Comparison of the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear accidents: A review of the environmental impacts

This is a new Study and is, as far as i know, very fresh,
sadly it is not for free yet, the Price is 40 USD but free at the University!

Comparison of the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear accidents:
A review of the environmental impacts

The environmental impacts of the nuclear accidents of Chernobyl and Fukushima are compared. In almost every respect, the consequences of the Chernobyl accident clearly exceeded those of the Fukushima accident.

In both accidents, most of the radioactivity released was due to volatile radionuclides (noble gases, iodine, cesium, tellurium).

However, the amount of refractory elements (including actinides) emitted in the course of the Chernobyl accident was approximately four orders of magnitude higher than during the Fukushima accident. For Chernobyl, a total release of 5300 PBq (excluding noble gases) has been established as the most cited source term.

For Fukushima, we estimated a total source term of 520 (340–800) PBq.

In the course of the Fukushima accident, the majority of the radionuclides (more than 80%) was transported offshore and deposited in the Pacific Ocean. Monitoring campaigns after both accidents reveal that the environmental impact of the Chernobyl accident was much greater than of the Fukushima accident.

Both the highly contaminated areas and the evacuated areas are smaller around Fukushima and the projected health effects in Japan are significantly lower than after the Chernobyl accident.

This is mainly due to the fact that food safety campaigns and evacuations worked quickly and efficiently after the Fukushima accident. In contrast to Chernobyl, no fatalities due to acute radiation effects occurred in Fukushima.

Science Direct

I will buy it because for me this Info is important

Or you could just commission me to do a study for you. Like any great Scientist though I just have two very important questions to ask prior to starting.

1. How much are you going to pay me?
2. What conclusion do you want me to come to?

IMO that pretty much sums up "studies". Do you want to prove Climate Change is real or not? I can help you!
Want to prove out that scientific studies are often dubious at best? I can help you!

I would not trust some 40.00 study one bit.... Damn sure makes me feel stupid not making money off all this crap.

reply to post by Human0815


I had forgotten that Fukushima was over. When was that?
Your post history and location show a Huge bias.

I won't trust a study I can't read. That's stupid.

reply to post by Dustytoad


Lol, i gave you a Star for your "Critical Thinking Skill"
and Analysis of Member Profiles

My Topic is "Fukushima" since 3/11/2011
and i do not much else anymore,
my Wife already call me "Radiation-Otaku"!

No, i think this Study provide a lot of important Data and Information,
the Conclusion what i do with this Data happen in my Head only
and not on a Paper!

I believe much more in academical Studies than in obscure Blogs like the div. Sources
or the professional Shills like Caldicott or Gundersen
or in Pro-Nuclear Blogs like Rod Adams and official Sources

Beggars belief that in the 21st century supposedly intelligent people dismiss out of hand a scientific paper that they haven't read, simply because its conclusions do not concur with their favourite conspiracy theory ....

Mamatus
Or you could just commission me to do a study for you. Like any great Scientist though I just have two very important questions to ask prior to starting.

1. How much are you going to pay me?
2. What conclusion do you want me to come to?

IMO that pretty much sums up "studies". Do you want to prove Climate Change is real or not? I can help you!
Want to prove out that scientific studies are often dubious at best? I can help you!

I would not trust some 40.00 study one bit.... Damn sure makes me feel stupid not making money off all this crap.

But it is important to be up to Date,
just a few Minutes ago i saw a new Thread about a Info
that is already older than 950 Days
but the Member thought this is new Information (oh my God, only 30 Cm. left)

This is not bad and i just use it as one Example!!!

So we need to have a Technique to be above the Level of the average People
because it is very important.

Very funny is that many People, like you and the other Member, are so critical
for the real Science (i measure a Disintegration Ergo there is a Disintegration)
but eat and consume all this wrong Info
(We are all Dead, the Fish is bad, Fukushima killed the Sea Lions)
unquestioned or at least unanswered!

I go with Science because i believe in it and think that Science
is the only Way for the Human Hive!

AndyMayhew
Beggars belief that in the 21st century supposedly intelligent people dismiss out of hand a scientific paper that they haven't read, simply because its conclusions do not concur with their favourite conspiracy theory ....

You said people so since there are only 2 posters other than you and op you must mean me too..

Show me where I dismissed out of hand please.

I am very specific with my words. I will not trust any conclusions to a faulty study. How can I tell without paying $40 I don't have, that the study is legit or faulty?

This is ignorance, the literal meaning. I have no data or method to base anything on.

Who funded the study?

reply to post by AndyMayhew


Conspiracies aside I personally I don't trust ANY study that when released costs $40.00 to read. True Scientific Papers are Peer Reviewed. That process opens them up for all to see. Charge me to read a study? I smell BS.

reply to post by Dustytoad


1. For Students it is much cheaper
2. In a Library of a University you can read it for free but can't download it
3. Wait a bit and more Info is coming out from this Paper
4. Bug me not

Human0815


Very funny is that many People, like you and the other Member, are so critical
for the real Science (i measure a Disintegration Ergo there is a Disintegration)
but eat and consume all this wrong Info
(We are all Dead, the Fish is bad, Fukushima killed the Sea Lions)
unquestioned or at least unanswered!

I go with Science because i believe in it and think that Science
is the only Way for the Human Hive!

Maybe looking into my post history might help? You don't know how I post. I don't go along with all the fear just as much as I don't go along with stories I can't read.

Many studies are faulty that I have read on ATS lately trying to prove things about cancer and especially dealing with fukushima. Me and others have argued over the conclusions that these studies came up with, but pretty much across the board we agreed the studies sucked.

Look at my posts about the radiation plume study... I am not on the doom porn side..

Still... I'm not trusting things with either no source or a source I can't access. This is Stupid.

reply to post by Mamatus


I read many such Studies since Decades and nearly none of them comes for free,
they cost between 30 and 150 USD nearly always, when you look
for Oncology or Gene-Tech it get even more expensive!

This Study is from the Department of Environmental and Radiological Health Sciences,
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, United States
and will show up here:
Science Total Environment

Dustytoad

Human0815


Very funny is that many People, like you and the other Member, are so critical
for the real Science (i measure a Disintegration Ergo there is a Disintegration)
but eat and consume all this wrong Info
(We are all Dead, the Fish is bad, Fukushima killed the Sea Lions)
unquestioned or at least unanswered!

I go with Science because i believe in it and think that Science
is the only Way for the Human Hive!

Maybe looking into my post history might help? You don't know how I post. I don't go along with all the fear just as much as I don't go along with stories I can't read.

Many studies are faulty that I have read on ATS lately trying to prove things about cancer and especially dealing with fukushima. Me and others have argued over the conclusions that these studies came up with, but pretty much across the board we agreed the studies sucked.

Look at my posts about the radiation plume study... I am not on the doom porn side..

Still... I'm not trusting things with either no source or a source I can't access. This is Stupid.

seems so as most of the information i have read on fukushima, from japan and tepco, leaves much to be desired and little to be trusted. all i know is it's broken, no governments seems to care, the NRC has been busy raising safe rad levels? who does that? seems like the same shenanigans they pulled in the gulph with the "corexit" safe, yeah my butt it's safe.

i have also read and watched some of the Gunderson (sp) articles and videos and i think the last thing he said was this cleanup probably wont go well and we should expect a story coming out in dec., jan., feb., on how rods have touched and are gassing the enclosure, that being the least of what may follow. it's a crazy situation i must say.

Dustytoad

Human0815


Very funny is that many People, like you and the other Member, are so critical
for the real Science (i measure a Disintegration Ergo there is a Disintegration)
but eat and consume all this wrong Info
(We are all Dead, the Fish is bad, Fukushima killed the Sea Lions)
unquestioned or at least unanswered!

I go with Science because i believe in it and think that Science
is the only Way for the Human Hive!

Still... I'm not trusting things with either no source or a source I can't access. This is Stupid.

I am very sorry but i do not recognize you but i will remember you now
Dozo Yoroshiku o negai Shimasu

This Paper is a Review and Reviews are full of mentioned Quotes,
you are able to get a Source for every single Opinion and this make
this kind of Paper so interesting because of all the Cross References!

Dustytoad

I am very specific with my words. I will not trust any conclusions to a faulty study. How can I tell without paying $40 I don't have, that the study is legit or faulty?

This is ignorance, the literal meaning. I have no data or method to base anything on.

Who funded the study?

How can you tell without reading the paper that it is faulty? And if it is, the usual process, as a scientist, is to then write a letter to the Journal showing how, in empirical terms, it is faulty.

It is normal for scientific journals to charge those who do not subscribe to the Journal to read any papers contained therein - although slowly this policy is being questioned and it is hoped will change. No conspiracy there - just the way its been done in ALL science for decades.

Mamatus
reply to post by AndyMayhew

 

Conspiracies aside I personally I don't trust ANY study that when released costs $40.00 to read. True Scientific Papers are Peer Reviewed. That process opens them up for all to see. Charge me to read a study? I smell BS.

I am sure that this will have been peer reviewed! But, at present, most papers published in serious scientific journals are not free to read. And that's been the case since before we were born.

We mere mortals have to rely on the abstract and press releases and any subsequent news stories - but as noted, if you are at Uni you may be able to obtain the journal, and some libraries may also have a copy.

reply to post by AndyMayhew


You can use it also for the purpose of Tax Reduction,
i do it in that Way and declare it as "Material for advanced Education",
you can do it with many things like Books, Films or even Holidays
(aka Congresses) and all you need is just the original Bill!

AndyMayhew


How can you tell without reading the paper that it is faulty? And if it is, the usual process, as a scientist, is to then write a letter to the Journal showing how, in empirical terms, it is faulty.

Your reading comprehension sucks.

Again,

"How can I tell without paying $40 I don't have, that the study is legit or faulty? "

is what you are responding to above.

Do you understand now or what? You repeated what I wrote. Answer is I cannot tell. RE read all of my posts I never said anything about the validity of this study only that I cannot trust it without reading it. I also called the OP biased but didn't say anything that meant he was wrong. I was only saying Biased poster, with no source is not something I would trust.

Dustytoad

AndyMayhew


How can you tell without reading the paper that it is faulty? And if it is, the usual process, as a scientist, is to then write a letter to the Journal showing how, in empirical terms, it is faulty.

Your reading comprehension sucks.

Again,

"How can I tell without paying $40 I don't have, that the study is legit or faulty? "

You can't. Although maybe the fact that is has been published in a peer reviewed scientific journal may help? Why would you think it faulty??????

And by faulty, what do you mean?

Were you qualified to question it, I think it highly unlikely you'd not be able to read it!

btw, you could aways contact the authors?

reply to post by Human0815




Are there paid posters pushing planned agendas on ATS ? Posts like this really make me wonder I have seen your posts before and to be honest it is almost like you are pushing pro-tepco propaganda.





I am not really and expert on this but if it walks like a duck......................Members and readers around the world can make up there own minds.