Correction:

An earlier version of this article incorrectly reported that Japan’s Nuclear Safety Commission raised its rating of the severity of the nuclear crisis. Instead, the country’s Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency raised the rating. This version has been corrected.

Japan rates nuclear crisis at highest severity level

In the meantime, the plant faces the constant threat of aftershocks, and on Tuesday a 6.2-magnitude temblor caused a brief fire at a building near Daiichi’s No. 4 reactor. Tokyo Electric said the aftershock did not interrupt the critical injection process used to cool hot fuel rods -- but there had been a 50-minute interruption one day earlier, the result of a 6.6-magntiude quake with an epicenter just 42 miles from the plant.

“Right now, the situation of the nuclear reactors at the Fukushima plant has been stabilizing step by step,” Prime Minister Naoto Kan said in a televised address to the nation. “The amount of radiation leaks is on the decline. But we are not at the stage yet where we can let our guards down.”

Video

Japan raised the crisis level at its stricken nuclear power plant to 7, the highest on an international scale and on a par with the 1986 accident at Chernobyl. (April 12)

Japan raised the crisis level at its stricken nuclear power plant to 7, the highest on an international scale and on a par with the 1986 accident at Chernobyl. (April 12)

Gallery

More on this Story

View all Items in this Story

Though the Fukushima crisis now stands alongside Chernobyl on the INES event rating, experts note several important distinctions. No deaths have yet resulted from radiation leaked at Fukushima. At Chernobyl, a single reactor exploded, and a massive cloud of cesium, plutonium and strontium spread across Belarus, Ukraine, Russia and Europe. At Fukushima, workers have struggled to stabilize seven reactors and spent fuel pools, but so far the radioactive releases have come as byproduct of emergency cooling efforts, with the venting of radioactive steam and the leaking of contaminated water.

Technically, Japan’s reassessed severity rating applies to only three of Fukushima’s six units — Nos. 1, 2 and 3, which have all sustained core damage. Each of those units, on March 18, had been initially given a Level 5 rating. At the same time last month Japan gave a Level 3 rating to unit 4; that remains unchanged. The IAEA cautioned that Japan could still change its ratings as more information becomes available.

The latest reevaluation underscores the difficulty of measuring the amount of contamination released and the danger it poses. Rather than creating a hard “no-go” circle around the plant, the government has instead singled out five particular towns between 12 and 19 miles from the plant for mandatory evacuation. Residents there should leave within a month, the government said.

Those who stay are at risk of receiving more than 20 millisieverts of radiation in a year — the government’s baseline for evacuations. Exposure at that level doesn’t cause immediate sickness, but it raises risk for cancer and other long-term health problems.

Japan’s various nuclear regulatory groups have come up with widely differing numbers regarding the total contamination released into the environment.

The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, for instance, says that 6,000 terabecquerels of cesium-137 have been released. Japan’s Nuclear Safety Commission, meanwhile, quotes a number twice that. Much of that contamination, though, was released in the first week after an earthquake and tsunami knocked out Fukushima Daiichi’s primary and back-up power supplies, stopping the cooling of the reactors’ cores.

“Monitoring data available shows that, in my view, the government probably knew around March 16, 17 or 18 that it would reach Level 7,” said Hironobu Unesaki, a professor at the Kyoto University Research Reactor Institute. “I just don’t understand why it took them so long to raise the level to 7. They were completely slow. ... Their response has been extremely regrettable. The government is being very careful not to cause unnecessary panic, but they are being too cautious.”

Special correspondent Akiko Yamamoto contributed to this report.

Loading...

Comments

Add your comment
 
Read what others are saying About Badges