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”
Mark Duffett
March 18, 2011 at 4:03 pm@FC exactly, this is also the reason why uranium supplies will last much, much longer than 50 years, even if we powered the entire world with nuclear.
Jim Reiher
March 18, 2011 at 4:15 pmMark or others: why do the pro nuclear people assume that science can make nuclear better, (or coal cleaner, or carbon stored underground….) but the same people don’t believe science can make solar technology better, or geo-thermal technology more efficient?
why the selective trust in future science for just some better ways of doing things?
Mark Duffett
March 18, 2011 at 4:24 pmre @Syzygium “regardless of the outcome” etc. – I mean this in the nicest possible way, but this literally means you cannot be reasoned with. Different worldview. This aspect was one grain of truth in what I generally found (you will be unsurprised to learn) to be a load of ignorant nonsense from Rundle. I for one remain an unreconstructed child of the Enlightenment – that’s one position I won’t be reevaluating.
freecountry
March 18, 2011 at 4:26 pmJim Reiher – Because the sun delivers only so much power per square metre of earth surface, and every improvement in technology can only edge closer and closer to that mathematical asymptote of 100% efficiency. You can’t get blood out of a stone. But there are no such limits getting power out of the atomic nucleus; indeed, the problem is not getting power out of it but getting no more power than you want.
freecountry
March 18, 2011 at 4:29 pmMark’s right: for a phrase like “Enlightenment-inspired hubris” to come into common usage is a prospect that frightens me more than any apocalypse the rest of you can dream up. It’s equivalent to saying, “I prefer the dark ages, people dressed better and the superstitions were more fun.”
Mark Duffett
March 18, 2011 at 4:32 pm@Freecountry beat me to it. It’s not about ‘trust’ in future science – indeed, the science for Generation IV reactors is already done. Science isn’t just about technological development; it also tells us about fundamental limits. See BraveNewClimate’s ‘Renewable Limits’ section for a flavour of what I’m talking about.
Jim Reiher
March 18, 2011 at 4:34 pmfree country… I think you mistaken with that attempt at a maths answer and what is finite and what is not. there can always be better ways to tap the energy coming from the sun, always a more efficient possibility, things we have not even dreamed up yet, and some things we are working on as we speak.
History is littered with people who said “it cant be done”. Humanity could never fly – a mathematical impossibility; humanity would never get to the moon – a science fiction fantasy; humanity would never split the atom; or run a 4 minute mile; or travel underwater in machines for weeks at a time; or whatever….
Your faith in some science “producing the goods” but then not believing it is actually possible to do something else … is mistaken. And it demonstrates the dilemma I continue to ponder.
I suspect there are all sorts of vested interests in why people choose to believe in the possibility of one thing, but not in the possibility of another.
Flower
March 18, 2011 at 4:40 pm@ Free Country: “As Flower points out, the extremely limited options for disposing of spent nuclear fuel have put pressure on Japanese arrangements for storing them..”
Not good enough FC. In November 2000, Mutsu City, Aomori Prefecture (near Rokkasho Village), asked the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) to carry out a field survey to examine whether an interim storage facility could be constructed in the city.
This request may have been prompted by the Japan Nuclear Fuel Limited’s (JNFL) advice that “spent fuel is currently stored in storage pools at individual nuclear power plants. However, at the present rate, these storage pools will reach capacity in the *near future.* Therefore, Japan’s utilities foresee a need to construct an off-site facility in which spent fuel can be properly stored and managed until it can be reprocessed.”
Three years on, in 2003, TEPCO was considering plans to bring an interim storage facility into operation by around 2010, covering an area of 100,000 square metres.
However, TEPCO and JAPCO (JV partners) did not apply to the Japanese government for a licence to construct the facility until March 2007. On 27 August 2010, the joint venture announced that it had received approval from the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (Meti) for the design and construction of the Recyclable Fuel Storage Centre.
At a minimum of eleven years on of wilful delay, one could be assured that David Dowell, all fair-minded Australians and I would agree that the pawns in this blatant disregard for safety are the Japanese people (‘Citizens’ Nuclear Insurance – Total Liability’) who have paid dearly for nuclear plants that are controlled by morally bankrupt swindlers, and worse, controlled with impunity.
freecountry
March 18, 2011 at 4:58 pmJim Reiher, there never was any mathematical theorem saying that we couldn’t fly. Aristotle would have of any such claim, merely by pointing to insects and birds. The same with getting to the moon; it was essentially a matter of harnessing and controlling enough energy to escape earth’s gravity intact and survive the landing.
freecountry
March 18, 2011 at 4:59 pmAristotle would have made short work of any such claim, I meant to say.