Fukushima: Is it really the new Chernobyl?

#1

Post by llambda » Tue, Apr 12, 2011, 8:38 PM UTC

Fukushima: Is it really the new Chernobyl?
scientificamerican.com

Re: Fukushima: Is it really the new Chernobyl?

#2

Post by Natsu » Tue, Apr 12, 2011, 8:52 PM UTC

Whatever the scale used, I don't think it will actually have the same health or environmental impact as Chernobyl did. It seems like it will have the same public perception, though.

Re: Fukushima: Is it really the new Chernobyl?

#3

Post by phlux » Tue, Apr 12, 2011, 9:04 PM UTC

My friend sent this to me:

>Here's a good "calm down" piece. I think the author is right... the eventual environmental impact of Fukushima will be less than all of the chemical pollution caused by the earthquake and tsunami. Not to say it still isn't scary.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04/12/fukushima_ffs/

Re: Fukushima: Is it really the new Chernobyl?

#4

Post by swixmix » Tue, Apr 12, 2011, 9:20 PM UTC

I want to emphasize that this is not news because reality hasn't changed. The way reality is measured has changed.

The IAEA reported Japan changed from rating each individual reactor (1,2,3) a 5. They combined them together and finally rated the event a 7. Reuters reported the environmental impact is only 10% of Chernobyl.

P.S. The cherry blossoms are especially beautiful this year.

Re: Fukushima: Is it really the new Chernobyl?

#5

Post by swixmix » Tue, Apr 12, 2011, 9:34 PM UTC

phlux wrote: post #3

My friend sent this to me: > Here's a good "calm down" piece. I think the author is right... the eventual environmental impact of Fukushima will be less than all of the chemical pollution caused by the earthquake and tsunami. Not to say it still isn't scary. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04/12/fukushima_ffs/

I don't agree with this article. Level 7 on the INES scale indicates "health and environmental effects." The scariest part of this event was the potential extent of the disaster. But reality got in the way again, and thankfully the worst case scenario hasn't come to be.

I got an e-mail from someone right after the tsunami. He summed up the whole situation in one word: "Terrible."

Re: Fukushima: Is it really the new Chernobyl?

#6

Post by jamesbkel » Tue, Apr 12, 2011, 9:48 PM UTC

Anyone else find the INES scale: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:INES_en.svg

Uncomfortably reminiscent of this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hsas-chart_with_heade... ?

I find the lack of metric troubling.

For example, the best descriptions I can find list the INES level 6 as a "significant" release and level 7 as "major" release plus long term countermeasures. But, it's not clear if (1) the long term effects are part of the upgrade to "major" release, or (2) does "major" mean higher levels of radioactivity in a given time and that on top of that, there are long term effects?

Would love if anyone has a more specific set of criteria.

Re: Fukushima: Is it really the new Chernobyl?

#7

Post by scythe » Tue, Apr 12, 2011, 9:54 PM UTC

It's more like Three Mile Island, in that its scale and the damage it caused is likely to be overstated for many years to come.

Re: Fukushima: Is it really the new Chernobyl?

#8

Post by WiseWeasel » Tue, Apr 12, 2011, 11:00 PM UTC

scythe wrote: post #7

It's more like Three Mile Island, in that its scale and the damage it caused is likely to be overstated for many years to come.

The last paragraph tells me this is significantly more consequential than the TMI incident:

"Ultimately, Fukushima will resemble Chernobyl in another way: final containment will likely be achieved by entombing in it concrete and surrounding it with an exclusion zone to prevent visits by humans."

Re: Fukushima: Is it really the new Chernobyl?

#9

Post by WiseWeasel » Tue, Apr 12, 2011, 11:02 PM UTC

jamesbkel wrote: post #6

Anyone else find the INES scale: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:INES_en.svg Uncomfortably reminiscent of this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hsas-chart_with_heade... ? I find the lack of metric troubling. For example, the best descriptions I can find list the INES level 6 as a "significant" release and level 7 as "major" release plus long term countermeasures. But, it's not clear if (1) the long term…

FTA: "The cumulative release of radioactive material now equals at least 1.8 million terabecquerels - enough to merit the 7 designation on the INES scale."

"All told 14 million terabecquerels of radioactive material are estimated to have escaped during what remains the world's worst nuclear accident [in Chernobyl]."

The INES scale is more than simply a measure of radioactive isotope quantities released, likely taking into account the distribution of the radioactive contamination due to weather, form of emission and various physical effects, as well as the exposed population.

Re: Fukushima: Is it really the new Chernobyl?

#10

Post by yena » Tue, Apr 12, 2011, 11:07 PM UTC

swixmix wrote: post #4

I want to emphasize that this is not news because reality hasn't changed. The way reality is measured has changed. The IAEA reported Japan changed from rating each individual reactor (1,2,3) a 5. They combined them together and finally rated the event a 7. Reuters reported the environmental impact is only 10% of Chernobyl. P.S. The cherry blossoms are especially beautiful this year.

The _atmospheric release_ is reported to be 10% of Chernobyl. Nothing has been said about the release in the sea, which we all know has been huge.