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.
>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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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."
11 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 36.7 ms ] thread>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/
I got an e-mail from someone right after the tsunami. He summed up the whole situation in one word: "Terrible."
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.
Uncomfortably reminiscent of this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hsas-chart_with_heade... ?
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.
"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.
Furthermore, the dose rate @ distance from reactor matters lot of than the total release.
[edit: typo... does->dose]
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.
"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."