Fukushima: how many Chernobyls?

[oly]

http://www.shoah.org.uk/2011/05/29/fukushima-how-many-chernobyls-is-it/

As Dr. Michio Kaku, a world renowned CUNY theoretical physicist pointed out on CNN March 18, 2011, Chernobyl involved one reactor and only 57.6 Tons of the reactor core went into the atmosphere. In dramatic contrast, the Fukushima Daiichi disaster immediately involved six reactors and IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency, a UN Agency) documented 2,800 Tons of highly radioactive old reactor cores.

[Indiogene]

The radioactive fallout cloud mainly was pushed over the Pacific ocean and nobody is completely sure how the Asian Pacific rim or the Eurasian continent, and here in the Americas were affected. The Fukushima Daiichi plant's 5 or 6 reactors explode/melted down, unlike Chernobyl's one reactor fire sent it upward to probably contaminate all of Europe, Asia and parts of Africa, and crossed the Arctic ocean to sparingly touched North America. The human toll is already suffering by the aftermath of the quake/tsunami, to add on radiation-restricted zones are painful reminders of how devastating the Great Tohoku quake of 2011 was beyond Japan.

[aquatus1]

What a terribly written and alarmist article. It was clearly written for those without the mind to spend a few minutes confirming the data they are given.

Edited May 30, 2011 by aquatus1

[oly]

What a terribly written and alarmist article. It was clearly written for those without the mind to spend a few minutes confirming the data they are given.

So what claims are you questioning?

[aquatus1]

Depends. What do you believe the article says?

[oly]

Depends. What do you believe the article says?

Seems to be saying that it's quite a bit worse than Chernobyl. Isnt that cause for alarm?

[Verneph]

...Wow this article was rather poor...

Clearly whoever wrote it has little to no understanding of what happened at Chernobyl. I don't care how many reactors are involved. Japan took immediate and constant steps to contain and stop the meltdown of those reactors as soon as they realized there was a problem. Does this person have any idea how long the Soviet Union ignored Chernobyl and acted like nothing was wrong? It took the rest of Europe to detect high levels of radiation over their own countries before the rest of the world knew what was going on, and at that point a ton of radiation had leaked out to the point that the area around the plant is still inhospitable. There's a reason why no one lives in Pripyat.

Last I heard, from reliable sources, the Japanese reactors had not completely melted down. Chernobyl was a total, uncontrollable meltdown with lasting consequences that have yet to be topped. I'm going to have to see further, more reliable, evidence before I'd consider otherwise.

[oly]

...Wow this article was rather poor...

So what claims are you questioning?

[Verneph]

So what claims are you questioning?

How about the part where it says it's worse than Chernobyl? They can throw around as many big numbers as they want, that doesn't make them correct and that doesn't make the article reliable.

[jules99]

...Wow this article was rather poor...

Clearly whoever wrote it has little to no understanding of what happened at Chernobyl. I don't care how many reactors are involved. Japan took immediate and constant steps to contain and stop the meltdown of those reactors as soon as they realized there was a problem. Does this person have any idea how long the Soviet Union ignored Chernobyl and acted like nothing was wrong? It took the rest of Europe to detect high levels of radiation over their own countries before the rest of the world knew what was going on, and at that point a ton of radiation had leaked out to the point that the area around the plant is still inhospitable. There's a reason why no one lives in Pripyat.

Last I heard, from reliable sources, the Japanese reactors had not completely melted down. Chernobyl was a total, uncontrollable meltdown with lasting consequences that have yet to be topped. I'm going to have to see further, more reliable, evidence before I'd consider otherwise.

Hi;

In Fukushima the information released has been amended so many times its hard to know what to believe. From no meltdown to partial, back to slightly less melted down and now fully melted for 3 reactors. If any high readings of radiation are released they are later retracted and blamed on inaccurate sensor readings or whatever.

IMHO the way information has been either played down or dumbed down has created a haven for conspiracies, and a total mistrust of both the government and Nuclear power industry. Im not sure there are any reliable sources, the whole thing is a guessing game.

[oly]

How about the part where it says it's worse than Chernobyl? They can throw around as many big numbers as they want, that doesn't make them correct and that doesn't make the article reliable.

I think they're saying its potentially a lot worse than chernobyl, if not already. I don't think it's under control.

[aquatus1]

Seems to be saying that it's quite a bit worse than Chernobyl. Isnt that cause for alarm?

No, it isn't (which is why it is called "alarmist").

It is, however, cause to verify the information. Never trust a news source to be unbiased. Chances are good that they have an agenda, whether it is a particular bias (which the site linked to seems to have a most definite political bias) or even something as simple as wanting to sell more papers. The key is to always validate information prior to deciding if you should be alarmed.

In this case, the article is claiming that Chernobyl had one reactor and Fukushima had six. That makes it worse, because, math.

What you needed to do, at that point, was do a little research. Get on Google and type "Chernobyl Fukushima" You will see a list of articles comparing the two. Yes, they will all have their biases as well. What you are looking for is the commonalities. You are looking for the facts, not the conclusions.

In this case, you will find that while Chernobyl only had the one reactor, that reactor was on fire and the radioactive material was released directly into the environment through the smoke (and if you have seen the smoke from that fire, you would realize the extent of the release). Fukushima, on the other hand, does have more reactors, but not all of the reactors were involved, nor did all of the reactors have a leak. We still are not sure what the extent of the damage is because the cooling process is still underway, and will be for another month at least. however radiation levels are being constantly monitored, and there is simply no massive leak present. Why? because there is another difference between Chernobyl and Fukushima; Chernobyl had no containment unit. Fukushima had multiple containment platforms, and they did exactly what they were designed to do; they contained the radioactive release. Well, much of it, anyway.

These are just the first two major points that come up with two minutes of research. The key is this: if the article is telling you that you should be worried, don't take the articles word for it. And article that is trying to get you to react has an agenda. Look into the facts first, and then decide for yourself what action you need to take. Don't let an article make that decision for you.

Edited May 31, 2011 by aquatus1

[oly]

1. No, it isn't (worse than Chernobyl?). It is, however, cause to verify the information.  

2. Chances are good that they have an agenda, whether it is a particular bias (which the site linked to seems to have a most definite political bias)...

3. Chernobyl only had the one reactor, that reactor was on fire...

4. We still are not sure what the extent of the damage is because the cooling process is still underway, and will be for another month at least.

5. radiation levels are being constantly monitored, and there is simply no massive leak present.  

6. An article that is trying to get you to react (or not react) has an agenda.

1. Do you dispute the claims that there is a lot more radioactive material than Chernobyl there? & are you claiming it's under control?

2. What would you suggest their agenda is (re Fukushima)? & how does this relate to Palestine? 

3. I heard reports of fires weeks ago, but mainly silence in mainstream press. 

4. A lot can happen in a month.

5. ...That you are aware of.

6. If all the articles say the same thing, it doesn't mean it's fact. I know someone who reads the mirror & daily mail to get a balanced view!

Some people think the nuclear industry is more about getting depleted uranium for weapons. Why do you think they haven't entombed Fukushima in concrete (like they did Chernobyl)? Because they wouldnt be able to get the du? 

[aquatus1]

1. Do you dispute the claims that there is a lot more radioactive material than Chernobyl there? & are you claiming it's under control?

The quantity on location isn't the issue. They just want to make you think it is. The issue is how much was released.

Under control. Yes. Still a crisis? Most definitely.

2. What would you suggest their agenda is (re Fukushima)? & how does this relate to Palestine?

I believe their agenda is to make this seem like an out of control crisis for the purpose of blaming the US for not doing anything. Go ahead and read some of their proposed solutions. See how rational they are.

3. I heard reports of fires weeks ago, but mainly silence in mainstream press.

Yes. They found a new flavor of the week. The press does that.

4. A lot can happen in a month.

Also, not much at all.

5. ...That you are aware of.

Yes, I have an active interest in it, being that I live here.

6. If all the articles say the same thing, it doesn't mean it's fact. I know someone who reads the mirror & daily mail to get a balanced view!

Don't read it for the conclusions. Read it for the commonalities. Find the parts that everyone agrees on, and draw your own conclusions. Don't let someone else do your thinking for you. That includes me.

Some people think the nuclear industry is more about getting depleted uranium for weapons. Why do you think they haven't entombed Fukushima in concrete (like they did Chernobyl)? Because they wouldnt be able to get the du?

Because the Japanese would never tolerate it. It is against the culture to not fix your mistakes here. Many of the issues that people are complaining about relating to Fukushima are actually sourced from cultural misunderstandings. In fact, I use a lot of these articles in my business classes.

[oly]

Because...

thanks for your angle, although I disagree with a lot of it.

I don't expect the US to go halfway round the world to help judging by previous responses to disasters. Maybe to pillage & set up more bases, but to help?

Im not sure about Japanese being too proud to cement it either. But I don't know.

[aquatus1]

thanks for your angle, although I disagree with a lot of it.

I don't expect the US to go halfway round the world to help judging by previous responses to disasters. Maybe to pillage & set up more bases, but to help?

Im not sure about Japanese being too proud to cement it either. But I don't know.

It's actually my job. I teach western business culture to Japanese corporations. Part of what I do is show them how to deal with how the Western mind interprets information.

As far as the US helping out, I can't imagine why you wouldn't think they would do so. Judging by previous responses, the US is very good about that sort of thing (I won't bother with the loot and pillage nonsense). But there isn't a whole lot they can do here. This isn't a third world country that needs people trained to do the work, and the US is certainly not in the lead as far as nuclear disaster and recovery goes. In regards to the Japanese being too proud to cement it over...it isn't about pride. It is about doing things correctly. Americans would refer to it as pride. In Japan, it is simply how things are done.

[oly]

As far as the US helping out, I can't imagine why you wouldn't think they would do so. Judging by previous responses, the US is very good about that sort of thing (I won't bother with the loot and pillage nonsense).

Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, Libya, Pakistan, Yemen all worse off for US interference in just the last few years. Where did they help in a useful way? Didn't even help New Orleans! As for pillage, I read a quote by some US general or something that they'd spent so much on Iraq war, that they were entitled to the country (or at least going to take/control it).

[aquatus1]

Like I said, I'm not getting into it.

I would note, however, in keeping with the whole "think for yourself"motif, that you really should not make broad statements concerning a country's role in disaster relief based on someone you cannot even remember making a comment regarding a country we were at war in.

Edited June 2, 2011 by aquatus1

[oly]

1. Like I said, I'm not getting into it.

2. you really should not make broad statements concerning a country's role in disaster relief based on someone you cannot even remember making a comment regarding a country we were at war in.

1. Why can't you give examples of the US being useful in disaster relief? Why don't you want to talk about it?

2. Why not? Their policy is clear, comment or no comment. (it wasn't based on it)

Edited June 2, 2011 by oly

[aquatus1]

1. Why can't you give examples of the US being useful in disaster relief? Why don't you want to talk about it?

Because it is irrelevant to the topic. And it is tiresome to discuss politics.

2. Why not? Their policy is clear, comment or no comment.

Don't let other people do your thinking for you.

[oly]

Because it is irrelevant to the topic.

Don't let other people do your thinking for you.

It's good to base statements on some kind of reality.

Thank you for your advice.

[aquatus1]

No problem.

Here's a little exercise you may want to try: Look up how many articles you can find about how bad the Fukushima disaster is. Then, see if you can find some actual numbers, see if you can find anywhere that says exactly how much radiation has been released into the atmosphere.

Consider your results for the second search, and try to determine what they tell you about the results for your first search.

[jules99]

It's good to base statements on some kind of reality.

Thank you for your advice.

Hi oly;

Ive been reading up a bit on this site;

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=501637

They have numerous threads dealing with different aspects of the nuclear disaster. A good months worth of reading or more They seem to keep on top of all developments and the threads are cleared of irrelevent/off topic posts.

[ExpandMyMind]

The thing that worries me regarding this latest "meltdown" in Japan, is that any toxic material that was relased went right into the sea. A lot of fishing in Japan, and elsewhere, that may end up affected by this disaster. Not to mention weather systems.

Or am I just being silly?

[jules99]

The thing that worries me regarding this latest "meltdown" in Japan, is that any toxic material that was relased went right into the sea. A lot of fishing in Japan, and elsewhere, that may end up affected by this disaster. Not to mention weather systems.

Or am I just being silly?

Its reactor 2 that was responsible for the leak into the ocean. Releases into both the ocean and groundwater are an ongoing concern and could get worse in typhoon season. The problem of seafood being contaminated;

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/press/releases/Greenpeace-Fukushima-radiation-research-reveals-serious-marine-contamination/