Which nuclear accident ware worse Chernobyl or Fukushima

[TheGatesofLogic]

why would a HIGHLY REGULATED and HIGHLY PROTESTED industry attempt to lie to anybody? They can barely control the portion of the energy market that they have anyways so why would they jeopardize that?

[lajoswinkler]

And it's not even second-why does everybody always forget Kyshtym?

I know about it, but Chernobyl was worse when you account for the economic and social conseqences.

[Psycix]

Or so the nuclear industry keeps telling us.

Who knows more about it, the nuclear physicists, or the general public that opposes nuclear energy?

If you look at the numbers, nuclear energy is not dangerous at all.

The Fukushima disaster is responsible for ~1% of all deaths resulting from the 2011 earthquake[1], yet the media focuses almost exclusively on the nuclear disaster rather than the earthquake and tsunami itself.

[1]

Deaths from the earthquake: 15883

Deaths from Fukushima: LNT model predicts 130. The LNT model is known to grossly overestimate.

Edited November 30, 2013 by Psycix

[Seret]

The accident in Russia has been contained. Fukishima is still leaking radioactive coolant in to the pacific. Its spread from Japan to virtually to the USA. Contaminated fish are being caught everywhere.

There is no sign that the leak will be contained any time soon. It is THE worst Nuclear accident EVER, and will continue to be for years.

Sure, but how much radiation is actually being released? I've got to admit, I've not been following events at Fukushima lately, but if you only look at what happened in the first few weeks it seems a much less severe accident. Less radiation was released, fewer people were killed in the accident, the exclusion zone will be lifted sooner, etc. What's your actual criteria for rating Fukushima as more severe?

[Nibb31]

Since radioactive elements from Fukushima are still being released into the environment 2 and a half years after the actual meltdown, and there is no sign of the situation actually getting under control any time soon, I don't see anyone can confidently say which one is worse. Fukushima is also closer to a major capital city, so the actual amount of irradiated people might end up being higher.

http://enenews.com/quite-extremely-radioactive-sample-tokyo-air-filter-150-times-uranium-expected-fukushima-busby-video

If car filters are contaminated, then so are peoples' lungs. Irradiated people don't drop dead immediately, so the actual casualty count is irrelevant. We will only know the actual impact of Fukushima on health in a couple of decades, when we have some clear numbers for cancer rates and birth defects.

There is still a complete lack of transparency in the measurements, especially in the ocean where most of the radioactive elements are being dumped, and TEPCO as well as the Japanese authorities still seem to be very much in panic mode when it comes to securing the plant:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/12/us-japan-fukushima-removal-idUSBRE9AB15L20131112

[kiwi1960]

You should learn about dosages and dillutions.

It is not the worst accident ever. Chernobyl was.

WAS, till Fukishima came along.

The city may be evacuated, but that is existing contamination from the accident...

Fukishima, as I said, is STILL leaking... its spread from Japan to the USA thanks to the currents, contaminated fish are being caught...

AND... recently, I saw an article which said they are slowly removing the fuel rods from that reactor... its going to take them years.

Meanwhile..... its still leaking....

[Kryten]

Kiwi, think. Look at all the reports of radioactive fish and air filters and whatever else. For all the number of people apparently poking around with geiger counters, can you see any actual indication of radiation levels?

Of course not, because it's 100% BS. If they actually reported the amounts of radiation they'd recorded, people would be able to calculate actual dosages and levels of risk, and they'd get far less ad revenue from paranoid radiophobes.

[Fractal_UK]

Of course not, because it's 100% BS. If they actually reported the amounts of radiation they'd recorded, people would be able to calculate actual dosages and levels of risk, and they'd get far less ad revenue from paranoid radiophobes.

There's still enough information to go on to say conclusively that within the vast majority of the Fukushima exclusion zone, you could live an entire lifetime with no increased risk of cancer and that the undeniable largest health impact was the evacuation of the elderly and sick from inside the exclusion zone - something that really does place those people in genuine danger.

[Seret]

We will only know the actual impact of Fukushima on health in a couple of decades, when we have some clear numbers for cancer rates and birth defects.

Unlikely. There hasn't been enough radiation released for it to be detectable amongst the noise of all the regular cancer patients. We do have models that predict the amount of additional cancers that will be caused by a given release of radiation, but they're somewhat speculative at low doses because cancer is so common that it takes a really huge release of it to show up above the normal levels. Nevertheless, numbers I've seen for Fukushima deaths are somewhere around the 100-1000 magnitude, spread over several decades. Bear in mind that there are over 100,000 deaths from all types of cancer every year in Japan and you can see that it's very hard to spot the ones caused by radiation from Fukushima. Even if you just look at the most common cancers caused by radiation exposure it's still difficult, as there are many sources of radiation around us all the time.

[Seret]

AND... recently, I saw an article which said they are slowly removing the fuel rods from that reactor... its going to take them years.

Tbh, the fact they're even considering removing the fuel just shows how it's a more manageable disaster than Chernobyl. The fuel from Chernobyl is still in there, it's waaaay too dangerous to go in and remove it. The sarcophagus at Chernobyl that contains all the melted fuel is actually starting to fail, if it collapses it'll release a very nasty plume of radioactive dust. There is a large EU project on site there right now racing to construct a new containment building that will be slid into place. They aren't even thinking about defueling yet, that won't happen until some undetermined point in the future when we have the technology to do it safely.

Fukushima may feel more severe and immediate because it's only just happened, but I think time will show that Fukushima gets packed up and made safe a long, long time before Chernobyl does. The main advantage in clearing up Fukushima is that none of the cores were breached. That hugely simplifies things. Chernobyl is still an open wound.

[Nibb31]

Really, it's apples and oranges. Most of the radionucleides released at Chernobyl were vented to the atmosphere when the reactor exploded. Only a relatively small portion of them are still contained in the sarcophagus. After the explosion, it was pretty much over and cleanup operations could start. With Fukushima, only a small amount was released into the atmosphere. Most of it is slowly leaking from the reactor and dumped into the ocean, but there are 4 leaky reactors instead of 1.

The main difference between Fukushima and Chernobyl is that radioactive elements are being released continuously into the sea over several years instead of into the atmosphere in one explosion, and nobody really cares about what goes into the sea.

Also, Fukushima isn't over yet. The fuel removal job isn't part of the cleanup, it's still damage control. The spent fuel pools are located at the top of the badly damaged reactor buildings. Even a minor quake could cause leaks to appear in the pools or the buildings to collapse totally, which could expose the damaged fuel rods. If that happens, you risk a nuclear fire with molten fuel rods and criticality events, and the consequences would be catastrophic.

So basically, even though the amount of radioactive particles emitted into the atmosphere is lower than Chernobyl, the amount dumped into the ocean is probably comparable and the potential of Fukushima getting worse than Chernobyl is still there.

Edited December 2, 2013 by Nibb31

[Seret]

Really, it's apples and oranges. Most of the radionucleides released at Chernobyl were vented to the atmosphere when the reactor exploded. Only a relatively small portion of them are still contained in the sarcophagus.

Everything I've read says only 6% of the fuel was lost in the fire at Chernobyl. The rest of it's still in there.

So basically, even though the amount of radioactive particles emitted into the atmosphere is lower than Chernobyl, the amount dumped into the ocean is probably comparable and the potential of Fukushima getting worse than Chernobyl is still there.

Have you got a source for that?

[Kerbin Dallas Multipass]

When they talk about fuel removal in Fukushima they are referring to the 4 spent fuel pools, not the 3 molten cores. The fuel rods in those pools are undamaged.

[Nibb31]

Some of the fuel bundles were damaged by the collapsing roof and other debris. They might also have corroded from the use of sea water as coolant. Removing them is potentially quite dangerous.

[lajoswinkler]

Really, it's apples and oranges. Most of the radionucleides released at Chernobyl were vented to the atmosphere when the reactor exploded. Only a relatively small portion of them are still contained in the sarcophagus. After the explosion, is what pretty much over and cleanup operations could start. With Fukushima, only a small amount was released into the atmosphere. Most of it is slowly leaking from the reactor and dumped into the ocean, but there are 4 leaky reactors instead of 1.

The main difference between Fukushima and Chernobyl is that radioactive elements are being released continuously into the sea over several years instead of into the atmosphere in one explosion, and nobody really cares about what goes into the sea.

Also, Fukushima isn't over yet. The fuel removal job isn't part of the cleanup, it's still damage control. The spent fuel pools are located at the top of the badly damaged reactor buildings. Even a minor quake could cause leaks to appear in the pools or the buildings to collapse totally, which could expose the damaged fuel rods. If that happens, you risk a nuclear fire with molten fuel rods and criticality events, and the consequences would be catastrophic.

So basically, even though the amount of radioactive particles emitted into the atmosphere is lower than Chernobyl, the amount dumped into the ocean is probably comparable and the potential of Fukushima getting worse than Chernobyl is still there.

So it's worse to have few weeks of absolutely catastrophic radionuclide emission than few years of relatively low emission?

You do realize that what Chernobyl released is not gone? It's in the environment and there's much more of it, and Fukushima will never release a comparable amount. Meanwhile, Fukushima's radionuclides are being released in small amounts into the largest ocean on the planet. The dillution is very efficient, though there will be some bioaccumulation in the higher regions of the food chain, mainly strontium-90 in shark bones, etc.

The fact radionuclides are detected means very little. It's the amount that's important.

[Psycix]

You should learn about dosages and dillutions.

It is not the worst accident ever. Chernobyl was.

WAS, till Fukishima came along.

The city may be evacuated, but that is existing contamination from the accident...

Fukishima, as I said, is STILL leaking... its spread from Japan to the USA thanks to the currents, contaminated fish are being caught...

AND... recently, I saw an article which said they are slowly removing the fuel rods from that reactor... its going to take them years.

Meanwhile..... its still leaking....

I love how you both quote and completely ignore his point about dosages and dilutions, going on "it is STILL leaking!"