Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Risk Assessment

8/12/2019 Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Risk Assessment

1/11

CASE ANALYSIS: FUKUSHIMA DAIICHI

NUCLEAR DISASTER

FINVEMA K31

Submitted by:

RED Group

Baluyot, Raccey

Galero, Sealtiel

Go, Robin

Nerona, Ingrid

Pontino, Nilleth


2/11

I. IDENTIFY THE PROBLEM

The Fukushima nuclear disaster is the largest nuclear incident since the

Chernobyl disaster in 1986. The Chernobyl incidents recoded massive contamination

poses concern on the effect to the society and natural environment of the recent

Fukushima disaster. Local and international communities are worried of the aftermath of

the latter incident. Moreover, it is debated whether the incident was manmade or

natural; and if it could have been prevented.

II. DATA

The plant is located in the seaside Fukushima prefecture and was specifically

planned in that layout so as to execute efficiency during its operations. Water is drawn

out more easily from the pumps directly situated in the sea, which could mean lower

costs. The 25-meter foundation of the facility was lowered down from its original 35-meter plan because the engineers and constructors believed that it would provide a

more stable bluff in the case of an earthquake. To add, the seawall would act as a

buffer from any tsunami that would follow in the event of an earthquake. Nonetheless,

the calculations in the plans have overlooked the possibilities of more dangerous

circumstances.

The Boiling Water nuclear reactors in the Fukushima Daiichi power plant were of

the Generation II-type, a fairly old design, considering the facility was constructed

around 1967 and officially commissioned in 1971. Boiling Water Reactors work by

generating heat from the constant fission controlled by control rods that are made up of

elements that neutralize the charges of uranium so as to prevent the atoms fromsplitting too quickly. Coolants also maintain the temperature of the reactors to prevent

overheating. Water is then turned into steam through the heat from the fission and is

pumped to the turbines where electric power is generated.

Testa (2014) explains that Generation II reactors have active safety techniques

which rely heavily on electrical, mechanical, and human operation and this has caused

many criticisms in the design since there is the imminent danger in human involvement.

Compared to the newer types since Generation III, these reactors are more passive in

nature when it comes to safety techniques thus there is minimal to no human action.

Also, they are not standardized in terms of operation and tend to differ from plant to

plant. This evident Generation II characteristic of is found in the nuclear reactors in the

facility since their manufacturers were three different companies forming a joint venture

in the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant project, namely: General Electric (Units 1, 2, and

6), Toshiba (Units 3 and 5), and Hitachi (Unit 4) as Dedman reported (2011). General

Electric provided the design and blueprint of the reactors. Given this, it is difficult for the

power plant to compare the reactors as they have different problems and solutions.


3/11

The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission explains that there is a Mark I

containment system around the reactors, with the exception of Unit 6 which has a Mark

II-type, characterized by a sturdy sheet metal and concrete secondary containment

system. Mark I types are the oldest, having an inverted light bulb-shaped drywell

nuclear reactor containment with the wetwell, which contains the water, above.

Moreover, the safety vents and features of this kind of containment system require

electric power to operate. Thus, the Mark I has often been a subject of criticism for

safety failure during times of blackout (How Nuclear Reactors Work, 2013). In the

Fukushima Power Plant, the reactors with secondary containments were reported to be

too thin and were not able to withstand the hydrogen explosions, specifically Units 1 to

4, resulting in destroying nearby complementary structures and equipment. Units 5 and

6 were undamaged.

In terms of casualties, 18,500 deaths were reported from the earthquake and

tsunami while 1,600 out of 300,000 people died due to poor evacuation conditions.

However, there were no deaths during the hydrogen explosion from the power plant butthere is a high possibility of future deaths due to radiation-related cancers. According to

the Asahi Shimbun as of November 2013, the Fukushima Prefectural Government

prepared a report and revealed that there were 59 children diagnosed with thyroid

cancer. Nonetheless, the cause, whether due to radiation exposure or not, of the

cancers is still yet to be determined (Moresuspected and confirmed cases of thyroid

cancer diagnosed in Fukushima children, 2013). Updates on environmental problems

disclose on August 20, 2013 that 300 metric tons of radiation-contaminated water had

leaked from the facilitys storage tank.

Figure 1: The workings of a BWR reactor

A graphical representation of the processes involved in a boiling water reactor. Image retrieved from RIA

Novosti, http://en.ria.ru/


4/11

III. FACTS

On March 11, 2011, which was a Friday, an earthquake struck Honshu, Japan

with a magnitude of 9.0 at 2:46 pm. This will later be known as the Tohoku Earthquake.

It lasted for six minutes and caused a tsunami that devastated thousands of people. The

intensity of this earthquake came as a surprise because while scientists did predict that

there would be an earthquake, they expected it to have minor intensity. It was revealed

that it was caused by stress worth two hundred years between the Pacific Plate and the

Eurasian Plate.

Automatic shutdown happened to eleven nuclear reactors in the four nearby

Honshu power plants upon sensing the tremors. Reactors had to be continuously

cooled because residue from nuclear fission continues to decay and produce a large

amount of heat even when shut down. The electricity in the Fukushima Daiichi plant,

however, was cut due to the earthquake. The situation was held under control for a

while through the use of the emergency diesel generators. Unfortunately, the low-lyingrooms where the generators were located were flooded an hour later because of the 14-

meter tsunami which easily went over the ten-meter seawall of the facility. The plant

was then unable to supply enough power to keep the water pumps working and this

caused the reactors to overheat.

TEPCO declared a state of emergency. An announcement was given to the

communities within a three-kilometer radius from the plant to evacuate immediately.

People who lived within 10 kilometers from the plant were told to stay indoors.

The nuclear leak happened on March 12. The pressure within the Fukushima

Unit 1 reached dangerous levels of 840 kPa. The workers tried to lower the pressure

through ventilation. This proved insufficient for the unit still exploded. This blew off theroof and left four workers injured. With the roof gone, people began to panic. TEPCO

appeased them by explaining that the airtight steel structure was the true container for

the units. However, the evacuation radius kept getting bigger in case things turn for the

worse.

March 13 was when a partial meltdown happened in two of the reactors. Water

levels continued to drop within the units. Various water injections were used in order to

cool the reactors. The workers were able to restore a residual heat remover for Unit 1.

Unit 3 was safely shut down and cold. They were currently in the process of fixing Unit 2

and 4. On March 14, the units 1, 2, and 3 were finally given a cold shutdown. Unit 4 had

still not yet achieved this yet. Unit 4 caught on fire on March 15. As a result, radioactive

levels increased. Two hours later, the fire was extinguished. Wolchover (2011) recounts

that on the next day, things suddenly changed for the worse when Unit 3s pressure

level unexpectedly dropped. In order to remedy this situation, Japanese Defense

Minister Toshimi Kitazawa planned to drop water on Unit 3s spent fuel rods. Unit 5s

water level was also decreasing. Several workers had already been affected by

radiation exposure.


5/11

From March 17 to 29, a series of unfortunate events occurred. The workers

continued to fix the units. They switched seawater to fresh water in the pumps in order

to lessen corrosion and deposits. Radioactivity around the plant kept rising. Problems

concerning the power supply were also quite frequent. This all ultimately led to an

announcement in March 30. Fukushima Daiichi Power Plant was declared permanently

unusable. Workers still stayed in order to quarantine the leaking radioactive residue.

IV. ANALYSIS

This analysis aims to offer a close examination on the given data and facts and

make an intelligent conclusion on the contribution of the information to reconstruct the

valid events that occurred before, during, and after the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant

disaster.

The advent of nuclear energy study has given scientists the opportunity to make

a change in the course of civilization. From building weapons of mass destruction to

providing a clean and sustainable energy alternative, The World Nuclear Association

recalls that this discovery in 1896 by the scientists Becquerel, Rutherford, Villard, Marie

and Pierre Curie has given double-edged sword to the human race (Outline History of

Nuclear Energy, 2010). While the Fukushima Daiichi Power Plant was constructed

during the 1960s and even though the most disastrous nuclear power plant accident

being the Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster happened at around 1986, there was enough

evidence of the negative after-effects of nuclear radiation exposure to humans from the

early official medical research after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings during the

Second World War (Radiation Effects on Humans, 2011). Rogers (2011) recounts thatthere were other nuclear reactor catastrophes of various International Nuclear Events

Scale (INES) levels ranging from 1 to 7 recorded as early as 1952 such as the Chalk

River in Canada (1952, first recorded, recorded as a level 5), the Kyshtym in Russia

(1957, recorded as a level 6), the Three Mile Island in the United States (1979, recorded

as a level 5), Saint Laurent des Eaux in France (1980, recorded as a level 4) and many

others. The dangers of not properly controlling nuclear energy were already apparent

before the Fukushima facility was constructed and therefore, more research and stricter

implementation on safety measures should have been a priority to the future developers

of nuclear power plants so as to prevent or at least minimize the probabilities of

accidents in case of human or mechanical error.There were questionable articles of information asymmetry among the

companies and institutions involved. Reactors have a typical lifespan of over forty years

and Unit 1, which was constructed in July 1967, would have been 44 years old in 2011.

There were initial plans by the Japanese regulators to have the said unit for a scheduled

shutdown around early 2011 but by February, there was a granted extension of ten

years for the continued operation of the reactor. TEPCO also admitted to falling short of


6/11

transparent reporting and falsification of records to the Japanese Nuclear Industrial

Safety Agency regarding the maintenance of the reactors, specifically obscuring the fact

that they had failed to inspect around 30 nuclear reactor components. Also, no action

was taken after a 2008 tsunami study warned the plant that there is a need to further

protect the structures from seawater flooding. Lastly, 20 years ago around 1991, there

was a risk of losing emergency power in the facility as told by the U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission; this statement has been reiterated by the during a 2004 report

but again, no action was given out to mitigate the probability of the said occurrence.

Anzai, Ban, and Tokonami (2011) states that the geographical location of the

facility being in Japan, which is within the Pacific Ring of Fire, is prone to the regular

occurrence of earthquakes. More so, the plant is situated along the shore of the

Fukushima prefecture which is designed for efficiency and cost-cutting in gathering the

seawater necessary for the power-generation. Along with the compromised layout of the

low-lying structures housing the fragile equipment, the overall plan of the Fukushima

Daiichi Power Plant raised a red flag in the practical security standards.Japan follows certain Nuclear Power Plant Safety Standards wherein the facilities

are expected to utilize the defense-in-depth approach, summarized as Prevention,

Monitoring, and Action. The important aspects of this kind of approach takes into

account the design and construction of the power plant, obtaining fail-safe equipment,

regular and thorough reactor monitoring, and scrupulous damage control systems. The

given information all show evidence that the Fukushima Daiichi Power Plant failed to

meet the required safety standards and TEPCO admitted to this mistake on October 12,

2012 (Fackler, 2012).

The premature safety systems of nuclear reactors, its containments, and the plan

of the structures in the facility are alarming proofs of playing with fire; trying to uncoverthe possible beneficial scientific mysteries while human lives and environmental status

are at stake. The continuing development in the sciences and technological

advancement, most especially in the field of perfectly harnessing nuclear power, has led

to its questionable feasibility of being a safe source of energy despite being a cheaper

and a more efficient alternative. Human and mechanical error, combined with the

hazard-prone tendencies of nuclear energy, can have after-effects that are catastrophic

in nature and degree. Moreover, although natural disasters can be predicted, the

accuracy is sometimes inexact. A problem arises whenever the time of the forecast

does not provide ample time for the necessary additional precautionary preparations.

V. ASSESSMENT OF SITUATION

It was evident that the Fukushima Daiichi Plant did not follow the basic safety

measures. It was also discovered that the reactors had different manufacturers. These

reactors could have had required different standards of maintenance and care which

may have been left unnoticed by the workers. The somewhat lax attitude of those in


7/11

charge of implementing the Japanese Nuclear Safety Standards indirectly had a hand in

the accident. Had they not overlooked the plan of cost-cutting then the problem could

have been prevented or at least lessened.

The rising fear from the imminent dangers of the destruction of human lives and

the environment in the hands of the underdeveloped and continuous study and research

in utilizing nuclear energy has strengthened the arguments in the side against such an

alternative source of power. With that said, some countries, such as Germany, have

already considered stopping the construction of future nuclear power plants to prevent

further disasters from happening, according to a report from The Economist (Gauging

the pressure, 2011).

Two years after the incident happened, Japans nuclear crisis seemed to have

gotten worse. On August 21, 2013, there was news from the nuclear regulator saying

that there have been fears that more tanks were leaking contaminated water. The

nuclear regulator also announced that TEPCO might not be able to have the capability

to handle the disaster. The severity of the crisis increased from a level 1 to a level 3,making the situation a serious incident based on the international scale for radiological

releases. This called out the attention of other countries since Japan have not increased

its scale since after the disaster occurred last 2011. Countries like China were shocked

to hear about Fukushima still leaking contaminated water after two years. It was stated

that the water from this leak would cause a person standing close to it for an hour to

receive five times the recommended limit for nuclear workers in a year.

On a lighter note, sellers of atomic reactors are still continuing to persuade

buyers by promising them that their company has learned the consequences from the

previous Fukushima disaster and that their latest technology has been renewed to be

safer than ever before. Barbara Judge, a nuclear expert appointed by TEPCO promisedthat after everything that has happened, TEPCO would continue to improve its safety

culture. Safety would be their top priority. This has also become the main priority of all

reactor developers. Many designs were reviewed after the Fukushima to prevent future

disasters.

Due to many additional safety requirements created by the regulators after the

Fukushima, many companies such as Frances Areva or Toshibas Westinghouse unit

have lost potential sales and have increased the cost of their new plants. Even the

International Energy Agency scaled back their nuclear capacity by around 50 gigawatts

due to policy changes. There were also many countries that stopped using nuclear

reactors after the incident and switched to other safer technologies like Arevas

renewable energy technology.

Although TEPCO is still trying to fix the disaster that happened back on 2011,

Japan decided to look into solar energy. On September 16, 2013, Japans Kyocera

Corp. released their newly built 70- megawatt Kagoshima Nanatsujima Mega Solar


8/11

Plant in its southwest region, which will produce enough energy for around 22,000

houses.

VI. RECOMMENDATIONS

As per the recommendations, it is but necessary to be specific. With steadfast

resolve, it is recommended that those who maintain the plant and who are directly

involved, especially those for future power plants, to be active and consistent in

checking and affirming the plants conformity with the rules and regulations of the

Nuclear Regulation Authority.

Referring to the 10 meter seawall against a 14 meter tsunami wave and the

failure of the emergency generators due to the flooding on the floors where the

emergency generators were placed, a higher seawall must be constructed. This is so

whilst taking into account the foreseeable susceptibility of Japan to earthquakes,

tsunamis and flooding and the statistics on the highest recorded or highest possibletsunamis. It is best to note that the highest recorded, and video-taped, tsunami was at

37.9 meters that hit the coast of Miyako, Iwate Prefecture, Japan as a result of the 2011

Tohoku earthquake. The possibility of a tsunami that high to hit a power plant is

extremely disastrous or worse.

Regarding the location of the power plant, it is most appropriate to research more

on the earthquake faults running near or directly under their facilities, to identify

whether such faults are active or not and to act on such findings. These could have

warned and prepared them more on the statistical possibilities of the recurring natural

disasters like earthquakes, tsunamis and typhoons in the Pacific Rim. It is but

necessary to retain the location of the power plant at the coast for easier access to freshseawater. This is so because the plant utilizes fresh seawater for the plants coolants

that maintain the temperature and prevent the overheating of the fuel rods and the

reactors.

The evaluation of nuclear (power plant) safety standards is a cyclical process

that is improved and regenerated as disasters and events happen of which lessons are

learned from. Although these are just recently required, it is recommended that movable

pumps, water discharge systems, and waterproof doors, and the like, be provided and

installed as soon as possible. If the aforementioned, along with other newly specified

requirements, were identified before the disaster, these could have had largely

mitigated the impacts of the disaster and withstand natural events. The safety and

backup facilities of a nuclear power plant must always be consistent with the standards

and the changes that occur in the natural environment, especially now that there is

change in the climate and atmosphere.

It must be noted that the workers and employees involved in the Fukushima

power plant stayed inside the area to facilitate and shutdown the plant during and after

the disaster. Although their stay in that area is necessary, this could potentially have


9/11

after-effects to their health and their environments, especially with the leakage of

radioactive material. It is highly recommended that a remote secondary control room

must be installed so that in emergency cases when the site cannot be reached, the

plant can be safely shut down without the need to personally go within the disaster-

stricken area. Again, the safety and backup system of the plant must be updated and

maintained so that leakages and explosions be avoided.

The entities involved in establishing the nuclear power plant should have taken

into account the possible dangers before investing in it. Although, nuclear energy serves

as a cheap and sustainable alternative for power, it is always important that positive and

negative factors should be taken into account before entering into a decision of

providing a nuclear energy source for a country. The after-effect of a nuclear meltdown

that can have a high economic cost on repairs, clean-up, lost of livelihood, and human

rehabilitation and evacuation can be traded off by investing highly on the safety

measures in nuclear facilities.

VII. REFERENCES

Anzai, K., Ban, N., Ozawa, T., & Tokonami, S. (2011). Fukushima daiichi nuclear power

plant accident: facts, environmental contamination, possible biological effects, and

countermeasures. Journal of Clinical Biochemistry and Nutrition, 50(2012), 2-8.

Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3246178/

Dedman, B. (2011, March 13). General Electric-designed reactors in Fukushima have

23 sisters in U.S. Retrieved from NBC News:

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/03/13/6256121-general-electric-

designed-reactors-in-fukushima-have-23-sisters-in-us

Fackler, M. (2012, October 12). Japan power company admits failings on plant

precautions. Retrieved from The New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/13/world/asia/tepco-admits-failure-in-

acknowledging-risks-at-nuclear-plant.html?_r=1&

Jiji press. (2014, January 7). Safety screening sought for nuclear fuel plant.The Japan

news. Retrieved from http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0000921892

McCurry, J. (2012, October 15). Fukushima disaster could have been avoided, nuclear

plant operator admits. Retrieved from The Guardian:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/oct/15/fukushima-disaster-avoided-

nuclear-plant
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3246178/http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3246178/http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/03/13/6256121-general-electric-designed-reactors-in-fukushima-have-23-sisters-in-ushttp://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/03/13/6256121-general-electric-designed-reactors-in-fukushima-have-23-sisters-in-ushttp://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/03/13/6256121-general-electric-designed-reactors-in-fukushima-have-23-sisters-in-ushttp://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/03/13/6256121-general-electric-designed-reactors-in-fukushima-have-23-sisters-in-ushttp://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0000921892http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0000921892http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0000921892http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/03/13/6256121-general-electric-designed-reactors-in-fukushima-have-23-sisters-in-ushttp://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/03/13/6256121-general-electric-designed-reactors-in-fukushima-have-23-sisters-in-ushttp://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/03/13/6256121-general-electric-designed-reactors-in-fukushima-have-23-sisters-in-ushttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3246178/


10/11

Rogers, S. (2011, March 18). Nuclear power plant accidents: listed and ranked since

1952. Retrieved from The Guardian:

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/mar/14/nuclear-power-plant-

accidents-list-rank

Testa, B. M. (2014). Comparison of gen 2 and gen 3 nuclear power plants: New nuclear

plant designs promise benefits. Retrieved from

http://energy.about.com/od/nuclear/a/Gen-2-And-Gen-3-Nuclear-Power-Plants-

Compared.htm

Vincent, J. (2013, June 19). Japan finalises new nuclear safety regulations. The

independent. Retrieved from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/japan-

finalises-new-nuclear-safety-regulations-8665506.html

Wolchover, N. (2011, March 17). Timeline of Events at Japans Fukushima Nuclear

Power Plant. Retrieved from LiveScience: http://www.livescience.com/13294-

timeline-events-japan-fukushima-nuclear-reactors.html

Boiling water reactor systems. (2013, December 6). Retrieved from the United States

Nuclear Regulatory Commission: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-

ref/teachers/03.pdf

Fukushima disaster could have been avoided: TEPCO takes blame in strongest terms

ever. (2013, March 29). Retrieved from RT: http://rt.com/news/japan-nuclear-crisis-

blame-053/

Gauging the pressure. (2011, April 28). Retrieved from The Economist:

http://www.economist.com/node/18621367?story_id=18621367

How Nuclear Reactors Work. (2011). Retrieved from Nuclear Energy Institute:

http://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/How-Nuclear-Reactors-Work

More suspected and confirmed cases of thyroid cancer diagnosed in Fukushima

children. (2013, November 13). Retrieved from The Asahi Shimbun:

https://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201311130066

Nuclear Power Plants. (2013, February 11). Retrieved from Ready:

http://www.ready.gov/nuclear-power-plants
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/mar/14/nuclear-power-plant-accidents-list-rankhttp://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/mar/14/nuclear-power-plant-accidents-list-rankhttp://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/mar/14/nuclear-power-plant-accidents-list-rankhttp://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/mar/14/nuclear-power-plant-accidents-list-rankhttp://energy.about.com/od/nuclear/a/Gen-2-And-Gen-3-Nuclear-Power-Plants-Compared.htmhttp://energy.about.com/od/nuclear/a/Gen-2-And-Gen-3-Nuclear-Power-Plants-Compared.htmhttp://energy.about.com/od/nuclear/a/Gen-2-And-Gen-3-Nuclear-Power-Plants-Compared.htmhttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/japan-finalises-new-nuclear-safety-regulations-8665506.htmlhttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/japan-finalises-new-nuclear-safety-regulations-8665506.htmlhttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/japan-finalises-new-nuclear-safety-regulations-8665506.htmlhttp://www.ready.gov/nuclear-power-plantshttp://www.ready.gov/nuclear-power-plantshttp://www.ready.gov/nuclear-power-plantshttp://www.ready.gov/nuclear-power-plantshttp://www.ready.gov/nuclear-power-plantshttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/japan-finalises-new-nuclear-safety-regulations-8665506.htmlhttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/japan-finalises-new-nuclear-safety-regulations-8665506.htmlhttp://energy.about.com/od/nuclear/a/Gen-2-And-Gen-3-Nuclear-Power-Plants-Compared.htmhttp://energy.about.com/od/nuclear/a/Gen-2-And-Gen-3-Nuclear-Power-Plants-Compared.htmhttp://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/mar/14/nuclear-power-plant-accidents-list-rankhttp://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/mar/14/nuclear-power-plant-accidents-list-rankhttp://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/mar/14/nuclear-power-plant-accidents-list-rank


11/11

Outline History of Nuclear Energy. (2010, June). Retrieved from The World Nuclear

Association: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Current-and-Future-

Generation/Outline-History-of-Nuclear-Energy/

Radiation Effects on Humans.(2011, September 14). Retrieved from Oracle ThinkQuest

Education Foundation:

http://library.thinkquest.org/3471/radiation_effects_body.html

Safety of Nuclear Reactors. (2013, October). Retrieved from World Nuclear Association:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Safety-and-Security/Safety-of-Plants/Safety-of-

Nuclear-Power-Reactors

What is Nuclear Energy. (2014). Retrieved from Westinghouse:

http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/Community/WhatIsNuclearEnergy.shtm
http://library.thinkquest.org/3471/radiation_effects_body.htmlhttp://library.thinkquest.org/3471/radiation_effects_body.htmlhttp://library.thinkquest.org/3471/radiation_effects_body.htmlhttp://library.thinkquest.org/3471/radiation_effects_body.htmlhttp://library.thinkquest.org/3471/radiation_effects_body.html

Documents

Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Risk Assessment