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”
Frank Campbell
March 17, 2011 at 11:21 pmSyzzzgym…
you’ve got the wrong end of the schtick, Syzzzg: I was talking about bird deaths from wind turbines…
as for the stupidity of putting nuclear reactors at sea level facing a tectonic plate boundary, I’ve been saying that for years…
…notice how the nukies ALL misunderestimated the disaster, experts and Believers alike…..they now have egg on what’s left of their faces…
syzygium
March 18, 2011 at 12:24 amHey, and by the way, how beautiful is it that we do have a nuclear furnace, only it’s 150 million km away, and separated by a near-perfect vacuum?
Jim Reiher
March 18, 2011 at 9:50 amA lot of us are putting our necks on the line.
There are those who say “all is well… it is not too bad”; etc ….
and there are those who are saying “this is terrible; nuclear is bad …”
Someone will end up with egg on their faces when and if we get an honest and complete report and after everything is over (whatever that ends up looking like: cement tomb for the power plant? thousands of Japanese sick from radiation poisoning?..)
it is interesting how we are nailing our colours to one or the other masts. I guess I would rather anticipate the worst and find out it is not as bad, than anticipate it is all okay, and then find out that it is horrible. At least then we are in the flow of having tried to do all we could to minimise the effects.
But that is just me… others seem happy to take the “its not so bad” side. I guess if it turns out really bad, they can say “opps, sorry… guess I was wrong”. Or more likely many will do what Andrew Bolt does: deny it forever! “No one died from radiation poisoning from Chernobyl… its all spin and propaganda by the anti-nuclear side!!”
syzygium
March 18, 2011 at 10:31 am@Frank: Ah, I think I understand what you were saying, sorry if I misinterpreted.
For me, personally, this disaster has perfectly illustrated the problem with nuclear power. It’s just too difficult to keep perfectly safe, and too terrifying when things go even slightly wrong. And here things didn’t go just slightly wrong. Before this I was increasingly convinced that nuclear power had to be part of the de-carbonising “mix”. Now I’m not. We’re just too fallible – and when we stuff up an aeroplane, it’s a tragedy and hundreds may die. When we stuff up a nuclear power plant, some people die, others are poisoned for decades, and we render part of the Earth uninhabitable. Most people just don’t want to mess with that kind of stuff, no matter what the experts or the statistics might say.
Mark Duffett
March 18, 2011 at 10:58 am@Jim Reiher, @Syzygium perfectly illustrates the problem with ‘anticipate the worst and find out it is not as bad’, namely that people are jumping to conclusions based on their fears and not on facts. So far, all that we know is that some people (less than 5) have died at Fukushima, probably not for radiological reasons. There is no evidence of dangerously sustained levels of radiation outside the confines of the plant. Now sure, we may not be out of the woods yet, and new information may come to light. I will have to reevaluate my position at that point. But on the facts currently known, it completely escapes me why you would want to ditch the entire nuclear energy industry, and not aviation (to use syzygium’s comparison) or internal combustion (on the basis of the oil refinery fire where 18 have died).
I’d ask that Syzygium and others like them at least withhold judgment until after the dust has settled, and not surrender to ‘no matter what the experts or the statistics might say’ irrationality.
John Reeves
March 18, 2011 at 12:03 pm@Mark Duffet:
In the real world, when you are making decisions about the fate of your children and your unborn grandchildren, you do not sit around waiting “until after the dust has settled” – especially when that dust may contain radioactive iodine, caesium, strontium and plutonium.
The bullet train from Tokyo to Osaka yesterday was like a creche – it was packed with babies, small children mostly accompanied by their mothers (many of them pregant) and grandparents.
When we face profound decisions with consequences that will last for generations, whether it be nuclear power or global warming or anything else for that matter, then these are the people that should be making the decsions.
MLF
March 18, 2011 at 12:12 pmYeah, I agree. And with respect to all those who have posted contributions, if we are not walking in John Reeves shoes right now, we should probably consider piping down for a bit. Real people, real lives – including those as yet unborn, are being affected here.
Flower
March 18, 2011 at 12:26 pmFrank – May I remind you that it was you who raised the topic of wind farms vs. bird kills?
When a poster raises a topic, it is an invitation for others to respond. When I submitted a comparison of bird kills caused by other man-man structures, the statistics revealed that your criticisms of wind farms were irrational. Further, Michael R James suggested too that the issue of bird kills by wind farms has been significantly addressed in current technology. Your response to my post was thus:
“Why is it that whenever an “X causes Y-nasty” is mentioned, Crikey knitters knit lists of “A-Z also cause Y-nasties”, then giggle in unison? Every single dispute.”
Frank old chap – would you like the Crikey knitters to make you a beanie for when you go tuttas on your scooter? Wearing a beanie keeps the comb over in place and protects one from the dreaded sun stroke (deliriums.)
Mark Duffett
March 18, 2011 at 12:36 pm@John Reeves, I think we’re talking at cross purposes. I was not addressing personal evacuation decisions (though AFAIK what I said about current radiation distribution remains true; I hope and trust you have access to good information on this). What I am saying is that to have the strategic level debate about nuclear power ‘in light of Fukushima’ is premature.
Jim Reiher
March 18, 2011 at 1:11 pmMark – thanks for your comments. I suspect that gven two possible scenarios: the actual danger of radiation poisoning compared to the containable damage done when tragedy hits a coal mine… when people are offered the two options most would opt for the coal mine tragedy – even if it killed 16 not 5 in the blast…. Both are undesirable of course. Both should be avoided if at all possible. But there is something “manageable” and “controlable” about a coal mine disaster (as horrible as it is) compared to a nuclear power station disaster.
Perhaps this incident will not be really bad. Perhaps it will all come under control in the next 48 hours. But the possibility of a really bad outcome from nuclear power is always there… and it is not a pretty thought. The reality of much lesser disasters from other sources of power, is “within the bounds of coping” for most people in the remainder of the community. Again, I am not trying to downplay the tragedy of losing even one life in any accident. But there is something quite “out of our control” about nuclear worst case scenarios. And that should stop a country like Australia from going down that path.
at least, I hope it stops us. We of all nations do NOT NEED to go there. We have so many other options!