This May 6, 2011 photo released by Tokyo Electric Power Co. shows a worker points at something on the first floor of the turbine building of the reactor Unit 1 at the crippled Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant in Okuma, Fukushima Prefecture, northeastern Japan. (AP Photo/Tokyo Electric Power Co.) |
In
the opening editorial to the latest edition of the Journal of
Radiological Protection, published Wednesday, May 18, radiological
protection expert Professor Richard Wakeford of the Dalton Nuclear
Institute, The University of Manchester, gives a detailed account of
events at Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Station, and poses several
questions that remain unanswered, several weeks on from the earthquake
and tsunami on March 11, 2011.
Taking
a close look at information disclosed by Japanese government
ministries, the World Health Organisation, the International Atomic
Energy Agency and others, Professor Wakeford details events at the six
different reactors, and the consequent releases of radioactivity.
While
praising the organisational abilities of the Japanese authorities and
the heroic efforts of emergency workers, Wakeford is critical of
alarmist pronouncements from some of those in authority outside Japan,
and offers perspective on the radiological hazard the emergency poses.
Professor
Wakeford highlights a peculiarity of the International Nuclear and
Radiological Event Scale (INES). The INES, designed to communicate to
the public the severity of events at nuclear facilities, rather
confusingly brackets Fukushima with Chernobyl as a Level 7 major
accident, despite Fukushima only having released 10% of the
radioactivity released by Chernobyl at the time the INES announcement
was made.
Professor
Wakeford explains, “Since Level 7 is the highest rating on INES there
can be no distinction between the Fukushima and Chernobyl accidents,
leading many to proclaim the Fukushima accident as ‘another Chernobyl’,
which it is not……. A situation which has led to criticism of the INES.”
Wakeford
also highlights how lessons have been learnt since Chernobyl and have
helped guide the actions taken by Japanese authorities, including the
establishment of a 20km radius evacuation zone, banning the consumption
of contaminated foodstuffs, issuing stable iodine tablets, and the
monitoring of the thyroids of nearly 1,000 children in badly affected
areas.
Professor
Wakeford also compares the reality on the ground – sad but orderly
evacuations and low level radiation risks among the most vulnerable –
with the pronouncements from some of those in authority outside Japan
which, Wakeford writes, “have been breathtaking in their extravagance.”
“Gunther
Oettinger, European Commissioner for Energy, was reported on 15 March
as saying, ‘There is talk of an apocalypse and I think the word is
particularly well-chosen.’ Such remarks could have triggered panic in
Tokyo and flight on the roads south, which would almost certainly have
caused accidents and deaths.”
This May 6, 2011 photo released by Tokyo Electric Power Co. shows water sprayed to the spent fuel pool of Unit 4 by a concrete pumping vehicle at the crippled Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant in Okuma, Fukushima Prefecture, northeastern Japan. (AP Photo/Tokyo Electric Power Co.) |
While
the monitoring of radiation levels across and beyond Fukushima
Prefecture, and among those most likely to be affected, has returned
results more encouraging than much of the speculation would suggest,
Wakeford does point to some serious ongoing concerns.
One
difficult decision facing the Japanese authorities is when and if
evacuees are allowed to return to their homes. This will be especially
problematical in the sector to the north-west of the site that has been
particularly badly affected, and measures are likely to be needed in
certain areas to reduce radiation levels before people are permitted to
live there permanently.
Another
key concern is how authorities will contain and deal with the highly
contaminated water that has been found to be present on the Fukushima
site.
Many
questions surrounding events in Fukushima remain unanswered, most
hinging on whether emergency systems were adequate to meet foreseeable,
even if unlikely, circumstances.
Professor
Wakeford concludes, however, in admiration of Japanese courage, “Given
the difficult background circumstances pertaining in Fukushima
Prefecture as problems mounted at the Fukushima Dai-ichi NPS, the
organisational abilities of the Japanese authorities in dealing with the
evacuation, monitoring and protection of the public has to be admired.
In particular, the heroic efforts of the emergency workers, battling
under conditions that were often atrocious, should not pass without
respect and praise. I for one bow to their courage.”
