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”
Gavin Moodie
March 17, 2011 at 12:18 pmInteresting question, David.
I suggest 2 explanations. First, views about humanity’s Progress being associated with increased technological intensity and sophistication may over value the benefits of technology and under estimate its problems, both in causing global warming and in risking radiation either from accidents or from storing nuclear waste for the next few thousand years.
Secondly, some may think that if they are opposing the green movement on 1 issue they should oppose it on all issues. I suspect that this is the reason for the Australian’s strange and inconsistent positions on many issues championed by the Greens.
Flower
March 17, 2011 at 12:35 pm@ Frank Campbell: “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.”
Frank – this US study on bird deaths in America should get your feathers ruffled:
Vehicles: 60 million to 80 million bird deaths
Buildings and windows: 98 million to 980 million
Power lines: tens of thousands to 174 million
Communication towers: 4 million to 50 million
Wind generation facilities: 10 000 to 40 000 (end quote)
a) Mining industry: Heavy metals, cyanide, arsenic, radiation, carcinogenic hydrocarbons. Depositions of fallout on soil, crops, air and water? Who would know the true figures of bird morbidities/mortalities in Australia? Censored by the industry and sycophantic regulators!
i) 2009: Olympic Dam: Tailings storage facility: “Fauna mortalities associated with exposure to the acid liquor of the existing tailings dam at Olympic Dam were 895 in 2005-06, 311 in 2006-07 and 282 in 2007-08. As well as birds, seven species of mammal and eight species of reptiles have been killed. BHP Billiton recognises these figures underplay the impact because of the removal of carcasses by scavengers or the sinking of dead birds before detection.”
ii) Magellan Metals alone killed 9,500 native birds in 2007 – poisoned by lead. Well they are the ones we know about!
iii) Newcrest Mining slaughtered 6,500 native animals over six weeks. Many were emus. They are the ones we know about!
iv) Oil slicks – think BP and Montara and the hundreds of catastrophic oil spills before that
b) Cats – millions of birds slaughtered anually
c) Pesticides: The bald eagle in the US went almost extinct before DDT was banned for use on crops in 1972. Now there are an estimated 100,000 bald eagles. Australia’s regulators (industry shills) did not ban DDT until 1987. Australia continues its use of pesticides that have been banned in some sixty countries.
d) Climate change/global warming: Killing millions/billions of birds every year
e) Shooters
f) Agriculture – pest poisonings including non-target native birds
Frank – Wind power remains a concern in this regard and studies are being performed to mitigate the problem of bird kills but it is certainly not Bobby Brown who is the hypocrite. I’m looking at you pal.
The most destructive feral on the planet? Homo saps!
MLF
March 17, 2011 at 12:36 pmI agree, it is an interesting question. I think though that even climate change deniers realize that fossil fuels are a limited resource, so its not so much about the impact on the environment rather than what to do when they run out.
Gavin Moodie
March 17, 2011 at 12:40 pmDoesn’t Australia have 100 – 200 years of proven coal reserves and so it is not yet worth worrying about exhausting the supply? Oil is different, of course, but I would think that nuclear energy would substitute mostly for coal fired generators.
freecountry
March 17, 2011 at 12:41 pmDavid Dowell,
Speaking for myself I have no axe to grind for either discrediting AGW risks or promoting nuclear power. But I do think panic serves no useful purpose, either for reducing emissions or protecting people from radiation accidents. People being urged to stampede against the advice of the Japanese government may be in more danger of exposure than if they stayed inside and took the precautions their government advises. Many of them have nowhere to go, in a country still reeling from last Friday’s carnage.
At a time like this the international media should be supporting confidence in the government trying to balance multiple risks on the ground, not undermining it with accusations of cover-up and words like “Chernobyl” and “apocalypse”.
On the wider question, the world energy markets play a huge role in lifting people out of starvation and the daily struggle for survival, to the point where they can plan beyond surviving the next winter. Simply turning out the lights for hundreds of millions of people, based on the argument that if Australians can afford to consider trillion-dollar investments in renewables then so can everyone else, will not have the effect that the well-meaning scaremongers think it will.
MLF
March 17, 2011 at 1:05 pm@Gavin – well in that case David’s question still stands. Plenty of coal, no environmental impact – why go nuclear at all.
freecountry
March 17, 2011 at 1:08 pmAnd finally, I cringe at our loss of face when we talk down to a country that not only has unrivalled technological sophistication, but which knows more about natural disasters and radiation catastrophes than the rest of us ever want to know.
michael r james
March 17, 2011 at 1:09 pm@FLOWER Posted Thursday, 17 March 2011 at 12:35 pm
Bravo, a bouquet of the finest to you. Frank cannot get over petty personal NIMBYisms with those windmills near his country property.
And I assume those stats are per annum? The figure for wind turbines still seems high–are we sure those are not old. One can understand the problem with the old style fast-turning blades but with the modern ones, any animal that manages the feat of getting itself killed is really a case of deserving a Darwin award. (I resisting making an inappropriate joke about Frank….)
Gavin Moodie
March 17, 2011 at 1:16 pmI think some people believe that humanity progresses by increasing the intensity of its use of technology and by using more sophisticated technology. On this view nuclear energy is more advanced and thus advances human progress more than coal. So while nuclear energy may be more expensive initially (as cars were initially more expensive than horses) humanity will benefit in the medium term by adopting the more sophisticated technology. As some might say, the stone age didn’t end cos we ran out of rocks.
David Dowell
March 17, 2011 at 1:35 pmThanks for the replies to my question. FREECOUNTRY I didn’t mention stampeding anywhere or turning out the lights. I was interested in the contradiction in the argument that we go nuclear when we have boundless plains with lots of coal under them. Surely nuclear is an expensive replacement for coal. I think there is merit in the argument that if the greenies are against then they are for it. Or to put it another way if it doesn’t radiate or emit we don’t want it.
Japan has suffered a dreadful disaster and nuclear power and has made a complete pest of it self in the middle of it. Thousands of refugees and thousands dead and yet in the middle of it we have exclusion zones causing chaos for the recovery.