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”
CHRISTOPHER DUNNE
March 16, 2011 at 11:43 pmThe man on the clapham omnibus: when the next tsunami drowns Sweden, I hope you’ll apologise for your flippant remarks!
Sean
March 16, 2011 at 11:44 pmDunno why some crikey journos moderate all URLs in comments as though they are going to be relentlessly spammed or something. Others don’t.
CHRISTOPHER DUNNE
March 17, 2011 at 12:11 amI’ve just seen a tweet that claims that there was a spike in the radiation levels in Fukushima city of 500 times background levels.
Sounds pretty scary, huh?
Well it would if you didn’t know that background levels range widely across the earth, and that one population in India lives (due to uranium and thorium naturally occurring in the groundwater) long and healthy lives with 200 times the average level of background radiation.
So, just how scary is a “spike” of 500 times the background level?
See what I mean?
Flower
March 17, 2011 at 12:23 am@ Christopher Dunne: “Our understanding of radiation exposure across populations is not all that complete, but the evidence for there being a huge number of cancers attributable to Chernobyl is just not there.”
Yes it is Christopher. The above information is the world according to the IAEA and you must have missed the link I provided on the other thread:
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2010/2010-04-26-01.html
“The authors examined more than 5,000 published articles and studies, most written in Slavic languages and never before available in English.” The IAEA officially gagged the WHO in the 60s from speaking without permission on nuclear incidents and the IAEA have censored scientific and medical information published by experts in affected areas.
And who is the head of the World Nuclear Association? One Ian Hore-Lacy an Australian and former biology teacher who joined the mining industry at CRA (now part of Rio Tinto) in 1974 and who finished up in Corporate Relations. He then took over the role of General Manager of Australia’s Uranium Information Centre and we all know how uranium mines are managed in Australia – leaks, spills, poisonings, contamination, threats, cartels and explosions.
CHRISTOPHER DUNNE
March 17, 2011 at 12:24 amOh, and just to put things into a personal perspective: I’ve set off geiger counters myself after having what I called the “shiny sugar” for a PET scan.
It’s quite surreal hearing the thing go off, and realising it’s actually inside you. But the good news was the PET scan showed I no longer had any highly metabolising cancer cells in my body.
What it took to get to that condition I won’t describe!
CHRISTOPHER DUNNE
March 17, 2011 at 12:26 amOK, the latest tweet:
The peak hourly reading today in Fukushima-shi equaled 1/2 a chest X-ray.
…so there you have it, APOCALYPSE!
(long echo chamber reverb on that by the way…so much scarier, huh?)
Barry 09
March 17, 2011 at 12:59 amIf we have to build a Nuclear Power Station , the 1st one should be in Sydney Harbour . Builder and owner to supply Warranty and own insurance for the Full Life of the plant. Any Tenders ???
John Reeves
March 17, 2011 at 1:19 am@Christopher:
First of all, I mentioned you by name not to pick a fight but to bring you up to date with the latest reports, and to highlight the fact that highly unlikely events have in fact happened repeatedly in the last few days.
Yes, there is quite a bit of bullsh!t in the media coverage, but there has been no shortage of “bullsh!t” in the “hush, hush” messages two. I’ll give you two examples.
The “radiation is part of life” argument — Yes, this is true. But the radiation is a cumulative issue, so if 500 times background level is sustained for about two or three weeks you can expect serious health consequences. And the radiation that has leaked so far is trivial compared to what might happen if the containment vessel explodes –especially with all that spent fuel in cooling ponds on the roofs of some of the reactors… Let alone what might happen if the core explodes. Unlikely scenarios, perhaps, but quite plausible, especially since the four explosions and two fires so far all took place at locations that were supposedly under control, and right now there not even a semblance of control.
More to the point, there is an important difference between radiation versus radioactive materials. If you ingest strontium your body mistakes it for calcium and puts it into your bones (in fact, strontium is absorbed far more readily than calcium). As a result, radiation is injected directly into your bones (which are factories for your immune system as well as structures to hang other tissues on) for a long, long time – damaging DNA, destroying white blood cells and eventually causing leukemia. All the soothing noises about radiation from iphones and aeroplanes will not change this reality. There has been no mention of levels of cesium etc in Tokyo, and there is no way that they are not measuring it.
Second, the “the chances of total catastrophe are vanishingly small” argument — Some people know more maths (probability and statistics) than is really healthy, and they start to mistake it for reality. One example is the idea that you can confidently use past experience as a reliable guide to future outcomes – even when the world has been turned upside down, as it has in that area. Another example is to think that if there is only a 1% chance of each reactor going ballistic then the chances of all six going is only one in a trillion. Mathematically convincing, but actually dangerously wrong. If even one of them goes there will be no way that they can get the other five under control. And yes, I am including reactors #5 and #6 in this scenario (and the spent fuel on their roofs) because the temperatures in their spent fuel ponds have been gradually rising, which is what is suspected of causing the explosion and two fires in #4, which was supposed to have been totally under control, and which has probably been primary responsible for dangerously high levels that already exist within the plant that are hampering control efforts.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m saying I think that there will a total disaster, just that I think it would be foolish to dismiss it as a possibility, and that I find the “it won’t matter anyway” arguments seem to rely more on wishful thinking than evidence.
Personally, I’m outa here first chance I get. More than happy to sublet our house to you while we’re away…
Roquefort Muckraker
March 17, 2011 at 4:56 amI have been advocating the view that nuclear is dead; that the story of Japan’s nuclear will overwhelm the nuclear industry’s ability to come back. Maybe I was wrong, my wife just sent me this:
POLITICS: Democrats, supporting Obama’s all-energy push, rally around nuclear power (03/16/2011)
Evan Lehmann, E&E reporter
Democratic lawmakers and administration officials defended nuclear power yesterday, appearing to isolate calls in their party to slow or freeze plans for new plants until the deepening threat of radiation in Japan is understood.
Democrats are faced with a sensitive balance as critics within their ranks argue that the Pacific disaster is evidence that fault line facilities are a risky option burdened by the absence in the United States of a spent fuel depository.
But the criticism comes as President Obama is redefining the Democrats’ energy position to closely reflect Republican goals promoting a buffet of energy sources. If Democrats and their environmental allies threaten to make nuclear power plants more difficult to build, they could diminish Obama’s ability to negotiate a clean energy standard with Republicans. Allowing utilities to comply with the standard using nuclear power is seen as a key carrot to win GOP support.
“He believes that our energy future will be best served by the approach that he’s taking, which is to take an all-of-the-above approach in terms of our goals to reaching a clean energy standard,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said of the president yesterday.
“Nuclear is one of those sources,” he added. “And he believes that we need to proceed responsibly with the safety and security of the American people in mind, and if we do that, that nuclear can continue to be an element in our energy arsenal.”
Lieberman says no moratorium
The perils of deteriorating nuclear reactors in Japan are driving discussions in Congress. Both chambers received large-scale briefings by nuclear industry representatives on Monday. Energy Secretary Steven Chu and members of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will appear on Capitol Hill today to brief lawmakers.
The Democratic message appears to be jelling. Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), who urged a slowdown over the weekend, said yesterday he doesn’t support freezing construction of nuclear power plants, or delaying permitting.
“I don’t favor a moratorium,” Lieberman told reporters. “I’m a strong supporter of nuclear power plants, because this is American-made energy; you don’t have to rely on anybody overseas. And nuclear power plants don’t emit air pollution in the traditional sense.”
“But we would be irresponsible if we just didn’t step back for a moment and see if there were any lessons to learn from what’s happened in this disaster in Japan,” he added, saying the NRC should conduct a safety review to determine if construction standards should be “altered in any way.”
Chu also said permitting for new plants should not be disrupted. “I think if you look at the process in which the NRC approves going forward with new construction projects and nuclear reactors, it’s a thoughtful process,” Chu told reporters after appearing before a House Appropriations subcommittee (E&ENews PM, March 15).
The messaging appears to isolate Democratic lawmakers who have called for no new plants to be built where earthquakes occur.
Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) called for a moratorium on Friday. Yesterday, he and Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.) requested information from the NRC about the construction of several plants, expressing concern in a letter that “reactors located in seismically active areas are not designed with sufficient levels of resiliency against the sort of earthquakes scientists predict they could experience.”
Freeze conflicts with loan guarantees
The letter says Markey has identified eight nuclear reactors located on the earthquake-prone West Coast, and 27 others located near the New Madrid fault line in the lower Midwest.
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, indicated that she supports a slowdown in nuclear construction.
“We can’t just move forward until we know that our plants are safe and that we can build them to withstand this event,” she said yesterday.
Carney said any moratorium would conflict with an $8.3 billion federal loan guarantee approved for Southern Co. and its partners for two reactors in Georgia. Other guarantees are pending for projects in South Carolina and Texas.
Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), the assistant majority leader, whose state overlaps the New Madrid Fault in the South, expressed environmental concerns about the storage of used fuel rods. But he believes nuclear power will remain an element of a clean energy standard.
“I don’t think we’re going to take it off the table,” he said. “It’s a major part of the energy picture in America today.”
Sharper expressions of support came from lawmakers whose districts have nuclear power plants, which can provide strong revenue sources through taxes and employment opportunities.
Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), whose state hosts Calvert Cliffs, a nuclear plant owned by Constellation Energy, dismissed the notion of freezing new construction.
“I think we’re now just reacting to headlines,” she said.
Maryland Rep. Steny Hoyer, the No. 2 Democrat in Congress, doesn’t support a moratorium, but he does want to see a safety and design review of reactors. Still, he expressed doubt that the level of destruction in Japan could occur in his state.
“I don’t think Calvert Cliffs is going to see a tsunami out of the Chesapeake Bay,” Hoyer told reporters.
Ben Sandilands
March 17, 2011 at 7:32 amChristopher Dunne,
You are out of your depth, and quite inaccurate as to what has been reported here. We dealt with the situation at Danini (Fukushima No 2 plant) as good news and reported it prominently. If you use the search function and do a bit of reading instead of posturing you will possibly discover that we have never entertained the possibility of a nuclear bomb type explosion at Fukushima and refrained from suggesting the event would be comparable in a quantitative manner with Chernobyl until France, the US authorities, and what is now a growing number of previously unconvinced and recognised nuclear industry authorities began to reconsider that possibility.
Your strategy here seems to be to ascribe to Crikey reports including mine a number of common failings in other media reports that we have gone out of our way to avoid, including accepting at face value anything from a power company with a long record of dishonesty.
Your own commentary is full of notablely ignorant observations. For example,
‘the energy is diminishing day by day’. Not if it isn’t cooled. And that is the whole point of the immediate crisis this hour. There is no cooling taking place at the site. There are (reading the US material, which comes straight from its nuclear agency) no accurate readings of radiation levels within the stricken reactors. It says it believes the fuel rods in reactor No 4 are completely exposed. You need to review what fully exposed spent fuel rods mean, especially in terms of the evaporation and drainage of the material dissolved in the now baking dry storage ponds.