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”
Flower
March 18, 2011 at 1:32 pm@ Mark Duffett: “But on the facts currently known, it completely escapes me why you would want to ditch the entire nuclear energy industry….”
Yes Mark Duffett – the nuclear industry are incapable of grasping those reasons. That could be because the nuclear industry has no regard for the environment and an industry which trivializes its impacts on a fragile planet.
One current example includes the intentions of a mere three uranium miners in the arid lands of Western Australia. Toro, Mega and BHP (Yeelirrie project) not only mine for uranium, they also mine for water. Collectively, these three miners will guzzle 3,000 olympic sized swimming pools of groundwater every year from aquifers in a region with intermittent rainfall. This is an industry that seemingly knows zilch about aquifer recharge and cares even less.
Senator Ludlam has warned that: “The region will have exchanged one of its most precious assets – water – for millions of tonnes of radioactive tailings,” an irrefutable fact. Further, Toro’s Lake Way project is just 7 kilometres from the borefield that supplies Wiluna’s scheme water to its citizens, in an aquifer that the Water Corporation says is at risk of contamination because it is “unconfined.”
I remind you again that the Uranium Conference of 2009 boasted of “450 projects” in the state of Western Australia. Which ever way one looks at it, extracting uranium in the driest state in the nation is a reckless abuse and exploitation of diminishing resources that belong to the people of Australia and its already threatened biodiversity which is being obliterated by the mining industry.
freecountry
March 18, 2011 at 1:39 pmJim Reiher – So do you think that in the big picture, worst-case scenarios of peaceful nuclear power including Chernobyl do more harm than oil explosions, oil spills, oil wars, and the developmental backwardness and corruption that characterizes oil-rich regions?
Flower
March 18, 2011 at 2:11 pm@ Free Country: “Jim Reiher – So do you think that in the big picture, worst-case scenarios of peaceful nuclear power including Chernobyl do more harm than oil explosions, oil spills, oil wars, and the developmental backwardness and corruption that characterizes oil-rich regions?”
Hey FC – We’re over oil, we’re over coal and we’re over nuclear. They’re all catastrophic and/or insidious killers. Why the comparisons? They’re all obsolete technologies in the age of renewables. And forget about corrupt oil countries for the moment because “charity begins at home” – lest we forget.
And I’ve read too that as in the US, the Japanese government has for decades allowed re-racking of spent fuel pools to reduce the originally designed minimum safe distance between the assemblies so that more can be stored in each pool. Therefore, Japan’s nuclear catastrophe may have been avoidable if this industry had ceased its downward moral slide into economic recklessness, thus placing its citizens at an unbearably high risk of contamination.
The nuclear industry always has and always will scoff at the Precautionary Principle. Ignoring the PP comes with the package by default. Why would an enlightened 21st century society place their faith in these grim reapers?
Jim Reiher
March 18, 2011 at 2:22 pmFree country – thanks for the question. I personally believe that we should avoid Nuclear at all costs, and then work to replace polluting fossil fuels with renewables. You rightly point out the problems of oil, and it would be wonderful to replace that all some day…
mind you, nuclear wont rid the world of oil. Uranium supplies will only last about 50 years with intensive use (I am told), and no one that I am aware of has ever said that nuclear can be the way to rid the world of oil use. They would be used side by side. Worst of both ….
So if I am allowed to dream… I would love to see a world that weans itself of old fossil fuels and which avoids nuclear as well. The money we spend on so many harmful things would be put into renewables instead. …. I know I know… “tell him he’s dreaming”…. but what a dream!
freecountry
March 18, 2011 at 2:34 pm50 years? 30 years? 80 years? I keep hearing a different lifetime of U supplies. River-bed gold panning completely ran out a century ago, and yet we are still somehow mining gold.
As Flower points out, the extremely limited options for disposing of spent nuclear fuel have put pressure on Japanese arrangements for storing them, and it is this spent fuel that is not causing the major problems, not the live fuel rods.
In fact, disposing of spent fuel is turning into a bigger constraint on the industry than getting the fuel in the first place. If we were running a commercial disposal service as has been suggested, the Japanese people would probably be a lot safer today.
David Dowell
March 18, 2011 at 3:02 pmExactly Flower – It is the mind set of the people who are attracted to the nuclear industry. When the prominent blow hards are blathering about only 50 – 65 or what ever were killed by Chernobyl well they are only regurgitating stuff that has been commissioned by the nuclear industry and then distributed by the hire by the lie think tanks. These people love to be in charge and they love the loot but they never take responsibility for any of the consequences of their decisions. It is hard enough keeping the ba**st*ds on a leash when they have control over less lethal stuff such as airlines and trains. I love technology, like a lot of green types, but I am not confident about something that goes wrong in such a nasty way in the hands of these people. If we want nuclear then build the first reactor on lake Burley Griffin. That’s what I call a control rod. (sorry Canberrans)
Gavin Moodie
March 18, 2011 at 3:06 pmI don’t think there can be a nuclear disposal service that is ‘commercial’ in the sense that it covers its costs and takes a reasonable premium for the risk involved since it is necessary to store nuclear waste securely for a minimum of 1,000 years, but prolly longer.
freecountry
March 18, 2011 at 3:45 pmOr until GE-Hitachi’s first PRISM reactors come into service and can recycle the stuff.
Gavin Moodie
March 18, 2011 at 3:50 pmI understood that technology still had to be proved. In any case, surely Australia wouldn’t contemplate buying a reactor to run a commercial nuclear disposal service.
syzygium
March 18, 2011 at 3:59 pmMark Duffett, Free Country : I think Guy Rundle’s piece today perfectly explains my point of view. Nuclear Power is categorically different to the common, everyday risks we face and understand. To many, including myself, it is the worst sort of Enlightenment-inspired hubris. I fervently hope and pray (irrational, but what can you do?) that this situation will come under control and there will be no loss of life. Regardless of the outcome, I take this lesson – there are limits to what we can do, and what we can control.