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”
Lovard
March 15, 2011 at 5:38 pmDo ALL people on forums seriously believe that isf no-one disagrees with a comment everyone disagrees?
Sir Lunchalot, I didn’t disagree because it is ridiculous, beyond ridiculous, just as your 4000km is ridiculous.
In fact the only reason I argued about the 4000km was because I know 4000km from Newcastle puts it off the mainland. Simply, I wanted to show the true foolishness of your comment in-case others hadn’t picked up on it.
Freecountry, I don’t think anyone is any longer debating whether the situation is life-threatening, just as inhaled asbestos fibres won’t kill you immediately, they will effect your quality of life and lifespan. Radiation will effect your lifespan, likelihood of genetic mutation and quality of life, ask a radiologist why they stand behind a shield.
Not everything that doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.
I hope for the sake of the people of Japan they get this under control, they don’t deserve to be subject to such hardship. If anywhere in the world such a reactor would be well maintained, it would be in Japan. Having worked with Japanese engineers, I have some understanding of their uncompromising standards and work ethic. If something like this can occur in Japan it can happen anywhere.
I hope for the sake of the people of Australia we look towards what we can do, what we can innovate so that we do not need to resort to nuclear power. I suspect however the lack of investment in energy research, will cost us dearly, when we have the potential to solve a lot of the difficulties of renewable energy reliability and storage.
If a country as small as Denmark (with short winter days) believes is can operate on 100% renewables (no nuclear), why can’t we? Denmark invests in this belief and already gets a good return on the technology developed, and continues to develop.
Is 100% realistic, I guess for them it is, they can use northern Europe effectively as energy storage, export excess power to Norway, Sweden and Germany and import power when it needs to.
History will judge us, and as relatively wealthy, prosperous Australians with a relatively mild climate, we will not have any excuses.
Even the UK produces 1/2 the carbon emissions (and green house gasses generally) per capita we do. What is so different about our energy use and generation?
Even if you believe (in whatever misguided way) AGW doesn’t happen how do we continue to fuel our energy use with fossils? It’s a finite resource.
A controlled hand over to renewable power generation and efficient use of the remaining resources is the only practical way forward IMO.
freeze
March 15, 2011 at 5:40 pmCannot for the life of me understand all you nuclear self back slappers. Get the message, your the only ones who want nuclear power. This has to be the nail in the coffin. Bashing uranium molecules together is getting VERY expensive. No progress on elimination of waste, Government running as financial guarantors, no banking investment and a NIMBY situation means its dead man walking. SPEND YOUR ENERGY ELSEWARE.
As for comparing coal to nuclear, whats wrong with eliminating BOTH. Your going to spend the money anyway so why not on renewables, think wave power and geo-thermal to name two VERYVERY powerfull sources. . Get you head out of your…
Flower
March 15, 2011 at 6:17 pm@ Mark: “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.”
Wind power: As at October 2009, the >$1 billion Roscoe Wind Farm in Roscoe, Texas, was the world’s largest wind farm, with 627 wind turbines and a total installed capacity of 781.5 MW, which surpassed the nearby 735.5 MW Horse Hollow Wind Energy Center.
Nuclear reactor: The Wall Street Journal reported that Areva’s “top of the wazza” Gen III 1650 megawatt Olkiluoto nuclear reactor under construction in Finland has blown out to $7.2 billion originally slated to cost around $4 billion and it is four years behind schedule. You will note that I have omitted the “+” symbol from “Gen III+” since how could one ethically award a “+” to this shamozzle?
Areva and Siemens didn’t have detailed design documents ready when construction on Olkiluoto started, and they underestimated the time it would take to complete them, setting the scene for big delays.
Then, regulators stopped work at the site for several months after it emerged that the concrete mix used to build the base of the plant was too watery.
Finland’s nuclear safety regulator, STUK, criticized Areva’s concrete supplier, saying it and other subcontractors had “no prior experience in nuclear power plant construction.” It also said Areva appeared to have chosen companies on the basis of price rather than expertise.
Finland’s inspectors also uncovered welding problems: The gaps between the panels of the steel liner encasing the reactor were larger than specified in the design documents, they noted. The discrepancy, STUK (Finland’s regulators) said, was “absolutely unacceptable.”
In 2008, STUK demanded changes to Olkiluoto’s automation systems, and the following year, it halted work on the pipes of the reactor’s critical cooling system after it discovered welders had violated procedures. Areva itself had to scrap piping made for Olkiluoto at its fabrication plant in France after it discovered the components didn’t comply with the Finns’ stricter safety requirements.
Areva and its Finnish customer, Teollisuuden Voima Oyj, have had a spectacular falling out over the project. The two are countersuing each other for compensation over the delays, with TVO accusing Areva of gross negligence.
@ Freecountry: “But still, not one dead from nuclear accidents so far…”
FC – That sounds like the tiresome spin of the nuclear industry. The first lesson radiation students learn is that radioactive emissions kill by stealth and rarely catastrophically i.e Chernobyl. And there is plenty of literature published by radiation experts on the hazards of low-level radiation exposure. The US EPA have advised of the potential for increased cancers for those living in close proximity to nuclear reactors while the nuclear lobbyists categorically deny it. Which one is lying?
The pro-nuclear posters on this thread are quick to ridicule the anti-nuclear proponents, however, when the grim facts of the nuclear industry are raised , the nuclear proponents duck for cover – the side-step shuffle . If nuclear proponents continue to obscure the ecocidal carnage (officially documented) committed by the nuclear industry, why would anyone find their argument credible?
BTW, I am behind with the news today but is there some logical/scientific reason why Barry Brook omitted Strontium 90 from Japan’s toxic soup, emitting from the MOX fuelled reactor?
freecountry
March 15, 2011 at 8:21 pmI certainly don’t mean to trivialize it. Nuclear meltdown and gas explosions carrying nuclear waste are very scary, can kill people, and all credit to the workers still there battling to bring it under control.
But let’s get it in perspective please. A worst-case scenario explosion would not be a “nuclear explosion” (i.e. a catastrophic nuclear decay chain reaction, which is what a nuclear bomb creates). It would not come anywhere near the scale of catastrophe that the tsunami has already wreaked, killing thousands of people in the space of a few minutes. An explosion or any other cause of leakage would probably would probably cause less total harm than a year’s worth of cigarette smoking in Japan.
Some of the people I’ve heard complaining loudest about nuclear power have no compunction about taking toxic recreational drugs into their bodies, or spraying insect-killer substances around their kitchens where they prepare food for children. Smoking is a personal choice but the latter p**ses me off no end. Yet the moment anyone says “radiation” they start picturing a Hiroshima explosion. I’m just asking for a bit of perspective. The earthquake was several times the power these reactors were designed to withstand (a 9 Richter earthquake is 10 times the power of an 8 Richter earthquake) and they withstood it, but then came the tsunami. The next generation of nuclear stations will be even safer again after this.
justinnt
March 15, 2011 at 10:17 pmfreec: smoking, speed and sprays are all choices.
no one chooses to live under the fallout of a disaster like this.
No, it won’t kill thousands over a few minutes : but it may contribute to many thousands of cancers over a lifetime.
I’m tired of the nuclear industry’s promises of the next generation :
remember ‘electricity too cheap to meter’?
freeze
March 15, 2011 at 10:20 pmFreecountry, we have been hearing about the ” next generation” for the past 60yrs. And if the next generation isn’t? How many billions have already been invested world wide on the nuclear “solution”, only to get so far. I say its time we turned our attention to other sources of power which have less problems and are ready now.
Its about the waste stock pile that never declines. How many generations does it need to be stockpiled? Whats the longest lived stable society? If the problem cannot be solved in our life time, it ain’t worth it.
Its about the NIMBY syndrome. In this country IT JUST ISN’T GOING TO HAPPEN
Its about the water, nuclear power stations need water. In the land of droughts?
Its about the MONEY. No power plant of this type can get insurance. It has to be guaranteed by the government to get the finance. If things go wrong, who gets the cleanup bill? WE DO.
The government needs to invest in the nuclear sciences to build up the skills required to build and run them. It could take 10yrs to do, if we start today. It isn’t happening, doh!
It would take 20yrs to get the first station up and running. According to Ziggy, we need 15.
FAT CHANCE BRO!
For all of the above reasons, get your head out of your……..
Stop advocating something that just will not happen and get on board something that will. All you are doing is creating white noise.
Note: non of the above info relates to exploding nuclear stations, but clearly, anything involving fallable cratures called humans IS POSSIBLE!
freecountry
March 15, 2011 at 10:57 pmOK, the last two posts from Freeze and Justinnt are much more sober and reasonable than some of the earlier reactions. We might agree to disagree on a few points, but Justinnt that’s a fair point about choices, and Freeze that’s a fair point about oversold promises. And at least I got the message through that this is not a Hiroshima situation.
I’m not particularly an advocate for nuclear power in Australia, by the way. I’m an advocate for keeping our options open, and assessing all options fairly on their costs, benefits, and risks. As for choices, I think if a democratic country like India makes an informed choice to use nuclear power, it’s not for us to impose trade sanctions to limit their supply of fuel.
Mark Duffett
March 15, 2011 at 11:08 pm@Flower, no mention of wind capacity factor. Instant fail.
“The US EPA have advised of the potential for increased cancers for those living in close proximity to nuclear reactors while the nuclear lobbyists categorically deny it. Which one is lying?”
What the US EPA do make abundantly clear is that the radiation exposure from living in close proximity to nuclear reactors is negligible. Much less than from living in close proximity to a coal generator, in fact.
Mark Duffett
March 15, 2011 at 11:11 pmFor those interested in facts, I haven’t seen this surpassed for a summary of the current situation: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3396817
freeze
March 15, 2011 at 11:17 pmfreecountry, some times NOT SELLING a poison chalice to a friend is the better option. Sure india and others need power and nuclear may very well be their only option. But until they get their act together, its like giving a kid a loaded gun. For example, where is indonesia building its nuclear power station? Not on a fault line, no, surely not?
I rest my case.
Its fine to keep your options open, but nuclear as I see it, is a non option because it won’t happen. Its just white noise getting in the way of what we need to do.
Its been a good ride for the nuclear scientists, but sorry to say for them, the news is they haven’t coughed up the goods and “the next gen” doesn’t wash anymore.