What do you think?
Rate this book
Fukushima: The Story of a Nuclear Disaster
On March 11, 2011, an earthquake large enough to knock the earth from its axis sent a massive tsunami speeding toward the Japanese coast and the aging and vulnerable Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power reactors. Over the following weeks, the world watched in horror as a natural disaster became a man-made fail-safes failed, cooling systems shut down, nuclear rods melted.
In the first definitive account of the Fukushima disaster, two leading experts from the Union of Concerned Scientists, David Lochbaum and Edwin Lyman, team up with journalist Susan Q. Stranahan, the lead reporter of the Philadelphia Inquirer 's Pulitzer Prize-winning coverage of the Three Mile Island accident, to tell this harrowing story. Fukushima combines a fast-paced, riveting account of the tsunami and the nuclear emergency it created with an explanation of the science and technology behind the meltdown as it unfolded in real time. Bolstered by photographs, explanatory diagrams, and a comprehensive glossary, the narrative also extends to other severe nuclear accidents to address both the terrifying question of whether it could happen elsewhere and how such a crisis can be averted in the future.
In the first definitive account of the Fukushima disaster, two leading experts from the Union of Concerned Scientists, David Lochbaum and Edwin Lyman, team up with journalist Susan Q. Stranahan, the lead reporter of the Philadelphia Inquirer 's Pulitzer Prize-winning coverage of the Three Mile Island accident, to tell this harrowing story. Fukushima combines a fast-paced, riveting account of the tsunami and the nuclear emergency it created with an explanation of the science and technology behind the meltdown as it unfolded in real time. Bolstered by photographs, explanatory diagrams, and a comprehensive glossary, the narrative also extends to other severe nuclear accidents to address both the terrifying question of whether it could happen elsewhere and how such a crisis can be averted in the future.
320 pages, Hardcover
First published November 5, 2013
111 people are currently reading
1312 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 100 reviews
June 7, 2018
This book suffers from a split personality. The first half is an engaging, well-researched account of what initially happened at Fukushima. Nearly a blow by blow description. Its a a detailed analysis of the events, from the earthquake to the tsunami and how things went wrong so badly.
The weakness of the book, starting in chap. 9, is the extrapolation from Fukushima to US nuclear reactors. The book has extensive coverage of the discussions and policies of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission related to both Fukushima and US reactor safety in general. They rehash Three Mile Island as if it were nearly the same as Fukushima, which it was not. Sadly, the last chapters were filled with bias against nuclear energy, effectively breaking the nice neutral tone that the first half of the book possessed.
The weakness of the book, starting in chap. 9, is the extrapolation from Fukushima to US nuclear reactors. The book has extensive coverage of the discussions and policies of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission related to both Fukushima and US reactor safety in general. They rehash Three Mile Island as if it were nearly the same as Fukushima, which it was not. Sadly, the last chapters were filled with bias against nuclear energy, effectively breaking the nice neutral tone that the first half of the book possessed.
January 27, 2019
The Book-list review says that this book is "Thriller-like". It isn't. The first 20% of the book which recounts the facts of the story certainly holds one's attention, but the book is published by the Union of Concerned Scientists and it has an ax to grind with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, who get worked over pretty well here. As a member of the UCS, I must say that I support their view point, it just can be a little dull. There is extensive detailed description of various committee meetings and there is considerable repetition. Most times that the NRC's RASCAL model is mentioned, it is also stated that it was only good to 50 miles out. By the middle of the book, I felt that I could pose as a RASCAL model expert; if anyone mentioned it, I would say, "please!..everyone knows that it is only good to 50 miles".
July 12, 2021
Very detailed description of the nuclear disaster in Fukushima in 2011. Not the best telling of a nuclear disaster I read, but interesting enough. The book starts off really well, but the second half is mainly politics around nuclear disasters and that has to have your interest in order to like this. It compares the reactor in Fukushima to reactors in the United States, but I was curious about reactors everywhere in the world. I hoped for more personal stories myself, but I was intrigued none the less.
Read
May 25, 2019Too obvious a political agenda. I'd much rather have the facts and make up my own mind. When the agenda is obvious it makes me wonder if I'm actually getting all the facts.
March 7, 2014
This book started off promisingly, but faded halfway through. The early days of the response to Fukushima were described vividly, but then seemingly were forgotten as the focus changes to the worldwide regulatory response (nothing wrong with that, but I was pretty absorbed in the work of the crews at the plant). It's worth reading, but I was disappointed at the change in emphasis and the lack of attention paid to the local population and their reactions.
July 30, 2018
Not so much about the earthquake - tsunami - human experience, instead about governmental, regulatory, and communication failures. The book was organized confusingly - when incidents at Fukushima occurred and in what sequence, governmental bickering, then Three Mile Island, then US nuclear regulatory assessments and risk studies, back to the fall of 2011 in Japan. The human experience embedded here and there but pretty much a non-issue. I hoped for better.
November 4, 2015
"Fukushima: The Story of a Nuclear Disaster" is just that. The 9.0 Tohoku earthquake off the coast of Honshu Island, the main island of Japan occurred on 11 March 2011 at about 5:30am local time. The earthquake lasted some 6 minutes on the land closest to the earthquake and the tsunami, created by the quake, arrived some 50 minutes after the initial earthquake. The tsunami, 14 metres (46 ft) high overwhelmed the plant's seawall, which was only 10 metres (33 ft) high. The tsunami water flooded the low-lying rooms in which the emergency diesel generators were housed. They began to fail soon after and were replaced by emergency battery-powered systems. When the batteries ran out the next day on 12 March, active cooling systems stopped, and the reactors began to heat up. The power failure also meant that many of the reactor control instruments also failed. With no power and no way to cool the housing around the reactors, they produced hydrogen which concentrated with the air and caused multiple hydrogen-air explosions in Reactors 1,2 and 3 from 12 March to 15 March. When the hydrogen had to be evacuated from the reactor pressure vessel, explosions occurred in the upper secondary containment building in all three reactors. Therefore there were meltdowns of the fuel rods in Reactors 1, 2 and 3 and the top to floors of Reactor 4 were reduced to bare frames from another hydrogen-air explosion.The meltdowns of Reactors 1, 2 and 3 in the previous sentence were not in that order and were not nearly as simple as making a sentence. Unit 1 was the first priority of the management at Fukushima-Daichi, when the diesel generators being in the basement and underwater from the tsunami stopped operating, The battery backup kicked in and kept electricity available to most of the plants site. But only for a couple of hours and the battery backup power dwindled to zero. The management at Plant Fukushima was now on its own to keep further destruction from occurring. The systems operations manual on restoring power after a failure of this type had ended when the power of the battery backups ended. The plant manager at Fukushima was Masao Yoshida, who thought the first explosion in Reactor 1 was another strong aftershock, then came the news that the top of the Unit 1 reactor building had blown off- this was still within the outer containment dome. a check of the water level around Unit 1 showed that it was about 5 feet below the top of the fuel. The melting of the fue had started about twenty hours previously. They had received three strikes on the first batter and there was one out. Now batter number two swung and missed- the emergency response center had been working for hours to lay an insulated cable on the ground and were within minutes of connecting the cable to restore power to units 1 and 2. Falling debris from the explosion had damaged that cable and also damaged the firehoses that the workers had put in pplace to inject sea water into Unit 1. The government operations response to the disaster was now at the prime ministers level. They were having trouble keeping the media and therefore the country aware of the continuing story.
The Authors of Fukushima, the book, are the three named authors Lockbaum, Lyman, and Stranahan and the Union of Concerned Scientists. These scientists have a good knowledge of the workings of a nuclear power plant and they have a theoretical knowledge of how the metals and other chemicals react to produce nuclear energy generation along with the knowledge of which elements create the deaddly radiation that is normally contained in the reactor itself. Ground was broken for the first nuclear reactor at Fukushima in July, 1967 will General Electric as the supplier and main contractor. TEPCO (Tokyo Electric Power Company) was the owner of the generation at this site and the largest supplier of electricity in Japan. They would choose GE to build the other five nuclear reactors at Fukushima-Daiichi and two of the four at Fukushima-Daini. There are two main types of nuclear reactors for generating electricity- they are the Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) and the Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR). The plants were to become a financial bonanza for the local communities and cities around these plants because they supplied the greater majority of the taxes these cities and towns used to operate. They also provided more than enough laborers to create full employment in the areas. There is a massive system of fault lines criss-crossing the islands of Japan and make it the country with the most earthquakes. the designers of the power plants had to make them extra strong to survive in tact from the very strongest earthquakes. But the companies who had the plants designed seemed to take the mostly likely strongest earthquakes and not the uniquely strongest earthquakes. In the Japanese language this often meant 90-95 percent of the strongest earthquake. The government officers who regulated the power companies and therefore regulated their nuclear power plants appeared to have a good cooperative working relationship with the power company officers and designers. It was much like the U.S. Congress and the private companies and individuals who befriend congressmen and give aid and advice for creating the laws Congress makes. With the Japanese these close working relationships seemed to sometimes bend the rules so that a plant construction project could come into fruition for a few dollars less. The story grows more unpredictable as the disaster moves from bad to worse, and the safety systems with backups for the backups failed like dominoes in a row.
The evacuation zone around Fukushima-Daiichi and Fukushima-Diani was now a ten mile semicircle around both plants and people in those areas were relocated. Seven or eight days into the disaster, relations between Japan and the U.S. tightened up again when the NRC was wanting the evacation extended from twenty kilometers to thirty kilometers. The U.S. reasoning was that Uniit 4 Reactor at Fukushima-Daiichi was still not under complete control and could still infuse radioactive material into the atmosphere and be blown over a wider area while Japan said that was highly unlikely and the increase in the largeer ara would add more unsettlement to the Japanese public. The results of this disaster are still in active study four years after the disaster has been contained to the ground area of Fukushima-Daiichi and a contaminated area around the plant. There is no measureable radioactivity coming from the plant site. The government and TEPCO received great criticism for not building the plannts more robust, for not building the 10 meter seawall to 15 meters and placing the diesel generators in the basement. The government of Japan and Tepco say on the other hand that no one could project an earthquake of magnitude 9.0 Mw {1} and a tsumami 50 feet high at the Fukushia Daiichi location and that these two events were the cause of the disaster at that location. These discussions will continue until a such time as they are no longer relevant to either party or until the next large nuclear power disaster occurs. There were several other reviews of this book which I read before finishing this book and a common objection in most of those reviews the writers thought the first part of the book which deals with the actual earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear meltdowns were well written and interesting but that the latter half discussed the various agencies, their reason-to-be and their opinions were too esoteric to be included in this book and signified a black mark on the story. I disagree with that theory.
"On 10 March 2015, a Japanese National Police Agency report confirmed 15,891 deaths, 6,152 injured, and 2,584 people missing across twenty prefectures, as well as 228,863 people living away from their home in either temporary housing or due to permanent relocation."{2}
{1} The moment magnitude scale for measuring earthquakes
{2} From Wikipedia, the free enclopedia- article-'2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami'
The Authors of Fukushima, the book, are the three named authors Lockbaum, Lyman, and Stranahan and the Union of Concerned Scientists. These scientists have a good knowledge of the workings of a nuclear power plant and they have a theoretical knowledge of how the metals and other chemicals react to produce nuclear energy generation along with the knowledge of which elements create the deaddly radiation that is normally contained in the reactor itself. Ground was broken for the first nuclear reactor at Fukushima in July, 1967 will General Electric as the supplier and main contractor. TEPCO (Tokyo Electric Power Company) was the owner of the generation at this site and the largest supplier of electricity in Japan. They would choose GE to build the other five nuclear reactors at Fukushima-Daiichi and two of the four at Fukushima-Daini. There are two main types of nuclear reactors for generating electricity- they are the Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) and the Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR). The plants were to become a financial bonanza for the local communities and cities around these plants because they supplied the greater majority of the taxes these cities and towns used to operate. They also provided more than enough laborers to create full employment in the areas. There is a massive system of fault lines criss-crossing the islands of Japan and make it the country with the most earthquakes. the designers of the power plants had to make them extra strong to survive in tact from the very strongest earthquakes. But the companies who had the plants designed seemed to take the mostly likely strongest earthquakes and not the uniquely strongest earthquakes. In the Japanese language this often meant 90-95 percent of the strongest earthquake. The government officers who regulated the power companies and therefore regulated their nuclear power plants appeared to have a good cooperative working relationship with the power company officers and designers. It was much like the U.S. Congress and the private companies and individuals who befriend congressmen and give aid and advice for creating the laws Congress makes. With the Japanese these close working relationships seemed to sometimes bend the rules so that a plant construction project could come into fruition for a few dollars less. The story grows more unpredictable as the disaster moves from bad to worse, and the safety systems with backups for the backups failed like dominoes in a row.
The evacuation zone around Fukushima-Daiichi and Fukushima-Diani was now a ten mile semicircle around both plants and people in those areas were relocated. Seven or eight days into the disaster, relations between Japan and the U.S. tightened up again when the NRC was wanting the evacation extended from twenty kilometers to thirty kilometers. The U.S. reasoning was that Uniit 4 Reactor at Fukushima-Daiichi was still not under complete control and could still infuse radioactive material into the atmosphere and be blown over a wider area while Japan said that was highly unlikely and the increase in the largeer ara would add more unsettlement to the Japanese public. The results of this disaster are still in active study four years after the disaster has been contained to the ground area of Fukushima-Daiichi and a contaminated area around the plant. There is no measureable radioactivity coming from the plant site. The government and TEPCO received great criticism for not building the plannts more robust, for not building the 10 meter seawall to 15 meters and placing the diesel generators in the basement. The government of Japan and Tepco say on the other hand that no one could project an earthquake of magnitude 9.0 Mw {1} and a tsumami 50 feet high at the Fukushia Daiichi location and that these two events were the cause of the disaster at that location. These discussions will continue until a such time as they are no longer relevant to either party or until the next large nuclear power disaster occurs. There were several other reviews of this book which I read before finishing this book and a common objection in most of those reviews the writers thought the first part of the book which deals with the actual earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear meltdowns were well written and interesting but that the latter half discussed the various agencies, their reason-to-be and their opinions were too esoteric to be included in this book and signified a black mark on the story. I disagree with that theory.
"On 10 March 2015, a Japanese National Police Agency report confirmed 15,891 deaths, 6,152 injured, and 2,584 people missing across twenty prefectures, as well as 228,863 people living away from their home in either temporary housing or due to permanent relocation."{2}
{1} The moment magnitude scale for measuring earthquakes
{2} From Wikipedia, the free enclopedia- article-'2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami'
February 27, 2014
A wonderful and essential read for anybody with any level of interest in the future of nuclear power in the U.S. energy cocktail.
I should probably preface the rest of this review by pointing out that this book is not really about the 2011 disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. The first half of the book does go into the Fukushima accident in great detail, but it is subsequently used as a frame to examine the U.S. regulatory framework. So if you're looking for narrative journalism, this is not your book.
The view from 10,000 feet conveyed in this book is that the convoluted regulatory framework surrounding nuclear energy in the United States is not just dysfunctional, it's potentially dangerous. On a number of levels.
It's not enough that the NRC maintains a too-cosy relationship with the industry its supposed to regulate — that would be an easy criticism to make and an easy book to write. The problem is that nearly all of the NRC's underlying assumptions are suspect and nearly impossible to change with the nuclear industry pushing back.
The NRC does not factor in accidents that go beyond plants' design-basis, their models are limited by single-reactor accidents, best-case scenarios, and magical response times from state and federal authorities. The limits of these models, which are used to justify the regulatory framework, were exposed as utter fraud by the realities the Fukushima accident.
It's hard to even be angry about the failure of imagination on the part of regulators — their hands seem tied in many ways. It just leaves one frustrated and confused ... and leery about living downwind from a nuclear plant.
The book is impeccably researched and clearly written. I'd be interested to hear someone's argument that it casts the NRC and the nuclear industry in an unfairly negative light, because I don't see a lot of flaws in either their timeline or the conclusion.
I'll be digesting this book for some time.
I should probably preface the rest of this review by pointing out that this book is not really about the 2011 disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. The first half of the book does go into the Fukushima accident in great detail, but it is subsequently used as a frame to examine the U.S. regulatory framework. So if you're looking for narrative journalism, this is not your book.
The view from 10,000 feet conveyed in this book is that the convoluted regulatory framework surrounding nuclear energy in the United States is not just dysfunctional, it's potentially dangerous. On a number of levels.
It's not enough that the NRC maintains a too-cosy relationship with the industry its supposed to regulate — that would be an easy criticism to make and an easy book to write. The problem is that nearly all of the NRC's underlying assumptions are suspect and nearly impossible to change with the nuclear industry pushing back.
The NRC does not factor in accidents that go beyond plants' design-basis, their models are limited by single-reactor accidents, best-case scenarios, and magical response times from state and federal authorities. The limits of these models, which are used to justify the regulatory framework, were exposed as utter fraud by the realities the Fukushima accident.
It's hard to even be angry about the failure of imagination on the part of regulators — their hands seem tied in many ways. It just leaves one frustrated and confused ... and leery about living downwind from a nuclear plant.
The book is impeccably researched and clearly written. I'd be interested to hear someone's argument that it casts the NRC and the nuclear industry in an unfairly negative light, because I don't see a lot of flaws in either their timeline or the conclusion.
I'll be digesting this book for some time.
August 9, 2019
I expected more about the events at Fukushima and less soap boxing on the negatives and risks of nuclear power. While I recognize there are definitely down sides, the authors of this book spent far too much time trying to expose them without presenting any better solutions. Would they like us to burn more coal or natural gas to meet the world's power demands? Coal burning releases more radioactivity into the air than operating a nuclear reactor. It's also killed 400 times more power works and is responsible for 1000 times more disease and health problems in the nearby population. There are definitely steps we should take to prevent future accidents, but for my taste and for what I expected from this book it was just far too much soap box and not enough of the story. They should rethink the title.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/903/coa...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/903/coa...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...
April 11, 2022
More of an anti-nuke polemic than a decent explanation of what happened. If there was some detail of Fukushima's current condition or of the ultimate effects of radiation releases, then I missed it amid all the blah blah blah.
If you really want to UNDERSTAND what happens and what goes wrong with nuclear reactors, you can't beat James Mahaffey books.
If you really want to UNDERSTAND what happens and what goes wrong with nuclear reactors, you can't beat James Mahaffey books.
March 5, 2020
Under most circumstances, I would have given this book one star with a strong complaint about bait and switch. They say you can't judge a book by its cover? Well here is exhibit A!!! This is nit the story of the nuclear meltdown at Fukushima. It is not a compelling or thorough account of the triple disasters either. Nothing printed on the cover is accurate.
This is a brief account of what happened at the reactors that is presented as a case example for the very real and serious problems in the nuclear regulatory community.
The book is very important and I wonder why they couldn't honestly present it for what it is. An expose of what is very failed nuclear regulation.
I had no idea that the US built the reactors (GE). I suppose I knew in the back of my mind, as I recall the French doing a hard sale for their reactors after the disasters, claiming them to be much safer--which might be true. So, they were US built. The nuclear regulatory community seems also to be under US hegemony. And this book opens it all up. And what an ugly story.
Going back to Reagan's day of pushing cost-benefit analysis in all industries, such that human life was calculated at $1 million per person and based on risk assessment, if the costs of performing certain procedures or installing certain systems outweighed the projected loss of life, then it wasn't done. The nuclear industry was not legally bound by these regulatory principles, in fact, they were never supposed to be under this kind of regulation based on very faulty and crude and money-based cost-benefit analysis but the book documents the way they infused the regulatory community.
Such that, beyond-design failures and extremely statistically rare catastrophic events were not taken seriously.
It would be like if you used the same analysis on air travel. We all know it is statistically unlikely there will be a crash, so you simply don't incur costs on those items deemed to be least likely to happen based on a calculation of what human life per person is worth?
Is it any wonder the people have totally turned against nuclear power?
For me, what is so sad about this book is that because of the failures of the US-led community regulation was absolutely lacking--and it still is. The same can be said for nuclear weapons. The public hates them so everything is brushed under the rug--
This has resulted in a very dangerous situation.
And because of this complete lack of public support not only are we not going forward with building new and safer and smaller nuclear reactors but worse we are not even properly maintaining with the nuclear reactors that are in existence (including reactors near dams, as well as those at risks of tsunami events).
This is a brief account of what happened at the reactors that is presented as a case example for the very real and serious problems in the nuclear regulatory community.
The book is very important and I wonder why they couldn't honestly present it for what it is. An expose of what is very failed nuclear regulation.
I had no idea that the US built the reactors (GE). I suppose I knew in the back of my mind, as I recall the French doing a hard sale for their reactors after the disasters, claiming them to be much safer--which might be true. So, they were US built. The nuclear regulatory community seems also to be under US hegemony. And this book opens it all up. And what an ugly story.
Going back to Reagan's day of pushing cost-benefit analysis in all industries, such that human life was calculated at $1 million per person and based on risk assessment, if the costs of performing certain procedures or installing certain systems outweighed the projected loss of life, then it wasn't done. The nuclear industry was not legally bound by these regulatory principles, in fact, they were never supposed to be under this kind of regulation based on very faulty and crude and money-based cost-benefit analysis but the book documents the way they infused the regulatory community.
Such that, beyond-design failures and extremely statistically rare catastrophic events were not taken seriously.
It would be like if you used the same analysis on air travel. We all know it is statistically unlikely there will be a crash, so you simply don't incur costs on those items deemed to be least likely to happen based on a calculation of what human life per person is worth?
Is it any wonder the people have totally turned against nuclear power?
For me, what is so sad about this book is that because of the failures of the US-led community regulation was absolutely lacking--and it still is. The same can be said for nuclear weapons. The public hates them so everything is brushed under the rug--
This has resulted in a very dangerous situation.
And because of this complete lack of public support not only are we not going forward with building new and safer and smaller nuclear reactors but worse we are not even properly maintaining with the nuclear reactors that are in existence (including reactors near dams, as well as those at risks of tsunami events).
March 2, 2020
Ego. Incompetence. Fear. I am beginning to see a pattern with how these plants are run. Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and dozens of others (not kidding: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear...) have made me more willing to step to the line when it comes to protesting these bombs. Regulatory oversight is atrocious, the leadership is incompetent, and the politics around the communication and information provided to the general public is always a joke.
True story: The US Navy offered to send several heavy-duty (military grade) fire trucks to the scene of the Daiichi plant but the TEPCO (the plant managers) declined stating "the trucks are not licensed or tagged in Japan and cannot be driven on our roads." WHO CARES?
True story: The US Navy offered to send several heavy-duty (military grade) fire trucks to the scene of the Daiichi plant but the TEPCO (the plant managers) declined stating "the trucks are not licensed or tagged in Japan and cannot be driven on our roads." WHO CARES?
January 21, 2019
As others have said, the first part of the book is engaging, going into the details of the accident and responses to it. Then it gets quite boring, becoming a ramble about the politics of United States nuclear regulatory bodies. Not being from the US or having a scientific or bureaucratic level of interest in nuclear power generation I reached the point where I was no longer absorbing the words being read (audiobook) and it was just background noise. Therefore I quit 80% of the way through, my time better spent on books I will absorb and enjoy.
February 24, 2026
"Fukushima: The Story of a Nuclear Disaster" is an informative book narrating the events after an earthquake and subsequent tsunami in Japan affecting the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. The first part of the book narrates this tragic accident, while the second part makes a comparison between Japan and the United States in part, because experts from the USA travelled to Japan to help with containment and on advisory basis. Contrary to some readers opinion (from other reviewers), this book is not against nuclear energy. It is against SELF-REGULATION. The fact that the regulators are also hard advocates for nuclear energy and that safety measures ARE NOT PROPERLY DEFINED, that is a problem! Just to quote: "Fukushima and other nuclear plants are not houses of cards waiting for the first gust of wind or ground tremor to collapse. They are generally robust facilities that require many things to go wrong before disaster occurs. Over the years, many things have, mostly without serious consequences."
What common people do not understand is the cost of closing a nuclear plant. Many of the savings during the operation (which make nuclear plants look as "free" energy) are spent during the hundreds of years during which the spent nuclear fuel has to be safely stored and maintained (which is very expensive).
The price tag of the Fukushima accident was about $317 Billion dollars.
This story is also a reminder that there are many individual interests embedded into this equation. Politicians (in all countries) are aggressively lobbied by private energy producers and equipment manufacturers to slightly bend the rules or look away, when the safety of nuclear plants and current standards come to question. As an example, taken from this book is the following: "On March 14, the government [Japanese Government] agreed to raise the maximum allowable radiation dose for workers in an emergency from ten rem per year to twenty-five rem per year. The decision, announced the following day, was based, in part, on fear that soon everyone at Fukushima Daiichi might exceed the existing exposure limit and thus be required to leave."
I work on the Chemical industry, and I would never expect the EPA, OSHA, or a similar agency to raise the Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) Upper Exposure Limits (UEL) just because is convenient to them.... without any studies or proper scientific reasons.
Nuclear energy by itself is safe. The problem is with self-regulation, obsolete equipment, and lack of adequate protections when things don't go as expected.
What common people do not understand is the cost of closing a nuclear plant. Many of the savings during the operation (which make nuclear plants look as "free" energy) are spent during the hundreds of years during which the spent nuclear fuel has to be safely stored and maintained (which is very expensive).
The price tag of the Fukushima accident was about $317 Billion dollars.
This story is also a reminder that there are many individual interests embedded into this equation. Politicians (in all countries) are aggressively lobbied by private energy producers and equipment manufacturers to slightly bend the rules or look away, when the safety of nuclear plants and current standards come to question. As an example, taken from this book is the following: "On March 14, the government [Japanese Government] agreed to raise the maximum allowable radiation dose for workers in an emergency from ten rem per year to twenty-five rem per year. The decision, announced the following day, was based, in part, on fear that soon everyone at Fukushima Daiichi might exceed the existing exposure limit and thus be required to leave."
I work on the Chemical industry, and I would never expect the EPA, OSHA, or a similar agency to raise the Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) Upper Exposure Limits (UEL) just because is convenient to them.... without any studies or proper scientific reasons.
Nuclear energy by itself is safe. The problem is with self-regulation, obsolete equipment, and lack of adequate protections when things don't go as expected.
October 14, 2019
This book is not actually about Fukushima, and I think that's its biggest issue. Though the first half of the book does provide detailed accounts of what was occurring at the Fukushima plant, highlighting issues faced both internally and politically, it does not provide much context. The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster did not occur within a bubble, so the pointed lack of information provided in regards to how the disaster had otherwise impacted the country was odd. For example, multiple complaints were made about the poor communication that was occurring, but no mention was given to explain if this was partially because of a lack of electricity. There was mention of difficulty obtaining materials, but no discussion about how hard it was to get items from Point A to Point B due to road damage. This made the first portion of the book feel as if it was critiquing without understanding.
As the book progresses we get to what the authors actually wanted to write about, which was the insufficiency of nuclear regulators. Though I actually agree with several complaints made in this section, it was not the book that I signed up to read. I may have been able to overlook this, though, if the text had felt more researched and less like a teenager throwing a tantrum. Instead, blanket statements were made, with very little supporting research provided. Even in instances where a quote would have sufficed (such as the multiple times the authors state that public confidence was lost), no effort was put forth to obtain this. Again, context was left out of most arguments made, and many of the complaints just felt like the authors had never been employed in a mature workplace (odd, given the authors of the text). At one point, they complained that a conference call yielded ideas that further research proved to be irrelevant....the point of a conference call is to discuss potential concerns, and then research them elsewhere to determine if they are legitimate issues, so this seemed like an odd complaint to make.
Overall, this was a partially well-researched book (they were very aware of regulatory limitations) but not a well-presented one. Due to its stated biases, it felt like we were only given half a story (which we were), and had me questioning what parts of the story were left out in favor of partisan reporting.
As the book progresses we get to what the authors actually wanted to write about, which was the insufficiency of nuclear regulators. Though I actually agree with several complaints made in this section, it was not the book that I signed up to read. I may have been able to overlook this, though, if the text had felt more researched and less like a teenager throwing a tantrum. Instead, blanket statements were made, with very little supporting research provided. Even in instances where a quote would have sufficed (such as the multiple times the authors state that public confidence was lost), no effort was put forth to obtain this. Again, context was left out of most arguments made, and many of the complaints just felt like the authors had never been employed in a mature workplace (odd, given the authors of the text). At one point, they complained that a conference call yielded ideas that further research proved to be irrelevant....the point of a conference call is to discuss potential concerns, and then research them elsewhere to determine if they are legitimate issues, so this seemed like an odd complaint to make.
Overall, this was a partially well-researched book (they were very aware of regulatory limitations) but not a well-presented one. Due to its stated biases, it felt like we were only given half a story (which we were), and had me questioning what parts of the story were left out in favor of partisan reporting.
June 21, 2019
Should be titled: "Fukushima and the International Nuclear Industry: The history of nuclear regulations"
This book had good content, though it was significantly different in focus from what the dust-cover describes, and clearly motivated by a desire to reach a specific conclusion. This is definitely the Union of Concerned Scientists' persuasive essay on the topic of nuclear regulation, with Fukushima tacked on as a particularly compelling example- in addition to half a decade of regulatory history.
I found the consistent need to impugn the nuclear industry at the end of every other paragraph tedious, as if the author felt the description of the horrific disaster they were ostensibly relating was insufficient to do the job?
I was expecting a book similar to Andrew Leatherbarrow's frank and brutally simple book Chernobyl 01:23:40. This was not that.
I enjoyed learning more about the history of nuclear regulation, and appreciated the desire the UCS has for a more effective NRC, but I had a harder time appreciating both the content the the message due to the pervasive bias.
This book had good content, though it was significantly different in focus from what the dust-cover describes, and clearly motivated by a desire to reach a specific conclusion. This is definitely the Union of Concerned Scientists' persuasive essay on the topic of nuclear regulation, with Fukushima tacked on as a particularly compelling example- in addition to half a decade of regulatory history.
I found the consistent need to impugn the nuclear industry at the end of every other paragraph tedious, as if the author felt the description of the horrific disaster they were ostensibly relating was insufficient to do the job?
I was expecting a book similar to Andrew Leatherbarrow's frank and brutally simple book Chernobyl 01:23:40. This was not that.
I enjoyed learning more about the history of nuclear regulation, and appreciated the desire the UCS has for a more effective NRC, but I had a harder time appreciating both the content the the message due to the pervasive bias.
March 14, 2017
I feel the majority of people don't realise how close the events at Fukushima were to an extreme disaster. Based on my memory of the news coverage at the time, the reporting felt 'things aren't great but everything is under control, don't worry'. That wasn't really the case. This was a very thorough analysis of the incident at Fukushima and the neighbouring plant. It detailed the events leading up to the Level 7 accident and issues as they developed. There was a quite extensive look at the ongoing clean up of the site and the evacuated area including problems of storage of contaminated material. There was also an overview of the history of nuclear safety in Japan and other nuclear power sites which was particularly interesting as it discussed they ways in which hazard data is 'spun' to appear less damaging. Overall a good read, especially is you are interested in nuclear accidents.
February 11, 2018
Wow! I had no idea that Japanese can be so corrupted, irresponsible and insubordinate ... a huge moral leap backwards from the honorable Samurais to the heads of greedy companies in the corporate world, leaders and politicians disconcerted about public safety.
Covering the truth, hiding important details, delaying information and making wrong decisions. A domino reaction of mistakes that led to a nuclear disaster on the same scale as Chernobyl. It cause environmental disaster and human loss that could’ve been easily avoided if people were not that shortsighted and if there was an honest and timely flow of information.
Technology is a blessing and a curse at the same time ... there are no boundaries that nature couldn’t break ...
Statement “It will take many more tragedies and many more victims to make the public safe from nuclear power disaster” is beyond disturbing
August 3, 2023
A more appropriate title might be “Fukushima, an American perspective “
“It was what U.S. reactor operators call a “vanilla scram”—a shutdown done by the book.”
Why is this relevant? The author spares no expense to involve the US or reference them constantly in a book about Japan?
“At 3:27 p.m., forty-one minutes after the earthquake began, the first tsunami wave hit the seawall extending outward from the Fukushima Daiichi plant. The wave, thirteen feet high, was easily deflected; the wall had been built to withstand water almost thirty-three feet (ten meters) high.”
Exactly three countries use the old feet and inches system. How about some consistency for the vast majority who don’t use it? Sometimes we see feet and meters, sometimes we don’t .
Japan uses meters, this book is about an accident which took place in Japan?.
“It was what U.S. reactor operators call a “vanilla scram”—a shutdown done by the book.”
Why is this relevant? The author spares no expense to involve the US or reference them constantly in a book about Japan?
“At 3:27 p.m., forty-one minutes after the earthquake began, the first tsunami wave hit the seawall extending outward from the Fukushima Daiichi plant. The wave, thirteen feet high, was easily deflected; the wall had been built to withstand water almost thirty-three feet (ten meters) high.”
Exactly three countries use the old feet and inches system. How about some consistency for the vast majority who don’t use it? Sometimes we see feet and meters, sometimes we don’t .
Japan uses meters, this book is about an accident which took place in Japan?.
January 21, 2025
This is not in fact a book about Fukushima. This is a story about how Fukushima affected the United States, how the United States responded to it, and how the United States viewed it. As far as I can tell, the only Japanese sources used at all are news reports. And in fact, we don't really get much of a breakdown of what actually happened at the plant itself. What we get, are press releases and the public opinions. We hear far more about what politicians have to say about this than we hear from individual scientists. And we never hear from anybody who was actually inside the plant or first-hand accounts of the areas around it.
Interesting for its own purposes. But it is NOT the story of what happened at Fukushima. And it is absolutely not a story about Japan or the Japanese response to this. This is entirely about the United States.
Interesting for its own purposes. But it is NOT the story of what happened at Fukushima. And it is absolutely not a story about Japan or the Japanese response to this. This is entirely about the United States.
April 2, 2021
Half about Fukushima and half about the short-comings regarding nuclear regulatory in the United States. When focused on the story of the Fukushima and the preceding natural disasters the book was solid.
But the title of the book makes no mention of the authors' clear intentions of challenging U.S. nuclear regulatory policy. While their positions certainly appear strong, this is not what the book's title even hints at. The title was merely an appealing tease to draw a reader's interest, lure them into the book, and then apply a bit of bait-and-switch on the true topic.
For a non-fiction book such as this, the title communicates the topic. Only half the book did so, and thus, a review of the book merits only two stars.
But the title of the book makes no mention of the authors' clear intentions of challenging U.S. nuclear regulatory policy. While their positions certainly appear strong, this is not what the book's title even hints at. The title was merely an appealing tease to draw a reader's interest, lure them into the book, and then apply a bit of bait-and-switch on the true topic.
For a non-fiction book such as this, the title communicates the topic. Only half the book did so, and thus, a review of the book merits only two stars.
March 31, 2020
I should have checked before getting the book and noticing that it was written by the Union of Concerned Scientists. Not necessarily anything wrong with that but they definitely have a bias. The first half to first two-thirds was mostly interesting. The descriptions of the numerous problems that kept cropping up was fascinating.
After that, the book goes into extensive analysis of policies and weaknesses of procedures and rules. That was a tedious read and I skipped over most of that.
Everything comes with risk and a book like this explores the substantial risk that a nuclear accident can cause vs the benefit of a lot of electrical power.
After that, the book goes into extensive analysis of policies and weaknesses of procedures and rules. That was a tedious read and I skipped over most of that.
Everything comes with risk and a book like this explores the substantial risk that a nuclear accident can cause vs the benefit of a lot of electrical power.
August 21, 2023
The modern world has been utilizing nuclear power for electricity for over 50 years. However, unlike the traditional fossil fuels, nuclear power is still relatively new and much debated over rules, regulations and safety practices. Many of these ideals were challenged when the nuclear power plants of Fukushima Daiichi experience near catastrophic failure at the hands of an earth quake, tsunami, and a multi-day power black-out.
The author dissects the events of Fukushima and other incidents, taking an in-depth look at the industry and it's operations. What can we learn from these incidents to improve our understanding and the safety of this power house?
The author dissects the events of Fukushima and other incidents, taking an in-depth look at the industry and it's operations. What can we learn from these incidents to improve our understanding and the safety of this power house?
February 2, 2018
Clearly Lochbaum and his anti nuke buds are lock in step in their fuming hatred of Nuclear energy, and that clouds the reporting of events here. They are quick to dreg up Three Mile and Chernobyl and place blame on lack of industry over site, both local and worldwide. A simple telling of the events would have sufficed. Perhaps it's nothing to have a melt down about, but it bugs me to my nonfiction core!! Imagine if a book about a school shooting would advocate closing schools and banning all guns? These kinda writers give "nonfiction" a bad name.
March 25, 2018
Very interesting book about the recent nuclear disaster happened in Japan. Nuclear power plant has been touted one of the safest technology available. With all procedures and safety measure etc. Well, that’s before I read the book. The Fukushima disaster begin with an earthquake large enough that the building can’t withstand the impact. During the incident in Japan, the Japan’s government took so much time to acknowledge what’s actually happened in Fukushima nuclear plant. At the plant, the worker are at danger of overexposure to the radioactive that begin to release. Some necessary action badly needed to contain the mess but they need to wait for the approval. Again, the approval come late. Not to mention the information fed to the citizen are different from what is actually happening at the plant. Those who have internet will find that it was more severe that what the government told on TV. There are some issue of under-trained team member to deal with this matter. The evacuation taken places and the distance is getting further and further. Later on, the evacuee can return to their home but everything has changed. This book should stop at Chapter 8. Chapter 9 onward, there are drama after drama whether the same thing could happen in the US. But in nuclear industry, all are the same, the attitude of “It can’t happen here”.
August 29, 2020
First half of the book was awesome. Like a shot for shot story of what happened at Fukishima. However, I felt the book, for being about a Japanese nuclear accident, was way too focused on US nuclear policy. I think it was relevant in some instances to discuss US policy (3 Mile Island, for example), but the latter half of the book only talked about how US nuclear policy has been ignoring what the science says for years. This book was not really about Fukishima. It was about anti-nuclear sentiment, which I can totally understand, but it was not about a Japanese nuclear disaster.
April 22, 2023
Every concise detail of the events at Fukushima. This is a scary book because , even today, the United States involvement with the Japan crisis, and Atomic Power Plants leave a scary future to behold. Very comprehensive on all the unfolding of the loss.
Takes a look at the plants in America, and the same "safety" reasoning of why there can never fail attitudes or reasoning of the operating plants.
Takes a look at the plants in America, and the same "safety" reasoning of why there can never fail attitudes or reasoning of the operating plants.
February 26, 2024
Disgustingly American.
I came to this book to learn about Fukushima, what happened there and what the people experienced. Instead, I got a book about irrelevant American politicking, that also uses the imperial measurement system in the most infuriating, jarring way, bad enough that I had to make note of it.
320 pages is supposed to be a light afternoon read, instead, it's a complete slog I gave up about a third of the way in for the sake of my sanity.
I came to this book to learn about Fukushima, what happened there and what the people experienced. Instead, I got a book about irrelevant American politicking, that also uses the imperial measurement system in the most infuriating, jarring way, bad enough that I had to make note of it.
320 pages is supposed to be a light afternoon read, instead, it's a complete slog I gave up about a third of the way in for the sake of my sanity.
September 2, 2024
First half: Five stars.
Second half: Three stars.
Average: Four stars.
The first half of the book, chronicling the accident and response, is tense, exciting, and fascinating.
The second half, which focuses not on the accident itself but on global nuclear policy, is preachy, dry, and too concerned with its own agenda, not storytelling. It felt like two different books, spliced together.
A pity, as the first half is a remarkable read.
Second half: Three stars.
Average: Four stars.
The first half of the book, chronicling the accident and response, is tense, exciting, and fascinating.
The second half, which focuses not on the accident itself but on global nuclear policy, is preachy, dry, and too concerned with its own agenda, not storytelling. It felt like two different books, spliced together.
A pity, as the first half is a remarkable read.
June 19, 2019
Yeah, I get it, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission members are either incompetent, negligent, cowardly or just plain corrupt. But you should write a sepatate book on this topic and not try to slip it in the account of the Fukushima disaster.
Otherwise I thought that the book was very informative and as long as it stuck to the topic it was gripping.
Otherwise I thought that the book was very informative and as long as it stuck to the topic it was gripping.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 100 reviews