Japan: Nuclear Accident Rated At Level 4

I'm sorry to bombard the board with another thread, but I haven't seen this mentioned, and all this back and forth talk about meltdown or not is getting weird if you ask me. Mods, please delete, redirect, disintegrate or merge if need be.

The Japanese government rates the accident at the Fukushima Number One nuclear power plant at level 4 on an international scale of 0 to 7.

Nuclear accident rated at level 4

I figured a Japanese media site might get us a little closer to what is fact or not.

This was brought up in one of the other threads . Troubling to say the least

I contemplate this scale... Why "seven?" Why not 10?

And what do these numbers really relate to? Ok. It's a four... but what does that mean in terms of radiation poured out into the Earth environment? Maybe 2 is deadly to 10% of Humans... I don't know. Do you?

I contemplate a lot. Maybe that's my problem...

reply to post by Amaterasu


I can't provide a link but I was snooping around the internet earlier and it said level 5 would be three mile island type meltdown while level seven would be Chernobyl level incident

I found this telling what each level means.

Events are classified on the scale at seven levels: A Level 0 rating is assigned to deviations of no safety relevance; a Level 1 rating is assigned to anomalies like low-level leaks; a Level 2 rating is assigned to incidents with no off-site impact; a Level 3 rating is assigned to incidents with minimal off-site impact; a Level 4 rating is assigned to accidents causing minor off-site impact resulting in public exposure; a Level 5 rating is assigned to an accident resulting in severe damage to a reactor core or radiological barriers; a Level 6 rating is assigned to an accident resulting in significant off-site release; and, a Level 7 rating is assigned to a major accident with widespread health and environmental ramifications. To date, only Chernobyl has received the INES’s highest safety rating.

Source

How are they able to say how bad it is/was when they haven't been able to get close enough to it? Last I saw they determined a melt down because of the radiation in the air. But isn't it still ongoing?

I hope for them it is a level 4, but I do not see how they could have already made that determination.

ahhh, I just saw the rating is provisional and likely to change as details emerge.

reply to post by Amaterasu


8-10 is reserved for problems of unforseen proportion. instead of making an 11 when the unimaginable happens.

Fox News is reporting that the Reactor is more then likely under a partial meltdown right now.. Thought you all might be interested.

IWAKI, Japan – Japan's top government spokesman says a partial meltdown is likely under way at second reactor affected by Friday's massive earthquake.

Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said Sunday that radiation at the nuclear power plant in Fukushima briefly rose above legal limits, but it has since declined significantly.

Source

The INES Scale is a worldwide tool for communicating to the public in a consistent
way the safety significance of nuclear and radiological events.
Just like information on earthquakes or temperature would be difficult to understand
without the Richter or Celsius scales, the INES Scale explains the significance of
events from a range of activities, including industrial and medical use of radiation
sources, operations at nuclear facilities and transport of radioactive material.
Events are classified on the scale at seven levels: Levels 1–3 are called "incidents"
and Levels 4–7 "accidents". The scale is designed so that the severity of an event is
about ten times greater for each increase in level on the scale. Events without safety
significance are called “deviations” and are classified Below Scale / Level 0.

7
Chernobyl, 1986 — Widespread health and
environmental
effects. External release of a significant
fraction of reactor core inventory.
6
Kyshtym, Russia, 1957 — Significant release of
radioactive
material
to the environment from explosion
of a high activity waste tank.
5
Windscale Pile, UK, 1957 — Release of radioactive
material to the environment following a fire in a reactor
core.
Three Mile Island, USA, 1979 —
Severe damage to the reactor core.
4 Tokaimura, Japan, 1999 — Fatal overexposures of
workers following a criticality event at a nuclear facility.
Saint Laurent des Eaux, France,
1980 — Melting of one channel of
fuel in the reactor with no release
outside the site.
3 No example available
Sellafield, UK, 2005 — Release
of large quantity of radioactive
material,
contained within the
installation.
Vandellos, Spain, 1989 — Near accident caused by
fire resulting in loss of safety systems
at the nuclear
power station.
2 Atucha, Argentina, 2005 — Overexposure of a worker
at a power reactor exceeding the
annual limit.
Cadarache, France, 1993 — Spread
of contamination to an area not
expected by design.
Forsmark, Sweden, 2006 — Degraded safety functions
for common cause failure in the emergency power supply
system at nuclear power plant.
1 Breach of operating limits at a nuclear facility.

INES Level People and Environment Radiological Barriers
and Control Defence-in-Depth
Major Accident
Level 7
• Major release of radioactive
material
with widespread health and
environmental
effects requiring
implementation of planned and
extended countermeasures.
Serious Accident
Level 6
• Significant release of radioactive
material likely to require
implementation
of planned
countermeasures.
Accident with
Wider Consequences
Level 5
• Limited release of radioactive material
likely to require implementation
of
some planned countermeasures.
• Several deaths from radiation.
• Severe damage to reactor core.
• Release of large quantities of
radioactive
material within an
installation
with a high probability of
significant public exposure. This
could arise from a major criticality
accident or fire.
Accident with
Local Consequences
Level 4
• Minor release of radioactive material
unlikely to result in implementation of
planned countermeasures other than
local food controls.
• At least one death from radiation.
• Fuel melt or damage to fuel resulting
in more than 0.1% release of core
inventory.
• Release of significant quantities of
radioactive
material within an
installation
with a high probability
of
significant
public exposure.
Serious Incident
Level 3
• Exposure in excess of ten times the
statutory annual limit for workers.
• Non-lethal deterministic health effect
(e.g., burns) from radiation.
• Exposure rates of more than 1 Sv/h in
an operating area.
• Severe contamination in an area
not expected by design, with a
low probability
of significant
public
exposure.
• Near accident at a nuclear power plant
with no safety provisions remaining.
• Lost or stolen highly radioactive
sealed source.
• Misdelivered highly radioactive
sealed source without adequate
procedures in place to handle it.
Incident
Level 2
• Exposure of a member of the public
in excess of 10 mSv.
• Exposure of a worker in excess of the
statutory annual limits.
• Radiation levels in an operating area
of more than 50 mSv/h.
• Significant contamination within the
facility into an area not expected by
design.
• Significant failures in safety provisions
but with no actual consequences.
• Found highly radioactive sealed
orphan source, device or transport
package with safety provisions intact.
• Inadequate packaging of a highly
radioactive
sealed source.
Anomaly
Level 1
• Overexposure of a member of the
public
in excess of statutory annual
limits.
• Minor problems with safety
components
with significant
defence-in-depth remaining.
• Low activity lost or stolen radioactive
source, device or transport package.

Hope this clarifies you a bit.

EDIT: www.iaea.org...

Originally posted by ELahrairah
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

I can't provide a link but I was snooping around the internet earlier and it said level 5 would be three mile island type meltdown while level seven would be Chernobyl level incident

edit on 12-3-2011 by ELahrairah because: (no reason given)

How much y'wanna bet we'll see a six, then. Thanks so much for the info. I might even push a seven+ but I wouldn't put money on it.

Oh, I wouldn't put money on the first estimate either. It was indeed rhetorical. [grin]

Ok, I think that by saying its a level four, they are simply acknowledging that a nuclear accident has occurred as opposed to the less severe options. You know, "Tokyo we have a problem" and get ready.

reply to post by Amaterasu


God I hope not I really like Japan and I always wanted to visit.
I really do not want to see a nuclear disaster,
I hope the best that comes from this is that people realize how dangerous this source of power is and work towards finding alternative sources for energy.

Originally posted by searching4truth
How are they able to say how bad it is/was when they haven't been able to get close enough to it? Last I saw they determined a melt down because of the radiation in the air. But isn't it still ongoing?

I hope for them it is a level 4, but I do not see how they could have already made that determination.

ahhh, I just saw the rating is provisional and likely to change as details emerge.

I'm with you on that. I look at that situation and think, of COURSE they're going to give it as low estimate. So that means, it's likely a fair degree worse than they're saying right now.

What if the plan was to get those stupid Humans to build nuclear plants and then eventually they'd take 'emselves out. Heh. There I go contemplating again.

I am pasting this information in every thread I feel it is relevant. As I am currently unable to create a thread of my own please excuse the repetition. I feel this information is possibly of great importance and so wish to promulgate it rapidly:

Q. Would ingestion of iodized, common table salt be effective in a nuclear accident if KI pills are not available?

A. The daily dose of potassium iodide (KI) for thyroid blocking is 130 mg per day for up to two weeks. This equates to 96 mg of iodine (I). Iodized salt contains about 0.085 mg of KI per gram of salt (according to the Morton Salt Company). To get the I equivalent of a 130 mg KI pill would require the ingestion of 1,529 grams of salt which would most likely be fatal. According to research by Health Physicist Ken Miller, Hershey Medical Center,

a person can get a blocking dose of iodine by painting 8 ml of either tincture of iodine or providone iodine (betadine) scrub on the forearm daily

. William Kirk, PhD, CHP Pennsylvania Bureau of Radiation Protection

LINK

PLEASE PASS THIS INFORMATION TO YOUR FRIENDS ON THE WEST COAST AND CONTACTS IN JAPAN

Originally posted by ELahrairah
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

God I hope not I really like Japan and I always wanted to visit.
I really do not want to see a nuclear disaster,
I hope the best that comes from this is that people realize how dangerous this source of power is and work towards finding alternative sources for energy.

edit on 12-3-2011 by ELahrairah because: (no reason given)

Well, I'll be relieved if they come back and tell us that it actually, surprisingly was only a 3. But that nuclear power thing...it's an evil flicker. I can't tell you how much I hope to lose my hypothetical bet. But this looks fearfully like much worse than Chernobyl. I mean, I don't recall the whole outer structure of the container being crumbled.

I'm just thinkin'.

Originally posted by Hardfelt
I am pasting this information in every thread I feel it is relevant. As I am currently unable to create a thread of my own please excuse the repetition. I feel this information is possibly of great importance and so wish to promulgate it rapidly:

Q. Would ingestion of iodized, common table salt be effective in a nuclear accident if KI pills are not available?

A. The daily dose of potassium iodide (KI) for thyroid blocking is 130 mg per day for up to two weeks. This equates to 96 mg of iodine (I). Iodized salt contains about 0.085 mg of KI per gram of salt (according to the Morton Salt Company). To get the I equivalent of a 130 mg KI pill would require the ingestion of 1,529 grams of salt which would most likely be fatal. According to research by Health Physicist Ken Miller, Hershey Medical Center,

a person can get a blocking dose of iodine by painting 8 ml of either tincture of iodine or providone iodine (betadine) scrub on the forearm daily

. William Kirk, PhD, CHP Pennsylvania Bureau of Radiation Protection

LINK

PLEASE PASS THIS INFORMATION TO YOUR FRIENDS ON THE WEST COAST AND CONTACTS IN JAPAN

Bless you!

Sorry, one line, but appreciation for effort is due.

Originally posted by Amaterasu

I'm with you on that. I look at that situation and think, of COURSE they're going to give it as low estimate. So that means, it's likely a fair degree worse than they're saying right now.

What if the plan was to get those stupid Humans to build nuclear plants and then eventually they'd take 'emselves out. Heh. There I go contemplating again.

Oooohhhhh, I hope your wrong. It would be far easier to transport a live nuke (like the US did) across the country and have it "accidently" fall. Easier than have a bunch of people with a slow cancer. Damn, look what you made me speculate

reply to post by FraternitasSaturni


There is a member who does his research. Unfortunately for him and us, the term "Variable" is on the
table at this very moment. That term, is one of the most frightening terms in Science.

Thanks for your excellent effort. & S.

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by searching4truth

Originally posted by Amaterasu

I'm with you on that. I look at that situation and think, of COURSE they're going to give it as low estimate. So that means, it's likely a fair degree worse than they're saying right now.

What if the plan was to get those stupid Humans to build nuclear plants and then eventually they'd take 'emselves out. Heh. There I go contemplating again.

Oooohhhhh, I hope your wrong. It would be far easier to transport a live nuke (like the US did) across the country and have it "accidently" fall. Easier than have a bunch of people with a slow cancer. Damn, look what you made me speculate

So sorry. It's just a habit I have... Somehow I can't help myself in speculating "out loud."

Let's hope I'm way in left field on that one.

reply to post by FraternitasSaturni


Thanks, FS. Good info to have. It's the term "widespread" that concerns me... What does THAT mean? 100 miles? 1,000 miles? 10,000 miles? Whole planet? I really think that scale needs ten levels.