• Vienna


I’m sorry to say that the July 13 article “Fukushima plant site originally was a hill safe from tsunami” is mere speculation, a “what if” scenario and thus 100 percent irrelevant.

Let’s say for a second that the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant had been built on the “original” site. First of all, the site itself would not have kept the plant safe from tsunami, since we know that the Sendai-area tsunami rose to 43 meters in some places.

Second, some other earthquake-related event might have hit the plant. Ground liquefaction, maybe. Or the entire bluff could have split with parts of the plant falling into the ocean.

There is no 100 percent safety from earthquakes and related problems like tsunami. This article doesn’t help matters. Nobody knows what could have happened. Things could have gone better, but they could have also turned out a lot worse.

Peace from Austria (although I’m currently in Tokyo).

The opinions expressed in this letter to the editor are the writer’s own and do not necessarily reflect the policies of The Japan Times.

andreas kolb

In a time of both misinformation and too much information, quality journalism is more crucial than ever.
By subscribing, you can help us get the story right.