Fukushima: Is it really the new Chernobyl?

Post by jamesbkel » Tue, Apr 12, 2011, 11:08 PM UTC

WiseWeasel wrote: post #9

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…

Fair enough. However the only mention of release in terabecquerels reaching a 7 is media quotes. I can't find this anywhere in INES literature.

Furthermore, the dose rate @ distance from reactor matters lot of than the total release.

[edit: typo... does->dose]

Post by WiseWeasel » Tue, Apr 12, 2011, 11:28 PM UTC

jamesbkel wrote: post #11

WiseWeasel wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Fair enough. However the only mention of release in terabecquerels reaching a 7 is media quotes. I can't find this anywhere in INES literature. Furthermore, the dose rate @ distance from reactor matters lot of than the total release. [edit: typo... does->dose]

It does seem true that there is either some level of subjective judgment in determining the level of severity, or that the factors involved may be considered by the IAEA (perhaps due to pressure from the nuclear power industry) to be too morbid to have a public debate about. This quote from an article referenced in the Wiki entry worries me: "Each country has an INES National Officer who liaises with an IAEA reporting centre to disseminate information in consistent language." http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Event_scale_revised_for...

Who knows how much independence these national INES representatives have from their countries' nuclear industry, and how strongly public interest is considered by these people.

There is also some mention in the same article that the INES scale is intended to be logarithmic, with each successive level representing ten-fold increase in severity, but it is not made clear how the various factors are weighted.

Re: Fukushima: Is it really the new Chernobyl?

Re: Fukushima: Is it really the new Chernobyl?