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”
Ian Rogers
March 14, 2011 at 6:20 pmRena
The Chernobyl accident had nothing to do with Ukrainian independence – it happened five years before the USSR split up.
baal
March 14, 2011 at 6:39 pmMight be more pertinent to say that the cover ups and cop outs abt Chernobyl of the authorities were a major factor in the USSR’s demise.
Gederts Skerstens
March 14, 2011 at 6:51 pmNo-one died in a Nuclear explosion. No-one is going to die from radiation. No-one died from any horror-movie melt-down.
Calm-Down.
If ever there was an advertisment for clean, safe, plentiful Energy this is it.
The most powerfull earthquake in recorded history couldn’t knock out this energy source to damage anyone.
A headline saying “Nuclear Disaster” isn’t the same as a Nuclear Disaster. Let’s get an increasing distance between the journalists who put that on a front page and the guys that struggle to pay for electricity.
John Bennetts
March 14, 2011 at 7:01 pmHi, Rena.
What’s up? Medication wearing off again? We have learned to expect you to forget to check your “facts” before pushing the “Post Comment” button.
Poor Ukrania, they never had a hope of stuffing up their reactors at Chernobyl. As someone else pointed out, they were firmly in the grip of the Ruskies for five more years after Chernobyl’s events.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good extremist scaremonger opinion, eh?
Now, take this nice cup mug of hot cocoa and off to bed, then. That’s a good girl.
no_party_preferred
March 14, 2011 at 7:06 pmWouldn’t be like the media (independent or otherwise) to sensationalise a story to get readers and viewers. It just goes to show what scale of earthquake it takes to not even cause a Chernobyl style incident. Unfortunately the sensationalists have the loudest voices, so with this seems a low carbon nuclear stop gap in Australia has just died.
AR
March 14, 2011 at 9:09 pmBen – thanks for such a detailed technical explanation with so few adjectives. In one short article you told me more than all newspaper & radio reports since the event began.
Like DERMOT said, well done!
MLF
March 14, 2011 at 9:13 pmReasons not to go nuclear, number 1:
“…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….”
Where money comes first, humanity comes last.
MLF
March 14, 2011 at 9:18 pmPro-nuclear party don’t forget that renewable energy alternatives must go hand in hand with reduced energy demands. It’s not increased population that has caused increased energy consumption – it’s inefficient energy use and “energy greed”.
zut alors
March 14, 2011 at 9:38 pmAs for the limp argument that renewable energy will never cope with energy demands why not use a little lateral thinking here and reduce the amount used/required by consumers. We all witness flagrant waste of energy every day and night.
Flower
March 14, 2011 at 10:21 pmGeoscience Australia advises that “no part of the Earth’s surface is free from earthquakes, but some regions experience them more frequently. Although Australia is not on the edge of a plate, the continent experiences earthquakes because the Indo-Australian plate is being pushed north and is colliding with the Eurasian, Philippine and Pacific plates. This causes the build up of stress in the interior of the Indo-Australian plate which is released during earthquakes.
“There are on average 200 earthquakes of magnitude 3.0 or more in Australia each year. Earthquakes with magnitude 5.5, such as that in Newcastle in 1989, occur on average every two years. About every five years there is a potentially disastrous earthquake of magnitude 6.0 or more.
“Adelaide has the highest earthquake hazard of any Australian capital. It has experienced more medium-sized earthquakes in the past 50 years than any capital because South Australia is being slowly squeezed sideways by about 0.1 mm/yr.”
I again reiterate the concerns of geophysicist and seismologist. Edward Cranswick who investigated earthquakes for the US Geological Survey for 22 years. He claims that the connection between mining and seismicity (earthquakes) is obscured in Australia, particularly the seismic hazard of the Olympic Dam mine and the Mashers Fault which passes through the middle of the ore body with a fault length which implies an earthquake of about maximum 7.
Japan’s nuclear industry is rife with controversy. In 2002 the president of the country’s largest power utility was forced to resign after he and other senior officials were suspected of falsifying plant safety records. The Kushiwazaki reactor in northwestern Japan suffered a 6.8-scale earthquake on 16 July 2007 which set off a fire that blazed for two hours and allowed radioactive water to leak from the plant. No action was taken nor in the wake of any of several incidents occurring despite Japanese seismologist Ishibashi Katsuhiko’s warning that the nation’s reactors had “fatal flaws” in their design.
A discerning public are well aware of about 430 aged nuclear reactors around the world where many have been granted extended licences. Several, merrily chugging away, despite an ignominious history, have a belching tailpipe and their doors have fallen off. A discerning public is also aware of a planet seemingly in chaos.
The media reported on tens of thousands of people who took part in an anti-nuclear demonstration in southern Germany on Saturday. The demonstration had been planned for some time, but after the news of Japan’s nuclear emergency, organisers were overwhelmed by crowds of around 50,000 people who turned up:
“The demonstrators, who stretched in a 45km chain from Neckarwestheim power plant to the city of Stuttgart, were demanding that the German government move away from nuclear power.”
Perhaps they have read the grim revelations on Chernobyl, published last year, the details originally written in Slavic and suppressed by the West and the IAEA who gagged the WHO from speaking on nuclear incidents, 50 years ago:
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2010/2010-04-26-01.html
Meanwhile the German government is compensating hunters for an alarming increase in the number of radioactive wild boars that cannot be sold for human consumption – an ongoing legacy of Chernobyl – 25 years hence.