/

It’s time to punish Tepco

by

Fishermen trawling the waters off Japan’s eastern coast have been alleging for a while that radioactive water is again spilling into the Pacific from the Fukushima power plant that melted down after a massive earthquake in 2011. On Feb. 24, Tokyo Electric Power Co., which is responsible for the site, admitted those suspicions were justified.

And it turns out that Tepco knew about this latest radioactive leak since last May — and the giant utility said nothing for almost a year.

In the 15 days since Tepco finally confessed, have investigators raided its Tokyo headquarters? Have regulators demanded that heads roll? Has Prime Minister Shinzo Abe used his bully pulpit to demand accountability from the company that gave the world its worst nuclear crisis since Chernobyl?

In any other major democracy, those steps would have been obvious. But none have occurred in Japan. And that raises troubling questions not just about Tepco’s corporate governance, but the rampant cronyism enabling it.

When he took office in December 2012, Abe pledged to make corporate executives more accountable to international codes of conduct. In August 2013, he had a perfect chance to show his mettle. At the time, Tepco was still the butt of international criticism for its handling of the aftermath at Fukushima. Abe — concerned that the bad press would affect Tokyo’s campaign to host the 2020 Olympics — declared his government would push Tepco aside and handle the cleanup efforts directly.

It was all for show. Abe’s government never intervened, and Tepco stayed in charge. Four years to the day since the earthquake, Fukushima is still leaking; 120,000 people remain displaced; and Tepco’s opacity and incompetence are unchanged.

The company’s obfuscations “tell us all we need to know about its resilient corporate culture of irresponsibility,” says Jeff Kingston, director of Asian Studies at Temple University in Tokyo. “It has not changed its stripes. The decommissioning efforts have been shambolic, it’s still incompetent and negligent and has a very deep hole to climb out of in trying to regain any public trust.”

How does Tepco get away with it?

It is protected from on high by the “nuclear village,” Tokyo’s answer to the military-industrial complex that is said to hold sway in Washington. This alliance of pro-nuclear politicians, bureaucrats and power companies promotes reactors over safer forms of energy like solar, wind or geothermal, and works to shield utilities from competition and global standards. (That’s how Tepco got away with consistently doctoring its maintenance reports for Fukushima and putting all of its backup generators underground in a tsunami-prone area.)

Even after the Fukushima disaster, national nuclear regulators seemed more concerned about restarting Japan’s 48 remaining reactors (all of which have been shut down in the interim) than neutralizing the one contaminating the northeast of the country.

Tokyo was a scary place to be in March 2011 amid Fukushima’s triple meltdown. Most frightening, though, was the utter lack of transparency from the authorities. Tepco’s then-President Masataka Shimizu gave maddeningly contradictory accounts of events at Fukushima. Two months later, Shimizu took the fall for Tepco’s sending radiation clouds Tokyo’s way. Tepco’s idea of a new start was to replace him with a 36-year company veteran.

Four years on, it’s still not clear whether Tepco has learned anything.

“I find it galling that not only was Tepco never punished for constructing reactors well below the tsunami warning markers, thereby worsening the effects of the quake and tidal wave, but was even allowed to raise its rates to make the consumer pay for the cleanup costs,” says Robert Whiting, author of “Tokyo Underworld.”

Even in the context of Japanese cronyism, it’s astounding that nobody at Tepco has gone to jail. Criminal proceedings against Japan’s business titans aren’t unprecedented.

Executives of the optics manufacturer Olympus were arrested over a 2011 fraud scandal.

Internet entrepreneur Takafumi Horie and fund manager Yoshiaki Murakami got locked up for insider trading.

Yet, Tepco’s executives continue to enjoy a get-out-jail-free card, courtesy of the Tokyo establishment.

At the very least, Tepco’s senior management should be fired without pensions and face charges from prosecutors. The company should also be nationalized. (Taxpayers are bearing the costs of Tepco’s negligence anyway.)

Abe’s desire to eliminate the cronyism endemic to Japan Inc. is laudable. It would make the economy more vibrant, productive and attractive to overseas investors. He should start by bringing the most egregious offender to justice. I’m sure the Fukushima fishermen will be happy to testify.

William Pesek is a Bloomberg View columnist based in Tokyo who writes on economics, markets and politics in the Asia-Pacific region.

  • Paul Martin

    Like in all small sized nations there is always that special group of wealthy, politically connected people who are virtually UNTOUCHABLE !

  • kyushuphil

    The walking dead atop TEPCO have only done what they were taught to do.

    All Japanese schools teach everybody to shut up, ask no questions, and obediently follow group activity, all repetitious, regimented, decked out in ceremony and ritual.

    Yosano Akiko and Natsume Sōseki objected to this in their day. So did the Tsurezuregusa of Kenkō in his day. Haruki Murakami has brilliantly attached the conformity, the drifting deference to authority (see his speech in Catalonia, June 2011). Noir writers Kirino Natsuo and Miyuki Miyabe have excoriated it in their novels. So too, do all 218 poets in the Fukushima anthology, “Farewell to Nuclear, Welcome to Renewable Energy: A Collection of Poems by 218 Poets.”

    The trouble is, these are all voices from Japanese culture. The walking dead at TEPCO, the dead souls at the federal ministry of ed, all know nothing of Japanese culture, and only slave away in thrall to America’s corporate brands of international materialism.

    • Sam Gilman

      Why on Earth would I want to rely on poets for advice on how to decarbonise an electricity grid?

      One cognitive bias that people have is attributing false expertise and abilities to people they already agree with.

      • kyushuphil

        If you have limited goals, then please do limit your imagination.

        “Cognitive bias”? If all the arts have no earing on ours lives, then our lives have devolved to the materialism for which we need experts to tinker. But so long as the experts, the specialists, rule, adjusting this bit of the pipeline, that bit, who’s to look at things overall?

        I went through all this 50 years ago, the conceit of the experts, as the whiz kids, the materialism rationalists, “the best and the brightest” drove us deeper and deeper into Nam

      • Starviking

        Then should we ask the artists and writers how exactly to tackle ocean acidification, habitat shifts, climatic changes – and all the other ills associated with global warming?

      • kyushuphil

        Absolutely yes.

        Start with reading Miyuki Miyabe. Her noir novel, “All She Was Worth” shows the role of the consumer finance industry in pushing women especially into debt.

        Originally in Japanese “Ka Sha,” or “Fire Wagon,” it shows the hell that results for women when pushed too deeply into name brand fashion envy, shopping mall lust, and the other forms of manipulation and helplessness by which the pollution also originates and we need all those nukes to push even more neon, more shopping malls.

        The poets who show us the origins of greed? Many, many. Especially in America. The films which show us the human cost of materialism? Many, many.

        Or do you like just to factor out the human cost, to our Citizens United reduction to the corporate, to the standardized testing of all to reduce us to numbers, consumer demographics, market targets? If so, here in Japan go on from Miyuki Miyabe to Natsuo Kirino. Then hit the poets in “Farewell to Nuclear, Welcome to Renewable Energy: A Collection of Poems by 218 Poets.”

        Things connect interconnect. The human is at the center of climate change. Or do you really like to remain dumb and dehumanized about that?

      • Starviking

        That’s all well and good, but most of these artists and writers have no idea of science or technology. If we listen to their plans for combatting climate change, or any other problem requiring knowledge of science and technology, things are not going to get better.

        We had arty types complaining about the poisions we were injecting into our children, and what did we get? Measles epidemics!

      • kyushuphil

        Because of a few nuts, you’re going to generalize about the much larger population of poets, writers, film makers, and musicians?

        If you read actual histories, biographies, and memoirs on the great scientists, you’ll find many, many specific instances of gratitude from all the great ones as to their own debts to wisdom and invaluable perspectives they got from the arts.

        But you still want to play censor, as if only the most strict specialization may fit your world?

      • Sam Gilman

        There is a huge difference between a scientist expressing gratitude, admiration, awe regarding a poet, and the same scientist handing over the keys to her lab to the same poet.

        Similarly, you have writers who are in admiration of great scientists. When they do this, they don’t mean “this scientist is a great novelist and should get a literary agent”.

        You are asking people directly to follow the scientific advice of poets. I’ve had a look at samples of these poems available on-line, and tedious as it may be to say, many of them are scientifically wrong. Not in that their metaphors are taking liberties for the sake of expression, but that they are literally scientifically grossly inaccurate, much as a poem about how vaccines gave someone’s child autism is scientifically inaccurate.

        Would you rather have a defibrillator designed by someone with a science degree or a literature degree?

      • kyushuphil

        I’m not sure who you are reading, attributing others to me.

        I have never asked anyone — ever, at any time — “directly to follow the scientific advice of poets.”

        The 218 poets in the collection on Fukushima speak to poisoning they have experienced, loss of homes they have experienced, and massive lies from on high they have experienced. That’s what the book does. It urges us to alternatives away from poisoning, mass evacuations, and lies.

        If you don’t like their message — and want to slur them as if collectively “they are literally scientifically grossly inaccurate,” then please read the official Japanese government report on Fukushima, by professionals and scientists. It comes to the same conclusions as the poets. Recklessness of poisoning. Bureaucratic incompetence at the top of TEPCO and regulatory agencies. And mass lying throughout.

        Why your great animus? One who self-identifies as a poet is writing poetry — not a scientific paper. You can’t live with that? You really don’t know what poets do? .

      • Sam Gilman

        I’m so sorry – I thought you referred to the book as a means of encouraging people to choose one form of electricity generation over another.

        Instead apparently it’s all entirely allegorical and has nothing to do with the environment and human health.

        Or are you trying to have your cake and eat it?

      • kyushuphil

        Why still ignore the central facts?

        These poets, speaking for the environment and human health, coincide exactly, resoundingly, with the scientists and other professionals on the official Japanese commission that also found TEPCPO and the government reg agencies guilty of the mass poisoning, incompetence at highest levels, and systematic lies.

        Yes, the book has far too many typos, translation errors, and questionable facts. That’s embarrassing.

        But even with these errors the book stands as a monumental collective human voice, alongside with the scientific.

        So why do you want to disparage the human, even with its frailty?

        We live in the era of Citizens United. And standardized tests. An entire culture given to the monetized, the numbered, and in the life sciences, the molecular. These forces may beckon with the perfection of the vulgar, closed systems they are. But they aim at extinction of life.

        I’m off now on a road trip here in Japan for the next week. So please excuse me if I’m delayed in responding to your answer, but please do answer. Why your cynicism to the human, your smug defense of the corporate status quo of poisoning, incompetence, and lies?

      • greenthinker2012

        Not everything humans do or think is good.

        Sometimes it is good to disparage the tendencies of humans.
        We are often driven by irrational fear.
        For example we have had witch-burnings where thousands of women were burned alive based on faulty human reasoning.
        Is this a “human frailty” we wish to embrace?

        Likewise there are people who are having an emotional reaction to the Fukushima nuclear accident that is based on erroneous “facts”.
        The consequences of acting on these falsehoods causes real harm.

        We will not find the solution to climate change by ignoring science and appealing to emotion.
        If the poetry convinces people to reject a major low-carbon energy source like nuclear power and convinces them that an all-renewables solution will solve the problem of decarbonizing our energy production, then the poets have committed a crime against future generations by impeding progress to a solution.

      • kyushuphil

        Get this straight. Poets do not speak as scientists.

        They speak on behalf of their loved ones, their homes, landscapes, debts to good humans before them.
        The “experts” can be wrong. Are often murderously wrong.

        I learned this firsthand more than 40 years ago, when I was a U.S. Army translator/interpreter of Vietnamese. (and also a congressional correspondent).

        The “experts,” the “best and the brightest,” did as you want to do now. They scorned the mere human, the peasant out in the paddies. They listened to all the intellectuals, with all their white papers, their statistics measuring America’s materiel superiority, the tonnage of bombs America could drop, the luxury goods that could keep floating the clean-shaven, well-groomed in Saigon.

        You were wrong then to reject the human.

        And now, you want to inundate the world with nuke toxins that even you, the experts, cannot dispose of safely anywhere on Earth? You want to leave these poisons forever for others to suffer?

      • greenthinker2012

        Actually what I want to do is stop climate change. Nuclear power can help us do this.

        You say that in the past there were “experts” who were wrong.
        Here is a question for you…
        Are “poets” ever wrong?

      • greenthinker2012

        I also want to add that your assertion that nuclear waste cannot be disposed of safely is a prime example of your ignorant poetic bullish*t.
        You “feel” nuclear power is bad and so it must be bad.
        The actual scientific fact is that there are no technical issues stopping the safe permanent disposal of nuclear waste.
        The only issue is political.
        Because people like you hold a strong irrational fear and are also scientifically illiterate and proud of it, no politician will ever want to approach the issue and thus the “problem” will remain unsolved.

      • Sam Gilman

        These poets, speaking for the environment and human health

        No, they don’t. They speak for themselves. To say in particular that they speak for the environment is the ecological equivalent of mansplaining or whitesplaining, the abuser speaking for the abused.

        If we want to know what the environment wants to say, we need to listen, not speak for it. This means we need to look at things like biodiversity. We do this by doing science.

        If we want to know about human health, rather than human fears about health, we need to look at medical data, psychiatric assessments. That involves listening to people, and listening well. That’s different to someone with a clear political agenda saying “look, I’ve got a poem”.

        None of this is to disparage the role of literature. In fact, I think you underestimate the power of artistic expression. Greenthinker asked you a very good question which you didn’t really answer – are poets ever wrong? I would say yes. If a poet can’t be wrong in some way, then what’s the point of writing poetry? Is it just to create pretty little baubles, or pretentious context-free introspection? Or is it about our interaction with the world? That’s why I react strongly to your suggestion we listen to poets about human health and the environment. They can and often do have direct political messages, calls to action, inspirational rallying cries. But if there is one thing I have learnt since Fukushima, it is the astonishing ability of people to believe things, with passion and unshakeable faith, that don’t happen to be true, simply because it suits their aesthetic, or their politics, or their paranoia.

      • kyushuphil

        Of course the human errs, scientists as well as poets.

        I’m glad you’ve the patience to continue arguing this — the conceit that, if one group claims objectivity, it thus has it.

        Scientists may have objectivity as a goal, but if they leave out their own humanity, and do not account for the humanity of others, their array of evidence, facts, numbers, and parameters will all wildly err — as murderously happened to America’s “best and brightest” social scientists, systems delivery specialists, ordinance strategists, and others in the Nam war.

        I asked “greenthinker” to look at a two-hour documentary by Scott Noble, on “metanoia,” the efforts of scientists for the last 100 years to perfect mind control over us.

        This effort, to sway whole human populations, is the Frankenstein side of science,. It happens when scientists not only scoff at the human, but also believe they can control for the human, control the human. Abu Ghraib didn’t come only from out of the warped minds of 19-year-old army prison guards. it came more deliberately from a long, “scientific” pursuit of using drugs and torture to shape and control all of us.

        They are human, those who build nukes, write standardized tests, seek molecular engineering for new drugs, and count statistics and profits from marketing campaigns. It’s their own humanity that can make and has made them dangerous. We can correct this by insisting that we see them in larger contexts. To see the greater prejudices in them that also apply, we need to keep them under human and historical perspectives, not just keep claiming that they’ve freed themselves of all that.

        Yes, poets err. Yes, “the human” is fraught with error. Do you still want to exempt “scientists” from the weird forms of humanity in their “scientific” campaigns, too?

      • kyushuphil

        Why do you suppose poets speaking for themselves thus can speak for nothing else?

        Do you think that any of us, speaking for ourselves, thus automatically are in such personal mode that it disqualifies us from seeing anything outside ourselves? That speaking personally, for you, is automatically narcissistic, solipsistic?

        Is this why, in all the departments of depersonalized corporate academe, all learn to avoid “the personal”? All learn narrow specialist speak, wonk talk.– and you think this narrowness improves us?

        Again I’m asking you — and you ever shirk from answering — why your animus against the human, against humanity having any bearing, any connection — ever — on any of those departments of materialism?

        Nukes, gas chambers, molecular-bio drugs, all that consumerism in all its marketed demographics — you trust being engineered so much that you scoff at bringing any — any — human questions to any of it?

      • Starviking

        Perhaps I would be better spreading the net wider to “those who appreciate the arts but not science”

        Apologies for the generalization of all artists.

        I like the arts too. However, far too much pseudo-science and scientifically improbable “facts” get advanced by those who do not have a scientific bent.

        Look at homoeopathy, all the terrible autism treatments, the anti-vac nonsense, the prognostications on renewables without an attempt to understand generation and transmission fundamentals, look at fearmongering about plutonium – from people who should be campaigning against diesel-powered vehicles. They may love the arts, but they do not understand science.

        Look at Kenzaburo Oe, student of French Literature; Haruki Murakami, student of Drama; and others like Ryuichi Sakamoto and Yoko Ono. They make declarations from above – without any understanding of what they are saying; without any attempt to understand the science behind what they are saying… and yet so sure of themselves – because they have never, ever tried to educate themselves in fields pertaining to what they proclaim about.

        To me, that is true arrogance.

      • kyushuphil

        Read the text of Haruki Murakami’s speech in Catalonia, June, 2011.

        He’s not “arrogant,” but exactly on target as to the silence taught in Japanese schools, the lack of questioning, the obeisance to regimentation, repetition.
        Yes, these schools produce the world’s best in science and math — even reading, too, as the international testing shows.

        But a dearth of critical thinkers. No skills in essay writing. No skill to see other perspectives, larger contexts.

        Some Japanese have those skills — have gloriously had them for centuries. So I appreciate your admission that you who love science also appreciate the arts.

        But “science” is not one single, wholesome whole. It’s always tinted with any culture’s simultaneous belief systems. Thus now you can buy Prozac — which is nothing more than a multi-billion-dollar placebo. But it comes from “scientists” too craven ever to question themselves, too sunk in the molecular beliefs that see all life as units, numbers, items their bosses can sell.

        50 years ago, as Nam cranked up, all the “experts” in the departments of state and war agreed. Those who protested were non-expert — philosophers, writers, poets, and others whom I distrusted then as you scorn now.

        But the people were right. The whiz kids dead wrong.

      • Sparafucile

        I’d almost expect the result to be better than asking politicians, who innumerately conclude that renewable power will save mankind and that ocean acidification is a real happening.

      • Sam Gilman

        Or politicians cognitively challenged enough to deny climate change.

        On the other hand, mainstream scientists?

        https://scholar.google.co.jp/scholar?hl=en&q=Ocean+acidification+climate+change

        Yeah, I’ll go with them.

      • Sparafucile

        Every one of those studies (most of them purely speculative) assume the premise that ocean acidification is happening. The data over the last century show that it’s not.

      • Sam Gilman

        Do you have scientific studies in defence of that claim?

      • Sparafucile

        I cited several, but this site put my post in “pending” status.

      • Sam Gilman

        Just give the bibliographic citations. Google Scholar does it automatically for you in a variety of standard styles.

      • Starviking

        I agree with you on the renewable hype, but ocean acidification is a scientifically valid consequence of increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

      • Sparafucile

        The premise is possible, but the measured data don’t align.

      • Sam Gilman

        So because you were part of an imperialist project in South East Asia, the rest of us should listen to poets about climate change mitigation?

        I am struggling to follow your logic.

        It is not materialist to want to stop climate change. It definitely is a scientific and technological challenge, as well as a societal one. In particular, a lot of the more poetic and emotionally-appealing solutions are, when you analyse them, inadequate or even counter-productive, or not quite as pretty and harmonious with nature when viewed in the whole.

  • Richard Solomon

    PM Abe has not punished TEPCO nor had the government take over the clean up because he does not want to be held directly responsible for managing what is a fiasco. No one in Japan really know show to handle this mess. So, it’s safer for Abe and the LDP to keep TEPCO ‘in charge’ so that blame can be deflected away from the government. The problems keep arising and the cover up continues. What else is new?!?

  • Starviking

    “Fishermen trawling the waters off Japan’s eastern coast
    have been alleging for a while that radioactive water is again spilling into the Pacific from the Fukushima power plant that melted down after a massive earthquake in 2011. On Feb. 24, Tokyo Electric Power Co., which is responsible for the site, admitted those suspicions were justified.”

    No they didn’t. Automatic systems stopped the leak quickly. A leak which was going into the harbour, not the Pacific.

    “And it turns out that Tepco knew about this latest radioactive leak since last May — and the giant utility said nothing for almost
    a year.”

    No they didn’t. They knew that radiation levels increased in an internal waterway after rain. They took measures to prevent that. Nothing was leaking into the ocean.

    “Four years on, it’s still not clear whether Tepco has learned anything.”

    Well, apart from preventing major radionuclide releases to the sea and atmosphere.

    “I find it galling that not only was Tepco never punished for constructing reactors well below the tsunami warning markers, thereby worsening the effects of the quake and tidal wave, but was even allowed to raise its rates to make the consumer pay for the cleanup costs,” says Robert Whiting, author of “Tokyo Underworld.”

    Ah, the popular non-fiction author is an authority on tsunamis? Funny he should get his facts wrong. The tsunami warning markers were on the Sanriku Coast, and surprise-surprise, Dai-ichi is not on the Sanriku Coast.

    “At the very least, Tepco’s senior management should be
    fired without pensions and face charges from prosecutors. The company should also be nationalized. (Taxpayers are bearing the costs of Tepco’s negligence anyway.)”

    At the very least, journalists who don’t check sources, and enable populist scaremongering should be punished.

  • Guest

    Hello, japantimes? Why so modest?
    We have to punish TEPCO, IAEA in Vienna, CTBTO in Vienna, JAEA in Japan, JAEC in Japan, WHO in Geneva, and Mr. Naoto Kan! They ALL knew a horrible truth:
    Ejection of ALL fuel from Reactor 2, 6:22pm March 14 2011
    This is known since May 24th 2011.

    The Japanese Atomic Energy Commission JAEC had it`s 16th meeting.

    There they presented the NUMO paper which said, that the whole inventory of Reactor 2 was ejected.

    This was proven by CTBTO Takasaki station 200 km from Fukushima
    The On Site measurements by TEPCO
    and the Emergency Fax Correspondence between TEPCO and the japanese Government,

    The UN General Assembly adopted the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court on July 17, 1998.
    On July 1, 2002 the statute came into force. “The International
    Criminal Court is a permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for
    genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.” (Wikipedia,
    03/25/2011) Thus far, the ICC has not accepted criminal or civil cases
    involving the destruction of natural resources and environmental
    terrorism. The establishment of its authority to do so is long overdue.

    In relation to the ongoing accident at Fukushima,
    responsible officials from the International Atomic Energy Agency
    (IAEA), the World Health Organization (WHO), the operating company
    (TEPCO) and Japanese nuclear power regulators should be brought before
    the International Criminal Court and held accountable for their actions.

    Failure to aid in tens of thousands of cases and threats to natural
    resources hundreds of thousands if not millions of people is a Felony.

    The behavior of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the
    World Health Organization (WHO) following the reactor accident of
    Fukushima is a scandal. WHO has made public statements trivializing the
    emergency and ceding all of its responsibilities to the IAEA, citing the
    treaty of 1957. “What is WHO’s role in nuclear emergencies? Answer by
    WHO: “Within the United Nations system, the IAEA is the lead agency for
    coordination of international response to radiation events.” (World
    Health Organization, Japan Nuclear Concerns, FAQ, 14 March 2011, Geneva)

    The IAEA – an organization whose Board of Governors is
    dominated by and comprised almost entirely of nuclear industry members,
    holds fast to its opinion that Fukushima should be assessed at Level 5
    on the International Rating scale for significant events in nuclear
    facilities (INES).

    The quantity of radioactive Iodine-131 released is a central indicator
    for the evaluation of nuclear accidents on the INES scale. The release
    of more than “a few 10 ^ 16 Bq of iodine 131” is classified as a level 7
    catastrophic accident this (INES) scale.

    Apparently, the IAEA, TEPCO and the Japanese government
    officials in charge have not clearly stated how much radioactive
    material has been released throughout the unfolding of the Fukushima
    disaster. According to estimates by the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
    Organization (CTBTO), comprised of 60 monitoring stations world-wide
    under the auspices of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the first three
    days of the Fukushima accident alone released about 3.8 x 10 ^ 17 Bq of
    radioactive Iodine-131. That is about 100 times the official inventory.
    The Fukushima disaster has also released significant amounts of several
    other radionuclides which have not even been measured.

  • Chernobyl Children Fukushima C

    Hello, japantimes? Why so modest?
    We have to punish TEPCO, IAEA
    in Vienna, CTBTO in Vienna, JAEA in Japan, JAEC in Japan, WHO in Geneva,
    and Mr. Naoto Kan! They ALL knew a horrible truth:
    Ejection of ALL fuel from Reactor 2, 6:22pm March 14 2011
    This is known since May 24th 2011.

    The Japanese Atomic Energy Commission JAEC had it`s 16th meeting.

    There they presented the NUMO paper which said, that the whole inventory of Reactor 2 was ejected.

    This was proven by CTBTO Takasaki station 200 km from Fukushima
    The On Site measurements by TEPCO
    and the Emergency Fax Correspondence between TEPCO and the japanese Government,

    The UN General Assembly adopted the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court on July 17, 1998.
    On July 1, 2002 the statute came into force. “The International
    Criminal Court is a permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for
    genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.” (Wikipedia,
    03/25/2011) Thus far, the ICC has not accepted criminal or civil cases
    involving the destruction of natural resources and environmental
    terrorism. The establishment of its authority to do so is long overdue.

    In relation to the ongoing accident at Fukushima,
    responsible officials from the International Atomic Energy Agency
    (IAEA), the World Health Organization (WHO), the operating company
    (TEPCO) and Japanese nuclear power regulators should be brought before
    the International Criminal Court and held accountable for their actions.

    Failure to aid in tens of thousands of cases and threats to natural
    resources hundreds of thousands if not millions of people is a Felony.

    The behavior of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the
    World Health Organization (WHO) following the reactor accident of
    Fukushima is a scandal. WHO has made public statements trivializing the
    emergency and ceding all of its responsibilities to the IAEA, citing the
    treaty of 1957. “What is WHO’s role in nuclear emergencies? Answer by
    WHO: “Within the United Nations system, the IAEA is the lead agency for
    coordination of international response to radiation events.” (World
    Health Organization, Japan Nuclear Concerns, FAQ, 14 March 2011, Geneva)

    The IAEA – an organization whose Board of Governors is
    dominated by and comprised almost entirely of nuclear industry members,
    for a murderous long time hold fast to its opinion that Fukushima should be assessed at Level 5 on the International Rating scale for significant events in nuclear facilities (INES).

    The quantity of radioactive Iodine-131 released is a central indicator
    for the evaluation of nuclear accidents on the INES scale. The release
    of more than “a few 10 ^ 16 Bq of iodine 131” is classified as a level 7
    catastrophic accident this (INES) scale.

    At that time apparently, the IAEA, TEPCO and the Japanese government
    officials in charge have not clearly stated how much radioactive
    material has been released throughout the unfolding of the Fukushima
    disaster. According to estimates by the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
    Organization (CTBTO), comprised of 60 monitoring stations world-wide
    under the auspices of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the first three
    days of the Fukushima accident alone released about 3.8 x 10 ^ 17 Bq of
    radioactive Iodine-131. That is about 100 times the official inventory.
    The Fukushima disaster has also released significant amounts of several
    other radionuclides which have not even been measured.