The author doesn't take a political stance on Nuclear Power. He's just documenting the contamination zone. He talks briefly about how the disaster could have been avoided if the plant was designed better. He gives factual and statistical information about how the residents don't want to return there.
This is a primary source that offers an first-hand account of the Fukushima disaster and it's aftermath. The author is an authority on Fukushima contamination zone because he's been there and seen it with his own eyes, and has chosen to share that with us.
Just because Arkadiusz Podniesińki doesn't straight out say "I support continued investment in nuclear power" doesn't necessarily mean he's against investment in nuclear power.
I think it's counter-productive to lambast an article like this because it doesn't fit into how you perceive the world. I think it's important to have an open mind and to be able to listen to what other people have to say.
We should be encouraging people to make more pieces like this. I know I'm going to be sharing this article.
I felt a bit of that sentiment, but it didn't seem ham-handed. If you are interested in reading about nuclear accidents and the things we can learn from them, I highly suggest Atomic Accidents by James Mahaffey (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/20820098-atomic-accident...). He's pro-nuclear, but acknowledges that there are still things to learn about safe containment. His focus is mainly, and rightly, on the unrelenting power of steam, and how a reactor going prompt critical can tear down even the strongest safety mechanisms when it causes a huge spike in pressure.
He also says - "The disaster could have been forseen and prevented. As in the Chernobyl case, it was a human, not technology, that was mainly responsible for the disaster."
I'd say his stance is pretty nuanced and more to do with the care taken by people when designing and operating nuclear technology than being anti nuclear technology.
Except that excerpt is ridiculous, looking for an emotional hook where one doesn't exist. Humans were not responsible, a major earthquake and tsunami were responsible. Few structures of any kind would stand up to that.
The structure stood up fine, we know how to build for that, it was the placement of the air fed diesel generators in a floodable basement that screwed Fukashima.
Structure was probably the wrong word, I meant more the plant as a whole. I think my point still remains... it would be a very rare structure that wouldn't have a design flaw exposed by such a large earthquake/tsunami one-two punch.
How about Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant, the closest nuclear plant to the epicenter, which remained almost undamaged after the 14 meter seawall kept out the tsunami.
edit - also, if you design for tsunami, the two-punch scenario is your design brief.
"...I could assess the effects of the power station failure and understand the scale of the tragedy, especially the tragedy of the evacuated residents, in a better way. This was a way of drawing my own conclusions without being influenced by any media sensation, government propaganda, or nuclear lobbyists who are trying to play down the effects of the disaster..."
The author doesn't take a political stance on Nuclear Power. He's just documenting the contamination zone. He talks briefly about how the disaster could have been avoided if the plant was designed better. He gives factual and statistical information about how the residents don't want to return there.
This is a primary source that offers an first-hand account of the Fukushima disaster and it's aftermath. The author is an authority on Fukushima contamination zone because he's been there and seen it with his own eyes, and has chosen to share that with us.
Just because Arkadiusz Podniesińki doesn't straight out say "I support continued investment in nuclear power" doesn't necessarily mean he's against investment in nuclear power.
I think it's counter-productive to lambast an article like this because it doesn't fit into how you perceive the world. I think it's important to have an open mind and to be able to listen to what other people have to say.
We should be encouraging people to make more pieces like this. I know I'm going to be sharing this article.