Comments on: Fukushima and Chernobyl: Same Level on Disaster Scale; Very Different Disasters http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2011/04/14/fukushima-and-chernobyl-same-level-on-disaster-scale-very-different-disasters/ Mon, 22 Apr 2013 21:34:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: dave chamberlin http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2011/04/14/fukushima-and-chernobyl-same-level-on-disaster-scale-very-different-disasters/#comment-26531 dave chamberlin Fri, 15 Apr 2011 13:39:52 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/?p=27962#comment-26531 It seems to me they need about three higher levels. Level 10 would be time to find a new country that will take us. The Fukushima reactors had numerous reckless design flaws. It had the potential to be far worse than Chernobyl because of them. 1)There are six reactors in close proximity to each other. If one became so radioactive that it's killing zone included the reactor next to it than one by one down the line all six would experience full melt downs. 2) It is built on the ocean which is reckless for two reasons. Tsunamis and the water table is right underneath the buildings. Much rarer but much more destructive are tsunamis caused by massive avalanches into the ocean. 3)They now have a design where they shut down automatically without power. 4) Storing the spent fuel rods near the plants is a bad idea but storing them over the top of them is retarded. 5) The safety agencies meant to police the plants were and are a joke. Tepco was fined for repeated violations like ignoring if their back up generators would even run. Things will be all right. There will probably be a zone around the plant smaller than the one at Chernobyl where people will not be able to live. The other positive in relation to Chernobyl is the winds primarily blow west over 2000 miles of Pacific ocean. I don't think the public realizes just how many hundreds of tons of uranium were stored or being used at Fukushima, someone can correct me if I'm wrong but the number I have heard is 10 times that at Chernobyl. If left alone (or in this case so radioactive it is unapproachable by humans) the radioactive material would have reached a temperature of 5000 degrees and melted down through everything in it's path between these molten blobs and the water table. I'm not sure they would have the option of digging underneath the buildings and pouring more concrete like they did at Chernobyl. Typical soil composition near the ocean is water saturated sand that leaks water back into any hole faster than it can be pumped out. They were able to entomb the majority of the radioactive material at Chernobyl, that would not have been the case with Fukushima in it's worst case scenario. The radioactivity would be steadily released to the atmosphere through steam for I don't know how long. Then 30 million people living 125 miles away in the Tokyo metropolitan area would need to move or face a considerably shortened life. Eating fish out of the Pacific ocean would be like eating fish out of Lake Michigan. You can eat a very limited number per year but keep them away from pregnant women, which translates to no thanks I don't want any for most of us. Not trying to be anti nuclear, just hoping we can learn from our mistakes. It seems to me they need about three higher levels. Level 10 would be time to find a new country that will take us. The Fukushima reactors had numerous reckless design flaws. It had the potential to be far worse than Chernobyl because of them. 1)There are six reactors in close proximity to each other. If one became so radioactive that it’s killing zone included the reactor next to it than one by one down the line all six would experience full melt downs. 2) It is built on the ocean which is reckless for two reasons. Tsunamis and the water table is right underneath the buildings. Much rarer but much more destructive are tsunamis caused by massive avalanches into the ocean. 3)They now have a design where they shut down automatically without power. 4) Storing the spent fuel rods near the plants is a bad idea but storing them over the top of them is retarded. 5) The safety agencies meant to police the plants were and are a joke. Tepco was fined for repeated violations like ignoring if their back up generators would even run.

Things will be all right. There will probably be a zone around the plant smaller than the one at Chernobyl where people will not be able to live. The other positive in relation to Chernobyl is the winds primarily blow west over 2000 miles of Pacific ocean. I don’t think the public realizes just how many hundreds of tons of uranium were stored or being used at Fukushima, someone can correct me if I’m wrong but the number I have heard is 10 times that at Chernobyl. If left alone (or in this case so radioactive it is unapproachable by humans) the radioactive material would have reached a temperature of 5000 degrees and melted down through everything in it’s path between these molten blobs and the water table. I’m not sure they would have the option of digging underneath the buildings and pouring more concrete like they did at Chernobyl. Typical soil composition near the ocean is water saturated sand that leaks water back into any hole faster than it can be pumped out. They were able to entomb the majority of the radioactive material at Chernobyl, that would not have been the case with Fukushima in it’s worst case scenario. The radioactivity would be steadily released to the atmosphere through steam for I don’t know how long. Then 30 million people living 125 miles away in the Tokyo metropolitan area would need to move or face a considerably shortened life. Eating fish out of the Pacific ocean would be like eating fish out of Lake Michigan. You can eat a very limited number per year but keep them away from pregnant women, which translates to no thanks I don’t want any for most of us. Not trying to be anti nuclear, just hoping we can learn from our mistakes.

]]> By: dave chamberlin http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2011/04/14/fukushima-and-chernobyl-same-level-on-disaster-scale-very-different-disasters/#comment-26530 dave chamberlin Fri, 15 Apr 2011 13:15:01 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/?p=27962#comment-26530 It seems to me they need about three higher levels. Level 10 would be time to find a new country that will take us. The Fukushima reactors had numerous reckless design flaws. It had the potential to be far worse than Chernobyl because of them. 1)There are six reactors in close proximity to each other. If one became so radioactive that it's killing zone included the reactor next to it than one by one down the line all six would experience full melt downs. 2) It is built on the ocean which is reckless for two reasons. Tsunamis and the water table is right underneath the buildings. Much rarer but much more destructive are tsunamis caused by massive avalanches into the ocean. 3)They now have a design where they shut down automatically without power. 4) Storing the spent fuel rods near the plants is a bad idea but storing them over the top of them is retarded. 5) The safety agencies meant to police the plants were and are a joke. Tepco was fined for repeated violations like ignoring if their back up generators would even run. Things will be all right. There will probably be a zone around the plants smaller than the one at Chernobyl where people will not be able to live. The other positive in relation to Chernobyl is the winds primarily blow west over 2000 miles of Pacific ocean. I don't think the public realizes just how many hundred of tons of uranium were stored or being used at Fukushima, someone can correct me if I'm wrong but the number I have heard is 10 times that at Chernobyl. If left alone (or in this case so radioactive it is unapproachable by humans) the radioactive material would have reached a temperature of 5000 degrees and melted down through everything in it's path between these molten blobs and the water table. Then 30 million people living 125 miles away in the Tokyo metropolitan area would need to move or face a considerably shortened life. Eating fish out of the Pacific ocean would be like eating fish out of Lake Michigan. You can eat a very limited number per year but keep them away from pregnant women, which translates to no thanks I don't want any for most of us. Not trying to be anti nuclear, just hoping we can learn from our mistakes. It seems to me they need about three higher levels. Level 10 would be time to find a new country that will take us. The Fukushima reactors had numerous reckless design flaws. It had the potential to be far worse than Chernobyl because of them. 1)There are six reactors in close proximity to each other. If one became so radioactive that it’s killing zone included the reactor next to it than one by one down the line all six would experience full melt downs. 2) It is built on the ocean which is reckless for two reasons. Tsunamis and the water table is right underneath the buildings. Much rarer but much more destructive are tsunamis caused by massive avalanches into the ocean. 3)They now have a design where they shut down automatically without power. 4) Storing the spent fuel rods near the plants is a bad idea but storing them over the top of them is retarded. 5) The safety agencies meant to police the plants were and are a joke. Tepco was fined for repeated violations like ignoring if their back up generators would even run.

Things will be all right. There will probably be a zone around the plants smaller than the one at Chernobyl where people will not be able to live. The other positive in relation to Chernobyl is the winds primarily blow west over 2000 miles of Pacific ocean. I don’t think the public realizes just how many hundred of tons of uranium were stored or being used at Fukushima, someone can correct me if I’m wrong but the number I have heard is 10 times that at Chernobyl. If left alone (or in this case so radioactive it is unapproachable by humans) the radioactive material would have reached a temperature of 5000 degrees and melted down through everything in it’s path between these molten blobs and the water table. Then 30 million people living 125 miles away in the Tokyo metropolitan area would need to move or face a considerably shortened life. Eating fish out of the Pacific ocean would be like eating fish out of Lake Michigan. You can eat a very limited number per year but keep them away from pregnant women, which translates to no thanks I don’t want any for most of us. Not trying to be anti nuclear, just hoping we can learn from our mistakes.

]]> By: Templar 7 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2011/04/14/fukushima-and-chernobyl-same-level-on-disaster-scale-very-different-disasters/#comment-26529 Templar 7 Fri, 15 Apr 2011 01:36:15 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/?p=27962#comment-26529 Seems to me a more accurate assessment is that this accident will probably end up being Chernobyl(4). Seeing how there is 4 reactors, times full meltdowns,( i prefer worst case scenarios, that way anything better pleasantly suprises me), and that there is pools of even more radioactive waste(An X Factor), we end up with the formula: Chernobyl(4)X--->Fukishiima. Seems to me a more accurate assessment is that this accident will probably end up being Chernobyl(4).
Seeing how there is 4 reactors, times full meltdowns,( i prefer worst case scenarios, that way anything better pleasantly suprises me), and that there is pools of even more radioactive waste(An X Factor), we end up with the formula: Chernobyl(4)X—>Fukishiima.

]]> By: RT http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2011/04/14/fukushima-and-chernobyl-same-level-on-disaster-scale-very-different-disasters/#comment-26528 RT Thu, 14 Apr 2011 19:38:38 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/?p=27962#comment-26528 Cliff, my layman's view is the overall quantity of radiation released could surpass that seen at Chernobyl, but most of it will stay in the area. At Chernobyl they went for entombment immediately, while at Fukushima they keep injecting water. We never hear about the rate at which water is coming back out of the reactor vessels, which would indicate the amount of leaking. Cliff, my layman’s view is the overall quantity of radiation released could surpass that seen at Chernobyl, but most of it will stay in the area. At Chernobyl they went for entombment immediately, while at Fukushima they keep injecting water. We never hear about the rate at which water is coming back out of the reactor vessels, which would indicate the amount of leaking.

]]> By: Cliff http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2011/04/14/fukushima-and-chernobyl-same-level-on-disaster-scale-very-different-disasters/#comment-26527 Cliff Thu, 14 Apr 2011 18:34:43 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/?p=27962#comment-26527 Although both reactor desasters differed in terms of initial severity. Eg. 7to10% at Japan and 98to100% at Chernobyl. At some point would the severity of radiation released and the enviromental effect become equil?? Japan has significant damage to 6 reactors and thousand of tons of fuel rods, all of which will be emitting levels of radiation for months vs the two week duration at Chernobyl. Also the Japan reactor(s) utilized MOX fuel which is currently leaking and more severe. Although both reactor desasters differed in terms of initial severity. Eg. 7to10% at Japan and 98to100% at Chernobyl. At some point would the severity of radiation released and the enviromental effect become equil?? Japan has significant damage to 6 reactors and thousand of tons of fuel rods, all of which will be emitting levels of radiation for months vs the two week duration at Chernobyl. Also the Japan reactor(s) utilized MOX fuel which is currently leaking and more severe.

]]> By: RT http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2011/04/14/fukushima-and-chernobyl-same-level-on-disaster-scale-very-different-disasters/#comment-26526 RT Thu, 14 Apr 2011 17:54:44 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/?p=27962#comment-26526 And the biggest difference: the Fukushima disaster isn't over yet! This could go on for months or even years, since TEPCO's strategy seems to be following the plan at TMI, where the partially melted core was cooled for years until it could be dismantled and removed. How are they going to plug all the leaks in the cooling systems, since it's way too hot to get in there? The "good" news is most of the contamination is going into the ground and the sea rather than the atmosphere, so hopefully the health impacts will be less than with Chernobyl. And the biggest difference: the Fukushima disaster isn’t over yet! This could go on for months or even years, since TEPCO’s strategy seems to be following the plan at TMI, where the partially melted core was cooled for years until it could be dismantled and removed. How are they going to plug all the leaks in the cooling systems, since it’s way too hot to get in there? The “good” news is most of the contamination is going into the ground and the sea rather than the atmosphere, so hopefully the health impacts will be less than with Chernobyl.

]]> By: Robin Davies http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2011/04/14/fukushima-and-chernobyl-same-level-on-disaster-scale-very-different-disasters/#comment-26525 Robin Davies Thu, 14 Apr 2011 13:45:47 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/?p=27962#comment-26525 One BIG difference is there is 10 times more radioactive fuel at Fukushima in reactors and storage pools (40 years worth) than at Chernobyl and also Chernobyl only had a problem with one reactor where Fukushima has 4 reactors with problems. One BIG difference is there is 10 times more radioactive fuel at Fukushima in reactors and storage pools (40 years worth) than at Chernobyl and also Chernobyl only had a problem with one reactor where Fukushima has 4 reactors with problems.

]]>