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”
shepherdmarilyn
March 16, 2011 at 2:17 pmAustralian’s have now been contaminated and the nuclear dust is in the rain. Anything else you morons.
Gavin Moodie
March 16, 2011 at 2:23 pmNo name-calling please. It insults my intelligence more than the targets.
And while I’m at it, plurals don’t have an apostrophe: it should be ‘Australians have now been contaminated . . .’.
danr
March 16, 2011 at 2:25 pmIt seems inevitable.
There will be a melt down and once one reactor goes it will induct the others near it.
This induction effectively combines the core materials from all reactors and creates a feed back and unimaginable heat.
Wickipedia gives Liquid density of U238 at m.p. 17.3 g·cm−3 which means that the molten amalgamated core, being denser than the earths surface (approx 2.9) will sink into the crust.
The hole thus drilled will need to be capped quickly to avoid molten magma and dangerous gases, such as carbon dioxide, from the Earths core spouting all over the Japanese coast.
MLF
March 16, 2011 at 2:27 pm@Gavin – smile.
@Joanna – yes, about this and many other things.
@Ramastar – “…it’s not necessarily that nuclear power or the reactors that are unsafe. We need to take into consideration all of the factors…”. I’m not intending to be trite, but do you think this a bit like saying guns don’t kill people, people do?
SBH
March 16, 2011 at 2:32 pmIt all started with the PM saying he had no report of nuclear leakage as the earthquake disaster unfolded. Such blatant spin. Even yesterday we were being told that all was well with the two decommissioned reactors.
Johnfrom….. safety aside, could you explain how we could have six reactors any other way than the government funding them out of tax revenue?
Joanna, did it seem to you that Bolter had recieved a briefing on which way to spin the nuclear leaks. His line was echoed later that long weekend by conservative politicians. And yes, it appears that what Rudd was doing was protecting Australia’s interests by asking the Japanese what the f*ck is going on. Insensitive maybe but that’s what he gets paid for.
Jim Reiher
March 16, 2011 at 2:42 pmRudd was right to be strong about Australians there. That what we want in a role such as his. If he was sucking up to the Japanese and saying whatever they wanted him to say, we would criticise him for that. Give him a break.
John Reidy
March 16, 2011 at 2:44 pmThe issue of pro or anti nuclear is simply that for Australia there are many, many better alternatives than nuclear power.
This was true before the earthquake.
David Dowell
March 16, 2011 at 2:53 pmMark Duffet my source was the news conference by Japan’s chief cabinet secretary, Yukio Edano.
He said the radiation level had fallen after 45 minutes but nothing about the workers going back in.
michael r james
March 16, 2011 at 2:54 pmLet’s all calm down a bit, especially since we (or most of us) are 8,000 km from the action.
Trouble is, not even the genuine experts (Professors at MIT, CalTech etc) without vested interests can say either what is really happening or what the likely outcome will be. The information coming out of Japan and out of TEPCO is inadequate (and English translations dodgy, not to mention the common errors of mixing milli with micro and even Mega; I note that the pro-nuke lobby was scathing about the Japanese statements of millisieverts, believing it had to be microsieverts, but it turned out milli was correct—even though that has dropped back at most sites; yet again measurement is now obviously both difficult and wildly inaccurate in open air; apparently it can be 2Megasieverts at the lip of a container with burning fuel–death in 2 minutes exposure).
The comparisons with Chernobyl are not completely silly or unwarranted. It is already worse than Three Mile Island because there, the error of turning off cooling was eventually corrected and the plant quickly shutdown even though a fair bit of the core had melted. At Fukushima we have three reactors that have been venting partially melted core over several days, plus one open-air fire burning off high-level radioactivity. Way beyond TMI.
On the other hand, Chernobyl went into full meltdown from full running power and exploded (steam explosion) soon after. At Daiichi three reactors have been shutoff (not technically cold shutdown) for 5 days now so one would like to hope this means a nasty Chernobyl outcome is unlikely. However, if they cannot keep cooling these partial meltdowns (and #2 is bad, just how bad they do not want to think about) then they can feasibly go into full meltdown, and no containment vessel will hold it for long. After only days or a week from actualy active fission, I do not know how much better this stuff is than the Chernobyl fuel, but spreading it around in a gigantic steam + hydrogen explosion is not something you want to contemplate.
(see my summary of events up to 8am this morning on Crikey Rooted blog)
Geoff Russell
March 16, 2011 at 2:56 pmChernobyl didn’t have a containment vessel. As long as the Fukushima containment vessels
are secure, then panic shows a lack of understanding of comparative risks. While
containment is secure, then a meltdown won’t be life threatening. Three Mile Island had
a (partial) meltdown and the death toll was zero. Containment vessels are designed for
meltdowns, that’s their job.
Over the next couple of decades thousands of people living around the reactors will
contract cancer … from cigarettes, alcohol and red and processed meat. This isn’t a
theoretical possibility, but a certainty.
As long as the containment is secure, then any comparisons with Chernobyl are ignorant and ridiculous.
It sounds a lot to me like more than a few people commenting on this article are treating this topic like a debate where win at all costs is the name of the game. Ask yourselves what you want the death toll from this event to be during the next month. Would you be delighted if
it stayed at zero? or (probably secretly) annoyed? Everybody should want it to remain at zero.
Meanwhile the death and amputation count isn’t zero but rising from the Tsunamis, just like it did after the Boxing Day Tsunami. The bacterial infection risks aren’t theoretical or debating points either. They are ineluctable and horrible but haven’t attracted any media attention. There have been no amputation tallies, no “Will they get antibiotic deliveries in time?” stories, no “What happened to emergency antibiotic stocks — were they sufficient? Who is to blame?” stories. Not one, but these critical medical logistic matters will save (or cost) far more suffering than this nuclear plant.