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.

121 thoughts on “Nuclear myths erupt in Japan”
twobob
March 16, 2011 at 11:43 amThats pretty unoriginal gedert, and if you had bothered to read the thread you would know that that line or argument has been dealt with. Do try to keep up, we are now taking about a mythical modern reactor that pops out cornflakes for other flakes to digest aren’t we meski?
ronin8317
March 16, 2011 at 11:47 amThe ‘worse case’ scenario will be much, much worse than the tsunami. If the cooling system is not restored to the 3 ‘offline’ reactors, they will blow up their casing, start burning, and send radioactive materials into the atmosphere. Water will have to be poured on them to prevent the spent fuel rods to cool them down, and they’ll continue to spew radioactive steam for weeks and months, contaminating the entire Japan, Korea, east coast of China, Taiwan and Russia. It will be far, far worse than Chernobyl.
Now, you would think that given the catastrophic consequences, the cooling system will be brought back online as if the future of Japan depended on it. However, after 4 days, we just keep getting more and more explosions.
There is a risk/reward balance when it comes to energy generation, and not all nuclear plant is the same. The older style uranium power plants are designed primarily to create bombs, generating power is simply an added bonus. Anyone who advocate Australia should build those kind of power plants needs their head thoroughly examined. Getting the fuel to the power plant is a major security and environment hazard, and there is nowhere to put the nuclear material being created.
The newer generation of nuclear reactors is designed for power generation rather than making bombs. Thorium as a fuel is only slightly radioactive, making it easier to transport and safe from terrorists. The waste is still a problem, however there is a lot less of it. I see it as a viable alternative as a bridging technology : maybe one day we can get a fusion reactor running!! Until then, simply ruling out everything ‘Nuclear’ is being unrealistic.
freecountry
March 16, 2011 at 11:55 amFreeze:
[“freecountry, some times NOT SELLING a poison chalice to a friend is the better option. Sure india and others need power and nuclear may very well be their only option. But until they get their act together, its like giving a kid a loaded gun. For example, where is indonesia building its nuclear power station? Not on a fault line, no, surely not?
I rest my case.”]
I think the Indians made it pretty clear 63 years ago that they don’t need to be patronized by us, wouldn’t you agree? They are a democratic country with a lot of highly educated scientists, and unlike us they have a great deal of respect for scientific knowledge. Who the hell are we to tell them only whiteys are allowed to play with fire?
Elan
March 16, 2011 at 12:06 pm“Nuclear Disaster Update:
Death toll from damaged reactors soars to zero.”
What a bloody stupid thing to say.
………….yawn..
Captain Planet
March 16, 2011 at 2:14 pmMany have pointed out here that the tsunami and earthquake direct death and misery toll is at this point vastly worse than that from the Fukushima plant.
There is certainly an argument for keeping this in perspective. However there is precious little that humans can do to prevent earthquakes and tsunamis (Or is the plural tsunami?). Certainly we can do more to be prepared for their eventuality, but the occcurrence of the event is beyond our control.
There is plenty we can do to prevent nuclear plant meltdowns and releases of radioactivity, and this is why there is such raging debate about the safety of nuclear power.
FC, the last I heard was that radiation levels at the Gate to Fukushima were measured at 0.4 Sieverts per hour. At the front gate. The inverse square law dictates that levels closer to the source will be orders of magnitude higher.
Not MicroSieverts. Not MilliSieverts. Sieverts.
I’m not sure how familiar you are with the effects of ionising radiation on the human body, but if exposures measured in Sieverts are occurring at Fukushima (as seems quite possible) this is likel to mean that the incredibly brave and dedicated staff at Fukusima ARE effectively killing themselves, in an attempt to hopefully save hundreds of thousands of their fellow humans from exposure.
Captain Planet
March 16, 2011 at 2:19 pm…. And in the interests of keeping things in perspective, vis-a-vis the safety or otherwise of nuclear power:
Despite the (in my opinion) fairly good safety record of the nuclear power industry (considering the inherently hazardous nature of the substances being tampered with):
You will never have to evacuate 200,000 people from the vicinity of a wind turbine or solar thermal power plant after a natural disaster, for fear of toxic emissions from the plant, no matter what magnitude the disaster.
Mark Duffett
March 16, 2011 at 2:21 pmCapt Planet, what’s your source? Mine (BNC, quoting official information) says the 400 mSv/h was a spot peak (later fell to 0.5 mSv/h) measured at a location between Unit 3 and 4.
Gederts Skerstens
March 16, 2011 at 3:40 pmCaptain Planet contended: “..You will never have to evacuate 200,000 people from the vicinity of a wind turbine or solar thermal power plant after a natural disaster, for fear of toxic emissions from the plant, no matter what magnitude the disaster.”
That’s true, but incomplete. Fear alone wasn’t enough to keep humans cringing in caves. What always operated was an estimate of return for risk. Sure you could get eaten by a bear, but you go outside anyway to find a better breakfast than mushrooms.
(I.E., real energy to keep you going instead of horizon-to-horizon windmills weakly farting round their slow circles.)
Flower
March 16, 2011 at 3:46 pm@ Meski: “And none of those are produced in a modern reactor. yawn. (again)”
Meski – Which of the 435 operating nuclear reactors worldwide do you describe as “modern?”
Mark Duffett – Arguing the relative radioactivity of one hazardous industry compared to another is kind of like discussing the merits of being shot versus being hung or drowned. Your allusion to coal generation and radioactive emissions irrefutably confirms that industry cannot/will not control radionuclides.
Further, your statement also confirms irrefutably that the energy industry are criminally negligent in failing to protect the environment and people from the risks present in their waste.
Having learnt zero from wiping out Hiroshima and Nagasaki and obliterating 200,000 Japanese citizens, the maniacal nuclear cowboys criminally detonated atomic bombs on foreign and sovereign soils for the next forty years including Australia. And the criminals? Try France, UK, US and Russia, who ‘coincidentally’ have the largest cache of radioactive hazardous waste on the planet. A sure sign that when you put shaved monkeys in charge, evolution goes backwards.
@ Mark Duffett: “no mention of wind capacity factor. Instant fail.”
1) The >$1 billion Roscoe project provides enough power for more than 250,000 Texan homes.
2) Whitelee Wind Farm was commissioned in May 2009. Located on Eaglesham Moor, 15km from Glasgow, Scotland, it has 140 turbines generating 322MW of electricity, sufficient to power 200,000 homes. The total cost of constructing the wind farm was estimated at £300m.
3) Capable of powering 1.5 million homes, the Olkiluoto-3 reactor has aleady cost $7.2 billion and rising and litigation abounds. Finland ordered the reactor from Areva in 2003 to be commissioned in 2007. ETA – 2012 – snigger.
Meanwhile, the saboteurs of renewable energy, the duplicitous nuclear industry, chewing the a*se out of Momma Nature, converts future tense into present tense to hit us with stupefying rounds of swill about their “modern,” non-existent, unproven, drawing board Gen. IV nuclear reactors – ETA 2030-2040. And they pass this illusion off as fact? Hilarious and a very good lesson on how to become a megalomaniac.
Mark Duffett: Ranked “F” = “Instant fail.”
Gederts Skerstens
March 16, 2011 at 5:57 pmTwo Bob took the view: “..Thats pretty unoriginal gedert”
So quote the original. If true, you get one point. If not, you lose one. The choice is yours.
Also, using the correct vocative form of Gederts would get you ten seconds more of politeness. But my guess is it’s a typo.