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”
Geoff Russell
March 16, 2011 at 4:32 pmMichael R James: According to BNC (http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/16/fukushima-16-march-summary/) the damaged torus hasn’t compromised containment. Also my understanding of containment is that the engineers calculate the total energy in the core and the containment is designed to be able to absorb all of that. Provided the fission has stopped there is no way the energy inside the vessel can increase.
danr
March 16, 2011 at 4:33 pmThis is what some Hawaiians think about putting windmills in their beautiful environment:
“California’s wind farms — then comprising about 80% of the world’s wind generation capacity — ceased to generate much more quickly than Kamaoa. In the best wind spots on earth, over 14,000 turbines were simply abandoned. Spinning, post-industrial junk which generates nothing but bird kills.”
http://storyreportscomments.blogspot.com/2010/02/abandoned-rusted-wind-turbines-reflect.html
Jim Reiher
March 16, 2011 at 4:34 pmDanR my questions still stand: how can they really be irrepairable? Perhaps it was a decision not to repair them under the guise of “too expensive” – to pamper to the fossel fuel industry lobby groups.
Angra
March 16, 2011 at 4:41 pmGrebB – according to Jim Green, Brook is a shill for the Nuclearists and has trouble getting his fact straight.
Brook is a strident nuclear power advocate and host of the bravenewclimate.com blog, which has received an astonishing 500,000 web ‘hits’ since the crisis in Japan began.
Brook has egg on his face. Make that an omelette. He has maintained a running commentary in the media and on his website insisting that the situation is under control and that there is no reason for concern.
One contributor to Brook’s website said: “Unfortunately, Prof. Brook has really abdicated a neutral position on this event. His clear support of nuclear power seems to have impacted his critical thinking skills. … Every time he states something in this crisis is ‘impossible’, it seems to happen the next day.”
Andrew Bolt at the Herald Sun has been urging people to read the “marvellously sane and cool explanation” from “our friend Professor Barry Brook”. Both Bolt and Brook claim that no more than 50 people died from the Chernobyl catastrophe.
The scientific estimates of the Chernobyl death toll range from 9,000 to 93,000.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/45210.html
danr
March 16, 2011 at 4:45 pmI have no doubt that your people “have a vast body of data”.
Unfortunately the data has to be coherent and prove something.
If you understand black body radiation and absorption spectra then you can see that the human component of CO2 absorbs 0.24% of all the possible IR that keeps our biosphere warm enough for us to keep on living.
This is the maximum possible and will be reduced where there are clouds in addition to the water vapour in suspension.
Water vapour is the main IR absorber by a huge margin.
Feedback loops, accelerating forcing s etc are fluff and bubble to disguise the fact than man and his CO2 emissions are not guilty.
Shooba
March 16, 2011 at 4:46 pm@Jim Reiher,
Mathematically, the risk is as close to zero as it can get. Even if the risk was say, one in 100000 (and that’s a push), that would still mean Australia experiences one catastrophic, Japan-scale earthquake every 200 years. Add to that the fact that it would have to hit somewhere within 500km or so of the nuclear plant, and you multiply even further. It’s fair to say, therefore, that the odds of a Japan-scale catastrophic earthquake hitting within 500km of any hyopthetical Australian nuclear plant is about the same as being struck by two different forks of lightning at the same time.
All I’m saying is that if you look at it logically, taking into account the facts, it seems as though the threat of earthquakes is far from a compelling argument against nuclear power. Are there other more reasonable arguments against nuclear power? Absolutely. But earthquakes? Nope.
danr
March 16, 2011 at 4:49 pm“DanR my questions still stand: how can they really be irrepairable?”
maybe the only purpose of building them in the first place was to cut some body a bit of profit out of the US taxpayers.
It happens all the time.
Is green energy more “pure” in this respect or do you think some people with good connections (eg Algore) might like to make a few bucks.
Once the mills are up and the profit made who cares whether they work or not.
Frank Campbell
March 16, 2011 at 4:50 pmgregb: “Barry Brook is not a nuclear shill.”
Come off it. Brook is constantly in the media spruiking nuclear.
ronin8317
March 16, 2011 at 4:51 pmFukushima will soon replace Chernobyl as the worse nuclear disaster the world has experienced. The former power plant is burning, and there is nobody there to stop it from burning up further. The Japanese government is in ‘full spin and no policy’ mode right now.
Syd Walker
March 16, 2011 at 4:54 pm@Danr
I took the trouble to look up your suggested reference “Self-Guided Tour to the Wind Farms of the Tehachapi Pass”.
If you think that article supports your earlier comment posted at 3.51pm you have SEVERE comprehension difficulties.