GOOD

Fukushima Now Level 7 Accident, But Is It Really As Bad As Chernobyl?

Fukushima has maxed out the nuclear rating scale, only the second accident to rate 7. So does that really mean that this event is as bad as Chernobyl?


Yesterday morning, Japanese officials announced that the Fukushima nuclear crisis had been upgraded to a Level 7 accident, the highest rating on the INES scale. This is only the second nuclear event to ever rank that high—Chernobyl, obviously, being the first. (This will please Greenpeace scientists, who have been saying that Fukushima equates "three INES level 7 events" since late last month.) So this begs a couple of questions: Why the sudden change in rating? And, more importantly: does this mean that Fukushima is now as bad as Chernobyl?

First, a quick explanation of the INES scale. Technically, it's the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale, and was developed by a group of international nuclear experts who were convened by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) back in 1989. IAEA explains that it is meant as "a means for promptly communicating to the public in consistent terms the safety significance of events reported at nuclear installations."


There are all kinds of technical details that go into the ratings (which you can read about on the IAEA site), but they generally fall into three main criteria: offsite radiological effects, onsite radiological effects, impairment of safety measures. When we're talking about accidents above a Level 4, we're mostly looking at the radiological effects outside of the plant. In other words: how bad is the radiation threat to normal civilians living nearby?

To prompt a Level 7 rating, the radiation releases from the plant have to add up to more than 10,000 terabequerels of iodine-131 equivalents.

An event resulting in an environmental release corresponding to a quantity of radioactivity radiologically equivalent to a release to the atmosphere of more than several tens of thousands of terabequerels of I-131. -INES User's Manual, 2008 Edition (PDF)

\n

Which, translated to English, means: "Major Release: Widespread health and environmental effects."

So why did Fukushima suddenly jump two levels? According to the IAEA, the new rating "considers the accidents that occurred at Units 1, 2 and 3 as a single event on INES and uses estimated total release to the atmosphere as a justification. Previously, separate provisional INES Level 5 ratings had been applied for Units 1, 2 and 3." So, the earlier Level 5 ratings were for the individual reactors. The new rating reflects the total release.

Finally, if Fukushima is now a Level 7, is it really as bad as Chernobyl? Not really.

By most measures, Fukushima has "only" released about 10 percent of the total radiation released 25 years ago at Chernobyl. Then there's the longer time frame that the Japanese disaster has played out over, as

When Chernobyl's reactor number 4 exploded in 1986, it scattered debris over a wide area and sent radioactive fallout high into the atmosphere. Entire villages near the reactor had to be evacuated in a matter of hours, and many residents had to leave personal effects behind. A fire burned at the site until 5 May, spewing tones of radioactive material over 200,000 square kilometres...In the short period following the explosion, the accident spewed some 14 million terabecquerels of radiation into the environment.

The Fukushima accident has unfolded much more slowly. The damaged reactors exploded over a period of days, and after a modest initial release, radiation has fallen off. So far, the reactors have spread about half-a-million terabecquerels into the air.

\n

So Fukushima has released much less radiation, and much more slowly. Because of this—and the obvious cultural and political contrasts between the Japanese and the Soviets—local residents have had fair warning and, hopefully, enough time to escape the worst effects of radiation.

How can two accidents with radiation releases that differ by an order of magnitude share the same rating? The only thing that is clear about this entire Fukushima rating upgrade is that the INES scale desperately needs to be updated.

Special hat tip to Michael Graham Richard of Treehugger, for the graphic inspiration. His coverage of Fukushima has been phenomenal. Bookmark him.

Photo (cc) adapted from original by Digital Globe on Wikimedia Commons. Chart from IAEA

Articles
via The Howard Stern Show / YouTube

Former Secretary of State, first lady, and winner of the popular vote in the 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton, sat own for an epic, two-and-a--half hour interview with Howard Stern on his SiriusXM show Wednesday.

She was there to promote "The Book of Gutsy Women," a book about heroic women co-written with her daughter, Chelsea Clinton.

In the far-reaching conversation, Clinton and the self-proclaimed "King of All Media" and, without a doubt, the best interviewer in America discussed everything from Donald Trump's inauguration to her sexuality.

Keep Reading Show less
Politics
Pixabay

Offering parental leave for new fathers could help close the gender gap, removing the unfair "motherhood penalty" women receive for taking time off after giving birth. However, a new study finds that parental leave also has a pay gap. Men are less likely to take time off, however, when they do, they're more likely to get paid for it.

A survey of 2,966 men and women conducted by New America found that men are more likely to receive paid parental leave. Over half (52%) of fathers had fully paid parental leave, and 14% of fathers had partially paid parental leave. In comparison, 33% of mothers had fully paid parental leave and 19% had partially paid parental leave.

Keep Reading Show less

Bans on plastic bags and straws can only go so far. Using disposable products, like grabbing a plastic fork when you're on the go, can be incredibly convenient. But these items also contribute to our growing plastic problem.

Fortunately, you can cut down on the amount of waste you produce by cutting down on disposable products. And even more fortunately, there are sustainable (and cute) replacements that won't damage the environment.

Coconut bowls


Cocostation

Who says sustainable can't also be stylish? These cute coconut bowls were handmade using reclaimed coconuts, making each piece one of a kind. Not only are they organic and biodegradable, but they're also durable, in case your dinner parties tend to get out of hand. The matching ebony wood spoons were polished with the same coconut oil as the bowls.

Cocostation Set of 2 Vietnamese Coconut Bowls and Spoons, $14.99; at Amazon

Solar powered phone charger

Dizaul

Why spend time looking around for an outlet when you can just harness the power of the sun? This solar powered phone charger will make sure your phone never dies as long as you can bask in the sun's rays. As an added bonus, this charger was made using eco-friendly silicone rubber. It's win-win all around.

Dizaul Solar Charger, 5000mAh Portable Solar Power Bank, $19.95; at Amazon, $19.95; at Amazon

Herb garden kit

Planter Pro

Put some green in your life with this herb planter. The kit comes with everything you need to get a garden growing, including a moisture meter that helps you determine if your herbs are getting the right amount of food to flourish. All the seeds included are certified to be non-GMO and non-hybrids, meaning you can have fresh, organic herbs right at your fingertips.

Planter Pro's Herb Garden Cedar Planter, $39.00; at Amazonedar Planter, $39.00; at Amazon

Reusable Keurig cups

K & J

Keurig cups are convenient, but they also create a ton of plastic waste. These Keurig-compatible plastic cups are an easy way to cut down on the amount of trash you create without cutting down on your caffeine. Additionally, you won't have to keep on buying K Cups, which means you'll be saving money and the environment.

K&J Reusable Filter Cups, $8.95 for a set of 4,; at Amazon

Low-flow shower head

Speakman

Low-flow water fixtures can cut down your water consumption, which saves you money while also saving one of the Earth's resources. This shower head was designed with a lighter flow in mind, which means you'll be able to cut down on water usage without feeling like you're cutting down on your shower.

Speakman Low Flow Shower Head, $14.58; at Amazon

Bamboo safety razor

Zomchi

Instead of throwing away a disposable razor every time you shave, invest in an eco-friendly, reusable one. This unisex shaver isn't just sustainable, it's also sharp-looking, which means it would make a great gift for the holidays.

Zomchi Safety Razor, $16.99; at Amazon

The Planet