4 ms·
With zero effort, I found this for you: http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T110413005584.htm<br/> http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T110413005584.htm<b
by 3am 15y ago
With zero effort, I found this for you:
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T110413005584.htm<br/> http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T110413005584.htm<b...;
"Junichi Matsumoto, acting head of Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s Nuclear Power & Plant Siting Division, acknowledged the seriousness of the Fukushima accident at a press conference Tuesday. 'Although the details of the [Chernobyl and Fukushima] accidents are different, from the standpoint of how much radiation has been released, [Fukushima] is equal to or more serious than Chernobyl.'"
That was just a citation in the Wikipedia page for the incident.
- berntb 15y agoYou might want to read what you google. :-) That was from Apr. 14, when they didn't really have that much of a clue -- and different sources in that article said different things. Edit: But sure, I asked for "a reference". Maybe I should have asked for "a reference that is more than a claim by some company man (not a researcher in a paper etc), with an unknown agenda"... :-)
- smackfu 15y agoI still have doubts about that claim. Didn't Chernobyl release clouds of radioactive fallout over Europe?
- nitrogen 15y agoCould they be referring to the INES disaster scale, on which Fukushima rates equal to Chernobyl? Also, the direct release of radiation from the reactor is significantly less serious than the release of certain radioisotopes. If they're only comparing absolute radiation levels, and (hypothetically) most of Chernobyl's was in radioactive cesium, while most of Fukushima's was in alpha/beta/gamma particles or short-lived radioactive oxygen/nitrogen/etc., then the comparison is not very useful.