6 ms·

Yes, the upbeat reaction to Fukushima outside Japan has been disturbing. The fact that it would be hard to equal Chernobyl doesn't diminish the reality that thi

by gamble 16y ago

Yes, the upbeat reaction to Fukushima outside Japan has been disturbing. The fact that it would be hard to equal Chernobyl doesn't diminish the reality that this is easily the second-worst disaster in the history of nuclear power. People have been killed, and the entire complex is effectively trashed. One reactor at TMI took 14 years and a billion dollars to clean up; Fukushima is going to be a nightmare to set right even if things don't get worse. Of course, this is assuming that things aren't worse than the official statements let on. The sordid history of the Japanese nuclear industry, including falsification of safety records at Fukushima, doesn't inspire confidence. Japanese nuclear officials are notoriously slippery in front of the press, and the lack of reliable information from Fukushima has been very frustrating. No one really knows what's going on there, and every time the officials claim to have it under control another building explodes.

timerickson 16y ago
Some context for the ongoing cost of Chernobyl: In Ukraine, Chernobyl related benefits and programs are still funded by 5-7 percentage of government spending each year. In Belarus, government spending on Chernobyl reached 22.3 percent of the national budget in 1991, declining gradually to 6.1 percent in 2002. Total spending by Belarus on Chernobyl from 1991 through 2003 was more than US $13 billion. (Chernobyl Forum, 2006)
- gnosis 16y ago
  The area around Chernobyl was also very lightly populated compared to Japan. In Japan live over 100 million people, in an area the size of California. If the Fukushima disaster grows anywhere near the scale of Chernobyl, the damage (both economically and in terms of human life) will likely be much, much greater.
  - timerickson 16y ago
    According to the IAEA (2005), the radiation contamination from the radioactive fallout exposed up to 6 million people in the surrounding area (including Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia) with radiation.
  - kelnos 16y ago
    Not the best comparison; California is fairly sparsely populated, with concentrations in the SF and LA/SD areas. Being an island nation (well, a several-island nation), you'd expect Japan to be a bit more dense. Consider that the population density of Japan is less than a third that of a somewhat average-density city like Austin, TX, and is even less dense than that of the state of New Jersey. There is no evidence to suggest that Dai-ichi is actually a "disaster," let alone one anywhere near the scale of Chernobyl. Do you even know anything about the design of the plant at Chernobyl? Orders of magnitude less safe than even these pretty-old Dai-ichi reactors.
    - gnosis 16y ago
      "Not the best comparison; California is fairly sparsely populated, with concentrations in the SF and LA/SD areas. Being an island nation (well, a several-island nation), you'd expect Japan to be a bit more dense. Consider that the population density of Japan is less than a third that of a somewhat average-density city like Austin, TX, and is even less dense than that of the state of New Jersey." If Austin or New Jersey had either the area or population close to that of Japan, maybe these would be relevant comparisons. If you want to compare cities, try comparing New York to Tokyo, which at least are somewhat comparable. Though even there, Tokyo is far more populous, while NYC is far more densely populated. "There is no evidence to suggest that Dai-ichi is actually a "disaster"" I guess you've been reading different news than than I have. What I've been reading says three of the reactors have exploded and a fourth has caught fire. There have already been reports of radiation leaks and at least 160 people have been exposed to radiation (so far). Sounds like a "disaster" to me. Now, whether it escalates to the scale of Chernobyl (or larger) remains to be seen.
      - kelnos 16y ago
        If Austin or New Jersey had either the area or population close to that of Japan, maybe these would be relevant comparisons. Ok, let's reframe: I shouldn't even have bothered. Comparing the population density of a country like Japan to a state like California (as you originally did) is meaningless. I guess you've been reading different news than than I have. What I've been reading says three of the reactors have exploded and a fourth has caught fire. Then you've read wrong, or at least drawn the wrong conclusions from it. I haven't read up on the 3rd explosion, but two of them were "cosmetic" in nature and only affected the building structure around the reactors (the purpose of the structure is to keep weather out and is not designed to keep nuclear material in). Neither of the reactors "exploded." Yes, there were explosions at the reactors, but those are two very different things. I still don't agree that this is a disaster by many reckonings of the term, but I recognize that people are free to define the severity to invoke it as they wish. I just happen to disagree. Now, whether it escalates to the scale of Chernobyl (or larger) remains to be seen. Highly unlikely, but yep, remains to be seen.

by gamble 16y ago

timerickson 16y ago

Some context for the ongoing cost of Chernobyl: In Ukraine, Chernobyl related benefits and programs are still funded by 5-7 percentage of government spending each year. In Belarus, government spending on Chernobyl reached 22.3 percent of the national budget in 1991, declining gradually to 6.1 percent in 2002. Total spending by Belarus on Chernobyl from 1991 through 2003 was more than US $13 billion. (Chernobyl Forum, 2006)

gnosis 16y ago
The area around Chernobyl was also very lightly populated compared to Japan. In Japan live over 100 million people, in an area the size of California. If the Fukushima disaster grows anywhere near the scale of Chernobyl, the damage (both economically and in terms of human life) will likely be much, much greater.
- timerickson 16y ago
  According to the IAEA (2005), the radiation contamination from the radioactive fallout exposed up to 6 million people in the surrounding area (including Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia) with radiation.
- kelnos 16y ago
  Not the best comparison; California is fairly sparsely populated, with concentrations in the SF and LA/SD areas. Being an island nation (well, a several-island nation), you'd expect Japan to be a bit more dense. Consider that the population density of Japan is less than a third that of a somewhat average-density city like Austin, TX, and is even less dense than that of the state of New Jersey. There is no evidence to suggest that Dai-ichi is actually a "disaster," let alone one anywhere near the scale of Chernobyl. Do you even know anything about the design of the plant at Chernobyl? Orders of magnitude less safe than even these pretty-old Dai-ichi reactors.
  - gnosis 16y ago
    "Not the best comparison; California is fairly sparsely populated, with concentrations in the SF and LA/SD areas. Being an island nation (well, a several-island nation), you'd expect Japan to be a bit more dense. Consider that the population density of Japan is less than a third that of a somewhat average-density city like Austin, TX, and is even less dense than that of the state of New Jersey." If Austin or New Jersey had either the area or population close to that of Japan, maybe these would be relevant comparisons. If you want to compare cities, try comparing New York to Tokyo, which at least are somewhat comparable. Though even there, Tokyo is far more populous, while NYC is far more densely populated. "There is no evidence to suggest that Dai-ichi is actually a "disaster"" I guess you've been reading different news than than I have. What I've been reading says three of the reactors have exploded and a fourth has caught fire. There have already been reports of radiation leaks and at least 160 people have been exposed to radiation (so far). Sounds like a "disaster" to me. Now, whether it escalates to the scale of Chernobyl (or larger) remains to be seen.
    - kelnos 16y ago
      If Austin or New Jersey had either the area or population close to that of Japan, maybe these would be relevant comparisons. Ok, let's reframe: I shouldn't even have bothered. Comparing the population density of a country like Japan to a state like California (as you originally did) is meaningless. I guess you've been reading different news than than I have. What I've been reading says three of the reactors have exploded and a fourth has caught fire. Then you've read wrong, or at least drawn the wrong conclusions from it. I haven't read up on the 3rd explosion, but two of them were "cosmetic" in nature and only affected the building structure around the reactors (the purpose of the structure is to keep weather out and is not designed to keep nuclear material in). Neither of the reactors "exploded." Yes, there were explosions at the reactors, but those are two very different things. I still don't agree that this is a disaster by many reckonings of the term, but I recognize that people are free to define the severity to invoke it as they wish. I just happen to disagree. Now, whether it escalates to the scale of Chernobyl (or larger) remains to be seen. Highly unlikely, but yep, remains to be seen.