Tepco rejected requests for anti-tsunami steps before 2011 nuclear crisis

Kyodo

Tokyo Electric Power Co. turned down requests in 2009 by the nuclear safety agency to consider concrete steps against tsunami waves at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, which suffered a tsunami-triggered disaster two years later, government documents showed Friday.

“Do you think you can stop the reactors?” a Tepco official was quoted as telling Shigeki Nagura of the now-defunct Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, who was then assigned to review the plant’s safety, in response to one of his requests.

The detailed exchanges between the plant operator and the regulator came to light through the latest disclosure of government records on its investigation into the nuclear crisis, adding to evidence that Tepco failed to take proper safety steps ahead of the world’s worst nuclear accident since the 1986 Chernobyl disaster.

According to records of Nagura’s accounts, Nagura heard Tepco’s explanations of its tsunami estimates at the agency’s office in Tokyo in August and September 2009 as it was becoming clear that coastal areas of Fukushima and Miyagi prefectures were hit by massive tsunami following an earthquake in 869.

Tepco said the height of waves was estimated to be around 8 meters above sea level and will not reach the plant site, which was located at a height of 10 meters, they show.

But Nagura said he remembered thinking pumps with key cooling functions, which were located on the ground at a height of 4 meters, “will not make it” and told Tepco, “If this is the outcome, you better consider concrete responses.”

In refusing to immediately act, Tepco said it would wait for related studies to be carried out by the academic society of civil engineers, which it had requested to be done by March 2012.

Nagura also proposed placing the pumps inside buildings to protect them from being exposed to water, but a Tepco official told him, “Our company cannot make a decision without seeing the results of the (studies by the) society of civil engineers.”

Then another Tepco official told Nagura, “Do you think you can stop the reactors?” according to the government documents.

Nagura recalled in the documents, “I wondered why I had to be told such a thing.” But he also admitted that, after all, he only encouraged Tepco to “consider” tsunami countermeasures and did not request that it “take” specific measures.

The Fukushima crisis has revealed how Japan, which had boasted of possessing the world’s safest nuclear power plants, was ill-prepared against a severe nuclear accident.

Three reactors suffered core meltdowns after they lost their key cooling functions amid a loss of all electrical power following a huge earthquake and tsunami on March 11, 2011.

The government-appointed nuclear accident investigation panel has already issued a final report, and the government is now gradually disclosing the records of hearings conducted to people involved.

  • Starviking

    According to records of Nagura’s accounts, Nagura heard Tepco’s explanations of its tsunami estimates at the agency’s office in Tokyo in August and September 2009 as it was becoming clear that coastal areas of Fukushima and Miyagi prefectures were hit by massive tsunami following an earthquake in 869.

    I eagerly await the Japan Times’ investigation as to why, after this apparently definitive warning of doom, no measures were taken to protect the people living in the coastal areas of Miyagi and Fukushima.

    Or maybe, as is often the case, the scientific knowledge of the tsunami and its possible recurrence was not as clear-cut as journalists would like us to believe – after all, who would leave 20,000 people to die, but pursue measures to prevent a nuclear accident?

    • Richard Werkhoven

      It was well known. There is a stone marker momeorialising the level and the destruction of the 869 tsunami.

      Tepco were advised of the likely level of the tsunami. They chose not to act because they didn’t think the damage would be an issue.

      That is they were prepared to let the plant get hit and hoped it would survive.

      Why the local authorities were not dealing appropriately with the tsunami risk is a seperate issue. You may not be aware that most of the ports had Tsunami gates & walls.

      So it’s certainly not correct to pretend there was no knowledge or action to mitigate the tsunami risks to the population in the area.

      The issue is was that action sufficient – and clearly not.

      Was Tepco aware that their Tsunami defences were inadequate? yes.

      Is the issue somehow about journalists? No – you are just spinning an issue in the face of documentary evidence to show these problems were raised with Tepco

      Time to give up the stupid attempts to pretend this was unprecedented. Or to pretend the issue is being overblown and to ask your employers or those you are in the fan club of why they let this happen.

      • Starviking

        Richard, when you lead with the “stone markers”, yet fail to mention that they are on the Sanriku Coast, far from Daiichi, I know I’m not going to get much sense from you.

        We are expected to believe that there’s an emerging threat in 2009, but the public in Tohoku, where I live, are unaware of it? The people who make emergency planning are not aware of it either, and place evacuation centres right in the inundation zones – watery coffins for many souls.

        But TEPCO…TEPCO knows, and the regulator… But no one else.

        Poor logic Richard.

      • black river black

        The obvious evidence now clarifies that the markers on the Sanriku Coast do have a direct relationship to the location of Daiichi.
        And, I knew about them 24 years ago from my teacher.
        You make no sense.

        You are a like a spoiled little girl making up things to support your (nuclear)fancy every time, wining at reporters…, as if the collective mass of intelligent people, who have always opposed the lies of this so-called ‘cheap’ & ‘clean’ energy, does not exist.

      • Starviking

        What is the obvious evidence?

        Also, in relation to this topic, what is special about the Sanriku Coast?

      • black river black

        Are you even serious?
        The massive tsunami on the Sanriku coast also was a massive tsunami at Daiichi… duh. -which was the cause of Tepco’s liable disaster.
        My comment was generated from your ignorant, dismissive reply concerning Sanriku and it’s history.

      • Starviking

        Oh, so you don’t know that the Sanriku Coast has a Ria Coastline: deep, narrow inlets which focus tsunami waves to great heights?

        I also assume that you didn’t know about the 1960 Tsunami which caused great destruction on the Sanriku Coast, but little elsewhere?

        Also, how was I ignorant and dismissive about Sanriku?

      • black river black

        You are repeatedly ignoring the fact that the recent destructive tsunami along Sanriku was also the destructive force in Fukushima, at Daiichi, as was warned…, by saying it is so far away that the person whom mentioned ancient markers in Sanriku is senseless for doing so.

      • Starviking

        You are ignoring the fact that the Sanriku markers relate to tsunamis on the Sanriku Coast, funnily enough. Not Fukushima. The markers are from 1 to 6 centuries old, and so have no bearing on the 869AD tsunami. They do attest to the Tsunami-enhancing properties of the Sanriku Coast.

      • black river black

        The obvious evidence now clarifies that the markers on the Sanriku Coast do have a direct relationship to the location of Daiichi.
        And, I knew about them 24 years ago from my teacher.
        You make no sense.

        You are a like a spoiled little girl making up things to support your (nuclear)fancy every time, wining at reporters…, as if the collective mass of intelligent people, who have always opposed the lies of this so-called ‘cheap’ & ‘clean’ energy, does not exist.

  • Liars N. Fools

    What I see is the typical stove piping found in Japanese organizations which hinders joint action but also limits responsibility — usually to someone not in the executive offices.

    Japan, land of responsibility.

  • TimS

    I’d like to see Greenpeace’s activists protesting against wind/solar farms that are ruining natural landscapes, disturbing wildlife’s habitats, butchering millions birds and bats with wind blades and solar mirrors.

    • Mark Pawelek

      Greenpeace don’t oppose nuclear power because they think it’s environmentally harmful. They know it’s the safest, least environmentally harmful energy source. They oppose it because, potentially, it offers plentiful, cheap, energy. So, no, you won’t find those complaints from GP. They support solar and wind because it offers scarce, expensive, limited energy.

  • Richard Werkhoven

    To quote from this link:

    “While some are so old that the characters are worn away, most were erected about a century ago after two deadly tsunamis here, including one in 1896 that killed 22,000 people.”

    INCLUDING ONE IN 1986!!! (Yes emphasis – live with it)

    So some are very recent.

    So ‘largely’ is an irrelevant point here. The Tsunami risk was well known.

    To provide evidence of other stones does not provide proof of lack of the reference I made.

    Would you care to show where the stone I refer to isn’t? (yes of course that’s impossible)

    • Starviking

      1986? I assume you mean 1896?

      None of that is relevant to the 869AD tsunami.

      The tsunami warning stones are found on the Sanriku Coast because that coast’s morphology can amplify even small tsunamis to great heights.

      There are no records of tsunami warning stones on the Fukushima Coast, so your use of them to attest to prior tsunamis striking that coast is nonsensical.

      • Richard Werkhoven

        NO!

        You said “the stone markers are largely one or two centuries old, with the oldest at six centuries”

        I was quoting the more recent one mentioned in the article you posted the link to as an illustrartion of how misleading your statement was.

        Do you not understand?

        You are the nonsensical one. There were stones showing Tsunamis in the areas affected. The idea that there was no knowledged of Tsunami risk along that coast is nonsensical.

        You are splitting hairs to try and maintain that something that we have documentary evidence of didn’t happen.

        The Tsunami risk was known, the relevant experts were aware of it with or without the markers, Tepco was therefore asked to do something about the plant defences.

        What the people at large knew and what the media has said is not relevant to that. What did or didn’t happen to protect the villages is also irrelevant to that being fact.

        Are you being deliberately stupid about this? Or is this accidental?

      • Starviking

        You seem to have some real comprehension problems.

        The stones are on the Sanriku Coast, which covers northern Miyagi, Iwate, and southern Aomori.

        Daiichi is not on the Sanriku Coast, it is in the Hamadori area.

        The Sanriku coast amplifies tsunamis, so drawing parallels between what happens on that coast and other areas is scientifically invalid, as a tsunami which might cause large damage in Sanriku, could cause little or no damage in other areas.

        The Tsunami risk was known, the relevant experts were aware of it with
        or without the markers, Tepco was therefore asked to do something about
        the plant defences.

        No. A possible tsunami risk was emerging, and was under investigation.

      • Richard Werkhoven

        Most of what you said here is covered by my point above.

        The wave height magnification at the shoreline is different from the final height the water reaches due to shoreline feature magnification.

        And no – the Tsunami risk at the shoreline (which is of course exactly where the plant is) was known.

        It’s well within the capabilities of the experts to calculate likely shoreline wave height.

        They were aware of the risk. Even if the risk was what you would call ’emerging’ it’s still a risk.

        Tepco was warned about that risk. They underestimated the damage from that risk, based on not much evidence or thought.

        Considering the design of the plant that was extremely stupid.

        Classic niclear industry thinking though. By them and by you!

      • Richard Werkhoven

        Putting it simply:

        The north east coast of Honshu is subject to Tsunamis at heights greater than that which the Fukushima Daiichi plant was built to handle.

        These Tsunamis were well known to the locals, but time was of course reducing that memory.

        The high water marks of previous Tsunamis were in many cases marked with stone markers as warnings.

        The seismologists who study that part of Japan were aware of the risk.

        Tepco was made aware of the risk and chose to ignore it.

        Now any ‘facts’ about some stones being old, or no stones being within the same prefecture as the plant are actually totally irrelevant. Why do you persist with a combination of half-truths and deflection?

        What is your purpose here? It clearly isn’t the truth or worries about the people.

    • Starviking

      1986? I assume you mean 1896?

      None of that is relevant to the 869AD tsunami.

      The tsunami warning stones are found on the Sanriku Coast because that coast’s morphology can amplify even small tsunamis to great heights.

      There are no records of tsunami warning stones on the Fukushima Coast, so your use of them to attest to prior tsunamis striking that coast is nonsensical.

  • Richard Werkhoven

    Pro nukers who try to twist the argument and argue over some other issue rather than the failure by TEPCO and the Japanese Govt to protect the people.

    I am not wrong because I mention a stone marker that the pro-nuker pretends doesn’t exist.

    TEPCO is not right because the Tsunami had other effects that could have been better managed,

    These sorts of arguments are sociopathic and indicate an inability to argue logically.

    • Mark Pawelek

      Funny interpretation. Pro-nukes usually argue that the fault lay (1) with inadequate regulation in Japan (no agency had the power to force TEPCO to comply); (2) with TEPCO; (3) with government interference in management of the reactors immediately after shutdown, and (4) finally with government overreaction to the relatively small releases from the reactors.

      In short, most pro-nukes I talk to, who understand the situation, agree with you on points (1) and (2) !

      • Starviking

        I’ve a little different viewpoint: while (1) and (2) are big factors, few people consider if TEPCO, the regulators, and others were blindsided by the tsunami.

        There are lot of reports which proclaim “TEPCO knew!” But when the actual references are tracked down you discover that, well, they didn’t.

        That’s why I make a big point about the lack of disaster preparedness on the Pacific Coast: if this knowledge is out there, and accepted by knowledgeable people – why the lack of preparation?

        I remember an NHK Special after the Tsunami, where a disaster expert who had advised one city on evacuation zones and disaster shelters toured the city: all of his warnings were wrong, he had been blindsided. Shelters were inundated or swept away. People who thought they were safe were in mortal danger, and 20,000 people died.

        This was repeated up and down the coast.

        But certain organisations like to paint a conspiratorial scene: solid warning ignored, evidence suppressed. This is not evident in the media: look for pre-Tsunami warnings in the newspapers – nothing. I saw a 2010 seismic warning poster in a local university – nothing significant indicated for the Pacific Coast of Tohoku.

        Some may call that sociopathic. I call it looking beyond the headlines (figuratively speaking) and digging deeper.

      • Richard Werkhoven

        Yes sure a lot of those pro-nukers do agree.

        A lot don’t. At least I’ve encountered a lot that don’t.

        Right from the begninning the spin started as to the issues and blame was laid.

        My introduction to social media was my attempt to find out what was happening in the days following the Tsunami.

        My first 3 days on chat were spent having the same conversation 15 times with pro-nukers. They ran through all the same pre-prepared excuses, same ones being spouted on TV here by the person tasked with starting our nuclear industry. Trouble is they were wrong.

        At that stage ‘unprecedented’ was still in there.

        It was not long later that the evicence of Tepco being warned about the Tsunami height and being asked to fix it came out. This came out in media that was local to here. Most of the PR didn’t adjust to it for quite a while.

        Yes now the PR has been modified.

        as for ” (4) finally with government overreaction to the relatively small releases from the reactors.”

        No that’s BS

        I’ve read the NRC transcripts of their internal conversations on the handling of the incident as it happened.

        The Japanese government under-reacted by NRC estimates of likely risk.

        And Jazko took a lot of flack for his statements which were based on available info he was supplied as well.

        Not only that:

        “(3) with government interference in management of the reactors immediately after shutdown” – Is pretty shaky also based on the info I have seen.

        So my interpretation may seem funny to you, but it’s based on a lot of investigation and on a lot of discussion with pro-nukers.

        Nice try to shift the blame there to the Govt. though, nothing I haven’t seen tried before and it will be again.

    • Starviking

      Richard, still obsessing about the stone marker?

      You said:

      “It was well known. There is a stone marker momeorialising the level and the destruction of the 869 tsunami.”

      I ask you for solid evidence of this.

      TEPCO is not right because the Tsunami had other effects that could have been better managed

      But it does not make them guilty of every imagined wrongdoing, or mean that they should have had some amazing foresight that was also denied to disaster planners on the Pacific Coast of Tohoku.

      These sorts of arguments are sociopathic and indicate an inability to argue logically.

      Your dehumanizing comments e.g. “The pro-nuker”, and your insistence that people with an opposing viewpoint are anti-social and illogical indicate a sore loser.

  • Starviking

    Oh, prove me dead wrong? Your first link:

    Hundreds of such markers dot the coastline, some more than 600 years old.

    Nope, does not prove me wrong. Your second link:

    Some of the stones are 600 years old.

    Once again, does not prove me wrong.

    Do you know what would prove me wrong, a nice scientific link to tsunami marker stones over 1100 years old.

    Do you think you could provide that?

    • Richard Werkhoven

      WTF Dude!!

      You claimed the stones were older. Now you want me to prove they are older to prove you wrong?

      Really?

      AND once again – that date of 1896 was actually a quote from the link you provided. I was illustrating that you were misquoting an article to mislead.

      To quote your post above:

      “The markers are from 1 to 6 centuries old, and so have no bearing on the 869AD tsunami.” – Starviking, September 27, 2015

      So why should I prove you wrong by providing evidence that supports your misleading point? Makes no sense.

      • Starviking

        I really don’t know how to proceed with this. Is English your first language?

        You claimed the stones were older. Now you want me to prove they are older to prove you wrong?

        I did not claim the stones were “older”, you did:

        “It was well known. There is a stone marker momeorialising the level and the destruction of the 869 tsunami.”

        What I have been saying is that most of the stones are a few centuries old, and some are around 600 years old. That is, not as old as you say.

      • Richard Werkhoven

        Because worst case I was remembering the 1896 Tsunaami marker not the 896. Which for your case is much much worse.

      • Starviking

        And how is that worse?

      • Starviking

        And how is that worse?

  • Starviking

    Once again with the reinterpretation of facts:

    The issue here is not specifically the 869 marker. That is something you have referred to constantly as if it’s relevant.

    I raised the point as an aside – you were the one who ran with it, trying to prove me wrong, mixing up my point about the stones being much later than the 869AD Tsunami.

    My point stands – the knowledge existed. Clearly there are records of the 869 Tsunami or we wouldn’t be talking about it now would we?

    The key point is how certain, and how accepted was the knowledge that the 869AD Tsunami was one of a recurrent series of tsunamis.

    The argument about coastal geography doesn’t hold up.

    So you say, yet you keep mentioning the 1896 Tsunami, a tsunami which wreaked death and destruction on the Sanriku Coast, but did nothing to the Fukushima Coast.

    Anyone who investigates that tsunami, and the others that have hit the Sanriku Coast make the tsunami-focusing ria coastline the main point when describing the wave heights and damage. You, for some reason, so not think that matters at all – and keep on referring to these tsunamis as if they had damaged the whole Tohoku Coastline.

    • Richard Werkhoven

      “The key point is how certain, and how accepted was the knowledge that the 869AD Tsunami was one of a recurrent series of tsunamis.” – well there are a whole lot of stone markers, more than one. Including the 1896.

      “Anyone who investigates that tsunami, and the others that have hit the Sanriku Coast make the tsunami-focusing ria coastline the main point when describing the wave heights and damage.

      But the fault is near enough to the rest of the coastline and the modelling indicated the likelihood of this wave height.

      My point about the stones was counter to your point that nobody knew about such Tsunamis. The evidence that proves you wrong is the number of stones etc. (not the specific 869 aside by me, which may have been 1896 as it turns out).

      “Hmm… a responsive TEPCO, who’d have thought it?” – Well yes they raised the design basis at Daiini but not at Daiichi.

      Interesting how they raised the design basis at Daiini which is south of the Daiichi plant when you state that the risk was not known at Daiichi because the Tsunamis had been on the Sanriku coast, which is further north.

      So the knew the risk further away but had no idea of the risk closer???

      You make little sense.

      • Starviking

        Once again, you get things mixed up.

        A recurrent tsunami is one that originates from a certain area of a fault which sets off tsunamis on a regular timescale (geologically speaking).

        “Anyone who investigates that tsunami, and the others that have hit the Sanriku Coast make the tsunami-focusing ria coastline the main point when describing the wave heights and damage.”

        But the fault is near enough to the rest of the coastline and the modelling indicated the likelihood of this wave height.

        And despite your assertions – outside of the Sanriku Coast, the Pacific Coast of Tohoku rarely gets hit by devastating tsunamis.

        The modelling, unsurprisingly, indicated a wave height close to that experienced: that’s what happens when you input data which is similar to what happened in real life. But there was no real-life wave source to go with that, and there’s none for the Jogan Tsunami of 869AD either.

        My point about the stones was counter to your point that nobody knew about such Tsunamis. The evidence that proves you wrong is the number of stones etc.

        Your point about the stones ingores that they testify to tsunamis that did no damage to other parts of the Pacific Coast of Tohoku!

        Interesting how they raised the design basis at Daiini which is south of the Daiichi plant when you state that the risk was not known at Daiichi because the Tsunamis had been on the Sanriku coast, which is further north.

        If you had studied this matter a little, you would have found out that these nuclear plants were built on bedrock, to provide some resistance to soil liquefaction in earthquakes. I will not state the obvious, but ask you a question:

        Do you think that bedrock is flat and level across distances of tens of kilometers?

        So the knew the risk further away but had no idea of the risk closer???

        You make little sense.

        You should say that last sentence to yourself in a mirror…and reflect on it.

      • Sam Gilman

        I’ve been following this discussion and I think it’s fascinating how much Richard has invested in this idea that TEPCO KNEW but failed to act on the knowledge.

        It should be a matter of cool assessment whether or not TEPCO can reasonably be said to have known the dangers. Reaction and anger should come after. What you’re saying makes simple sense: the clearly known tsunamis of this size were on a different part of the Japanese coast that has a different topography.

      • Sam Gilman

        I’ve been following this discussion and I think it’s fascinating how much Richard has invested in this idea that TEPCO KNEW but failed to act on the knowledge.

        It should be a matter of cool assessment whether or not TEPCO can reasonably be said to have known the dangers. Reaction and anger should come after. What you’re saying makes simple sense: the clearly known tsunamis of this size were on a different part of the Japanese coast that has a different topography.

      • Sam Gilman

        I’ve been following this discussion and I think it’s fascinating how much Richard has invested in this idea that TEPCO KNEW but failed to act on the knowledge.

        It should be a matter of cool assessment whether or not TEPCO can reasonably be said to have known the dangers. Reaction and anger should come after. What you’re saying makes simple sense: the clearly known tsunamis of this size were on a different part of the Japanese coast that has a different topography.

      • Sam Gilman

        I’ve been following this discussion and I think it’s fascinating how much Richard has invested in this idea that TEPCO KNEW but failed to act on the knowledge.

        It should be a matter of cool assessment whether or not TEPCO can reasonably be said to have known the dangers. Reaction and anger should come after. What you’re saying makes simple sense: the clearly known tsunamis of this size were on a different part of the Japanese coast that has a different topography.

      • Sam Gilman

        I’ve been following this discussion and I think it’s fascinating how much Richard has invested in this idea that TEPCO KNEW but failed to act on the knowledge.

        It should be a matter of cool assessment whether or not TEPCO can reasonably be said to have known the dangers. Reaction and anger should come after. What you’re saying makes simple sense: the clearly known tsunamis of this size were on a different part of the Japanese coast that has a different topography.

      • Sam Gilman

        I’ve been following this discussion and I think it’s fascinating how much Richard has invested in this idea that TEPCO KNEW but failed to act on the knowledge.

        It should be a matter of cool assessment whether or not TEPCO can reasonably be said to have known the dangers. Reaction and anger should come after. What you’re saying makes simple sense: the clearly known tsunamis of this size were on a different part of the Japanese coast that has a different topography.

      • Sam Gilman

        I’ve been following this discussion and I think it’s fascinating how much Richard has invested in this idea that TEPCO KNEW but failed to act on the knowledge.

        It should be a matter of cool assessment whether or not TEPCO can reasonably be said to have known the dangers. Reaction and anger should come after. What you’re saying makes simple sense: the clearly known tsunamis of this size were on a different part of the Japanese coast that has a different topography.

      • Sam Gilman

        I’ve been following this discussion and I think it’s fascinating how much Richard has invested in this idea that TEPCO KNEW but failed to act on the knowledge.

        It should be a matter of cool assessment whether or not TEPCO can reasonably be said to have known the dangers. Reaction and anger should come after. What you’re saying makes simple sense: the clearly known tsunamis of this size were on a different part of the Japanese coast that has a different topography.

      • Sam Gilman

        I’ve been following this discussion and I think it’s fascinating how much Richard has invested in this idea that TEPCO KNEW but failed to act on the knowledge.

        It should be a matter of cool assessment whether or not TEPCO can reasonably be said to have known the dangers. Reaction and anger should come after. What you’re saying makes simple sense: the clearly known tsunamis of this size were on a different part of the Japanese coast that has a different topography.

      • Sam Gilman

        I’ve been following this discussion and I think it’s fascinating how much Richard has invested in this idea that TEPCO KNEW but failed to act on the knowledge.

        It should be a matter of cool assessment whether or not TEPCO can reasonably be said to have known the dangers. Reaction and anger should come after. What you’re saying makes simple sense: the clearly known tsunamis of this size were on a different part of the Japanese coast that has a different topography.

      • Sam Gilman

        I’ve been following this discussion and I think it’s fascinating how much Richard has invested in this idea that TEPCO KNEW but failed to act on the knowledge.

        It should be a matter of cool assessment whether or not TEPCO can reasonably be said to have known the dangers. Reaction and anger should come after. What you’re saying makes simple sense: the clearly known tsunamis of this size were on a different part of the Japanese coast that has a different topography.

      • Richard Werkhoven

        Recurring in that they keep happening – but continue to play games to satisfy your needs.

        “And despite your assertions – outside of the Sanriku Coast, the Pacific Coast of Tohoku rarely gets hit by devastating tsunamis.” – Rarely but clearly enough to be an issue.

        It happened and it was expected. ‘Rarely’ is an admission of my point.

        “these nuclear plants were built on bedrock, to provide some resistance to soil liquefaction in earthquakes” – and yet not really enough protection judging by the movement of some of the Daiini structures – but this point is a red herring to the actual issue we were discussing.

        We were discussing Tsunami height – liquefaction from an EQ is a seperate problem. The seawall height is not about the liquefaction.

        “You should say that last sentence to yourself in a mirror…and reflect on it.” – I’ll leave you to the narcissus routine. I expect the Tsunami will hit you if you try the pond instead of the mirror.

      • Starviking

        “It happened and it was expected. ‘Rarely’ is an admission of my point.”

        Rarely as in 869 AD. The 2011 Tsunami was not “expected” in any common understanding of the word – or there would have been better preparations for the civilian populace.

        You might be interested to learn that core samples in Fukushima placed the 869 AD tsunami at 4 metres in the north of the prefecture, and found no tsunami deposits in the southern half of the coast.

        “We were discussing Tsunami height – liquefaction from an EQ is a seperate problem. The seawall height is not about the liquefaction.”

        Really? I thought you were talking about the height of the plants above sea level? Could you restate your point?

      • Richard Werkhoven

        Let’s see:

        It was expected by the government experts who asked Tepco to increase the protections accordingly.

        It was expected by Tepco who assumed the plant would not be as badly affected as it was.

        I don’t care what nonsense you go on with about the populace or the media or the stones or the Sanriku coast or the meaning of rarely.

        It was expected by those who were supposed to do something about it. They didn’t!

      • Starviking

        I don’t care what nonsense you go on with about the populace or the media or the stones or the Sanriku coast or the meaning of rarely.

        Thanks for confirming that you don’t care about the populace, who despite your claims of an “expected” disaster, were left to die.

      • Richard Werkhoven

        Again you go on with nonsense, showing a complete lack of intellectual honesty.

        “I don’t care what nonsense you go on with about the populace”

        – Is clearly about your nonsense and is not denying the risk to the populace, nor showing a lack of care.

        The issue is your apoloigist attempts to use red herrings to deflect from anyone suggetsing Tepco should have acted on the info they had.

        And this post by you is yet another attempt to confuse the issue.

      • Starviking

        Intellectual honesty? You were the one bringing up the stones as a testament that Fukushima had been hit by tsunamis repeated times in the past, and despite me correcting you on that point, you continue to make it.

        When I make the point about Fukushima getting rarely hit, as in over 1000 years ago, you get hung up on my use of the work “rarely”.

        My point about the media, I think, is valid – nothing on a potential tsunami pre-March 11th 2011. Same on seismic warning maps – nothing pre-Tsunami.

        On the populace, it is another point which I think is valid: we get stories about how everyone knew, and everyone was telling TEPCO – but they ignored it. But for some reason, no one was thinking about the risk to the populace.

        On that last point, I will acknowledge that I was harsh and far too broad in my characterization of you in my last post. However, a failure to give weight to what happened to the populace in everyone’s favourite TEPCO conspiracy theory, and how they were left unprotected, does, in my mind at least, indicate a certain disregard for them in the pursuit of TEPCO.

      • Richard Werkhoven

        The stone markers indicated a knowledge of Tsunami risk in the area. You are arguing about the meaning of ‘the area’.

        I find that argument somewhat silly because Tepco was warned.

        You have a point that more protection for the populace was a good idea. It wasn’t the point you apparently made at the start.

        The point about protecting the populace does not undo the fact that the plant should have been adequately protected and that Tepco was instructed to do so. Two wrongs do not make a right!

        I do not fail to give weight to what happened to the populace, I just discount it’s impact on the reality of the failure by Tepco do play their part in not endangering the populace.

        Both were necessary, the lack of one does not change the facts surrounding the lack of the other!

        So stop the game playing and intellectual dishonesty, which you continue with attempts to more subtly repaint my position as uncaring or a conspiracy theory.

        As for the media – well I am certainly not defending their position on reports pre-2011 about the risks to the populace from either the Tsunami or the nuclear plant.

        Post 2011 the reporting slightly changed. You may note that the report of Tepco being informed was not widely published when the facts were uncovered and the story filed. What we are reading here is to me old news.

        To suggest the media ran wild with this is quite laughable actually.