3 ms·

> but since there are four reactors at risk at Fukushima, we would expect the global effects to be about four times the global effect of Chernobyl. Fukushima s

> but since there are four reactors at risk at Fukushima, we would expect the global effects to be about four times the global effect of Chernobyl. Fukushima stores a lot more fuel than Chernobyl did. It's not just four times Chernobyl. http://www.zerohedge.com/article/amount-radioactive-fuel-fukushima-dwarfs-chernobyl http://www.zerohedge.com/article/amount-radioactive-fuel-fuk... Also the Soviets reacted pretty fast in comparison to TEPCO and made sure, that a lot of the material did not escape, while TEPCO doesn't seem to be very competent in this regard...

pdonis 13y ago
It's not just four times Chernobyl. It looks like the total right now is about 10 times Chernobyl, but if TEPCO keeps transferring more spent fuel to the storage pools, it could go up to 24 times Chernobyl (the total spent fuel inventory). I would still argue that 24 times Chernobyl is nowhere near "apocalyptic" on a global scale. But you're right, it's good to work with the correct numbers. the Soviets reacted pretty fast in comparison to TEPCO and made sure, that a lot of the material did not escape Once they had a chance to react, yes. But a lot of the radioactive material inside the Chernobyl reactor was released with the combined hydrogen and graphite explosion which happened very early in the sequence of events, before anything could be contained. After that explosion, as I understand it, there wasn't a lot left to contain. The only way that release could have been prevented would have been if the Soviets had had the sense to build a secondary containment structure around the reactor, which they didn't.