THE earthquake and tsunami in Japan has caused the biggest nuclear disaster in the country since the 1945 bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Could the ongoing crisis at the reactors, with all their extraordinary safety measures, in the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant have been averted? This brings the issue of nuclear safety into focus.

The ‘Japan Syndrome’ is akin to US physicist Ralph Lapp’s ‘China Syndrome’, a facetious 1971 concept that molten radioactive material from an unstable American reactor may liquefy the crust of the earth and reach China. Luckily, we are some stages away from this.

A few lines on the exact nature and extent of Japan’s nuclear crisis are needed to understand the assessment. Nuclear reactors around the world are designed to withstand earthquakes of at least 10 magnitude. Japanese reactors largely withstood the earthquake and automatically shut down. However, reactor number two at the Fukushima Daiichi plant continues to produce immense heat from the radioactive uranium fuel rods even after shutdown.

Fukushima-type reactors employ two safety mechanisms to control the heat. First, zirconium metal rods are inserted alongside the uranium fuel rods to stop the chain reaction. This safety feature was successful. Stopping the chain reaction reduces some of the heat generated by the fuel. Second, water flows continuously to absorb that heat.

After the reactors shut down, the water pumping mechanism is powered by backup generators. At this reactor, this failed and the cooling system could not be restored. Workers diverted seawater and poured water from helicopters. This was partially successful in controlling the heat. But the rate of evaporation was faster and the exposed fuel rods started generating more heat, cracked, and released radioactive gases and hydrogen.

Hydrogen’s mixing with air caused the explosion, thus releasing small amounts of radioactivity from the damaged reactor.

Probably some fuel rods partially melted too. The Japanese Syndrome concept would mean that fuel rods would drop to the bottom of the reactor vessel, burn through it, pierce the thick containment vessel and escape the reactor building. This would release enormous amounts of radioactive material.

There is conflicting news about the radioactivity levels at the plant and elsewhere. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) considers it a hazard level of four on the scale of one to seven. It has been raised to five. The disasters at Three Mile Island (1979) in the US and Chernobyl (1986) in the erstwhile Soviet Union were level five and seven.

Western experts consider the Fukushima accident to be more serious than the Three Mile Island hazard. But radioactivity readings reported by Japan and confirmed by the IAEA on March 17 show that radioactivity is slightly more than the radiation exposure of a routine X-ray and localised to the Fukushima prefecture.

In a historical context, the Japanese situation may be seen as a dangerous natural hazard case. Conversely, the disasters at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl were due to human error.

Japan’s nuclear crisis has raised nuclear safety issues and prompted states around the world to review their nuclear plants.

The Americans are considering putting future reactors on hold till all lessons from the Japanese experience have been learnt.

The Germans have decided to decommission seven reactors from the 1980s. Russia has ordered a policy review and the French president wants a G-20 meeting on the future of nuclear energy.

However, China and Turkey have announced that their future plant production will not be altered. Pakistan and India have also promptly come up with reassurances that their nuclear reactors are safe and that both are reviewing their existing systems.

Like the G-20, the IAEA will also commission studies and review nuclear safety from a technical perspective of the reactors under its watch. Everyone will benefit. Some states, like China, are developing alternatives to the hazards of reliance on backup power. While man may do what it takes to enhance nuclear security, natural and even man-made hazards will not respect political boundaries.

Nuclear energy is a cheap and friendlier option than the depleting and environmentally hazardous hydrocarbon resources. If safety can be ensured, it is the best option. Nuclear technology has been seen as a boon in the health and agricultural sectors.

Hence, nuclear technology has come to stay. We must, however, take all safety measures once reactors are planned and strictly follow a safety regime.

Like other states, Pakistan’s reactors were built after considerable deliberation including a geological and seismic survey.

They withstood the 2005 earthquake and the flooding last year. Tsunamis have not been known to strike Pakistan’s coastline.

According to one rumour doing the rounds in Pakistan, the next downpour will be acid rain. The fact that millions of Japanese residents haven’t panicked shows there should be no alarm in Pakistan which is thousands of kilometres from Fukushima.

Wind patterns over Pakistan follow a south-westerly direction. Hence there are few chances of change in wind patterns and radioactive fallout. The Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission monitored Chernobyl — which is nearer to the country than Japan — as it is the Japanese situation.

However, if a nuclear accident does take place in South Asia it will affect all of us. Hence, there is a need to build trust and collaborate in the peaceful uses of nuclear technology. The so-called ‘peaceful nuclear explosion’ of 1974 started an arms race whereas we needed ‘atoms for peace’ rather than ‘atoms for war’. This is one of the lessons we should be learning.

The writer is a scholar of strategic & nuclear studies at the National Defence University, Islamabad. zahir.kazmi@gmail.com

Opinion

Editorial

‘Source of terror’
Updated 29 Mar, 2024

‘Source of terror’

It is clear that going after militant groups inside Afghanistan unilaterally presents its own set of difficulties.
Chipping in
29 Mar, 2024

Chipping in

FEDERAL infrastructure development schemes are located in the provinces. Most such projects — for instance,...
Toxic emitters
29 Mar, 2024

Toxic emitters

IT is concerning to note that dozens of industries have been violating environmental laws in and around Islamabad....
Judiciary’s SOS
Updated 28 Mar, 2024

Judiciary’s SOS

The ball is now in CJP Isa’s court, and he will feel pressure to take action.
Data protection
28 Mar, 2024

Data protection

WHAT do we want? Data protection laws. When do we want them? Immediately. Without delay, if we are to prevent ...
Selling humans
28 Mar, 2024

Selling humans

HUMAN traders feed off economic distress; they peddle promises of a better life to the impoverished who, mired in...