The nuclear disaster in Fukushima Daiitchi at the atomic power plant occurred on the 11th May 2011. An earthquake in the northeast of Japan with a magnitude of 9.0 on the Richter scale caused a tsunami, which hit the nuclear reactor. The ten meter wave destroyed the coolant systems and caused a knock on effect, which started with an overheating and ended with the explosion of the reactor blocks one to four and led to the release of radioactivity into the atmosphere and the ocean. After the Chernobyl MCA of 1986 in Ukraine, Fukushima became the second nuclear catastrophe to be rated seven on the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (INES). These two so-called "accidents with wider consequences" had different effects on the energy politics of western states. According to Peter Bradford, a former member of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Chernobyl disaster was widely seen as a product of the lax Soviet safety culture, in which an unsafe design was combined with reckless operation (Bradford, 2012 :152). Indeed, the number of nuclear power plants all over the world, even in the directly affected European states, kept on steadily increasing. Whereas the Chernobyl Plant was perceived as inadequate in these respects, Bradford clarifies that, in comparison, the Japanese plant was considered to be at the technological and regulatory front rank of nuclear development (ibid.). Thus the global public was very shocked by the plant's vulnerability. They were surprised that an accident took place when there was such a small residual risk. Despite their occurrence as far as 10,000km away, the fear of nuclear energy disasters suddenly became apparent amongst people in Europe. Agreeing with Bradford, the Fukushima accident has significantly changed the political landscape surrounding nuclear power in European states. The incident has triggered Japan but also other countries like Germany, Belgium, Switzerland, Italy, Poland and even the nuclear-power stalwart France to rethink their nuclear future.
