

Fukushima: Is it really the new Chernobyl? - llambda
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=is-fukushima-really-as-bad-as-chern-2011-04-12

======
swixmix
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.

~~~
yena
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.

------
jamesbkel
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...](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hsas-
chart_with_header.svg) ?

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.

~~~
WiseWeasel
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.

~~~
jamesbkel
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]

~~~
WiseWeasel
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...](http://www.world-nuclear-
news.org/RS_Event_scale_revised_for_further_clarity_0510081.html)

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.

------
Natsu
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.

------
scythe
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.

~~~
WiseWeasel
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."

------
phlux
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/>

~~~
swixmix
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."

