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 17, 2011 at 7:39 amQuote from Professor Brook’s blog March 12 – “There is no credible risk of a serious accident.”
So you trust what he says?
Roquefort Muckraker
March 17, 2011 at 8:16 amCan you picture the public meeting over building a new nuclear power plant?
NUCLEAR POWER: “My experience with nuclear power goes back many years to being stationed onboard the USS Enterprise, the first nuclear powered aircraft carrier,” he said. “I knew it was safe then, and I know it’s safe now.” (John McCain)
CITIZENS: Uh, did you not see the news in March 2011? Those plants didn’t look very safe to us.
NUCLEAR POWER: We are concerned about safety. The events in this group are postulated
i n order to establish performance requirements for the safety systems of the plant.
They include refueling accidents, loss-of-coolant accidents, steam-line-break acci
dents, and rod drop or ejection accidents. In addition, very severe postulated natural
events form part of the design basis conditions. These include a tornado substantially
more severe than any yet o bserved; flooding to a level corresponding to the Probable
Maximum Flood as established by the Corps of Engineers; the Probable Maximum
Hurricane as defined by the National Weather Service, if the plant i s located along
the Atlanti c or Gulf coasts; and for all sites a very large earthquake.
The potential radiological consequences of all of the events and accidents con
sidered in the safety analysis are expected to be well within the NRC siting guidelines.
The reason for this low level of consequences from the design basis accidents and
natural events i s that engineered safety features are provided to control them.
E n gineered safety features include such systems as emergency core-cool ing systems,
the various designs of reactor containments, hydrogen control systems, containment
atmosphere sprays, and special filtering systems. The net effect of the engineered
safety features in a plant is to provide a series of overlapping safety systems and
physical barriers to prevent significant releases of radioactivity.
CITIZENS: Uh, ok. You look like a thoughtful guy. You’re an engineer and you think about this stuff. Still things didn’t work out too well in Japan did they?
Now, what about nuclear waste? That proved to be very hazardous in crisis that struck Japan.
NUCLEAR POWER: “All the waste in a year from a nuclear power plant can be stored under a desk.” (Ronald Reagan)
Frank Campbell
March 17, 2011 at 8:21 amYou’re fukushimed, nukies. Face facts.
And the climate cult’s political meltdown should end your brief renaissance.
freecountry
March 17, 2011 at 10:01 amRoquefort – An Australian journalist now enter the meeting.
JOURNALIST: Is this meeting still going on? What are you all still doing here? Don’t you know there are already nuclear reactors in operation within 500km of here? What about your children!
NUCLEAR POWER: Excuse me, but what are you talking about?
JOURNALIST: Ignore him. You should all be outside fleeing for your lives, not indoors with the windows closed. You should be milling around at your train station waiting for a train that isn’t full. Your local traffic jam needs you. Authorities in neighbouring prefectures should be trying to find shelters for you, not looking for survivors, burying the dead, and trying to relocate the homeless.
A government representative enters the meeting.
GOVERNMENT: Excuse me, but do you have any qualifications for making these recommendations?
JOURNALIST: I read the newspapers in Australia every day, do you? I read Crikey. What do you know about nuclear power, you bought-and-paid-for big business shill? We know more about nuclear power than you do, that’s why we don’t have it. If you know so much, how come you still have it? And we remember Maralinga!
GOVERNMENT: So let me get this straight. You believe being Australian and reading the newspapers qualifies you to give advice to our citizens on how afraid they should be?
freecountry
March 17, 2011 at 10:43 amFrank Campbell – your tone of crowing at other people’s misfortunes will come back to haunt you.
syzygium
March 17, 2011 at 11:14 amThanks, John Reeves, for you posts here. They are chilling. I wish the best for you, your family and all the people in Japan.
As much as we can come up with rational arguments for nuclear power, the events here, and media’s “obsession” with it, show that it is just too scary because when it goes wrong, it goes horribly wrong. I’m reminded of a Jawoyn person who’s father helped stop the uranium mine at Coronation Hill in Kakadu National Park. He said his grandfather had told his father, “Don’t you let them dig up that ground, because if you wake up that fellow that lives under there he will burn up the world.” It gave me chills when I heard that. Not rational at all, but that old man just might be right.
Barry Brooks, by the way, is not a paid shill, but he is a nuclear ideologue, and he is a brilliant and gifted professor – in population ecology. He has no background in nuclear engineering or risk management.
twobob
March 17, 2011 at 11:36 amJohn Reeves
A friend of mine is in Japan at the moment his name is Alan Reeves, do you know him and if so is he OK?
I’m no nuclear expert and I reject the implication that you have to be one to have an opinion. From what I read this does have the potential to be a Chernobyl type event. From what I read the spent fuel stored in unit #4 is where hte biggest problem lies. I read that this is not in a containment chamber and some of the spent fuel here is in the highly dangerous MOX fuel (mixed oxide fuel) category.
There is considerably more radiation contained in the spent fuel than in the reactor cores, and spent fuel can also suffer a meltdown if cooling cannot be maintained. There are 20 years worth of spent fuel at Fukushima 1 and it is the spent fuel that they were trying to cool with helicopter drops. A fire in the spent fuel has the potential to spread Caesium 137 and plutonium 239 very far and wide. Plutonium 239 has a 24 000 year 1/2 life.
I’m predicting nothing but I am worried for my friend and all others and while hoping for the best I personally would be preparing for the worst as a non expert would be expected to, I suppose.
ronin8317
March 17, 2011 at 11:50 amWoke up this morning to rather bad news.
Japan is experience a nuclear crisis right now, however the discussion has degenerated into an ideological fight, straw-man arguments, and names calling. This is the irrefutable fact : if those reactors are not cooled, Japan is screwed.
The original article is not an attack on nuclear power. It’s an attack on the behaviour of the Japanese government and Tokyo Electric. The US Army have just flown some heavy duty water cooler to Japan, however the Japanese government have not yet asked for help. They’re only ‘ready’ to ask for help. Instead, the Japanese government want their police to use water cannons to cool their reactors.
When the radiation level flared up on Wednesday, the Japanese cabinet’s response is to ‘pull out the workers’ for their safety. It has gone far, far beyond the point of concern for worker’s safety already. Those reactor MUST be cooled regardless of sacrifice. This is a harsh thing to say, but if you just leave the site to explode, the spent fuel rods in the pool near reactor 4 will be sending radioactive fumes into the atmosphere for the next few months. If the reactors suffer from a partial meltdown, the radiation in the area will make it impossible for the worker to venture out and refill the water in the pool. This is the issue at stake.
This is not ‘media hysteria’. If the reactors do blows up, the result is very, very bad. Japan may need to relocate the capital back to Kyoto. So let’s us all hope and pray that the reactors do not blow up.
David Dowell
March 17, 2011 at 11:57 amI would like to thank Ben Sandilands for replying to the comments here. It is all to common for writers to post an article and then ignore the comments. I have one question that does puzzle me. Why is it the anti AGW crowd are often also advocates for nuclear power. You all know the ones I mean. Why are they saying we don’t need it as we have so much coal to burn for cheap electricity. I have never been a rabid anti-nuke but I just don’t trust the corporate mentality of the people who would be in overall charge of the design and running of these plants. They seem to have no sense of responsibility.
David Dowell
March 17, 2011 at 12:01 pmB*gger that sentence meant to say. Why aren’t they saying we don’t need it as we have so much coal to burn for cheap electricity.