‘Fukushima-Gate’ tapes deepen dispute over nuclear legacy

Account from Japan’s 2011 nuclear disaster was kept secret - until now

Japan’s  economy, trade and industry minister Yuko Obuchi (centre), wearing a protective suit and a mask, inspects  the tsunami-crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant on September 7th last. After months of pressure the government was finally forced last week to release a transcript of interviews with the manager of the plant at the time of the disaster there in 2011. Photograph: Reuters/Kyodo

Japan’s economy, trade and industry minister Yuko Obuchi (centre), wearing a protective suit and a mask, inspects the tsunami-crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant on September 7th last. After months of pressure the government was finally forced last week to release a transcript of interviews with the manager of the plant at the time of the disaster there in 2011. Photograph: Reuters/Kyodo

 

In the pantheon of Fukushima heroes, Masao Yoshida stands taller than almost everyone else.

As manager of the crippled Daiichi plant in 2011, he was the captain of a nuclear Titanic, ready to go down with his ship rather than let it spin completely out of control.

He later gave the most complete account from the cockpit of the world’s worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl. The account, recorded in 13 interviews from July to November 2011 as part of the lengthy government inquiry into the Fukushima crisis, was kept secret – until now.

After months of pressure, criticism and leaks, the government was finally forced to release the transcript last week. Inevitably, it is now at the centre of a toxic row over the legacy of nuclear power.

The Yoshida tapes were partially leaked this year, first by the Asahi, Japan’s liberal flagship newspaper, then by the conservative Sankei, the Asahi’s bitter rival. Each had strikingly different interpretations of its contents.

The Asahi, which is critical of attempts to restart the nation’s 50 idling reactors, found evidence of terrifying bungling and worse by Tokyo Electric Power Co (Tepco), the operator of the plant.

In May it released extracts apparently showing that 650 of the 720 workers at the plant disobeyed Yoshida’s orders and fled during the height of the crisis, when radiation spiked after a series of explosions. Tepco failed to mention these orders in its official accounts of what occurred, said the paper.

Confusion

Sankei

The newspaper accused the Asahi of “twisting” Yoshida’s account to further the anti nuclear cause.

Last week, the Asahi was forced to admit that it had got the episode wrong and retracted the article. The admission, coming on the back of a separate mea culpa last month over the paper’s coverage of Japanese war crimes, has deeply damaged its reputation.

The furore threatens to obscure, however, the profound crisis Japan faced in March 2011. Yoshida told investigators he feared the plant’s entire payload of toxic nuclear fuel could have escaped. “Our image was that of a catastrophe for all of eastern Japan.”

Three of the Daiichi’s six reactors melted down completely during the crisis, contaminating hundreds of square kilometres of countryside and forcing more than 300,000 people to flee. Many have not been able to return home.

Safety risks

Arguments over what took place have simmered for over three years and both sides have well dug-in positions: one seeking to highlight the managerial and political faultlines of the nuclear industry, the other trying to shift blame elsewhere, particularly toward Naoto Kan, who was prime minister in 2011.

Now a leading anti-nuclear campaigner, Kan is credited by many with facing down Tepco to stop it abandoning the plant’s six reactors and seven lethal nuclear fuel pools. He later said he feared much of Japan’s densely populated eastern seaboard, including Tokyo, could have been left uninhabitable. Tepco denies any plan to abandon the Daiichi plant.

These arguments sharpened this week with the decision by Japan’s nuclear regulator to signal the restart of the industry. To shouts of “shame” and “mad,” nuclear regulation authority head Shunichi Tanaka told a public meeting the Sendai plant in the southwest met safety requirements needed to restart.

The Sendai decision is but a dry run for the reopening of the huge Kashiwazaki-Kariwa complex. Operator Tepco, which also owns the ruined Fukushima plant, says it is losing millions of dollars a month in revenue keeping the seven-reactor plant offline.

Kan said last week he was “confident” that the Yoshida transcript would support his version of events.

All sides at least agree on one point: Yoshida, a heavy smoker who died of oesophageal cancer last year, was made of tough stuff. After his death, Kan tweeted: “I bow in respect for his leadership and decision-making.”

Your Comments
We reserve the right to remove any content at any time from this Community, including without limitation if it violates the Community Standards. We ask that you report content that you in good faith believe violates the above rules by clicking the Flag link next to the offending comment or by filling out this form. New comments are only accepted for 3 days from the date of publication.
16 Comments

Commenting is now closed for this story.

  • 6 years ago
The meltdowns themselves didn't cause contamination of the countryside - it was the explosions that caused that, and they happened partly because Prime Minister Kan would not allow the plant operator to vent off the relatively harmless gases and thus release the pressure building up in the pressure vessels. Plant manager Yoshida wanted to vent the pressure as per procedure but political interference made a bad situation far worse.

Still, not a single person has died from radiation from ... » more
  • 6 years ago
@John Nash
"What we learn here has implications for how we build and whether we build nuclear reactors in the future."

Agreed. Many of the lessons from the Fukushima disaster have already been learned given that these units designs date from the 1950's.

General Electric's current version of these reactors has just today been certified by the US authorities as the design meets all safety and regulatory requirements taking into account lessons learned from Chernobyl (Ukraine), 3 Mile Island ... » more
  • 6 years ago
@John Nash: I've researched this some more and it is a little unclear as to who said what when. What is known is that Fukushima realised that containment pressure was excessive at 23:50 on March 11th and wanted to vent gas immediately (wind was off shore and locally the word was that the 3km exclusion zone was operating).

Government approval was sought and Kan apparently ordered delaying until after a 3am press conference and until the exclusion zone was officially declared sound. This was not ... » more
  • 6 years ago
McNeill wrote "Kan is credited by many with facing down Tepco..." I don't know what's McNeill's definition of "many" but if he is generous enough to let me use it, I can safely say that Kan is critisised for handling the situation immediately after the 3.11 earthquake by manier and I can actually name a few. Yoshida himself was one of them. In the very interviews this article quotes, Yoshida expressed "strong resentment" (the Huffington Post) towards Kan who had claimed he (Kan) faced down Tepco ... » more
  • 6 years ago
@Seán Wilson
Hi Sean. Thank you for your reply and sharing your opinion. However my opinion is different. And I am not the only person who have challenged his professionalism this year. At least one of them is a professional journalist. I quote from the Ichiban Shimbun, the newsletter of the FCCJ (Foreign Correspondents' Club of Japan) below;

"Paul Blustein, former Washington Post reporter and ex-Member of the FCCJ, accuses some present members of propagating misinformation -- even of ... » more
  • 6 years ago
@tarafuku10 Dear "Tarafuku10", thank you for your comments. My wife's decision to resond had nothing to do with me - she's her own agent. I generally don't reply to anonymous comments because it's like figthing ghosts. The examples you cite are evidence of disagreements over one of th emost contentious issues in Japan, not unethical journalism. I have a cordial relationship with Paul Blustein and we happen to believe two different things. Since you've read the Japan Times piece and ... » more