Discussion
An earthquake hit Fukushima Daiichi Power Station; it created a crisis on the communication as gaps have been set up by the nuclear industry and the government. The issue was foreseen by Tukakura who raised the issue immediately he took office. However, his concerns were brushed aside by plant operators and they did not consider Tukakura’s thoughts at all. Consequently, he disregarded the matter. When the tragedy occurred, it was reported as the worst that had happened in the world in twenty-five years as it claimed caused massive destruction in the whole area. To the safety officials who were stationed at the plant, the situation seemed manageable, but that was not the case. When the quake hit the station, three reactors were shut down, and a nuclear fission was halted as rods meant for neutron absorption failed making the situation worse. The generator was used to keep the vital system working in the event that the local power malfunctioned as a result of an earthquake. While addressing this issue, Funabashi expressed the possibility of a bureaucratic machinery that would be kept to operate in an emergency mode. Additionally, wrong priorities and decisions made by emergency managers facilitated the situation.
According to Funabashi and Kitazawa’s arguments, the deficiencies in crisis and the magnitude of the limitation could be noted as the prime minister and other leaders were operating on them (2012). I concur with this assertion because if they had taken the earlier precautions presented, the magnitude of the tragedy would perhaps be managed. On the other side, Japan is known to be close to an earthquake fault. Japan embraces atomic power, yet the country’s fossil fuel reserves are insignificant, and all its energy is imported. Funabashi further states that for efficient crisis handling, the speed of shift in bureaucratic machinery to operate in emergency mode is crucial (Funabashi & Kitazawa, 2012). As a result, the government would have been in a position to handle the earthquake, and to some extent, reduce the force or the destruction it would have caused if they had proper machinery. Therefore, it can be deduced that the damage was massive as the country was not adequately armed with machinery to combat any emergency calamities as much as they knew there was danger ahead.
Emergency managers reconcile flexibility and improvisation with having a clear identification of the priorities and a top-down decision-making process to manage tragedies (Funabashi & Kitazawa, 2012). When one person foresaw the fate, the managers who were in the emergency department could have acted to ascertain the information provided. This is because the whistleblower’s projections could have been correct but they chose to ignore. If the decision-making process had involved all parties, the situation would have been adequately tackled as Yoshii would have been given a chance to explain what he thought. Possibly, the managers would have contemplated on the information and worked on it. However, their priorities were misplaced in addition to having the wrong decision-making process hence the situation was not managed. The aftermath of the nuclear crisis led to a cold shutdown of Daiichi station. The surrounding area was destroyed; many people lost their lives, while others were left traumatized. To-date, the land surrounding the station is believed to have been severely contaminated, and therefore, it is no longer safe for habitation. The calamity is all due to lack of proper management and planning of the government as it could have been prevented.
Reference
Funabashi, Y., & Kitazawa, K. (2012). Fukushima in review: A complex disaster, a disastrous response. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 68(2), 9-21.