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”
Damien
March 16, 2011 at 2:57 pmThis discussion bothers me. These people are in mortal danger amid thousands of others who are already dead. It’s not some abstract entertainment to assist ideologues of one stripe or another to make a point. Where’s the empathy?
lindsayb
March 16, 2011 at 3:02 pmThanks for the update Ben.
VAAC re-routing planes, US navy “repositioning” ships, chernobyl sized exclusion zone, yet no danger to human health certainly sounds like more coverup than fact from Tokyo Electricity and the Japanese government, which have “form” when it comes to spinning their nuclear situation. Legitimate questions and protest regarding location, operation and design of their plants have been stifled and spun for decades.
It must be really irritating for those who pronounce the benefits of nuclear power when the opposition are shown to be right yet again.
@John-from-smoking-ruin-where-planet-earth-used-to-be
Who would build these 6 nuclear power plants? Should we trust corporations, whose explicit mandate is to be to reduce costs and push risk onto the taxpayers? Perhaps you think we should trust a foreign government to build them for us?
danr
March 16, 2011 at 3:10 pm“This discussion bothers me. ”
Perhaps the tone of the comments here was set by the lead article.
Why is no one blaming the various levels of Japanese government for allowing and perhaps encouraging the building of towns in vulnerable areas?
And yet.
There is high criticism of Nuclear power as a concept and there is plenty of blame, and rightly so, for the power company s.
What I want to know is this:
where is the discussion about the corruption which led to this?
Where is the investigation into the politicians who were paid off to give these outdated generators an extra 10 or 15 years of life above the engineered design?
The sooner we get to the real issues the better.
Ben Sandilands
March 16, 2011 at 3:11 pmAs I’ve explained in Crikey and elsewhere my first exposure to the nuclear industry was with the late Professor Ted Ringwood at the ANU who lead the team that devised SYNROC. There isn’t much opportunity to write regularly on nuclear power, but I did have the privilege (or shared terror on occasions) of going climbing over many years with some nuclear physicists in the UK and France and Australia. Bulletin photographer Paul Wright and myself were lucky not to be locked up at Lucas Heights one day when we left the plant (where we had been shown the critical assembly bench which had been used in the Gorton era) just before the IAEA or its immediate counterpart sprung an audit without notice, which is their job of course.
However as to qualifications, mine are only in public administration and government, and horribly out of date I would guess. The principles of open and accountable communication of policies and actions are I think an appropriate basis for reporting ‘matters’. Not press releases or managed messaging.
The magnet in this aspect of the terrible story of what has happened to Japan since Friday is noting the simultaneous process of contradictory statements from the Japan authorities and government, and the avoidance of candor. It is inconceivable that the understating of exposure levels for the first 3.5 days was accidental, given that these are nuclear experts and nuclear administrators talking on the record in public. It was a very shabby and deceitful stunt, and one that embarrasses me because I should have been checking the metrics used from the outset.
I repeat, to my great peril in discussions like this, that I think there is a future role for nuclear energy, but not the processes as crude as those involved in replacing coal with fission as the means for using steam to turn turbines. I think that immobilising processes waste in a synthetic rock and putting back down the mines from which it was extracted is an elegant and sensible basis for future nuclear power, unless of course fusion is at last tamed on a commercial scale.
Now I might just go down into my lead lined flame proof bunker.
Damien
March 16, 2011 at 3:15 pmLindsayB I live a few kms from a nuclear reactor built by the lowest bidder, in this case Argentinians.
danr
March 16, 2011 at 3:20 pm“for Australia there are many, many better alternatives than nuclear power.”
Do you have such great belief in that statement that you would be prepared to sell your hous eto buy shares in “Green Energy Companies”?
People in Spain did and lost their money.
Your better alternatives would lead us to pay five times the current rate for electricity.
I assume that you are probably supported by either your parents or the taxpayer at the moment if you have so little concern for power costs.
michael r james
March 16, 2011 at 3:23 pm@GEOFF RUSSELL Posted Wednesday, 16 March 2011 at 2:56 pm
Geoff, Daiichi #2 has sustained damage to the concrete containment vessel, ie. the outer layer of the actual inner core. The only thing holding back a Chernobyl calamity is the steel–which, for sure, is a lot stronger than the concrete. The difference with TMI is that Daiichi has lost most of their ability to cool all of these things (cores and stored fuel in ponds). I remain sceptical that these containment vessels can actually contain a core in near-full meltdown due to failed cooling. The molten core will eventually melt any steel (and it would convert concrete back to calcium dust) and then it is all over in a giant steam explosion at the first rupture. If that doesn’t distribute the core over hundreds of sq kilometres then the molten core keeps burning through the ground (and concrete whatever) until it hits groundwater. Then another giant steam explosion…..
Stopping all this requires restoring some ability to keep cooling the cores–and it seems like they are still reliant upon firetruck pumps and hoses! And fuel for those trucks (apparently they ran out and that is what exaccerbated the #2 problem).
They have got to get serious cooling. It doesn’t look too rosy in that department and now the site is toxic.
As often is the case in such crises, problems compound and escalate. With radiation there is a horrible further problem of inhibiting access and repair or whatever.
I have no idea how this will pan out. Chernobyl is not the end of the world but one, let alone three (or x6 !), in a place like Japan…..
blogs.crikey.com.au/rooted/2011/03/16/japans-nuclear-crisis-the-technical-facts/
Shooba
March 16, 2011 at 3:28 pmIt may not be a deciding factor, but surely plate tectonics is a factor in this pro-vs-anti nuclear debate? After all, the probability of any Australian nuclear power station being struck by a significant earquake is close to zero. The NASA website will give you a map of earthquakes in the last hundred years or so of magnitute 3 or above, and Australia has a couple of dots. Japan is covered in them.
Remember, the magnitute scale is not linear, so a 4 magnitude quake is not exactly half as bad as a 8 magnitude quake (or anywhere near it!).
Australia’s worst ever quake (7 Magnitute) = 2 * 10^15 Joules.
Japanese Quake (9 Magnitude) = 2 * 10^18 Joules
Literally 1000 times as powerful.
Just sayin’ is all…
Shooba
March 16, 2011 at 3:29 pm*earthquake.
Hehe earquake…
ronin8317
March 16, 2011 at 3:29 pmThe reports coming out are pretty dire. Nobody knows if the containment vessels in reactor 1, 2 and 3 are secure or not. They may be leaking. Reactor 4, 5, and 6, along with the shallow pool containing spent fuel rods do not have a ‘containment vessel’. If the pool runs out of water, they will start to burn, and the radioactive smoke will enter the atmosphere without any control. The result will be worse than Chernobyl.
The death from the tsunami is indeed horrific, however there is not much you can do for the dead. My concern is for those who are still alive, and stuck in the surrounding area of the nuclear reactor. The decision to evacuate the workers is not a good sign, after another explosion from Reactor 3, the radiation inside the plant is still around 800 millisieverts, and if it remains at that level, the workers cannot continue to cool down reactor 4, 5 and 6. Right now, they don’t even know if one of the reactor is on fire or not.
At this point, there is no point in panicking : it’s already too late for that. >_<