A plume of radioactive particles extending into the stratosphere from the Fukushima Daiichi reactor complex makes a mockery of claims that Japan’s nuclear crisis isn’t comparable to the Chernobyl disaster in 1986.
The stream of nuclear contaminants are being driven by an intense heat source consistent with exposed fuel rods burning in air, the process that inevitably leads to meltdown unless massive and prompt intervention is successful.
These radioactive clouds are now mixing with higher altitude air currents and being dispersed more widely across northern Asia and the north Pacific.
They are being tracked by the international Volcanic Ash Advisory Centre in London, which is authorised by the International Atomic Energy Agency to alert airlines and airports to accidental releases of nuclear contamination.
The VAAC this morning issued 10 nuclear emergency flight information regional advisories (FIRs) to enable airlines to route flights well clear of the hazard along air corridors across northern Asia, southern China including Hong Kong, all of Japan and Korea and the high latitude or sub-polar routes that are used to connect North America to dozens of Asia-Pacific cities.
Qantas either has or will soon re-route its Narita flights to achieve a minimum time turnaround at the main Tokyo airport and return via Hong Kong, where there will be a crew change.
This change will avoid overnight stops by crews in Japan for occupational health and logistical reasons, but the airline is closely monitoring the changing situation and all travellers (and on all airlines) are advised to check for late changes to the northern Asia flights.
There is a line of six nuclear reactors at the Fukushima plant, four of which have now experienced one or more large explosions with the remaining two that had been taken off line before the earthquake and tsunami of last Friday now heating up to levels so dangerous Tokyo Electric is considering breaking down the reactor block walls to allow a build-up of hydrogen gas to escape.
Exasperation with the quality of information coming out of the Japanese nuclear authority, the government and the Tokyo Electric company led to harsh words from the French nuclear authority this morning.
It said the Daiichi accident could be classed as a level 6 event on the scale of one to 7. The Chernobyl calamity in 1986 began as a level 6 event and was then elevated to level 7, which until now consist of the only level 6 and level 7 events recorded.
An official was quoted as saying “Tokyo has all but lost control over the situation”.
This morning the Japan nuclear authority insisted that level 4, an event with purely local effects, was the appropriate level, which is clearly not what the normally ultra-tactful International Atomic Energy Agency thought when it directed the VAAC to issue the warnings to airlines, and also to the airports at which any aircraft exposed to radiation must be thoroughly decontaminated under international conventions.
The major European and China flag carriers have variously cancelled services to Japan or re-routed flights to ensure that flight crew do not overnight in Tokyo, similar to the action that Qantas is about to take.
The quality of information from the Japanese has descended into farce, with simultaneous claims that radiation levels are harmful in the Chernobyl-sized exclusion zone but did not constitute a threat to health. This follows the patently dishonest misuse of radiation exposure metrics used for the first 3½ days of the crisis, which understated the real levels by 1000 or three orders of magnitude.
The US think tank, the Institute for Science and International Security, said the situation at Daiichi had worsened considerably and was now closer to a level 6 event and “may unfortunately reach a level 7”.

231 thoughts on “Japan’s nuclear farce”
Angra
March 16, 2011 at 7:29 pmTo add to the farce, the Japanese military are now dropping buckets of water into no 3 reactor.
Video at NHK World service.
gregb
March 16, 2011 at 7:47 pmI would advise that the people here calling Barry Brook a “shill” should tone it down a bit. A shill is someone who is PAID to say certain things whether or not it is true and whether or not they believe it. Shills do not disclose that they have a relationship for the product that they are promoting. Does anyone have any evidence that Brook is in the paid employ of any company that is involved with nuclear power? Commenting anonymously on a blog does not protect you from defamation action.
Ben Sandilands
March 16, 2011 at 7:49 pmChristopher Dunne,
How about a little reality. If the IAEA directs VAAC to issue 10 nuclear emergency FIRs to the airlines and airports is it not telling Japan that level 4 (with local consequences) is absurd?
If the French authority says it should be a level 6, which was where Chernobyl started, might that not suggest something else is going on?
And if the Japanese PM says, as he just has, that he needs foreign and in particular US assistance ‘to avert or avoid a catastrophe’ why do you think he used the word ‘catastrophe?’
Maybe they are all being a little hysterical.
I read it differently.
Angra
March 16, 2011 at 7:49 pmNHK English service is available from a variety of on-line TV streaming sites. Here’s one –
http://wwitv.com/tv_channels/6810.htm
Gratton Wilson
March 16, 2011 at 7:55 pmThat says it all, the never ending dishonesty from the pro nuclear crew is only paralleled by that of the pro fossil fuel, anti global warming industry.
“It’s all good, my greed and your willful ignorance allows us both to imagine a scenario that bears no semblance to reality”.
You missed out the tobacco industry, the asbestos industry, the gold and lead mining industry, the fast food industry, Union Carbide and the alcohol industry. Their product is absolutely safe, they will no damage, they observe all safety regulations, all toxic waste will be disposed of with due regard to the wellbeing of the community and the public can trust them to do the right thing every time.
Angra
March 16, 2011 at 8:04 pmNHK now says they’ve given up on the helicopters dumping water on the reactor as it was too dangerous due to radiation levels.
michael r james
March 16, 2011 at 8:13 pm@Jim Reiher: I am pretty sure that those defunct windmills DanR is talking about are the Altamont Pass project, in the Oakland hills inland from San Francisco. This was the first modern windmill power project in the world (1970s?). I don’t think the scale is anything like thousands, maybe hundreds. It is true there were criticisms but it was the first…. and being American who like things to be as fast as possible the design was all wrong. These were the ones with blades that whirled around and killed birds–thus establishing bad PR that persists to the present day even though modern designs (mostly German and Danish) move very slowly and hardly ever (if ever) kill birds. So really those windmills are something to be proud of, even if they became uneconomic to maintain, they are really v1.0 (say the Apple Lisa) without which you (or your competitors) do not move onto v2 etc.
@Geoff Russell. You’ve been reading and believing all that stuff on BNC. Re the #2 reactor containment vessel I did not use the term “compromised” since that is a bit vague. I said that the outer layer, concrete, is broken from the explosions and stresses. It is, but I did not say the containment vessel is breached (if that happens the whole world will know about it within 5 minutes believe me, it will ring around the world on every media known to man). But actually, loss of the concrete does compromise the vessel which must rely solely on the steel (I assume the concrete provides extra strength if the vessel heats up too much, softening the steel, as well as resisting external shocks.
The other thing Barry Brook probably regrets claiming, is that these containment vessels will contain the fuel no matter what. That is simply nonsense. I think it comes from the misunderstanding about any original claim or design specification–which assumes some level of cooling. Once you have inadequate cooling, forget it. With full meltdown the fuel forms a pool which heats even more than the pellets–because it is no longer moderated. It can never approach criticality–ie. like a nuclear bomb, but low level fission continues so it just keeps heating up. At a couple thousand degrees (if not before, remember there will be intense steam pressure by then, it is like a massive pressurized can) the steel will melt or soften enough for welds to give etc. By memory (dangerous but you can Wiki this) it can reach up to 5000 degrees so absolutely nothing can contain it.
About Barry Brook. It is wrong to call him a nuclear shill (ie. implication he takes coin from the nuclear industry etc). Barry is entirely sincere about his position and we should respect him for that–in way that we cannot for others like Blot, Plimer, Switkowski et al. (Ziggy may well be sincere, despite his lifelong personal commitment, it is impossible to know. He has considerably stepped back from his gung-ho attitude on Sunday night). I happen to believe he (Brook) has got it very wrong. And it is a pity to see him put so much effort into such a dead end instead of putting that energy and advocacy into better solutions. I suspect he is very shaken by what is happening, though feasibly he may still believe that (so far) actually the ten reactors took the absolute worst that nature could throw at them, and “survived”. If the situation gets no worse and they all come under control, he may indeed have a point. But it won’t matter. Nuclear is dead in places where it is not already established or where representative democracy is strong. Please don’t call this gloating, but it might be a positive to come out of these terrible events: more of the world’s politicians might put a more serious effort into funding renewables. Japan has massive wind resources and could harvest it offshore (expensive but if they put their ingenuity into this….). If we had been funding these things for the last 4 decades at the rate the developed world has subsidized nuclear and fossil fuels, we would already be there (affordable practical green energy). It is an absolute bloody disgrace that Australia has not properly funded geothermal–perhaps it cannot live up to its promise but we should damn well know by now, because if it works it could be magic.
@Ben. Tx.
freecountry
March 16, 2011 at 8:14 pmGregB, it’s the standard device for those with no knowledge, no substance, nothing but their certainty in their own opinions, to accuse anyone who out-argues them of being a paid shill. Those who make that accusation should be marked and ignored.
Frank Campbell
March 16, 2011 at 8:47 pmMichael James: (i) [Moderator: this line has been edited. Please no personal jibes]
(ii) I first saw Altamont Pass in calif. in 1986. I was amazed. Thousands of short dead wind turbines. Rusting away. Forests of them. The pass is rare if not unique- funnels wind.
They certainly spun fast and killed birds, but not as fast as modern turbines and with a tiny bladespan. Too short to bother most raptors. The next generation (now rusting away also) killed more.
(ii)
It’s a common illusion that big modern turbine blades spin slowly. It appears so at a distance. At 80 or so metres, the span is as big as a cricket oval. At a height of up to 150m they make a mess of raptors. Wind companies routinely lie about turbine speed as they lie about everything.
The blade tips are spinning at 270 kph. Eagles seem to have no awareness of the danger. There is also severe turbulence around these things. The abrupt pressure changes are believed to kill the innumerable bats that die: their lungs burst.
(iii) therefore to say “modern designs (mostly German and Danish) move very slowly and hardly ever (if ever) kill birds” is false. Bob Brown, after demanding wind turbines for Tasmania, got them in the NW. By the end of 2008 he was demanding an immediate moratorium on turbines in Tasmania- because they were slaughtering the rare Tas. subspecies of the Wedge-tailed eagle. In 2010 I think there were 22 successful fledges in Tas, and every one was killed at Woolnorth.
Brown is the ultimate hypocrite (I say this as a Greens voter until recently): he still demands turbines on the mainland, where they are killing wedgetails right now.
(iv) to say that current turbines are the necessary (if absurdly uneconomic and useless) step before the next generation is false: gigantism has made them more expensive still and with a far worse environmental footprint. By definition they are no solution to any energy problem- they struggle to manage 20% of capacity and cannot power a single lightbulb 24/7. Continental high pressures mean spreading them around doesn’t help. In the recent SA heatwave (SA claims 20% of power needs are met by wind- which is nonsense) , they managed just 1.5% of production. And of course they ahve to be backed up 24/7 by FF powergen.
danr
March 16, 2011 at 9:07 pmHi Lin
re : “do you really believe your own bullsh!t,”
get a job or an education or preferably both.