3 ms·

What strikes me is just how inept the Japanese are in handling Fukushima compared to the USSR during the much worse Chernobyl disaster. The USSR responded quick

by mempko 8y ago

What strikes me is just how inept the Japanese are in handling Fukushima compared to the USSR during the much worse Chernobyl disaster. The USSR responded quickly and it took just 8 months to entomb the reactor. Over 600k people worked to handle Chernobyl. Fukushima, on the other hand, is still at risk of another disaster, 10 years later. The Japanese government and power company under-handled the situation and lied for years about it's severity. For example that 300 tons of polluted water was going into the pacific every day for 5 years.

avar 8y ago
What the Soviet Union accomplished at the cleanup of Chernobyl likely wouldn't have been possible without a wanton disregard for the value of human life only possible in a totalitarian state, the details of which are discussed in other comments. I don't think the lack of will or ability on the part of Japan to doom thousands of people to death by radiation in the course of a speedy cleanup can be described as ineptitude.
stordoff 8y ago
> The USSR responded quickly and it took just 8 months to entomb the reactor. At a gross cost to human life[1], and in a way that leaves the problem there - work is _still_ to contain and clean up the reactor. There are good reasons for not doing the same here. The sarcophagus was never intended to be a permanent solution, and was unsuccessful in completely containing the accident: Sr-90 and Pu-239 were leaching into the surrounding water table, and some have suggested that the rainwater and remaining nuclear fuel posed the risk of restarting the nuclear chain reaction[2]. [1] death figures are controversial, and vary wildly, but 600,000 people were involved in the cleanup, some of whom will have been put at risk. [2] https://outline.com/fTk4GX https://outline.com/fTk4GX
- mempko 8y ago
  I'm curious, what would have been a better approach the USSR could have taken. Also, is there a better approach that Japan could have taken?
vidarh 8y ago
The reaction to Chernobyl was excessive. What we've learned since is that while a lot of rapid response was needed at the immediate site, at least a portion of the rapid evacuation likely did more harm than good. Large parts of the exclusion zone remained livable (and the Chernobyl plant itself remained operational for many years afterwards - the danger was low enough that several of the reactors were re-started). We should be thankful the Japanese did not overreact as badly, but in Fukushima too there is reason to believe that more people than needed were evacuated, and that this response may have caused more harm than the accident itself.
- mempko 8y ago
  This is an interesting perspective. It's probably unknown if it's too much or too little without some serious scientific investigation. What do you base your opinion on?
  - vidarh 8y ago
    For starters there's extensive data on effects of staying in large areas of the outer exclusion zone, because a lot of people (a small proportion of the population, though) stayed or went back. The government eventually gave up on keeping people out. Secondly, there is the experience of continuing to operate the other reactors. It took 3 years before work on reactor 5 and 6 (which were unfinished) was halted. Operations at reactor 2 continued until a fire in 1991. Reactor 1 remained in operation until 1996, and reactor 3 was finally decommissioned in 2000. While workers were subject to stringent controls, and on/off schedules intended to reduce their exposure, people were nevertheless working in some of the most radioactive areas of the exclusion zone for many years, with very limited indication of lasting problems. Thirdly, there is the economic impact on the Soviet Union in general, and Belarus overall, both unavoidable costs of the cleanup, but also very much avoidable costs of large-scale reduction in economic activity in a large area. There is a lot of data on the subsequent effects of the economic upheaval that followed the breakdown of the Soviet Union that shows the effects of economic upheaval on e.g. life expectancy. Applying the same to the upheaval caused by evacuation of areas that were quickly known to be within safe radiation levels implies substantial harm. In general any evacuation causes substantial harm, because of e.g. increased mortality when moving hospital patients or other vulnerable groups; increased traffic accidents etc. Just doing more stuff quickly causes harm.

by mempko 8y ago

avar 8y ago

What the Soviet Union accomplished at the cleanup of Chernobyl likely wouldn't have been possible without a wanton disregard for the value of human life only possible in a totalitarian state, the details of which are discussed in other comments. I don't think the lack of will or ability on the part of Japan to doom thousands of people to death by radiation in the course of a speedy cleanup can be described as ineptitude.

stordoff 8y ago

> The USSR responded quickly and it took just 8 months to entomb the reactor. At a gross cost to human life[1], and in a way that leaves the problem there - work is _still_ to contain and clean up the reactor. There are good reasons for not doing the same here. The sarcophagus was never intended to be a permanent solution, and was unsuccessful in completely containing the accident: Sr-90 and Pu-239 were leaching into the surrounding water table, and some have suggested that the rainwater and remaining nuclear fuel posed the risk of restarting the nuclear chain reaction[2]. [1] death figures are controversial, and vary wildly, but 600,000 people were involved in the cleanup, some of whom will have been put at risk. [2] https://outline.com/fTk4GX https://outline.com/fTk4GX

mempko 8y ago
I'm curious, what would have been a better approach the USSR could have taken. Also, is there a better approach that Japan could have taken?

vidarh 8y ago

The reaction to Chernobyl was excessive. What we've learned since is that while a lot of rapid response was needed at the immediate site, at least a portion of the rapid evacuation likely did more harm than good. Large parts of the exclusion zone remained livable (and the Chernobyl plant itself remained operational for many years afterwards - the danger was low enough that several of the reactors were re-started). We should be thankful the Japanese did not overreact as badly, but in Fukushima too there is reason to believe that more people than needed were evacuated, and that this response may have caused more harm than the accident itself.

mempko 8y ago
This is an interesting perspective. It's probably unknown if it's too much or too little without some serious scientific investigation. What do you base your opinion on?
- vidarh 8y ago
  For starters there's extensive data on effects of staying in large areas of the outer exclusion zone, because a lot of people (a small proportion of the population, though) stayed or went back. The government eventually gave up on keeping people out. Secondly, there is the experience of continuing to operate the other reactors. It took 3 years before work on reactor 5 and 6 (which were unfinished) was halted. Operations at reactor 2 continued until a fire in 1991. Reactor 1 remained in operation until 1996, and reactor 3 was finally decommissioned in 2000. While workers were subject to stringent controls, and on/off schedules intended to reduce their exposure, people were nevertheless working in some of the most radioactive areas of the exclusion zone for many years, with very limited indication of lasting problems. Thirdly, there is the economic impact on the Soviet Union in general, and Belarus overall, both unavoidable costs of the cleanup, but also very much avoidable costs of large-scale reduction in economic activity in a large area. There is a lot of data on the subsequent effects of the economic upheaval that followed the breakdown of the Soviet Union that shows the effects of economic upheaval on e.g. life expectancy. Applying the same to the upheaval caused by evacuation of areas that were quickly known to be within safe radiation levels implies substantial harm. In general any evacuation causes substantial harm, because of e.g. increased mortality when moving hospital patients or other vulnerable groups; increased traffic accidents etc. Just doing more stuff quickly causes harm.