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”
CHRISTOPHER DUNNE
March 16, 2011 at 4:01 pmI’d have a lot more respect for the writer if he didn’t start off by trying to get the name “Chernobyl” into the first paragraph. There is no comparison with the cuase of that event, the resultant explosion and release of radioactive isotopes and the natural events which disabled the cooling systems of these Japanese reactors. To make any such claim is playing with hyperbole, is not helpful, and in fact just feeds the panic merchants and those peddling outrageous claims of ‘apocalypse’, (and my god there plenty enough of those in the media at the moment).
Life is about risk, we deal with it everyday, and none greater than driving a car, where we’ve traded off speed limits to an acceptable number of fatalities. Sure, we could halve the speed limit and probably reduce the death toll by a huge percentage, but we don’t.
Cars will kill more people than nuclear reactors ever could, but there’s no hysterical talk of the automobile apocalypse.
As for the levels of background radiation increasing 20 fold briefly over Tokyo, the natural variability of ‘normal’ radiation world wide is much wider than this, and it appears to not have any effect on human health.
Rather than dragging out “Chernobyl”, some factual analysis of why this crisis has occurred and how it can be avoided would be more useful, but would probably not get the same attention as shouting “Chernobyl” during a nuclear reactor fire.
John Reidy
March 16, 2011 at 4:09 pmre. my statement
[“for Australia there are many, many better alternatives than nuclear power.”]
Lets assume the following:
1) alternative sources of energy are given the same level of support as existing fossil fuel generation or any proposed nuclear technologies (or alternatively existing subsidies are all cut back).
2) A mix of alternative energy sources are implemented – all in different locations.
3) The actual cost of existing coal generated electricity is only a fraction of our power bills the rest is transmission and overheads. For example if it were 20% and prices doubled then my power bill would go up by approximately 20%.
I won’t bother responding to the personal comments.
gregb
March 16, 2011 at 4:10 pm@Christopher Dunne – yes, Ben has got a bit hysterical here. This is not another Chernobyl.
@Frank Campbell – Barry Brook is not a nuclear shill. If you bothered to research him before you slandered him you’d find out that he has done substantial research into the various non-fossil fuel energy sources. This research led him to believe that nuclear was the best chance we have at avoiding climate change, which is his primary concern. You may not agree with him on his assessment but he is not a nuclear shill, paid or otherwise.
danr
March 16, 2011 at 4:12 pmPlease, please, please tell me that you’re trying to be funny….
Not funny – just thought provoking.
see the other nuclear doom thread
danr
March 16, 2011 at 4:14 pmSorry if you took that seriously MESKI.
Just using the same technique that was used to make Global Warming seem real.
A few scientific details eg. SG U238 and silica mixed with a bit of bull, and were off.
You may think it’s tacky to do that but very few people these days put themselves out to think and question.
If people can see they have been tricked by the post above then there may be a benefit.
They may consider whether they are being led up the garden path by the AGW proponents using similar techniques.
danr
March 16, 2011 at 4:15 pmDidn’t the comment “and dangerous gases, such as carbon dioxide” give anyone a hint?
gregb
March 16, 2011 at 4:18 pmThe problem with your little “experiment” danr is that you have demonstrated such a tenuous grip on scientific reality in other places that it’s impossible to determine when your crazy statements are genuinely held and when they’re not. What you hoped to achieve by doing this, I’m not sure.
danr
March 16, 2011 at 4:24 pmNo Jim , not made up, “fields of irreparable wind turbines”.
And if you can believe the source, the figure in one field alone was 14,000 mills.
That’s why I remembered it.
A quick search brought up this which mentions batches of 1,000 turbines: Self-Guided Tour to the Wind Farms of the Tehachapi Pass
danr
March 16, 2011 at 4:27 pmyou have demonstrated such a tenuous grip on scientific reality
By whose standards – yours?
lindsayb
March 16, 2011 at 4:29 pm@danr
how sure are you that you are correct re AGW, and where is the data to support your “global conspiracy” claims?
the vast majority of active, publishing climate scientists are confident to >98% that you are wrong, and have a vast body of data which overwhelmingly supports their hypothesis.
AGW denial is a political statement, not a scientific one. It is time to stop listening to the corporate spin machine, and read some real science.