Japanese official opacity

It is now 11 days since the terrible disaster hit Japan, and it seems as if the situation in the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plants, which were severely affected by the quake and the subsequent tsunami, is evolving in a manner that is less alarming than it was during the first week.

It is still too early to draw any conclusions, but it can be said that there has been no "apocalypse" scenario in the phrase used by the EU energy commissioner ? at least regarding the damage suffered by the nuclear reactors. Although the adjective "apocalyptic" does seem appropriate for the magnitude of the disaster caused by the earthquake, which measured over 9 on the Richter scale, as well as the hundreds of lesser aftershocks, and the tsunami, which overall have taken a toll of more than 20,000 dead or missing, and left more than half a million people homeless.

But there are some conclusions that can be drawn. The first concerns the need to review the safety norms in nuclear power plants, beginning with their location, which is clearly inappropriate in zones of high seismic activity such as the east coast of Japan; but also concerning the redundant refrigeration systems of the reactor core and spent-fuel storage ponds; and above all, the eventuality of an extensive area around the plant being devastated, without the possibility of external electric supply, and with serious access problems for any type of aid. These considerations also affect the debate on nuclear energy throughout the world.

Another pertinent reflection concerns information released to the public. This has been deficient and late in arriving. All the organizations most closely involved in observation of the accident, beginning with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the European Union, have pointed to serious shortcomings in this respect.

On the one hand it appears that the company that owns the plants, Tepco, has dragged its feet even with regard to the information it was supplying to the Japanese government itself. On the other is the excessive prudence with which the government has treated the information, no doubt with the aim of not creating unjustified alarm. This manner of proceeding coincides with what has happened in other cases, such as the Chernobyl disaster, and always gives rise to the opposite of what is intended.

Opacity and delay in information provided to the public causes huge apprehension, and magnifies the potential consequences of accidents. An attitude of total transparency enables everyone concerned, the authorities and the public, to take measures better adjusted to the situation, and at least partially dispels the inevitable suspicions of even greater disasters, which undermine public confidence and may set off counterproductive reactions.

The good news is that the situation seems to be progressively more under control: the bad news is that the presence of radioactive contamination has already been detected in certain foodstuffs from the affected zone ? an eventuality whose effects on public health are still unknown, but have to be counteracted immediately.