One of the things I keep hearing in the media lately is, “Fukushima is not nearly as bad as Chernobyl”. While this is true in a technical sense, I’m afraid it may not be true in a human sense.
From a technical perspective, Chernobyl was a criticality event, whereas Fukushima is presently just a partial meltdown event. The operators at Chernobyl could not insert control rods to stop the nuclear reaction and a runaway fission event led to a huge explosion and graphite fire that distributed radiation far and wide. In contrast, the fires of Fukushima are much less intense. Despite the presence of much more radioactive material at Fukushima, radioactive contamination is likely to be both less severe and less widespread.
But from the human perspective, the amount of radiation released or the size of the geographic area affected are not the most important issues. The key issue is how many humans are injured by radiation. The total number of radiation injuries (including low level exposures) from Chernobyl is estimated to be about 5.5 million. If you consider that Tokyo just advised people not to drink municipal tap water, we’re talking about 30 million or more people who are at risk of at least low level radiation poisoning.
I wish that the “experts” in the media would make this distinction when comparing Fukushima and Chernobyl.
Well said!
I think that’s a limited view of Chernobyl. They told people all over Europe to stay inside after the disaster. I’ve chatted with Soren about that before. People couldn’t hang laundry out etc. We didn’t have as sophisticated tracking of radiation but I imagine that we would’ve found radiation in cow’s milk, vegetables and water all over Europe. While no one is thrilled about radiation in tap water, from what I understand, Tokyo’s warning was more addressed to people with infants and the elderly (aka, people with under active thyroids or low weight).
Interestingly enough, Denverites are exposed to more radiation than low-landers because there’s less ozone to protect us up here. We’ve been fairly extensively studied because of it but so far, there appears to be no ill effects…aside from all the hippies.
There are records of radioactive material (particularly Cesium) from Chernobyl being deposited all over Europe, particularly in Sweden and Finland. I did some calculations from numbers in the Wikipedia, and I estimate that the worst contaminated folks would get an additional 50 millisieverts a year from that Cesium (4 CT scans, give or take). That is significant, but it is no more than the natural level in parts of Europe, Iran, or India.
If you were to stand right above a pool of Tokyo tap water, the dose would be about 0.1% of that. However, ingestion tremendously amplifies the exposure, whether it’s drinking Tokyo tap water or eating radioactive Swedish meatballs.
I stand by my basic point that no matter what happens at Fukushima, there are just more people living closer to the plant. Hence even a much weaker plume than Chernobyl could do much more damage. And comparing the two based only on the size of the bang is “a limited view of Chernobyl”.
Although it does appear that Soren was badly mutated by Chernobyl, so I could be wrong…
Becky only says what she says because the radiation in Denver has poisoned her brain. Otherwise how can you explain any chicken coop owner talking about hippies as “them”, and not as “us”? I hear that she has already fashioned a tie-dyed bandana for the alpha chicken.
And Casey, haven’t you seen Ann Coulter’s brilliant assertion that radiation is actually good for you? I think she pretty much settled this whole thread.
Yes, it appears I committed the grievous error of thinking without first reading the truth from Ann Coulter.