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”
danr
March 16, 2011 at 5:41 pmRight on the money LindsayB “Good engineers will be replaced if they don’t comply”.
By the thinking which says we should shut down all nuclear power plants we should also ban flying. It is extremely dangerous when governments don’t enforce regulations.
Mark from Melbourne
March 16, 2011 at 5:47 pmRe-Joanna’s earlier point. I too saw Andrew Bolt get in to quite a tizz over this on Insiders last Sunday. Basically said it was a non-event and was outraged they Rudd had “demanded” that Japan keep us posted, It would be excellent if someone, perhaps Crikey, held him to account.
He also said that Chernobyl was widely overhyped and that only 5 or was it 50 people actually died…..
Ben Sandilands
March 16, 2011 at 5:53 pmChristopher Dunne,
The awful C word was used this morning by ISIS and Stratfor, who are proxy links to what the USG experts think. I could hardly avoid it any longer.
Mark Duffett,
Hmmm. The site doesn’t even list several current volcanic ash warnings. I hope the airlines are getting direct mailings.
Michael R James,
Great lay reader friendly essay in Rooted. Have linked to it in the most recent Plane Talking posting.
the man on the clapham omnibus
March 16, 2011 at 5:59 pm@DanR
Putting the word ‘climate scientists’ and ‘vast body of data’ in quotation fingers does not qualify as an argument against a whole branch of published and peer reviewed science.
Many of your references severely lack any real or qualifying evidence that people in this thread who bothered to look have easily found.
These are links that even Andrew Bolt would resist using and you have not answered any points of order raised by them to any satisfactory degree.
I’m also having trouble following your ideology, as you seem blind to science but rather than follow the typical neo-con republican line of small KOCH flavoured government you are advocating intense government control and regulation of significant parts of our society.
Until you put some more rational thought into your responses that can’t easily be picked apart in under 5 minutes, I’m assuming you’re a paid Troll from the IPA or mining industry.
Stevo the Working Twistie
March 16, 2011 at 6:03 pmBut @danr, when they do enforce regs, that’s “BIG GOVERNMENT” and we can’t be having that sort of Stalinist control of free enterprise, can we?
lin
March 16, 2011 at 6:47 pm@danr
do you really believe your own bullsh!t, or are you paid to “contibute” to sites like this?
AGW denial is a political position, not a scientific argument, which you have aptly demonstrated by a continual refusal to provide any facts to support your beliefs.
Let me guess:
you believe the earth is 6000 years old, God will replace the fossil fuels as we burn them, if we destroy our planet, God will rescue us, and that free universal healthcare is a communist evil.
Or are you really an algorithm written by big oil to respond to keywords?
John Reeves
March 16, 2011 at 6:50 pmThe view from Tokyo..
First, my qualifications. I am stuck in Tokyo, trying to assess the risks associated with staying put versus the risks of negotiating massively disrupted transport infrastructure to get to the airport with my wife, one year old son and frail mother-in-law, with the very real possibilty of radioactive fallout reaching us en route. I work as a translator, and have previously translated materials about the nuclear industry in Japan, so I was better informed than the average punter before this started, and I have been obsessively analyzing every scrap of information from both English and Japanese language sources.
I still don’t have a clue how this is likely to unfold, and almost of all of the Japanese experts on TV are now admitting the same. But this is what I have seen so far..
Earthquake.. what about the nuclear power stations?
— Don’t worry, they shut down automatically.
Backup power has failed so the cooling system doesn’t work.
— Don’t worry, there are backup batteries
The batteris are flat..
— Don’t worry, we can use generators
The plugs don’t fit..
— Don’t worry, we can use fire trucks to pump sea water
The pressure is too high to effectively pump water in, so the fuel rods have been exposed and are starting to melt
— Don’t worry, as long as the containment vessel holds, the radiation will be contained
The containment vessels have been breached on two of the reactors…
… and then silence. No new information for hours. If there was good news, I’m sure they would be shouting it from the rooftops. And while this has been happening, the scale of the problem has gone from a single reactor to potentially six. And if there is a massive radiation leak or explosion from any one of these reactors, then managing the other five will go from difficult to impossible.
In the background, we are getting two or three magnitude 6+ aftershocks a day.
Comparisons to Chernobyl are entirely appropriate, and it seems that the IAEA thinks so too.
Australia may not have that many earthquakes, but we get more than our fair share of cyclones, floods and bushfires. Nuclear power stations require huge amounts of water, and with all our droughts the only practical option would be to build them on the coast, and tsunamis cannot be categorically ruled out anywhere on the planet. There have been several tsunamis in our region lately, such as the S0lomon Islands a few years back, and there is evidence of a mega tsunami on the east coast of Australia about 400 years ago.
And that’s just the /known/ black swans.
Jim Reiher
March 16, 2011 at 6:53 pmshooba – you are right: there are plenty of good reasons not to go nuclear in Australia and the risk of earthquake is low down the list.
A quick list that comes to mind:
– how do we guarantee that radio active waste can be transported safely to whereever it is stored?
– that includes not just travel accidents but also theft for dirty bombs
– how do we address the documented and real health problems of mining towns and workers, around uranium mines?
– how do we store the radioactive waste for thousands of years?
– do we just use indigenous land like we did in the 1950’s for atom bomb test?
– what happens when uranium runs out?
– what do we do for the next 15 years while we are building the reactors?
– how do we guarantee no accidents?
to name a few…..
CHRISTOPHER DUNNE
March 16, 2011 at 6:56 pmOh, Stratfor used the word “Chernobyl” so that makes it OK to use without any qualifications or explanation of why this event is in no way comparable?
Really, this is sloppy journalism Ben, at best. I can tell you, from days of reading on this subject that Chernobyl released millions of times the radiation that has apparently been the case here, and there is very little quantitative similarity in even the worst case at Fukushima Daiichi. How about some balance by talking about the number of reactors that actually were not swamped by a tsunami and did in fact shut down without major incident?
Or would that introduce some comparative facts that might undermine the somewhat hysterical tone of your article?
scottyea
March 16, 2011 at 7:08 pmThe ABC put up an article about the superiority of thorium reactors. Of course I cant find it now but could find this:
http://abc.com.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2010/2852923.htm
🙂