The global nuclear watchdog agency, the IAEA, said last week that the Japanese government was remiss in their risk assessment duties by not failing to fully anticipate what dangers a giant tsunami might pose to a nuclear reactor in that country. In fact the head of the IAEA, Michael Weightman, actually said that he could not understand how a country that has excelled in the prediction of earthquakes could have failed so spectacularly in predicting a giant tsunami. He went on to say that "Perhaps, their methodologies or data didn't allow them to predict that this size of tsunami could occur."
Huh?
I am under the impression, and operate as such, that in the aftermath of 9/11's lesson, no risk scenario is too remote or unlikely to reasonably plan for and reasonably anticipate. How is possible that Tokyo could not or did not fail to see the corollary between a large earthquake - which Japan undergoes with regular frequency - and the quite likely consequence of a tsunami. Japan is, after all, an island nation that is surrounded by water, so tsunamis would be one of the most likely threats to consider planning for. The city of Topeka, Kansas can be excused for not having a tsunami response plan, but not any city in Japan.
If you plan a beer garden event, you better have a corollary plan to address the risks of full bladders; if you plan a vacation to London, you better plan for rain; and if you plan to buy a Bugatti Veyron Super Sport ($2.7 million), a car that has 16 cylinders, has 1001 horsepower and gets only 8 miles to the gallon in the city, you had better be prepared for the consequences of higher fuel bills, higher car insurance and significantly less disposable income for other luxuries (Four new wheels and tires $50,000; Annual routine maintenance $20,000).
With the Bugatti's top speed at about 253 miles per hour, need we even broach the subject of the increased risk of dying in a crash?
