The Japanese Nuclear Disaster - Essay Example

of the of the Concerned 9 May The Japanese Nuclear Disaster and Chernobyl Syndrome Introduction The recent spate of natural disasters in Japan accompanied by the Fukushima nuclear tragedy shook the developed world’s closely held beliefs about development, energy consumption and the impact of natural vagaries on the manmade instruments of economic growth. For long nuclear energy was considered to be an ideal source of clean and hassle free power, best suited to boost and fuel the development of energy intensive economies like Japan. With the state of the art designs and best known disaster management measures in place, nobody ever doubted that the modern world will have to witness the collapse of human planning and control at the hands of nature, as it happened in Fukushima. The nuclear disaster at Fukushima once again revived the memories of the debilitating things that happened at Chernobyl just a few years ago. A large section of media and scientific community went ahead to compare the possible radiation impact of Fukushima disaster with that of Chernobyl. The print and digital media was replete with the reports placing Fukushima and Chernobyl nuclear reactor side by side, portending the two disasters to be very similar and akin in their fallout and intensity. It was only a very few critical minds and concerns who took the time to point out the differences between the two seemingly similar situations. At large, the world seemed to have been taken over by the ghost of Chernobyl, without waiting to critically analyze the facts. Fukushima-the Facts On 11 March 2011, Japan was hit by an earthquake of magnitude 9.0, accompanied by a devastating tsunami. One of the major fallouts of this calamity was the tragic accidents that took place at the Fukushima nuclear plant. This disaster involved a series of equipment failures that took place in a close succession, resulting in the release of the radioactive material into the surrounding environment. The Fukushima nuclear plant was managed and administered by Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO). At the time when the earthquake hit Japan, the reactor number 4 had already been defueled (Jones: Online). At the same time, the reactor number 5 and 6 had been shut down in advance for maintenance purposes (Jones: Online). When the earthquake occurred, the functional reactors number 1, 2 and 3 automatically came to a halt (Jones: Online). Also, the emergency generators efficiently started to run the water pumps and the emergency control electronics put in place to tackle such exigencies (Jones: Online). The bad thing was that though the Fukushima nuclear plant was well protected by a sea wall, it failed to withstand the massive 14 m tsunami that flooded the reactor in a matter of minutes (Jones: Online). This flooding of the reactor simply jeopardized the low lying water pumps and electronic cooling equipment and spoiled the electrical grid (Jones: Online). With the shutting down of the cooling mechanisms and a zero possibility of extending assistance and support from outside, the reactors 1, 2 and 3 suffered a core meltdown (Jones: Online). The resultant hydrogen explosions blasted the lids capping the buildings in which reactors 1, 3 and 4 were placed (Jones: Online). This was soon followed by rampant fires caused by the overheating of the reactors (Jones: Online). It is a fact that many of the workers employed at Fukushima nuclear plant suffered radiation exposure and were evacuated. Also, owing to the fears of radiation leakage, people residing in a 20 km radius around the plant were also evacuated (Jones: Online). On 17 March 2011, one of the generators deployed in the reactor number 6 was restarted, thus allowing for the cooling of partially damaged reactor number 5 and 6 (The Straits Times: Online). The restoration of Grid power on 20 March 2011 did not achieve the desired results, because of the largely damaged machinery and infrastructure. Besides, any attempts to repair the reactors were also hampered owing to the flooding of the basements with radioactive water (The Straits Times: Online). The measurements undertaken in a 50 km area of the plant registered high levels of radiation and isotope concentration (The Straits Times: Online). The requisite preventive and precautionary measures like banning the consumption of foods and water originating from the affected area were undertaken well in time (The Straits Times: Online). After a series of assessments, the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES) of the Fukushima disaster was fixed at 7, almost the same as that of Chernobyl (The Straits Times: Online). There is no denying the fact that the technical impact of the Fukushima disaster was grave and serious. Yet, it goes without saying that owing to many valid reasons, this nuclear disaster did not deserve as much hue and cry as evinced by the contemporary media reports and pressure groups. While comparing this accident to the Chernobyl disaster, the experts and journalists ignored the essential fact that the impact of any nuclear disaster is dependent on two factors that are the intensity of the radioactive leakage and exposure and the human preventive response towards it. Hence, owing to the apt measures taken by the Japanese government and the world community in the aftermath of this disaster, the impact of Fukushima accident was not the same in magnitude and intensity in terms of the loss to human life, as it was in the case of Chernobyl. How Fukushima Differed from Chernobyl Irrespective of the concerted criticism of the Japanese government and the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TOEPCO), as to the way they dealt with this disaster, a significant proportion of the experts do believed that Fukushima was not another Chernobyl. Many experts placed in the vicinity of the affected site declared that Fukushima leakage was unlikely to have that kind of impact on the local population and people of the neighboring countries owing to many reasons (Negishi: Online). The radiation leakage from Chernobyl was 10 times as that of the leakage owing to the US nuclear attack on Japan in 1945 (Negishi: Online). This was because the designs of the Chernobyl reactor and Fukushima reactors were inherently different. The Chernobyl reactor had a combustible graphite core that gave way to an uncontrollable chain reaction. This was not the case at Fukushima (Negishi: Online). The Chernobyl event occurred due to many miscalculations and negligence by the technicians that gave way to a massive explosion resulting in the delivery of the radioactive material to the upper atmosphere (Negishi: Online). In contrast, though the core of the reactors at Fukushima melted down, yet the technicians and engineers after a series of measures, managed to restore the cooling procedures at the plant, thereby inhibiting the nuclear chain reaction (Negishi: Online). Besides, the Japanese government has also started the construction of tanks to store the contamination overflow (Negishi: Online). So, factually, the radiation leakage from Fukushima was a miniscule proportion of what happened at Chernobyl (Negishi: Online). The Chernobyl plant had no containment structures to prevent the overflow of radioactive material into the surrounding areas and atmosphere (Negishi: Online). However, the Fukushima plant was constructed on a graphite floor and was surrounded by steel and concrete structures, preventing the leakage of radioactive material into the atmosphere (Negishi: Online). At present, the radiation levels around Fukushima have trickled down to tolerable levels, whereas the radiation leakage at Chernobyl contaminated an area lying within the radius of 300 miles (Negishi: Online). At and around Fukushima, so far, no instances have been recorded of deaths or illnesses owing to radiation exposure (Negishi: Online). Only a few workers working at the plant got exposed and merely 2 of them died owing to the explosion (Negishi: Online0. In contrast, in the aftermath of Chernobyl, hundreds if not thousands died owing to radiation related illnesses and injuries. One praiseworthy thing about the Japanese government and the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) was that at no stage, they tried to hide or evade the facts and ground realities from the international community (Negishi: Online). However, during the Chernobyl disaster, the Soviet government held back the facts from the world community for full two days, thereby making any international assistance and preventive action almost impossible (Negishi: Online). Consequently, courtesy the assistance and technical help extended by the world community, the Japanese authorities does succeed in curtailing the ill effects of the Fukushima accident to a large extent. Even almost a month after the Fukushima disaster, its impact on the local and world population has been negligible. With time, the management is bound to put in place the apt cooling procedures and containment measures, thereby further restraining the impact of the leakage. So, realistically speaking, going by the available and verifiable facts and data, Fukushima in no way was another Chernobyl. Fukushima and Media Overreaction The media houses owing allegiance to many countries covered the Fukushima disaster in a range and variety of ways. As usually happens in the disasters of such nature and scope, the media is usually left with two options. First, it can resort to the reporting of facts and information as they really exist and can draw conclusions on the basis of accurate facts. Second, it can use the sensationalism accompanying such disasters to its advantage, so as to boost its viewership and readership. Sad to say, the media coverage in the case of Fukushima disaster succumbed to the need for augmenting viewership and fomenting thrill and sensationalism. A large section of the international media blatantly resorted to exaggerating the outcome of whatever the information and data were available to them. The instances of comparing the Fukushima issue to the Chernobyl blast virtually unleashed a Chernobyl syndrome around the world. This was essentially a sorry approach on the part of the international media, when in the contemporary age of connectivity; it had a ready access to the accurate facts and information. Luckily, a significant section of the world media adhered to the constraints of reason and resorted to reporting the facts and information as they existed, without giving in to the lure of sensationalism and business requirements. Not to mention, Japan’s national broadcaster NHK evinced an attitude of responsibility and poise during the entire crisis. As the world develops and new modes of energy generation and economic development come into existence, at some time or other, such disasters are inevitably bound to take place, no matter how much one avoids them. Certainly, the humanity and international community needs to learn lessons from the Fukushima event and put in place the safeguards to avoid such accidents in the future. However, this in no way justifies the wild goose chase that started around this disaster. Such conjectures and faulty surmising could have serious economic and business consequences. Conclusion Fukushima nuclear disaster was definitely a grave and shocking event. However, the Chernobyl syndrome that accompanied the coverage of this disaster was more of an attempt by some sections of the media to play on human curiosity and fear. Pragmatically, the impact of Fukushima was no way as large and widespread as that of Chernobyl. Works Cited “At a Glance- Japan Disaster Timeline”. The Straits Times. 17 March 2011. 9 May 2011 . Jones, Bryony. “Timeline: How Japan’s Nuclear Crisis Unfolded”. CNN World. 15 March 2011. 9 May 2011 . Negishi, Mayumi. “How does Fukushima Differ from Chernobyl?”. Reuters. 12 April 2011. 9 May 2011 . Read More