# 5416
In the past hour (5am EDT) reports have crossed the wires that Japan’s nuclear safety agency has raised the severity level of the nuclear crisis at Fukushima from a 4 (local impact) to a 5 (wider impact).
This does not seem to signify any abrupt change in the situation on the ground in Fukushima, but rather appears to be an admission of what most observers already strongly suspected; that the seriousness of Japan’s nuclear reactor crisis has been greater than they’ve been publicly stating.
Here is the AP report on this change:
Japan Raises Severity of Nuclear Accident
Japan's nuclear agency raises severity rating of nuclear accident from 4 to 5 on 7-level scale
The Associated Press
TOKYO March 18, 2011 (AP)
This comes literally just hours after the head of the IAEA, Yukiya Amano - upon his arrival in Japan to oversee that agency’s monitoring of the situation – called upon the Japanese government to be more forthcoming with information on the crisis.
This report from China’s Xinhua News Agency.
IAEA chief urges Japan to provide more info on nuke plant crisis
English.news.cn 2011-03-18 15:47:25
TOKYO, March 18 (Xinhua) -- International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Yukiya Amano on Friday urged Japan to provide more information on its "extremely serious" crisis, as the battle to regain control of a failing power plant in northern Japan enters a second week.
During talks with Prime Minister Naoto Kan and Foreign Minister Takeaki Matsumoto, the United Nations' nuclear watchdog chief said that the central government needs to make its information regarding the crisis at the Fukushimi No. 1 power plant, 240 km north of Tokyo, more readily available to the United Nations agency and the broader international community.
"There is the opinion in the international community that more detailed information is needed," Amano was quoted as telling the Japanese leader.
Although often cloaked in `diplo-speak’, the growing frustration of agencies like the IAEA and the US NRC over the lack of information from Japanese officials on their nuclear crisis is pretty obvious.
Listening in on Japan’s NHK World News over the past couple of days, commentators and guests have become increasingly skeptical of government statements on the crisis.
While the Japanese government have insisted that the radiation danger was localized to within 20 kilometers of the stricken nuclear reactors, Japan’s citizens have watched as the United States, Canada, Great Britain have recommended that their citizens pull back at least 80 kilometers.
Indeed, the US State Department is even evacuating non-essential personnel and dependents, and has suggested that Americans consider departing Japan for the time being (see PHE: Advice For American Travelers In Japan).
And on Wednesday the US NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko openly challenged the veracity of some of the information we’ve been getting on the crisis (see Dueling Assessments: NRC Chairman On Nuclear Crisis).
These inconsistencies are not likely to escape the notice of the people of Japan.
A government’s credibility during a disaster is a fragile thing.
It can take years to establish, but require only a few ill-timed or badly crafted statements to damage or destroy.
There is a belief among some government officials that the public `can’t handle the truth’ – particularly in the midst of a crisis - and so their tendency is to minimize bad news or potential threats and emphasize any good news, no matter how trivial.
Before the age of the Internet, and 24-hour cable news, that might have worked.
But today – at least in free societies - people have numerous sources of news and information that operate 24/7; everything from Twitter to Facebook to cell phone messaging, and yes . . . even blogs.
`Managing’ bad news and information in a crisis is no longer possible, at least not in the long run.
And ham-handed attempts to do so will only undermine a government’s credibility at a time when it needs it the most.
Important lessons for all governments around the world to heed, not just Japan.
