6 ms·

Here's what the press release says concerning Chernobyl: > The Fukushima disaster is the single largest release of radioactivity into the ocean and one of only

Here's what the press release says concerning Chernobyl: > The Fukushima disaster is the single largest release of radioactivity into the ocean and one of only two Level 7 nuclear disasters in world history - the other being Chernobyl. So, can you explain what is so wrong or inane about this statement? I think it's rather informative and to the point, tbh.

nitrogen 11y ago
It would help if they included the definition of a "level 7" disaster.
guscost 11y ago
I guess many people like myself disagree with the use of this seemingly arbitrary category. Maybe it is based on an estimate of total long-term and predicted impact on the immediate environment compared to some threshold? And what probability does it use for future containment leakage? As far as I can tell, so far the "Level 7" category is useful mainly to cite in this very argument. Surely we can do better, are there at least some individual score factors?
- cholantesh 11y ago
  As I mentioned in a sibling comment, the INES just specifies that the accident required countermeasures to ensure public safety. That's pretty terrible; agreed.
  - guscost 11y ago
    Thanks for finding this documentation. And yeah, the grouping tells us how likely different authorities were to use countermeasures as much as anything.
cholantesh 11y ago
The IAEA maintains the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale, under which a level 7 incident is one that requires the implementation of countermeasures to protect the public[1]. The details of those countermeasures and the scope of the accident is not significant - all that matters is that _some_ plan to counteract the effects of radiation was undertaken. The IAEA even cautions against using the scale as a means of comparison between facilities and incidents. In this context, the Chernobyl incident involved the release of 10x the radiation [2]. The effects on human and animal health also appear to be orders of magnitude different. So really, grouping the two incidents together is counterproductive. Doing so, to me, reflects a misunderstanding of the INES - one that I suspect is deliberate on Greenpeace's part. 1 - http://www-ns.iaea.org/tech-areas/emergency/ines.asp http://www-ns.iaea.org/tech-areas/emergency/ines.asp [2] - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004896971301173X http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969713... (2014, but I'm not aware of revised figures from the past two years)

nitrogen 11y ago

It would help if they included the definition of a "level 7" disaster.

guscost 11y ago

I guess many people like myself disagree with the use of this seemingly arbitrary category. Maybe it is based on an estimate of total long-term and predicted impact on the immediate environment compared to some threshold? And what probability does it use for future containment leakage? As far as I can tell, so far the "Level 7" category is useful mainly to cite in this very argument. Surely we can do better, are there at least some individual score factors?

cholantesh 11y ago
As I mentioned in a sibling comment, the INES just specifies that the accident required countermeasures to ensure public safety. That's pretty terrible; agreed.
- guscost 11y ago
  Thanks for finding this documentation. And yeah, the grouping tells us how likely different authorities were to use countermeasures as much as anything.

cholantesh 11y ago

The IAEA maintains the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale, under which a level 7 incident is one that requires the implementation of countermeasures to protect the public[1]. The details of those countermeasures and the scope of the accident is not significant - all that matters is that _some_ plan to counteract the effects of radiation was undertaken. The IAEA even cautions against using the scale as a means of comparison between facilities and incidents. In this context, the Chernobyl incident involved the release of 10x the radiation [2]. The effects on human and animal health also appear to be orders of magnitude different. So really, grouping the two incidents together is counterproductive. Doing so, to me, reflects a misunderstanding of the INES - one that I suspect is deliberate on Greenpeace's part. 1 - http://www-ns.iaea.org/tech-areas/emergency/ines.asp http://www-ns.iaea.org/tech-areas/emergency/ines.asp [2] - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004896971301173X http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969713... (2014, but I'm not aware of revised figures from the past two years)