Skip to main content

Building the Narrative of Fukushima

JapanMail Over at the BBC, Fiona Fox has a stern talking to with her colleagues in the press – British, primarily - over their handling of events at Fukushima Daiichi:

One tabloid's Japan coverage was typical. Under the title "Japan's Horror: Battle to Stop Nuclear Meltdown", the double-page spread included three articles by different reporters on the nuclear threat: "Now Food's Nuked", "Dangers Might Get a Lot Worse" and "Despair of Victims in Nuke Zone". The only piece about the earthquake itself was the story of a Brit who had a miraculous escape.

But when the first excitement passed and outlets started talking to  scientists and engineers in the nuclear field and academia, a different story began to emerge:

As with all good scientists and academics, there were differences of emphasis and differences of opinion, but I think a fair reading of the consensus would go something like this:

  • This was a very, very serious situation
  • The Japanese operators appeared to have done a tremendous job in controlling it
  • It was not another Chernobyl
  • Almost everything reported to have happened was what experts would have expected to happen in a 40-year-old plant faced with the combined impacts of the earthquake and tsunami - The Japanese authorities did everything right in relation to protecting the local population - setting the exclusion zone, handing out iodine tablets etc.
  • The health risks to anyone in Tokyo from a radiation leak at the plant in Fukushima are really very small indeed.

Which is considerably less dramatic than the media could be expected to cope with.

So why did the best estimates of the best experts give way to another narrative? Why did so many responsible broadcasters and editors not allow the facts to get in the way of a good story? Why did almost every section of our media lead daily reports with 'another Chernobyl' or the coming apocalypse, when none of Britain's leading scientists or the Chief Scientific Adviser were in any way confirming that assessment?

We talked about this a little in the story about Pew below, but Fox’s story goes into much more detail. If you want a good explication of  how media narratives get formed, Fox does a terrific job laying it all out.

Fox makes one excellent point that needs calling out: fastening on Fukushima overwhelmed the actual crisis in Japan - the earthquake and tsunami.

Three meltdowns! When did that hap – oh!

Comments

Daniel said…
Wow, that post makes it sound like the Fukushima story is over. That spin seems premature as things continue to spiral downhill at the plant.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…