Mantas 3 Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 The media are having a field day with this as you would expect. If Rueters are to be believed then the comparison is not justified. It's also no surprise that the anti-nuclear activists and people from the coal dominated energy sector are seizing on this as a golden opportunity to push their collective barrows. Link to post Share on other sites
muikabochi 208 Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Very likely it seems not justified, but giving 'Fukushima' equal billing with Chernobyl is unfortunate and can't be erased now. Not good. Link to post Share on other sites
grungy-gonads 54 Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Tons of people back home are surprised to hear that Fukushima is the name of a city and also the name of the large Prefecture. Not just of a nuclear plant. Bet Fukushima-ken people wished the plant had been given a different name, hey. Link to post Share on other sites
Go Native 70 Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 One of the problems with the scale for nuclear accidents is that it only goes up to 7. Thing is if you extended out the scale I believe people have put Chernobyl up around a 12. Fukushima is only a 7 due to combining the total effects of all the reactors. Each reactor in isolation is no more than a 5. Overall there's no real comparison between the two events in terms of severity. At Fukushima still not one death from radiation and as far as I know not one person admitted to hospital with acute radiation sickness. This makes for an interesting read about the anti-nuclear lobby from an environmentalist. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/05/anti-nuclear-lobby-misled-world Link to post Share on other sites
BagOfCrisps 24 Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Quote: I've discovered that when the facts don't suit them, the movement resorts to the follies of cover-up they usually denounce That kind of applies to so many things doesn't it. Human nature perhaps. Link to post Share on other sites
BillTheBinMan 0 Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 Always wondered what a field day was It's very unfortunate that it is sharing headlines with Cherynobyl which it will be forever associated with now. Link to post Share on other sites
foreversnow 5 Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 From what I have read about Chernobyl. The containment walls were compromised and the radiation leaked out in massive doses killing thousands of people and leaving the land totally unusable. With Fukushima the containment walls are still unintacted and there is only minimal radiation leakage. Link to post Share on other sites
@tokyo 14 Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 One tenth they say now, but increasing. But I don't think that's the point really. The point is that Fukushima (Japan?) is now assiciated with Chernobyl around the world. Link to post Share on other sites
A lawyer 0 Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 Quote: have a field day to have an opportunity to do a lot of something you want to do, especially to criticize someone Only a certain kind enjoys doing a lof of crisitizing! Link to post Share on other sites
Mantas 3 Posted April 14, 2011 Author Share Posted April 14, 2011 Originally Posted By: BillTheBinMan Always wondered what a field day was It's very unfortunate that it is sharing headlines with Cherynobyl which it will be forever associated with now. I always thought it was a universal expression. There was a lot anti-soviet sentiment in the 80's. Western media had 'field day' with it. It's like nobody bothers to check the facts. Link to post Share on other sites
surfarthur 22 Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 Why let facts get in the way of a good story? Having a sensational headline sells, and many media outlets are businesses that seem to think their bottom line is more important than the truth. Link to post Share on other sites
Karnidge 2 Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 Have you only just realised that surfarthur? Link to post Share on other sites
surfarthur 22 Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 No, I have known it for a while, but disasters like this make it far more apparent. Link to post Share on other sites
Mantas 3 Posted April 14, 2011 Author Share Posted April 14, 2011 That's an interesting article from the Guardian GN. How can casualty estimates range from a around 6000 to nearly 1000 000 ? I guess they were quite happy to blame every single case of cancer in Western Europe for the next decade on Chernobyl. Somewhere in there we could put the figure 600 000 in for a bit of a reference. That's how many Iraqi civilians have been killed by coalition forces. Link to post Share on other sites
mitchpee 10 Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 Originally Posted By: Mantas That's an interesting article from the Guardian GN. How can casualty estimates range from a around 6000 to nearly 1000 000 ? I guess they were quite happy to blame every single case of cancer in Western Europe for the next decade on Chernobyl. Somewhere in there we could put the figure 600 000 in for a bit of a reference. That's how many Iraqi civilians have been killed by coalition forces. I have been against the Iraq invasion from the beginning, however 600,000 is a very inaccurate number. There have been a significant amount of civilian casualties, which is absolutely not justified, however 600,000 is completely unfounded. Link to post Share on other sites
Curt 1 Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 Originally Posted By: Mantas That's an interesting article from the Guardian GN. How can casualty estimates range from a around 6000 to nearly 1000 000 ? I guess they were quite happy to blame every single case of cancer in Western Europe for the next decade on Chernobyl. As mistaken as it is, do many people want to go to Chernobyl or the surrounding area? Link to post Share on other sites
Mantas 3 Posted April 14, 2011 Author Share Posted April 14, 2011 Sorry, my bad, I put one too many naughts on. I got the figure from Wikileaks. Quote: The Iraq War documents leak is the unsanctioned disclosure of a collection of 391,832 United States Army field reports, also called the Iraq War Logs, of the Iraq War from 2004 to 2009 to several international media organizations and published on the Internet by WikiLeaks on 22 October 2010.[1][2][3] The files record 66,081 civilian deaths out of 109,000 recorded deaths.[2][3][4][5][6] The leak resulted in the Iraq Body Count project adding 15,000 civilian deaths to their count, bringing their total to over 150,000, with roughly 80% of those civilians.[7] It is the biggest leak in the military history of the United States,[1][8] surpassing the Afghan War documents leak of 25 July 2010.[9] There, sixty thousand dead civilians is much better. Link to post Share on other sites
mitchpee 10 Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 Originally Posted By: Mantas Sorry, my bad, I put one too many naughts on. I got the figure from Wikileaks. Quote: The Iraq War documents leak is the unsanctioned disclosure of a collection of 391,832 United States Army field reports, also called the Iraq War Logs, of the Iraq War from 2004 to 2009 to several international media organizations and published on the Internet by WikiLeaks on 22 October 2010.[1][2][3] The files record 66,081 civilian deaths out of 109,000 recorded deaths.[2][3][4][5][6] The leak resulted in the Iraq Body Count project adding 15,000 civilian deaths to their count, bringing their total to over 150,000, with roughly 80% of those civilians.[7] It is the biggest leak in the military history of the United States,[1][8] surpassing the Afghan War documents leak of 25 July 2010.[9] There, sixty thousand dead civilians is much better. I didn't mean to defer from the point. 60,000 sucks, hell 6 sucks. I don't think even six should have been killed. I sure as hell don't support our occupancy of any country based on false pretenses Link to post Share on other sites
Mantas 3 Posted April 15, 2011 Author Share Posted April 15, 2011 I was just making light of the absurd numbers of dead people. Link to post Share on other sites
RobBright 35 Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 Back to Chernobyl vs Fukushima, there is simply no comparison until the radiation levels emitted from Fukushima Daiichi reach the same level, and intensity, as Chernobyl. The IAEA scale is rather like the Shindo scale. Whilst an earthquake might be a shindo 4 in Japan, it might be a shindo 7 elesewhere due to differences in building designs. The IAEA scale is similar with a level 7 being a major release of radioÂactive Âmaterial with widespread health and environmental effects requiring implementation of planned and extended Âcountermeasures Well what units of radiation makes an incident an accident and as such, a level 7 accident. Link to post Share on other sites
joshnii 2 Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 Originally Posted By: RobBright Back to Chernobyl vs Fukushima, there is simply no comparison until the radiation levels emitted from Fukushima Daiichi reach the same level, and intensity, as Chernobyl. Tell that to the world Rob! Link to post Share on other sites
Mantas 3 Posted April 15, 2011 Author Share Posted April 15, 2011 I think Chernobyl has become a euphemism for a nuclear disaster, much in the same way Mc Donalds is a euphemism for junk food. Link to post Share on other sites
brit-gob 9 Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 And the good news is that lots of people still eat Mc Donalds. Link to post Share on other sites
RobBright 35 Posted April 16, 2011 Share Posted April 16, 2011 Originally Posted By: Mantas I think Chernobyl has become a euphemism for a nuclear disaster, much in the same way Mc Donalds is a euphemism for junk food. No shit Sherlock. Nothing gets passed you eh? Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts