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”
Sir Lunchalot
March 14, 2011 at 5:21 pm@ Michael James
You are thinking inside the box, not out of it.
There are lots of safe places to store the nuclear material, so its safe. In a stable atmosphere, no earthquakes, no humans.
Do you need anymore clues.
Your solar, wind, thermal options, while admirable, dont provide the power we need and the World needs when you turn off the dirty power producing options.
Lovard
March 14, 2011 at 5:25 pm@ sir lunchalot, get out a map and tell me where “4000km” from Newcastle, close enough to pipe water and close enough to energy consumers, would be a suitable place for your “clean” reactors. Australia is big but not that BIG. If it was the transmission losses over the 4000km would be great, probably >20% of the energy produced depending on the transmission method.
At that point, it is clearly more feasible to store energy from renewable sources, wind, solar thermal, geo thermal etc..
Denmark is well on it’s way to it’s 100% renewable energy target by 2050 (set by the centre/right government!). It does so without nuclear power and without the vast energy from the sun and potential for Geo thermal that we have. What is it about Australia that somehow excludes us from such targets?
@ Tom McLoughlin, you’ll be pleased to know Aldi’s European sourced chocolate is dairy free.
Sir Lunchalot
March 14, 2011 at 5:32 pm@lovard
sorry its 3435 km I rounded up. The loss of 20% in transmission lines, if that is indeed correct and I dont doubt it, is bearable, if it gives us cleaner energy.
Hugh (Charlie) McColl
March 14, 2011 at 5:33 pmSir Lunchalot, put your head back inside that place where you can see nuclear material safely stored, there’s a boy.
Lovard
March 14, 2011 at 5:45 pm@ lunchalot
I’d still like to know where it is you plan to put it. Mainland Australia is under 4000km wide so even 3435km from Newcastle puts it somewhere…????? near the West coast? Unless you think New Zealand will harbour an Australian Nuclear Power Station?
Ben Sandilands
March 14, 2011 at 5:45 pmMy first encounter with the nuclear industry was either in late 1978 or 1979 when the SMH had me interview a ‘crazy nuclear scientist’ at the ANU, Professor Ted Ringwood, who had led a team that invented SYNROC.
This process was predicated on rendering nuclear power plant waste into an impervious synthetic rock and putting it back down the mineshaft from which it came once the energy had been extracted.
The ferocious condemnation from the nuclear ‘establishment’ that followed was totally unexpected, just as the concept was somewhat elegant yet ahead of its time. Ringwood had offended the orthodoxy of vitrification of high grade nuclear waste (which is a failure), and was left somewhat isolated and hurt by becoming public charlatan No 1 in the US, UK and French nuclear industries, although following his death from tumors which he said might have been induced by radioactivity, but also perhaps because ‘I like red wine, smoking and sun’, his concept has been rehabilitated and is under serious development and consideration abroad.
IN part that episode has made me more inclined to examine the public administration of science in general, and the various policy settings that are applied to it, than get my head kicked in over the science itself.
The worst enemy of nuclear power is arrogance, greed, flawed risk analysis and political expediency, whether with good intentions or base intentions.
That leaves unanswered the question as to whether we can ever make it ‘work.’ I suspect not in its current form, but some time, some where, the necessary combination of bright invention and a fertile environment may prevail.
Jim Reiher
March 14, 2011 at 5:47 pmYou have gotta laugh at the pro-nuclear lobby. They know how to spin a story. As the tragic disaster in Japan continues to unfold, and we get more accurate info, even then the pro-nuclear lobby will say “it would be safe for US to have it!”
The desert hey… yes… that is so 1950’s!…. forget the indigenous… lets just use the desert for all our dirty projects!
And the myth that solar and wind cant creat a base load needs to be put to rest once and for all. Melbourne uni scientists have put out a 10 year plan that would do just that.
http://media.beyondzeroemissions.org/ZCA2020_Stationary_Energy_Report_v1.pdf
[If people had to use their real names, instead of hiding behind pen-names…. I wonder if people would still say the nonesense they write in blogs like this?]
Sir Lunchalot
March 14, 2011 at 5:52 pm@ Lovard
NW Australia, well away from population centres.
baal
March 14, 2011 at 5:52 pmThere are ten reactors in Fukushima – in two complexes. The oldest are in Fukushima Dai-ichi (six) the other four in Fukushima Daini (south of Dai-ichi). Quite amazingly it has taken our media four days to wake up to the fact that there were more than three. First reports said a nuclear power plant and many later reports (still) confused a plant with a reactor and a complex. There are several others on that coast south at Tokai (two) and two more much further north at at Onagawa and then just south of Tokyo at Hamaoka there are another four. Most of the rest are on the Japan Sea (west) coast often in cvlusters of six or more. 55 in all. Nearly all of them very near the shoreline
Rena Zurawel
March 14, 2011 at 5:53 pmI think some people get into a hysterical mode. The Japanese reactor in question was bulit by General Electric some 40 years ago and was just about to be shut down. Pity, Japs did not manage.
I am not particularly sure about the Japanese government lying to the people. No one predicted the extent of damage. And it will take some time to get the full picture.
Nuclear power stations are very useful and have been doing very well in the US, France or Germany.
With the disaster like this one, any traditional power stations would be also dangerous.
There is not much sense to compare the tsunami do the Ukrainian disaster. The Chernobyl tragedy was the result of total neglect and poor management due to change of the political status of the country. Ukraine became independent and had to cope with the industry. The Soviet Russia withdrew their experts and the Ukrainians had problems with running the reactor. Some people suggested it was a sabotage, but I am not sure.
And it is obviously different to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which was not a peaceful deed and purpose.
But I strongly believe that International Atomic Agency should rather keep themselves busy with checking safety and security of the existing nuclear power stations all around the world than chasing up mythical storage of nuclear weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or Iran.
And as for Australia, there is no chance to ever dream of a nuclear power station for the next 20 years, at least.
We have no energy, no technical cadre, no know-how, we haven’t even started preparing professionals for the task.
And it takes about 20 years to do so. We have not enough water for the process.
Notwithstanding is the fact that the personnel at any nuclear station have to be fully prepared to work without any delays, strikes, stops, and have to be fully trained for any unexpected events. Japanese are doing extremely well under the circumstances.
In that respect, for an Australian ‘expert’ to criticize Japanese nuclear professionals is a bit far fetched.