Sunday, April 3, 2011

03/04 明治の教訓、15m堤防・水門が村守る…岩手

太田名部漁港(手前)と、防潮堤が機能して被害を受けなかった太田名部地区(奥)


 津波で壊滅的な被害を受けた三陸沿岸の中で、岩手県北部にある普代(ふだい)村を高さ15メートルを超える防潮堤と水門が守った。

 村内での死者数はゼロ(3日現在)。計画時に「高すぎる」と批判を浴びたが、当時の村長が「15メートル以上」と譲らなかった。

 「これがなかったら、みんなの命もなかった」。太田名部(おおたなべ)漁港で飲食店を営む太田定治さん(63)は高さ15・5メートル、全長155メートルの太田名部防潮堤を見上げながら話した。

 津波が襲った先月11日、店にいた太田さんは防潮堤に駆け上った。ほどなく巨大な波が港のすべてをのみ込んだが、防潮堤が食い止めてくれた。堤の上には太田さんら港内で働く約100人が避難したが、足もとがぬれることもなかった。

 村は、昆布やワカメの養殖が主な産業の漁村で、人口約3000人は県内の自治体で最も少ない。海に近く狭あいな普代、太田名部両地区に約1500人が暮らし、残る村人は高台で生活している。普代地区でも高さ15・5メートル、全長205メートルの普代水門が津波をはね返した。

 防潮堤は1967年に県が5800万円をかけ、水門も84年にやはり35億円を投じて完成した。既に一部が完成し60年にチリ地震津波を防ぎ、「万里の長城」と呼ばれた同県宮古市田老(たろう)地区の防潮堤(高さ10メートル)を大きく上回る計画は当初、批判を浴びた。

 村は1896年の明治三陸津波と1933年の昭和三陸津波で計439人の犠牲者を出した。当時の和村幸得村長(故人)が「15メートル以上」を主張した。「明治に15メートルの波が来た」という言い伝えが、村長の頭から離れなかったのだという。

 今回の津波で、宮古市田老地区は防潮堤が波にのまれ、数百人の死者・不明者を出した。岩手県全体で死者・行方不明者は8000人を超えた。

 普代村も防潮堤の外にある6か所の漁港は壊滅状態となり、船の様子を見に行った男性1人が行方不明になっている。深渡宏村長(70)は「先人の津波防災にかける熱意が村民を救った。まず村の完全復旧を急ぎ、沿岸に救いの手を伸ばす」と語った。

(2011年4月3日22時05分 読売新聞)

03/04 津波、37・9mまで駆け上がる…国内最大級

 岩手県宮古市の田老地区で、東日本大震災の津波が高さ37・9メートルまで山中を駆け上がっていたことが3日、東京大学地震研究所の現地調査で分かった。

 これまでの東日本大震災の津波調査での中では最大記録。明治三陸地震(1896年)の際に、同県大船渡市で観測された国内最高の38・2メートルに迫る。

 同地区の小堀内漁港周辺で行った調査では、海岸から200メートル離れた山の斜面の高さ37・9メートル地点で、落ち葉が津波により洗い流されていたほか、その数メートル下では消防車が大破していたことが確認された。

 同研究所の都司嘉宣准教授は「調査はまだ始まったばかりで、さらに高い地点で津波の痕跡が見つかる可能性は十分にある」と話している。

(2011年4月3日23時05分 読売新聞)

03/04 ソフトバンク孫社長、個人で100億円寄付

巨大地震

 ソフトバンクは3日、東日本大震災の被災者支援と復興資金として、孫正義社長が個人で100億円を寄付すると発表した。


 孫社長は2011年度から引退するまでソフトバンクグループ代表として受け取る報酬の全額も寄付する。

 ソフトバンクはグループとしても10億円を寄付することを決めた。

 寄付金は、日本赤十字社や赤い羽根共同募金などへ送るほか、非営利組織(NPO)やボランティア団体にも寄付する。震災遺児の生活と勉学の支援にも役立ててほしいとしている。

(2011年4月3日22時56分 読売新聞)

04/04 震災後世論調査 首相の指導力不足に厳しい声(4月4日付・読売社説)

 東日本大震災と福島第一原子力発電所事故を巡って、菅首相は指導力を発揮していない――そう見る人が、読売新聞社の震災後初の世論調査で約7割にのぼった。

 国難とも言える震災への対策が遅々として進まない。首相はしっかり対処せよという国民の叱咤
しった
の声と受け止めるべきだろう。

 福島第一原発の事故の対応について尋ねると、約6割が「評価しない」と回答した。事故処理に展望が見えず、放射能汚染が広がることに対する、不安といらだちの表れと見てよい。

 福島第一原発については初期対応が後手に回り、危機の連鎖を招いた。首相官邸と東京電力、原子力安全・保安院の連絡や、連携にも難があった。

 原発事故を巡る事実関係の公表の遅れなど、情報公開の在り方についても問題を残している。

 司令塔である首相は、国民の声に謙虚に耳を傾けて、問題解決を急ぎ、不信や懸念の払拭に一層努めなければならない。

 一方で、菅内閣の支持率は31%と、前回より7ポイントも上昇した。国民の信頼を失い、危険水域にまで達していた支持率の低下に、大震災が歯止めをかけた格好だ。

 これは、未曽有の事態に直面して、首相の交代や衆院の解散・総選挙の余裕などなく、現内閣を頼みにするしかないという支持の広がりと見るべきだろう。

 震災直後は、被災者へ生活物資が届かず、燃料不足も大きな問題になった。状況は改善しつつあるとはいえ、被災者は依然、苦しい生活を強いられている。避難所で亡くなる高齢者も少なくない。

 政府には、被災者の救援、生活再建に向けて、一層きめ細かく対応してもらいたい。集まった多額の義援金も、早急に被災者に行き渡るようにする必要がある。

 注目すべきは、民主党と自民党による連立政権を支持する声が、64%にものぼったことだ。

 国家の非常時である。与野党が一致協力して震災対策に取り組めというのが、多くの国民の思いではないだろうか。野党側も、真摯
しんし
に応えなければなるまい。

 復興に向けて、補正予算をはじめ、増税や特別立法制定など案件が山積みだ。円滑に処理していかなければならない。

 菅首相は、大連立も視野に、安定した政権を構築して、迅速に震災対策に当たるべきである。

(2011年4月4日01時21分 読売新聞)

03/04 政府の原発対応「評価せず」61%…読売調査

世論調査

 読売新聞社が1~3日に実施した全国世論調査(電話方式)で、東日本大震災や東京電力福島第一原子力発電所の事故に対応するため、民主党と自民党が連立政権を組む方がよいと思う人は64%に上った。

 菅首相にいつまで続けてほしいと思うかを聞いたところ、「今国会が終わる夏ごろまで」31%が最も多く、「早く退陣してほしい」も19%で、半数が今年夏ごろまでの退陣を求めている。

 震災復興財源については、民主党が政権公約(マニフェスト)で掲げた「子ども手当」などをやめて充てることに「賛成」が83%、増税にも60%が「賛成」と回答。

 国内の原発に関しては「現状維持」が46%で最多だった。

 調査結果では、大連立によって政治勢力を結集したうえで、増税を含めて財源を確保し、強力に復興を進めるべきだという意見が大勢であることが浮き彫りになった。

 菅内閣の支持率は31%で、3月4~6日の前回調査24%から、やや持ち直した。

 今は震災復興にあたる政権を支持するという人が多かったとみられるが、不支持率56%(前回67%)もなお高い水準にある。政党支持率は民主20%(同18%)、自民20%(同19%)で、「支持政党なし」の無党派は49%(同52%)だった。

 地震や原発事故への対応で、首相が指導力を発揮していると思う人は24%にとどまり、「そうは思わない」は69%に達した。

(2011年4月3日21時21分 読売新聞)

Five myths about Muslims in America

Five myths about Muslims in America

Henny Ray Abrams/ AP - Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf addresses a rally to protest congressional hearings on the role of Muslims in homegrown terrorism on March 6 in New York.



By Feisal Abdul Rauf, Friday, April 1, 3:28 PM

I founded the multi-faith Cordoba Initiative to fight the misunderstandings that broaden the divide between Islam and the West — each perceived as harmful by the other. Millions of American Muslims, who see no contradiction between being American and being Muslim, are working hard to bridge this gap. It is therefore not surprising that they have become the target of attacks by those who would rather burn bridges than build them, and the subject of recent congressional hearings exploring their “radicalization.” What myths are behind the entrenched beliefs that Muslims simply do not belong in the United States and that they threaten its security?


Islam was in America even before there was a United States. But Muslims didn’t peaceably emigrate — slave-traders brought them here.

Historians estimate that up to 30 percent of enslaved blacks were Muslims. West African prince Abdul Rahman, freed by President John Quincy Adams in 1828 after 40 years in captivity, was only one of many African Muslims kidnapped and sold into servitude in the New World. In early America, Muslim names could be found in reports of runaway slaves as well as among rosters of soldiers in the Revolutionary War. Muslims fought to preserve American independence in the War of 1812 and for the Union in the Civil War. And more than a century later, thousands of African Americans, including Cassius Clay and Malcolm Little, converted to Islam.

Currently, there are two Muslim members of Congress and thousands of Muslims on active duty in the armed forces. Sure, some Muslim soldiers may have been born elsewhere, but if you wear the uniform of the United States and are willing to die for this country, can you be really be considered a foreigner?


2. American Muslims are ethnically, culturally and politically monolithic.

In fact, the American Muslim community is the most diverse Muslim community in the world.

U.S. Muslims believe different things and honor their faith in different ways. When it comes to politics, a 2007 Pew study found that 63 percent of Muslim Americans “lean Democratic,” 11 percent “lean Republican” and 26 percent “lean independent.” Ethnically, despite the popular misperception, the majority of Muslims in the United States (and in the world, for that matter) are not Arabs — about 88 percent check a different box on their U.S. census form. At least one-quarter, for example, are African American. Anyone who thinks otherwise need look no further than the July 30, 2007, cover of Newsweek magazine, which featured a multicultural portrait of Islam in America.

Muslim Americans are also diverse in their sectarian affiliation. And whether they are Sunni or Shiite, their attendance at religious services varies. According to the State Department publication “Muslims in America — A Statistical Portrait,” Muslim Americans range from highly conservative to moderate to secular in their religious devotion, just like members of other faith communities.

With above-average median household incomes, they are also an indispensable part of the U.S. economy. Sixty-six percent of American Muslim households earn more than $50,000 per year — more than the average U.S. household.

3. American Muslims oppress women.

According to a 2009 study by Gallup, Muslim American women are not only more educated than Muslim women in Western Europe, but are also more educated than the average American. U.S. Muslim women report incomes closer to their male counterparts than American women of any other religion. They are at the helm of many key religious and civic organizations, such as the Arab-American Family Support Center, Azizah magazine, Karamah, Turning Point, the Islamic Networks Group and the American Society for Muslim Advancement.

Of course, challenges to gender justice remain worldwide. In the World Economic Forum’s 2009 Gender Gap Index, which ranks women’s participation in society, 18 of the 25 lowest-ranking countries have Muslim majorities. However, as documented by the Women’s Islamic Initiative in Spirituality and Equality , Muslim women are leading the struggle for change through their scholarship, civic engagement, education, advocacy and activism in the United States and across the world.

4. American Muslims often become “homegrown” terrorists.

According to the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security, more non-Muslims than Muslims were involved in terrorist plots on U.S. soil in 2010. In a country in the grip of Islamophobia — where Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) can convene hearings on the radicalization of American Muslims — this has been overlooked. In 2010, the Triangle Center also found, the largest single source of initial information on planned terrorist attacks by Muslims in the United States was the Muslim American community.

As an American Muslim leader who worked with FBI agents on countering extremism right after Sept. 11, 2001, I fear that identifying Islam with terrorism threatens to erode American Muslims’ civil liberties and fuels the dangerous perception that the United States is at war with Islam. Policymakers must recognize that, more often than not, the terrorists the world should fear are motived by political and socioeconomic — not religious — concerns.

5. American Muslims want to bring sharia law to the United States.

In Islam, sharia is the divine ideal of justice and compassion, similar to the concept of natural law in the Western tradition. Though radicals exist on the fringes of Islam, as in every religion, most Muslim jurists agree on the principal objectives of sharia: the protection and promotion of life, religion, intellect, property, family and dignity. None of this includes turning the United States into a caliphate.

For centuries, most Islamic scholars around the world have agreed that Muslims must follow the laws of the land in which they live. This principle was established by the prophet Muhammad in A.D. 614-615, when he sent some of his followers to be protected by the Christian king of Abyssinia, where they co-existed peacefully. Not only do American Muslims have no scriptural, historical or political grounds to oppose the U.S. Constitution, but the U.S. Constitution is in line with the objectives and ideals of sharia. Muslims already practice sharia in the United States when they worship freely and follow U.S. laws.

In his 1776 publication “Thoughts on Government,” John Adams praised Muhammad as a “sober inquirer after truth.” And the Supreme Court building contains a likeness of the prophet, whose vision of justice is cited as an important precedent to the U.S. Constitution.

Feisal Abdul Rauf is the founder of the Cordoba Initiative.

Want to challenge everything you know? Visit the “Five myths” archive.

29/03 Japan’s earthquake and tsunami: An American teacher’s account

Japan’s earthquake and tsunami: An American teacher’s account

/ Courtesy of Jessica Besecker - Jessica Besecker, a friend of Taylor Anderson, is a teacher in Kesennuma, Japan through the JET Program.



By Elizabeth Flock, Tuesday, March 29, 7:50 PM

It was a typical March day in Kesennuma, Japan, blustery with the threat of snow, and Jessica Besecker had made the mistake of wearing shorts to school.

That morning, the 24-year-old had promised to pick up another American schoolteacher after school. She spent the day at Matsuiwa Junior High School in a flurry of preparation for graduation the following day.

At 2:46 p.m., Besecker was typing in the staff room when she felt the earth move. She looked over at another staff member sitting near her, a female student on the phone and another girl standing in the doorway.

All four froze.

The girl in the doorway began to cry, then crouched on the floor with the other student, and Besecker put her arms around them.

Besecker remembered the 7.2-magnitude quake that had hit the country two days earlier and wondered why they didn’t know this was coming.

The bigger the jolts became, the tighter they gripped one another. Spotting a cabinet full of glasses above them, Besecker pulled the girls to one side to protect them.

Another member of the staff, blood on his hands and face, rushed into the room to get on the PA system. Besecker pushed the girls outside the door. There was blood everywhere on the man, but he searched for the system, and only when he figured out it wouldn’t work did he stand still for Besecker and the other staff member to dab at him with tissues.

As they cleaned his wound, the quaking subsided.

Outside the school, the male students bragged to Besecker and the other teachers that they weren’t scared; they were tough. Many of the girls cried.

Besecker tried to comfort the students, but the Japanese words she had accumulated over 21 / 2 years failed her. Instead, she made shushing noises and rubbed their backs.

And then she remembered her mother and realized the news that America would wake up to. When Besecker took out her phone, the kids asked her how she could be on the Internet at a time like this. Besecker explained that while their moms were in Kesennuma, hers was very far away. They nodded. She posted on Twitter: Huge “quake. Will update later. So far it’s all ok. Kids are safe.” It would be the last her mother would hear from her for seven days.

Matsuiwa Junior High School lies close to the coast but high above ground. So minutes later, when the tsunami rose, Besecker could see the giant wave stretched across the horizon, its white crest advancing.

The tsunami alarm went off. The announcements were in Japanese, and Besecker couldn’t understand them. As alarms sounded, she thought of the friend she’d promised to pick up. When she asked the principal if she could leave, he told her: “Impossible. The roads have all been washed out.”


Besecker saw something catch fire. It was boats out in the harbor, and the boats were carrying the fire into the town on the wave. It looked like a huge wall of fire.

Aftershocks began to rock Kesennuma, and it became unsafe to go back into the school building. To Besecker, it felt like standing on a wooden floor, with someone underneath pushing up separate planks all around her.

Snow fell that afternoon, and the wind picked up. The kids were shivering in their uniforms; Besecker shivered in her shorts.

The teachers rushed to gather metal buckets and wood from school projects to make small bonfires. Some of the boys found tents that they had used for Sports Day. Other kids got tatami mats out of the judo house so they didn’t have to sit on wet dirt. The students huddled inside the tents for warmth.

A few snack cakes and drinks that had been prepared for graduation were doled out. Besecker had Girl Scout cookies in her bag and invited the children to taste “American” cookies.

As night fell, news came of what the rest of Kesennuma looked like. The waters had gone up to the second floor of a nearby building. The roads were washed out.

Some of the students’ parents came to pick them up, but others were left behind and climbed into the school bus to sleep.

The other teachers crawled into their cars. Huddling in her vehicle under a tiny blanket, Besecker still had no idea of how bad the damage was.

She had heard it was a 7.9-magnitude quake, not a 9.0.

She learned that the friend she was supposed to pick up that day was safe. But she didn’t yet know that another close friend and teacher, with whom she had just gone on a two-week vacation to Seoul, had died on her bicycle in the tsunami wave.

She didn’t know that others would go missing or die too: the owner of a local dance club, a chef, a friend from the Kesennuma bars.


elizabethflock@wpost.com

29/03 In Ishinomaki, Japan, stories of survival and loss

In Ishinomaki, Japan, stories of survival and loss

Gallery: Devastation in Ishinomaki, Japan: Ishinomaki, in northeast Japan, was one of the cities hardest hit by the earthquake and tsunami March 11.


By Andrew Higgins, Brigid Schulte and Joel Achenbach, Tuesday, March 29, 9:39 PM

Hiroshi Kameyama, the mayor of Ishinomaki, put on a formal business suit that morning, March 11, and drove 35 miles down the coast to Sendai to attend a symposium on the commercialization of algae.

The mayor, a former engineering professor, enjoyed talking about science and saw an opportunity to speak to potential investors about his city’s overlooked charms. Ishinomaki was not glamorous, but it had fine roads, a university and a lovely, meandering coastline dotted with bays and beaches.

His city had excellent access to the sea.

That morning, Toshikatsu Kumagai, a 34-year-old newspaper reporter, set off in the same direction, stopping in a nearby town to get details about a local council budget meeting. It was shaping up as a slow news day. Kumagai’s paper, circulation 5,000, would hit the streets that afternoon with a front-page story about an elderly councilman who had died of an ulcer and an article about children who had performed well in an abacus contest.

A few miles away, on the other side of Ishinomaki, Taylor Anderson, a 24-year-old English teacher from Richmond, rode her bike that morning to Mangokuura Elementary School. She needed to work on plans for a graduation ceremony the next day.

Spring was close at hand, but the fields were still brown. The forecast called for a late-winter snow. The ocean was cold, gray and calm.

Out at sea, beneath the floor of the Pacific, immense and chaotic geological forces were at work. They were invisible to humans, save for the suggestion in the rugged landscape that this is a place shaped by ancient compressions and upheavals.

In this land of volcanoes, earthquakes, typhoons and tsunamis, the Japanese people have overcome natural catastrophes and a terrible world war to create a highly advanced, technological society. They pride themselves on disaster preparation. Their buildings can roll with seismic waves. Their coastal cities have seawalls and tsunami sirens.

In Ishinomaki, loudspeakers dangled from lampposts, ready to broadcast the warning that a wave was coming and everyone must run for higher ground.

Mayors, journalists, teachers, schoolchildren — they all knew how to take cover under a desk when the earth began to shake. They were fully prepared for a disaster.

But no one could have been ready for the one they got.

The teacher

Taylor Anderson taught English to Japanese students in a program that assigned her to eight different schools in this coastal city. She had been in Japan 21 / 2 years, working on contract with the Japan Exchange and Teaching Program (JET). She loved the country, loved the language, loved reading Japanese authors and had begun to play taiko, the Japanese drum.


She hung out with other American teachers, organizing their trips to karaoke bars. The American schoolteachers in Ishinomaki called themselves the “Ishi crew,” and many lived in the same apartment building in an older part of the city.

Ishinomaki, population 162,000, wasn’t anyone’s first choice for a teaching assignment. It wasn’t as exciting as Tokyo or even Sendai. And it had a certain smell. That was one of the first things many Americans noticed. Fish processors made pink paste that the Japanese plopped onto ramen noodles. Miso factories made paste from fermented soybeans. Another factory made paper, and another made soy sauce.

But Ishinomaki, a sprawling wedge of land that included a city and a host of towns and villages, grew on the foreign teachers. Although newer sections were crowded with fast-food joints, 7-Elevens and retail stores, the older part of town had wooden structures that preserved the traditional texture of Japan. The city had never been the target of a bombing raid during World War II. It had never had a major fire. The worst event had been a tsunami in A.D. 869, so far back in time as to be almost mythical.

This was, from all appearances, a place where nothing much had ever happened, and nothing much ever would.

At 2:46 that afternoon, one of the American teachers, Aaron Jarrad, 26, had just said goodbye to his youngest students and was typing on his laptop, setting up his teaching schedule into August. When the earth began to shake, he slid underneath a table.

Jarrad, who came from Phoenix, knew what an earthquake felt like — there’d been one just a couple of days earlier. He’d been a little unnerved. Some of the Japanese teachers had teased the jittery American.

“This is Japan. We have earthquakes. Get over it,” they had told him.

But this was more violent. When the shaking stopped, Jarrad typed a one word e-mail to his family in Phoenix.

“Safe.”

Jarrad’s friend Steve Corbett, driving to a favorite coffee shop, pulled over as the ground heaved. A hotel in front of him swayed so violently that the 25-year-old schoolteacher feared it would collapse. People ran out of a sushi restaurant and an electronics store, embracing one another, falling to their knees. Corbett had lived through his share of earthquakes growing up in California, but he had never felt the earth convulse like this. The worst lasted five minutes. Corbett timed the aftershocks. The earth didn’t settle for 12 minutes.

“I honestly was expecting crevices to open in the ground in front of my eyes,” he said later.

He turned on the radio and heard a man speaking frantically:

“It is now 2:55 p.m. At approximately 3:00 p.m., a tsunami six meters [19 feet] in height will reach land in Miyagi prefecture. Move now to the highest ground you can find.”

Corbett gunned his car to the nearest hill.

“I thought I was running for my life with the end of the world chasing me,” he said.

At Mangokuura Elementary School, Anderson and the other teachers had led their students onto the playground and had helped parents retrieve their children. More than 300 of the kids had been swiftly whisked away when the tsunami warning sounded. About 50 remained. The teachers decided to move them to a nearby junior high that was farther inland.

“A tsunami will come,” a teacher, Fuminao Takada, recalls warning her.

“I know,” Anderson replied in Japanese, nodding.

The teachers saw her pedaling away, standing high on the bike, pumping furiously. Anderson headed down Route 398, the Onagawa Highway, which paralleled the coast, not far from the open water of Ishinomaki Bay.

The science

The Big One was supposed to hit elsewhere. The consensus among public officials and many scientists in Japan was that the next mega-quake would most likely occur on the Nankai Trough, a tectonic plate boundary southwest of Tokyo. Two sections of that fault had already broken, and since the 1970s the scientific orthodoxy in Japan had been that the easternmost section was primed to break next. Officials had designated the hypothetical event the “Tokai Earthquake.”

But earthquake science is still a young field, and the seismological record goes back only a century or so. The theory of plate tectonics dates only to the 1960s. It has been only since that time that scientists have come to understand that the Japan Trench, a deep furrow in the sea floor running north to south just off the coast of Japan, is where two enormous plates of the Earth come together, one fitfully sliding beneath the other. The entire Pacific Plate is moving toward Japan at about 31 / 2 inches a year. Its leading edge is jammed under Japan, and the country is literally being lifted higher. The strain builds over time, until it is released in an earthquake.

Scientists believed that this section of the Japan Trench could experience magnitude 7 and 8 earthquakes, perhaps as high as 8.4, but not magnitude 9. That’s the difference between a destructive event and a catastrophic one. The earthquake scale is logarithmic: A magnitude 9 is 10 times more powerful than a magnitude 8.

Only in the past few years had a few scientists decided that perhaps the seismological community had underestimated the Japan Trench’s capacity for a mega-quake. One man in particular sounded the alarm: Yasutaka Ikeda, a University of Tokyo seismologist.


Ikeda’s calculations showed that the magnitude 7 and 8 earthquakes along the Japan Trench were not releasing all the strain that had to be accumulating over time. In 2006, he put together a PowerPoint presentation titled “Long-term and short-term rates of crustal deformation over the northeast Japan arc, and their implications for gigantic earthquakes at the Japan Trench.”

His concluding slide stated that most of the strain would be released “in association with a big decoupling event (Mw ~9) on the subduction zone!”

He had no idea when this magnitude 9 event might happen. Such is the unfortunate fact of earthquake science.

On the morning of March 11, Ikeda took a flight to China. When he landed, he heard that there had been a magnitude 8.8 earthquake on the Japan Trench. He didn’t believe it at first. There must be some mistake.

But it was true. Indeed, it turned out to be a 9.0 quake — the largest in the history of Japan.

Ikeda felt sick. He suddenly had no desire to return home. He didn’t want to see what had happened. His theory had been vindicated, but he felt nothing but sorrow and regret.

Because what difference had his research made?

“It’s not a success story at all,” he said later by e-mail. “It’s my regret and many Japanese geologists’ regret that our works had nothing to do with mitigating disaster caused by the Mw 9.0 earthquake of 11th March.

“We did fail.”

The reporter

Toshikatsu Kumagai, the newspaper reporter, thought he knew about tsunamis. He remembered the last one, just a year ago, after the Chilean earthquake sent a wave across the Pacific. By the time it hit Ishinomaki, it was ankle-high and barely slapped the beach.

So he wasn’t perturbed by this latest tsunami warning. Driving his white Honda home on a road near the coast, he hoped to see the wave come in.

Around 3:20 p.m., as he neared a bridge over the Satagawa, a usually placid river on the western side of Ishinomaki, he saw a truck in front of him come to an abrupt stop. He got out of the car, more curious than alarmed, and started taking photographs.

Then, the screams.

“I heard this strange sound — zah-zah-zah — and saw water splashing over the bridge. I thought ‘This is a tsunami.’ ”

His car was blocked by the truck. He had to make a run for it. With the water racing toward him, he ran to the side of the road and spotted a fence. He would climb it, he told himself, and stay above the water.

That was when the wave swallowed him up.

This was like the tsunami of A.D. 869 — an event out of deep time, beyond anyone’s experience. It was simple physics at work. The giant plates of the Earth had decoupled in a magnitude-9 release of strain, just as Ikeda had predicted. The seafloor had risen, lifting the ocean, creating a hill of water just off the coast. The ensuing tsunami functioned like a fleet of bulldozers lined up side to side, with more bulldozers behind them. The waves leveled everything in their path.

“So this is what dying is like,” Kumagai thought.

The mayor

Take me back to Ishinomaki, said Hiroshi Kameyama, the mayor, to his driver outside the hotel in Sendai.

Kameyama had come out of academia and was now 68, bespectacled and less buttoned-down than the typical Japanese public official. He was a member of the Japanese Society for Laughter and Humor Studies, a tongue-in-cheek scholarly organization. Nothing in his past had prepared him for what he would face in the hours ahead.


The mayor telephoned his wife. She said their house was filling with water. She was on the second floor with the mayor’s 92-year-old mother, enduring a barrage of aftershocks.

The roads had been crumpled by the temblor, and Kameyama’s driver made slow progress. The mayor noticed rice fields that were inundated. But it couldn’t be so: They had taken a route away from the coast, miles from the sea.

Night fell. Not until 10 p.m. did they reach the center of the city. A journey that would normally take 45 minutes had lasted seven hours.

With no electricity to power streetlights or homes, it was pitch dark. The mayor got out to walk the rest of the way to his office, but the water was too high. His mobile phone went dead.

“Everything was sinking,” he said.

In City Hall, hundreds of bureaucrats were marooned on the upper floors of the hulking pink building. Originally a department store, it had few windows. All the exits were submerged. An emergency generator provided flickering light.

Around 11, he finally reached a makeshift emergency command center in Ishinomaki’s Red Cross Hospital, located on high ground about 21 / 2 miles from the sea.

The mayor huddled with Self-Defense Forces officers on the second floor, grappling with agonizing decisions about how to deploy the few resources still under their control — a handful of ambulances that hadn’t been swept away, a few doctors who had managed to reach higher ground. The aftershocks continued to rattle the darkened city.

“It was total chaos. I had to be very strict,” the mayor said later. He ordered the hospital to admit only those in need of treatment and turn away others who simply needed a safe place to stay.

As temperatures dipped to near freezing, tens of thousands of residents were left to fend for themselves.

A night adrift

Kumagai, the reporter, had never learned to swim. Now he found himself in what had become, for the moment, an extension of the Pacific Ocean — a great mass of seawater tipped by the earthquake onto the shores of northern Japan.


He struggled to stay above the surface, freezing and battered by broken pieces of the world he once inhabited. He found rescue in the form of a plastic tub that bobbed in the water. The tub kept him afloat. He eventually saw the red hull of a capsized boat and, exhausted, clambered atop it.

As night fell, the snow came. A house torn from its foundations floated by with people clinging to the roof. They shouted to him, then disappeared into the darkness. His own sanctuary twisted in the water but stayed in place, snagged on debris.

“I just sat still trying to not waste any energy,” he recalled.

He dozed off briefly. He startled awake to find the nightmare real.

Daybreak brought a glimmer of hope: A helicopter buzzed overhead. He waved. No one waved back. The helicopter was surveying a coastline of such overwhelming destruction and tragedy that a man clinging to a capsized boat was easily overlooked.

It was not until well into morning, some 18 hours after the tsunami carried him away, that another helicopter spotted Kumagai and hoisted him to safety. Soon he was at the Red Cross Hospital, where the mayor had wound up the night before.

Though bruised and worried about the numbness in his leg, he suffered most from what he didn’t know. He didn’t know who had lived and who had died. He didn’t know if his mother and father had survived.

There were so many people with worse injuries that he was quickly released from the hospital. He finally tracked down his parents, brother and pet cat, Chibi. They were among the lucky ones along this ravaged coast.

The missing

The morning after, Saturday, March 12, the scale of the disaster in Ishinomaki became clear. At Okawa Elementary School, only 31 of 108 students who had shown up for class were known to have survived. The rest were dead or missing. Following the same well-practiced drill that had been performed at Taylor Anderson’s school, the students had gathered on the playground to wait for help — and then were swept away by the tsunami.

Along the coast between Okawa and Ishinomaki’s central district, the town of Onagawa, population 10,000, had been erased but for a flooded hospital on a hill and the shattered remains of a marine exhibition hall. The tsunami had carried seawater miles inland, to places that couldn’t even see the ocean.

In the days afterward, the American teachers sent texts, e-mails or updated their Facebook pages when they could get a wireless signal. They tried to account for all 11 teachers who had been stationed in Ishinomaki. Corbett went from shelter to shelter, and from hospital to hospital, with a list of names.

Aaron Jarrad was finally able to send an e-mail to his family: “I love you all dearly im safe please don’t worry too much”

The only one missing was Anderson.

The school where she had taught that day had barely been damaged by the waves, and the U.S. Embassy initially told her family that she’d been spotted at a hospital. But when Anderson’s friends pressed embassy officials, they said they had spoken too soon.

Eleven days after the earthquake, Anderson’s body was found near a high school along the highway near the ocean, her friends said. She had made it about halfway back to her apartment.

The aftermath

Mayor Kameyama now spends his days struggling to comfort the citizens of Ishinomaki and trying to calm mounting anger over the shortage of food. He sleeps on a couch in his office. He worries about nuclear radiation.

The tsunami caused damage at a nuclear power plant in nearby Onagawa, and though officials say the danger there has passed, the mayor remains anxious. Eighty-five miles down the coast, workers for the Tokyo Electric Power Co. are struggling to bring the six-reactor Fukushima Daiichi complex under control.

There was another aftershock Monday in Ishinomaki, and a tsunami warning. A false alarm, it turned out, but the authorities discovered that the batteries on many of the emergency loudspeakers no longer work. Officials scrambled to replace them.

By Tuesday, 2,283 corpses had been identified in Ishinomaki, and 2,643 people were still missing. Nearly 23,000 people were in shelters, and thousands more shivered in damaged and waterlogged homes.

The mayor wonders if the warning system worked too well over the years — if some people had grown complacent.

“We are too used to earthquakes and hearing alarms,” he said.

Scientists warn that another mega-quake is possible, perhaps one farther south on the Japan Trench, closer to Tokyo. It might not happen for many years, decades or even centuries. Or it could happen any day, any moment.


higginsandrew@washpost.com
schulteb@washpost.com
achenbachj@washpost.com

Higgins reported from Ishinomaki, Onagawa and Sendai; Schulte and Achenbach reported from Washington. Staff writers Michael Alison Chandler in Tokyo and Elizabeth Flock and researchers Kyoko Tanaka and Madonna Lebling contributed to this report.

01/04 As Fukushima fallout circles the globe, nuclear sleuths sift it for clues

By Brian Vastag, Friday, April 1, 11:50 AM

Three weeks into the nuclear crisis in Japan, minute traces of radioactive dust have circled the globe, even arriving in Maryland and Virginia.

Fallout from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant has landed on 30 exquisitely sensitive detectors on desolate Arctic islands, on the tops of tall buildings and in other windy locales across the Northern Hemisphere, according to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization, which maintains those sensors. Sniffing the air like silent sentinels, the 63 shack-like stations (with 17 more planned) are capturing tiny radioactive particles in filters much like those on a home furnace.

Analysis of that dust is a key step in an intricate process of nuclear sleuthing: The dust’s distinctive chemical signature can show scientists whether the particles blew into the air from a bomb, a damaged nuclear reactor or used uranium fuel. It can even point to the extent of damage suffered by a fission reactor. Tracing global wind patterns back then pinpoints where the emissions originated.

“It’s nuclear forensics,” said Kai Vetter, a professor of nuclear engineering at the University of California at Berkeley, who built his own radiation detector atop a campus building after the Fukushima crisis began.

“You can learn quite a lot from the pattern of radioactive isotopes,” said Hamish Robertson, a physicist at the University of Washington in Seattle.

In the United States, another network of more than 100 stations maintained by the Environmental Protection Agency is also gathering radioactivity from Japan. State health departments maintain their own monitoring systems, which is how Maryland detected tiny traces in the air and water March 24.

Super-sensitive detection

After the March 11 earthquake and tsunami damaged Fukushima, the global sensor network began to light up for the first time since nuclear detonations in North Korea in 2006 and 2009.

On March 14, a station on the Kamchatka Peninsula in Russia sniffed out unusual radioactive elements. That cloud then split, drifting southward and eastward, with one arm arriving two days later in Sacramento, and three days after that in Charlottesville. On March 20, the ultra-thin broth of radioactive particles blew over Iceland. And it reached all the way to Kuwait City on March 25, two weeks after the first emissions from Fukushima.

The reporting of even these minuscule amounts of unusual radiation has caused alarm, driving a run on potassium iodide pills and Geiger counters. But officials at the EPA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and independent experts have repeatedly stressed that the amount of radioactivity detected outside Japan is far too low to affect human health.


Modern radiation detection systems are simply astoundingly sensitive, they explain, designed to pick up traces of nuclear explosions anywhere in the world. The detector atop the CTBTO’s headquarters in Vienna, Austria, still catches vestiges of the Chernobyl disaster that occurred 25 years ago, said Lassina Zerbo, director of the group’s international data center.

Vetter’s detector at Berkeley even catches radioactivity on the wind from treatments received by thyroid cancer patients passing by six stories below.

Taking radioactive fingerprints

Natural radiation — mostly from airborne radon — “drowns out” the radiation from Fukushima spotted in the United States, said Michael Miller, a University of Washington physicist who, along with Robertson, helped construct a radiation detector in a campus building’s air intake duct.

So a sensor that simply measured the total amount of radiation from airbone particles would be useless in nuclear forensics. Modern detectors do much more. They outline the dust’s distinctive radioactive fingerprint by measuring precise concentrations of five or more radioactive elements, or isotopes.

Each atom of these isotopes is unstable, shedding excess energy — via radiation — in a process called decay. By measuring the form and intensity of this energy, the radiation detectives can identify the isotopes in play and deduce from them what might have happened.

Radioactive iodine-131 and cesium-137 are key to this process. They don’t exist in nature, so their appearance signals a nuclear event — either a bomb or a reactor in trouble. Both can cause health problems in large amounts. But iodine-131 decays relatively rapidly: After eight days, half the original amount is gone. Its presence means that the event that created it occurred just weeks beforehand. Cesium-137 takes much longer to decay, with a half-life of 30 years. Traces of cesium-137 from Chernobyl still waft on Earth’s great jetstreams.

Clues in the air

It was detective work of this kind that alerted the world to the world’s worst nuclear disaster 25 years ago. In April 1986, nuclear power plant workers in Sweden detected a spike in iodine-131 and cesium-137, which — after a check of wind patterns — revealed the unfolding disaster at Chernobyl, which the Soviet Union had not disclosed.

Because both isotopes can come from a bomb or a reactor, nuclear sleuths also search for another isotope that originates only in reactors: cesium-134. It is produced during the slow-boil nuclear fission inside reactors, but not the flash-bang of a nuclear explosion. The ad-hoc sensors built by academics on the West Coast have picked up cesium-134 from Fukushima, as have the permanent CTBTO stations.

Nuclear detectives can dive deeper still, sorting out whether radioactive emissions emanate from a dangerously active and still-fissioning reactor core, from burning fuel rods, or from used fuel sitting in pools.

When the active core of Chernobyl exploded, it sent dozens of different radioactive elements into the atmosphere, including isotopes of strontium, yttrium, and rhodium — all produced only by active reactor cores or burning fuel rods.

The University of Washington team say they have not seen any of these isotopes, indicating that the fuel rods at Fukushima have not caught on fire.

And the lack of other short-lived isotopes — especially iodine-133 — indicates that the primary safety systems at Fukushima kicked in as planned during the earthquake and shut down fission in the reactors. Halting fission starts an atomic clock of sorts in which quickly decaying isotopes vanish within hours or days. Andreas Knecht of the University of Washington team said their Seattle detector can sense iodine-133 up to seven days after a reactor produces it, but has found none.

The detection of still another isotope, tellurium-132, offers a further clue about the source of radioactive emissions from Fukushima. Fuel rods sit in pools for months or years, releasing fewer and fewer different isotopes over time, and — unlike hotter fuel rods — they don’t produce tellurium-132. Spotting that isotope, as the detectors have, points to a damaged reactor core.

By putting these radioactive puzzle pieces together, the Seattle team was able to conclude in a paper published March 28 that fission in Fukushima’s three active cores was halted during the earthquake, and that the reactor cores launched radioactive debris into the air on clouds of steam shortly thereafter.

01/04 Reconsidering the Goldstone Report on Israel and war crimes

We know a lot more today about what happened in the Gaza war of 2008-09 than we did when I chaired the fact-finding mission appointed by the U.N. Human Rights Council that produced what has come to be known as the Goldstone Report. If I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document.

The final report by the U.N. committee of independent experts — chaired by former New York judge Mary McGowan Davis — that followed up on the recommendations of the Goldstone Report has found that “Israel has dedicated significant resources to investigate over 400 allegations of operational misconduct in Gaza” while “the de facto authorities (i.e., Hamas) have not conducted any investigations into the launching of rocket and mortar attacks against Israel.”

Our report found evidence of potential war crimes and “possibly crimes against humanity” by both Israel and Hamas. That the crimes allegedly committed by Hamas were intentional goes without saying — its rockets were purposefully and indiscriminately aimed at civilian targets.

The allegations of intentionality by Israel were based on the deaths of and injuries to civilians in situations where our fact-finding mission had no evidence on which to draw any other reasonable conclusion. While the investigations published by the Israeli military and recognized in the U.N. committee’s report have established the validity of some incidents that we investigated in cases involving individual soldiers, they also indicate that civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy.

For example, the most serious attack the Goldstone Report focused on was the killing of some 29 members of the al-Simouni family in their home. The shelling of the home was apparently the consequence of an Israeli commander’s erroneous interpretation of a drone image, and an Israeli officer is under investigation for having ordered the attack. While the length of this investigation is frustrating, it appears that an appropriate process is underway, and I am confident that if the officer is found to have been negligent, Israel will respond accordingly. The purpose of these investigations, as I have always said, is to ensure accountability for improper actions, not to second-guess, with the benefit of hindsight, commanders making difficult battlefield decisions.

While I welcome Israel’s investigations into allegations, I share the concerns reflected in the McGowan Davis report that few of Israel’s inquiries have been concluded and believe that the proceedings should have been held in a public forum. Although the Israeli evidence that has emerged since publication of our report doesn’t negate the tragic loss of civilian life, I regret that our fact-finding mission did not have such evidence explaining the circumstances in which we said civilians in Gaza were targeted, because it probably would have influenced our findings about intentionality and war crimes.

Israel’s lack of cooperation with our investigation meant that we were not able to corroborate how many Gazans killed were civilians and how many were combatants. The Israeli military’s numbers have turned out to be similar to those recently furnished by Hamas (although Hamas may have reason to inflate the number of its combatants).

As I indicated from the very beginning, I would have welcomed Israel’s cooperation. The purpose of the Goldstone Report was never to prove a foregone conclusion against Israel. I insisted on changing the original mandate adopted by the Human Rights Council, which was skewed against Israel. I have always been clear that Israel, like any other sovereign nation, has the right and obligation to defend itself and its citizens against attacks from abroad and within. Something that has not been recognized often enough is the fact that our report marked the first time illegal acts of terrorism from Hamas were being investigated and condemned by the United Nations. I had hoped that our inquiry into all aspects of the Gaza conflict would begin a new era of evenhandedness at the U.N. Human Rights Council, whose history of bias against Israel cannot be doubted.

Some have charged that the process we followed did not live up to judicial standards. To be clear: Our mission was in no way a judicial or even quasi-judicial proceeding. We did not investigate criminal conduct on the part of any individual in Israel, Gaza or the West Bank. We made our recommendations based on the record before us, which unfortunately did not include any evidence provided by the Israeli government. Indeed, our main recommendation was for each party to investigate, transparently and in good faith, the incidents referred to in our report. McGowan Davis has found that Israel has done this to a significant degree; Hamas has done nothing.

Some have suggested that it was absurd to expect Hamas, an organization that has a policy to destroy the state of Israel, to investigate what we said were serious war crimes. It was my hope, even if unrealistic, that Hamas would do so, especially if Israel conducted its own investigations. At minimum I hoped that in the face of a clear finding that its members were committing serious war crimes, Hamas would curtail its attacks. Sadly, that has not been the case. Hundreds more rockets and mortar rounds have been directed at civilian targets in southern Israel. That comparatively few Israelis have been killed by the unlawful rocket and mortar attacks from Gaza in no way minimizes the criminality. The U.N. Human Rights Council should condemn these heinous acts in the strongest terms.

In the end, asking Hamas to investigate may have been a mistaken enterprise. So, too, the Human Rights Council should condemn the inexcusable and cold-blooded recent slaughter of a young Israeli couple and three of their small children in their beds.

I continue to believe in the cause of establishing and applying international law to protracted and deadly conflicts. Our report has led to numerous “lessons learned” and policy changes, including the adoption of new Israel Defense Forces procedures for protecting civilians in cases of urban warfare and limiting the use of white phosphorus in civilian areas. The Palestinian Authority established an independent inquiry into our allegations of human rights abuses — assassinations, torture and illegal detentions — perpetrated by Fatah in the West Bank, especially against members of Hamas. Most of those allegations were confirmed by this inquiry. Regrettably, there has been no effort by Hamas in Gaza to investigate the allegations of its war crimes and possible crimes against humanity.

Simply put, the laws of armed conflict apply no less to non-state actors such as Hamas than they do to national armies. Ensuring that non-state actors respect these principles, and are investigated when they fail to do so, is one of the most significant challenges facing the law of armed conflict. Only if all parties to armed conflicts are held to these standards will we be able to protect civilians who, through no choice of their own, are caught up in war.

The writer, a retired justice of the Constitutional Court of South Africa and former chief prosecutor of the U.N. International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, chaired the U.N. fact-finding mission on the Gaza conflict.

02/04 Nuclear power is safest way to make electricity, according to study

Nuclear power is safest way to make electricity, according to study

Gallery: Global nuclear debate heats up: Governments around the globe question the use of nuclear power as Japan’s attempts to avert a meltdown at one of its plants erode confidence in nuclear energy.

Radioactive water is leaking into the sea, there’s a little plutonium in the soil, and traces of nuclear fallout have been detected in places as far apart as Kuwait and Maryland. In a few parts of Japan, you’re also not supposed to eat the broccoli or the beef.

Graphic

Graphic:

Graphic

 Watch how the crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant unfolded.

Graphic: Watch how the crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant unfolded.

More On This Story

View all Items in this Story

The effects of the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant grow by the week, creating a lengthening catalogue of worries and proving once again that nuclear power frightens people as few other technologies do.

But when the dead and sickened are added up, how dangerous is it really?

The partial meltdown in Japan has injured 23 people and exposed as many as 21 to levels of radiation higher than is considered safe to receive in one year. Two workers are still missing but are assumed to have been killed by the earthquake or tsunami, not the nuclear accident. No people in the “plume zone” outside the plant have been contaminated to a degree that is expected to affect their health, based on radiation readings so far.

In the months after the world’s worst nuclear disaster, in Chernobyl in 1986, about 50 people died. In the next-biggest accident, at Three Mile Island in 1979, no one did.

History suggests that nuclear power rarely kills and causes little illness. That’s also the conclusion engineers reach when they model scenarios for thousands of potential accidents.

Making electricity from nuclear power turns out to be far less damaging to human health than making it from coal, oil or even clean-burning natural gas, according to numerous analyses. That’s even more true if the predicted effects of climate change are thrown in.

Compared with nuclear power, coal is responsible for five times as many worker deaths from accidents, 470 times as many deaths due to air pollution among members of the public, and more than 1,000 times as many cases of serious illness, according to a study of the health effects of electricity generation in Europe.

“The costs of fossil fuels come out quite high, while the costs for nuclear generally come out low,” said Anil Markandya, an economist at the University of Bath in England and scientific director of the Basque Centre for Climate Change in Spain, who co-authored the study published in the Lancet in 2007.

Even in the wake of the Fuku
shima Daiichi disaster, Markandya and many others who have done similar work can’t imagine a situation — a realistic one, that is — in which the health cost of nuclear power would equal that of coal.

Or even come close.

The hidden costs

About half of the electricity in the United States is made with coal-fired plants and about one-fifth with nuclear power. Many experts think there is an urgent need to determine what role nuclear power should play in feeding America’s energy-hungry future.

To inform that discussion, economists, engineers and epidemiologists have teamed up to determine the full economic, health, social and environmental consequences of generating electricity with various fuels. Most of this work has been done in Europe, where the acceptability of nuclear power, and the fraction of electricity generated with it, differs greatly among nations of the European Union.

The goal is to capture not only the costs reflected on a person’s monthly utility bill but the many hidden ones borne by individuals, communities and governments. In this way, analysts seek out the “impact pathway” of each fuel — every effect it has, direct and indirect.

For power plants (and also hydroelectric dams and wind farms), this includes the land to site them; construction, operation and decommissioning costs; and the humans who are killed or injured along the way. That means accidents and black lung disease in coal miners; radiation exposure in uranium miners and millers; and deaths and burns in oil-rig fires.

The impact pathway also includes what happens to the public — collisions with coal trains; asthma, respiratory disease and heart attacks caused by smokestack soot and gases; and emissions’ effects on agricultural production.

Health consequences are measured two ways.

Occupational deaths in mines, oil rigs or power plants are counted directly. Death and illness in the public is determined by epidemiological studies, such as ones estimating the fraction of hospital admissions for emphysema that can be attributed to air pollution. Those impacts are then given a monetary cost that is added to the price tag of a kilowatt hour of electricity. (The cost is the value of a life lost by premature death, or diminished by illness, that economists use in other analyses.)

The calculations can be very fine.

In “Full cost accounting for the life cycle of coal,” published this year by a team of 12 researchers led by Paul R. Epstein of Harvard Medical School’s Center for Health and the Global Environment, the ledger included .02 cents per kilowatt hour for mental retardation caused by mercury in coal-plant emissions.

Using similar methods, Markandya and his co-author in the Lancet study, Paul Wilkinson of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, found that in Europe coal is responsible for .12 deaths from accidents, 25 deaths from pollution and 225 cases of serious illness per terawatt (1,000 billion kilowatt) hour of electricity generated. In comparison, nuclear causes .02 accidental deaths, .05 pollution deaths and .22 cases of illness.

This human health cost is much higher in some parts of the world than others.

It’s especially high in China, where three-quarters of the electricity is made by burning coal, mining accidents kill about 6,000 people a year, and hundreds of millions of people are affected by air pollution. In some inland cities, the economic cost to human health of making electricity from coal is as much as seven times higher than the cost of generating the electricity, according to a calculation by Stefan Hirschberg at the Paul Scherrer Institutin Switzerland, which has done energy system analysis for the European Commission.

Nuclear power’s advantage over fossil fuels is even more dramatic when carbon dioxide emissions are considered.

Graphic

Graphic:

Graphic

 Watch how the crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant unfolded.

Graphic: Watch how the crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant unfolded.

More On This Story

View all Items in this Story

Many experts think greenhouse gases are a future threat to health. Some say the threat is already here, and point to 30,000 heat-related deaths in Europe in August 2003 as evidence. Coal produces 1,290 grams of CO 2 per kilowatt hour in direct (smokestack) and indirect (mining, transport) emissions, while nuclear produces 30, according to the Lancet study.

Built into the calculations are the consequences of what are called “beyond-design” nuclear accidents — events similar to what is underway in Japan. However, there aren’t enough big nuclear plant accidents to provide a statistically meaningful estimate of their frequency, effects and costs. According to a database compiled by the Paul Scherrer Institut, from 1970 to 2008 there were 1,686 accidents in the coal industry, 531 in the oil industry and 186 involving natural gas in which five or more people died. There was just one such nuclear accident — at Chernobyl 25 years ago this month.

To better estimate the potential impact of nuclear catastrophes, analysts break down plant operations into thousands of different actions and then estimate the probabilities of hypothetical accident sequences. Hirschberg and his colleagues used a Swiss nuclear plant to come up with such an estimate. Theycalculated that nuclear accidents in Europe can be expected to cost .007 lives per gigawatt year (1 million kilowatt years), compared with .12 lives for coal, .02 lives for oil and .06 for natural gas.

Radiation’s toll

There is also much uncertainty about how many people might be harmed by a big nuclear accident.

At Chernobyl, two people died during the accident and 28 others died of radiation illness in the first four months afterward. (Some estimates of the early deaths put the number as high as 57 ).

Since then, there have been 6,800 cases of thyroid cancer in people who were children at the time of the accident, according to a recent report by the U.N. Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, with the number still rising. As of 2005, only 15 were fatal.

To date, there is no clear increase in leukemia or other cancers, or deaths from non-cancer diseases. However, various expert groups estimate that 4,000 to 33,000 premature deaths might occur as a consequence of the accident.

In general, the hazards of radiation are less than most people think.

Since 1950, Japanese and American researchers have followed 120,000 residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the cities on which the United States dropped atomic bombs in 1945 to end World War II. Three-quarters of the people in the Life Span Study were exposed to the blasts; one-quarter were away at the time. The number of deaths attributable to the bombs is estimated by comparing survival in the two groups.

Through 2000, 42,304 of the people in the study had died. Of those deaths, 822 were “excess” — probably a result of the radiation.

Nuclear’s ‘dread factor’

Many critics of nuclear power say none of this truly accounts for the technology’s hazards.

“To replace carbon pollution with radioactive pollution is not a healthy solution,” said Epstein, the Harvard physician. “Even if the events are rare, what’s happening now in Japan demonstrates how profound and long-lasting these impacts can be.”

At a recent briefing by Physicians for Social Responsibility, David Richardson, an epidemiologist from the University of North Carolina, said that “the unsolved problems of long-term storage and its contribution to nuclear proliferation” are two reasons besides accidents that make nuclear power unacceptable.

Future accidents at storage sites are considered by energy analysts. But because modeling suggests they’re improbable, they don’t affect the calculations much. Mental-health effects of nuclear accidents are part of the calculations, too, but the doomsday fear of them and threat from nuclear proliferation are not.

“There is a kind of dread factor for nuclear which is very hard to quantify,” Markandya said. He added after a pause, “In the end . . . if people feel really uncomfortable with nuclear power, then they ought to go against it.”

browndm@washpost.com