Nuclear Safety Chief says Lax Rules led to Fukushima Crisis
Nuclear Safety Chief says Lax Rules led to Fukushima Crisis
http://news.businessweek.com/article.asp?documentKey=1376-LZF0E16JTSEY01...
Japan's atomic safety rules are inferior to global standards and left the country unprepared for the Fukushima nuclear disaster last March, the country's top nuclear regulator told a parliamentary investigation.
Industrial civilisation's
Industrial civilisation's entire economy is based on a finite resource we treat as infinite.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/02/201222051514575294.html
Nuclear energy was an admission of desperation. Man would rather destroy the planet and himself than give up industrialisation.
He will go down fighting like this until the end.
How Safe Are Nuclear Reactors?
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/PP/chp6.html
John William Gofman is Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology in the University of California at Berkeley, and Lecturer at the Department of Medicine, University of California School of Medicine at San Francisco.
While a graduate student at Berkeley, Gofman co-discovered protactinium-232, uranium-232, protactinium-233, and uranium-233, and proved the slow and fast neutron fissionability of uranium-233.
Post-doctorally, he continued work related to the chemistry of plutonium and the atomic bomb development. At that early period, less than a quarter of a milligram of plutonium-239 existed, but a half-milligram was urgently needed for physical measurements in the Manhattan Project. At the request of J. Robert Oppenheimer, Gofman and Robert Connick irradiated a ton of uranyl nitrate by placing it around the Berkeley cyclotron (to capture neutrons), for a total exposure period of six weeks, with operation night and day. In 110 Gilman Hall, they scaled up Gofman's previous test-tube-sized sodium uranyl acetate process for the plutonium's chemical extraction. Dissolving 10-pound batches of the "hot" ton in big Pyrex jars, and working around the clock with the help of eight or ten others, they reduced the ton to a half cc of liquid containing 1.2 milligrams of plutonium (twice as much as expected).
After the plutonium work, Gofman completed medical school. In 1947, he began his research on coronary heart disease and, by developing special flotation ultracentrifugal techniques, he and his colleagues demonstrated the existence of diverse low-density lipoproteins (LDL) and high-density lipoproteins (HDL). Their work on lipoprotein chemistry and health consequences included the first prospective studies demonstrating that high LDL levels represent a risk-factor for coronary heart disease and that low HDL levels represent a risk-factor for coronary heart disease. His principal book on the heart disease research is Coronary Heart Disease (1959, Charles C. Thomas, Publisher).
In the early 1960s, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) asked him if he would establish a Biomedical Research Division at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, for the purpose of evaluating the health effects of all types of nuclear activities. From 1963-1965, he served as the division's first director, concurrently with service as an Associate Director of the entire Laboratory, for Biomedicine. Later he stepped down from these administrative activities in order to have more time for his own laboratory research in cancer, chromosomes, and radiation, as well as his analytical work on the data from the Japanese atomic-bomb survivors and other irradiated human populations.
In 1965, Dr. Ian MacKenzie published an elegant report entitled "Breast Cancer Following Multiple Fluoroscopies" (British J. of Cancer 19: 1-8) and in 1968, Wanebo and co-workers, stimulated by MacKenzie's work, reported on "Breast Cancer after Exposure to the Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki" (New England J. of Medicine 279:667-671), but few were willing to concede that breast-cancer could be induced by low-LET radiation.
Gofman and his colleague, Dr. Arthur Tamplin, quantified the breast-cancer risk (1970, The Lancet 1:297), looked at the other available evidence, and concluded overall that human exposure to ionizing radiation was much more serious than previously recognized (Gofman 1969; Gofman 1971).
Because of this finding, Gofman and Tamplin spoke out publicly in favor of re-examining two programs which they had previously accepted. One was the AEC's "Project Plowshare," a program to use hundreds or thousands of nuclear explosions to liberate natural gas in the Rocky Mountains and to excavate harbors and canals. Experimental shots had already been done, for example, in Colorado and Nevada. The second program was the AEC's plan to license about 1,000 nuclear power plants as quickly as possible and to build a "plutonium economy" based on breeder reactors. In 1970, Gofman and Tamplin proposed a five-year moratorium on licensing of commercial nuclear power plants.
For Gofman and Tamplin, the public health was the issue of prime importance. The Atomic Energy Commission was not pleased. In 1973, Gofman returned to full-time teaching at the University of California at Berkeley, until choosing an early and active "retirement" --- a retirement to full-time research on radiation health-effects. This research led to publication of four scientific books, and to the current work, Preventing Breast Cancer.
The fact that no information
The fact that no information has been released almost a YEAR after the accident tells me something, and it is NOT good.
Any airplane that crashes, they send in a forensics team, and analyse the whole accident, pull it apart, put it together, with a TEAM of experts from all over, while focusing on SAFETY, and how to PREVENT t from happening again. They ask the question;
WHAT IS THE LESSON LEARNED?
NONE OF THAT IS HAPPENING HERE…
The same mistakes are being made over and over and over again and and again..
Why?
Because the process is not transparent, not open, not inclusive and not verifiable via scientists who might be interested in participating..
It is SECRET, HIDDEN AWAY, COVERED UP, and denial is the watchword.
No actual figures are released. No actual meter readings are released from DOWNWIND or on the VENT STACKS or from over open reactors, or open spent fuel pools.
What is the result?
FUBAR
and worse to come in the future, because few or no lessons are learned.
Scientists ARE responding!
Scientists ARE responding; some in the Bay Area's own backyard:
Livermore Responds to Crisis in Post-Eartquake Japan
https://str.llnl.gov/JanFeb12/sugiyama.html
As the world held its collective breath, the scientific community swung into action to assess the extent of the crisis and help guide protective actions. Among the responders was a team of Livermore experts who have developed sophisticated computer systems that model the spread of nuclear materials in the atmosphere. Their goal was to provide government officials in the U.S. and Japan with answers to some of the most urgent questions on everyone’s mind: how much radiation was being released, where it would travel, and what protective actions might be warranted.
Livermore’s National Atmospheric Release Advisory Center (NARAC) was activated on March 11 to provide top governmental authorities and emergency response teams both in the U.S. and Japan with daily meteorological forecasts and atmospheric dispersion predictions. The center’s analyses provided scientifically based guidance that was used in making decisions affecting U.S. citizens in Japan, including the potential need for evacuation, sheltering, or iodine administration.
BALONEY!!
Because the process is not transparent, not open, not inclusive and not verifiable via scientists who might be interested in participating..
=====================
Just because you haven't bothered to look, doesn't mean that scientists are not studying Fukushima. The NRC had a scientific panel look at the Fukushima accident.
Actually, there really isn't a lot to be studied because the causes are pretty plain - the many, many deficiencies in the "balance of plant" excluding the reactor at Fukushima. The operators of Fukushima were well aware that a reactor needs to have cooling even after a shutdown.
What did the Japanese regulators allow TEPCO to do? They allowed TEPCO to have the fuel tanks for the backup diesel generators sitting above ground where they could be wiped away by a tsunami instead of buried as the NRC requires in the USA.
TEPCO was allowed to have their diesel generators in a non-watertight basement where the generators and switchgear could get flooded, as opposed to the NRC requirement that the generators be in watertight vaults in the USA.
TEPCO was not required to drill in bringing in portable diesel generators. When TEPCO brought in portable units; they didn't have the right connectors to connect to Fukushima. If they had drilled, they would have found that out on the first exercise. In the USA, the NRC requires operators to drill and train and to have compatible backup portable units ready.
The NRC required BWRs in the USA to install vents to prevent hydrogen build-up in the secondary containment which caused the Fukushima explosions.
There's really not much to be learned from Fukushima - the rest of the world already learned the lessons without having to have an accident.
The Japanese nuclear regulators now acknowledge that they were deficient:
Nuclear Safety Chief says Lax Rules led to Fukushima Crisis
http://news.businessweek.com/article.asp?documentKey=1376-LZF0E16JTSEY01...
Japan's atomic safety rules are inferior to global standards and left the country unprepared for the Fukushima nuclear disaster last March, the country's top nuclear regulator told a parliamentary investigation.
Keeping those GE lies Straight
Keeping all those GE lies straight would be a full-time job.
This is a tried and true lie, 'BLAME it on the partners!'
GE Hitachi GLOBAL ALLIANCE
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/old-dog-ge-learns-new-tricks-from...
Old dog General Electric learns new tricks from emerging-market partners
America’s largest conglomerate, General Electric, is learning humility abroad as it taps into global markets — and is picking up management techniques along the way.
...
The nuclear ventures
Not all of its partnerships are runaway successes, though. GE has had a global alliance on nuclear reactor projects with Japan’s Hitachi since 2007, and the joint venture brought in roughly $1 billion in revenue in 2010 for GE. But the partners are lagging behind competitors such as Westinghouse Electric on new reactor sales. GE also has a public-relations headache to deal with related to the Fukushima Daiichi power station in Japan, where its boiling-water reactors have been operating for decades.
The recent earthquake and tsunami-damaged generator equipment are igniting fears of radiation emanating from some of the reactors.
Steve Sargent, chief executive of GE Capital in the Asia Pacific region, said GE carefully evaluates potential minority stakes to make sure the partners’ goals align and that GE has “significant operational involvement” so it’s not a passive minority investment. “You may have the legal infrastructure to execute there. But it may not always work as well as you would like,” Sargent said. “The processes may be a little cumbersome and slow.”
What a pretty piece of lying and hypocrisy, that GE LIE would be.
Design Failure
Design Failure X 6
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/04/08/japan.nuclear.crisis/
General Electric which designed the reactors, and Hitachi, which built most of the plant, are also advising the government and Tokyo Electric. GE chief Jeffrey Immelt flew to Japan to consult with Japanese officials and executives last week, and Tokyo has asked Russian officials about using a Japanese-built ship outfitted as a floating decontamination plant.
Design Failure
Every Aspect of the GE Designs failed at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear facility.
The GE Mark-1 and GE Mark-II
The GE Mark-1 and GE Mark-II 'containment systems' are inherently flawed. The details of the inherent design flaws were disclosed in congressional testimony in the 1970s by three (3) GE supervising engineers.
Every GE Mark-1 and GE Mark-II system on earth should be immediately derated to 75% of its original licensed power output level. Certainly no MOX fuel should EVER be allowed in these dangerous systems.
Every GE Mark-1 and GE Mark-II system on earth should be scheduled for permanent shutdown as soon as practically possible.
The defenders of the GE Mark-1 and GE Mark-II systems should face criminal charges for public endangerment. That would include any person receiving compensation for internet defense of these dangerously defective systems.
In my humble opinion
Non Consent
Non Consent
It may not be possible for conscientious engineers, physicists, physicians and the citizenry to STOP or prevent the use of MOx fuel, particularly in the proven, design defective Mark-I & Mark-II systems.
However, there appears to be no persuasive reason to consent to the use of MOx fuel or the continued operation of these dangerous systems.
Similarly, GE has a long history of improperly influencing the courts, congress and the US executive branch. It may not be possible to stop that either. Such actions are historically criminal in nature.
Again, I withhold consent. If we can not stop it, perhaps we can decline to support it.
These systems have proven to be dangerously defective, time after time. And it is AGREED that GE has immense political power.
Non Consent
You can't stop it!
Certainly no MOX fuel should EVER be allowed in these dangerous systems.
================
There is this constant drumbeat by some that MOX fuel is somehow inherently evil and somehow increases risk.
Where do you think MOX comes from? It comes from the reactors. Reactors create their own Plutonium in situ; even if the only material you put into it is Uranium. In fact, over the 3 years that the average fuel assembly spends in the reactor, about 40% of the energy one gets out comes from burning Plutonium.
Reactors are going to have Plutonium as part of their fuel whether or not you recycle some as MOX or not.
The charges that the 3 GE engineers made in the '70s received a thorough airing in the NRC and study by many scientific groups. The result of these hearing were that the GE containment was NOT flawed, and that is why the NRC has continued to allow them to operate.
Even Fukushima doesn't really cast doubt on the capabilities of the GE-style containment; because as reported the Japanese didn't follow the GE design to the letter. The only reactor at Fukushima that is really a GE reactor is Unit 6.
The other 5 units at Fukushima are NOT GE reactors, but reactors / containments built by Hitachi or Toshiba licensing the GE design. However, Hitachi and Toshiba made alterations in the GE design. For example, the Hitachi and Toshiba units do NOT have a vent to prevent the build-up of hydrogen gas in the secondary containment. We saw the results of that.
If anything, the Hitachi and Toshiba variants of the GE design are called into question, but NOT the original GE design.
It always amuses me how the know-nothings on this forum always glibly throw out the missive that certain people should face criminal charges. If they "think" (term used loosely) people should be charged with crimes; then let them specify the laws that were violated. In this matter, I don't mean some "hand waving" about "safety or health", I mean please cite the STATUTE as in Title "X" Code of Federal Regulations Section "Y", Subsection "Z". If you can't do that, then you are aimlessly flapping your gums.
Fukushima could not have been licensed in the USA
Fukushima could not have been licensed in the USA.
Although everyone calls them "GE reactors"; only Fukushima Unit 6 was actually built by GE. The other reactors at the site were actually built by Toshiba and Hitachi who licensed the GE design. However, they didn't follow the GE design to the letter. The GE reactors in the USA have vent pipes to prevent the type of hydrogen build up that led to the explosions.
The Fukushima plant had the fuel tank for the backup diesel generators sitting above ground vulnerable to a tsunami. The diesel generators and switchgear got flooded. In the USA, the NRC requires the fuel tank to be buried, and the diesel generators and switchgear must be in water-tight compartments.
In the USA, utilities have to conduct drills on flying in backup diesel generators. The Japanese don't require the drill. When TEPCO attempted to fly in diesel generators after the tsunami, they found they had the wrong connectors. If they had drilled; they would have found that out.
Know enough
I know enough to demonstrate that you are being 'less than candid'
Fukushima Daiichi plants - builders varied (GE-Toshiba, Toshiba, GE, Hitachi)
04/03/11
Fukushima Daiichi plants - builders varied (GE-Toshiba, Toshiba, GE, Hitachi)
07:58:00 am by Steve Schulin, Categories: nuclear plants, Fukushima, Uncategorized
Link: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/03/japan-ge-immelt-idUSL3E7F304N2...
GE wholly built one of the six reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant. It built two others jointly with Toshiba Corp. Toshiba built two on its own and Hitachi Ltd built one.
Less than forthcoming, uninformed ... or lying?
You ever hear of "licensing"
A lot of people here, and in the news media, are confused about what a "GE reactor" is.
In my posts, I refer only to those reactors that are built by GE as a "GE reactor". At Fukushima, the reactors for Units 1, 2, and 6 were supplied by GE.
Many have confused a "GE reactor" with a reactor that was "licensed" from GE.
When Toshiba and Hitachi are involved; they "license" the design from GE; but Toshiba and Hitachi are the actual vendors.
Aren't people familiar with "licensing" from their experience with software. Company "A" writes some software to do "X", and patents it. Company "B" thinks that is a good idea and wants to incorporate an expanded version of "X" in its products. They can't just implement "X" because "A" holds the patent. So they "license" the feature, and pay some money to "A" since they hold the patent. However, company "B" can make modifications and extend the technology.
That's what happens with reactors. The basic design of the reactor and containment is GE's. However, Toshiba and Hitachi have "licensed" the design to build their own versions. Additionally, the containment is NOT built by the reactor vendor. The containment is built by the archietect / engineers and the general contractor. The design is licensed from the reactor vendor.
In the case of Fukushima, ALL the containments were built by Kajima with Ebasco serving as archietect / engineers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_Nuclear_Power_Plant
NOBODY is LYING here or not being forthcoming. There may be a confusion of the defintion of terms; but leave it to the anti-nukes to escalate that into something sinister.
You say: “In my posts, I
You say: “In my posts, I refer only to those reactors that are built by GE as a "GE reactor".
At Fukushima, the reactors for Units 1, 2, and 6 were supplied by GE.”
-----
Tepco: "Results of the provisional analysis show that the fuel pellets of
Unit 1 were melted and fell down to the bottom of RPV at a
relatively early stage after the tsunami reached the plant."
Tepco believe the GE supplied Unit 1 reactor at Fukushima suffered a meltdown.
How is that reponsive...
First; how is your post in ANY WAY responsive to the post you are responding to???
The issue being discussed was what constituted a "GE reactor" and you are talking about fuel pellet melting.
In response to the issue you raise with the fuel pellets; my only response is "Well DUH!!!"
When all the supporting system NOT designed by GE; backup diesel generators to run coolant pumps, shutdown cooling systems... FAILED and hence the core was left without cooling; OF COURSE the reactor suffered a meltdown.
There's NOTHING that the reactor manufacturer can do in that case to prevent a meltdown.
It's as if a commercial airliner, a Boeing 747; is shot down by a Russian fighter as in the KAL 007 case; and for some perverse reason, you want to blame Boeing.
GEESH!!!
Advance Warning Ignored
U.S. Was Warned on Vents Before Failure at Japan’s Plant
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/19/science/earth/19nuke.html?_r=1&hp
By MATTHEW L. WALD Published: May 18, 2011
WASHINGTON — Five years before the crucial emergency vents at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant were disabled by an accident they were supposed to help handle, engineers at a reactor in Minnesota warned American regulators about that very problem.
Anthony Sarrack, one of the two engineers, notified staff members at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that the design of venting systems was seriously flawed at his reactor and others in the United States similar to the ones in Japan. He later left the industry in frustration because managers and regulators did not agree.
Mr. Sarrack said that the vents, which are supposed to relieve pressure at crippled plants and keep containment structures intact, should not be dependent on electric power and workers’ ability to operate critical valves because power might be cut in an emergency and workers might be incapacitated. Part of the reason the venting system in Japan failed — allowing disastrous hydrogen explosions — is that power to the plant was knocked out by a tsunami that followed a major earthquake.
...
The Fukushima plant was designed by General Electric, and the venting systems that failed in Japan exists at similar plants designed by G.E. in the United States.
In a statement, James Klapproth, the nuclear energy chief consulting engineer at GE Hitachi, said that his company believed that the venting system would have operated in an accident within the “design basis” of the plant,” but that the Fukushima disaster was worse than what the plant was designed for. He said that the industry in this country had considered passive systems “at one time.”
A version of this article appeared in print on May 19, 2011, on page A6 of the New York edition with the headline: U.S.Was Warned on Vents Before Failure at Japan’s Plant.
WRONG!!
The Fukushima plant was designed by General Electric, and the venting systems that failed in Japan exists at similar plants designed by G.E. in the United States.
==================================
The above is in ERROR. The NRC recommended the venting systems and left it to each operator to install same. The NRC directive from 1989 is:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/gen-comm/gen-letters/1989/...
Accordingly, the Commission concluded that the recommended safety improvements, with one exception, that is, hardened wetwell vent capability, should be evaluated by licensees as part of the Individual Plant Examination (IPE) Program. With regard to the recommended
plant improvement dealing with hardened vent capability, the Commission, in
recognition of the circumstances and benefits associated with this modification, has directed a different approach. Specifically, the Commission has directed the staff to approve installation of a hardened vent under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59 for licensees, who on their own initiative, elect to incorporate this plant improvement. The staff previously inspected the design of such a system that was installed by Boston Edison Company at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station. The staff found the installed system and the associated Boston Edison Company's analysis acceptable.
133% Failure for Vents
The GE Emergency Vents at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant demonstrated a 133% Failure rate.
Four nuclear reactors sustained damage, subsequent to 3 attempts to vent.
The very energetic detonation in Unit-3 was partially vented into Unit-4. The Unit-4 nuclear reactor was destroyed although the Reactor was reportedly empty for routine refueling.
Typically 100% failure is about the limit. In this particular instance GE exceded that norm.
At least one reactor might have been saved, had the defective GE design never been constructed.
...
The episode brings to mind the 300% morbidity rate associated with the fastest amputation on record. The speedy surgeon cut two assistants during the procedure, 1 died of shock/heart attack immediately, 1 died from infection ... and the patient died.
Totally FUBAR
300% mortality
There are some slight variations in the literature, regarding the 300% mortality rate surgery, conducted by the famous Scottish surgeon, Dr. Robert Liston.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2150649/
Unsafe Treatments
It is recorded that Dr. Robert Liston's most notorious surgery yielded 300% mortality. The patient, the surgical assistant, and a family member bystander, each of whom felt the blade of Dr. Liston's slashing amputation knife, died of gangrene in the days following.
Surgeons' Silence: A History of Informed Consent in Orthopaedics, Kevin B Jones, M.D., Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa, U.S.A., Iowa Orthopaedic Journal 2007; 27: 115–120. PMCID: PMC2150649
They were dangling in the way
Oops!
Robert Liston (1794-1847) was born in Ecclesmachan Scotland. His operations went wrong due to the speed at which he attempted them. The two most notable examples of this were when he amputated a man's testicles along with his leg by mistake and another operation where the patient died of infection, he cut off the fingers of his assistant (who also died due to infection) and slashed the coat of a spectator who died of fright. Robert Liston is the only surgeon in known history to have performed an operation with a 300% mortality rate.
On December 21 1846, at University College Hospital, London, Robert Liston, performed the first operation in England using anaesthetic (Ether). He performed an above knee amputation on a patient named Frederick Churchill. He stated to his audience, “This Yankee dodge, gentleman, beats mesmerism hollow.”
Sorry about that, Chief!
300% appendage removal
300% appendage removal
Say, would that leg removal with bi-lateral testiculectomy, constitute a 300% appendage amputation?
That may have been the unkindest cut of all!
300% morbidity rate
Great Moments in Medicine, Surgery with a 300% mortality rate
Dr. Liston would announce the beginning of surgery with the cry, “Time me gentlemen”, and would then make a rapid circular cut down to the bone, called the “coup de maître”. He would then put the knife in his teeth, grab a saw, and cut through the bone. Next he would clamp and tie the artery with a special forceps he had designed.
His best time was just over two minutes. On this occasion his coup de maître was so powerful that his unfortunate assistant, who was holding the leg, lost two fingers, and a spectator (yes they has an audience, after all it was called the “operating theatre”), had his coat cut and was splattered with blood. Although the spectator was not injured, the poor man was so frightened that he had a heart attack, and died on the spot. Dr. Liston’s wounded assistant, subsequently died of hospital gangrene, which was not unusual, and then the patient died of the same cause. That’s the record, a 300% mortality rate, and with the improvements in sterility, it will likely stand.
By Dr. John Cocker, Stitches Magazine, Your 2-minute respite from stress
http://stitchesmagazine.ca/2011/08/03/great-moments-in-medicine/
Death per operation has dimensions
The Physician as a “Hazardous Agent”
http://www.ohcow.on.ca/clinics/sarnia/docs/Vol_2_Iss_5.PDF
British surgeon Robert Liston was revered and feared for his legendary speed with the scalpel. His most famous case involved the amputation of a patient’s leg (who died afterward of hospital-acquired gangrene, circa 1840’s): “He amputated in addition, the fingers of his young assistant (who also died afterward from hospital-acquired gangrene). He also slashed through the coattails of a distinguished surgical spectator, who was so terrified that the knife had pierced his vitals he dropped dead from fright.” “That was the only operation in history with 300% mortality.” [Gordon, 1995]
Volume 2 Issue 5 Occupational Medicine Clinical Update May/June 2003
Mathematics is a tool
Mathematics is our tool and not our master.
http://percentage.askdefine.com/
Percentages are used to express how large one quantity is relative to another quantity. The first quantity usually represents a part of, or a change in, the second quantity, which should be greater than zero. For example, an increase of $ 0.15 on a price of $ 2.50 is an increase by a fraction of 0.15 / 2.50 = 0.06. Expressed as a percentage, this is therefore a 6% increase.
Although percentages are usually used to express numbers between zero and one, any dimensionless proportionality can be expressed as a percentage. For instance, 111% is 1.11 and −0.35% is −0.0035.
Proportions
Percentages are correctly used to express fractions of the total. For example, 25% means 25 / 100, or one quarter, of some total.
Percentages larger than 100%, such as 101% and 110%, may be used as a literary paradox to express motivation and exceeding of expectations. For example, "We expect you to give 110% [of your ability]"; however, there are cases when percentages over 100 can be meant literally (such as "a family must earn at least 125% over the poverty line to sponsor a spouse visa").
The Definition is important in mathematics.
Dimensionless is the key
Although percentages are usually used to express numbers between zero and one, any dimensionless proportionality can be expressed as a percentage.
----------------------------------------------------
The problem with "percentages" given by previous posters is that their ratios were NOT dimensionless. They were not dimensionless because the numerator and denominator were NOT "like" quantities.
For example, above the numerator was in units of "damaged reactors". The denominator was in units of "valves opened".
Those are not like quantities; so any ratio of unlike quantities will NOT be dimensionless.
Ignorance of basic math demonstrated above
The GE Emergency Vents at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant demonstrated a 133% Failure rate. Mathematically, percentages > 100% don't exist. When you make a percentage; you don't mix the numerator and denominator with differing quantities. So it's not a proper percentage to put the number of damaged reactors in the numerator; and the number of ventings in the denominator and call that a percentage. Typical anti-nuke ignorance of basic math.
One of the problems at Fukushima was how the operators used the vents.
The vents are large valves that are opened using electric power. Even though Fukushima lost outside power, and the backup diesels were flooded out; the operators still had batteries, and the batteries have enough power to open the vents.
The problem was the Fukushima operators "cycled" the vents. They opened and closed, opened and closed.... This depletes the batteries and when the batteries were depleted, they had valves in the closed position.
A rupture disk, as mentioned in the article above as an alternative; would open and stay open. The Fukushima operators could have done that, and not depleted their batteries.