Please replace the comment I…

Please replace the comment I have sent earlier with this.

My apology for inconvenience.

Here is my comments as someone who is from Japan and visited Fukushima many times.

1. Water Supply

The most problematic area of the plan is the nonexistence of a measure for water supply. In the Fukushima disaster, approximately 80% of the radioactivity released immediately after the accident went to the Pacific Ocean. The huge problem that caused mandatory evacuation of more than 100,000 people is actually a result of the 20% of the released radioactivity. If all the released radioactive plume fell inland, the damage in the land would have been 5 times worse in a simple calculation.

As contaminated water keeps flowing into the sea, local fishermen are still not allowed to fish around Fukushima Daiichi plant, but the people do not drink water from the contaminated sea water. In Canada, millions of people lose sweet water resource immediately and permanently, which put all the millions of people at severe risk immediately.

2. Animals at Toronto Zoo

The text affirms that all animals need to be protected. Toronto Zoo which houses more than 5,000 animals including large spiecies such as polar bears, giraffes, lions and elephants. is located within 10km from the Pickering Nuclear Generation Station. How can all the animals be protected when every single person would need to evacuate? It needs a concrete measure that is acceptable and humane. The same can be said for cattle animals, which are either slaughtered or starved to death in Fukushima. Protect animals is a right measure but extremely difficult to execute. Even if it is possible, it cannot be done without risking the lives of many human caretakers.

3. Directions for Evacuation

In reality, the level of contamination is not at all decided by the distance from the site of the accident. If you see the map of contaminated areas from both Fukushima and Chenobyl accidents, the severe contamination spreads in one direction in the shape of a long and narrow corridor, which is determined by winds, geographical composition and weather. In case of Fukushima, the radioactive plume moved to all directions and mostly to the ocean as I mentioned, and the largest part of the 20 % traveled north east and the biggest fall out on the land occurred with snow fall. It contaminated the village of Iitate, a peaceful cattle farming area located 40 km from the wrecked plant. The residents were not informed about contamination. In fact, many people from the 10km zone including many children were taking refugee in the village thinking that it's far enough and therefore safe, until a month later when a scientist alarmed the government about the extremely high level of contamination. From there, the radioactive plume continued to sweep the valley to the south covering the largest cities of Fukushima that are also more than 40 km from the plant.

We need a continuous and real-time system that can inform residence which way to run.

4. Anticipation for Lack of Communication

A nuclear disaster can occur in association with other unexpected severe events such as natural disasters, as was the case in Japan. The local residents can lose all the electric power and means of communication. In Fukushima, very few residence near the plant knew what happened even when everyone else in the country had already seen the explosion on TV. Most of them I talked to said that they were informed about the explosion from their friends and family members who were outside Fukushima when their cell phones started working. Some said they got information faster than other locals because they happened to be outside Fukushima. The disaster developed while most residents in the immediate zone were evacuated to nearby shelters where they could receive no information.

We need multiple alternative ways to inform people in case of communication blackout. This is extremely important because unlike other disasters such as fire or flood, even the most contaminated areas would look, feel and smell completely normal.

5. Longer Term Measures

Once happened, a nuclear accident forces people to stay out of the area for years or even decades. The towns and villages, as well as jobs and communities, cease to exist. Unlike other disasters, nuclear emergency is not a short time event.

6. Protection from Ingesting Radioactive Particles

Thyroid blocking has been a big issue in Ontario as a measure of nuclear preparedness. From my observation in Japan, radioactive iodine is only one of many harmful radioactive substances, and strontium 90 and cesium 134/137 causes more damages in a long term. The most important thing immediately after the accident is not to ingest such particles floating in the air, and for that, wearing a mask with appropriate filter is a simple but extremely important.

We should encourage people to have such masks at home in addition to KI pills.

Also, municipal buildings and institutions such as schools should be equipped with Geiger counters or solar-powered monitoring posts. That would become the most reliable and localized information source.

7. Nuclear Liability Act

The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry in Japan said that the cost of the Fukushima Daiichi disaster including decommissioning, decontamination and compensations would reach 21.5 Trillion yen (240 billion CAD) in its Dec. 2016 estimate. The figure has doubled since three years ago. The current estimate of 1 billion CAD is unrealistic. If that remains the case and the rest would be covered by our taxes, the government should clearly address that all Canadian citizens are liable for such costs.

An end note:

As the most recent nuclear disaster, Fukushima scale accident is something we need to be prepared for but as an absolute minimum. We should be prepared for worse considering the following facts; the 80% of radioactivity was blown to the ocean and that; unlike the Chernobyl accident, the reactors at Fukushima Daiichi were not exploded despite the four explosions of containment facilities did; the Pickering nuclear plant is located right next to the largest city of the country whereas Fukushima is 80 percent mountain and and faces ocean. We should remind ourselves that Fukushima is, as severe as it was, not the worst case scenario.

[Original Comment ID: 210528]