine (then USSR) - Power excursion, explosion, complete meltdown
A mishandled reactor safety test led to an uncontrolled power excursion, causing a severe steam explosion, meltdown and release of radioactive material at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant located approximately 100 kilometers north-northwest of Kiev. Approximately fifty fatalities resulted from the accident and the immediate aftermath most of these being cleanup personnel. An additional nine fatal cases of thyroid cancer in children in the Chernobyl area have been attributed to the accident. The explosion and combustion of the graphite reactor core spread radioactive material over much of Europe. 100,000 people were evacuated from the areas immediately surrounding Chernobyl in addition to 300,000 from the areas of heavy fallout in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia. An “Exclusion Zone” was created surrounding the site encompassing approximately 1,000 mi² (3,000 km²) and deemed off-limits for human habitation for an indefinite period. Several studies by governments, UN agencies and environmental groups have estimated the consequences and eventual number of casualties. Russian reports in the New York Accademy of Science tally over 800,000 fatalities.
See also: Chernobyl disaster

May 4, 1986 – INES Level needed - Hamm-Uentrop, Germany (then West Germany) - Fuel damaged
A spherical fuel pebble became lodged in the pipe used to deliver fuel elements to the reactor at an experimental 300-megawatt THTR-300 HTGR. Attempts by an operator to dislodge the fuel pebble damaged its cladding, releasing radiation detectable up to two kilometers from the reactor. [23]

November 24, 1989 — INES Level needed - Greifswald, Germany (then East Germany) - Fuel damaged
Operators disabled three of six cooling pumps to test emergency shutoffs. Instead of the expected automatic shutdown a fourth pump failed causing excessive heating which damaged ten fuel rods. The accident was attributed to sticky relay contacts and generally poor construction in the Soviet-built reactor. [24]

April 6, 1993 — INES Level 4 - Tomsk, Russia - Explosion
A pressure buildup led to an explosive mechanical failure in a 34 cubic meter stainless steel reaction vessel buried in a concrete bunker under building 201 of the radiochemical works at the Tomsk-7 Siberian Chemical Enterprise plutonium reprocessing facility. The vessel contained a mixture of concentrated nitric acid, uranium (8757 kg), plutonium (449 g) along with a mixture of radioactive and organic waste from a prior extraction cycle. The explosion dislodged the concrete lid of the bunker and blew a large hole in the roof of the building, releasing approximately 6 GBq of Pu 239 and 30 TBq of various other radionuclides into the environment. The contamination plume extended 28 km NE of building 201, 20 km beyond the facility property. The small village of Georgievka (pop. 200) was at the end of the fallout plume, but no fatalities, illnesses or injuries were reported. The accident exposed 160 on-site workers and almost two thousand cleanup workers to total doses of up to 50 mSv (the threshold limit for radiation workers is 100 mSv per 5 years)[25]. [26] [27]

June, 1999 — INES Level needed - Ishikawa Prefecture, Japan - Control rod malfunction
Operators attempting to insert one control rod during an inspection neglected procedure and instead withdrew three causing a 15 minute uncontrolled sustained reaction at the number 1 reactor of Shika Nuclear Power Plant. The Hokuriku Electric Company who owned the reactor did not report this incident and falsified records, covering it up until March, 2007. [28]

September 30, 1999 — INES Level 4 - Ibaraki Prefecture, Japan - Accidental criticality
Workers put uranyl nitrate solution containing about 16.6 kg of uranium, which exceeded the critical mass, into a precipitation tank at a uranium reprocessing facility in Tokai-mura northeast of Tokyo, Japan. The tank was not designed to dissolve this type of solution and was not configured to prevent eventual criticality. Three workers were exposed to (neutron) radiation doses in excess of allowable limits. Two of these workers died. 116 other workers received lesser doses of 1 mSv or greater though not in excess of the allowable limit. [29] [30][31] [32]
See also: Tokaimura nuclear accident and 5 yen coin

April 10, 2003 — INES Level 3 - Paks, Hungary - Fuel damaged
Partially spent fuel rods undergoing cleaning in a tank of heavy water ruptured and spilled fuel pellets at Paks Nuclear Power Plant. It is suspected that inadequate cooling of the rods during the cleaning process combined with a sudden influx of cold water thermally shocked fuel rods causing them to split. Boric acid was added to the tank to prevent the loose fuel pellets from achieving criticality. Ammonia and hydrazine were also added to absorb iodine-131. [33], [34]

April 19, 2005 — INES Level 3 - Sellafield, England, United Kingdom - Nuclear material leak
Twenty metric tons of uranium and 160 kilograms of plutonium dissolved in 83,000 litres of nitric acid leaked over several months from a cracked pipe into a stainless steel sump chamber at the Thorp nuclear fuel reprocessing plant. The partially processed spent fuel was drained into holding tanks outside the plant. [35].

November 2005 — INES Level needed - Braidwood, Illinois, United States - Nuclear material leak
Tritium contamination of groundwater was discovered at Exelon’s Braidwood station.

March 6, 2006 — INES Level needed - Erwin, Tennessee, United States - Nuclear material leak
Thirty-five liters of a highly enriched uranium solution leaked during transfer into a lab at Nuclear Fuel Services Erwin Plant. The incident caused a seven-month shutdown and a required public hearing on the licensing of the plant.[36] [37]

Pages more if you want me to post them.



You repeatedly demonstrate so little basic technical understanding that your posts can be summarised as “because X says so” where X is your favored propagandist of the moment.

Gunderson could claim that because a Fukushima or other reactor suffered some core damage each day for a week that there’d been SEVEN MELTDOWNS. He’s smart enough not to try something quite that ridiculous, but you’d believe him if he did because you’ve neither the will nor the way to evaluate such claims.


No Mairead.

You failed physics in college because you are the one who lacks a scientific mind. All three meldowns at Fukushima were due to a defective GE Mark One Containment design and a site plant design.

So when all three that melted down at Fukushima couldn’t switch to their backup systems because the pressure inside the RPV was too great to allow make-up water and all three couldn’t vent hydrogen gas since the vents have to have AC power to open them and the generators were placed in the basements, IT COUNTS AS THREE MELTDOWNS. Unit One began melting down before the tsunami even showed up, since the terrible torus design fell apart during the 9.0 Earthquake that it was not designed to handle.

But you don’t know what a torus does, do you? You just failed power-plant 101.

It’s amazing you even passed head-shrinking!

Engineer, my arse!