U.S. 50-mile evacuation based on assumptions

[Otaku]

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110408p2g00m0dm019000c.html

(Mainichi Japan) April 8, 2011

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A recommendation for the departure of all U.S. citizens who live within 50 miles (80 kilometers) of the crippled Japanese nuclear power plant was based on incomplete information and assumptions about the reactors' condition, U.S. nuclear officials told an independent advisory panel Thursday.

Members of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards pressed officials Thursday to explain how they concluded that 50 miles was a safe distance from the crippled reactors. The Japanese government had set a 12-mile (19-kilometer) evacuation zone.

On March 16, the Obama administration recommended that Americans evacuate from within a 50-mile radius of the stricken nuclear plant, raising questions about U.S. officials' confidence in Tokyo's risk assessments. Japan's government established a 12-mile evacuation zone after the March 11 earthquake and tsunami and has said that people living 12 to 20 miles from the plant should stay inside.

Randy Sullivan, who leads a protective measures team, said that no data from the site was used to determine the distance. Instead, he said, it was based on the potential conditions of the reactors.

Sullivan told the committee that the calculation was based on "a big release," which U.S. officials could not confirm was happening. The scenario model assumed 100 percent fuel damage at Unit 2, leading to a radioactive release that would last 16 hours, Sullivan said.

Michael Corradini, chairman of the nuclear engineering program at the University of Wisconsin, said, "You were doing a what-if calculation."

Corradini continued: "Thirty-two years ago if Japan had done a what-if calculation about Three Mile Island and said all the Japanese living within 50 miles of Harrisburg should get out, what would our response be to that?" He referred to the partial meltdown of a nuclear reactor in Pennsylvania in 1979.

William Ruland, director of the Division of Safety Systems within the NRC's Nuclear Reactor Regulation Office said the 50-mile evacuation recommendation would be evaluated. Actual measurements taken since the March 17 decision have confirmed, according to NRC, that the decision was prudent.

"We were trying to ... protect our citizens or to make recommendations as appropriate based on the limited information we had," Ruland said. "Sometimes, during emergencies, you basically have to make a decision on the spot based on limited data. And sometimes you have to make a decision, and sometimes that is better than no decision."

[hokkaido1]

see this article http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20110409a7.html

Yes, the US based their 80Km limit on very little up to date info. It is very interesting

[Paul]

I'm sorry but I am with the American Embassy on this one, at the time the Japanese Gov and TEPCO were not forth-coming with accurate and or timely information regarding the severity of the situation at Fukushima. Being in error on the side of safety I think was prudent at the time, it is always easier to go back and say hey we erred on the side of safety.

The government here and TEPCO created the cluster-mext by not being forthwith in disseminating information. At least the US Gov didnt advocate running away, even though it DID authorize non-essential personnel to leave Japan if they felt it necessary.

[Otaku]

I do think there was a problem with getting information out and it didn't help that Japan likes to cover things up as part of the cultural thing to do, but from what I have been reading, another problem was being able to put the information into English for the rest of the world.

Japan can't communicate in English?!?! Surprise...

Even one of the translators screwed up a major point in one of the early reports leading English speakers to believe the power plant was worse than it was.

I do believe in being over-cautious in times of emergency, but what what had me swirling in the state of confusion was that JAPAN is the king of being anal retentive and it seemed like the US was taking that role away in this particular situation. That confused me.

That, coupled with Germany over-reacting and moving their embassy to Osaka and Australia's PM telling Australians to get out of Japan, while at the same time having Japanese media reporting that things aren't as bad as western media made things seem, the whole thing was a cluster-MEXT.

I think the question is, what is the fine-line between being over-precautious and causing mass hysteria? Remember that right after the tsunami, the US too, started pulling all their govt officials out of Japan and telling U.S. residents that if they wanted to get out of Japan they could sign piece of paper and jump on a special flight just for US citizens. Then, a couple days went by and the U.S. started changing their tune as well.

I think EVERYBODY dropped the ball on this particular situation and we are finally starting to clear the fog and look at things with a more level head.

What I am really looking forward to meeting are all the people who jumped shipped and are finally coming back to Japan and returning to work. Personally, I would find it hard to show my face back where I previously high-tailed it from a couple of weeks ago.

[hokkaido1]

Yeh fair enough, its always good to be perhaps a little over-cautious in times of emergency.

btw...
It is interesting to note that Tokyos highest ever radiation rate was after China and Russia's boomb tests

[Paul]

btw...
It is interesting to note that Tokyos highest ever radiation rate was after China and Russia's boomb tests

Not something the "average" Japanese person is aware of I will bet.