Fukushima raised to level 7 severity, same as Chernobyl

[greenman3610]

Source: NHK

The Japanese government's nuclear safety agency has decided to raise the crisis level of the Fukushima Daiichi power plant accident from 5 to 7, the worst on the international scale.

The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency made the decision on Monday. It says the damaged facilities have been releasing a massive amount of radioactive substances, which are posing a threat to human health and the environment over a wide area.

The agency used the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale, or INES, to gauge the level. The scale was designed by an international group of experts to indicate the significance of nuclear events with ratings of 0 to 7.

Read more: ttp://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/12_05.html

---

no surprise here

[onehandle]

1. They have just -Admitted- it's a 7. nt

[Lucinda]

2. None at all.

I expect to see more adjustments in the numerical rating in the future also...

[Javaman]

41. This one goes to 11. nt

[Liberal Veteran]

3. But it's a dry 7.

:scared:

[Poll_Blind]

4. I would not believe that any response to this thread could make me snort.

But you did. Danke. I could really use even a little chuckles about now.

PB

[a simple pattern]

8. +1

[boppers]

28. Okay, as a Tucsonan, that made me giggle.

It looks like a dispersed trickle, rather than a big blast, but if they don't cap it, it could affect a huge area.

[Poll_Blind]

5. There ya go, folks. That's a fact...a FACT about this ongoing calamity I'm going to be...

...considering a lot now and in the future.

PB

[FourScore]

6. And it is nowhere near over! n/t

[Citizen Worker]

7. Within a few days of this disaster I suggested that we all bend over, grab our ankles and kiss our

asses goodbye. This catastrophe has no end. I really did not want to be right about this. The four nuke plants at Fukushima continue to spew their fatal time bombs into the air and water. In twenty years or so there will be a massive spike in cancers around the world and all of the governmental authorities will tell us they have no idea what caused it and many of us will fail to connect the proverbial dots.

[AtheistCrusader]

10. Four damaged reactors in Japan still have yet to spew as much radiation as a single

damaged reactor at Chernobyl. In fact, they have a LONG way to go before they do, and may never do so.

We survived Chernobyl.


Edit:

Chernobyl: 120000 PBq
Fukushima: 10,000 TBq/hour at it's worst, down to 1 TBq/hour now.

Peta/Tera

These 'levels' are pretty imprecise.

[Kalun D]

14. How?

These 'levels' are pretty imprecise.

they are just guessing, that plant is so damaged and out of control, how can they be accurately monitoring the sea or even the air for that matter? For instance they didn't have sensors in the air right above the 3 explosions.

I thought I read somewhere the levels at 20 km was already worse than Chernobyl

it's been a 5 forever and now it's 7? What happened that it was never a 6? Or are they just covering up and lying like all money grubbing corporations?

[AtheistCrusader]

21. Estimated based upon sensors in the water, surrounding landscape

overflights, and monitoring equipment downwind, airborne and on the surface of the water.

Same ways they monitored Chernobyl. Yes, that is also imprecise, but what I meant was these 'emergency levels'. Fukushima STILL is not as bad as Chernobyl, in total radiation release. I won't say it WON'T become as bad, but I think it is safe to say 'unlikely'. Chernobyl was the absolute perfect storm of a fuckup. It really couldn't have been worse. Currently at Fukushima, the really bad one is still reactor 2 and it still has a containment, even if it is breached in the suppression pool. Chernobyl had no containment, and exploded while the rods were running at 10x maxium rated safe power levels.

The events are currently incomparable.

Now, if Fukushima manages to melt through primary, secondary containments, and the building foundation, then all bets are off. Bad times. But even Chernobyl didn't escape that way, and I don't think Fukushima Dai-ichi will either. Time will tell.

[jpak]

22. Bullshit and Happy Talk

yup

[AtheistCrusader]

23. Cite some numbers otherwise.

Go ahead.

[jpak]

25. Sadly - no one knows the real numbers - but they now admit that it's a Level 7 accident

with 3 reactors in meltdown and a spent fuel pool *dry with a hydrogen explosion* releasing lots and lots and lots of radioactivity.

The real disaster will be the fishery food web in coastal Japan.

Count on it.

yup

[AtheistCrusader]

27. There we can agree.

[CJvR]

47. Perhaps, but...

...a level 7 in itself does not really say anything about the radiation release itself but only that it has a major impact outside the plant.

Regarding sea food, well it actually depends a bit more on what has escaped rather than the total amount. As long as it is short lived isotopes the impact will be very limited. If it is Cesium and Strontium and crap like that then it will be a disaster.

[bananas]

55. Wrong, the INES scale is logarithmic based on terabecquerels released

Radioactivity of all isotopes is summed after conversion to 131I equivalent.
Level 7 is a large release from a single reactor,
at Fukushima there are several reactors plus spent fuel pools,
the total release can be an order of magnitude higher than Chernobyl,
this may go to level 8.

From the INES Users Manual: pdf http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/INES-2009_web.pdf

The aim in designing the scale was that the severity of an event would
increase by about an order of magnitude for each increase in level on the scale
(i.e. the scale is logarithmic). The 1986 accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power
plant is rated at Level 7 on INES.

<snip>

The highest four levels on the scale (Levels 4–7) include a definition in
terms of the quantity of activity released, defining its size by its radiological
equivalence to a given number of terabecquerels of 131I.

<snip>

Two methods are given for assessing the radiological significance of a
release, depending on the origin of the release and hence the most appropriate
assumptions for assessing the equivalence of releases. If there is an atmospheric
release from a nuclear facility, such as a reactor or fuel cycle facility, Table 2
gives conversion factors for radiological equivalence to 131I that should be used.

The actual activity of the isotope released should be multiplied by the factor
given in Table 2 and then compared with the values given in the definition of
each level. If several isotopes are released, the equivalent value for each should
be calculated and then summed (see examples 5–7). The derivation of these
factors is explained in Appendix I.

If the release occurs during the transport of radioactive material or from
the use of radiation sources, D2 values should be used. The D values are a level
of activity above which a source is considered to be ‘dangerous’ and has a
significant potential to cause severe deterministic effects if not managed safely
and securely. The D2 value is “the activity of a radionuclide in a source that, if
uncontrolled and dispersed, might result in an emergency that could reasonably
be expected to cause severe deterministic health effects” <5>. Appendix III lists
D2 values for a range of isotopes.

<snip>

Level 7
“An event resulting in an environmental release corresponding to a
quantity of radioactivity radiologically equivalent to a release to the atmosphere
of more than several tens of thousands of terabecquerels of 131I.

This corresponds to a large fraction of the core inventory of a power
reactor, typically involving a mixture of short and long lived radionuclides.
With such a release, stochastic health effects over a wide area, perhaps
involving more than one country, are expected, and there is a possibility of
deterministic health effects. Long-term environmental consequences are also
likely, and it is very likely that protective action such as sheltering and
evacuation will be judged necessary to prevent or limit health effects on
members of the public

Level 6
“An event resulting in an environmental release corresponding to a
quantity of radioactivity radiologically equivalent to a release to the atmosphere
of the order of thousands to tens of thousands of terabecquerels of
131I.”
With such a release, it is very likely that protective action such as
sheltering and evacuation will be judged necessary to prevent or limit health
effects on members of the public.

<snip>

[AtheistCrusader]

56. Unlikely.

Theoretically possible, if some as-yet unforseen confluence of horrible circumstances came to pass like a couple more 9+ earthquakes, and a couple more tsunamis completely level the complex to the ground, and crack open all three loaded containments, and all 6 storage pools and and and.

We'd be approaching the level of so few people left alive in Japan to care anyway, that it might be moot.

[Kalun D]

31. Contradictory Statements

""Chernobyl was the absolute perfect storm of a fuckup. It really couldn't have been worse.""

""Now, if Fukushima manages to melt through primary, secondary containments, and the building foundation, then all bets are off. Bad times. But even Chernobyl didn't escape that way""

We've got 4 reactors out of control

the water table is a lot closer at Dai-ichi and the population is a lot denser, there's going to be more people displaced.

Chernobyl the pile of material was exposed so they could dump stuff right on top of it. By this time in the Chernobyl incident it was already more or less over as far as release. Fukushima has a long way to go, they are just treading water. It's a conundrum, they need to separate all the fuel but everything is in such a shambles they can't safely get close to it.

[AtheistCrusader]

34. Not contradictory at all.

Chernobyl didn't have the immediate water table issue that Fukushima has. IF it burns through the entire building, all containment, we have a major problem. (understatement)
Corium at Chernobyl found it's way into the sublevels, but was not a huge issue, mostly due to the location of the site. As bad as Chernobyl was, it didn't get to the point where Fukushima's water table would be an issue.


Chernobyl was more exposed, but Chernobyl didn't have core containment either. So even if the wrecked buildings weren't in the way, you still couldn't dump much on the problem. (Exception of course, adding water to the storage pools.)
Fukushima not being exposed is a good thing. Otherwise it WOULD be 3-4x Chernobyl. I think they are doing a little better than treading water, but they do have to eliminate this intermittent re-criticality issue, if it is actually occuring, or they are indeed treading water trying to get rid of the waste heat.

[Kalun D]

32. LOLZ!!

"We survived Chernobyl."

some estimates say close to a million people did not in fact survive, and there's still people being affected.


""Chernobyl: 120000 PBq""

for how many days?

Fukushima: 10,000 TBq/hour at it's worst, down to 1 TBq/hour now.

for how many days?

[AtheistCrusader]

35. Total.

120000 PBq for the enire Chernobyl event. Most of which was released early on.

Fukushima released 10 PBq for a few hours at it's worst point. About 1 TBq /hour now. it would take a VERY LONG TIME for Fukushima to release as much radiation as Chernobyl at this rate. A year and a half at it's worst state in the hours after the hydrogen explosions. Some 13,600 years at it's current rate, based on best measurements.

As to the survival bit, I can only refer you to the poster whom I responded to with his doomsday 'kiss our butts goodbye' stuff.

[Kalun D]

57. Know what I think?

Your numbers are BS lies by TEPCO.

Why would they suddenly make it a level 7 if Chernobyl was 12,000 times Fukushima?

BS corporate lies

here's some evidence they've been lying

http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20110413_4365.php

[CJvR]

48. Not that hard to calculate...

Chernobyl was 50000 to 120000 PBq (Reactor explosion + fire + meltdown + no containment).

Fukushima guesstimate:
5 weeks = 840h

Lets say 140h with maximum radiation leakage (10000 TBq = 10 PBq) -> 140 x 10 = 1400 PBq
Lets say the rest average at 2000 TBq / h -> 700 x 2 = 1400 PBq

Total (so far) 2800 PBq
or:
beween 5,6% and 2,3% of the Chernobyl blast.

Also the Chernobyl reactor burned for a long time, that is why the wind spread contamination in widely different directions as the weatherpatterns changed.

[cui bono]

44. They didn't pump radioactive water into the ocean at Chernobyl. n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

52. Not at Chernobyl, but 'they' 'pumped' two fully operational reactors plus over 100 warheads into the

ocean, at crushing depths, at least once.

'We' did too. (USS Thresher, though it only had one reactor)
Obviously the fuel loads are different, but long-term, we've dumped so much radioactive shit into the oceans, some of which won't be 'fully exposed to the environment' for decades to come.

It's like my friend says: 'To a smoker, all the world's an ashtray'.

[KittyWampus]

49. You forgot to account for all the water being dumped into the reactors. That water's going somewhere

[AtheistCrusader]

51. Downhill. To the ocean.

It is inclusive of those estimates.

Probably more reliable than the air sampling, as well.

[Chef Eric]

15. Good thing we'll have Medicare to cover our cancer treatments... oh, wait, never mind. nt

[AndyTiedye]

36. That is Why They are Attacking Medicare NOW

They know that the cancer rates are going to skyrocket as a result of this,
and they have no intention of paying for all the expensive medical care it will require.

[Egnever]

38. LOL

[EndElectoral]

9. The following is described as the result of a 7....

INES Alert Level 7—the highest level— means "Major Accident." Ukraine's Chernobyl disaster in 26 April 1986 falls under this level. It caused widespread health and environmental effects. There is external release of a significant fraction or reactor core inventory.
Considered as the worst nuclear plant disaster in history, the Ukraine of the former Soviet Union initially denied the accident at Chernobyl when Sweden detected high radiation levels near their plant on 28 April, which made the world distrust nuclear scientists. The plume had already reached vast areas over the western part of the former Soviet Union, and Eastern, Western and Northern Europe. As a direct result of the accident, 28 workers died from acute radiation syndrome including beta burns. Fifteen people died from thyroid malignancy. Several chromosomal defects were reported with deaths estimated to be between 4,000 and up to a million over the years.

At INES Alert Level 7, there is major release of radioactive material with widespread health and environmental effects requiring implementation of planned and extended countermeasures.

[mountainlion55]

11. lucky me

I live five miles from the Pacific here in Cali. I guess there's not much we can do about this shite but I would like to know what kind of doses I'm getting. I know, its alot to ask.

[CountAllVotes]

20. here ya go:

http://www.woweather.com/weather/news/fukushima?LANG=us&VAR=niluhemis133&HH=0&LOOP=1

Hell of a time to say to you welcome to the Democratic Underground! :hi: :hi: :hi:

:dem:

[Kalun D]

33. Geiger Counter

buy yourself a Geiger Counter, they're not that expensive.

I'm going to here shortly. Even if they are measuring 24/7 there aren't enough sensors to cover all the area it could come from. Like just a small wisp of wind, if it doesn't blow right by the sensor it's not going to detect it.

[mysterysoup]

42. Click here for West Los Angeles readings:

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/live-radiation-monitoring-from-west-la

[cui bono]

45. Hm... that was usually around 32 when I was looking at it a couple weeks ago...

Gotta remember to keep checking in. And to not listen to all the naysayers who think anyone worrying about this is crazy.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[caraher]

13. They were never fooling anyone with the INES 5 rating

My early-on gut feeling was that this would be about 25% as bad as Chernobyl, which still easily rates a 7.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

16. if they are admitting to a 7 you can take it to the bank that it's a 12!

yes I do know

[jpak]

17. but..but..but...we have been told this could never be "another Chernobyl"

fuck nuclear power

and the nuclear lobby

lying pricks

yup

[CountAllVotes]

19. worse than Chernobyl

I said that in the beginning being there are so many reactors gone bad.

Yep bad sh*t that nuculur enurgy. :sarcasm:

Now when do they begin to evacuate the island because it is contaminated?

Have we been there yet?

:kick:

[AtheistCrusader]

24. No, we are not 'there' yet.

Chernobyl:
120,000,000,000,000,000,000 becquerels.
Fukushima Dai-ichi:
10,000,000,000,000,000/hour for a few hours at it's worst. Down to
1,000,000,000,000,000/hour now.


Total radiation release 12 times, plus 3 decimal places worse at Chernobyl, based on best estimates by multiple, not-beholden-to-TEPCO sources. It's a number that boggles the mind. There's no emotional frame of reference for it. It's just a shitload of zeroes at this point, to all but a handful of human minds.

This is NOT worse than Chernobyl, and will be hard pressed to become so. Four reactors or 50 reactors, it makes no difference. The difference is how the two types of reactors can, are, and have released actual radioactive particles into the environment.

What aggravates me is how Chernobyl is downplayed. I know you don't mean to, but you are downplaying the fucking HORROR of Chernobyl with all this. It's core was running at 10x its safe maximum output when it exploded. All rods fully critical, beyond design tolerance. It was so hot, they inserted the graphite control rods to stop it, and the control rods instantly burst into fire, and were utterly annhihilated, AND the insertion displaced coolant, sending the whole thing into a massive explosion. A fully critical, burning core, thrown into the sky. 22 ton lid tossed aside like a scrap of paper. No containment at all. The rods themselves were the containment system. Even the fuel in the storage pools at Fukushima, likely some of which were thrown into the sky by the hydrogen explosions, cannot even begin to compare.

I'll fully admit, this is a lot worse than I thought it could possibly become, but saying 'it's worse than chernoby' is completely and utterly non-sensical.

[jpak]

26. Happy Happy Talk Talk

yup

[boppers]

29. aka: "Math"!

It's FUNdamental!

[closeupready]

40. Courtesy of the Mathemagician.

:rofl:

[AtheistCrusader]

30. Call it what you like, but this disaster is on par with Chelyabinsk, not Chernobyl.

And most people don't even remember Chelyabinsk, which became known to the world in 1992. Now called the 'East Urals Radioactive Trace'.

Or 4-5x the release in the UK at the Windscale fire. (who the HELL thought an air-cooled uranium reactor was a good idea? WTF)

[mysterysoup]

43. For an "atheist crusader," you have a lot of faith.

You remind me of the classic comedic definition of an optimist: someone who jumps off a 100 storey building, and every ten floors, yells up to his friends that he's doing fine.

The current emissions are not the issue. It's the potential ones that matter. This may go on for years.

Why? Because the Japanese, who make such fine automobiles and superb electronic devices, can't find their toes with a flashlight in this emergency. Strange, isn't it? This is a technical problem, and yet it baffles the masters of techné.

[cui bono]

46. LOL!!!

[AtheistCrusader]

53. You remind me of people that have a hard time staying on topic.

This entire thread is about raising the level of the 'crisis alert' to 7, which is based upon the actual situation, not what might happen years from now. If they got it under control today, it would still rate a 7.

Not entirely sure why you would insult the Japanese, collectively like that.
They are making headway on an incredibly dangerous, difficult circumstance.

[dipsydoodle]

37. Yes its bad but you are correct

Level seven previously only applied to the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, where 10 times as much radiation was emitted.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13045341

[closeupready]

39. Stop the hysteria! Stop the hate!

:sarcasm:

[Turborama]

18. Drone Peers Into Tsunami-Devastated Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant (Dialup Warning - Pic Heavy)

X-Post from GD that readers of this thread may find interesting: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x867220#867705

[CJvR]

50. What is really annoying...

...about this huge steaming radiocative pile of shit is that it was totally avoidable!

All that was required were that the emergency backup generators would have been placed high enough not to get flooded and probably none of us would ever have heard of Fukushima!

[makhno]

54. So what are they going to do about it now?

What's the plan? Seems like that's the real issue.

Listening to Japanese officials and nuclear industry talking heads reminds me of the good old Soviet times.