• Croydon, United Kingdom


The July 12 article “Fukushima plant site originally was a hill safe from tsunami,” although unpleasant to read, is welcome as it explains in some detail how the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant came to be constructed against what I personally saw as unfavorable geological conditions.

The decision of the builders to extend the foundation to below sea level is very strange. That very decision might have increased the risk to pipework running between the significant installations in the plant. It also made containment of waterborne contamination impossible.

Tokyo Electric Power Co. admitted some weeks after the event that the melting of fuel in three nuclear cores followed shortly after the quake — never mind the tsunami and the loss of electrical services. … I would suppose that construction decisions based on unjustifiable optimism about the area’s seismic profile, and the reckless reliance on cost-benefit analysis to shave safety considerations from the design, have left many people in Japan, and abroad, extremely unhappy.

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.

david denny

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.