Fukushima releases one-tenth of those from Chernobyl: France's IRSN

[bananas]

http://www.platts.com/RSSFeedDetailedNews/RSSFeed/ElectricPower/6916290

Fukushima releases one-tenth of those from Chernobyl: France's IRSN
Paris (Platts)--17Mar2011/203 pm EDT/1803 GMT

Releases up to now from Japan's Fukushima I nuclear power plant are about a tenth of what was released from the Chernobyl-4 reactor in Ukraine in 1986, experts at France's Institute of Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety, IRSN, said Thursday.

<snip>

Patrick Gourmelon, IRSN's medical expert, said that there was no need for any member of the public to take stable iodine tablets to avert thyroid cancer, adding that the tablets can create other health problems.

IRSN's calculations are based on the volatile radioelements most important for health impact, essentially iodine, cesium and tellurium.

Chernobyl released about 6 Exabecquerels or 6 x 10 to the 18th becquerels of those elements, according to IRSN. Releases from Fukushima as of Thursday were a little under 7.5 x 10 to the 17th becquerels of those elements.

One day earlier, Japan recommended its citizens take iodine:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/19/us-japan-nuclear-iodine-iaea-idUSTRE72I11S20110319

Japan advised iodine for people near plant: IAEA
By Fredrik Dahl
VIENNA | Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:48am EDT

(Reuters) - Japanese authorities earlier this week issued a recommendation that people leaving the area near a tsunami-crippled nuclear power plant should ingest iodine, the U.N. nuclear watchdog said on Saturday.

<snip>

Earlier this week, the Vienna-based U.N. agency said Japan had provided 230,000 units of stable iodine to evacuation centers as a precautionary measure in the nuclear emergency.

<snip>

On March 16, "Japan's Nuclear Safety Commission recommended local authorities to instruct evacuees leaving the 20-kilometre area to ingest stable (not radioactive) iodine," the IAEA said.

The order recommended a single dose of pills for adults and syrup for children -- with the amount dependent on age -- but that it was not necessary for people older than 40.

<snip>

[FBaggins]

1. A stunning ability to measure radiation from half a world away.

They don't have a clue how much has been released.

[jpak]

2. That's a lot - major accident

yup

[FBaggins]

3. Is it credible to you?

Chernobyl burned uncontrolled with an open core for over two weeks. Fukushima had a couple of small fires (that we don't even know were spent fuel) and a while bunch of steam releases. No open core.

They're playing games with the numbers by only looking at the elements most likely to be released in overpressure steam releases and not counting some of the far more dangerous elements that were only released in Chernobyl. Even then, the numbers don't make sense. Detection levels would have been FAR higher.

A very dishonest comparison.

[madokie]

4. How does living in denial feel?

is it like a high or something 'cause If it is I might want to try it sometime.
Why aren't you telling these people how wrong they are rather than spending all your time here telling us how wrong they are? Looks to me like your time could be better spent :-)

[FBaggins]

5. I'm just asking whether you buy it or not.

Do you think that about five days of steam releases (from three reactors of course) puts out roughly 1/10th of the radioactivity that an open (and larger) core puts out with a massive uncontrolled fire for over two weeks and a large chunk of the core expelled in a massive explosion?

And that's not even thinking of weeks upon weeks of additional releases while the sarcophagus was constructed.

Do you think that makes sense?

[madokie]

6. To start with I'm against using nuclear energy for anything except in medicine

to get that out of the way. I don't believe that we're being told the facts in this disaster any more than we were during Chernobyl or TMI or to a lesser degree Davis-Besse. We dodged a bullet big time right there with that one. I know that one is slightly off target but you get where I'm going I'm sure.

Ok you say steam releases but you're not mentioning the things in that steam besides vaporized water so your assessment rings hollow to me

[FBaggins]

7. I'm aware of your predisposition (and you're entitled to it).. but that doesn't answer the question.

You've claimed time and time again that since I'm a nuclear supporter, I'll just assume the best on any news event.

But you're here essentially admitting that you'll accept ANY bad news, no matter how wildly inaccurate on its face, because you oppose nuclear. I'm just asking for you to apply a little common sense.

I don't believe that we're being told the facts in this disaster any more than we were during Chernobyl or TMI

I think you're probably right. But there are actual activity levels being measured and reported from other sources as well. They're more than enough to tell that this comparison is badly overblown.

Surely "I don't believe the official sources" doesn't justify "I'll believe anyone who tells me it's 100-times worse" ?

Ok you say steam releases but you're not mentioning the things in that steam besides vaporized water

Oh goodness... I certainly wouldn't ever pretend that. The steam itself is radioactive and carries whatever core-damage elements aren't caught in the filters when the steam is released. Above and beyond that (and explaining why they levels rose at the time), the steam coming from the unit with the busted torus is almost certainly being released (some of it anyway) without filtering.

It isn't that the steam isn't radioactive. What makes the steam comparison relevant is that the BULK of the radioactivity in the released steam comes from a VERY radioactive element that is also (necessarily) one with a VERY short half-life. That's essentially gone within minutes of release (which is why we saw spikes in the exposure readings when there was a release followed by much MUCH lower numbers shortly afterward).

The much readings in the surrounding countryside reflect what's left... the material that wasn't the steam itself.

[madokie]

8. Why would the message this time be different from the other times

It was the same thing the previous incidences that while it was happening we were mislead and spoon fed only partially factual information as time has been a witness too fact. So what should I base blind obedience on this time, can you tell me that?

You read too much into what others write 'bro if you want to know what I think.

I tell you right up front where I stand on this issue and the why I feel as I do, no trying to be something I'm not because of the autonomy of the keyboard as I suspect some here do. I'm just as honest as the day is long, believe what I know as fact while keeping an open mind to being shown where and when I am wrong and trust me there has been many times in life where I've been wrong and I accept it when it happens and go on, forming new beliefs on this new knowledge I've gained.

OT: We have a certain person who post on here who is adamantly pro nuclear and his being able to poison the pool, if you will, by talking down to everyone and being totally an all knowing ASS has lead to much of the mistrust and animosity on this forum. In my opinion it should never have been allowed to get to where it has gotten to. We don't have to be against each other to discuss issues we don't agree with.

Anyways no hard feelings I hope :-) :hi:

I'm off to the lumber yard here shortly to buy a new window for our house. With this last window I'll have them all replaced with energy star windows.

[FBaggins]

9. It isn't a question of the MESSAGE being different.

It's a question of the reality being different. I know you hate my imaginary scales, but if you take accidents on a scale from 1-100, you'll find accidents all along that scale. The fact that you believe (with some justification) that officials will always lie about the reality does NOT mean that all accidents are 100-point accidents.

I'd point out that the reverse is also true. The anti-nuke crowd materials are full of lies too. I approach many of those sources with the same cynicism that you do here. Both positions are warranted by misbehavior in the past, but none of our perceptions influence reality. Nuclear accidents are not less dangerous because you or I might not believe anti-nuke clams... nor are they more dangerous because we doubt that we're getting the whole story.

OT: We have a certain person who post on here who is adamantly pro nuclear and his being able to poison the pool, if you will, by talking down to everyone and being totally an all knowing ASS

I don't know the whole story there so I hesitate to judge, but I certainly "get" what you're talking about. There's a whole range of such behavior on the other side too. He may even think he's "giving them a taste of their own medicine". I don't know.

We don't have to be against each other to discuss issues we don't agree with. Anyways no hard feelings I hope

Not at all (and I offer the same hand of friendship). What I do know is that it's incredibly hard to judge such things over an online forum, so I always try to give the benefit of the doubt. I'm something of a "prude" myself. I don't use (nor am I around) a whole lot of vulgarity. I also know from my years in the Navy that some otherwise friendly people use the stuff as if it were punctuation. When I see it (frequently) here, it's hard not to assume that the person is uncivil and un-serious. Almost certainly uneducated. But I know that that's not always the case. (I don't remember you being this way, I'm just giving an example).

I also get riled up when I see people falling for lies that are designed to scare them. It's really hard to tell whether you're dealing with the liar... or with an otherwise decent person who simply fell head-first for the lies. Just look (for example) at the detected doses on the West Coast and all the energy they're getting here. I get a higher dose than that every day from the brick in my home... yet nobody posts about it online. :)

I'm off to the lumber yard here shortly to buy a new window for our house.

For me it's some replacement parts for a garage door that keeps nagging me and some plywood to modify the basement staircase.

[Arcana]

10. Is a piece of that brick inside your body at all times?

[Fledermaus]

11. At this point no one knows.

The second explosion was not hydrogen gas. Probably a shot of super heated steam. Part of the molten core fell into a pool of water or something.