12 ms·

I wonder, maybe someone can answer: why is Chernobyl still remembered while nobody talks about Fukushima anymore?

by m0skit0 12y ago

gadders 12y ago
Chernobyl was a lot more serious? Fukishima hasn't killed anyone [1] where as Chernobyl killed at least 40 people directly [2]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties#Casualties http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disas... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_dis...
- m0skit0 12y ago
  One was in 1986 and the other in 2011, so I would expect the safety to be better in the second one. Both were INES Level 7. And Fukushima hasn't killed anyone... yet.
  - gadders 12y ago
    There was no "yet" with Chernobyl. People died within weeks.
    - TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
      There is a "not yet" with Fukushima. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disas... As usual with long-term exposure, cause of death becomes a statistical and actuarial question. Incidentally, Chernobyl almost sterilised large areas of Europe and Russia. One of the official documentaries explains what would have happened if the initial suicide squad efforts had failed - it would have been far worse than anything in history.
    - 13 12y ago
      People died within minutes.
- gscott 12y ago
  I am pretty sure Fukishima and Chernobyl will be considered equal especially since Fukishima is ongoing and will be for years. The water contamination will be very significant.
jaimebuelta 12y ago
I think we still remember Fukushima just fine at the moment. Chernobyl happened 20 years before, and had also some extra component of "media interest", being in the USSR at a particular point in time. And also a lot of initial secrecy, which made everyone extremely nervous. In terms of "nuclear disaster", Chernobyl was also several orders of magnitude bigger. Fukushima was the product of a HUGE natural disaster (an earthquake and tsunami) that killed 15K people, and the effect of nuclear power plant problem has been pretty limited compared with that. Chernobyl was solely a problem on the power plant that produced everything, including actual deaths by radiation, the permanent evacuation of a whole town, involvement of a lot of workers that received quite high radiation levels, and a measurable lasting effect on the surroundings. It also was pretty close to be a much bigger problem. They are both very very important nuclear incidents which should be taken seriously. And they are remembered because of that. Chernobyl, though, was much more dangerous and uncontrolled. In the big scheme of things, they are dwarfed in impact for huge natural disasters like Haiti's earthquake in 2010 or the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. Nuclear power and radiation has this especial meaning for us that makes us fear it more than other things.
mkesper 12y ago
WDR (a german public television channel) made (in my eyes) a very good reportage about it. Maybe if enough people bug them there is a chance of getting at least english subtitles. http://reportage.wdr.de/fukushima http://reportage.wdr.de/fukushima
Symmetry 12y ago
Or its lifetime Fukushima produced 100 Gigawatt-years of electricity and the disaster is expected to end up killing 180 people assuming a linear no-threshold radiation model. A typical coal plant will kill between 280 and 40 people generating that much electricity. By contrast, Chernobyl killed somewhere around 20,000 people (also assuming linear no-threshold). http://hopefullyintersting.blogspot.com/2013/12/fukushima-vs-coal.html http://hopefullyintersting.blogspot.com/2013/12/fukushima-vs...
xigency 12y ago
That's a good question. I used to live in Japan around the area of the disaster, so I still have a vested personal interest in the event. It's something I try to keep at the back of my mind thinking about the people living there. I worry about people who live in Koriyama which is a great city but there is obviously a heightened risk now. For those who can't move their families, the radioactive isotopes of cesium and what was iodine in the initial exposure obviously could cause cancer or other diseases. Especially in children, which makes me sad. It's not something I talk about because there is little benefit to prevention at this point and really more negativity surrounding those who try to use it in journalism to shock people or create unnecessary panic. In some ways I might not have a scientific view of the disaster, but studying at a university in the region in May of that year, I did have access to regular reports of the radiation level and I did do some amateur investigating. I don't believe anyone who says California is or was at risk from the radiation has any right saying that. I also believe that, in the long term, many of the areas surrounding the disaster in northeastern Japan are safe and that tourism in the region has been impacted disproportionately to the risk. I know that it's a complicated issue and that mistakes have been made, labeling food that's been grown in Fukushima, or failing to set up a proper evacuation zone initially, but all in all it's a real place where people are still living, and most of the attention Fukushima has gotten in the US has been really misplaced, in that there hasn't been sympathy and there's been a fearful response.

I wonder, maybe someone can answer: why is Chernobyl still remembered while nobody talks about Fukushima anymore?

by m0skit0 12y ago

I wonder, maybe someone can answer: why is Chernobyl still remembered while nobody talks about Fukushima anymore?

Chernobyl was a lot more serious? Fukishima hasn't killed anyone [1] where as Chernobyl killed at least 40 people directly [2]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties#Casualties http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disas... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_dis...

m0skit0 12y ago
One was in 1986 and the other in 2011, so I would expect the safety to be better in the second one. Both were INES Level 7. And Fukushima hasn't killed anyone... yet.
- gadders 12y ago
  There was no "yet" with Chernobyl. People died within weeks.
  - TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
    There is a "not yet" with Fukushima. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disas... As usual with long-term exposure, cause of death becomes a statistical and actuarial question. Incidentally, Chernobyl almost sterilised large areas of Europe and Russia. One of the official documentaries explains what would have happened if the initial suicide squad efforts had failed - it would have been far worse than anything in history.
  - 13 12y ago
    People died within minutes.
gscott 12y ago
I am pretty sure Fukishima and Chernobyl will be considered equal especially since Fukishima is ongoing and will be for years. The water contamination will be very significant.

jaimebuelta 12y ago

I think we still remember Fukushima just fine at the moment. Chernobyl happened 20 years before, and had also some extra component of "media interest", being in the USSR at a particular point in time. And also a lot of initial secrecy, which made everyone extremely nervous. In terms of "nuclear disaster", Chernobyl was also several orders of magnitude bigger. Fukushima was the product of a HUGE natural disaster (an earthquake and tsunami) that killed 15K people, and the effect of nuclear power plant problem has been pretty limited compared with that. Chernobyl was solely a problem on the power plant that produced everything, including actual deaths by radiation, the permanent evacuation of a whole town, involvement of a lot of workers that received quite high radiation levels, and a measurable lasting effect on the surroundings. It also was pretty close to be a much bigger problem. They are both very very important nuclear incidents which should be taken seriously. And they are remembered because of that. Chernobyl, though, was much more dangerous and uncontrolled. In the big scheme of things, they are dwarfed in impact for huge natural disasters like Haiti's earthquake in 2010 or the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. Nuclear power and radiation has this especial meaning for us that makes us fear it more than other things.

mkesper 12y ago

WDR (a german public television channel) made (in my eyes) a very good reportage about it. Maybe if enough people bug them there is a chance of getting at least english subtitles. http://reportage.wdr.de/fukushima http://reportage.wdr.de/fukushima

Symmetry 12y ago

Or its lifetime Fukushima produced 100 Gigawatt-years of electricity and the disaster is expected to end up killing 180 people assuming a linear no-threshold radiation model. A typical coal plant will kill between 280 and 40 people generating that much electricity. By contrast, Chernobyl killed somewhere around 20,000 people (also assuming linear no-threshold). http://hopefullyintersting.blogspot.com/2013/12/fukushima-vs-coal.html http://hopefullyintersting.blogspot.com/2013/12/fukushima-vs...

xigency 12y ago

That's a good question. I used to live in Japan around the area of the disaster, so I still have a vested personal interest in the event. It's something I try to keep at the back of my mind thinking about the people living there. I worry about people who live in Koriyama which is a great city but there is obviously a heightened risk now. For those who can't move their families, the radioactive isotopes of cesium and what was iodine in the initial exposure obviously could cause cancer or other diseases. Especially in children, which makes me sad. It's not something I talk about because there is little benefit to prevention at this point and really more negativity surrounding those who try to use it in journalism to shock people or create unnecessary panic. In some ways I might not have a scientific view of the disaster, but studying at a university in the region in May of that year, I did have access to regular reports of the radiation level and I did do some amateur investigating. I don't believe anyone who says California is or was at risk from the radiation has any right saying that. I also believe that, in the long term, many of the areas surrounding the disaster in northeastern Japan are safe and that tourism in the region has been impacted disproportionately to the risk. I know that it's a complicated issue and that mistakes have been made, labeling food that's been grown in Fukushima, or failing to set up a proper evacuation zone initially, but all in all it's a real place where people are still living, and most of the attention Fukushima has gotten in the US has been really misplaced, in that there hasn't been sympathy and there's been a fearful response.