3 ms·

> all others were near incidents (Three Mile Island, Japan, etc...). I would hardly call Fukushima [0] a "near incident." It's considered on the same scale as

by peckrob 11y ago

> all others were near incidents (Three Mile Island, Japan, etc...). I would hardly call Fukushima [0] a "near incident." It's considered on the same scale as Chernobyl [1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Scale#Level_7:_Major_accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Sc...

Alupis 11y ago
> I would hardly call Fukushima [0] a "near incident." I called it a "near incident" because there was no meltdown, and the issue was resolved without having to permanently evacuate any area around the plant. Essentially they got it under control, and given the circumstances it took to get the plant into that situation in the first place, I'd say it's a flagship example of how far Nuclear safety has come. Today Japan is activating even more Nuclear power plants.
- peckrob 11y ago
  > there was no meltdown Except that there totally was a meltdown. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster#Core_meltdowns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa... * http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/201706-muon-scans-confirm-complete-reactor-meltdown-at-fukushima-reactor-1 http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/201706-muon-scans-confirm... * http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2015/09/29/fukushima-watch-near-complete-meltdown-confirmed-at-reactor-2/ http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2015/09/29/fukushima-watc... > the issue was resolved without having to permanently evacuate any area around the plant. Except for the 20 mile exclusion zone that is still in place. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_reaction_to_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_reaction_to_Fukushima... * http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/11916879/Inside-Fukushimas-nuclear-disaster-exclusion-zone-in-pictures.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/1... I'm not an anti-nuclear person by any means, but let's not sugarcoat this disaster. It was bad.
- pjc50 11y ago
  permanently evacuate any area around the plant This is simply false; there is an area which remains evacuated. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3263714/Destroyed-man-reclaimed-nature-Amazing-images-reveal-exclusion-zone-Fukushima-abandoned-overgrown-wilderness.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3263714/Destroyed-ma...
- somebehemoth 11y ago
  There are still areas that are evacuated with no plan for humans to return in the near future: http://fukushimaontheglobe.com/the-earthquake-and-the-nuclear-accident/evacuation-orders-and-restricted-areas http://fukushimaontheglobe.com/the-earthquake-and-the-nuclea...
merpnderp 11y ago
The same scale as Chernobyl? Chernobyl irradiated whole countries and caused thousands of deaths. Fukushima isn't even within a couple of magnitudes of irradiation.
- vonmoltke 11y ago
  There were only 31 direct deaths, and it did not "irradiate" whole countries except in the most technical sense of the word.
  - jhallenworld 11y ago
    Are you kidding? Even if you completely ignore the radiation, the amount of disruption caused by the disaster caused a huge amount of pain, suffering and death. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_Chernobyl_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_Chernobyl_disas...
- peckrob 11y ago
  They are both considered Level 7 events by the IAEA [0], the highest level. I imagine it's a bit like the difference between category 5 hurricanes. Some are bigger and more destructive than others, but that's where the scale tops out. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Scale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Sc...
Nimitz14 11y ago
> It's considered on the same scale as Chernobyl [1]. Which is a fucking scandal and really pisses anybody who knows anything about radiation off.
- mikeyouse 11y ago
  The Fukushima exclusion zone is still dozens of square miles where upwards of 100,000 people have had to abandon their homes and businesses.. That's a decent approximation to what happened in Chernobyl. Clearly there was much more radiation released in Ukraine but that doesn't mean the area around Fukushima is safe.. Here's a map; http://i.imgur.com/EBEnCUa.jpg http://i.imgur.com/EBEnCUa.jpg
  - vonmoltke 11y ago
    Nor does the existence of an exclusion zone mean it isn't.
    - mikeyouse 11y ago
      That's pretty much exactly what it means.. They have actual measurements of environmental radiation.. In anything orange or red, you're looking at a minimum of 20mSv/year which is about 1/2 of the annual dose limit for US nuclear workers.. In the deep red areas, you're looking at more than 50mSv/year which is approaching the level of increased cancer incidence. Nobody is going to live in those areas for a very long time.
      - vonmoltke 11y ago
        Nobody is going to be allowed to live in those areas for a very long time. That doesn't mean it isn't safe to live there. It means an overcautious government won't let people live there. You even said yourself the highest levels outside the plant grounds are only approaching the levels of increased cancer incidence. So, what other than abundance of caution and paranoia about radiation is keeping people from returning?

by peckrob 11y ago

Alupis 11y ago

> I would hardly call Fukushima [0] a "near incident." I called it a "near incident" because there was no meltdown, and the issue was resolved without having to permanently evacuate any area around the plant. Essentially they got it under control, and given the circumstances it took to get the plant into that situation in the first place, I'd say it's a flagship example of how far Nuclear safety has come. Today Japan is activating even more Nuclear power plants.

peckrob 11y ago
> there was no meltdown Except that there totally was a meltdown. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster#Core_meltdowns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa... * http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/201706-muon-scans-confirm-complete-reactor-meltdown-at-fukushima-reactor-1 http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/201706-muon-scans-confirm... * http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2015/09/29/fukushima-watch-near-complete-meltdown-confirmed-at-reactor-2/ http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2015/09/29/fukushima-watc... > the issue was resolved without having to permanently evacuate any area around the plant. Except for the 20 mile exclusion zone that is still in place. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_reaction_to_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_reaction_to_Fukushima... * http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/11916879/Inside-Fukushimas-nuclear-disaster-exclusion-zone-in-pictures.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/1... I'm not an anti-nuclear person by any means, but let's not sugarcoat this disaster. It was bad.
pjc50 11y ago
permanently evacuate any area around the plant This is simply false; there is an area which remains evacuated. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3263714/Destroyed-man-reclaimed-nature-Amazing-images-reveal-exclusion-zone-Fukushima-abandoned-overgrown-wilderness.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3263714/Destroyed-ma...
somebehemoth 11y ago
There are still areas that are evacuated with no plan for humans to return in the near future: http://fukushimaontheglobe.com/the-earthquake-and-the-nuclear-accident/evacuation-orders-and-restricted-areas http://fukushimaontheglobe.com/the-earthquake-and-the-nuclea...

merpnderp 11y ago

The same scale as Chernobyl? Chernobyl irradiated whole countries and caused thousands of deaths. Fukushima isn't even within a couple of magnitudes of irradiation.

vonmoltke 11y ago
There were only 31 direct deaths, and it did not "irradiate" whole countries except in the most technical sense of the word.
- jhallenworld 11y ago
  Are you kidding? Even if you completely ignore the radiation, the amount of disruption caused by the disaster caused a huge amount of pain, suffering and death. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_Chernobyl_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_Chernobyl_disas...
peckrob 11y ago
They are both considered Level 7 events by the IAEA [0], the highest level. I imagine it's a bit like the difference between category 5 hurricanes. Some are bigger and more destructive than others, but that's where the scale tops out. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Scale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Sc...

Nimitz14 11y ago

> It's considered on the same scale as Chernobyl [1]. Which is a fucking scandal and really pisses anybody who knows anything about radiation off.

mikeyouse 11y ago
The Fukushima exclusion zone is still dozens of square miles where upwards of 100,000 people have had to abandon their homes and businesses.. That's a decent approximation to what happened in Chernobyl. Clearly there was much more radiation released in Ukraine but that doesn't mean the area around Fukushima is safe.. Here's a map; http://i.imgur.com/EBEnCUa.jpg http://i.imgur.com/EBEnCUa.jpg
- vonmoltke 11y ago
  Nor does the existence of an exclusion zone mean it isn't.
  - mikeyouse 11y ago
    That's pretty much exactly what it means.. They have actual measurements of environmental radiation.. In anything orange or red, you're looking at a minimum of 20mSv/year which is about 1/2 of the annual dose limit for US nuclear workers.. In the deep red areas, you're looking at more than 50mSv/year which is approaching the level of increased cancer incidence. Nobody is going to live in those areas for a very long time.
    - vonmoltke 11y ago
      Nobody is going to be allowed to live in those areas for a very long time. That doesn't mean it isn't safe to live there. It means an overcautious government won't let people live there. You even said yourself the highest levels outside the plant grounds are only approaching the levels of increased cancer incidence. So, what other than abundance of caution and paranoia about radiation is keeping people from returning?