Big earthquake in Japan

[termogard]

Originally Posted by RickOShay

The actual radiation levels and containment of the situation are still light years apart. Fukushima and Chernobyl are still not comparable.

But japanese governmental panel already compared Fukushima disaster to Chernobyl one.

[GoNative]

Originally Posted by termogard

quote :

Japan raised the severity level of the ongoing emergency at the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant on Tuesday from level 5 to the maximum 7 on an international scale, recognizing that the tsunami-caused accident matches the world's worst nuclear catastrophe in 1986 at Chernobyl.

The nuclear regulatory agency under the industry ministry and the Nuclear Safety Commission of Japan, a government panel, said that between 370,000 and 630,000 terabecquerels of radioactive materials have been emitted into the air from the Nos. 1 to 3 reactors of the plant.

Level 7 accidents on the International Nuclear Event Scale correspond to the release into the external environment of radioactive materials equal to more than tens of thousands of terabecquerels of radioactive iodine 131. One terabecquerel equals 1 trillion becquerels.

Kyodo News

And your opinion that " 7 does not make it anywhere near a Chernobyl event" is just an opinion. Sorry.

It's not an opinion. It's totally verifiable. You seem to have not read anything anyone has written since your original post on this. In terms of total radiation leaked into the atmosphere as Rick points out the two events are still light years apart. The area affected in the two events are not even slightly comparable. It's the worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl but they are not of the same magnitude in anyway whatsoever. I think Nyororin pointed out that if the scale was extended then Chernobyl would have been a 12. The event at Fukushima just barely scrapes in as a 7. Very serious but magnitudes apart from the event at Chernobyl....It's silly to keep trying to make them seem the same.

Still over a month on now from the accident and how many people have died from radiation? Not one. How many people hospitalised with acute radiation sickness? Not one.

[GoNative]

Here's an interesting article to help keep some reality to this discussion.

The unpalatable truth is that the anti-nuclear lobby has misled us all | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian

[dogsbody70]

Originally Posted by GoNative

It's not an opinion. It's totally verifiable. You seem to have not read anything anyone has written since your original post on this. In terms of total radiation leaked into the atmosphere as Rick points out the two events are still light years apart. The area affected in the two events are not even slightly comparable. It's the worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl but they are not of the same magnitude in anyway whatsoever. I think Nyororin pointed out that if the scale was extended then Chernobyl would have been a 12. The event at Fukushima just barely scrapes in as a 7. Very serious but magnitudes apart from the event at Chernobyl....It's silly to keep trying to make them seem the same.

Still over a month on now from the accident and how many people have died from radiation? Not one. How many people hospitalised with acute radiation sickness? Not one.

we have been told that the spead of radiation is now on scale with the chernobyl disaster.

[Nyororin]

Okay, regardless of reasons or methods of their calculation, 7 is 7.

The question was "Why from a 5 to a 7 with no 6?" - It was because they combined several 5s into one event which went over the line for 7. No debate about calculation from me. I was just explaining why they revised the rating straight up to 7.

All that Chernobyl and Fukushima have in common is that number now.. 7. The actual radiation levels and containment of the situation are still light years apart. Fukushima and Chernobyl are still not comparable. Only sensationalists are using that comparison to shamelessly draw more attention to their stories. It is really getting despicable, and I really wish they could all take the place of the many children who were washed away in the tsunami.

Basically, this. The status has not changed. They just updated the previous rating based on more detailed information and combining all the events into one.
Everything over a certain point is a 7. It doesn`t matter how far over a certain point. On the scale both a 7 and a 20 would be a 7. There is no higher number. Going over the line to make it a 7 doesn`t mean it is equal to Chernobyl. It just means that it, like Chernobyl, went over the same line. How far over that line doesn`t matter. It could be 1 over the line, or it could be 10 times Chernobyl... And it would still be rated with the same number.
Better to actually look at data to make a real comparison.

In terms of the current situation - things haven`t changed significantly, and they`re just keeping it somewhat stable without managing to get much improvement. They`re concerned that if they cannot improve the situation at a better pace, there is a chance that it may continue to slowly release radiation that would add up to Chernobyl levels. In other words, "We are screwed at this rate - help! Before things get really bad - help!"

we have been told that the spead of radiation is now on scale with the chernobyl disaster.

Spread, yes. Levels, no. Despite the fears and concerns for the future, at this point there has only been a relatively slow release of less than 10% what was released at Chernobyl. The size of the area that has shown a rise in radiation is similar to the size of the area showing a rise after Chernobyl. The levels that have been measured are much lower though.

[eezy1]

Originally Posted by dogsbody70

we have been told that the spead of radiation is now on scale with the chernobyl disaster.

no we havent. its been claimed its 10% of what chernobyl was

[Nyororin]

Originally Posted by eezy1

no we havent. its been claimed its 10% of what chernobyl was

No, I`ll actually back her on this one. It is accurate to say that there has been a similar spread of material. The difference is the amount spread.
They have found traces of nuclear material from Fukushima all over the world... But in such incredibly low levels that it didn`t even cause a detectable rise in the background radiation in most places.

You can spread 10% of something over the same size area - it`s just going to be spread very thin.

[eezy1]

right so spread as in distance not levels of radioactivity. aslong as people understand that, all good

[termogard]

Originally Posted by GoNative

It's not an opinion. It's totally verifiable. You seem to have not read anything anyone has written since your original post on this. In terms of total radiation leaked into the atmosphere as Rick points out the two events are still light years apart. The area affected in the two events are not even slightly comparable. It's the worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl but they are not of the same magnitude in anyway whatsoever. I think Nyororin pointed out that if the scale was extended then Chernobyl would have been a 12. The event at Fukushima just barely scrapes in as a 7. Very serious but magnitudes apart from the event at Chernobyl....It's silly to keep trying to make them seem the same.

Still over a month on now from the accident and how many people have died from radiation? Not one. How many people hospitalised with acute radiation sickness? Not one.

I did not say "the very same situation" And I read opinions of other members of forum. The current Fukushima-1 disaster is comparable to Chernobyl one, not "the same". And the amount of dead personnel at nuclear station isn't an ultimate criteria for increasing a level of danger.

[BobbyCooper]

Is there also already a higher radioactivity being measured in Tokyo and around Tokyo? Do people still update the levels by there own?