When 1% risk is 100% too high

{writer: Piet Coetzer}

As news of the nuclear disaster at Fukushima in Japan – in the wake of the earthquake and tsunami of 11 March – disappears from the front pages of most mainline newspapers, some experts warn that the threats from the power plant could persist indefinitely, with one saying that the mess cannot be cleaned up and “no one will live in that area again for dozens or maybe hundreds of years.”

The recent Japan earthquake, followed by a tsunami and then the Fukushima nuclear disaster, clearly illustrate that a disaster – be it natural, man-made or a combination of the two – can very seldom be treated as a single event. It is rather an ongoing drama, which requires management that can stretch over many years.

Part of disaster management – in fact, the first step in dealing with disasters – is to accept the inevitability thereof and first and foremost plan for risk minimisation.

The director at the Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy Dr Rebecca Johnson, after the Fukushima disaster was triggered by the earthquake-induced tsunami, wrote on the openDemocracy website: “Major natural disasters might not be very frequent, but they will keep happening when we least expect. So we need to factor that into our energy and security choices.

“It is an inherent problem of nuclear technologies that if something goes wrong, the risks are much greater and may spread far more widely than with any other kind of weapon or energy,” she wrote, adding that “the Fukushima crisis demonstrates with chilling clarity (that) a nuclear crisis can turn into a long-term tragedy far more frightening for the world than the worst foreseeable oil spill, fire or fossil fuel accident.

“Before memories fade and people forget the fear generated by the dangers of nuclear meltdown, fires and widespread radiation from the damaged nuclear facilities, we need to reflect on the lessons.

“We cannot write off the Fukushima crisis as an extreme phenomenon that will never happen again,” Dr Johnson added.

Disaster impact may not be only local

The Fukushima disaster dramatically illustrates that countries need to plan for possible disaster far away from their own shores and should have precautionary measures to deal with potential consequences.

Besides reports that radioactive contamination has turned up in rainwater over the United States on the back of jet streams, sea- and airborne cargo can also be at risk.

Soon after the Fukushima disaster, ships and planes from Japan – which may be carrying cargo contaminated by radiation – are expected to start arriving at destinations all over the world. Countries need to have the appropriate monitoring infrastructure in place.

Germany’s Der Spiegel reported that “confusion reigns about what to do with the ships.”

The first such vessels were expected to arrive at German ports by mid-April and there was the possibility that they may be turned back if they were deemed to be contaminated.

Erik van der Noordaa, head of Germanischer Lloyd, a technical supervisory organisation that conducts safety surveys on more than 7 000 ships, told the Financial Times Deutschland that he expected European ports would be “sending away” ships from Japan.

Speigel Online reported that there was no single emergency plan for dealing with contaminated ships; any cases would be dealt with individually. But something needs to be done – the ships are on their way.

“This is going to be very complicated, and there is no solution yet,” said Van der Noordaa.

For under-developed and developing countries, which mostly do not have the sophisticated monitoring infrastructure to trace possible radioactive contamination in place, the situation is even more complicated and potentially hazardous.

In the interim, concerns about radiation have already had an impact on Japan’s seaborne trade. The Japanese container ship MOL Presence, which had sailed a distance of 120 kilometres away from Fukushima, was turned back from the Chinese port of Xiamen after elevated levels of radiation levels were detected.

The crisis is far from over

In April, The New York Times reported that United States engineers sent to help with the crisis in Japan were warning that the troubled nuclear plant could face a wide array of fresh threats that could persist indefinitely, and that in some cases were expected to increase as a result of the very measures being taken to keep the plant stable, according to a confidential assessment prepared by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Among the new threats that were cited in the assessment, dated 26 March, are the mounting stresses placed on the containment structures as they fill with radioactive cooling water, making them more vulnerable to rupture in one of the aftershocks rattling the site after the earthquake and tsunami earlier in March.

“Among other problems, the document raises new questions about whether pouring water on nuclear fuel in the absence of functioning cooling systems can be sustained indefinitely,” the report states.

“Experts have said the Japanese need to continue to keep the fuel cool for many months until the plant can be stabilised, but there is growing awareness that the risk of pumping water on the fuel presents a whole new category of challenges that the nuclear industry is only beginning
to comprehend.”

For instance, a rise in the water level of the containment structures has often been depicted as a possible way to immerse and cool the fuel in the plant. The assessment, however, warns that “when flooding containment, consider the implications of water weight on seismic capacity of containment.”

Enormous stress is put on the containment structures by the rising water. “The more water in the structures, the more easily a large aftershock could rupture one of them,” the report adds.

David A. Lochbaum, a nuclear engineer who worked on the kinds of General Electric reactors used in Japan, and who now directs the nuclear safety project at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said the welter of problems revealed in the document at three separate reactors made a successful outcome even more uncertain.

“Even the best juggler in the world can get too many balls up in the air. They’ve a lot of nasty things to negotiate in the future, and one missed step could make the situation much, much worse,” he told The New York Times.

In the meantime, Dr Tom Burnett is reported on the Information Clearing House website as saying, ”Fukushima is going to dwarf Chernobyl. The Japanese government has had a level 7 nuclear disaster going for almost a week, but won’t admit it.

“The disaster is occurring the opposite way than Chernobyl, which exploded and stopped the reaction. At Fukushima, the reactions are getting worse.

“I suspect three nuclear piles are in meltdown and we will probably get some of it,” he stated.

“The Japanese are still talking about days or weeks to clean this up. That’s not true – they cannot clean it up. And no one will live in that area again for dozens or maybe hundreds of years.”

Spreading contamination

Radioactive iodine-131 has recently been turning up in Tokyo’s drinking water some 240km south of Fukushima. It led to official advice not to give this water to babies.

The contamination emanated from the core of the reactors at the nuclear plant, signifying a partial meltdown, which could result in far greater contamination from other dangerous radionuclides such as caesium-137 and possible plutonium contamination.

Unlike iodine-131, with a half-life of just over eight days, these long-lived radioactive substances were strongly implicated in clusters of childhood leukaemia near the United Kingdom nuclear facilities at Sellafield and Aldermaston from the 1960s to the 1990s.

After Fukushima

“As we pursue the abolition of nuclear weapons, we also need to phase out reliance on nuclear energy. Both are incompatible with our environmental and human security,” Dr Johnson wrote.

“There is still a long way to go before anyone can feel reassured that the disaster caused by Japan’s massive offshore earthquake and tsunami will not result in an additional nuclear catastrophe,” she argued.

“Fifty years of nuclear operations have resulted in many near misses and several severe nuclear accidents that caused serious contamination outside the plant: Sellafield (UK, 1957), Three Mile Island (US, 1979), Chernobyl (Soviet Union, 1986). And now Japan, which believed it had designed its many nuclear facilities well enough to withstand earthquakes,” Dr Johnson added.

The bottom line is that by the very nature of the risks involved with nuclear technology, a 1% risk is probably 100% too high.

In an interview with Der Spiegel, peace activist and author Jonathan Schell warns that “our most dangerous illusion is that we can control nuclear energy”, and he comes to the conclusion that what has happened in Japan could mark a turning point for the world.