Japan Nuclear Crisis Comparable to Chernobyl
This qualifies as real bad news from Japan, where the severity rating of the crisis at the Fukushima nuclear plant has been raised to the highest level: Japan nuclear crisis on same level as Chernobyl.
This qualifies as real bad news from Japan, where the severity rating of the crisis at the Fukushima nuclear plant has been raised to the highest level: Japan nuclear crisis on same level as Chernobyl.
1 | Cannadian Club Akbar Tue, Apr 12, 2011 12:07:26pm |
I am for nuclear energy. But you can't build a reactor on a fault line, me thinks. But isn't Japan a fault line in and of itself? Best of luck to them.
2 | AK-47% Tue, Apr 12, 2011 12:07:40pm |
I fear they are still not letting on what is really happening and just preapring us for even worse news...
4 | researchok Tue, Apr 12, 2011 12:08:57pm |
re: #2 ralphieboy
I fear they are still not letting on what is really happening and just preapring us for even worse news...
True.
As a rule, the culture tends to understate problems.
5 | AK-47% Tue, Apr 12, 2011 12:12:09pm |
This is a culture that has a dozen polite ways of avoiding saying "no".
6 | APox Tue, Apr 12, 2011 12:13:51pm |
Just a personal opinion on this... But it seems like the media is hyping (not that this isn't a big deal) this disaster a bit too much by constantly comparing it to Chernobyl.
I was watching a nuclear commentator on the news today, and the 7 level system was a way to have a universal scale for nuclear disasters, but that this disaster is nowhere near the amount of leakage / damage that Chernobyl caused ... Level 7 is just stating that it is "really bad" but that just because two events are in the same level doesn't make them equivalent.
Again, not that it makes this any less serious... I just think the media tends to be a little.... bombastic..
7 | Cannadian Club Akbar Tue, Apr 12, 2011 12:14:41pm |
I heard that some recent imports that arrived here from Japan have tested positive for radiation, but I can't find it. I think it was food products. Maybe I'm wrong.
9 | aagcobb Tue, Apr 12, 2011 12:17:12pm |
re: #8 Rightwingconspirator
It goes nowhere for a long, long time.
11 | Cannadian Club Akbar Tue, Apr 12, 2011 12:18:44pm |
12 | Petero1818 Tue, Apr 12, 2011 12:19:10pm |
re: #6 APox
I saw the same thing. In addition, there were many things that made Chernobyl vastly different and ultimately worse (I hope). Governmental secrecy and denial, delay in evacuation, failure to distribute iodine, a large and spontaneous release as opposed to what appears to be a slower release of radioactivity.
The story has yet to be written, but hopefully this never reaches the cale of Chernobyl, and the Level 7 is not an accurate descriptor of much.
13 | APox Tue, Apr 12, 2011 12:19:55pm |
And going together with my last post:
[Link: www.guardian.co.uk...]
Is a good article on the two:
Japan's nuclear safety commission has estimated that the Fukushima plant's reactors had released up to 10,000 terabecquerels of radioactive iodine-131 per hour into the air for several hours after they were damaged in the 11 March earthquake and tsunami. It said emissions since then had dropped to below one terabecquerel per hour, adding that it was examining the total amount of radioactive materials released. A terabecquerel equals a trillion becquerels, a measure for radiation emissions. The government says the Chernobyl incident released 5.2m terabecquerels into the air about 10 times that of the Fukushima plant
If I'm reading that right, Chernobyl released 52 million terabecquerels vs. (10,000 x several hours (7 maybe?) 70,000 terabecquerels in Japan.
Undoubtedly a big deal, but I don't think the two incidents are that synonymous.
15 | Daniel Ballard Tue, Apr 12, 2011 12:21:06pm |
re: #13 APox
Just for perspective, how does that radiation compare to the Bikini Island fusion warhead test?
16 | The Yankee Tue, Apr 12, 2011 12:22:01pm |
From what I know about Chernobyl is that it is such a f-up that it is useless to compare other accidents too.
The origanal 60 people that died were mostly workers. The 4000 people that are already dying are people that were kids and born during the crisis and where not given Thyroid pills that might of saved them.
An addiction 100k-200k people might die because they were sent back to clean the site up with out the proper equipment.
No other country would mess up in the ways the USSR did back then, not even Russia one would think. The only parrells should be amount of land that is unlivable and even that is up to debate, because people have start moving back to the village and towns near Chernobyl and animals are living normal lives as well.
18 | SteveMcG Tue, Apr 12, 2011 12:25:01pm |
re: #11 Cannadian Club Akbar
Yes. This will be firepower for the far left.
Not just the left. A nuclear power plant is a huge investment and when something goes wrong, it's an awful lot of money to fix.
19 | darthstar Tue, Apr 12, 2011 12:25:33pm |
Charles...WTF is this I get every time I load LGF?
20 | aagcobb Tue, Apr 12, 2011 12:25:40pm |
re: #11 Cannadian Club Akbar
You don't have to be far left to have grave concerns about an energy source shown to be as dangerous as nuclear power, especially given how expensive it is. Our primary focus should be on developing energy sources like solar, wind and hydroelectirc.
21 | AK-47% Tue, Apr 12, 2011 12:26:10pm |
re: #18 SteveMcG
Not just the left. A nuclear power plant is a huge investment and when something goes wrong, it's an awful lot of money to fix.
We will continue paying for nuclear energy long after the last plant has stopped generating electricity. That aspect of the cost/benefit ratio is often overlooked in our rather nearsighted economy.
22 | Our Precious Bodily Fluids Tue, Apr 12, 2011 12:26:31pm |
Keep in mind that we have at least one nuclear power plant in the US which is built directly over a fault line.
23 | Kragar Tue, Apr 12, 2011 12:26:33pm |
Its my understanding this upgrade wasn't because of any additional problems, it was just from re-evaluating what has happened so far.
24 | Our Precious Bodily Fluids Tue, Apr 12, 2011 12:27:18pm |
re: #19 darthstar
Charles...WTF is this I get every time I load LGF?
An indicator that you need to go here:
[Link: www.malwarebytes.org...]
25 | AK-47% Tue, Apr 12, 2011 12:27:27pm |
re: #23 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)
Sort of like when Portugal has its bond ratings knocked down a notch...
26 | SteveMcG Tue, Apr 12, 2011 12:30:20pm |
Nuclear energy has a lot of costs that are not even addressed. There is still no real long term storage practice for the waste. We've scratched the surface a little bit, with the Yucca mountain facility, but it's a looong way from reality.
27 | aagcobb Tue, Apr 12, 2011 12:31:56pm |
re: #22 negativ
It should be taken off-line as soon as practicable.
28 | The Yankee Tue, Apr 12, 2011 12:35:19pm |
Here is a pretty good video about understanding radiation. The radiation is part is just a set up for the kind of reasoning that is the problem with the black and white view we have on things like Radiation and toxins.
29 | abolitionist Tue, Apr 12, 2011 12:35:56pm |
It's a longish lecture-style presentation from mid-March, available in various formats, including quicktime and flashplayer --as downloadable files. (HT: recommended/linked by Steve Gibson of grc.com)
30 | The Yankee Tue, Apr 12, 2011 12:36:42pm |
The parts that I think are related to this article are 1:06 in and ends around 5:00.
31 | lawhawk Tue, Apr 12, 2011 12:44:06pm |
I think the headline is somewhat misleading (as are most of the reports that indicate something along the lines of this being as bad as Chernobyl).
The INES system rates nuclear emergencies based on severity of the incident - and whether radiation is detected outside containment, containment breaches, localized radiation outside facilities, widespread radiation outside facilities.
By that measure, both Chernobyl and Fukushima rate a 7- because of widespread radiation detected outside facility and downwind.
However, the amount of radiation detected is not in the same ballpark and the population being affected isn't in the same ballpark either.
There are significant differences - due in part to design differences between the affected reactors, containment structures, coolant techniques, and perhaps most important for affected populations - the prevailing winds.
At Chernobyl, where the MBRK reactor used graphite as a reactor, the explosion exposed the core to the atmosphere and intense fires burned for several days - emitting 10-100 times more radiation than seen at Fukushima. Fukushima's cores are BWR, and coolant systems failed, and with the reintroduction of water, hydrogen explosions occurred due to chemical processes due to radiation and temperatures affecting the water. The emissions are of a different type.
Perhaps most important, the prevailing winds are taking radiation away from populated areas and dispersing them over the Pacific Ocean, rather than onto major population centers like Tokyo or elsewhere in Japan. With Chernobyl, the locals weren't told of the seriousness of the situation for several days, and the world learned of the disaster only after Scandinavian nuclear reactors showed elevated radiation levels that were traced back by prevailing winds to the former USSR. Millions were exposed to radiation without knowing it - and the exclusion zone around Chernobyl will continue to be enforced for decades as there are pockets of high radiation due to ejected bits of the core and highly radiated equipment used in the liquidation of the reactor.
32 | darthstar Tue, Apr 12, 2011 12:56:55pm |
re: #24 negativ
An indicator that you need to go here:
[Link: www.malwarebytes.org...]
Malware bytes came up empty. McAfee full scan has 68 detections so far.
33 | tdg2112 Tue, Apr 12, 2011 2:17:46pm |
CSMonitor has a couple of good articles to go with the ones already sited above. The second one below answer the "How can Fukushima crisis be rated as severe as Chernobyl?" question as good as I've seen.
[Link: www.csmonitor.com...]
[Link: www.csmonitor.com...]