Menu lock

Companies

Mar 14, 2011

Nuclear myths erupt in Japan

It has taken less than three days for Japan's notoriously dishonest and evasive nuclear industry to concede the seriousness of the crisis affecting its nuclear power plants, including the "fail safe" cooling process which was a risk analysis bet gone wrong.

It has taken less than three days for Japan’s notoriously dishonest and evasive nuclear industry to concede the seriousness of the crisis affecting the Fukushima Daiichi and Fukushima Daini plants NE of Tokyo with six and four reactors respectively. But the ferocious debate over nuclear power that has erupted in the media outside Japan is completely missing several key points.

The first is the failures of “fail safe” cooling processes at each plant is a risk analysis bet gone wrong by Japan’s nuclear power regulators and the Fukushima plant owner Tokyo Electric. And secondly, the calamities unfolding at the nuclear plants will not kill anything like the 10,000 or perhaps far more people now officially believed to have died in the massive tsunami that ravaged low lying areas of Honshu’s northern Pacific coast on Friday afternoon after a magnitude 9.0 earthquake occurred near Sendai at 2.46pm local time.

This is likely to be true even if several completely uncontained meltdowns of reactor cores were to occur, despite the extreme seriousness of such events.

When the tsunami overwhelmed the separate coastal locations of the Fukushima Daini and Fukushima Daiichi plants, they had already begun shutting down in an automated response to the earthquake, the most powerful ever directly recorded in Japan.

It was the fail-safe back-up cooling processes that failed, because they had deliberately been designed and built to withstand severe yet less extremely severe natural disasters.

This was a money saving risk analysis bet by Japan’s nuclear regulators and the owners that a combination of such an extremely violent earthquake and following tsunami would not occur in its lifetime.

That bet nearly came off. The older Daiichi plant has only weeks to run on its 40-year operating licence and half of its reactors were already offline and are reported to be undamaged in their shut down state.

Until about 9am local time on Saturday, Tokyo Electric, the Japanese government, and nuclear apologistas worldwide were insisting that there had been no meltdowns in the reactors, that there was no risk to public safety and that mass media comparisons to the Chernobyl melt down in 1986 were flawed, which in terms of design is certainly true.

It was even claimed that only if such desperate measures as flooding the reactor cores with sea water took place would the situation be serious.

Shortly afterwards it became apparent that nuclear fuel rods exposed by falling levels of coolant in the Daiichi No 1 reactor were initiating partial meltdown with the release of “slightly” radioactive steam from the reactor bloc and admissions that caesium contamination had been found outside the plant, indicating that the outer layer or cladding of the uranium rods had crumbled and been ejected into the environment during the “harmless” steam releases.

Then the outer retaining walls and roof of the Daiichi No 1 reactor were violently blown to smithereens, a process the Chief Secretary for the Cabinet, Yukio Edano, described as a “roof collapse”.

While the Japan government continued to evade the seriousness of the situation, it was flying in emergency consignments of unspecified coolants, possibly additional supplies of boric acid, which absorbs neutrons and thus acts as a liquid alternative to control rods in a reactor core in which fuel rods and control rods have been partially melted or otherwise damaged to the point where they cannot be used.

The language of officialdom began to shift rapidly from benign soothing evasions to urgency throughout Saturday and yesterday until this morning when Prime Minister Naoto Kan specifically referred to the nuclear plant situations as “grave.”

It appears that up to seven reactor cores, the total that were active in the Fukushima complexes, have been or are about to be flooded with seawater and injected with boric acid, both previously described by nuclear apologistas as “desperate measures” not justified in the post-tsunami crisis. Yet these measures will, according to nuclear scientists, irreparably damage the reactors in the course of shutting them down when all else has failed.

As of this morning the smallest figure given for the number of people in hospital for radiation exposure is 90 and the population at large is being given potassium iodine tablets which will pre-empt the absorbing by the thyroid gland of radioactive iodine particles. The confirmation that radioactive iodine particles had escaped from the Daiichi complex came yesterday afternoon, some 24 hours after the authorities grudgingly conceded the presence of caesium fallout.

In the drip feed of disclosure coming from Tokyo Electric and the government, it is now publicly confirmed that the fuel rods in the Daiichi No 3 unit, which is of most immediate concern and at risk of an explosion, use a combination of plutonium oxide and uranium oxide, not just the uranium that was being used in Daiichi No 1.

The fission process using only uranium fuel does produce plutonium, however the addition of plutonium oxide at the start of the process lifts the output of a reactor while substantially adding to the lethality of the sort of failure that the nuclear industry regulator and Tokyo Electric knew was possible but gambled would not occur.

This morning there was an elevated radiation level emergency declared at the Onagawa nuclear plant, which comprises three reactors, and is 120 kilometres from the NE outskirts of Sendai, compared to about 240km for the nearest Fukushima plant.

These fluctuations at Onagawa are now attributed to fallout from the Fukushima “releases” which is not comforting to those in Tokyo or elsewhere in Japan but is an inevitably that adds to the far more visible and immediate aftermaths of the tsunami.

We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola

121 comments

Leave a comment

121 thoughts on “Nuclear myths erupt in Japan

  1. Tom McLoughlin

    Even so, Ben, the extensive wikipedia entry on the hard fought analysis of the Chernobyl legacy is very revealing how political this area is. Apparently in 2009 the UK govt were still testing for radiocativity in some very isolated farms 23 years after. That in itself is scary and a warning to primary producers here.

    This might sound lame, but I like eating Aldi chocolates but since I heard rumours – right or wrong – about bushfire release of contamination around Chernobyl in the northern summer, I’ve been a bit more careful of my diary products.

    Also there is hot debate over how many thousands were hurt afterwards including the “liquidators” in their thousands, who cleaned up.

    And to hear Andrew Bolt’s emotionalism on Sunday in the face of obvious trauma of Chernobyl appalling. Obviously his editors thought differently leading with the issue today.

    There was a study of childhood cancers before and after closure of the reactors in New York State and the results were not very encouraging. The rates dropped after the closures. Mmm. One can expect similar studies to follow in Japan before and after Fukishima.

  2. Sir Lunchalot

    It could put clean nuclear power back a bit.

  3. shepherdmarilyn

    Look closer to home. Maralinga will never be safe.

  4. Captain Planet

    Awful as the Fukushima incident is rapidly becoming, hopefully it will act as a timely deterrent to all those who have been duped over the last decade or so, by nuclear industry propoganda.

    In direct contrast to those who parrot the official nuclear industry line about countries in Europe “reverting to nuclear” or constructing new nuclear plants, tens of thousands of protesters in Germany on Saturday formed a human chain 45 kilometres in length, protesting about their governments recent ill – advised decision to prolong the lives of their 40+ year of nuclear reactors for a few more years.

    The 17 nuclear power plants in Germany are scheduled for decommissioning, and it would appear that the German people, wisely, want to see this happen sooner rather than later.

    The real problem is that Nuclear power plants have only been in commercial existence for a bit over 50 years, and in most cases, after a spate of construction activity in the 1960’s and 1970’s, the rate of installation of nuclear power facilities has been virtually nil for decades. Consequently the world has a large and very old fleet of nuclear power plants due for retirement, and precious little by way of expertise, planning or long term funding, for the very expensive, hazardous and very little understood process of shutting the aging beasts down.

  5. Steven McKiernan

    Monte Bello Islands will never be safe.

    Ask yourself this, would you live next door to a nuclear power plant? Would you live next door to a coal fired power station? Would you install solar panels and also make changes in how you consume electricity?

  6. zut alors

    ‘…Japan’s notoriously dishonest and evasive nuclear industry…’

    My guess is that Japan is not unique.

  7. Sir Lunchalot

    @ Steven McKiernan

    I have solar panels, lots of them, and I am ruthless on saving power and cutting waste.

    But solar power is a drop in the ocean. It provide power on certain days at certain times, but during the peak load times of 6pm – 8pm and 4pm – 8pm in winter it does not.

    The answer is only nuclear. We have a big country with a vast desert, we have lot of space for these plans, in areas safe from earthquate and tsunami’s.

  8. shepherdmarilyn

    Lunch, what is the point of nuclear plants in the desert when they need millions of litres a day of water?

    Hionestly people like you talk the most insane crap.

  9. Sir Lunchalot

    @ Marilyn

    We have pipes carrying water, they are not new, the Romans invented them.

    There are vast expanses of area in Australia, that are not inhabited, that are close to water and a long way from population centres and close enough to RAAF bases for security.

Leave a comment