Which nuclear accident ware worse Chernobyl or Fukushima

[Pawelk198604]

I mean in ecological and global sense and economy

[WestAir]

3 mile. It convinced us to stop investing in clean energy and to keep up the coal plants.

EDIT: Read your question wrong. I thought you were asking us to name a disaster WORSE than Fukushima and Chernobyl. I say Chernobyl was worse.

Edited May 10, 2013 by WestAir

[Xeldrak]

Chernobyl - by FAR. In Chernobyl the actual core caught fire. A huge block of graphite (wich is basically a form of coal) filled with the fuel rods burns, throwing radioactive particles high into the atmosphere. This was far worse than fukushima...

Edited May 10, 2013 by Xeldrak

[LeathalMeatball]

^This

fukushima was much more contained

[Nibb31]

Economically, Fukushima is most definitely worse because the real estate in Japan nowadays is way more expensive than Ukraine in the 80's. It will have a durable effect on the fishing industry, which is quite big in Japan. A lot of the cleanup work has been reported to be taken up by the Yakusa, which will have some heavy social repercussions.

Ecologically, Fukushima is a slow release of radioactive elements, that occurred over several months (and might still be happening...). Chernobyl was a sudden explosion, with most of the radioactive elements released in a single relatively short event. Due to the accumulation effect, on the sheer amount of radioactive particles, I guess that Fukushima is worse. However, Fukushima released most of its pollution into the sea, where the actual effects are hard to measure, whereas the effect of the Chernobyl was measured all over Europe and directly affected populations. Fukushima has probably contaminated a much larger number of people, due to the proximity of Tokyo, which is one of the most populated cities in the World.

So all in all, Fukushima is probably worse than Chernobyl.

Edited May 10, 2013 by Nibb31

[Nibb31]

Chernobyl - by FAR. In Chernobyl the actual core caught fire. A huge block of graphite (wich is basically a form of coal) filled with the fuel rods burns, throwing radioactive particles high into the atmosphere. This was far worse than fukushima...

Arnie Gunderson doesn't agree with you. This whole speech is really interesting, but for a comparison of release levels between Chernobyl and Fukushima, you can skip to 28.00:

http://www.fairewinds.org/content/fairewinds-speech-new-york-academy-medicine

[falofonos]

I knew some nurses who worked in radiology at my local hospital in the UK. They wear radiological tags which turn black if they've exceeded their safe dose. They left the hospital on their lunch break while the Chernobyl fallout cloud was hanging overhead and when they came back, the tags were telling them they were in trouble.

Livestock in Wales were still considered too radioactive for human food a few years back because it's cheaper to have radioactive lamb than to clean up all that grassland.

The ecological, economic and human health consequences of the Chernobyl event are not widely discussed because they're catastrophic and nuclear power is already seen as unsafe by us plebs. That said, the consequences of fossil fuel use are almost completely taboo in the media despite the likelihood that they are causing more disease and death than any nuclear disaster could on a continuous basis.

Hilarious bit of info I discovered recently through this forum or by accident was the Thorium salt nuclear reactor... They don't blow up, they are small, they were proposed around the same time as atomic energy was being developed and they're reliable. The reason everyone went for gas cooled uranium reactors was to make plutonium for .... agricultural purposes or something.

[NovaSilisko]

Any nuclear accident just results in a huge public outcry about how dangerous nuclear power is and all that, then everyone goes into a knee-jerk reaction mode of stopping various projects in development, shutting down existing reactors, protesting against spacecraft that use RTGs (happened for Cassini and Curiosity), and so on. It's really a shame people get that way, nuclear is really the one thing that could provide us with clean energy for hundreds of years, with just some more developments to it (better waste storage/disposal, for example)

Edited May 11, 2013 by NovaSilisko

[Brotoro]

Chernobyl was by far the worst. It didn't kill anywhere near the number of deaths caused by fossil fuel plants, but it was easily the worst nuclear power plant disaster.

[OdinYggd]

Chernobyl had the most lasting damage- even today the facility is dangerously radioactive with no hope of an easy solution for cleanup.

Fukushima experienced severe damage, but the bulk of the nuclear material did indeed remain within confinement even though the reactor was destroyed. Not only did the plant survive conditions far beyond its design calculations, but the lessons learned from Chernobyl were successfully applied.

Although Fukushima is a major cleanup cost at this point in time, remember Chernobyl practically bankrupted the USSR in the immeadiate aftermath trying to contain the mess and relocate citizens from the exclusion zone.

Because Fukushima was more contained, it will be easier to clean up the area and return it to service. The lasting consequences won't be as severe.

[Nibb31]

It's not easy to clean up the ocean floor... And you can't say that Chernobyl had the most lasting damage when Fukushima is still spewing tons of contaminated water into the ocean, and will likely continue for many years.

Also, the number of people who have been potentially contaminated is much higher for Fukushima, due to the sheer population density in the area.

People should really watch the Gunderson video I linked to earlier, because the information comes from a guy who has spent his life working on these things. He is not against nuclear energy, but he is for educating the public about the actual risks and processes involved.

Nuclear energy can be safe and clean, but it's expensive to design, build, secure, and dismantle (disposal and dismantling is never factored into the cost of nuclear power, because if it was, it would be way too expensive).

[DerekL1963]

Any nuclear accident just results in a huge public outcry about how dangerous nuclear power is and all that, then everyone goes into a knee-jerk reaction mode of stopping various projects in development, shutting down existing reactors, protesting against spacecraft that use RTGs (happened for Cassini and Curiosity), and so on.

Actually the number of protesters and lawsuits against RTG powered spacecraft has dropped noticeably over time - to the point they were virtually absent for Curiosity.

[architeuthis]

I think westair is (accidentally?) correct. Fukushima was a much less severe accident than Chernobly. The National Institute of Radiological Sciences in Tokyo has said that no one received a dose greater than 46 mSv. This is below the US nuclear workers yearly safety limit, and is less than 100 mSv, which is the smallest dose clearly linked to any kind of health effect. If the linear no threshold model is used there will be up to 1300 additional fatal cancers over the next 50 years. But, if we buy the linear no threshold model this number is significantly smaller than the number of extra cancer deaths per year from commercial flying (seriously if LNT is correct than sunny beaches should be reclassified as radioactive exclusion zones).The WHO does not think that future health effects due to the Fukushima accident will even be statistically detectable. As of May 2012 538E15 Bq of radiation was released into the environment, less than one tenth that of Chernobyl. According to that august source, Wikipedia, as of 2008 there are 68 confirmed deaths due to radiation from the 1986 Chernobyl accident.

On the other hand these accidents have prolonged our ongoing abusive relationship with coal thermal plants, which is in all ways undoubtedly the more deadly power source.

[Xellith]

I believe that the Chernobyl catastrophy threw so much radioactive material into the atmosphere that over a few weeks/months there was a belt of radioactive material around the planet. I recall one snippet of information regarding the sheep of Wales being exposed to low levels of radiation or some such.

Really though we just need to make reactors underground or something and come up with better ways of disposing of nuclear materials and then nuclear isnt an issue at all.

Though I wouldnt really call Chernobyl an "ecological disaster". From what I have read, nature in the area is flourishing.

[lobsterbark]

Any nuclear accident just results in a huge public outcry about how dangerous nuclear power is and all that, then everyone goes into a knee-jerk reaction mode of stopping various projects in development, shutting down existing reactors, protesting against spacecraft that use RTGs (happened for Cassini and Curiosity), and so on. It's really a shame people get that way, nuclear is really the one thing that could provide us with clean energy for hundreds of years, with just some more developments to it (better waste storage/disposal, for example)

This is why there is not yet a manned mission to any of Jupiters/Saturns moons yet. Or Mars. Or a moon base.

[Nibb31]

As of May 2012 538E15 Bq of radiation was released into the environment, less than one tenth that of Chernobyl.

I don't trust the numbers coming solely from NISA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_from_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster

[falofonos]

Having viewed Nibb's video link.... Fukushima seems to have been quite bad. I wonder if the Japanese government will sue general electric for selling them a nuclear time bomb..

[OdinYggd]

Having viewed Nibb's video link.... Fukushima seems to have been quite bad. I wonder if the Japanese government will sue general electric for selling them a nuclear time bomb..

Probably not- for four reasons.

1. the plant had been modified in violation of international standards for nuclear power stations, greatly reducing the effectiveness of some of the safety equipment that could have reduced the damage once the disaster began.

2. Despite having been notified that there was a very real threat to the plant, the owner did not sufficiently protect the plant by raising the seawalls and making sure that all reactors could draw power from emergency equipment located on high ground- the generators and power distribution gear were located in the basement, and quickly flooded once the seawall overtopped.

3. All sane contracts include a force majure clause wherein damages resulting from natural or manmade disasters are not the liability of the company supplying equipment or information.

4. Much like Chernobyl, initially the extent of the damage was downplayed and international assistance declined. There were American warships in the area that could have provided vital supplies much faster than the shattered Japanese infrastructure could deliver them, but with the extent of the damage not reaching the people that really needed to know it and the Japanese government declining international aid at first, the blame for everything that happened after the initial disaster rests entirely with the plant's management and the Japanese government.

Edited May 11, 2013 by OdinYggd

[Guest]

Interesting topic. Here is one of my favorite documentaries on the subject. My personal opinion is that Fukushima was more damaging to public opinion about nuclear power, while Chernobyl was overall more damaging to the environment. Hopefully we can learn from these mistakes and make all of our power plants better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1Z5__IkaCs

[Fractal_UK]

Fukushima is a pretty excellent example of how not to handle some kind of nuclear incident, the reaction relative to the danger level was absurdly over the top. The region in which any leaked radiation might actually be potentially harmful is miniscule compared to the size of the Fukushima exclusion zone. Japan, on a worldwide scale, has relatively low background radiation compared to many other places which makes for great headlines when you express the rise in percentage terms but a tiny numbered multiplied by 2 or 3 is still a tiny number. Only through absolute dose is a meaningful comparison achieved and when you look at Fukushima in this regard, things look a whole lot less bad.

I, for one, doubt that the headline "50% of Fukushima Exclusion Zone less radioactive than Cornwall" would have sold too many newspapers. Natural background radiation can easily reach 5+x the 20mSv experienced within much of the exclusion zone with no statistically significant increases in health problems amongst the populations within those regions as a result. On the other hand, the hasty evacuation of the elderly and ill from homes and hospitals in such regions can and did claim lives - actually the only lives lost that will ever be attributable to Fukushima.

It is depressing to consider that nuclear energy gets such bad press, while fossil fuels go on killing at a rate of many times the number of people killed in the entire history of nuclear power every month! Why isn't that in the news every single day? Why are we going on building these things when we have an alternative that is orders of magnitude safer? It's absolutely insane policy.

In many western countries, the UK, the US, Germany, debt is cheap right now. We have the perfect opportunity to make long term investments into energy infrastructure that will produce a solid return for the next 40 or 50 years while simultaneously decarbonising our energy sector. Instead, we'd rather build cheap gas plants and tie ourselves into rising prices. It's bad economics, it's bad environmentally, it's bad for our welfare. In short, our energy policy is a joke and not a very funny one.

[TooManyErrors]

Really though we just need to make reactors underground or something and come up with better ways of disposing of nuclear materials and then nuclear isnt an issue at all.

While I was reading this thread, I was thinking of burying the reactors underground too. If we did that then the dangers of the plant releasing radiation wound probably be much smaller.

[Nibb31]

That would be expensive. Don't forget that nuclear power is about producing cheap energy. If you add so many safety features that it becomes more expensive than other power production methods, there would be no point.

This is the main problem with nuclear power. Operators will tend to skimp on safety because of the economic pressure. It happens in just about every country: nuclear plants are run by subcontractors who employ temporary workers who are poorly qualified. Regulatory bodies have a hard time forcing the operators to comply with safety rules, and operators have a hard time running the plants economically because so often the cost of (safe) nuclear power production was underestimated.

Edited May 11, 2013 by Nibb31

[Rune]

Count another in the "Chernobyl was much more serious" camp. The core blew up and was at least partially transformed into a cloud of ash. There was no containment at all. In Fukushima, on the other hand, there was almost no damage to the primary containment system, and only water used for cooling was released. The biggest part of the core is still safely inside, cool and contained.

As to radiation levels and long-lasting effects, what many people have said: a few months after both accidents, there are no people subjected to significantly dangerous levels of radiation. And right now there are people studying how to turn Chernobyl into a natural park, since the lack of humans is doing so much good to the animals on the area. The Japanese case has a much higher population density, so perhaps more people have been bothered, but I don't think that's a big deal co pared with keeping the nuclear fuel safely contained.

Rune. The biggest radiological damage at a global scale, however, probably comes from the extra coal plants that got built as a response in the following years, so it's hard to judge.

[bsalis]

Chernobyl was an epic disaster. Like a major war, there are still many Vets suffering illness from the cleanup. In the exclusion zone, it's mostly safe, apart from pockets. Around the base of reactor 4, it's reasonably clean...

Red forest, it's pretty bad. This is just on the outskirts...

Note that the sarcophagus containment structure was built to last 30 years. That time is up.

As for Fukushima, that is a disaster still in progress IMO. I don't trust any information from the authorities there too. Only time will tell how bad that incident is.

[magnemoe]

Fukushima is a pretty excellent example of how not to handle some kind of nuclear incident, the reaction relative to the danger level was absurdly over the top. The region in which any leaked radiation might actually be potentially harmful is miniscule compared to the size of the Fukushima exclusion zone. Japan, on a worldwide scale, has relatively low background radiation compared to many other places which makes for great headlines when you express the rise in percentage terms but a tiny numbered multiplied by 2 or 3 is still a tiny number. Only through absolute dose is a meaningful comparison achieved and when you look at Fukushima in this regard, things look a whole lot less bad.

I, for one, doubt that the headline "50% of Fukushima Exclusion Zone less radioactive than Cornwall" would have sold too many newspapers. Natural background radiation can easily reach 5+x the 20mSv experienced within much of the exclusion zone with no statistically significant increases in health problems amongst the populations within those regions as a result. On the other hand, the hasty evacuation of the elderly and ill from homes and hospitals in such regions can and did claim lives - actually the only lives lost that will ever be attributable to Fukushima.

It is depressing to consider that nuclear energy gets such bad press, while fossil fuels go on killing at a rate of many times the number of people killed in the entire history of nuclear power every month! Why isn't that in the news every single day? Why are we going on building these things when we have an alternative that is orders of magnitude safer? It's absolutely insane policy.

In many western countries, the UK, the US, Germany, debt is cheap right now. We have the perfect opportunity to make long term investments into energy infrastructure that will produce a solid return for the next 40 or 50 years while simultaneously decarbonising our energy sector. Instead, we'd rather build cheap gas plants and tie ourselves into rising prices. It's bad economics, it's bad environmentally, it's bad for our welfare. In short, our energy policy is a joke and not a very funny one.

Yes I do not understand the exclusion zone, during the accident it was an good idea as things could go wrong, but afterwards?

On the other hand areas around Chernobyl are still radioactive, this is because of all the reactor fragments around.