
Fukushima 'Full Meltdown' Made Official - chailatte
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2011/05/fukushima-full-meltdown-made-official/37671/
======
extension
_The Fukushima disaster is already as bad as Chernobyl according to the
International Atomic Energy Association's scale_

That is quite a logical leap based solely on the INES rating. Fukushima is in
the same _category_ as Chernobyl, but this is also the highest category there
is, and Chernobyl was past the boundary by a huge margin.

For example, the criteria for the total release of iodine-131 in a level 7
accident is "tens of thousands of TBq". Chernobyl released 1.8 _million_ TBq.
Fukushima has released about 370,000 TBq so far.

Chernobyl had killed 31 people by this point while Fukushima has had
negligible health effects so far due to much better emergency response. The
INES rating _does not_ account for this, only for the amount of material
released.

~~~
sesqu
20%? That's a lot closer to Chernobyl, radiation-wise, than I expected. Why
haven't the effects been anywhere near as bad, given that the released
radioactivities are of the same order of magnitude?

~~~
novas0x2a
You can get this from wikipedia, but the short answer is that the graphite
moderator Chernobyl used ignited. The burning graphite released smoke fallout,
which spread very far due to wind. Fukushima released about an order of
magnitude less nastiness, and it hasn't spread as far in quantity (though some
of it is in the ocean).

------
elithrar
A short, but well written article that does a good job of taking on the "full
meltdown" hysteria that some news organisations seem to clutch on to.

Granted, the situation at Fukushima isn't good, but "meltdown" seems to
trigger the idea of a huge explosion and the scattering of nuclear fallout for
miles & miles to much of the general public.

PS: As an aside, the dramas in Japan are disappointing, because I'm a strong
believer in nuclear power going forward. Misconceptions & a lack of education,
fuelled by crisis' like these, don't help the cause.

~~~
stellar678
I'm not trying to be snarky, but is your disappointment that it's turning out
that nuclear power may not be as safe as we hoped? It seems that this is a
valid data point to look at when considering whether or not we should deploy
nuclear power more widely. Even if it hadn't happened, from our current
vantage point it's obvious that it _can_ happen.

~~~
sukuriant
I think his point is that nuclear power is still safer (by number of lives
affected) than, e.g. coal; and the fear of rare events (like this one) pushes
back on what could be a very viable energy source with (relatively) few lives
lost/standards of living reduced, compared to some other methods of getting
electricity.

Is nuclear power perfectly safe? No.

Is it safer than coal?

~~~
blackRust
"Is it safer than coal?"

You have to compare casualties by number of people involved in both industries
and also compensate for tight regulation.

My counter-question: How safe would coal be if it had the same kind of
regulations as nuclear power?

~~~
icarus_drowning
The real question you should be asking is how _economical_ coal would be if it
had the same kind of regulations as nuclear power.

------
jshen
I recall so many people here asserting absolutely that fukushima wouldn't be a
problem at all. Those people should reflect a bit.

~~~
jrockway
What's the problem? The reactor melted down and there was no major damage to
any "civilian" interests.

~~~
waterlesscloud
Tens of thousands of people still not allowed to return to their homes, with
no clear idea when they will be allowed to do so.

~~~
hga
Do understand that's because the situation is not yet fully understood or
controlled. These BWR reactors (Units 1-3) and their safety systems,
especially the passive ones, are getting their first true test (unlike
airplanes, we can't afford to test them to destruction, and Three Mile Island
and Chernobyl were both of different design, PWR and the criminal (at least,
illegal in the US) RBMK).

The situation is not good ... but I'm sure the environmentalists are sure the
casualties in Japan from coal electrical plants in Japan and the PRC are much
greater (and they're likely right).

------
jsprinkles
Can anybody who is going to make a political nuclear statement for either side
please read the prior threads on this topic where your point has already been
argued ad infinitum? Someone else already thought about it and used scare
words to drive the point home more effectively than you can. I promise.

 _Another article with Fukushima in the title! Yay! Now I get to argue like a
moron because it is a polarizing topic! Stupid {atomheads,hippies}!_

Nothing has changed in Japan so there is no reason to expect the thread to
change. Shut up, please, and do something productive instead of convincing
other hackers with no power to make energy decisions about your take on
nuclear power. I can recite this thread from memory it has been rehashed so
much and I have flagged it as a result. What can possibly be discussed that
hasn't been beat to death in the last two months?

Here's some:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2315205>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2318552>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2325588>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2316390>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2326726>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2396258>

Find your own:

[http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/submissions&q=fuk...](http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/submissions&q=fukushima&sortby=points+desc)

~~~
raganwald
No thank-you!

For better or for worse, if something is on topic, it's on topic whether it
has been discussed before or not. For example, there are several separate
posts about FB, PR, and Google, with the same arguments being repeated. There
is no reason to flag any of the stories or the discussions just because you've
read them before and you are no longer interested. Skip the post, or skip the
comments, you have the power to ignore things, use it.

There is a deeper issue here around whether threads should be merged is some
manner. So far, requests for this feature have not been heeded. Until there is
a merge threads feature, each post on the subject is a brand new canvas.

~~~
kwis
According to the guidelines, this is off-topic.

> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're
> evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or
> disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's
> probably off-topic.

This is covered on TV news, incites political debate, and is exactly the same
phenomenon that's been rehashed to death.

------
chailatte
Fairwinds: Fukushima Groundwater Contamination Worst in Nuclear History

"That (contaminated) water is seeping into the ground table, and there will be
contamination on that site for a long time to come. It could also move inland.
This is ground water, it doesn't have to move out into the ocean. It is
clearly moving into the north"

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CAeixB19d4>

I don't believe that TEPCO is actively monitoring plutonium and uranium, which
is heavy and more likely to seep into ground water than to be blown into the
air. I hope that people in Tokyo do have some independent monitoring stations
setup. Anybody know any links?

