24/03 Why our Libya strikes don’t require congressional approval

Opinions

Why our Libya strikes don’t require congressional approval

By David B. Rivkin Jr. and and Lee A. Casey, Thursday, March 24, 3:25 PM

U.S. airstrikes against Libya have reignited the perennial debate over whether the president can launch military operations without first securing congressional approval. The answer is found in the Constitution’s text and history, and it must be the same regardless of the president’s political party. Those Republicans accusing President Obama of exceeding his legitimate authority should consider whether they would make the same claims if a Republican were president, as many Democrats previously have done.

The Constitution’s Framers deliberately divided war powers between the president and Congress. As commander in chief, the president has the authority to determine when and how U.S. forces are used. Congress, on the other hand, has the power to raise, support and make rules governing the armed forces, and to determine how much is to be spent in war or peace. Individual officers can be appointed only if the Senate approves, and only Congress can declare war. The debate over the president’s use of force without congressional authorization focuses on this provision.

When the Constitution was adopted, the power to “declare war” was not equivalent to permitting the use of military force.

Nations could, and did, use force without declaring war on their opponents. As a matter of international law, a declaration of war had much more to do with the technical legal regime governing hostilities — dissolving treaties between the belligerent powers and permitting the lawful seizure of public or private enemy property, for example — than with the right to use force in the first place.

The Framers understood this. The British monarch was not only commander in chief but also could declare war. The Framers divided this authority, reserving the latter power to Congress as the national legislature. During the Constitutional Convention, the power to “declare war” was substituted for the power to “make war” in defining congressional authority specifically to clarify that the president could use military force without first seeking Congress’s permission. According to James Madison, the particular concern was that the president should be able to “repel sudden attack.”

Champions of congressional warmaking powers traditionally point to this comment as limiting the president’s independent war powers to defending American soil, but even Madison’s remark was not so narrowly drawn, and the Constitution’s language is not so limited. It gives the president wide latitude to use military force, subject always to the other limits on his authority inherent in congressional control over the budget, size and existence of the national military.

Consistent with this understanding, presidents often have launched military operations without first seeking congressional approval.

Their actions have been more or less controversial depending on the nature, extent and purpose of those operations. Certainly at some point, depending on the extent, purpose and likely duration of hostilities — regime change in Iraq, say — a president must seek congressional approval, either in the form of a declaration of war or less formal use-of-force authorization.

As a practical matter, he may also want that approval to ensure sufficient political support and resources to continue a particular operation, even if not constitutionally required. Congressional authorization also is often critical in defending his actions. It was, for example, Congress’s specific authorization for the use of force against those responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that led the Supreme Court to uphold the detention of captured al-Qaeda and Taliban operatives, including American citizens.

Justifying the current operations against Libya in this framework is not difficult. Moammar Gaddafi has been an open and persistent enemy of the United States for nearly 40 years. He pioneered state sponsorship of terror attacks against U.S. nationals and others, bombing a Berlin disco in 1986 and a passenger aircraft over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988. After the Berlin attack, President Ronald Reagan ordered (also without specific congressional authority) U.S. airstrikes against Libya. If ever there were a ripe candidate for “regime change,” it is Gaddafi.

The Obama administration, however, has not suggested anything so ambitious. The stated goal is to enforce a U.N. Security Council-approved “no-fly zone” as a means of limiting Gaddafi’s ability to attack his citizens. The United States has a right and an obligation as a U.N. member assisting in the implementation of a binding Security Council resolution to take this action — and it is not of a character that would constitutionally require Congress’s approval. If the president later concludes that Gaddafi should be removed by American arms — no small matter given the nation’s other military commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq — then congressional approval can and should be sought.

The authors served in the Justice Department under presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

07/04 Mormons on Broadway could bring them to the White House

Mormons on Broadway could bring them to the White House

Stephen Lovekin/ GETTY IMAGES - The cast of "The Book of Mormon" on opening night at the Eugene O'Neill Theatre on March 24.

By Kathleen Flake, Friday, April 1, 3:04 PM

“The Book of Mormon” has hit Broadway. Not the Book of Mormon published by Joseph Smith in 1830, launching an American-grown religious movement, but a musical comedy about two Mormon naifs in Africa, written by Trey Parker and Matt Stone, the brilliant satirists who created “South Park.” So far, the new musical is a hit among theater critics: “old fashioned” and “pleasure giving,” per the New York Times, and an “extraordinarily well-crafted musical assault on all things holy,” according to The Washington Post.

Some wonder if this musical assault is a political one, as well. According to columnist George Will, the GOP has only five “plausible” candidates for president, and two of them happen to be Mormons. Will Parker and Stone’s comedy create drama for Mitt Romney’s and Jon Huntsman’s presidential aspirations?

In the reviews, there is a signal of contrary possibilities. To Elysa Gardner of USA Today, “the most surprising thing about ‘Mormon’ . . . may be its inherent sweetness.” The Times exhorts the public to “hie thee hence . . . and feast upon its sweetness.” It’s been a long time since anything about Mormonism has been deemed sweet by the press. That may indicate something positive for voters, not just theatergoers, since we the people and we the Latter-day Saints are again being invited by presidential politics to dither about Mormonism. Is it Christian? Is it American? Is it safe?

In 2007, when Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts, made a presidential run, many people seemed to answer “no” to those questions. Polls showed that a majority of Americans had an unfavorable opinion of Romney’s church; hence, his speech on religious liberty in December 2007. According to a Gallup survey that year, the only people less likely than Mormons to be put into the Oval Office were homosexuals and atheists. Also unwelcome, by only five fewer percentage points than Mormons, were thrice-married candidates. I suppose that equation fits Gallup’s other 2007 finding: The word most often associated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is “polygamy,” a practice it abandoned more than a century ago.

Voters have consistently balked at having a Mormon in the White House. While there is no poll that has measured all of what Americans don’t like about Latter-day Saint doctrine, there are some safe guesses. Not least, I imagine, is their belief that God still speaks to them through prophets. For many contemporary Americans, claims to revelation are a definitive marker of irrationality. While Americans may be more religious than people in other wealthy nations, religion in America is nevertheless fundamentally modern, even among most fundamentalists. It is also about as rational as religion can get and still be religion.

Today, if you are a person of faith, God may inspire you generally or even, with Oprah-like generosity, prompt you to improve. God may find your next job or help you pass an exam. But God is emphatically not going to inspire you to write another scripture that improves upon the Bible or catalyzes a new religious movement. By now, God has said all there is to say about God, and the rest is, well, all about you. It may be that what Latter-day Saints believe is so fantastical to the modern mind that someone who does believe it is per se unbelievable.

There’s no denying it: Mormonism is a pre-modern religion. It is full of miracles and grand providential acts of God, such as church members’ pioneering exodus to the West in 1846. It preaches and promises epiphany, such as the appearance to founder Joseph Smith of two divine beings, God the Father and God the Son, Jesus Christ. It builds temples and demands sacrifice of time and tithes. It has a dietary code that abjures most of what makes the social world go round, and its believers do not buy their underwear at Victoria’s Secret. It insists on proselytizing a postmodern world convinced of a plurality, if not relativity, of truth. Hence, the conundrums posed to and by the Mormon missionaries portrayed in Parker and Stone’s sendup.

Nevertheless, church membership now stands at 14 million people in 160 countries and includes such diverse voices as singer Gladys Knight and broadcaster Glenn Beck. More significantly, only half of the church speaks English, church leadership positions are held by non-Americans, and the Book of Mormon has been translated into more than 100 languages. This is not your grandparents’ or even Brigham Young’s Mormonism. Yet popular understanding of it has changed remarkably little.

Certain histories bow slowly to present evidence, especially histories of conflict. Mormonism holds the religious record for length of contest — even war — with the United States. From their first years in 1830s New York, the Latter-day Saints were pushed westward through the Midwest to the far side of the Rockies by religiously inspired and state-sponsored violence. Adding to their bad reputation was 50 years of civil disobedience to the nation’s anti-polygamy laws. What the Saints called “plural marriage” the nation called illegal, and the government sent an occupying army and carpetbagging officials to control them in the closely monitored Utah Territory.

The army failed to reform the Mormons, however, so Congress began to criminalize them: denying civil rights, jailing unrepentant polygamists, confiscating property and stripping the church of legal status. Not until 1890, when the church pledged to cease performing plural marriages, did things begin to simmer down between church and state.

Mormonism’s political emergence from its Rocky Mountain ghetto was marked by the 1902 election of its apostle Reed Smoot as Utah’s junior senator. He served for 30 years and had extraordinary influence, though today he is chiefly known for the protectionist Smoot-Hawley Act, which is often credited with worsening the Depression. His career began, however, with a four-year Senate hearing whose fame was on a level with Watergate’s. Smoot kept his seat largely because the Senate decided that law-abiding citizens should not be politically accountable for church creeds. Moreover, as one journalist wrote: “Viewed at close range . . . the Senator is reassuring in appearance.”

For more than 100 years, the public has had many opportunities to view the Latter-day Saints and their politicians up close. They have become staples in local and national elective offices. Today, they make up 5 percent of the Senate and 2 percent of the House. But have voters seen enough to be assured? Can a Mormon be elected president?

For modern religious and secular Americans, Mormonism might still be too religious, and especially too old-time religious. Not surprising, then, that the other “plausible” Mormon GOP candidate, Huntsman, told an interviewer: “I can’t say I am overly religious.”

So what’s a Mormon presidential candidate to do? I say embrace “The Book of Mormon” — Stone and Parker’s version, not just Joseph Smith’s. Oddly enough, the characters in “South Park” have been making a compelling case for religious tolerance for almost 15 years. In 2003, its take on Mormonism was voiced by Stan’s spurned friend Gary. After a half-hour of hilarity about what Mormons believe, and after Gary realizes that his religion is just too much for Stan, the otherwise mild-mannered boy yells: “Maybe us Mormons do believe in crazy stories that make absolutely no sense, and maybe Joseph Smith did make it all up. But I have a great life and a great family, and I have the Book of Mormon to thank for that. The truth is, I don’t care if Joseph Smith made it all up, because what the church teaches now is loving your family, being nice and helping people.”

This appears to be the point of the Broadway musical, as well. But the point most relevant to politics comes in Gary’s last words to Stan: “And even though people in this town might think that’s stupid, I still choose to believe in it. All I ever did was try to be your friend, Stan, but you’re so high and mighty, you couldn’t look past my religion and just be my friend back. You’ve got a lot of growing up to do, buddy.” Expletive deleted, of course.

While their stories may seem crazy, the Latter-day Saints have proved themselves to be good neighbors and good citizens, and even trustworthy politicians. It’s time to admit them to that well-populated club of people whose religion is not our own and even seems fantastical (virgin birth, predestination or infant damnation anyone?), but who are deemed perfectly acceptable presidential candidates. Or, as Parker and Stone are saying — and not just to the benefit of Romney and Huntsman, but all of us — it’s time to grow up.

Kathleen Flake is a professor of American religious history at Vanderbilt University and the author of “The Politics of American Religious Identity: The Seating of Senator Reed Smoot, Mormon Apostle.”

Read more from Outlook, friend us on Facebook, and follow us on Twitter.

07/04 9 million Americans estimated to be gay or bisexual, but solid figures elusive

By Carol Morello, Thursday, April 7, 12:01 AM

In an attempt to encourage more research into the health and well-being of gay people, a California demographer has estimated that more than 9 million Americans are gay, lesbian or bisexual, a number equivalent to the population of New Jersey.

Gary Gates, who studies the demographics of the gay community for the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law, said in a report released Thursday that about 3.5 percent of Americans identify themselves in surveys as being gay, lesbian or bisexual.

But those who said they have had same-sex encounters are almost evenly divided between gay people and bisexuals, leaving just 1.7 percent who say they are gay or lesbian. The percentage more than doubles, however, if it includes people who say they have engaged in same-sex sexual behavior at some point.

Gates arrived at the estimates by averaging the results of five surveys conducted in the United States between 2004 and 2009. In the survey results, the range of people who say they are lesbian, gay or bisexual varied widely, from a low of 1.7 percent to a high of 5.6 percent. In contrast, studies conducted in other countries have made much smaller estimates — as low as 1.2 percent in a 2010 survey in Norway.


In a telephone interview, Gates said that only recently have researchers doing surveys on health and social characteristics started asking respondents for their sexual orientation. Gates has argued that people should be asked their sexual orientation on many surveys that have nothing to do with sexual behavior, such as those involving crime, for example. He says only then will it be possible to more accurately gauge the size of the gay community.

“The number matters,” he said. “An unfortunate part of our political system is that you don’t really count unless you’re counted. LGBT Americans still are not routinely counted. That allows legislators and policymakers to say they really don’t matter much, because if they did, we’d have this data.”

In Maryland, the Gates numbers were seized upon by advocates and opponents of efforts to legalize same-sex marriage.

Del. Donald H. Dwyer Jr. (R-Anne Arundel) noted that the number was considerably smaller than estimates made by advocates of same-sex marriage.

“Delegates in Maryland heard from their constituents,” he said. “That’s why same-sex marriage failed this year. Until there’s a wide acceptance of it across the state of Maryland, I don’t think those bills are going to be successful.”

Officials with Equality Maryland, which has lobbied hard for same-sex marriage to be legalized in the state, cited previous studies estimating that Maryland’s gay community has 178,000 people, including 15,000 couples.

“Because folks are self-identified, the number is probably always a little lower than expected,” said Linsey Pecikonis, a spokeswoman for the group. “But I think having 9 million Americans be members of the LGBT community, that’s a fairly significant community.”

Estimates of the size of the gay community remain elusive four decades after the gay-activist movement was born in the wake of the Stonewall riots in New York City during the summer of 1969.

Gates said many people have heard of estimates as high as 10 percent of the population, a figure that stems from a 1948 study of male prisoners done by Alfred Kinsey. He wrote, in carefully parsed prose, that one in 10 men was “more or less, exclusively homosexual for at least three years between the ages of 16 and 55.”

“The number stuck,” Gates said. “Here we are, decades later, and it’s still the most predominant number cited.”


morelloc@washpost.com

07/04 Worried about a radioactive ocean? A reality check

Worried about a radioactive ocean? A reality check

In this photo taken on Thursday, March 31, 2011 by Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force and released by Japan Defense Ministry Friday, April 1, JMSDF personnel all in protective suits are aboard a tugboat towing a U.S. military barge carrying pure water towards the quay of the tsunami-stricken Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear complex in Okumamachi, Fukushima Prefecture, northeastern Japan. (AP Photo/Japan Defense Ministry)

NEW YORK (AP) -- This week, workers at the stricken Japanese nuclear plant dumped radioactive water into the ocean to make room for storing even more highly contaminated water on the site. The water dumping came after earlier leaks of radioactive water that had already raised concerns about its effects in the ocean, raising questions about health and safety. Here are answers to some of those questions.

Q. Can you see radiation?

A. No, you can't see, taste or smell it.

Q. How does radiation travel?

A. In the air, it moves as energy waves. That's how an X-ray machine looks inside you. At the Japanese nuclear plant complex, workers have been exposed to such waves, as well as radioactive particles. Over long distances, tiny radioactive particles on dust are blown by the wind. It can come back down to Earth with rain.

In the water, microscopic radioactive particles are carried along by the currents.

In this Saturday, April 2, 2011 photo released by Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO), leaking radioactive contaminated water drain through crack of a maintenance pit, right, into the sea, near the Unit 2 reactor of Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear nuclear power plant in Okumamachi, Fukushima Prefecture, northeastern Japan.(AP Photo/Tokyo Electric Power Co.)

Q. How dangerous is radiation?

A. We live in a world of radiation. It is in the water we drink, the food we eat, the very air we breathe. Most of the radiation we are exposed to comes from outer space, the decaying of uranium in the earth, and medical procedures like X-rays and CT scans.

Q. How is radiation measured?

A. Radiation is often measured as a dose or exposure -- the amount of radiation absorbed over a certain time. It's generally measured in millirems in the United States, and millisieverts elsewhere. The average place on Earth exposes people to about 300 millirems, or 3 millisieverts, every year. A chest X-ray exposes a patient to about 10 millirems, or 0.1 millisievert.

Q. How can radiation hurt us?

A. Too much radiation in a short time can cause deadly radiation sickness, with its signature symptoms of nausea, dizziness and hair loss. High doses can also cause cancer decades later. It can lead to congenital defects in future children of exposed adults.

Q. So how much radiation is too much radiation?

In this photo from a footage of a live camera released by Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO), black smoke billows from the crippled Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant in Okumamachi, northeastern Japan,Tuesday, March 22, 2011.

A. Natural background radiation in the environment varies greatly at different places on Earth, depending on altitude, geology and other factors. In theory, any increase in radiation can lead to a higher risk of cancer. In practice, though, population studies find no apparent elevated risk of cancer even at the highest levels of background radiation. And the most respected radiation experts say people can tolerate at least 10,000 millirems (100 millisieverts) in a short period with no discernible harm. On the other hand, much larger doses -- like 400,000 millirems or 4,000 millisieverts -- will cause radiation sickness and cancer in many people. That would be the rough equivalent of 40,000 chest X-rays.

Q. Can the radioactive water leaking from the Japanese nuclear plant eventually reach the U.S. and be hazardous?

A. It's hard to say how that water will move, because it will spread not only on the surface but downward in deep layers of the Pacific Ocean. If it does reach the West Coast, it would probably take at least 18 months to three years, by one estimate. In any case, nobody expects it would pose a radiation hazard upon arrival because of tremendous dilution along the way.

Airborne radioactive particles have already reached the United States, but federal authorities say the measured levels aren't dangerous.

Q. Weren't the workers at the nuclear plant treated for burns after coming into contact with radioactive water? What if someone swam in the ocean off the coast of Japan?

A. The kind of radiation levels the workers experienced cause sunburn-like burns in about a half-hour to an hour. But swimming near the plant is banned, and radiation levels of water dumped in the ocean decline quickly with distance from the complex.

Q. What radioactive elements are leaking and what are the risks?

A. Measurements so far have focused mostly on iodine and cesium, which were responsible for most of the radiation dose to the public at the Chernobyl disaster.

Radiation from iodine-131 dissipates quickly, falling by half every eight days, so that it's virtually gone in 80 days. Its danger is that if inhaled or swallowed, it can concentrate in the thyroid and cause cancer.

Cesium radiation sticks around much longer, taking 30 years to decline by half and 300 years to virtually disappear. Cesium can build up in the body and high levels are thought to be a risk for various other cancers. Still, researchers who studied Chernobyl could not find an increase in cancers that might be linked to cesium.

Q. Will ocean creatures be harmed by the discharges of the radioactive water?

A. Experts say animals very near the plant may face problems like higher rates of genetic mutations, but that this would probably happen within only maybe a half a mile or so.

___

National Writer Jeff Donn in New York contributed to this report.

___

Online:

Radiation readings at the nuclear complex: http://bit.ly/dWZb8a

Environmental readings in Japan: http://bit.ly/ehlSxF

Radiation readings off Japanese coast: http://bit.ly/i7aPHR

(Mainichi Japan) April 7, 2011

07/04 Fukushima not as bad as Chernobyl

Fukushima not as bad as Chernobyl

This March 24, 2011 aerial photo taken by a small unmanned drone and released by AIR PHOTO SERVICE shows damaged Unit 4 of the crippled Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant in Okumamachi, Fukushima prefecture, northern Japan. (AP Photo/AIR PHOTO SERVICE)

VIENNA (AP) -- The Japanese nuclear accident that has sparked worldwide radiation fears ranks "in between" those that occurred at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, a U.N. expert said Wednesday.

Wolfgang Weiss, chairman of the U.N. Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, said it's far too early to even begin an assessment of the situation at the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant because the crisis there is ongoing.

But, he noted, while radioactivity from the 1979 Three Mile Island incident in the United States was largely contained, traces of fallout from Fukushima detected around the world are "much, much, much lower" than traces seen at similar distances after the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine.

The six-reactor Japanese complex was crippled by an earthquake-triggered tsunami on March 11 and has been seeping radiation into the environment. Authorities are struggling to get the situation under control and have indicated that could take months.

When reporters asked Weiss how he compares the Japanese crisis to its two predecessors, he said: "It's in between. It's not as dramatic as Chernobyl, but it's certainly much more serious than" Three Mile Island.

Weiss, who also heads the radiation protection and health department at Germany's Federal Office for Radiation Protection, noted that Fukushima's proximity to the Pacific Ocean was beneficial in containing the contamination and exposure to people.

This March 30, 1979, file photo shows an aerial view of the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant near Harrisburg, Pa. The small dome at center is where the "incident" occured. (AP Photo/Barry Thumma, File)

"The Pacific takes it all and there we have huge dilution," Weiss said.

Fred Mettler, a member of the U.N. committee, agreed, noting that in contrast to Fukushima Chernobyl was surrounded by land. During that disaster, hundreds of people were exposed to very high doses of radiation and 135 got acute radiation sickness, he added.

"We haven't seen any of that at Fukushima, so the early management by the Japanese here is very different from what happened at Chernobyl," Mettler said.

Online:

U.N. Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation: http://www.unscear.org/

(Mainichi Japan) April 7, 2011

07/04 Q&A: What are points of caution in consuming contaminated fish?

Q&A: What are points of caution in consuming contaminated fish?

Villagers dispose of fish in a cold storage room damaged by the March 11 earthquake and tsunami in Ofutano, Iwate Prefecture, on April 4. (Mainichi)

TOKYO (Kyodo) -- The effects of radioactive material leakage from the tsunami-ravaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Fukushima Prefecture have spread to marine products. The following are questions and answers regarding fish found to be contaminated by radioactive substances.

Q: Why were radioactive materials detected in fish caught off Ibaraki Prefecture?

A: Roughly speaking, the sub-arctic Oyashio current, which flows southward along the Pacific coasts of Hokkaido and the Tohoku region, and the Kuroshio current, which flows northward from the Kyushu and Shikoku regions, collide off Choshi, Chiba Prefecture during this period of the season. It is possible that contaminated water which leaked from the troubled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant has reached Ibaraki by moving with the sea current. It is also possible that radioactive materials carried by winds have fallen into the sea or that the fish had been in waters near the nuclear plant.

Q: What are the effects on fish consumption?

A: The Fisheries Agency says unsafe fish will not be available to consumers as local fisheries cooperatives have refrained from shipping them.

Q: What are points to be careful of when cooking fish?

A worker cleans at a fish market at a devastated area in Ofunato, Iwate Prefecture, Japan, Wednesday, April 6, 2011, following the March 11 earthquake and tsunami. (AP Photo/Lee Jin-man)

A: For vegetables, it is effective to wash or peel them as radioactive materials get attached to the surface. For fish, however, radioactive materials could be drawn into the body through seawater and feed, so they can be eliminated significantly by removing offal. It is also important to wash the fish because there may be some radioactive materials left on the surface. It is recommended to avoid eating fish skin.

Q: Is it only fish that are affected by radioactive contamination in the sea?

A: It is said that seaweed and shellfish around the nuclear plant are more susceptible to radioactive contamination than fish which swim around in the sea. Seaweed also has the tendency to accumulate radioactive iodine. But radioactive iodine has a half-life of eight days, meaning that its effect will be reduced to half in eight days, one-fourth in 16 days and one-sixteenth in 32 days. So there should not be too much concern about consuming frozen, processed or dried fish as a certain amount of time has passed after they were caught.

Q: What effects does radioactive cesium have?

A: Cesium tends to accumulate in the muscle and has a half-life of 30 years. It is also possible for it to become concentrated in bigger fish in the food chain. There is a study which shows that half the cesium taken in by fish is eliminated in 50 days as it will be discharged to seawater in the form of urine as well as from the skin and gills. But fish need to be monitored thoroughly over a long period of time if seawater is found to contain high levels of radioactive cesium.

(Mainichi Japan) April 7, 2011

07/04 Japan to improve notification to foreign governments on nuke crisis

Japan to improve notification to foreign governments on nuke crisis

In this photo taken on Thursday, March 31, 2011 by Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force and released by Japan Defense Ministry Friday, April 1, Top parts of explosion-damaged reactors from left, Unit 4, Unit 3, Unit 2 and Unit 1 of the tsunami-stricken Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear complex are seen with ravaged waterfront facilities in Okumamachi, Fukushima Prefecture, northeastern Japan. (AP Photo/Japan Defense Ministry)

TOKYO (Kyodo) -- The Japanese government is working to improve its system of notifying foreign governments of developments in the ongoing crisis at the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, government officials said Wednesday.

Tokyo's plan to share information on significant developments more quickly with foreign governments comes after the South Korean government expressed displeasure Tuesday that Japan did not provide sufficient explanations before the plant's operator intentionally released low-level radioactive water into the Pacific.

On Wednesday, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano instructed the Foreign Ministry and the Economy, Trade and Industry Ministry to take extra care to provide relevant information to neighboring countries, such as South Korea, Russia and China.

He also called for a more thorough handling of briefings the Foreign Ministry has given daily to embassies in Tokyo. Ministry officials explained the contaminated water discharge to the South Korean Embassy in Tokyo one more time.

"One country raised the issue that we were somewhat short on explaining," said Foreign Ministry spokesman Satoru Sato at a news conference on Wednesday. "We need to consider what proper measures the government should take as a whole based on this experience."

Takashi Kurita, with a microphone, a public relations official with Tokyo Electric Power Co., bows before a news conference at its headquarters in Tokyo, Japan, Wednesday, March 30, 2011. (AP Photo/Itsuo Inouye)

Japan explained the contaminated water discharge plan to other countries about an hour after the plant operator, Tokyo Electric Power Co., notified the government of its intention.

"It's not easy to speed up information sharing when situations change minute by minute," a ministry source said.

Low-level radioactive water was dumped into the sea to free up space to pool far more highly radioactive water that has flooded the basements of the turbine buildings for nuclear reactors at the plant.

The basements need to be cleared of radioactive water to restore key cooling functions that have been crippled by the devastating earthquake and tsunami on March 11.

(Mainichi Japan) April 7, 2011

07/04 Nitrogen injected into Fukushima reactor to reduce risk of explosion

Nitrogen injected into Fukushima reactor to reduce risk of explosion

In this March 24, 2011 aerial photo taken by a small unmanned drone and released by AIR PHOTO SERVICE, damaged Unit 3, left, and Unit 4 of the crippled Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant are seen in Okumamachi, Fukushima prefecture, northern Japan. (AP Photo/AIR PHOTO SERVICE)

TOKYO (Kyodo) -- Tokyo Electric Power Co. on Thursday started injecting nitrogen into one of the reactors at the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power complex to reduce the potential risk of a hydrogen explosion, while it succeeded in stopping highly radioactive water leaking into the Pacific Ocean from the plant the previous day.

Nitrogen, an inert gas, was injected into the No. 1 reactor's containment vessel, a process that could take several days. Hidehiko Nishiyama, a spokesman for the government's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, denied there is an "immediate danger" of explosion and described the injection as "a preventive measure."

In addition to the task of maintaining the relative stability of all six reactors at the nuclear complex in Fukushima Prefecture, the utility firm known as TEPCO has also been engaged in efforts to stop highly radioactive water from leaking into the sea and cleaning up contaminated water within the plant.

At 5:38 a.m. Wednesday, highly contaminated water, which had been confirmed as leaking into the sea from around a cracked pit located near the No. 2 reactor water intake on Saturday, stopped flowing after TEPCO injected around 6,000 liters of chemical agents including sodium silicate, known as "water glass."

Nishiyama told a press conference in the afternoon that so far no further leakage has been detected from the pit. But there is a possibility that the water, which has lost an outlet, could show up from other areas of the plant.

The highly radioactive water is believed to have come from the No. 2 reactor core, where fuel rods have partially melted, and ended up in the pit. The pit is connected to the No. 2 reactor turbine building and an underground trench connected to the building, both of which were found to be filled with highly contaminated water.

This March 24, 2011 aerial photo taken by a small unmanned drone and released by AIR PHOTO SERVICE shows damaged Unit 3 of the crippled Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant in Okumamachi, Fukushima Prefecture, northeastern Japan. (AP Photo/AIR PHOTO SERVICE)

To make room to store the highly radioactive water that is hampering the plant's restoration work, TEPCO continued to dump into the sea massive amounts of low-level contaminated water from inside a nuclear waste disposal facility at the site as well as contaminated groundwater found from around the Nos. 5 and 6 unit buildings.

TEPCO is aiming to dispose of a total of about 10,000 tons of low-level contaminated water into the sea by this weekend, a move which has sparked concern among neighboring countries and strong protests from the domestic fishing industry.

After opening up the disposal facility, which can accommodate 30,000 tons of liquid, some repair work is expected to take place for about a week to ensure that the facility can retain highly radioactive water safely without fear of the stored liquid leaking outside.

The plant's power grid and most of the emergency diesel generators were knocked out by the magnitude 9.0 earthquake and ensuing tsunami on March 11, resulting in the loss of many of the reactors' key cooling functions, partial melting of reactor cores and hydrogen explosions.

According to estimates by TEPCO announced Wednesday, 25 percent of the nuclear fuel rods have been damaged at the No. 3 reactor. The company earlier said that 70 percent of the No. 1 reactor's fuel rods and 30 percent of the No. 2 reactor's fuel rods have been damaged.

Nishiyama said past hydrogen explosions have likely occurred due to hydrogen accumulation caused by the reaction of melted fuel rods' zirconium with steam from the coolant water. But now there is concern that hydrogen could accumulate in the No. 1 reactor under a different process involving radiation-induced decomposition of water into hydrogen and oxygen.

In announcing TEPCO's decision to inject nitrogen into the reactor's containment vessel, an operation approved by the government, the nuclear agency said that radioactive leaks are "unlikely to significantly rise" even if the pressure inside the vessel increases as a result of the injection.

In this photo taken on Thursday, March 31, 2011 by Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force and released by Japan Defense Ministry Friday, April 1, JMSDF personnel all in protective suits are aboard a tugboat towing a U.S. military barge carrying pure water towards the quay of the tsunami-stricken Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear complex in Okumamachi, Fukushima Prefecture, northeastern Japan. (AP Photo/Japan Defense Ministry)

Nishiyama said that he also expects nitrogen to be injected into the Nos. 2 and 3 reactors in the future.

The utility has been pouring massive amounts of water into the reactors and their spent nuclear fuel pools as a stopgap measure to cool them down. But the measure is causing "side effects," such as the detection of contaminated water in various parts of the nuclear complex and some leakage into the sea.

A seawater sample taken near the No. 2 reactor water intake on Saturday showed a radioactive iodine-131 concentration of 7.5 million times the maximum level permitted under law, or about 300,000 becquerels per cubic centimeter.

In the first case of contamination levels in seafood exceeding the maximum legal limit, radioactive cesium in excess of the set limit was detected in young sand lance caught Monday in the sea off the northern part of Ibaraki Prefecture.

The National Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives Associations lodged a protest with TEPCO and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry on Wednesday, saying the dumping of contaminated water into the sea without any prior consultation with fishermen was an "outrage."

The group also called for the dumping of contaminated water and the leakage of highly polluted water from the plant to be halted so as to prevent Japan's fishing industry from "perishing."

To prevent the already seriously contaminated seawater close to the plant from spreading further, TEPCO is planning to install "silt fence" barriers in the sea, such as near the No. 2 reactor water intake.

(Mainichi Japan) April 7, 2011

07/04 Chinese expats caught in tsunami moved by Japanese kindness

BY DAISUKE NISHIMURA CORRESPONDENT

2011/04/07

Yang Dan, with her parents, reflects on her experience during the Great East Japan Earthquake. (Daisuke Nishimura)


SHENYANG, China--Like many Chinese, Zhang Di had a less-than-favorable image of Japan. But all that changed after the kindness that was extended to her by Japanese people during the Great East Japan Earthquake.

The 28-year-old intern from Beizhen, Liaoning province, was working at a marine products processing factory in Kesennuma, Miyagi Prefecture, about 200 meters from the sea, when the massive magnitude-9.0 earthquake and tsunami rocked northeastern Japan on March 11.

Zhang and more than a dozen co-workers at Sun Foods Kesennuma--including five other Chinese trainees--scrambled to the rooftop of a nearby fish market. As the tsunami came roaring in, Zhang saw ships get swallowed up in the path of destruction by the 5-6 meter black waves.

As night fell, she saw a myriad of wood pieces glowing with fire swirling in the inky waters.

"I felt as if I were in a hell," Zhang said.

Cold and shivering, Zhang said she was touched when sales division manager Wataru Ito, 38, took off his jacket and wrapped it around her.

"I wanted to do everything I could because I thought trainees (like Zhang) who came from a foreign country must be feeling lonely and uneasy," Ito said.

A day after the earthquake, Zhang was relocated to a community center crowded with evacuees. Food was scarce. She found a former Japanese co-worker among the evacuees who gave her two pieces of candy and two biscuits--it was all the food he had.

"I was moved and cried because he gave me all the things he had," Zhang said.

Another former colleague brought food, clothing, gloves and disposable pocket warmers from his home.

Zhang returned to China on March 20, but she said she will never forget the kindness, warmth and sincerity she received from the Japanese during her ordeal.

"I want to go back to Japan after it recovers from the disaster and convey my appreciation to the many people who helped me," she said.

Zhang is not alone.

Twenty-eight-year-old Yang Dan, from Panshan, Liaoning province, was working at Watarei, a marine products processing factory in Minami-Sanriku, Miyagi Prefecture.

The factory was spared from the tsunami, but was cut off from surrounding areas because the roads leading from the factory were damaged.

Although many Japanese employees went out to look for their families, two Japanese factory workers, Shuichi Yamaguchi, 41, and Morio Inaba, 38, stayed behind to take care of Yang and eight other Chinese trainees.

Yamaguchi's mother and Inaba's uncle were missing and their homes were washed away by the tsunami, but they gathered up cup noodles and other food for the Chinese trainees to eat.

Yang, who returned to China on March 20, decided to enter a Japanese language school in Dalian, Liaoning province.

"There are many Chinese who hate Japanese people," she said. "But I like Japan. I want to find a job at a Japanese-affiliated company and work again in Japan."

07/04 Fukushima No. 1 plant designed on 'trial-and-error' basis

2011/04/07

An aerial view of the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant taken Tuesday from a helicopter flying at about 7,300 meters and about 38 kilometers to the west. (Eiji Hori)

While changes improved safety at the Fukushima No. 2 nuclear power plant, overconfidence, complacency and high costs stymied such action at the now-crippled Fukushima No. 1 plant, according to people familiar with the situation.

The difference in the safety designs was the main reason why the crisis continues to unfold at the Fukushima No. 1 plant--one of the oldest in Japan--while the No. 2 plant a few kilometers south remains relatively unscathed by the March 11 Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami.

Officials at another Tokyo Electric Power Co. nuclear plant in Kashiwazaki-Kariwa, Niigata Prefecture, analyzed the differences in safety designs at the two Fukushima plants.

According to their analysis and TEPCO sources, there are clear differences in safety levels between the two plants concerning power source equipment, such as emergency diesel generators and transformers at the reactor cores, and pumps used to bring in seawater to remove residual heat from the cores.

TEPCO documents show that the emergency diesel generators located in the turbine buildings at the Fukushima No. 1 plant were flooded by the tsunami and rendered inoperable, except for the one at the No. 6 reactor. This effectively disabled the cooling mechanisms.

After the No. 1 plant lost its power sources, the reactor cores became much more difficult to control, leading to serious problems, including hydrogen explosions that damaged the housing of the reactors.

Radioactive materials have also been emitted from the damaged reactors.

No such problems have been encountered at the No. 2 plant.

The emergency generators at the No. 2 plant were in buildings housing the reactor cores. Because the reactor buildings are much more airtight, the generators at the No. 2 plant continued to function after the tsunami struck.

Emergency generators are also located within the airtight reactor core buildings at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant, which has similar design features to the Fukushima No. 2 plant.

When asked about the differences in the safety designs between the No. 1 and No. 2 plants, an official at TEPCO headquarters said: "This does not mean we have admitted that a problem exists. We will conduct further detailed studies to identify the problems."

The No. 1 plant was built in the 1960s and 1970s. Improvement work was conducted in the 1970s and 1980s to strengthen its resistance to earthquakes.

A nuclear engineer who used to work for TEPCO and was involved in those improvements said no consideration was paid to the location of the emergency diesel generators or the seawater pumps.

"First of all, there was the judgment that the reactor core buildings were in a safe location in relation to the expected height of any tsunami that might strike the plant," the engineer said. "However, even if they wanted to move the generators, there was no space within the reactor building, so that would have meant a major revision in design.

"At the time, no one considered making such changes," the engineer said.

Both the No. 1 and No. 2 nuclear plants were hit by waves more than 14 meters high, well above the expected limits of 5.7 to 5.2 meters estimated in safety designs.

The tsunami rendered inoperable all of the No. 1 plant's pumps, which were also not located within a sealed structure.

Although the pumps at the No. 2 plant were inside buildings, the tsunami crippled the ones to the No. 1, No. 2 and No. 4 reactors. But the pump at the No. 3 reactor continued to cool the reactor core.

Referring to the possibility of installing the seawater pumps inside buildings, the former TEPCO engineer said, "It would have been a major project because various pipes are laid out under the pumps, and so all of that would also have had to be moved."

A midlevel TEPCO official also said money was a big reason why repairs and changes to the No. 1 plant were not made.

"The blueprints for the reactor cores at the No. 1 plant were bought 'as is' by Toshiba Corp. from General Electric Co., so the priority at that time was on constructing the reactors according to those blueprints," the official said.

When the Fukushima No. 1 plant was being built, Japan was importing technology from the United States and learning from a more advanced nuclear power nation.

The No. 1 plant was considered a "learning experience."

A former TEPCO executive said, "The Fukushima No. 1 plant was a practice course for Toshiba and Hitachi Ltd. to learn about GE's design on a trial-and-error basis."

With the exception of the No. 6 reactor, the other five reactors at the Fukushima No. 1 plant are Mark I boiling-water reactors developed by GE.

According to sources, the locations of emergency generators and the seawater pump structure were also based on a GE design.

In contrast, the No. 6 reactor is a Mark II reactor. Moreover, the Fukushima No. 2 plant and Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant, which were constructed from the mid-1970s to the 1990s, used an improved and safer version of the Mark II reactor.

After Toshiba and Hitachi gained experience in constructing nuclear plants, they located emergency generators and seawater pumps within buildings.

Yet those safety improvements were never reflected in changes at the Fukushima No. 1 plant.

Other TEPCO officials said that changing the anti-tsunami design or moving the location of the emergency generators would have been an acknowledgment that previous decisions were insufficient.

Kiyoshi Sakurai, a commentator on technology issues, said that relying on a GE design also put the Fukushima No. 1 plant at a disadvantage because U.S. designers were not as cautious about earthquakes and tsunami as those working in Japan.