Greenpeace: Fukushima Daiichi Is Actually 3 Level 7 Disasters
Update: The Guardian is reporting that (some) of the core uranium rods from unit 2 have melted through the containment vessel, and are likely reacting with the concrete floor. Not good (if true).
GreenPeace: It’s Already a Level 7 (3 of them, arguably)
Excerpt from a 3/25/2011 report by Greenpeace (PDF):
The total amount of radionuclides iodine-131 and caesium-137 released since the start of the accident until March 23rd, as reported by the two institutes require the Fukushima accident to be reclassified to the same level as the Chernobyl nuclear disaster twenty five years ago in April 1986. In fact so high are the releases that they amount to three INES 7 accidents.
Greenpeace is particularly concerned with the effects radioactive fallout will have on the densely populated landmass of Japan. A large proportion of the Chernobyl radioactivity fell on Belarus, with a population density of 40 persons per square kilometre. Japan by contrast has an average of 800 persons sq/km. Metropolitan Tokyo has density of over 1200 persons sq/km. [~40 million in greater Tokyo area - adam] The implications for collective dose of radiation to the population and human health are enormous.
In contrast to the Chernobyl accident which involved one nuclear reactor, Fukushima has suffered major failures at four. Three reactors have suffered loss of coolant to a scale that has led to nuclear fuel melting. In addition, nuclear reactor spent fuel stored at the site has lost coolant, caught fire and in one case suffered a hydrogen gas explosion which destroyed unit 4 at Fukushima.
Dr Hirsch concludes, ‘Taking all the releases from the Fukushima-daiichi reactors together this even obviously an INES 7 with the possibility that it is three INES 7′s, taking each reactor separately which results in a release of 100,000 Tbq each.’
Informative infographic from the Washington Post:
Those down-playing the potential fallout from Japan’s nucelar crisis crisis, though well-intentioned, may be doing a disservice to those in affected areas. Residents whose lives may depend on the outcome deserve to hear the truth. TEPCO hasn’t been forthcoming from the start. Should we not prepare for the worst, and hope for the best?
Repeated assertions that “this is no Chernobyl” ring hollow, for now. Yes, Chernobyl lacked certain safeguards at place in Fukushima. But Japan’s population density and the sheer quantity of fuel at stake (up to 24x Chernobyl’s total) put such statements into question. We simply don’t know yet.











