Japan to raise Fukushima crisis level to worst, same as Chernobyl(www3.nhk.or.jp)
www3.nhk.or.jp
Japan to raise Fukushima crisis level to worst, same as Chernobyl
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/12_05.html
4 comments
I don't think the scale was meant as a public marketing tool, but rather as something to indicate the level of attention international organizations need to give an event (in order to help/react/contain). Also, plenty of the articles mention the amount of material released is about 10% of Chernobyl's release.
What this really means is, as everyone has hopefully already realized, this crisis is worse than had originally been thought.
What this really means is, as everyone has hopefully already realized, this crisis is worse than had originally been thought.
Definitely another case of the media being idgits when it comes to any news regarding a disaster.
While OP's title "Same as Chernobyl," is technically correct when talking about the level, the amount of radiation is not comparable.
in fact, from the article:
The agency believes the cumulative amount from the Fukushima plant is less than that from Chernobyl.
And now we're going to start getting phone calls in the middle of the night again from worried relatives. :/
While OP's title "Same as Chernobyl," is technically correct when talking about the level, the amount of radiation is not comparable.
in fact, from the article:
The agency believes the cumulative amount from the Fukushima plant is less than that from Chernobyl.
And now we're going to start getting phone calls in the middle of the night again from worried relatives. :/
On the plus side, we're not living in Fukushima. Stigmatization of those folks is already happening at home and abroad, and it just got worse.
(There were sporadic reports of hospitals last week refusing to treat Fukushima refugees for routine medical care because, apparently, someone who presumably has had at least one science course in their life still thought a) they had all received lethal levels of radiation and b) radiation sickness was contagious. Which still sounds almost sane next to the Chicago news headline "Radiation detected on passengers from Japan -- is Chicago at risk?")
(There were sporadic reports of hospitals last week refusing to treat Fukushima refugees for routine medical care because, apparently, someone who presumably has had at least one science course in their life still thought a) they had all received lethal levels of radiation and b) radiation sickness was contagious. Which still sounds almost sane next to the Chicago news headline "Radiation detected on passengers from Japan -- is Chicago at risk?")
"At least 10% of Chernobyl's radiation release, and perhaps more if we can't stop it" to me sounds very comparable to Chernobyl.
No need to worry, nuclear power is just fine and perfectly safe for day to day power needs.
"Haruki Madarame, chairman of the commission, which is a government panel, said it has estimated that the release of 10,000 terabecquerels (a trillion becquerels) of radioactive materials per hour continued for several hours (after the quake)"
http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/04/84721.html
http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/04/84721.html
I noticed that since it was quantitative. Hiroshima was 8 Yottabecquerels, which would require 9,000 years at 10,000 terabecquerels per hour to accomplish.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but these units seem all messed up.
A becquerel is the number of radioactive emissions per second. So stating becquerels per time is like talking about power per time.
Are we talking about a mean over a period, a cumulative total (becquerels hour), or what?
I'm guessing the Hiroshima blast number is the instantaneous peak.
A becquerel is the number of radioactive emissions per second. So stating becquerels per time is like talking about power per time.
Are we talking about a mean over a period, a cumulative total (becquerels hour), or what?
I'm guessing the Hiroshima blast number is the instantaneous peak.
Yeah I mixed my units. We'd have to assume that's a peak figure and that it continued for a full second (or equivalent) to fix my comparison. I suspect the peak output was much briefer than a full second. Probably best to throw out my original comment.
Hiroshima's "Little Boy": the first in history nuclear explosive device used to attack an enemy faction. According to figures published in 1945, 66,000 people were killed as a direct result, and 69,000 were injured to varying degrees. Total amount of nuclear fuel on site: approximately 600 to 860 milligrams of matter. Milligrams! And a big part of that got aniquilated in the explosion.
Chernobil: one nuclear reactor explodes spreading radioactive materials in aerosol form. Total amount of nuclear fuel on site: 180 tonns.
Fukushima: six nuclear reactors, one of them a plutonium reactor, gets severilly damaged after several eathquakes and a tsunami hits the nuclear plant, starts spreading radioactive materials in aerosol form and dumping tonns of contaminated water to the sea. Total amount of nuclear fuel on site: 7,200 tonns.
Call me pesimistic, but I think this is an entirelly different leage, one that may make Chernobil look like a propane gas escape. And I wish I'm wrong...
Chernobil: one nuclear reactor explodes spreading radioactive materials in aerosol form. Total amount of nuclear fuel on site: 180 tonns.
Fukushima: six nuclear reactors, one of them a plutonium reactor, gets severilly damaged after several eathquakes and a tsunami hits the nuclear plant, starts spreading radioactive materials in aerosol form and dumping tonns of contaminated water to the sea. Total amount of nuclear fuel on site: 7,200 tonns.
Call me pesimistic, but I think this is an entirelly different leage, one that may make Chernobil look like a propane gas escape. And I wish I'm wrong...
Well, Little Boy was undergoing nuclear fission which releases far more energy than some radioactive materials.
Fukushima is much better contained than Chernobyl; namely, the whole plant isn't on fire, spewing massive amounts of radioactive gasses.
Fukushima is much better contained than Chernobyl; namely, the whole plant isn't on fire, spewing massive amounts of radioactive gasses.
Here is a vid talking about how the fuel rods shattered/melted:
http://vimeo.com/22209827
http://vimeo.com/22209827
In terms of measuring things: scales with < 10 points on them do very, very poor jobs at compressing certain distributions. It's kind of like saying that someone is in income quintile 5 -- the same quintile as Bill Gates! If you didn't know that the underlying distribution of incomes looks like what it looks like, you might assume that second person is omg rich. (Quintile 5 starts at about $90k a household.) Similarly, the scale of nuclear accidents from "non-event" to Chernobyl to "hypothetical-end-of-the-world" has an awful lot of very consequential dynamic range in it. The overwhelming takeaway among lay people from this marketing event is going to be "Fukushima is about as bad as Chernobyl" -- that is objectively, dangerously false, just like "X is about as rich as Bill Gates" is likely catastrophically wrong and would lead to terrible decisions if you acted on it.