Japan disaster not similar to Chernobyl: officials

[FBaggins]

Geneva (AFP) - The potential health consequences of the nuclear crisis at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi plant are not equal to those caused by the disaster at Chernobyl, Japanese health officials said Tuesday. The levels of radioactive materials Cesium 134 and 137 are "much less than those of the accident at Chernobyl," said Makoto Akashi of Japan's National Institute of Radiological Sciences.

...snip...

"We do not think the radiation in Japan will contribute to an increase risk of cancer and leukemia," he said, adding that there is need "to study the issue very closely."

...snip...

At the session, Japan's vice-minister for health Kouhei Otsuka said "the number of deaths from radiation is zero for the moment," noting that his government evacuated some 85,000 people from the area affected by the disaster. He said it was crucial for all people who worked at the plant "to be closely monitored." Akashi said no one has needed medical treatment for radiation poisoning since the accident.

Japanese authorities estimate that the amount of radioactive material released into the atmosphere at Fukushima, around 250 kilometres northeast of Tokyo, represents around one tenth of the emissions at Chernobyl.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gWfaqfJCmw4kGp0JwhHv9XjQrywg?docId=CNG.2c6da3d5c2b58ff33e6335b12ed6a48f.311

[dixiegrrrrl]

1. ""the number of deaths from radiation is zero for the moment"

( except that guy who died the other day)

but hey, since no one has died...YET....I guess everything is hunky dory.

[Yo_Mama]

5. That guy died from heat-induced heart attack

The poor guy was in his 60s doing heavy labor in a rad suit. You sweat buckets.

There haven't been any radiation deaths yet - that is one major difference from Chernobyl. Also, if you look at the Chernobyl rad maps vs the current Japanese maps, you can see there is a huge difference.

But on the other hand, we don't know the Fukushima endpoint yet; comparisons are premature. I think it is safe to say that these are very different disasters.

[SpoonFed]

22. Heck...

they don't even admit the real numbers of fatalities and illness from Chornobyl, why would they be telling the truth about the horrible situation over there right now?

[FBaggins]

24. "They" reported scores of deaths and many more cancers and illnesses from Chernobyl.

In Japan there have been none so far.

[wtbymark]

2. complete bullshit

and outright lies. readings taken 10-20km outside the exclusion zone showed 4.5 times the amount of radiation per metre cubed, than at Chernobyl.

[Nederland]

6. Do you have a link for that claim? (nt)

[wtbymark]

7. Here's a March 30th post w/link

and it's almost 2 months after these readings, immagine what the readings are today

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x284745


There was more updated readings this month, but I haven't been able to find them. These readings (linked) are eaasily double that of Pripyat in 86'. Two months later, and all three reactors melted, 1 fuel pool - detonated - I'll have to find those new readings

[FBaggins]

10. Yes... and that post was badly off-base

Those "most highly contaminated areas" were thousands of square kilometers. They were by no means the highest readings... they just represented the cutoff for evacuation.

Not only was the total release from Chernobyl many times greater... a FAR higher percentage of the Fukushima release was from shorter-lived elements.

Those differences were the result of superior design, but the Japanese also benefited from a great deal of luck/planning that released a large portion while the wind was blowing out to sea.

Lastly, a VERY high percentage of the release has been in the form of water leaking into the ocean. That's obviously of much less danger to the population.

[Nederland]

12. Your own link does not support your claim

Here is the relevant paragraph:

An analysis of MEXT's data by New Scientist shows just how elevated the levels are. After the 1986 Chernobyl accident, the most highly contaminated areas were defined as those with over 1490 kilobecquerels (kBq) of caesium per square metre. Produce from soil with 550 kBq/m2 was destroyed.

People living within 30 kilometres of the plant have evacuated or been advised to stay indoors. Since 18 March, MEXT has repeatedly found caesium levels above 550 kBq/m2 in an area some 45 kilometres wide lying 30 to 50 kilometres north-west of the plant. The highest was 6400 kBq/m2, about 35 kilometres away, while caesium reached 1816 kBq/m2 in Nihonmatsu City and 1752 kBq/m2 in the town of Kawamata, where iodine-131 levels of up to 12,560 kBq/m2 have also been measured.

Perhaps you failed to carefully read the wording regarding the Chernobyl accident. The sentence reads "the most highly contaminated areas were defined as those with over 1490 kilobecquerels (kBq) of caesium per square metre." This does NOT mean that the worst areas at Chernobyl were contaminated with ONLY 1490 kBq/m2 of caesium, it merely means anything ABOVE that was placed in the highest category.

From what I have gathered, there are many places around Chernobyl that experienced much higher levels of contamination than 1490 kBq/m2. Although the units are different, I've seen sources claiming 8 million Bq/kg for areas around Fukushima versus 5 million Bq/m2 for areas around Chernobyl. Yes, that makes Fukushima levels higher, but not 4.5 times higher. However, that is simply one reading at one place, and as this article (http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/03/japan-soil-measurements-surprisingly.html?rss=1&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
) points out "one point of data doesn't mean that much." A proper comparison needs to evaluate the total amount of radiation released, which apparently reveals that Fukushima released a 1/10 as much radiation as Chernobyl.

Given that over two dozen people died from radiation sickness within a month of the Chernobyl accident, common sense should tell you that it released much more radiation than Fukushima.

[jpak]

3. I do not believe anything they say

nope

[FBaggins]

11. So?

You've already shown that you're in the "don't confuse me with the facts... I already made up my mind" camp - and have been there since before the earthquake.

If they say things are getting worse (say... upping the INES rating for the event), they're "admitting" or "confessing" the truth. If they say things are improving (or just don't match your fears), those same people are lying and/or hiding the truth.

The playbook isn't hard to read.

[jpak]

16. Sorry, I've followed this closely from the beginning and TEPCO has no credibility

none

neither does the Japanese government

and neither do the nuclear apologists

yup

[Kolesar]

19. that was contentless....eom

[meow mix]

4. hey ho! to the bottle i go!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RSh_mhN3Ts

positive spin can fix it!

[Fledermaus]

8. BS...It's not over. No one knows how much radation will be released.

Where's the corium? No one knows!

[FBaggins]

14. It is what it is. Sorry if that doesn't match what you wanted.

If it gets worse again, THEN you can estimate how much more has been released.

If it gets ten times as bad... THEN you can say that as much was released as Chernobyl.

Until then it remains correct to say that they aren't comparable.

Where's the corium? No one knows!

You seem to think that "no one knowns" means that ANY guess is legitimate.

That's ridiculous.

[Fledermaus]

17. And you've been wrong every time so far.

[FBaggins]

18. And you've said that multiple times...

...each time you've been challenged to back it up... and each time you run away.

So I guess we'll see you next time. :hi:

Hearing no response to the first example of your errors, we'll just take that one as a nolo contendere on your part and move on to the next.

Remember when you claimed that the lid of the RPV for unit #3 had blown off? Yeah... I still get a kick out of that one too.

[Fledermaus]

20. Remember when I said hydrogen would be produced when the cores ran dry?

And you said...No WAY..I didn't know what I was talking about.

BOOM!, BOOM!, BOOM!, BOOM!

Four Fucking Times!

Do you get paid by the post?

Why don't you tell us what happened at Unit 3?

[FBaggins]

23. Bzzz... try again.

What you said was that the heat would separate the water into a combustible gas mixture of radioactive hydrogen and radioactive oxygen.

You were wrong.

So no response to your second error, eh? No contest again and we move on to the third.

I still get a kick out of how you thought the russians had fortune tellers working for them and installed the "paint can" lid as a response to TMI on reactors that were build before TMI.

A never ending supply of knee-slappers.

[miyazaki]

25. He's the cat the crapped on the linoleum floor, can't cover it up.

[SpoonFed]

26. What?

The pine cone air fresheners in here aren't covering up the smell for you?

[CJvR]

9. Good....

...although how much leaked into the sea isn't mentioned.

[FBaggins]

15. Not really.

The amount that leaked into the sea was what bumped the event up to a INES level 7. That's included in the comparison to Chernobyl.

[diane in sf]

13. It might be worse.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.