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 14, 2011 at 4:11 pmSir out to lunch
pft
You can go and eat your lunch in one – please
I head this nonsense on the radio this morning
“… one of the most geologically stable places on earth … ”
And I thought year sure, go tell that to the patrons of the Newcastle workers club, oh thats right you can’t because they are dead, oddly enough because of an earthquake, on one of the most geologically stable places on earth no less. Yet we get this rigtard nonsense from the usual rightard apologists, blot, out to luch jamesk who’s next (g)asatro johnfromnosenseplanet thomas fullofit …
zut alors
March 14, 2011 at 4:19 pmTwobob,
Good on you, you’ve beaten me to the punch. One could be forgiven for thinking we’d simply imagined the Newcastle earthquake based on the stony silence on the subject today.
Sir Lunchalot
March 14, 2011 at 4:22 pm@Two Bob
Newcastle is nowhere near the remote desert I was suggesting? In fact its over 4,000 thousand km away. As far as I can see, we have not had a quake there that would do damage since records were kept. Distinction is quake that would do damage versus tremor.
michael r james
March 14, 2011 at 4:24 pm@Marilyn.
You beat me to it. And not just the water they consume at normal times. These failures show that you really want to site your reactors next to the sea, not only so that there is a vast uninterruptable supply of water (corrosive or not) but also which can act as a last resort dumping place to massively dilute what you are trying to get rid of. (As shocking as that may be, the alternative of air release is unthinkable.)
Talking about lots of liquid, Lunchalot has too much in the way of Liquid Lunches to think straight. There are only two power generation methods that do not rely on lots of water: solar-PV and the much reviled wind turbines. Geo-thermal can feasibly run on a closed loop but just like all systems (coal, oil, gas, solar-thermal, nuclear) which employ steam turbines abundant water is used to increase the efficiency–without which it feeds into the bottom line, more expensive power.
Lunchalot is also out to lunch (I am sure we can come up with a lot more lame puns before this day is out). Those pipelines would cost a fortune and there would have to be two of them-in and out, because you cannot use evaporation of seawater for very long. So you would then have the extra expense of running them way out to sea to avoid coastal pollution (and political uproar regardless). Maybe you would need three pipelines because only the outer cooling circuits can use seawater–and in Australia using our precious freshwater in those quantities is not on, especially since it has to be a once-use system, no downstream uses acceptable. Then there is the massive power required to pump all that water. And of course what does all this reliance on pipelines, piped and pumped water do for reliability and safety? Maybe you would need even more pipelines as backup? Not to mention the massive cost of the grid.
Also note that having these plants in the hot desolate spaces of Australia will further erode their efficiency. In several recent extra hot summers in France, they have had to close or run at much reduced rate, all of their inland nuclear plants because of water issues (drought and their discharges into rivers being way beyond mandated environmental limits). At those times France had to purchase power from their neighbours–and this was at premium rates during daytime peaks. Lucky that despite their 85% reliance on nuclear power they have obliging neighbours.
twobob
March 14, 2011 at 4:28 pmNuclear power represents an unjustified faith in the power of human societies to control extremely complex technologies over the very long term. Any activity requiring a great deal of complex and cooperative control will do badly in difficult economic times.
No human society has ever lasted for as long as nuclear waste must be looked after. It needs to be held in pools on site for perhaps a hundred years in order to cool down enough for permanent disposal, assuming a form of permanent disposal could be conceived of, approved and developed.
Humanity needs to grow up a lot more before we should even contemplate using this stuff for fear of the legacy we would bequeath our children, but your not much worried about any of that are you out to lunch?
Sexual Lobster
March 14, 2011 at 4:30 pmAnother option is mini nuclear reactors:
http://www.economist.com/node/17647651
Sure to be regarded with suspicion, but nonetheless something to consider.
Sir Lunchalot
March 14, 2011 at 4:35 pm& Two Bob and others
Nuclear is the only option. You greenies want to stop coal powered generation, gas generation has a lifespan, solar is useless in peak demand, wind wont generate enough power and is unreliable, what else did you have in mind?
Candles, rubbing sticks to make fire, hunters and gatherers.
Geoff Russell
March 14, 2011 at 4:52 pmBen, you didn’t give a body count of the people who died from
these catastrophic reactor problems. As far as is known the
number is zero.
How many might contract cancer from radiation leaks or releases? It’s too early to know, but that number might also be a big fat zero … like it was from Three Mile Island. In any event we can probably safely guess that cancers caused by cigarettes, alcohol and red meat will all be individually much more numerous. ie., more than a couple of orders of magnitude.
How many died in the oil refinery fire? I’ve seen a figure of 100. Is anybody calling to shut down oil refineries?
Based on recent experiences in Australia, having insulation put in your roof is far more risky than living next to a nuclear power station during one of the biggest earthquakes ever recorded.
michael r james
March 14, 2011 at 4:56 pmLunchalot.
[nuclear is the only option]
Why are you and your ilk (like Bravenewclimate) so willing to grasp on next-gen nuclear power as the saviour of mankind’s insatiable appetite for power, yet dismissive of any other technology? Wind and solar-thermal are already cheap enough (unless you wish to pollute endlessly with dirty coal) and solar-PV is on an ever-decreasing cost trajectory, even if it is still way too expensive for widespread deployment now. Geothermal might be a game changer (if only the true Luddites, you and Ziggy Switkowski, and most politicians would properly fund these things even half what they subsidize fossil fuels not to mention the dreams of subsidizing nuclear).
Energy storage is the other missing factor that would transform these non-dispatchable sources. Are you willing to state your ignorance and pessimism and Ludditism, that this too is somehow insoluble?
I’d even grant you nuclear fusion as a potential future clean technology (it produces radioactive waste but a lot less than fission and in more manageable form); however every informed scientist says it is at least another 50 years away. These other technologies are much, much closer.
Dermot Balson
March 14, 2011 at 5:07 pmBen, thank you for the clearest explanation I’ve read yet on what is going on over there.