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 1:55 pmMaybe this one puts it more clearly: http://www.usnuclearenergy.org/PDF_Library/_GE_Hitachi%20_advanced_Recycling_Center_GNEP.pdf
twobob
March 15, 2011 at 2:10 pmFc, your link is excessively light on detail, short lived it says and then goes on to explain nothing at all. ie is 10 00 years short or only 500, note though, that under financially oppressive conditions as suffered in the USSR when Chernobyl went off, 5 years was not achievable!
I am glad that works for you but it simply doesn’t cut the carrot for me.
And why would you want it?
Don’t you like solar, geothermal, wind ect?
A lot safer and most likely less expensive too.
Sir Lunchalot
March 15, 2011 at 2:12 pm@ TwoBob,
Your rants and attacks do you no service.
I posed a though yesterday and no one disagreed. Store nuclear waste on the moon. No earthquakes, no wind (I believe) and no chance of habitation anytime soon
twobob
March 15, 2011 at 2:24 pmno one disagreed?
No one gave it credence
And what happens when the inevitable launch fails and spreads toxic pollutant across the globe?
FCS what is wrong with renewables?
I suspect it has more to do with your investment portfolio than it has with egalitarianism just as your solar cells have much more to do with suckling off the public purse than a desire to save our atmosphere.
freecountry
March 15, 2011 at 3:04 pmTwobob, I have nothing against renewables. We should have a mix of different energy sources for resilience, all competing on their merits to fill various requirements at the lowest total lifecycle cost. Nothing should be off the table. (OK, I don’t mind if you take shipping waste to the moon off the table; I meant anything rational should remain on the table.) I posted another link about nuclear waste waste recycling technology, but it’s still in moderation: (( usnuclearenergy.org/PDF_Library/_GE_Hitachi%20_advanced_Recycling_Center_GNEP.pdf ))
Meski
March 15, 2011 at 3:11 pm@CaptainPlanet: same tired old antinuclear myths. We’ll run out soon (not if we use FBR or thorium), the waste lasts for millions of years (500 or so if you use thorium or FBR), it costs too much… OTOH, you propose alternatives with no demonstration of one that has been run at the scaled up levels of nuclear.
@SirLunchalot: The Moon? (Flashback to Space 1999) Not with the current reliability of the shuttles.
freecountry
March 15, 2011 at 3:59 pmThe moon idea is hilarious. It takes 2000 tonnes of rocket fuel just to get the shuttle into low orbit.
baal
March 15, 2011 at 4:38 pmThose clowns deriding nuclear critics for spreading ‘panic’ and/or ‘hysteria’ might like to fly to Tokyo and see what’s coming down there
freecountry
March 15, 2011 at 4:50 pmGood point, Baal. A death toll of 2,400 so far from the tsunami and earthquake, and estimates of 10,000 dead in just one province. A serious hazard from damage to nuclear stations and hydrogen explosions spreading radioactive toxins … But still, not one dead from nuclear accidents so far; yet all anyone wants to talk about is anticipating what they imagine will be a nuclear chain-reaction explosion–which is not on the cards and has not been on the cards at any stage.
baal
March 15, 2011 at 5:30 pm@Freecountry – I think there is a tendency to assume that people are afraid of a nuclear explosion and pooh-pooh their concerns as over-reactions. I think people are more afraid of even ‘harmless’ clouds of ‘low level’ radioactive material escaping because of a ‘normal’ blast that diffuses it across the country. You may think people have irrational fears but that is a quite rational response to the secrecy that has shrouded Japan’s nuclear industry’s accident record for decades decades. People are justifiably fearful and suspicious they are not being told the truth and will not be reassured by fingerwagging bloggers telling them not to be hysterical.