Risk assessments have see-sawed between hopeful and grim, but never dire, in the month since the Fukushima nuclear complex began leaking radiation. The Japanese authorities’ caution showed how variable the nature of determining radioactive contamination was, as well as a wish to not overload the senses of a people coping with the earthquake-tsunami devastation. But it has been hard to keep the faith. The bulletins provided have been utterly useless. Makeshift attempts by heroic, underprotected workers to contain the reactors’ overheating exposed abysmal contingency planning by Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO), the plant’s commercial operator.

With the increase April 12 in the radiation threat rating, to the maximum seven on the International Atomic Energy Agency’s nuclear and radiological event scale, Japan’s image has taken a blow. This is undeserved. The praise and sympathy the nation gathered worldwide for the dignified manner in which its people bore their misfortune was an affirmation of Japanese values. Japan had not looked better since its days of superlative economic performance. That may have been dimmed a bit by the state permitting the incompetence of TEPCO, which is looking like an unlearned villain of the drama. TEPCO has shown itself to be unfit in an industry that requires the highest safety compliance and fallback standards. It has misled the government and the people. Sadly, the Naoto Kan government is not blameless. It did not assert early control in the damage containment and was hesitant about accepting American offers of help within the first 48 hours.

The dramatic turn to maximum-risk rating could be the cue for recriminations among Japan’s neighbors, apart from the public health hazard posed not only to Japan itself but also across large swathes of Asia. A seven reading is equal to the hazard level of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster which, by now, the whole world knows was the worst nuclear accident ever. Could Fukushima end up an equivalent? What might be the nature and timescale of the radiation flow? Can disaster be averted still? It would settle nerves if answers are forthcoming. Government spokesmen were Tuesday still serene in their remarks. A Japanese commentator said on Chinese state TV the discharge of contaminated water into the Pacific would have harmed fisheries up to the Russian and Californian coasts. He wondered if the cover-up extended to uranium reprocessing in a secret weapons program. These are the least of people’s worries. They need unambiguous word on the probability and nature of the risks they will be exposed to, and what could be done to minimize them.

(The Straits Times, April 13)