Posted on 05/10/2011 3:10:34 PM PDT by ransomnote
Youtube video at link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dxbm7iJTT8U&feature=player_embedded
IMHO worst reporting known to man.
Seems to pretty much support my contention of “irresponsible commentary”, IMNSHO......
The commentator - from an anti-nuke organizaton, BTW - implied the “explosions” were nuclear in nature, which they most definitely were not. “Radiation” was blanket characterized as ‘bad’. But being outside on a sunny day exposes you to a lot of ‘radiation’ as well.....
I also found his comments on the discovered “high dose rates” to be most interesting. The only sure way to measure an individual’s total exposure I know of is a Whole Body Count. You “count in” to establish a base line, then “count out” to determine the actual dose you received. IME< dosimetery is a good tool to measure probabilities, but not the “determining factor” as there are a great many variables in the pot.
I’d agree his contentions regarding the “leaning” of a reactor unit is cogent. According to info I have, the entire northern island moved some 17 feet ! Other reports indicate some sections sank several meters ! That may be the cause of the observed “lean”..... >PS
Seems to pretty much support my contention of “irresponsible commentary”, IMNSHO......
The commentator - from an anti-nuke organizaton, BTW - implied the “explosions” were nuclear in nature, which they most definitely were not. “Radiation” was blanket characterized as ‘bad’. But being outside on a sunny day exposes you to a lot of ‘radiation’ as well.....
I also found his comments on the discovered “high dose rates” to be most interesting. The only sure way to measure an individual’s total exposure I know of is a Whole Body Count. You “count in” to establish a base line, then “count out” to determine the actual dose you received. IME< dosimetery is a good tool to measure probabilities, but not the “determining factor” as there are a great many variables in the pot.
I’d agree his contentions regarding the “leaning” of a reactor unit are cogent. According to info I have, the entire northern island moved some 17 feet ! Other reports indicate some sections sank several meters ! That may be the cause of the observed “lean”.....IAC, according to reports that building has a lot of weight from spent fuel “up high”. Its mass would be benificial during the event, but not now if its foundation - and the bedrock its sitting upon - has taken a “tilt”.
IMNSHO its imperative we recognize we’re in “uncharted territory” with the Fukashima event. Multiple reactors have withstood seismic events far in excess of design specs yet maintained integrity. Recovery/cleanup is going to be a major task. But rather than accept the luddites’ contention of this as a “negative”, I suhmit its a “positive”. Had we done the same post TMI, we’d be able to replace these dinosaurs with “Gen4” cache plants even smaller, safer and more efficient. >PS
At any rate, new video shows that the spent fuel pool for #3 is a absolute mess.
A little lite reading if you run out of all other available forms of reading material:
Some background thoughts and then I respond specifically to your post below them:
I have observed that information that does not promote nuclear power but instead, casts a negative light on management issues or access to information etc. is frequently deemed ‘irresponsible commentary” by those who are vigorous in defending nuclear power. TEPCO press releases are not attacked as ‘irresponsible commentary’ by these apologists and the possibility that TEPCO is not being forthcoming, despite its history of not being forthcoming, seems to be of no concern. Not that ‘irresponsible commentary’ does not or can not exist, but I think it’s an overused accusation that usually slants in one direction.
MSM reporters are dismissed as talking head alarmists (I don’t have TV in my house so I don’t really know to what extent that is true – but even if I watched TV, I hate the talking heads for other reasons of credibility) so we must rule them out as information sources apparently, if nuclear ‘purists’ are to be believed. Mere ‘mortals’ (those without nuclear engineering employment or degrees/training) are to be ridiculed if not ignored for their incapacity to comprehend…well…anything really. Banana…anyone? Am I the only one who has read numerous web posts sneering that the public should address the issue of radioactive potassium in bananas IMMEDIATELY?
So apparently nuclear engineering types or others well versed in the nuke industry are the ‘go to’ folks. However, there’s a problem. Only pro nuke professionals (experience or academic training etc.) are deemed ‘unbiased’ and ‘realistic’ and ‘qualified’ etc to weigh in on the issues. In fact, pro nuke types generally seem to claim for themselves the moral high ground: the mantle of ‘unbiased’ judge and from the bench, some have demanded to know my credentials for posting links to Japanese newspaper articles. (This gives me pause – anonymous people claiming the moral authority to judge another anonymous poster supplying links from a news paper.) Nuclear engineers or others professionals who study the field and do not reside ‘in the fold’ of the pro nuke types are considered ‘anti nuke’ and therefore unreliable persons with ‘an agenda’.
Note the contrast- pro nuke means ‘no agenda/authoritative/unbiased source of info’ and anti nuke means ‘has agenda/biased/ignore their information’.
I thoroughly enjoy reading some of John Gofman’s publications available on the web. I think I would have liked him – the nuke industry/gov was always telling him to lie about his research (claim that there is a safe threshold for exposure) or to discredit the work of the scientist, Knapp, and he was always telling them where to go. He discovered 4 or 5 radioisotopes and did some key work for Oppenheimer. He won a Nobel Prize. You’d think he had some credibility. But that changed the day his medical research (he was a medical doctor too) revealed that low dose radiation is damaging. To this day, he is, in pro nuke circles disparaged as a crank, nut…etc. But he was a hero until he stepped out of line. Discovered radioisotopes, won a Nobel, advanced medical research as a physician – but he stepped out of line:
“”My particular combination of scientific credentials is very handy in the nuclear controversies, but advanced degrees confer no special expertise in either common sense or morality. That’s why many laymen are better qualified to judge nuclear power that are the so-called experts.” Gofman has achieved the singular distinction of being branded “beyond the pale of reasonable communication” by the nuclear power industry.
— from IRREVY, An Irreverent, Illustrated View of Nuclear Power, 1979, by Dr. John Gofman. “
For this reason, now if/when my credentials are question, judgment is questioned, ‘motives’ question…(like posting on world events is suspicious), I tell myself – hey, even John Gofman was deemed ‘unqualified’ to discuss the issues….
Specific comments re your post: The only thing of interest to me in the video was the leaning pool but I wouldn’t know how to excise the part that caught my interest. The clip was just over 5 minutes and I thought people would skim the vid for anything that may be of interest to them. I post articles that contain elements I find interesting, relevant, or ridiculous and I trust others read the same material and form their own opinions as to the content.
You note that the commentator is ‘anti-nuke’. I get the impression the pro-nuke people do not want these issues discussed among those without sufficient nuke background so it is possible that the anti-nuke people are the only ones who will go on camera talking about this kind of information.
Re: Hydrogen explosion. Some experts have said that the explosion in pool was not entirely a hydrogen explosion – there are frame by frame analysis of the explosion that some use to explain the difference between detonation and deflagration. I didn’t catch which side the commentator was on because I was not watching the vid for that info but it seems he sides with those who say it was partially a hydrogen explosion and partially a nuclear explosion because the fuel that was blown into the surrounding country side could not have been ejected by a purely hydrogen explosion (e.g., how could hydrogen, a lighter than air substance, explode beneath the water covered fuel rods to eject them). There is an interesting (to me) theory that it still could have been a chemical explosion – something exotic happening with plutonium and uranium but I haven’t seen an explanation of that. If anyone sees an explanation of that theory – please send it my way – it’s the first time I’ve heard reference to the chemical interactions these isotopes may be capable of producing.
I do not focus on what kind of explosion it was very much because the unfortunate result – the dissemination of radioactive material across terrain, the ocean, and the atmosphere remains the same regardless of how it occurred.
I watched the vid again to try to see what you meant about ‘high dose’. If it was the chat about workers not being able to remain in the building #1 because they would receive too high of a dose in a short amount of time. I assumed that they were rough estimates of proximity to a source and a reading of the level of radiation received at that proximity times the length of time spent there to estimate a dose rate. Other types of dose may be present (if someone has an ill fitting breathing apparatus etc.) but estimates like these seem common enough – tepco and the Japanese gov seemed to be estimating student exposure to contaminated soil at schools this way. I read it as ‘we don’t want workers in building 1 for x amount of time because we think that period of time/proximity will result in higher levels of exposure then we believe is acceptable’ possibly because there’s a lot of work ahead and they don’t want to burn through worker’s limits yet.
You Said: “IMNSHO its imperative we recognize we’re in “uncharted territory” with the Fukashima event. Multiple reactors have withstood seismic events far in excess of design specs yet maintained integrity. Recovery/cleanup is going to be a major task. But rather than accept the luddites’ contention of this as a “negative”, I suhmit its a “positive”. Had we done the same post TMI, we’d be able to replace these dinosaurs with “Gen4” cache plants even smaller, safer and more efficient. >PS
PiperShade, there is no disagreement, that I can see, that we are in ‘uncharted territory’ with the Fukashima event. We agree that multiple reactors withstood seismic events far in excess of design specs yet maintained integrity – but this information is ‘sunny side’ up in my opinion. The situation is quite serious even though the nuke plant came through the seismic event.
My ‘disappointment’ is with management decisions and lack of
transparency,, accountability etc. and surround the serious suggestions that we not be in the shape we are in today in Fukushima if not for flawed human decisions:
“In the aftermath of the March 11 earthquake and tsunami in Japan it was possible to have avoided the nuclear catastrophe. I say this because of my detail knowledge of the Fukushima nuclear power plants, having been an engineer on the original General Electric design team for Boiling Water Reactors in San Jose, California.” http://www.examiner.com/wilderness-photography-in-eugene/fukushima-the-path-not-taken-1
There is a reason why two top Japanese execs broke down in tears while apologizing for not ‘sharing’ information sooner... One of the first Japanese newspaper articles I read re Fukushima was that a spike in radiation drove back workers and four reactors were in danger of melting down, no power was available, the idea of using helicopters was abandoned, the Japanese didn’t know what to do and were asking the US to intervene. This shortly after hearing that ‘all was well’ in Fukushima, workers had it under control.
TEPCO’s official history, the history of other Japanese companies running other reactors, the way that TEPCO is ‘managing public opinion’ etc. do not inspire confidence.
Monju’s Breeder Reactor incident (component fell into reactor and can’t be retrieved) : “Expert in nuclear power engineering Tateno Jun stated, “It really surprises me that an operation manual has no description about control rods handling and workers operate Monju without having enough training and information about their jobs. Because the Nuclear Safety Commission of Japan agreed to restart ‘Monju’ operations, the government responsibility is also called into question. If ‘Monju’ operations are continued, it will cause other dangers. The government and relevant organizations must examine the cause.”
- Akahata, May 13, 2010”
http://www.japan-press.co.jp/modules/news/index.php?id=213
Here’s a description of Monjus issue: Basically – it seems that part A was engineered to be too large to prevent part B from falling into the reactor in an unrecoverable manner: August of 2010:
http://www2.jnes.go.jp/atom-db/en/trouble/individ/power/y/y20101109/news.html
How about building the largest nuke plant in the world on top of a seismic fault without realizing it until an earthquake hits?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-17/japan-s-nuclear-disaster-caps-decades-of-faked-safety-reports-accidents.html
Catch the text in that last URL? “Japan-s- nuclear-disaster-caps-decades-of-faked-saftey-reports??? Lots of articles online re TEPCO’s decision making over the years.
Or the report of the “Botched Container” for Fukushima reactor 4?
Mitsuhiko Tanaka, 67, working as an engineer at Babcock Hitachi K.K., helped design and supervise the manufacture of a $250 million steel pressure vessel for Tokyo Electric in 1975. Today, that vessel holds the fuel rods in the core of the No. 4 reactor at Fukushima’s Dai-Ichi plant, hit by explosion and fire after the tsunami.
Tanaka says the vessel was damaged in the production process. He says he knows because he orchestrated the cover-up. When he brought his accusations to the government more than a decade later, he was ignored, he says.
The accident occurred when Tanaka and his team were strengthening the steel in the pressure vessel, heating it in a furnace to more than 600 degrees Celsius (1,112 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that melts metal. Braces that should have been inside the vessel during the blasting were either forgotten or fell over. After it cooled, Tanaka found that its walls had warped.
‘Felt Like a Hero’
The law required the flawed vessel be scrapped, a loss that Tanaka said might have bankrupted the company. Rather than sacrifice years of work and risk the company’s survival, Tanaka used computer modeling to devise a way to reshape the vessel so that no one would know it had been damaged. He did that with Hitachi’s blessings, he said.
“I saved the company billions of yen,” Tanaka said in an interview March 12, the day after the earthquake. Tanaka says he got a 3 million yen bonus ($38,000) from Hitachi and a plaque acknowledging his “extraordinary” effort in 1974. “At the time, I felt like a hero.”
That changed with Chernobyl. Two years after the world’s worst nuclear accident, Tanaka went to the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry to report the cover-up he’d engineered more than a decade earlier. Hitachi denied his accusation and the government refused to investigate.
‘No Safety Problem’
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
Ransomnote continues: I have to see the novelty of this situation as a negative and I don’t consider myself a ‘luddite’ regardless of what others may say.
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
“Had we done the same post TMI, we’d be able to replace these dinosaurs with “Gen4” cache plants even smaller, safer and more efficient. >PS”
I reject your assertion outright. After you broached the subject of TMI in a prior post – I did some reading. Similar to the reading I did when others talked about Nevada above ground testing, Nagasaki, radiation received during air travel, Chernobyl etc. Lots and lots of reading leads me to form the opinion that the last thing that the pro nuke lobby will ever do is accept accountability for their actions so I am not going to blame citizens clamouring for transparency in return for their tax dollar for the human error, mismanagement, misinformation, and pressure tactics of the nuke industry/gov lobby.
Thank you for the link. The video of fuel pool 3 supports what Arnie Gunderson Videos (Fairewinds.com) have said for weeks - that fuel was blown out of tank 3 and into the countryside, air, and ocean. Plutonium has been detected in the area surrounding the reactors and in truly trace amounts in the US. Gunderson’s latest vid includes quotes from Japan’s Dr. Saji who is a former member of Japan’s Atomic Nuclear Safety commission. Dr. Saji’s email includes the following comments about the explosion in fuel pool 3:
“We were just lucky due to the favorable meteorological conditions during the entire development of the accident.”
SNIP
“We were very lucky even with a large release from 1F3 due to the most severe hydrogen explosion that could have induced a heavy land contamination. This resulted from the wind direction towards the sea at the time of the releases, although this must have resulted in wider ocean contamination far from Fukushima Daiichi”
Gunderson points out that had the wind not been blowing toward the ocean, much more radioactivity would have landed on land creating much larger exclusion zones. Gunderson also notes that the pro nuke spin will be that the situation was never that bad (because alot of the radioactive material is AWOL in the ocean).
Thanks for the laugh. Do people really spend time filming their screen shots of weird web sites?
Fairewinds is a company in the business of providing help to those fighting nuclear power.
The video of fuel pool #3, if you could call it a “video”, shows no such thing.
In the real world: “TEPCO released an image of the No. 3 reactor’s spent fuel pool, where fuel rods were covered with debris from explosions in March that damaged the building’s roof and walls. But officials said the fuel rods, protected by a metal screen, are believed to be largely undamaged.”
It seems clear that storing fuel in ponds without the ability to provide minimal additional shielding is probably something to be corrected. It seems reasonable to conclude that some damage to fuel rods has allowed the release of some particles. But the fuel pond isn’t empty, the fuel was not “blown out”, and the Fairewinds folks will continue to say whatever helps their clients.
I’ll tell you what is really embarrasing. You search for “reactor 4 leaning”, which seems it should get a news hit since the story here is that “Japan has CONFIRMED” the leaning. Certainly if Japan has issued an official confirmation of a leaning building, it would be NEWS somewhere, like Reuters, or AP, or something.
And maybe it is. But the google hits are all blogs. And most of them are far-left blogs like Democratic Underground, and anti-nuclear blogs, and the Huffington Post.
But then there’s one lone beacon in the sea of left-wing conspiracy land — and it’s Free Republic, because of this post. When you are in the company of Democratic Underground, that’s just a sad day.
Let us know when it’s upside down.
Arnie Gunderson used to work in the nuclear industry as a high level exec but I guess we have to dismiss his experience and training because he is no longer in the ‘pro nuke fold’ and therefore anything he says must be for some client? Ok...yeah I expected the pro nukers would say that.
Arnie isn’t the only one who suggests that pool 3 explosion sent spent fuel across the land. Japan’s Dr. Saji who is a former member of Japan’s Atomic Nuclear Safety commission. Dr. Saji’s email includes the following comments about the explosion in fuel pool 3:
“We were just lucky due to the favorable meteorological conditions during the entire development of the accident.”
SNIP
“We were very lucky even with a large release from 1F3 due to the most severe hydrogen explosion that could have induced a heavy land contamination. This resulted from the wind direction towards the sea at the time of the releases, although this must have resulted in wider ocean contamination far from Fukushima Daiichi”
People haven’t been able to explain the source of the radioactive material, including plutonium, uranium and by products, surrounding the area and dispersed as far as 80km north. There were explosions and video of #3 explosion shows big debris load. If not spent pool 3, how did radioactive material get so far from the plant? What’s your theory?
I never searched for ‘reactor 4 leaning’ so your embarrassment is needless. You know the video is television station Russia Today, right? A news agency? But I posted this in chat so I don’t know why you are objecting to the source anyway.
I don’t know if you watched the whole video - when I watch it I hear them talkign about ‘growing SPECULATION that the building is leaning’ and showing photos that seem to indicate that the maimed building slightly off vertical. Not too shocking for a heavily damaged building like that. And the story, had you watched the video, claims that Japan has confirmed that it is trying to shore up the building, particularly the 2nd floor, which I recall hearing a few weeks ago - look at the building - why wouldn’t they shore up the area around the spent fuel pond given the stakes. No - I never searched the way you did (and I don’t use Google) for ‘reactor 4 learning’ but that was what you had to claim to start the ad homenim attack rolling...
Ah well....you had to sneer at something so I guess this was the best you could do.
Thanks - I looked up that spent fuel pool 3 video and yeah...it is a mess!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KugIrnThul0&feature=player_embedded
I was actually leaning toward the explosion in #4 as the source, but both could be the source. The issue isn’t whether there was damage to reactor rods that allowed the release of radioactive particulates — it seems certain that there was.
The issue was the claim that the picture showed the fuel rods were all gone from reactor 3 pool; in fact, it shows a heavy debris field fell into the pool.
The speculation is that the debris damaged rods, allowing increased reactions and leading to particulate release. It’s just the difference between pieces of a fuel rod getting out and entire sets of fuel rods supposedly blown around the site.
if in fact all the fuel rods had been blown to pieces and scattered throughout the site, readings would be much higher throughout the site, and dumping water into the #3 pool wouldn’t do anything because the fuel wouldn’t be there to be cooled off.
As for Arnie — I wouldn’t know enough to question whether he has the ABILITY to understand what he is talking about. I simply note that he is biased, and has a reason to mislead about what he is seeing. The first few times he made major claims, I actually listened to what he said, and watched his videos, and realised that he was misinterpreting what I was seeing, and trying to convince me that I was seeing something different than what I knew I was seeing. So I stopped trusting him.
I do find it somewhat ironic that people who argue that we can’t trust high-level nuclear industry executives because they are all lying to us to protect their industry are also arguing that we should trust a former high-level exec from that same industry whose NEW job depends on him trashing the nuclear industry.
But that is part of the generic “bad guys become good guys if they join our side” meme.
I can’t address details of translated e-mails on the internet supposedly from known sources. Can’t prove it is a fake, can’t prove it is real. But, I do try — the guy is sold as an expert, and well-respected. If he actually claimed that an antire fuel pool blew up and was scattered around the surrounding area, SOME real news media would pick it up. He certainly would have the ability to pick up the phone and call CNN and get an interview.
So the fact that I see these claims only on blogs and conspiracy sites and underground “news” sources suggests to me that I should take the information with a large amount of skepticism.
Because while I do believe Tepco could well lie, although less so when they know their lies would be immediately exposed, I don’t believe the major news organizations are in the tank for the nuclear industry.
You missed the point. If you DID search for “reactor 4 leaning” in order to find out if the video you had found had any real merit, you’d have found that the ONLY places that mention the possibility are blogs, conspiracy sites, and far-left anti-nuclear web sites. Oh, and now Free Republic.
One way to figure out if what you found on a blog is the truth is to see if there are ANY reputable news orgnizations even willing to report the speculation.
You say the video tells you japan has confirmed something — if “japan” actually made a public statement about the building leaning, do you seriously believe that NO NEWS ORGANIZATION would report it? Wouldn’t they have CONFIRMED it to a news organization?
Or do you think that “Japan” is actually confirming things t o left-wing anti-nuclear sites, while keeping the media in the dark?
On a more scientific matter, the buildings are essentially solid concrete blocks up to the top of the reactor, with a containment building built on top of that.
So if you say they are “shoring up the 2nd floor”, it has no real meaning relative to the containment concrete base. And yes, it would make sense that if there were still some structure standing in the building area above the concrete base, they would want to “shore it up” so it didn’t fall into the spent fuel pool and cause more trouble. But that wouldn’t indicate that the building was “leaning”.
What I am saying is that if you look at the actual construction of each reactor facility, you’d see that “leaning” wouldn’t make sense as a serious concern. The building can’t “fall over”, it’s a solid concrete block. And since #4 doesn’t even have fuel in it’s reactor core, it wouldn’t even matter to operations if the building shifted and the connections broke — the only issue in #4 is keeping water in the spent fuel pool until it cools off enough that they can transfer the fuel to the auxilary pool.
And for the record, I would never decide something was leaning based on a video or a picture. There are a myriad of ways that video and pictures distort perception, making things look different (for example, see the outright hysteria when someone mistook a plane contrail for an offshore missile launch in California).
Once again your command of the facts is sloppy. I didn’t say, the video did not say..that Japan confirmed the building was leaning. The video interview on news channel Russia Today said that Japan had confirmed that they were shoring up the building said I recall Japan saying a few weeks ago that it was shoring up the building. Why would it not do so after announcing that it was trying to stabilize the structures following explosions, tsunami, fires and continued aftershocks.
I saw a Russia Today clip with a title about ‘leaning’ and I watched it. Photographing a building and noting that it is the only structure that appears to be leaning off vertical compared with other structures is, I believe, a point that can be commented on without being labeled wild conspiracy nut. The anchor specifies that people are SPECULATING that the building appears to be leaning and asked the interviewee if that is of concern if true. I posted it in chat, even though it was a news source and none of this will content you so it seems we have nothing more to discuss on this matter. Oh I see you personally have strict criteria for how you decide things are leaning “I would never decide something was leaning based on a video or a picture. “ How.interesting.
“I do find it somewhat ironic that people who argue that we can’t trust high-level nuclear industry executives because they are all lying to us to protect their industry are also arguing that we should trust a former high-level exec from that same industry whose NEW job depends on him trashing the nuclear industry.”
I was pointing to TEPCO’s history of falsifying safety records - the company does not have a good reputation> I have not seen anything implicating Arnold Gunderson in anything similar. I think there is reason to be skeptical when choosing between the company that can be held liable and lose millions of dollars and people like Gunderson who will not. Some experts agree with Arnie and some do not. I put the info out there and let FReepers decide but I wonder if I should start labeling most of the Japanese Gov officials and all of the TEPCO spokespersons names and press releases with (PRO NUKE) if FReepers find it necessary to dismiss Gunderson as ANTI-NUKE. Happens alot - I post something and a pro nuke FReeper will post “Note that Fairewinds/Gunderson is ANTI NUKE” as if that means ‘nothing to see here -unreliable information’ but the company with a history of abusing the public trust, TEPCO, never receives the formal label “PRO NUKE”. So If I start labeling, that way both sides would be represented in my posts. For example, parents (ANTI NUKE) horrified by the government’s (PRO NUKE) decisions to up the radiation exposure acceptable for their children at school sent contaminated dirt from the school yard to those officials - that just may work.
I think it is clear to everybody that TEPCO is “pro-nuclear”. They built and run nuclear power plants. So, as you say, you take what they say with some skepticism; so do most of us.
On the other hand, most people have no idea who Gunderson is, and when he IS identified in an article it is almost always just as a former nuclear executive, suggesting he was a pro-nuclear person, and also giving him credence. They never say he is the head of an organization whose job it is to provide help to people suing to stop nuclear power.
Now, I suppose the name of the company “Fairewinds”, might be some clue, but you can’t just look at that name and know what their business is, like you can with TEPCO.
So yes, I feel it is important wherever Gunderson is posted to point out that he does have a point of view, and moreso he has money at stake based on his position. It might not be as much money as TEPCO, but relative to the size of his company, I’d say he has MORE to gain attacking nuclear power through this incident than TEPCO could ever gain by trying to stonewall the dangers that will, if true, become abundantly clear long before they are clear of the monetary responsibility.
I won’t try to argue your point about TEPCO having a “history” of falsifying records, because it seems they do so a bit moreso than others. But I would point out that, at least here in the states, the excessive government regulations and strong-arm regulatory agencies pretty much guarantees that every business of reasonable size is going to have a lot of these “black marks”.
That’s why whenever there is a mine accident, you will read stories about hundreds of safety issues with the mine — because you can’t find a mine that hasn’t been written up hundreds of times. I presume the regulators are measured based on how many things they can write up, like a cop meeting a ticket quota.
Again, TEPCO appears to be worse than most, although since I base that mostly on the anti-nuclear articles I read here, I certainly wouldn’t be saying that I have evidence it is the case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.