[ RadSafe ] RadSafe Digest, Vol 919, Issue 1

Thompson, Dewey L DThompson3 at ameren.com
Tue Mar 20 11:35:51 CDT 2012


Well.  I agree with proviso.  I certainly have no problem with the concept of "Tsunami = Bad Juju", particularly for nuclear power plants.  

On the other hand, I suspect most of us had no clue that many of the supporting systems at the Fukushima installation were not constructed to be within a watertight area, nor that the nuclear regulatory function acted as it did.  

We in Radsafe (well, anyone working within the industry as well) certainly have a responsibility to identify safety issues that we perceive, and we have the responsibility to ensure the decision makers have the necessary facts and understanding necessary to make informed decisions.  

I wonder if ANYONE on Radsafe could have understood the particular risk issues at Fukushima prior to the accident.  

I wonder if there were any people within the Japanese organizations that had perceived these risks and communicated them to their higher ups?  If so, were the voices heard?  

THAT may well be the most telling lesson of Fukushima.


PS.  Clayton.  Methinks your examples point more to the risks of regulators being too cozy than to the "western perception of regulatory theory".  


: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 
Staff HP
Radiation Protection Department
T 314.225.1061
F 573.676.4484
E DThompson3 at ameren.com

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Jeff Terry
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 1:04 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] RadSafe Digest, Vol 919, Issue 1

I complete agree that the Fukushima incident was foreseeable. However, RadSafe missed the boat on that one, too. Searching the archives one year ago brought up posts on tsunamis going back as far as 2001. In fact, many were dismissive of the threat. 

One can search the archives and find numerous discussions on tsunamis, planes crashing into reactors, waste train crashes, terrorists, etc. How often do we look at these and offer recommendations. How often do we check on what ideas were proposed and see if any were implemented. 

Is it our responsibility to do this? I think that a lesson learned from Fukushima is that we are responsible for bringing these concerns forward and making sure that if credible that they are dealt with. 


Jeff Terry
Assoc. Professor of Physics
Life Science Bldg Rm 166
Illinois Institute of Technology
3101 S. Dearborn St. 
Chicago IL 60616
terryj at iit.edu

The information contained in this message may be privileged and/or confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Note that any views or opinions presented in this message are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Ameren. All e-mails are subject to monitoring and archival. Finally, the recipient should check this message and any attachments for the presence of viruses. Ameren accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. If you have received this in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to the message and deleting the material from any computer. Ameren Corporation

More information about the RadSafe mailing list