|
Comparing Fukushima and Chernobyl by Kevin Matthews Our goal with this article is to support an accurate, technically grounded, and broadly comprehensible comparison of the Fukushima and Chernobyl nuclear disasters, to facilitate realistic understanding of these serious accidents by the technically-savvy ArchitectureWeek A/E/C readership. Why This Comparison? The BBC says, "most experts agree the two nuclear incidents are very different." [1] The government of Japan says, "Although Level 7 is the highest level of INES rating, it is estimated that the amount of discharged radioactive materials to the environment in the current stage is approximately 10 percent of the Chernobyl accident." [2] Reuters says, "But for all their criticism of how Tokyo Electric Power Co and Japan's government are handling the crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, experts agree with them on one point: Fukushima is not another Chernobyl." [3] Nature says, "Understandably, the press has made quite a big deal out of the new rating, but the reality is that Fukushima is a very different accident than Chernobyl." [4] The World on PRI says, "So—Fukushima like Chernobyl? Fukushima NOT like Chernobyl? I still believe the comparison is inappropriate no matter how the numbers do or don't stack up... But it's clearer than ever this week that that's a losing rhetorical battle, even as it's also clear that the comparisons are more meaningless than ever." [5] ArchitectureWeek says, "Fukushima is another Chernobyl." Of course every accident will have different particulars. But a straightforward marshaling of the facts shows that the Fukushima and Chernobyl nuclear disasters are remarkably similar. Several of the points mentioned to differentiate the two accidents are fundamentally misleading, including exaggerations of the differences in reactor containment levels, fires, and explosions. Comparisons of total releases of radioactive material are also misleading, since about half the release from Chernobyl was in the form of biologically-inactive noble gases. The atmospheric releases of radioactive isotopes of high biological concern are much more similar between the two accidents — with Fukushima releases still ongoing! And, in addition to large ongoing atmospheric releases of radioactive material, the Fukushima accident is generating what a Woods Hole marine geochemist calls "the biggest man-made release ever of radioactive material into the oceans." [6] While suffering horribly from earthquake and tsunami, despite a relatively high level of preparedness, during the nuclear disaster Japan has benefitted greatly from one primary mitigating factor. For most of the last month, winds have blown primarily offshore, taking a large portion of the released radioactive material away from populated areas. Thank goodness for that. In the U.S., however, we should now move beyond pretending a meltdown at Diablo Canyon or Indian Point would necessarily meet such a favorable condition. It's past time for industry and major media alike to face the music, and grasp the fact that a Chernobyl-level disaster is not just an aberration of the Soviet system. It not only can happen in a technologically-advanced wealthy democracy — it has happened. The life safety responsibility of design professionals demands accurate disaster assessments. The political process around industrial risks and benefits does as well. Summary Table Comparing the Chernobyl and Fukushima Nuclear Disasters See detailed tables posted at the Archiplanet wiki for line-by-line references and ongoing updates.
See also Chernobyl by the Sea - ArchitectureWeek, 2011.0323 >>> Discuss this article in the Architecture Forum...
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
