I’m not a scientist, but this article by William Tucker in the WSJ seems to make a great deal of sense and is worth quoting at length.
The gist of it is that Fukushima Daiichi ain’t Chernobyl. Nor is it likely to be much of a problem except an economic one, as well as a political one if it’s exploited by the anti-nuclear power forces:
If the pumps are knocked out in a Generation II reactor””as they were at Fukushima Daiichi by the tsunami””the water in the cooling system can overheat and evaporate. The resulting steam increases internal pressure that must be vented. There was a small release of radioactive steam at Three Mile Island in 1979, and there have also been a few releases at Fukushima Daiichi. These produce radiation at about the level of one dental X-ray in the immediate vicinity and quickly dissipate…
None of this amounts to “another Chernobyl.” The Chernobyl reactor had two crucial design flaws. First, it used graphite (carbon) instead of water to “moderate” the neutrons, which makes possible the nuclear reaction. The graphite caught fire in April 1986 and burned for four days. Water does not catch fire.
Second, Chernobyl had no containment structure. When the graphite caught fire, it spouted a plume of radioactive smoke that spread across the globe. A containment structure would have both smothered the fire and contained the radioactivity.
If a meltdown does occur in Japan, it will be a disaster for the Tokyo Electric Power Company but not for the general public. Whatever steam releases occur will have a negligible impact. Researchers have spent 30 years trying to find health effects from the steam releases at Three Mile Island and have come up with nothing. With all the death, devastation and disease now threatening tens of thousands in Japan, it is trivializing and almost obscene to spend so much time worrying about damage to a nuclear reactor.
What the Japanese earthquake has proved is that even the oldest containment structures can withstand the impact of one of the largest earthquakes in recorded history. The problem has been with the electrical pumps required to operate the cooling system. It would be tragic if the result of the Japanese accident were to prevent development of Generation III reactors, which eliminate this design flaw.
Much of the MSM, however, seems hard at work to keep such information from us. Granted, it’s a bit technical, and requires a soupé§on of intelligence to understand, but not anything beyond the range of most people. However, here are some answers to the question I posed in the title of this post:
The more ominous outcome—or the possibility of it—fits into the agenda of the left very nicely.
Compared to the earthquake and tsunami, it is a story with focus and a single locus rather than a spread-out tale of death and destruction over a wide area.
It is happening in real time. Therefore, it has a powerful element of suspense, rather than just tragedy.
There is a movielike aspect to the story being hyped by the press—“The China Syndrome,” to be exact. So many people think they know the possibilities, because they’re been prepared to think that way by the film, which provides the template. The actual events that occurred at Chernobyl—the technical aspects of which elude most people or have been forgotten—can be used in the same way to stir up anxiety. Anxiety has two functions: it boosts viewership/readership and it serves the needs of the anti-nuclear-power folks, who will stir it up (and count on scientific illiteracy, as well) in an attempt to curtail the development of nuclear power in this country and around the world.
[NOTE: It is ironic that the worst problem here may come through an attempt at recycling nuclear waste:
Nuclear experts are particularly worried about the No. 3 unit, supplied by Toshiba Corp., because it uses an unconventional fuel called MOX fuel, short for mixed oxide.
It is made by mixing low-enriched uranium with plutonium that has been recycled from a global stockpile of defunct nuclear weapons. This recycling is part of an international effort to decrease the number of nuclear weapons and move from “megatons to megawatts.”
MOX fuel has greater concentrations of “actinides,” or radioactive elements and runs hotter than conventional fuel, so a shut down plant would have to deal with more “decay” or residual heat from fuel rods.
This reminds me of another recycling problem that seems to have arisen with a completely different product—cardboard cereal boxes made from recycled paper that might leak chemicals toxic to human beings (hat tip: Artfldgr).
The law of unintended consequences strikes again.]
[ADDENDUM: Here’s some of the metaphorical fallout (of the political variety) in Germany, where the Spiegel headline blares “Nuclear Disaster ‘Will Have Political Impact as Great as 9/11.'” It ignores a host of things, including the fact that, at least so far, there has been no nuclear disaster—except for the effect on the functioning of the plant itself, which will almost undoubtedly never go online again.]