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”
freecountry
March 15, 2011 at 9:35 amDid anybody actually read the URL posted at comment#1 by @NoPartyPreferred?
Those who lack the patience to listen before they speak, are in turn not worth hearing. Challenge the facts presented there if you please, but you can hardly challenge them if you haven’t even read them.
The ill-informed hysteria in the media about this–people being led to believe they are inches away from a Hiroshima explosion or something–goes a long way to explaining the mixed messages coming out of Tokyo. Give people a little bit of information, and they may fly into a panic before you can even finish the sentence. If every able bodied person were to suddenly flee the zones around the power stations, where would that leave the injured and trapped tsunami victims and essential services in those areas?
negativegearmiddleclasswelfarenow.com
March 15, 2011 at 9:40 amThose who say that inland Australia is geologically stable should should have their heads read. Please tell me how anyone can say that after the Marryat Creek Earthquake of March 30 1986.
justinnt
March 15, 2011 at 9:46 amso, the out of control nuclear plants haven’t immediately killed 10,000 people.
gee that’s a high bar to set…
Freec: yeah I read NPP’s reference yesterday.
of course, BNC is an extremely biased source, as are the references offered by the author of the article that Barry’s promoting.
That author is not an expert, and there are numerous errors; most significantly, the reactors are not ‘in control’ – they’re out of control, and that’s why we’re all watching so closely.
Further:
he doesn’t seem to know the reactor designs: the first problem was with a reactor built before the standard for a 3rd containment was introduced
he doesn’t even know what the reactors are using as fuel: The reactor 3 at the first Fukushima plant is not just using Uranium – It uses MOX fuel.
and he understates the radiological hazards so far : Cs-137 has a half life of 30 years : It certainly does not disappear quickly. Xenon-135 is a fission product, not produced by neutron activation, and neutron activation of coolant is nothing to sneer at (the half-life of tritium is 12.3 years).
psst: remember the closer the halflife to yours, the worse the hazard.
We export uranium from olympic dam and ranger to TEPCO : This is the nuclear accident we’ve been told will never happen again, and Australia is culpable.
Bill Parker
March 15, 2011 at 9:46 amAs far as I know, the Australian geo “safe” area is on the eastern side of WA, north of the border with SA and the NT. That area was chosen by BNF ( masquerading as Pangea) to build a high level nuclear waste dump, not power stations. Even so, water might be an issue because of the potentially corrosive nature of groundwater in that area.
And Mark D: I do agree that CSP does require water for mirror cleaning etc. You cannot just plonk large solar plants anywhere.
freecountry
March 15, 2011 at 10:35 amJustinnt,
The difference between MOX and UO fuel is discussed further down in the BNC thread, where comments from a variety of opinions argue over details.
As I read it, the very short-half-life radionuclides Barry Brook referred to were Nitrogen-16 and noble gas isotopes like Xenon-135, produced outside the fuel rods. Some readers seem to think he was extending this description to the longer-lived Cesium and Iodine isotopes produced in the fuel rods, but he clearly put these in a different category of hazard. Here’s what he actually said:
[So the first “type” of radioactive material is the uranium in the fuel rods, plus the intermediate radioactive elements that the uranium splits into, also inside the fuel rod (Cesium and Iodine).
There is a second type of radioactive material created, outside the fuel rods. The big main difference up front: Those radioactive materials have a very short half-life, that means that they decay very fast and split into non-radioactive materials. By fast I mean seconds. So if these radioactive materials are released into the environment, yes, radioactivity was released, but no, it is not dangerous, at all. Why? By the time you spelled “R-A-D-I-O-N-U-C-L-I-D-E”, they will be harmless, because they will have split up into non radioactive elements. Those radioactive elements are N-16, the radioactive isotope (or version) of nitrogen (air). The others are noble gases such as Xenon.]
A perfect illustration of my point. People hear what they want to hear, and then go running around enjoying their 15 minutes of fame by shrieking, “Lies, it’s all lies, run for your life!”
Mark Duffett
March 15, 2011 at 10:36 am@Jeebus, a reasonable question, and @LizzieA01, a reasonable albeit arguable attempt to answer it (The capacity factors quoted for wind and especially solar appear wildly optimistic, and a one-for-one replacement with nuclear on existing coal-fired generation sites should mean minimal extra transmission costs). And as alluded to in Crikey’s editorial yesterday, Bernard Keane has said similar (though even more contestable) things about nuclear costs in the past.
But what makes me grind my teeth is that people mounting the ‘cost’ and/or ‘time’ argument against nuclear never put up the comparison with equivalent generation capacity alternatives. If the debate is to advance, the same questions need to be asked of renewables.
Taking the Beyond Zero Emission plan (@Jim Reiher) for instance; you won’t get any change out of a trillion dollars.
Meski
March 15, 2011 at 10:48 amA lot of Australia’s desert is within easy reach of the ocean, so there’s plenty of water, a lot of Australia’s coastline is completely unoccupied, so no NIMBY. A lot of Australia’s coastline is in zones never likely to experience an earthquake anywhere near the severity of the one that just hit Japan.
mook schanker
March 15, 2011 at 11:33 amI find the “4000km” argument fascinating. Is this the remoteness distance that any “spillage” is acceptable? Therefore, the assumption is that spills will possibly happen and that 4000km is the “safe distance”, otherwise 4km would be quite acceptable….And, do we remove habitation within a 4000km radius to maintain this safety cordon….Seems a spurious argument to me….
ronin8317
March 15, 2011 at 11:37 amAll the talk about radiation isotopes misses the big picture. No matter how you spin it, the engineers at the Fukushima plant have lost operation control over the nuclear reactors. That resulted in two explosions and the threat of a nuclear meltdown. All the ‘fail-safe’ backup failed.
If you believe that the Japanese Nuclear Agency is giving out the entire story, I have this bridge I want to sell you…
freecountry
March 15, 2011 at 12:06 pmRonin8317, your clever little rhetorical device compares the people in charge of power supply in the most technologically sophisticated country on earth, to an imaginary con man selling tourists a landmark without (one would presume) being able to answer a single technical question about said landmark. It’s a specious comparison, especially coming from someone who admits to being bored by technical details–in other words, coming from someone who has more in common with the con man selling the bridge than the experts advising on nuclear risks.