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”
FalcoPilot
March 19, 2011 at 2:58 pmThe Anti-Nuclear Power Case
1. Nuclear Power is not justified, based on simple cost benefit, risk benefit basis. It is also plainly not viable at all on straight financial ground, when you are honest, and include all all the associated costs.
2. The risk is exacerbated by the simple fact that they are designed by imperfect men, built by imperfect men operated by imperfect men, and maintained by imperfect men, and manufactured with imperfect materials, with imperfect safety procedures, and subject to cost cutting by imperfect accountants, and located in unsuitable/imperfect locations by imperfect bureaucrats and imperfect politicians, who know very little about about science, engineering and risk factors.
3. There are some 450 power reactors world wide, with three melt-down events (Three Mile Island, although mostly contained, was a very close shave, more good luck than anything else, and a lot of radioactive gases were vented, which sent all the radiation meters off the scale). It’s also a miracle that the Three Mile Island build up of radioactive hydrogen gas didn’t explode. The odds stand at one meltdown per 150 reactors so far. A pretty horrible safety record! And that does not include the numerous other close shaves that are known to be happening and routinely covered up and not reported.
4. Keep in mind that if the Chernoble and Three Mile Island events had not put the brakes on building new plants, we would have had many many more plants by now, and statistically we would have also have had many more accidents/melt-downs, and an even bigger community backlash than we have now. Public opinion was always going to doom Nuclear Power when the inevitable melt downs occurred. No matter how many derisory comments are made about the NIMBY factor, it is just not going to go away. So fighting against this aspect, is a totally futile exercise..
5. It is still possible that we could end up getting get a big inferno from any of the multiple tons of spent fuel rods stored at Fukushima, and a Chernobyl size radioactive plume heads towards Tokyo (ten million residents??), imagine evacuating and abandoning Tokyo. Pripyat is still a ghost town! Just overlay the Chernobyl radiation no-live zone map over Fukushima and Tokyo! Doesn’t that put a shiver up your spine!
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chernobyl_radiation_map_1996.svg
6. Nukes where never economically viable, they all need massive Government liability guarantees and subsidies.
When private enterprise won’t accept the risks, What does it tell you? It suggest Big alarm bells type warning to me!
7. Spent fuel contains plutonium. Pu 239 has a half life of 24,100 years, and won’t be safe several times that. You cannot just store and forget this stuff. Each kilogram of Pu 239 is probably mixed up with 100 Kg of depleted (ie still radioactive) uranium. How do you factor in the costs of storing this toxic stuff for over 100,000 years? There is also the enormous end of life, plant decommissioning costs. Common sense says that without even crunching the numbers, that Nuclear Power plants could not possibly be economic, when compared with any/all the other alternatives.
8. I could keep going, but if you have not got the point by now, I am just wasting my time.
9. Yes, I AM a critic of Nuke Power. However, I do have an open mind, and I am perfectly open to reconsider Nuclear Power, provided the technology and the humane factors improve to such a degree, so as to negate all the above issues. But I think we have as much chance of that, as we do of ridding the world of wars. 🙂
Flower
March 19, 2011 at 4:50 pm“Shout over others” Free Country? Me? So let the facts speak for themselves. A quick perusal reveals:
Free Country: Twenty one posts (21)
Flower: Twelve posts (12)
It is an established fact that you have an aversion to truth but just who is spamming?
“Flower, you have never made one attempt to answer a single (?) anyone has made against you; ”
Do you mean the personal attacks or a refutation of the contents of my posts? So what would they be Free Country? Refresh my memory. To date I have received no “counter argument” from opponents unless you are referring to such irrelevant and tiresome swill as hospital infections, car bombs, dodgy surgeons, ignorant Greens, oil spills, nimbyism, fearmongering etc. The bandwagon technique!
Alas, after a record 21 posts, you have not challenged me on the documented information I have provided and you have not stated whether my claims are true or false. But then dancing boys of the nuclear industry bewitched by their own hubris, are very proficient at the “bob step and weave side-trot.”
And can I conclude that you are now officially the moderator on this thread – brass knuckles and all?
Over and out – allelujah!
Flower
March 19, 2011 at 5:05 pmOops apologies. Make that twenty two (22) posts for Free Country, a record for gibber jabbers at the bottom of the U heap.
FalcoPilot
March 20, 2011 at 1:08 pmFlower.
I can see why you are being flamed!
You are definitely relentlessly pushing an agenda.
You’re lucky it’s a free country, although you wouldn’t think so sometimes!
I found reading your posts was very confronting, and made me think that the culture within the nuclear industry is probably no different to a lot of other industries, (as other posts have already indicated)!
Are you unfairly criticizing the Nuclear Industry?
The BP Mexico oil leak fiasco also comes mind. Documentaries, and articles I have read indicate that there is a very bad safety culture within BP.
So, I can see where your critics are coming from, in that you are criticizing the nuclear industry for what is happening everywhere else.
I think what is becoming obvious is that the free enterprise system has a relentless focus on profits at the expense of safety.
What has changed over recent decades, is the shear size of a some industrial projects, and thus a growth in the potential size of any disaster that might result.
For instance a catastrophic failure of the huge Three Gouges dam in China, would probably kill millions of people who live down stream. The Bhopal disaster with Union Carbide in India in 1984 killed 15,000 and a government affidavit in 2006 stated the (deadly gas) leak caused 558,125 injuries.
So, the key message to me, is that when the likely potential effects of a disaster is likely to be huge, (as it is when you are dealing with multiple tons of radioactive material and huge amounts of heat), safety is paramount.
So, the more danger, then more safety is needed.
I personally think that nuclear energy “could” be made extremely safe.
But, I doubt whether there is “the will to make it really happen” in the world we currently live in.
The focus will always on profit, which simply won’t and can’t change.
I think that Flower’s posts are very valuable, in that he is highlighting that there is “supposed” to be a proper and stringent safety culture and system of safety in place in Japan, but it is simply not working at all.
I feel that Flower has proven this beyond all doubt, and perhaps an inconvenient the truth?
So what is the answer? Do nothing? Business as usual? Try and improve the safety system/culture?
Move away from nuclear energy? Go back to coal? Move to clean/green energy? All of the above?
This is the big debate.
FalcoPilot
March 20, 2011 at 3:23 pmThe Nimby Factor.
First good to see my posts finally got accepted, although the delay led me to modify and resubmit one post, leading to a lot of duplicated stuff, sorry about that.
In response to the put-downs of the Nimby people.
Let me state that I am a Nimby, and proud of it!
I would not want a dirty filthy disgusting coal fired power plant in my back yard, end of story. Burning coal puts heaps of poisonous mercury into the environment, as well as a lot of other nasties. Not good for your health.
Similarly, I would not want a nuclear power plant in my back yard either. Because, I do not believe that safety is treated as seriously as the industry says it is. Also, radioactive noble gases (which are constantly building up in the plant) are vented periodically on regular bases as part of the normal (safe?) operating procedures. And, I don’t want to inhale any more radioactive gases into my body than I have to. Also, make no mistake, small accidents are occurring all the time (as in most other industries), some of which will involve accidental releases of radioactive substances into the environment. The further away from me the better I say! 🙂
FalcoPilot
March 20, 2011 at 3:32 pmIs nuclear a greener substitute for coal?
Who knows, maybe? But why go from one ugly fuel source to another ugly fuel source. Why ugly? because it produces highly concentrated toxic waste that have to be stored forever, (well almost forever).
I suggest that this is a golden opportunity in time, to actually START seriously moving away from all of the ugly fuels.
Moving to renewable/green energy mainly requires the decision, and the will to make it happen. Some innovative thinking and effort will also obviously be required to solve the base load issue. It can happen if we want it to, and I fear it won’t happen if we get sidetracked into putting our (main) focus on nuclear.
Am I wrong here, are there any flaws in my logic ? JMVHO 🙂
Gavin Moodie
March 20, 2011 at 4:00 pm@ FalcoPilot
I agree with you that the main objection to nuclear power is handling its waste, but I suggest that stating that it has to be stored ‘almost forever’ weakens the argument by leaving it vulnerable to criticism that the waste problem is exaggerated and therefore can be discounted.
I suggest that nuclear waste has to be stored safely until it reaches natural or at least safe levels of radiation, which I understand ranges from 1,000 – 2,000 years at the lower end of estimates to 10,000 years at the upper end. Even the lower estimates are a bloody long time – longer than any state has existed, for example.
While I agree that Australia should try harder with renewable energy, I expect many will be unsatisfied with the argument that where there’s a will a way will be found. One might propose a few projects to incorporate different forms of green energy into the national power system.
FalcoPilot
March 20, 2011 at 5:11 pmHi Gavin
(1) My comment was ………..”toxic waste that have to be stored forever, (well almost forever).”
I hope I don’t have to dot ALL my i’s and cross ALL my t’s just so that I don’t risk weakening my argument. a smidgeon. It was just attempt at some humour, whilst still getting the guts of the message across.
Anyone who wanted to check, can quite easily just consult with Mr Google and Mr Wikipedia, themselves.
Mr Wiki says: “The most important isotope of plutonium is plutonium-239, with a half-life of 24,100 years. Plutonium-239 is the isotope most useful for nuclear weapons. Plutonium-239 and 241 are fissile,…..”
I quoted Pu 239 because it is in all the “spent” (still radioactive) uranium fuel removed from the reactor.
It is not safe until several times it’s half life of 24,100, which means something like 100,000 to 200,00 years.
If I had to pay in advance for the storage of some of this “stuff”, somewhere safe that is , including armed guards to protected it 24/7 from pilferage by those pesky terrorists, that’s assuming that I could find someone I could rely on for more than 100,00 years to take it. I think the amount that I would have to pay, including some allowance for future inflation, would be rather exorbitant, and probably make me think that I paying to store it forever!
I assume that you get my drift, that whether it is 10,000 years, 100,000 years or 200,000 years, it is a ridiculous amount of time to have to store really nasty stuff, and at the same time monitor and protect it.
(2) You said ” I expect many will be unsatisfied with the argument that where there’s a will a way will be found”
I assume you mean the Base load problem. Yes people are very reluctant to embrace change, it is a flaw in human nature I guess. Anyway one solution is………. to use Solar Thermal power, concentrated to produce instant super heated steam for steam turbine electricity. The heat can be stored in molten salt, for use over night to generate steam etc. If you don’t know about this, or if you have a problem with this, I am happy to consult Mr Google for you, and get back to you, but I assume you have a access to a keyboard too!
Also sun power can be used to store gravity (a bit humour here! we are really storing a bit of potential energy). Just pump water up hill, is already being done in the snowy mountain scheme. But they use coal power to pump the water. Could just as easily use solar to pump it. It works at about 75% percent efficiency I think (you can check it), which ain’t bad. JMHO (and facts) 🙂
FalcoPilot
March 20, 2011 at 5:42 pmPS. In regard to switch to Solar, I think that the main problem is all the existing vested interests, who have lots of power money, and thus influence. They rely on spreading a lot of misleading missinformation and red herrings. It makes it a very hard battle to win, and we really need at least one influential person with a vision, charisma, foresight and drive to champion the cause. But they are in short supply, perhaps a “wanted add”. We can’t even get someone half competent to run our country, or lead the opposition. Well we sort of did, but they both got knived! Anyway, look on the bright side, if we couldn’t maintain our sense of humour, we would well and troolly stuffed!
I personally think the whole world, although giving the outward appearance of running with some semblance of order and control, is in reality, basically out of control, and just bumbles along from one self induced crises to the next. ie incessant wars, inflation, bubble economies, global financial crises et al.
With my very sincere apologies for going off-topic. I promise to be good in future. I really promise! JMHO (and with absolutely no facts included here at all). 🙂
FalcoPilot
March 20, 2011 at 6:20 pmFYI An excellent article in the online Age Newspaper to day, I highly recommend to all forum contributors, and lurkers. See: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/no-nukes-now-or-ever-20110319-1c1ed.html
It includes authoritative references to comments made by that pro nuclear expert Ziggy Switkowski . Very compelling arguments indeed. I would be interested to hear from anyone who disagrees with this article. Or, does everyone agree 100% ??? I am throwing down the gauntlet here, so to speak. Please forgive me if a little of my smugness shows through, but I can’t help it! Remember, a little bit of humour helps to keep your sanity in during life’s relentless journey! 🙂 🙂 🙂