On April 26, 1986, the world saw its first level-7 nuclear accident. The second one is still unravelling at Fukushima. We take note of similarities and dissimilarities
How is the Japanese response to the Fukushima disaster different from the Soviet response to the Chernobyl disaster?
It took three days, by when the radioactive plume rising over Chernobyl had drifted over Sweden and raised international alarms that could no longer be dismissed, before the Soviets acknowledged that an accident had occurred.
Igor Gramotkin, the current manager of the Chernobyl nuclear power (now in Ukraine), has said in a newspaper interview that, ?I think this kind of accident (Chernobyl) could only have happened in a very closed society like the Soviet Union, and it?s impossible that an accident like this could happen again.?
While not everybody has found the Japanese as forthcoming as they would like, there has been a steady stream of information coming out of Fukushima since the very beginning of their disaster. On March 11, Japan was struck by the most powerful earthquake (triggering a tsunami) it had experienced since records began. By the next day, the company running the plant, Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco), had confirmed an explosion and a leak. On March 18, Japan?s nuclear safety agency retroactively raised its assessment of the accident?s severity to 5 from 4 on a 7-level international scale. On April 7, another high-magnitude earthquake shook up Fukushima and more tsunami warnings followed. On April 12, the assessment was raised to 7, putting Fukushima on par with Chernobyl. These are the only two occasions on which a nuclear accident has reached the worst rating on the IAEA scale.
If both Fukushima and Chernobyl are now rated identically, does this mean their human consequences will be identical?
No. The fission process was ongoing when the Chernobyl explosion flung nuclear material high in the air. On D-day, not only was the reactor functioning at full power, there was no container to shield its explosive plumes from the atmosphere. The volume of radioactive material released at Fukushima is only a 10th of that because the fission process had been shut down before the cooling systems started failing. People have been evacuated and provided with shelter, food bans have been put in place where needed and potassium iodide tablets have been distributed. All in a much more timely fashion as compared to Chernobyl. Plus, unlike back then, we now have drugs that can 1) help stimulate people?s bone marrow to make more blood cells when their blood count is significantly lowered by radiation and 2) help rid the body of radioactive isotopes.
What about the environmental consequences?
A 140-page report by UBS analysts argues that while Chernobyl had a significantly greater environmental impact, it is Fukushima that raises larger credibility issues for the nuclear industry. First, because it is happening in an advanced economy using American/Japanese reactor technology rather than a totalitarian state without any safety culture. Second, because the size and duration of the accident is unprecedented. To return to the danger rating issue in this context, the upgrade didn?t so much reflect an overnight worsening of the situation as a recognition that the situation was indeed more complicated than had been realised initially. Sure, the Fukushima structure has taken an unprecedented and ongoing battering from nature that few plans can factor in. An earthquake, then a tsunami and then another earthquake. Some say its a wonder that the situation didn?t turn out to be much worse. But the bottom line is that challenges seem to have multiplied since March 11.
When power got knocked out, the cooling systems shut down. The resulting explosions cracked at least one containment vessel. At least one storage pool holding spent fuel rods has burst out into fire. A ?feed and bleed? exercise has seen vast amounts of water being poured over the reactor cores in an effort to keep them cool. But this has created its own set of problems. There is a large amount of water, some say enough to fill 24 Olympic swimming pools, and it is contaminated with radioactivity. So, in addition to atmospheric contamination, there is the oceanic discharge to contend with now. Tepco is using oceanic screens and a mineral agent called zeolite to absorb radiation but, in the face of proliferating unknowns, it?s no wonder that estimates on how soon Fukushima will return to a ?greenfield state? run from 10-30 years. Tepco says simply shutting down the plant will take around nine months.
In the Chernobyl case, the site was buried within a sarcophagus, in an example nobody wants to emulate. The region remains uninhabitable and the concrete coffin is in desperate need of another round of mummification, what with cracks and rain damage. As salt on their wounds, the crew that oversaw the Chernobyl cleanup has just seen its benefits and pensions get a painful cut.
Still, in terms of the impact of public perception on government policy, won?t Fukushima end up having the same outcome as Chernobyl?
No sooner had some countries begun to look like they were becoming squeamish about nuclear energy, Russian PM Vladimir Putin said his country would continue to build new power stations. Admittedly, at the same time, he ordered a comprehensive safety review of Russia?s nuclear assets, both domestic and international. After all, everyone from Belarus and Ukraine to India and Turkey had been shopping with him. But the interesting thing is how Russia has used Chernobyl to push the sales of its nuclear power stations. Putin argues on behalf of Russia, ?We now have a whole arsenal of progressive technological means to ensure the stable and accident-free operation of nuclear power plants.? And what gives his words credence is that Russia itself has not slowed down on pursuing nuclear energy. Its reactors are now the youngest in the world, averaging 19 years to western Europe?s 26 and the US?s 30, leaving Fukushima?s 40 biting the dust.
There are plenty of doubts about why Fukushima wasn?t decommissioned. There are also plenty of answers. People don?t want reactors in their backyard, so it is easier to keep the older ones going rather than commission new ones. But people also want cheap power. Countries want energy self-sufficiency.
For all the countries that will continue to pursue nuclear energy despite Fukushima, a key takeaway from this tragedy is that an unholy alliance between the government, the regulator and the industry bodes ill for the populace. In India, for example, former Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) chairman A Gopalakrishnan has argued earlier on these pages that safety and promotion are unhealthily under one roof. He has said, ?Today, the AERB merely serves as a lap dog of the Department of Atomic Energy and the Prime Minister?s Office, and their operations are not transparent to the public.? They should be transparent.