Fukushima vs Chernobyl vs Three Mile Island

[GliderGuider]

Finally, something from the blogosphere that looks like a relatively sensible take on the dangers of Fukurshitup:

Fukushima vs Chernobyl vs Three Mile Island

With the shocking end-of-the-world-scenario headlines — such as "Your Days of Eating Pacific Ocean Fish Are Over" and "28 Signs That The West Coast Is Being Absolutely Fried With Nuclear Radiation From Fukushima" — either Fukushima was the worst environmental disaster ever, or some of the worst misinformation ever is being trumpeted. To find out which, we'll put it into context with the two other best known nuclear disasters: the 1986 explosion of a reactor at the Chernobyl plant in the Ukraine, and the 1979 partial meltdown of a reactor at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania.

The Fukushima disaster will probably end up being the most expensive industrial accident and cleanup in history, but it has certainly not been among the most dangerous, thanks largely to Japan's prompt action. The newest World Health Organization assessment concludes:

...No discernible increase in health risks from the Fukushima event is expected outside Japan. With respect to Japan, this assessment estimates that the lifetime risk for some cancers may be somewhat elevated above baseline rates in certain age and sex groups that were in the areas most affected.

Clearly it wasn't good, but if you want to be able to develop proper response plans, you have to understand the correct facts about the situation. Absurdly exaggerated and sensationalized reports do not help anyone; rather they increase confusion, and decrease our ability to respond to such events appropriately.

References:

• Buesseler, K., Aoyama, M., Fukasawa, M. "Impacts of the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plants on Marine Radioactivity." Environmental Science and Technology. 1 Jan. 2011, Volume 45, Number 9931.
  
  
• Hsu, J. "Fukushima's Radioactive Ocean Plume to Reach US Waters by 2014." Live Science. Tech Media Network, 30 Aug. 2013. Web. 9 Jan. 2014. http://www.livescience.com/39340-fukushima-radioactive-plume-reach-us-2014.html
  
  
• NEA. Chernobyl: Assessment of Radiological and Health Impacts. Paris: Nuclear Energy Agency, 2002.
  
  
• UMSHPS. "Radioactivity in Nature." The Health Physics Society. University of Michigan, 6 Feb. 2004. Web. 10 Jan. 2014. http://www.umich.edu/~radinfo/introduction/natural.htm
  
  
• Unterweger, M., Hoppes, D., Schima, F. "New and Revised Half-Life Measurements Results." Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics. 1 Jan. 1992, Number A312: 349.
  
  
• WHO. Health risk assessment from the nuclear accident after the 2011 Great East Japan earthquake and tsunami. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2013.

[madrchsod]

1. fishing in chernobyl

http://animal.discovery.com/tv-shows/river-monsters/videos/fishing-for-mutated-monsters-in-contaminated-chernobyl-waters.htm

chernobyl's water and land will be radioactive for centuries.


the only contamination left from the atomic tests in the pacific ocean is the islands and the their surrounding harbors. the pacific oceans salt and volume of water has dissipated any concentrations of radioactive particles from the tests. if this is any indication then the 99.9% of fish in the oceans will not glow in the dark

[dbackjon]

2. Great article - very informative

Thanks for posting

[bananas]

3. That article is bullshit - "Skeptoid" doesn't understand entropy

Skeptoid thinks entropy means the contaminants are evenly distributed throughout the ocean.
That's not true at all.

I recently posted an article with an easy-to-understand explanation of entropy.
It's on a different subject, but the principle is the same:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101682319

MAXIMUM ENTROPY

This fifth curve corresponds to a state of maximum entropy in the distribution of energy. Entropy is not merely a synonym for disorder. Rather, entropy is a measure of the number of different ways a system can exist. If, for example, $100 was to be divided among ten people, total equality would dictate that each person received $10. In Figure 3, this is represented by the solid diagonal line. Maximum inequality would be equivalent to giving all $100 to one person. This would be represented by a curve that hugged the horizontal axis and then proceeded straight up the rightmost vertical axis.

Statistically, both of these scenarios are rather unlikely since they correspond to unique situations. The bulk of possible divisions of $100 would look more like this example: person 1 gets $27, person 2 gets $15, and so forth down to person 10, who receives only $3. The black curve in Figure 3 represents this middle case, where, in the competition for scarce energy resources, neither total equality nor total inequality reigns.