Fukushima Vs Chernobyl - Compare And Contrast

Tyler Durden's picture

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Jiiins's picture

Potassium Iodide bitchez!

Tunga's picture

"... but operators have since succeeded in cooling both the reactors and the spent fuel pools and no chain reaction is happening now." said the evil step mother. 


A comedy tonight!


Lord Welligton's picture

Bungling, yes. Disorganised, incoherent and sometimes contradictory, yes. But it is difficult to accuse Japanese officials or TEPCO of intentionally covering up information, with round-the-clock updates and a steady stream of data.

Not difficult at all I would have thought.


topcallingtroll's picture

That steady stream of data has been a trickle.

We need more.ocean testing and real.time.continuous monitoring of the air above the plants.

But they dont want us to know how much.leakage.continues. they just give us the occasional soil or water sample.

Lord Welligton's picture

That steady stream of data has been a trickle.

Well exactly.

How Reuters can concluded otherwise is odd to say the least.

kaiserhoff's picture

Well, we're now at a level 7, so I guess Fukushima can't possibly be any more fucked.

StychoKiller's picture

Ever see antique maps where the "Terra Incognita" was marked:  "Here be monsters"?  7 is an arbitrary number and the Universe laughs at our puny efforts to measure where we're at...

the not so mighty maximiza's picture

no end in sight since they are not comprehending the magnitude.   Its like a slow motion nuclear explosion just shooting radioactive all over the earth.  Over many weeks, months and years.

Sweet Chicken's picture

Dear god that was terrifying. Look at how fast that entire area became a whirlpool of hell! I couldn't tell but did all the people running in that shot make it onto the hill?

topcallingtroll's picture

Good call.

And i believed the bullshit that a few days after the flood they were just going to flip the power back on and the plants would run smoothly.

Hollywood's picture

If Rueters said that it is too difficult to cover up, then it must be true.  Did a scientist write this article?

Global Hunter's picture

you saw the same thing I did, I didn't see your post before hitting the save button.  I obviously agree with you.

Global Hunter's picture

I don't find it difficult to accuse TEPCo of a coverup. 

topcallingtroll's picture

The coverup continues.

I want continuous real time monitoring of the air above each plant so we know how much leakage continues.

A once per week ocean sample is.insufficient.

umop episdn's picture

Chernobyl was a quarter century ago, and the rest fo the world has had time to pick apart the lies and learn more or less what actually happened. Meanwhile, Tepco continues to obfusticate. I doubt we know how much radiation has been released, especially the quantity into the Pacific, because Tepco doesn't really want to know. Exactly like BP didn't want to know how much oil was spewing from its undersea hole. In all these cases, the general public and their geiger counters and video cameras are NOT welcome in the disaster areas, and official words tend to be whoreporate words. Remind me to 'compare and contrast' a few years from now.

Note to self's picture

Reuters must be on the take.  How is it that people can watch a reactor building get blown sky high, and still expect the spent fuel pool to be somehpow intact, holding water, and keeping the rods cool?  WTF?  How can they report everything is being cooled and under control?  Did they forget what they saw?  Jesus H W Christ - it blew up!!! 

Herman Strandschnecke's picture

I used to trust in reuters. Not now since reading that fairytale.

Lead lined chinooks and earthquakes tell me this ain't over. damm I'm getting angry now.


primalplasma's picture

That's Hollywood programming and mind-control. The MSM is linked to Hollywood. People grow up with suspension of disbelief.

Ident 7777 economy's picture

and still expect the spent fuel pool to be somehpow intact,

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Big difference for exterior walls to give way due to over-pressure from a hydrogen-based explosion in contrast to load-bearing floors and other internal structures ...

Didja ever consider that?

Prolly not ...


      'Buy on the rumor and and sell on the news'


Note to self's picture

I'm an engineer, dickhead.  Have you seen the photos?  Its rubble.

Ident 7777 economy's picture

Photo interpretation is not your strong suite (notice floors are still intact!); speculation, however, may be ...

Use of deductive reasoning, again, not so much there either, referring again to the points I raised above.


Note to self's picture

I will heretofore add the notion of your being an idiot to my speculation.

Ident 7777 economy's picture

No address of issue; 'aggressive capitulation' noted when confronted with logic and facts.

Thank you for participating ...


MGA_1's picture

I've always throught of explosions at nuclear power plants as a bad thing.

Coffin Dodger's picture

I try not to prophecise too often, but intuition tells me that Fukushima is a show-stopper for humankind. Beyond the financial and economic impact (both of which will become increasingly evident in the coming months), the completely out-of-control situation at the reactors can poison our habitat worldwide.

A very fine line is being walked - too much information of a deadly serious kind could paralyse everything - after all, who would want to turn up for their job at the generator plant, or the police force, or the hospital...if you were being irradiated by a killer you can't see, smell or touch?

We truly have entered the twilight zone. I suppose if this really is IT, I'd rather not know all the details.

the not so mighty maximiza's picture

They have been handling this like an fraud accounting issue.  Coverup and redirect, media control.  It really looks like bankers have been calling the shots on this.  They are no good at real world problems. 

Natasha Fatale's picture

Agreed, there's something about this that feels like a game-changing moment. 

Diogenes's picture

One more dose of radioactivity in the environment on top of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Bikini Atol, Chernobyl, thousands of above ground and underground test explosions, hundreds of reactors and processing facilities around the world.

Millions will die but millions have already died and the world goes on. 100 years ago cancer accounted for 1 death out of 20, now it is nearly 1 out of 2.

All in all it's just another brick in the wall.

TexDenim's picture

although in absolute terms Fukushima still has a ways to go before surpassing the Soviet accident.

In spades! Comparing the Japan incident to Chernobyl really is hyperbole. In Chernobyl, the nuclear core actually exploded into the atmosphere releasing tons of fissionable material.


MGA_1's picture

I read the explosion at unit #4 blew spent fuel several thousand feet into the air and all over the site.  Unfortunately, it was MOX fuel which includes plutonium.... very nasty stuff.

avonaltendorf's picture

Negatory. It was Reactor #3, about 1000 ft in the air.

Ident 7777 economy's picture

I read the explosion at unit #4 blew spent fuel 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -



Where did you read that?


Anyplace reputable? (unsourced rumors are not reputable)


InconvenientCounterParty's picture

The report entitled "RST Assessment of Fukushima Daiichi Units" March 26, has some good information. It's hard to find but it's worth it.

Basically, they said they found fuel on the ground outside in between 3 & 4. They couldn't tell exactly which it came from.

It's little consolation, just sayin'

Ident 7777 economy's picture

Basically, they said they found fuel on the ground ..

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I recall that report, and I recall that they found traces of what they thought to be traces of the 'fuel' on the ground ... no mention of fuel rods per se.


Now, it's possible a single fuel rod/assembly was attached to the fuel handling rig on the refueling floor (and not to be confused with the large crane that removes the containment cap) and when all hell blew loose with reactor buildings 1,  3, or 4 it is possible that a single fuel rod was 'disbursed' in the area ... far cry from a disbursement of a cooling pool's complement of rods, which we *know* still contain rods since they smoke/steam during presumably low water-level states before they are 'refilled' using the Putzmeister concrete tricks ...


Dagny Taggart's picture

Was there a fission meltdown that was in danger of hitting the water table and exploding beneath other unstable reactors at Chernobyl? 



Lord Welligton's picture

A nuclear meltdown is a self-sustaining reaction. Nothing can stop it except stopping the reaction. And that would require a nuclear weapon. In fact, it would require one in each containment vessel to merely stop what is going on now. But it will be messy.

Not encouraging is it.

trav7777's picture

this is just complete bullshit.  Fission in reactors requires moderation.  This crap about nuking reactors is nonsensical idiocy and anyone who says it should be ignored immediately.

Ident 7777 economy's picture

a fission meltdown that was in danger of hitting the water table 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

OMG, you're sitting next to a LARGE BODY OF WATER, biggest in the world - with rising LAND to your west ... what do you suppose the 'slope' of the water table is:


A) TOWARDS the large body of water and away from the land


B) TOWARDS the land and away from the large body of water?


Besides, how is this any different ('meltdown into the water table') from pumping either seawater or fresh water on the 'lumps of molten fuel rods' creating large amounts of radioactive steam anyway?



Sweet Chicken's picture

You serious Clark?! The obvious difference would be the large scale nuclear steam explosion that would occur sending millions of particles thousands of feet into the atmosphere.

I'd call that a pretty big difference.

trav7777's picture

you guys learnt everything you know about nuclear reactor accidents from "China Syndrome," didn't you?

Sweet Chicken's picture

I don't know if that remark was directed at me but certainly a melted core falling into water would result in a steam explosion, no?!

trav7777's picture

Dr. Tom Burnett is utterly full of shit.

Fission did not stop at Chernobyl upon the initial core excursion precisely because portions of fissile material remained along with graphite moderation.  This is how the Bridge of Death came to be such a thing.  Chernobyl was fissioning during the accident until the army airlifted in enough boron, sand, and lead to absorb sufficient neutrons and to mobilize the core elements downward and out of the reactor.

There is no analog at Fukushima.  It is WATER moderated.  While the core will melt, without water inside the reactor, there can be no fission due to scientific concepts such as doppler broadening that Dr. Tom appears to be clueless about.  A BWR meltdown is NOT self-sustaining for this reason. 

Those who say that the Japs should have done what the USSR did are similarly clueless; there is nothing here to pour boron on (other than SFPs) as the reactor vessels roughly contain the reactants.  Chernobyl's reactor interior was open to the atmosphere, consequently things could be dumped into it.  That is not the case at Fukushima Dai 1.  Basic knowledge of the reactor designs should be a prerequisite for comment on this issue

MGA_1's picture

Err wait, so looks like I don't understand how reactor's work.  Doesn't water "Moderate" the reaction and slow it down?  Therefore, you remove the water and the reaction speeds up?

RichardP's picture

Under normal operating conditions, water controls the heat generated by the reaction, not the reaction itself.  When the fuel rods become sufficiently hot (in a not normal situation), water can moderate the reaction, as briefly explained below.

It has been stated earlier on ZH that neutrons are the key to the fission reaction.  With no water to slow them down, they speed away from the fuel rods and are less likely to be captured and used for fission.  If the rods are submerged in water, the neutrons slow down in their escape.  They are then more likely to be captured and used for fission.

This relationship between speed of neutrons and water led to the conclusion that there comes a point in the heating up when it could be a bad thing to add water to the spent fuel rod storage pools.  The water would enable increased fission, which would lead to increased heat in the already-overheated spent fuel rods.

Maxter's picture

Water does 2 thing in the reactor:

-first it slows the neutron so that the rods can absorb them more easily --> mean it helps the nuclear reaction

-second it remove exces heat produced my the reaction


the not so mighty maximiza's picture

I am curious if the data out of Japan is reliable, is there any way to cross reference and verify?