This is why my "Inconceivable" meter keeps getting recalibrated.
Just when I think even my generous allowance for cynicism, conspiracy theory and 'scare-mongering' has been exceeded, and post comments to that effect chastising someone for 'crying wolf', overly speculative diaries or reaching beyond a more likely explanation of sketchy facts from 'iffy' sources, it turns out that their 'outlandish' allegations were ... essentially right (at least on an important point).
Case in point is Nathguy's May 2, 2011 diary entitled:
Fukushima: Tokyo is on the Roof
It is now clear that those at the head of the Japanese government most involved with dealing with the Fukushima nuclear disaster did indeed at one point in the darkest days of that disaster believe that they might be facing "Tokyo is on the roof" scenario.
So while I'm recalibrating my "Inconceivable Meter" for the thousandth time since 2000, I want to issue an apology for many of my remarks in that diary.
Now, I'm not saying everything in that diary was right or that I agree with the way it was presented, but on at least one fundamental aspect, the diary was a lot more 'right' than most of us were willing to believe.
The diary's title Fukushima: Tokyo is on the Roof refers to a punchline of a joke* intended to convey the difficulties with trying to soften bad news. Part of the bad news in Nathguy's diary was the speculation that the Japanese government was contemplating or had contemplated relocating the capital because of the potential need to evacuate Tokyo.
The wording of the diary gave the impression that such an evacuation was imminent at that time in May of 2011, and the diarist commented later clarifying that to some degree. (When the primary sources of information are hiding the truth, and 'alternate' sources are attempting to get at the truth by reading the minimal leaves of tea that escape that tight net of secrecy, a certain level of confusion as to past, present or future is excusable.)
While the timing may have been off, the recent news coverage on the upcoming report to be issued by the Rebuild Japan Initiative Foundation, gives strong evidence that the Japanese government did indeed contemplate evacuation of not only the government, but the general population, from Tokyo, specifically based on the potential of a worst case scenario that might be triggered by a proposal from TEPCO to remove all its staff from the afflicted reactors..
To be clear, that contemplation of leaving Tokyo was not some after-event planning initiated because Fukushima made them take a closer look at all their low probability/high impact preparedness and planning levels.
In the first days and weeks following the earthquake, they thought they might be faced with that very necessity if incorrect decisions made in dealing with the Fukushima disaster caused that disaster to spin out of control into what they considered to be a very conceivable 'worst case' scenario.
Here's what Nathguy had in that diary from an NHK video report no longer available:
Kan [Japanese PM] said measures were not taken despite previous accidents and warnings, and that he must admit that the utility and the government failed to fully deal with the situation.
He also suggested that he will study the possibility of setting up an alternative capital to take over Tokyo’s role in an emergency, saying that measures must be taken to secure the continuity of the capital’s central functions.
That report leaves open the possibility that no such move was contemplated during the height of the emergency and is only a reaction to the event - preparing for some potential event in the future.
Nathguy also cited an April 14, 2011 report from Sofia News Agency, a Bulgarian news outlet, as a second source that was reporting on a much more 'real time' basis.
As powerful earthquakes continue to jolt Japan and radiation levels near Tokyo are rising, the Asian country's authorities are considering moving the capital to another city.
The most probable location for a new capital are Osaka and Nagoya, according to ITAR-TASS. Both cities are located near international airports.
The main conditions the new capital has to provide are a population over 50 000 and a sufficient capacity to accommodate the parliament, the government, the Emperor's residency and the foreign diplomatic missions.
While that might have been a month or so late, again, hard to blame the waiter for cold food when the cooks hid it back on the counter for so long.
Fast forward 11 months and the NYT reported today something very similar:
Japan Weighed Evacuating Tokyo in Nuclear Crisis
The 400-page report, due to be released later this week, also describes a darkening mood at the prime minister’s residence as a series of hydrogen explosions rocked the plant on March 14 and 15. It says Mr. Kan and other officials began discussing a worst-case outcome if workers at the Fukushima Daiichi plant were evacuated. This would have allowed the plant to spiral out of control, releasing even larger amounts of radioactive material into the atmosphere that would in turn force the evacuation of other nearby nuclear plants, causing further meltdowns.
The report quotes the chief cabinet secretary at the time, Yukio Edano, as having warned that such a “demonic chain reaction” of plant meltdowns could result in the evacuation of Tokyo, 150 miles to the south.
“We would lose Fukushima Daini, then we would lose Tokai,” Mr. Edano is quoted as saying, naming two other nuclear plants. “If that happened, it was only logical to conclude that we would also lose Tokyo itself.”
The full report will be interesting to review and compare to the official government report.
So yet again I have to face the infinite elasticity of how far governments are willing to go to keep secrets from and disseminate lies to their own people, reminding me yet again that in setting the bar for expectations/assumptions concerning governmental lies and secrets, even from the enlightened, 'democratic' governments like those of Japan (and our own), there is really no such thing as 'too low'.
*
A fellow calls up his friend and says, "Hey, your cat died." The friend says, "Geez, you didn't have to hit me with that so harshly, you should break it to me gently. You should have called me up and said, 'Hey, your cat's up on the roof.' Then a week later, you call me up and say, 'Hey, your cat fell off the roof and injured himself, we had to take him to the hospital.' The next week, you call me up and say, 'Hey, your cat isn't doing too well.' Then a few weeks later, you can let me know that he died." So a month later, this fellow calls up his friend and says, "Hey, your mom's up on the roof."