Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
method of communication and the attitude of the scientist conveying the message,
and that responses to scientific information include extensive subjective and psy-
chological elements.
14.4
Using the Experience of the 2011 Great East Japan
Earthquake and Tsunami as a Stimulus for Analysis
and Debate
14.4.1
Background to Current Issues
The Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami caused severe damages especially
along the coastal area. As a magnitude 9.0 earthquake, this has been recognized as
the most powerful earthquake in the country's history and was one of the world's
five strongest earthquakes since modern record-keeping began in 1900. Most
buildings inundated by the tsunami were destroyed, and the world was shocked to
see the extent of devastation which spread throughout the region and transmitted
through tragic TV pictures and internet videos. In terms of quantitative impact,
National Police Agency report 15,883 deaths, 6150 injured, and 2643 people miss-
ing, as well as 129,225 buildings totally collapsed, with a further 254,204 buildings
'half collapsed', and another 691,766 buildings partially damaged. The damage
spread across 20 prefectures. On the other hand, there were also many areas that
were only slightly affected, and the impact by the disaster was not as severe as in
previous major earthquakes, reflecting the effectiveness of the current standard of
infrastructure and architecture in Japan in providing resistance against even the
strongest of quakes.
The tsunami flooded the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant of Tokyo Elec-
tric Power Company (TEPCO) and led to core meltdown, hydrogen gas explosions
and major release of radiation. Evacuations of the local population within an initial
radius of 30 km were required affecting around half a million people. Even though
the evacuation radius has been reduced some 100,000 residents remain excluded
from their houses, work or farms and do not yet know if or when they can return.
With regard to the response to the nuclear power disaster, a number of organiza-
tions and associations have been involved, and the information provided by them
has often been confusing and missing the main points. This has led to much con-
fusion over terms such as 'safe', 'acceptable risk', 'no significant effects' and so
on. Often scientists and public relations sources may differ; also differences have
emerged between experts within Japan, or involving international organisations.
What we have also learned from the experiences of the nuclear disaster in Fuku-
shima is that it is crucial to have a variety of energy sources, since Japan is now
dependent on fossil fuels for over 90 % of its electricity due to the complete shut-
down of its nuclear power plants.
