It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fukushima IS as bad as Chernobyl

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2011 @ 09:00 PM
link   
TOKYO —
Radiation released by the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant has caused soil contamination matching the levels seen in the Chernobyl disaster in some areas, a researcher told the government’s nuclear policy-setting body Tuesday. ‘‘A massive soil decontamination project will be indispensable before residents in those areas can return,’’ said Tomio Kawata, a research fellow of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization of Japan, at the meeting of the Japan Atomic Energy Commission, which sets policies and strategies for the government’s nuclear power development.

According to Kawata, soil in a 600 square kilometer area mostly to the northwest of the Fukushima plant is likely to have absorbed radioactive cesium of over 1.48 million becquerels per square meter, the yardstick for compulsory migration orders in the 1986 Chernobyl catastrophe.

Kawata also said soil in a 700 square km area is likely to have absorbed 555,000-1.48 million becquerels per square meter, which was a criteria for temporary migration during the Chernobyl disaster.

Kawata estimated the soil contamination using data on radiation levels in the air monitored by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology.

The size of the contaminated areas in the Fukushima crisis is one-tenth to one-fifth of those polluted in the Chernobyl disaster, Kawata said.

While the expected radiation exposure from 1.48 million becquerels of cesium is around five millisieverts a year, below the government’s benchmark of 20 millisieverts for evacuation orders, decontamination will still be necessary before evacuees can return as radioactive cesium binds strongly to soil, making it hard to reduce radiation levels, Kawata said.
(Japan Today May 25th 2011)

We are constantly being told that Fukushima is not as bad as Chernobyl, yet, this is the breaking news.

So, is it currently as bad as Chernobyl?




posted on May, 24 2011 @ 09:06 PM
link   
I wish we could just get some honesty about this whole situation. The media and the goverments have totally swept this thing under the rug as an after thought.

The effects of this disaster are going to be felt for years to come and I am afraid that by the time we all get to know the full extent of what is going on at Fukushima it is going to be far too late, I'm pretty sure it already is.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThousandIslandSunny

The size of the contaminated areas in the Fukushima crisis is one-tenth to one-fifth of those polluted in the Chernobyl disaster, Kawata said.


So, is it currently as bad as Chernobyl?
According to that quote from your source (you forgot the EX-TEXT tags BTW, do you know about those?), it's one tenth-to one fifth as bad, right? (It's also customary to provide a link to your source if you have one, instead of just naming it).

By one measure, it might be 3-4 times as bad because it involves 3-4 times as many reactors.

More of the core ended up around the Chernobyl site, and that's why some of the evacuated area there is for practical purposes, permanent, so far. At Fukushima I expect the permanent evacuation zone to be smaller than Chernobyl.

But Fukushima dumped way more radiation into the ocean than Chernobyl.

I think when all is said and done, more people will have died from Chernobyl, so since that's the most important measure, I'll say it was worse. People will die from Fukushima too, but I predict not as many as died from Chernobyl.
edit on 24-5-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Sorry new here. It wont let me edit it now.



www.japantoday.com...

Here is the link.

It is not just Fukushima, but surrounding prefectures, such as Ibaraki and Gunma which have soil contamination. Ibaraki tea growers have dumped this years crop, but not all of them are being so decent, and there are still Fukushima, Ibaraki, and Gunma produce on the shelves.





edit on 24-5-2011 by ThousandIslandSunny because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Depends the way you look at it. Chernobyls core was fissioning when it blew, whereas all of the melted cores of Fukushima were sent into scram mode and had moderator rods as soon as the earthquake hit.

The explosion from Chernobyl was the worst part of it. It was a large explosion and sent a lot of radioactive particles into the jet stream. We did not have the equivalent at Fukushima.

I agree with Arbitrageur, that the zone will be smaller, but, I think that it will be because it is on the ocean.
I think that the amount of radioactive particle spewed into the air is going to be smaller than Chernobyl, but, the amount in the ocean is tremendous. So, if we count all released particles together, Fukushima will be and is much worse than chernobyl, but if we talking only airborne I think Chernobyl is worse.

It's that initial explosion of a fissioning core that was so bad about Chernobyl. If it was the same situation in Fukushima, and the cores were fissioning we would be much worse off though.

I hope I made sense.


Pred...



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by predator0187
 


I think I understand. So they are bad in different ways? The airbourne radioactice particles from Fukushima are less than in Chernobyl, but the sea contamination is worse. The area of intense contamination is less in Fukushima than Chernobyl. How about the lower level contamination in places like Ibaraki, Tokyo and Chiba?
Is this comparable to say, Kiev after Chernobyl?

I just want to get a handle on how bad this will be in real terms. Cancer stats, thyroids being destroyed, birth defects etc. Is this going to be as bad as Chernobyl, or look like it will be to others who are not so personally involved in this.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThousandIslandSunny
reply to post by predator0187
 


I think I understand. So they are bad in different ways? The airbourne radioactice particles from Fukushima are less than in Chernobyl, but the sea contamination is worse. The area of intense contamination is less in Fukushima than Chernobyl. How about the lower level contamination in places like Ibaraki, Tokyo and Chiba?
Is this comparable to say, Kiev after Chernobyl?

I just want to get a handle on how bad this will be in real terms. Cancer stats, thyroids being destroyed, birth defects etc. Is this going to be as bad as Chernobyl, or look like it will be to others who are not so personally involved in this.


Kiev is a good example. The wind currents will be the biggest decider, and Japan has been very, very lucky thus far. The fact that they have done nothing to contain the reactors is the scariest thing. With a continous release that doesn't stop the radiation piles up and get worse, so the key is slowing the radiation leak, obviously.

Cancers are hard to get into, there have been very little studies done on low level radiation. Some physicists say it isn't that bad until 100 mSv/y others say any is bad. So, further research needs to be done. But as for dangerous exposure, it will be around the actual plants itself and within the 20-30 mm radius. But again, not instantly dangerous, but if your in that zone too long you'll feel the effects.

This is all my opinion of course. I'm not on some nuclear safety board.
And there are a lot of variables involved.

Pred...
edit on 25-5-2011 by predator0187 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 05:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by predator0187
But as for dangerous exposure, it will be around the actual plants itself and within the 20-30 mm radius.
I'm sure you meant 20-30 km.
But there's a school 50km away from the nuclear plants that has high levels of radiation, and they didn't even close the school, but they're digging up and replacing the contaminated soil. Japan's nuclear advisor resigned because he says they aren't setting appropriate radiation limits for schools:



The University of Tokyo professor had been employed since mid-March as a nuclear advisor to the government of Prime Minister Naoto Kan, who is still battling the fallout from the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. In his April 29 resignation, Kosako blinked back tears and accused the Japanese leadership of ignoring his advice on how to handle the nuclear crisis, particularly the setting of radiation limits for schools. Kosako even charged that the government had not fully complied with the law in its response to the nuclear disaster. "There is no point for me to be here," Kosako said in a tense press conference.

Apparently, he's right.

Also, we learned during our above ground nuclear tests that concentrated doses of radiation can occur far from the source, depending on wind patterns, etc. Sort of like the cases where a waterspout picked up lots of tiny fish in shallow water and then they all fell from the sky 20 miles away, though the distance can be thousands of miles away for radiation.

But you're right, Japan has been lucky that the prevailing winds blew most of the dust out to sea. But I'm afraid of eating radioactive fish now. That's the one food I've been avoiding lately. The FDA isn't monitoring it so we just don't know if there's a problem and if so, how big it is (or maybe somebody knows and they aren't telling us?). I don't know.
edit on 25-5-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Yes, I did mean km. I'm on an iPad and if I do not pay really, really close attention it will redo my words for me. Every time I type hell I get he'll. It's really annoying sometimes.


The schools in Japan, proves how incompetent the government has been throughout this ordeal. Because it is outside of the exclusion zone they consider it safe, but they should have monitored it before kids went back. If it was at the 3 mSv/h, which I believe it is, then the top 18" of soil should be replaced as with the sand in their sand boxes, which has taken them a while to do. The only problem is that this crisis continues, and anyway the winds could shift causing contamination again.

Radiation is a strange creature, it's ability to dissipate and then concentrate thousands of miles away is quite interesting and cannot be calculated because it's fitting to choas theory. But, were talking about nuclear bombs, they release a large amount of radiation very quickly, whereas the fissioning cores are slowly seeping out, making them very dependent on winds.

I have avoided fish lately too, we get our salmon from Alaska so we should be okay for a bit, but that radiation continues to dump into the ocean and will spread and passed around the food chain quite quickly. The water might not be to bad for radiation because it all will settle to the bottom, get absorbed or eaten by those creatures and we all know understand a biosphere in the fact everything is connected. So it will eventually be throughout the entire ocean in wildlife. It's a shame how stupid we are and choose to boil water with uranium, and because of that, everything else suffers.

Pred...



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ThousandIslandSunny
 

I am thinking it is much worst then Chernobyl, because of the explosions that sent the stored rods all over the place and 3 rectors went off. I am worried in 20 years from now, there is going to be an cancer epidemic.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by predator0187
 


The schools in Japan are letting children play outside in the rain, they are feeding them food in compulsory school dinners which they refuse to tell parents WHERE they source the ingredients from, they are not testing levels of radiation in the dust of the school yards. Hence my school age children are now homeschooled, as of the day after the 11th March. The schools in Fukushima are allowing children to receive more millisieverts per hour of radiation than US nuclear industry workers. Parents are not being told to saturate their children with iodine, and for everyone to eat up Ibaraki and Fukushima food to support Japan.

Believe me taking my children out of school has meant a whole lot of hassle and a lot of people telling me what a terrible mother I am, and accusing me of being insane. Its done and done legally now. Rather the kids are not `fully socialised` than increase their risk of thyroid or other cancers even further. In fact rather we are all out of here and I can kiss them goodbye at the school gate somewhere less dangerous, but that is not going to happen.

In short, we are going to see a lot of crying politicians saying their fake sorries in the future. Sorry is not going to help anyone whose child gets cancer, or whose baby is born with birth defects. I suppose they will just say it was `unforseeable` and `regretable` and keep on drawing their huge bonuses and amakudari high paying positions.

If any of mine get sick, I have no idea how I will control myself or my anger at this situation.

(amakudari is a system where government workers who retire are put into high paying positions in private companies as advisors, they do little work and get a lot of money. It is a perk of being male and old here, and having served in the government).



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 04:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chopper
reply to post by ThousandIslandSunny
 

I am thinking it is much worst then Chernobyl, because of the explosions that sent the stored rods all over the place and 3 rectors went off. I am worried in 20 years from now, there is going to be an cancer epidemic.


Agreed. I think the media silence over this is staggering. I really do fear for future generations.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 07:42 AM
link   
Still the worst of Fukushima is the fact that they haven;t entombed it yet. While I may not be a nuclear authority nor do I claim to be I have done a bit of research, the fact that they are leaving it brings in a whole new lot of factors, such as natural decay, so in the end this could still turn out worse than Chernobyl, because of the differences in the way it was handled, and the reactors (6:1 ratio as such).



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Fukushima melt-down worse than Chernobyl


The situation at the quake-hit Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan appears to have fit into the worst predicted scenario. [...]

Certainly, in the first hours after the tragedy happened the operators were too shocked to unveil any details to the public. However, things did not get clearer with time. Deputy Director at the Russian Institute for Nuclear Engineering, Chernobyl clean-up worker Igor Ostretsov commented on the situation in an interview with the VOR…

“The Fukushima disaster has proved that nuclear industry should be controlled only by the state and not by private companies. The outcome of this tragedy has turned even worse than it was in Chernobyl. Graphite which was part of the reactor`s core, burnt out and vanished in the atmosphere. But at Fukushima the reactor`s core melted.” [...]


Yep.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 01:29 AM
link   
Chernobyl could at least be entombed.

Fukushima is too hot. Right now those fuel rods would burn through and melt the concrete, and the concrete could undergo flash setting due to the heat, which would mean it would set in small pieces and not one whole shell - or so said the news late last night (TV Tokyo).

climatecrocks.com...

This was a very interesting BBC world news article about Fukushima compared with Chernobyl.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join