Date of writing: 21 March 2011

Fukushima:_two_weeks_later
Fukushima:_four_weeks_later
Fukushima:_one_month_after

As a public service, I renounce copyright on this essay, which may be freely copied in its entirety or referenced, on condition that the URL http://www.cypenv.info/worldee/files/electricity/fukushima.aspx is mentioned.

If, for any reason, any country renounces nuclear-power because of what happened in north-eastern Japan, it is in denial of any logic except possibly of emotional politics. Of course, this is a paradox because emotional politics is never logical!

A number of countries, such as Germany, Sweden and Switzerland have announced that they're having a new look at whether they will ban future construction of nuclear power stations. At the same time, they have announced that they will examine closely the safety of existing power stations, in the light of the Fukushima "disaster". This implies that the politicians who have made these announcements have jumped to the conclusion that what happened at Fukushima was, in fact, an environmental disaster caused by an earthquake. It wasn't! This was a gut reaction which cannot stand the light of day. Unfortunately, this kind of bad politics makes good media reading and viewing. Worse, it misleads the grand public because it is far from the truth and is even hysteria. All sorts of stupid commentaries were added, mostly to provide political capital. This has helped nobody and could even be described as irresponsible, particularly when the comments came from the mouths or pens of people who should have known better.

Let it be made quite clear; when the Tohoku earthquake struck Fukushima, all the operational reactors closed down immediately by the insertion of control rods. At the same time, the emergency diesel generators started up automatically and provided power for the cooling systems. This was exactly what had been foreseen, despite the fact that the intensity of the earthquake was greater than had been designed for at the conception of the power station. In other words, the power station resisted the earthquake perfectly and without any damage.

What happened next was another story. Some time after the earthquake the tsunami arrived. The power station was protected by a sea wall, but this was unfortunately insufficiently high to stop the wall of water from penetrating into the grounds of the power station. The authorities had not foreseen that a tsunami could reach over 10 m in height (one unsubstantiated report has stated that the tsunami reached a height of 23 m in some places!). As the complex was built on flat ground, seawater flooded it completely. There was one design error that was the cause of all the subsequent problems of radiation leakage; the emergency diesel generators were placed in a basement and were therefore submerged by the seawater. Of course, this took them out of service. As the electric grid was also damaged, including the switchgear and transformers on-site, no power became available to run the cooling circuits. All the subsequent problems stemmed from this. It is unlikely that this would have happened with a modern plant because the emergency diesel generators would not have been placed underground and the air intakes would have been at a level which even the massive tsunami would not have reached. It must not be forgotten that these plants were designed in the 1960s, the number one reactor being commissioned in 1971. These are therefore Generation II plants, whereas modern ones would be Generation IIIa, with a whole host of improved safety features including quadruple redundancy of essential components.

There is an interesting website at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/18/fukushima_friday/ entitled "Fukushima one week on: situation stable says IAEA" with the subtitle "Shameful media panic very slowly begins to subside". I propose to make a few quotations from this article, published on 18 March 2011.

• A single very brief spike of 400 mSv per hour, recorded by an instrument near reactor No. 3 following an explosion on Tuesday, is still being widely reported as if it were the current level at the site, probably not helped by a poorly translated and somewhat belated TEPCO press release issued yesterday, which mentions it.
• Nonetheless, levels even adjacent to the stricken reactors have seldom been above 4 mSv per hour, and much lower elsewhere in the plant.
• The renowned US nuclear engineer Ted Rockwell, who quite literally wrote the book on reactor safety, has harsh words for this position.
  Yet in Japan, you have radiation zealots threatening to order people out of their homes, to wander, homeless and panic stricken, through the battered countryside, to do what? All to avoid a radiation dose lower than what they would get from a ski trip.
• Some more details on casualties thus far have been released, reported by WNN. It turns out that there has been one confirmed death, but not at the Daiichi plant at all: a worker who was in the crane cab at the separate Fukushima Daini plant (where all reactors are now confirmed to be safely in cold shutdown) was killed when the quake hit.
• Two more workers, this time at the Daiichi plant, are still listed as missing since the quake and tsunami hit. Six more required medical help following the quake, one suffering two broken legs.
• A further 15 non-radiological injuries have resulted from hydrogen explosions at the site, though some of these were minor in nature and the individuals concerned return to duty shortly after.
• As to radiation related issues, there has been one case of measurable significance. Earlier in the week when workers were still limited to a total dose of 100 mSv, one individual breached this limit during venting operations and consequently was evacuated to hospital.… Personnel are now permitted to sustain doses of 250 mSv.
• It will now be a surprise if anyone who has not been inside the plant gates this week is affected by the situation at all – apart from all the people worldwide who have been taking iodide pills or eating salt unnecessarily. There may also be measurable psychological health effects from the global media-driven hysteria surrounding the situation, of course.
• Nothing else in the quake-stricken area has come through anything like as well as nuclear-power stations, all with so little harm to the population. All other forms of infrastructure – transport, housing, industries – have failed the people in and around them comprehensively, leading to the deaths most probably in the tens of thousands. Fires, explosions and tank/pipeline ruptures all across the region will have done incalculably more environmental damage, distributed hugely greater amounts of carcinogens than Fukushima Daiichi – which has so far emitted almost nothing but radioactive steam (which becomes non-radioactive within minutes of being generated).
• And yet nobody will say after this: "don't build roads; don't build towns; don't build ships or chemical plants or oil refineries or railways". That would be ridiculous, of course, even though having all those things has actually led to terrible loss of life, destruction and pollution in the quake's wake.
• Personal bootnote
  As one who earns his living in the media these days, I can only apologise on behalf of my profession for the unbelievable levels of fear and misinformation purveyed this week. I have never been so ashamed to call myself a journalist.

The bulleted quotations above represent a small part of the article and I claim "fair use" for quoting them here. I strongly recommend that the original article be read in its totality, especially because it has been well referenced. The author, Lewis Page, is, of course, the copyright holder.

During the time that the politicians were making their announcements, they were doing nothing to alleviate the misery and the cold of literally hundreds of thousands of persons who had lost everything, often including the lives of their loved ones. At the time of writing, it is estimated that the earthquake and the tsunami may have killed 20,000 persons, probably more (the confirmed death toll from the disaster has risen to 8,450 and 12,931 people are listed as missing at this time). But the politicians were far more concerned about the hundred-odd persons who may or may not have been exposed to undue radiation. Don't get me wrong, radiation is a silent killer when it is in excess. We have no proof, at this time, that any person has been exposed to excessive radiation, which is likely to cause problems in later life. One report today from TEPCO (which may not be entirely reliable) claimed that one worker only has received a dose of 150 mSv; all the oyhers were under 100 mSv. We are therefore justified in asking why the politicians have been hysterically jumping to conclusions which are not backed up by scientific evidence.

There may be many reasons for this including the desire for re-election next time round. This creates a vicious circle in that the media, quoting the politician, furthers the misconception. This in turn influences the grand public who are more likely to vote for the politician for taking a strong stand against the "nuclear menace". There is also a possibility that the politician may be influenced by civil servants or others who are themselves eco-politicians, members of the "green" party or certain NGOs and take a strong anti-nuclear stand. Also, very few scientists or engineers have official positions where they are able to advise the politician, who therefore sees only one side of the argument.

Meanwhile, low levels of radioactive contamination have been detected in some food products from the Fukushima prefecture. According to official sources, this applies to both milk and spinach but there is no risk in consuming them; notwithstanding, there is a possibility they may be banned as an extra precaution. As far as I know, no seafood has been classed as contaminated, despite the fact that most emitted radioactive particles would have been blown out to sea. I have little doubt that they would have been dispersed and diluted in the vast quantities of seawater, so that it would seem unlikely that fish would be affected. On the other hand, I could easily imagine that shellfish, close to the shore, could accumulate a certain amount of contamination.

The media have also exaggerated the significance of the "radioactive cloud", notably over Tokyo. It is true that there has been an increase over the natural background level in Tokyo and elsewhere round Fukushima. This increase has hardly been measurable at distances over a few tens of kilometres from the plant. It represents no danger to the population. The total natural plus increased levels are less than the natural levels in many densely populated places throughout the world. The mass exodus from Tokyo is totally unjustified and can be classed as paranoid. The similar exodus from the Fukushima prefecture is more understandable but also unnecessary, at least beyond the evacuation zone.

So, let's get back to Europe. I shall take the example of Switzerland, partly because I am more familiar with power generation there but mainly because the Mühleberg power station is almost identical in size, manufacturer, construction and age to the Fukushima number one reactor. Any lesson that can be learnt from the latter could therefore be applied to the former. The day following the disaster, the ministerial head of the Federal Department of Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications, Doris Leuthard, announced:

• examination of the safety procedures of the existing nuclear power stations
• elimination of life extensions for the existing nuclear power stations
• suspension of the procedures for the approval of three new nuclear power stations

Obviously, this was a panic decision, although the first of these three measures should be a permanent instruction at all power stations, nuclear or otherwise. The announcement of the other two should have been made only after a period of due reflection, or – better – perhaps not at all! Nothing can be gained from panicking. A number of other countries, including Germany, made similar panic announcements. Even worse, a paranoia engendered by the use of the word nuclear must be avoided, at all costs. To some extent, this already exists, due to exaggerations from certain NGOs and the media. This can be illustrated by a much publicised report in the media, a few years ago, when a steam line in the turbine room of a nuclear-power station burst, killing two workers. This was widely reported with a strong emphasis on the fact that it was at a nuclear-power station, even though it was remote from any reactor. Similar accidents occur from time to time in conventional power stations, but never get reported in national media.

Now, let's have a look at Mühleberg. This power station is situated in a valley about 20 km from Berne. The region is not noted for seismic activity but this can never be ruled out in a mountainous country like Switzerland. The Swiss Seismological Service has very recently published the following:

10 lessons for Switzerland

1. magnitude 9 events or the type of strong motions produced by the Tohoku event are not possible in Switzerland
2. magnitude 6.3 events like the Christchurch earthquake are possible and expected in Switzerland every 80 to 100 years. Magnitude 6 events are the main contributor to Swiss hazard for normal houses; magnitude 6.5 to 7 events are the main contributor for the hazard of critical infrastructures
3. the motion is recorded in the Christchurch earthquake largely exceed the parameters of the Swiss building code. We should consider increasing the level of protection in the building code from 475 years to 1000 years, at least for urban developments.
4. the seismic building codes in Japan and New Zealand worked very well, with minimal damage to new houses; it is urgent that the Swiss code becomes obligatory for all cantons of Switzerland, with appropriate verification mechanisms.
5. the open availability of high-quality, dense data is the key to understand the complexity of events such as the Christchurch and Tohoku earthquakes; Switzerland should actively pursue the installation of monitoring stations and warning systems in cities as well as in critical infrastructures (nuclear-power stations dams, geothermal projects, buildings).
6. we shall need to take a more conservative approach in the identification of rare, extreme events, taking into consideration the failures and New Zealand (unidentified fault) and Japan (unidentified potential for magnitude 9 events).
7. Swiss lakes have a history of damaging tsunamis (i.e. Luzern 1601) which have never been taken into proper consideration; a comprehensive hazard and risk analysis for urban areas on Swiss lake shores is needed.
8. the risk associated to near-surface or surface break of identified faults as well as of possible deep shearing zones still needs to be evaluated.
9. the vast damage to key Japanese infrastructures (nuclear-power stations, dams, harbours, communication,…) confirms the intrinsic vulnerability of modern society to large earthquakes; comprehensive risk assessments are required to verify the level of seismic risk for critical infrastructures in Switzerland.
10. The economic damage produced by events such as the magnitude 6.3 Christchurch event poses the urgent need to value the economic risk and install appropriate financial mechanisms (i.e. obligatory insurance coverage) to cover rare, potentially disastrous events in Switzerland.

It is therefore apparent that even the oldest 1971 nuclear-power station would be unaffected by the most powerful earthquake that is possible in Switzerland; it should be mentioned that the most seismically active zones are in the Alpine arc, notably in the Valais and Grison cantons. Very minor tremors are a daily occurrence, usually magnitude 1 to 2. Another potentially seismically active zone is around Basel, where a magnitude 3 quake was caused during drilling of a geothermal well a couple of years ago. None of the existing nuclear-power stations are in seismically active zones.

Recalling that the Fukushima problems were not caused by the Tohoku earthquake but by the resultant tsunami, is there a lesson to be learnt from this for Switzerland? Obviously, as there are no major bodies of water close to any of the power stations, a tsunami is not possible. However, they are all situated in river valleys and the risk of floods from other causes should be evaluated. In particular, Mühleberg is in a deeper and steeper-sided valley than the other nuclear-power stations. Is it possible, for a landslide to dam the valley downstream from the station, causing water levels to rise with consequent flooding? The risk is probably extremely small but perhaps not entirely negligible. This is a possibility that may be examined in various countries. Another potential problem would be dams bursting upstream from nuclear-power stations, causing a flood. This possibility is far from negligible, either because the dams themselves cede, for any reason, or because of a landslide falling into the reservoir.

While on the subject of dams, it should be mentioned that about 250,000 people have been killed in the last 50 years because of dams ceding throughout the world. In Switzerland, the largest dam is the Grande Dixence. If that failed, it is probable that upwards of 100,000 persons would be killed and vast areas of fertile land flushed away. It is situated in an earthquake zone and is built to pretty much the same standards as nuclear-power stations. It has one advantage over the latter in that its position and shape are constantly monitored on the ground and by satellite; at the slightest danger, procedures are in place to empty the dam harmlessly.

About 40% of Switzerland's electricity is generated from nuclear-power stations. It would be impossible to replace this by hydroelectricity because most of the suitable sites are already exploited. Similarly, other renewable sources could never meet the shortfall, even with a large expansion of the existing waste-to-energy programme. If Switzerland becomes nuclear-free, it would have to resort to using fossil fuels; quite apart from the carbon dioxide emissions, this would not be a popular move.

What I have written about the Swiss situation can be extrapolated to nearly any other country. Obviously, there are individual cases which may merit some particular action. For example, where nuclear-power stations are sited close to the sea, authorities may wish to evaluate the risk of tsunamis and, if necessary, build higher seawalls for protection.

In conclusion, I urge every country with nuclear-power stations to ensure that maximum safety is the top priority. If necessary, nuclear plants should be shut down permanently if maximum levels of safety cannot be guaranteed or shut down temporarily while those levels are reached. Above all, I suggest that governments and other regulatory authorities make no panic decisions because of Fukushima. They should also avoid propagating paranoia to the media. This is not to say that they should put their heads in the sand by ignoring the problems. It is possible to reassure the public that nuclear-power is safe despite everything that has happened in Japan over the last 10 days. In my opinion, this is a more sensible approach than that of many sources of misinformation and disinformation. To answer the question in the title, Fukushima must never be allowed to kill nuclear-power.

Fukushima: two weeks later

We have all seen on television and in the other media the terrible tragedy produced by the Tohoku earthquake and the resultant tsunami. The combined death toll and missing persons now reaches over 25,000 and is still rising. Unfortunately, the Fukushima event still takes precedence in the media over the homeless people, often mourning loved ones, who number over 100,000. We seem to have lost all sense of proportion in this affair.

So, what has happened at the Fukushima plant? Perhaps too little and too late, power has been re-established from the grid. This has happily allowed the cooling circuits on the reactors to be restarted. It is not surprising that this reconnection has taken 13 days, but it is surprising that the authorities were not able to ship in diesel generators before then.

One item of news that was widely reported was the fact that iodine levels in Tokyo's drinking water were high enough to issue a warning not to allow babies under one year old from drinking it. It was otherwise considered safe for children and adults. The level of contamination was extremely low. This recommendation was lifted a day or so later. Again, this was a media storm in a teacup. The level of contamination that was reached was such that such a recommendation would have been justified, had the level been permanent. In fact, no baby having consumed such contaminated water for such a short period could possibly have come to harm. This must have unnecessarily worried many mothers throughout the capital.

Another news item that was much more serious was the fact that two or three workers (the number varied according to the media source) were contaminated on the legs and feet with radioactive water. It is not known how bad this contamination was, at the time of writing. The fact that they were hospitalised indicated a probable excess beyond the 250 mSv limit that is permitted. As far as I can make out, this exposure must have been due to a combination of faulty personal protection equipment and probably carelessness in allowing these workers into such a dangerous environment.

This last incident occurred in the reactor no. 3 building. This situation is worrying but we lack reliable news as to what has happened. It would seem probable that the reactor housing has allowed an escape of radionuclides, possibly accompanied by partial or total meltdown but probably not in a state of criticality. In part of the public mind, the word "meltdown" is synonymous with the China syndrome myth. A partial meltdown and possibly even a complete meltdown does not necessarily mean that a chain reaction has started in the mass of melted metal. The problem with this particular reactor is that it was fuelled with MOX, which contains a percentage of plutonium oxide. This makes any meltdown somewhat more dangerous than if it had been a uranium 238 reactor. Whatever has happened, it would seem that the consequence has been an escape of radionuclides, which is likely to continue. Unfortunately, the general public has no idea how dangerous this is, because of the lack of reliable news. Notwithstanding, I feel confident that the Japanese authorities will minimise all leakage of radionuclides as fast as possible.

The "radioactive cloud" has now circumnavigated the world. A small proportion of the population in North America and Europe have succumbed to the hysteria, even though they are in absolutely no danger from the radioactivity. Again, some of the popular media have tried to exploit this to their advantage and to the financial disadvantage of the gullible.

Within the context of what I have written in the main essay, there is still no reason for the event of the Tohoku tsunami hitting the Fukushima plant to cause a ban on nuclear energy. It is the only general method of electricity generation which will give us a carbon-free future, provided that it is combined with a maximum of renewable sources, wherever possible. It is also probably the only major method of continuous electricity generation which has killed so few people; according to the World Health Organisation and the IAEA, since 1946, the total death toll due to the civilian exploitation of nuclear energy is less than 4000, including the effects of Chernobyl. Many more than this number are killed every year from the exploitation of coal and other fossil fuels for generating electricity. There is certainly no easy answer to this problem and this is why Fukushima must never be allowed, because of mass hysteria, misinformation and disinformation, to kill off nuclear energy as a means of generating electricity.

Post scriptum: The BBC has published an article by Professor Wade Allison of Keble College, Oxford, England, This explains how irrational our fears of radiation from such accidents are and calls for greater transparency in the published data. I agree with this.

As an illustration of mass panic ensuing from this accident, take a peek at this website and you will realise that Homo sapiens is less sapiens than you think. "Following the tragic events and nuclear emergency in Japan, almost all of our stocks of dosimeters & geiger counters sold out in just a few days but we are working hard to obtain new supplies ..." And this is in the UK, which is not exactly next door to Japan.

Fukushima: four weeks later.

Much has happened in the last two weeks, both positive and negative. The bodies of the two workers who have been missing since the earthquake have now been recovered. They were found in the basement with very severe head injuries. There is no question of their death being due to radioactive radiation, although their bodies have been irradiated to some extent post mortem.

Perhaps the most significant event has been the second earthquake with a magnitude of 7.1 to 7.4. As with the first one, with a magnitude of 9.0, the Fukushima plant, already weakened by the first earthquake, the tsunami and the subsequent hydrogen explosions, suffered no damage. This is good news in that it shows that such nuclear-power plants are able to withstand more than one severe earthquake. This time, there was no tsunami, so there was no damage from this cause either. Our lesson is learned; earthquake-proofing of power stations is more than adequate – flood-proofing, whether due to a tsunami or any other cause, is less than adequate, particularly with the old designs. I believe that a Generation IIIa nuclear-power station may be better designed from this point of view than these old ones almost at end of life.

Another item of good news is that, as expected, there has been practically no increase in radioactive radiation levels in the USA. The EPA has been carefully monitoring these throughout the country and the average background levels have not changed, neither on the West Coast nor at altitude in the mountains. I have received confirmation of this from a Californian amateur who has his own monitoring equipment. This shows that the panic that a few persons exhibited in North America and Europe was entirely unjustified.

One unfortunate incident has been the deliberate leakage of contaminated water into the sea. Unfortunately, again we are lacking reliable information, for which I blame the Japanese authorities. We need facts and figures, not a load of relatively meaningless words. However, it seems that the contaminated water was probably only slightly radioactive and the purpose of dumping this was to make room in the reservoirs for much more highly radioactive water, prior to treatment. If this were the case, then I would say that the action was justified, on condition that "slightly" radioactive meant just that and that there was no danger from radiation, even for marine life. I was gratified to learn that fish caught off the north-east coast of Japan are being individually monitored for radioactivity before being placed on sale. As far as I know, no fish have reached levels which are unacceptable, although news of this is sparse. Perhaps more questionable is whether edible seaweed has been harvested, knowing that the levels of radioactive iodine in the water have been on the slightly high side. Fortunately, this isotope has a half life of only eight days, so that the radioactive levels will have become negligible after two or three months.

As far as I have been able to ascertain, despite the reticence of the Japanese authorities, very few persons have received dangerous levels of radioactive dosage. The original limit had been set at 100 mSv but was later increased to 250 mSv. The lowest dosage that induces acute symptoms is about 1000 mSv. I am given to understand that two or three persons have received doses of about 150 mSv, assuming that this sparse information is accurate. Workers penetrating into areas where there is a certain danger are withdrawn permanently after receiving doses of about 100 mSv, so that there is no question of accumulation of dosage. In the more highly radioactive areas, the total time that the worker may be exposed may be only a few minutes before he is withdrawn. I must assume that the authorities are closely monitoring each individual.

At the time of writing, the tragic death toll and missing as a result of the tsunami are now over 28,000 persons. This terrible figure, compared with the damage and loss of life at Fukushima, puts everything into perspective. We have no idea what the conditions are in the exclusion zone around the plant; we are at the mercy of many conflicting reports on the subject. What is encouraging is that reactors Nos. 5 and 6, which are undamaged, will probably be restarted as soon as permission is obtained, probably in a matter of three or four months. This should go a long way to reassuring the local population that the radiating sword of Damocles held over their head is perhaps not so bad as originally foreseen. A combination of the precautionary principle and emotions has perhaps skewed our perspective of the situation.

Post scriptum: although not particularly relevant to Fukushima, there has been an enormous number of articles and other documents published in all kinds of press since the event. As can be expected with such a controversial subject, these have varied from pleas to abandon all forms of nuclear energy up to equally passionate pleas not to let this accident distort our view that nuclear energy is an essential part of reducing carbon emissions. Spiegel Online International has published a graphic showing the cost of preventing one tonne of CO₂ being emitted, by different methods: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/bild-718951-40260.html. As could be expected, by far the cheapest method was nuclear energy at €7. Using this figure as an index of 1, I have re-tabulated the data in a slightly different form in Table 1.:

I emit one caveat; these data, researched by the University of Stuttgart, are probably applicable only to the conditions in Germany and may be somewhat different in other countries. For example, in more southern latitudes, solar thermal energy and photovoltaics may be relatively cheaper but wind more expensive. Nevertheless, most "green", renewable, energy will cost at least about 10-100 times more than nuclear energy for a given quantity of CO₂ emitted.

These data are extracted from an interesting article The Expensive Dream of Clean Energy: Will High Costs Kill Merkel's Green Revolution? at http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,718951,00.html

This table. alone, shows adequate economical reason for Fukushima not to be used as an excuse to kill off nuclear energy.

Fukushima: one month after

Yesterday, 12 April, the media announced that theJapanese authorities were up-rating the event from INES Level 5 to Level 7, putting it on the same footing as Chernobyl. This has raised the level of fear, especially among the Japanese population. Is this justified? I cannot answer this question because I do not know. All it has done is to demonstrate that the Japanese authorities continue to lack transparency and, indeed, to show that they are past masters at obfuscation, if not dishonesty.

Put in a nutshell, now that the radiation emissions are coming under control and diminishing, by their own admission, why are they scaring the living daylights out of the population only now by such announcements? If Level 7 is justified now, it most certainly must have been justified two weeks or more ago. Why has it jumped two levels in one fell swoop? What do these levels mean? Indeed, do they have any scientific meaning? The answer is negative; they are purely arbitrary and any meaning is open to wide interpretation. Let's have a look at some definitions:

Up to yesterday, the event was rated at Level 5:  Accident with Wider Consequences

1. Limited release of radioactive material likely to require implementation of some planned countermeasures.
2. Several deaths from radiation.
3. Severe damage to reactor core.
4. Release of large quantities of radioactive material within an installation with a high probability of significant public exposure. This could arise from a major criticality accident or fire.

Certainly, there was a limited release of radioactive material and countermeasures are being planned, but the "limited" is open to interpretation because the Japanese authorities have released only contradictory statements and no data. Even Level 5 seems exaggerated as no deaths from radiation have been announced and would even seem unlikely in the long term, judging from the released information. Items 3 and 4 seem probable except that criticality was never in question as the automatic safety features ensured the control rods were in place many minutes before the tsunami struck.

Now, it is rated at Level 7: Major Accident

1. Major release of radioactive material with widespread health and environmental effects requiring implementation of planned and extended countermeasures.

What is a "major release"? Compared with Chernobyl, for example, the quantity released is 1/10th, as stated by the Japanese. Is the epithet "major" justified? We certainly have no detailed knowledge of the health and environmental effects nor the degree of their spread. An exclusion zone has been set up, but we don't know what the radiation levels are; it may be that the precautionary principle has been applied so as to take no risks. Can it be that bad if today's BBC report states, 'Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan says produce from the region around the Fukushima plant, which was hit by last month's earthquake and tsunami, is safe to eat despite radiation leaks. He said radiation levels were now declining and consuming local products was "our way to support the area".'? What can be more contradictory than this?

Now, please allow me to be totally frank. Either this up-rating from INES Level 5 to Level 7 is completely unjustified or it should have been done weeks ago. Which is it? From the previous paragraphs on this page, you will probably gather that I favour the first hypothesis. The Japanese authorities themselves possibly have little better knowledge than has been published; communications were never their forte in the Land of the Rising Sun. So, is this latest announcement real? I think not. To put it in the vernacular, I think the time has come that the Japanese realise that they have to cover their collective backsides.