Fukushima raised to Level 7 Chernobyl event

[Dreambirdie]

A very good article. The truth finally comes out.

"The title of this article probably should have been "TOLD YA SO." After all the downplaying, all the denials, all the disinfo and deceptions by both the nuclear industry and the mainstream media, it finally emerges that the amount of radiation released by Fukushima was far, far higher than what we were told. How high? So high that the Fukushima catastrophe has now been raised from a level 5 event to a level 7 event on the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale."

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/032049_Fukushima_Chernobyl.html#ixzz1JKTtx3ZG

 

[Dreambirdie]

Another article regarding radiation from the Fukushima disaster:

"Japans crippled Daiichi nuclear facility near Fukushima, hit hard by the March 11 earthquake and tsunami, has released radioactive materials that have traveled across the entire Northern Hemisphere, a nuclear monitoring watchdog has reported."

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/305490#ixzz1JKqOgNdt

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/305490

 

[Dreambirdie]

And one more...

http://www.thestate.com/2011/04/11/1775205/japan-ups-nuke-crisis-severity.html

 

[Nielk]

Why is it that whenever disasters happen, the government always downplay the severity of it. I can understand that they are trying to avoid panic but, don't the citizens have a right to know what they are exposing themselves and their family to?
Let them make decisions as to what to do based on reality. Now you have so many people who have been exposed and who knows what the consequences will be.
I read an article the other day about one of the workers who is still there at the reactor. He told his mother on the phone that they (all thr workers who are there) know that it's a suicide mission but, they are there to try to save the nation. What heros!

 

[Dreambirdie]

The Fukushima disaster is now the whole world's disaster. Radiation has been detected in the air across the entire northern hemisphere, and it will continue to be. Millions of gallons of radioactive crap are being dumped into the ocean at that toxic wreck of a reactor every day, which will affect all the marine life in the Pacific, and every animal and human that consumes anything from the ocean.

So much of the Chernobyl radiation ended up in the Arctic. At this point, with the polar bears so stressed by the melting of the polar ice caps--that they actually have to swim up to 60 miles for food, it does not bode well for them at all to have to deal with radiation on top of it.

All I can say about this is SHUT DOWN ALL THE DAMN NUKES NOW. It's time for the insanity to come to an end.

 

[jenbooks]

This seemed obvious all along--it was worse than Chernobyl.

It's not just shut the nukes down DB. They took many many shortcuts. MANY MANY SHORTCUTS to save money. They ignored an 1896 quake that was far greater than 6.5 magnitude. They ignored warnings from watchdogs in the industry. They didn't use hard vents. They didn't enclose the cooling pumps in 3 meter thick walls as other companies did. On and on. So is it just nukes. BP cut costs ie cut safety measures too. It's the corporate mentality. Like that interview with Jesse Ventura I posted on FB. He said the truth.

 

[SOC]

This seemed obvious all along--it was worse than Chernobyl.

It's not just shut the nukes down DB. They took many many shortcuts. MANY MANY SHORTCUTS to save money. They ignored an 1896 quake that was far greater than 6.5 magnitude. They ignored warnings from watchdogs in the industry. They didn't use hard vents. They didn't enclose the cooling pumps in 3 meter thick walls as other companies did. On and on. So is it just nukes. BP cut costs ie cut safety measures too. It's the corporate mentality. Like that interview with Jesse Ventura I posted on FB. He said the truth.

A little perspective. The Fukushima Daichi disaster is horrific and inexcusable, IMO. However, it is NOT worse than Chernobyl.

In the Chernobyl disaster, the reactor exploded while operating at far above normal operating temperature during a "safety" test. The explosion threw pieces of the reactor core high into the atmosphere which both spread the radiation much farther afield than simple exposure of the core would do, and rained highly radioactive pieces of core on the surrounding area.

Since the reactors at Chernobyl had no containment dome, the remaining extremely hot core was exposed directly to the environment like a volcano cauldron, emitting massive amounts of radiation directly to the surroundings.

In contrast, Fukushima Daiachi's cores are completely contained. No pieces of the highly radioactive core have been distributed into the air or surrounding area. The worst part of the disaster -- and it is very bad -- is that water which was directly exposed to at least one of the cores and is therefore highly radioactive, has been allowed to leak into the ocean. Nevertheless, this water is still much less radioactive than the core itself. The core itself is not exposed to the environment.

Fukushima Daiashi released a tenth, or less, of the radiation released in the Chernobyl disaster. What has been released has a much shorter half-life compared to what was released from Chernobyl, and it was not thrown high into the atmosphere where it could spread long distances.

TEPCO lied to the public repeatedly. If they had handled the aftermath of the natural disaster appropriately, they could have avoided most of the radiation release. They didn't. Many people in Japan were exposed to far too much radiation. All this is completely unforgivable.

But let's maintain a little perspective -- this is not worse than Chernobyl.

The people in Japan and the surrounding areas will suffer from this disaster for many years to come. They will need our support. They need the iodine pills, not us. If you are concerned about your total radiation exposure, avoid air travel -- you will get much more radiation exposure from that than you will from Fukushima Daiashi if you live in the US, Europe, Africa, or Australia.

 

[ixchelkali]

A little perspective. The Fukushima Daichi disaster is horrific and inexcusable, IMO. However, it is NOT worse than Chernobyl.

This is true at this point. The radioactive release is lower than Chernobyl by an order of magnitude. However, "One official from Tepco said that radiation leaks had not stopped completely and could eventually exceed those at Chernobyl, Reuters news agency reported." ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13045341) I doubt that Tepco is overstating the case. It's a bit like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

BTW, the BBC provided a chart comparing the two: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13050228

For some reason, what pops into my head is Mercutio's line from Romeo & Juliet, speaking of his fatal wound: "'tis not so deep as a well, nor so wide as a
church-door; but 'tis enough,'twill serve."

 

[SOC]

This is true at this point. The radioactive release is lower than Chernobyl by an order of magnitude. However, "One official from Tepco said that radiation leaks had not stopped completely and could eventually exceed those at Chernobyl, Reuters news agency reported." ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13045341) I doubt that Tepco is overstating the case. It's a bit like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

BTW, the BBC provided a chart comparing the two: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13050228

For some reason, what pops into my head is Mercutio's line from Romeo & Juliet, speaking of his fatal wound: "'tis not so deep as a well, nor so wide as a
church-door; but 'tis enough,'twill serve."

Absolutely right, it's not over yet, and more radiation will certainly be released. Train wreck in slow motion is a very apt description.

I think the issue in question here is: How to you measure "worse"?

From the BBC chart you linked:

The affected area of the Fukushima disaster is "60km (36 miles) to the north-west of the plant and about 40km to the south-southwest have seen radiation levels exceed annual limits". For the Chernobyl disaster the affected area is given as: Contamination of an area as far as 500 km (300 miles) from the plant, according to the UN. But animals and plants were also affected much further away.

That means the affected area at Fukushima is about 4000 square km compared to 800,000 square km (and more). That's 200 times more area contaminated by Chernobyl.

If we look at long-term health damage as a measure of "worse", the BBC comparison says that at Fukushima, the long-term health damage is "Not yet known, but risks to human health are thought to be low."

While at Chernobyl, "Among the residents of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine, there had been up to the year 2005 more than 6,000 cases of thyroid cancer reported in children and adolescents who were exposed at the time of the accident, and more cases can be expected during the next decades." The number of deaths among plant workers at Chernobyl is unclear, but 64 are confirmed and thousands of cancer deaths are likely based on the amount of exposure workers received during the clean-up.

There will likely be cancer deaths among the several hundred people working at Fukushima Daiashi, but it's unlikely to be in the thousands because there is no exposed core. That is a huge difference.

I'm not saying Fukushima Daiashi isn't a huge disaster -- It unquestionably is. But the impact on the world's environment and population is much less than the impact of Chernobyl. This is largely because the fissioning cores at Fukushima are still contained in both their reactor vessels, and their containment domes. At Chernobyl there was an explosion in the core which threw fissioning core into the atmosphere and onto the land around the plant. There was also no containment dome to protect the environment from the melting core after the event. Fukushima's cores are contained and cooling, not exposed and getting hotter as they were at Chernobyl.

So, if you want to measure strictly by amount of radiation release (and all radiation is not created equal), then Fukushima may eventually release as much total radiation as Chernobyl. We'll have to wait and see.

My personal measure of "worse", however, is based on human and environmental impact, which is much less (thank goodness and better design) at Fukushima than it was as Chernobyl.

Neither disaster should have happened. Both were preventable. Fukushima, in particular, could have been much less of a disaster if TEPCO had been more concerned about the environment and the population than it was about the cost of losing the reactors. Still, I'll take Fukushima over Chernobyl any time, and pray that I never have to "take" either one.

 

[Wayne]

Neither disaster should have happened. Both were preventable.

Couldn't agree more. The walls erected to protect the Fukushima facility (and especially the backup water pumps) were designed to withstand a tsunami wave of 17 feet. This height was based on historical records of what the highest wave might be. About ten years ago, there was a tsunami on the west side of Japan with wave heights of approx. 35 feet. Maybe they should have taken a clue that this could happen on the east side as well (the recent tsunami wave was 43 feet). Duh!!! Guess they didn't want to spend the money.

My understanding is that this is not yet as bad as Chernobyl. But it's also my understanding that this is far from over. Anything could happen, with a series of explosions possible that could end up making it far worse than Chernobyl. In the mean time, there are industry spokespeople who are calling anybody with concerns "hysterical". Makes me realize a bit what it was like for women for so long to be considered hysterical. Isn't that where the word hysterectomy came from; meaning to remove hysteria.

I may be getting a bit off course here (in my hysteria). I wish this whole thing was over, but it seems there's still a lot of potential for things to get much worse.

Wayne

 

[markmc20001]

I know we need power, but also need a place to live on this planet that is inhabitable. Imagine if there was a war and multiple nuclear reactors were damaged on each continent.

 

[Athene]

I saw an expert from HK on TV, saying that the type of waste from Fukushima is far more toxic that that used at Chernobyl or most other nuclear plants and that it takes a very long time for the true level or radioactivity to become apparent - as in, weeks for it to build up. So I think we still don't know the true extent of the contamination.
Also, my friends in Japan keep telling me their government does nothing but deny and tell lies. They never stop contradicting themselves. The announcements by the owners of the plant reveal more and more incompetence. I think that is the scariest thing. We still don't really know what is happening.

 

[*GG*]

The Fukushima disaster is now the whole world's disaster. Radiation has been detected in the air across the entire northern hemisphere, and it will continue to be. Millions of gallons of radioactive crap are being dumped into the ocean at that toxic wreck of a reactor every day, which will affect all the marine life in the Pacific, and every animal and human that consumes anything from the ocean.

So much of the Chernobyl radiation ended up in the Arctic. At this point, with the polar bears so stressed by the melting of the polar ice caps--that they actually have to swim up to 60 miles for food, it does not bode well for them at all to have to deal with radiation on top of it.

All I can say about this is SHUT DOWN ALL THE DAMN NUKES NOW. It's time for the insanity to come to an end.

I could see shutting down the plants in California, not sure if they ALL need to be shut down? what are the implications if are ALL shut down?

GG

PS hasn't the polar bear population increased lately?

 

[taniaaust1]

I know we need power, but also need a place to live on this planet that is inhabitable. Imagine if there was a war and multiple nuclear reactors were damaged on each continent.

I too think of that.. war and countries hitting others reactors. An astroid hit is another thing which could happen.. just imagine if a bit one hit an earth which is covered in nuclear reactors! What has been done would cause even more of an efficiant wipe out then that of the dinosaurs.

No matter what they say, these reactors can never be said to be 100% safe. With each disaster on the planet, more radiation is released, some which takes thousands of years to break down. Most people think of things short term (their lifetime and their childrens lifetime) ...but accidents can affect for many many centuries. Reactors long term, arent viable with life/ the survival of humanity.

Not all countries can do it but places like Australia.. could be running on just solar if everyone had solar panels on their roofs. Some families who do that and live responsibly as far as energy go, end up being actually able to put power BACK INTO the energy grid.
....

The Japan disaster could end up worst then Chernobyl.. the danger isnt over yet added to what happens if they get another big earthquake with another tsunami?.. seeing things are already damaged there? There is still a fair risk of another big earthquake.

Chernobyl was just ONE reactor.. they are dealing with far more reactors then that and still struggling with them and if one really went wrong big time, it would affect people being able to access the others. Im so so glad I arent living in Japan.

Why dont authorities and governments tell truth? They also got responsible to public to not cause panic (as that then leads to huge trouble). In any big disaster in which could cause more major lifethreatening trouble, things will be downplayed.

 

[Snow Leopard]

If we look at long-term health damage as a measure of "worse", the BBC comparison says that at Fukushima, the long-term health damage is "Not yet known, but risks to human health are thought to be low."

The risk is low because the radiation is due to radioactive coolant water, rather than radioactive material from an exposed core. The half life of these radioactive elements is much shorter and therefore radiation levels will drop right down within months. This water is normally heavily treated before being released.

The bulk of the elements released from Chernobyl on the other hand, have longer half lives - around 30 years (Strontium-90 and Caesium-137).

Here is a video of journalists driving in the area to 1.5 kms of the plant (before encountering impassable roads due to earthquake/tsunami damage). The overall radiation exposure of the journalists was small, much smaller than a CT scan.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp9iJ3pPuL8
Radiation levels are healthy outside of ~3km. (eg comparable to background radiation levels in some parts of the world - or a years exposure at that level will be equivalent to a CT scan.)

It is likely that one or more of the cores has sustained a partial meltdown. This does not meant he core was exposed to the outside air like at Chernobyl - there are several levels of containment. It does however mean that the fuel rod cannot be withdrawn, hence it must be left to cool and cannot be dismantled for a long time (eg 100 years).

 

[richvank]

Hi, all.

One more difference: The Chernobyl reactor was graphite moderated. The explosion ignited the graphite, which is basically solid carbon, which burns at a high temperature, and it continued to burn for a long time. The resulting sustained high temperature caused evaporation of the water and release of the radionuclides that were volatile (in their gaseous state) at that temperature. The updraft (convection) caused by this heat production raised the radionuclides to a high altitude, which allowed them to spread farther. The loss of water caused the 8-day half-life iodine-131 to be present chemically as I2 molecules, which are volatile at fairly low temperature. This is the isotope that caused the many cases of thyroid cancer.

The complete details of the damage processes that went on at Fukushima are not yet known, but these were water-cooled reactors and water-filled spent fuel storage pools. Cooling water was lost, apparently from at least one reactor core and at least one spent fuel pool, and temperatures did rise high enough to rupture the zircaloy cladding on the fuel and release large amounts of radionuclides. However, there was no graphite fire to serve as a driving force for dispersing the radionuclides, as at Chernobyl. Also, I'm guessing that a lot of the I-131 stayed in aqueous solution in the remaining water as iodide and iodate ions, which are nongaseous forms of iodine, and not as easily dispersed.

One of the "surprises" at the Three Mile Island accident (which also occurred in a water-cooled reactor) was that essentially no I-131 left the reactor site, because enough water remained present to keep it from forming I2 molecules and becoming gaseous.

Like the rest of you, I view this as a horrible accident and am very sorry for the people who are directly affected by it, but I think it's important to understand some of the distinctions between these three reactor accidents.

Best regards,

Rich

 

[jenbooks]

I appreciate all the input; nonetheless I've read credible articles that the government is lying about the amount of release (as apparently did the Russian government during Chernobyl).

What galls me is what I wrote in my previous post. They ignored the 1896 earthquake. They were rated for a 6.5 and no higher in spite of history in the area. Moreover as Wayne pointed out, they planned only for a tsunami of a certain height. When you're dealing with nuclear power, then you must prepare for acts of God. And how much would it have cost for the extra safety features, compared to the disaster we're seeing now? Why do we see this again and again with corporations, and why do governments allow it to happen? These are rhetorical questions btw. Why? Because the corporations run the government, essentially. Here as well as almost everywhere now.

As for eradicating all nuclear power now, taking that approach is unrealistic, basically we should fund the fastest expansion possible of solar, geothermal and wind, as well as safe drilling on our own shores for oil, and if it is possible, safer fracking until the truly renewable sources of energy are the mainstay. And we should examine our own nuclear plants, where faults are, where spent rods are stores, and beef up our own safety measures. But again, corporations run things. Nuclear industry, coal industry and oil--too much money, too much power, they put it behind the politicians they fund.

Also, on a purely selfish level, Chernobyl blew over Europe. Fukishima is blowing over the US particularly the western US.

 

[Dainty]

Also, on a purely selfish level, Chernobyl blew over Europe. Fukishima is blowing over the US particularly the western US.

We're okay, we have the ocean as a buffer.

I'm curious to see if the mini reactors actually come to fruitation.

 

[Snow Leopard]

They were rated for a 6.5 and no higher in spite of history in the area.

It wasn't so much the magnitude of the earthquake, so much as the magnitude of the tsunami. They will most likely be increasing the protection (eg place it below ground) of the backup cooling mechanisms of sea level (edit - and coastal) nuclear plants all over the world to prevent this happening again.

 

[SilverbladeTE]

To be precise, the Chernobyl event did NOT release any "realistic" amount of the actual rods, it was other isotopes caused by over ehating etc etc
if the rods had blown up..say if the melt down ahd hit the huge water tank deep underground, the resulting explosion would have released thousands of tons or *radioactive metals* from the mess of the core.
the resulting death toll would probably have been a million or more...ugh
If the actual rods blow up into the atmopshere, ie the uranium, PU and other crap which can be caused by a meltdown slagging the steel vessels etc..the results are horrendous beyond belief, the fallout would be like hundreds of atomic bombs!

always always understand that folk.

Richvank has said it well


We were very lucky with Chernobyl

Fission is not "bad!"
fission with isotopes that cna cause chain reactions are always gonna be dangerous, even more so as they are toxic as hell, as well as radioactive. So we should move away from them to thorium

What's really "bad" is HUMAN STUPIDITY see, Sellafield, Mayak etc, sigh

Please read up on safety of all power plant types and resulting death tolls, and on thorium reactors
note that coal power plants typically dump 300 to 1000KG of MERCURY downwind every year...
I'd rather have thorium reactors than keep financing psychotic regimes in the Middle East by buying their toxic oil

as for the lies/crap, stupidity, well, lot of folk should be jailed for life for Sellafield and the Japanese mess.