Skip to main content

Level 7

number7 The Japan government has classified the Fukushima Daiichi accident as a level 7 accident, using an international scale for such incidents.

This struck me as puzzling – Fukushima, without at all denying its impact, still seemed less consequential than Chernobyl, also a level 7 accident – until I realized that there is no level 8. Thus, anything between Fukushima and Chernobyl would be classified as level 7 simply because there is nothing higher. A flaw in the classification system? Maybe – but it’s what there is.

NPR has a try at sorting out the differences between Chernobyl and Fukushima:

Though Fukushima and Chernobyl are both level 7 nuclear accidents, the health consequences in Japan to date are much less severe. In part, that's because far more radiation was released at Chernobyl. So far, Fukushima Daiichi has released about one-tenth of the amount of radioactive material that escaped Chernobyl, according to an official from the International Atomic Energy Agency.

A little more:

At Chernobyl, an entire reactor exploded, sending up a massive fire and radioactive plume that dispersed radiation over a wide area. The reactor at the Soviet plant was not surrounded by any containment structure, so radiation escaped freely.

People near Chernobyl were not warned against drinking contaminated milk, and many residents later developed thyroid cancer. Two Chernobyl plant workers died on the night of the accident, and 28 more people died within a few weeks from radiation poisoning. Over the long term, several thousand more people were put at risk for cancer.

That speaks to the Soviet desire to keep things secret, even if the cost was their own population.

I will note, though I don’t want to stress this too hard, that the actual cancer risk from Chernobyl is a highly controversial issue. Why not take a side on it? Because the Soviets did treat the issue irresponsibly and shouldn’t enjoy much room for evading further responsibility now (even if the breakup of the Soviet Union – Chernobyl is in Ukraine - makes that stance problematic.)

Much of the radioactive material already released in Japan has been carried out to sea away from populated areas, thanks to prevailing winds. And the government moved quickly to evacuate people from risky areas and to keep contaminated food out of the stores.

And the Japanese, by contrast, have been quite responsible, with a portion of good luck. There’ll doubtless be more to say about this. One thing really isn’t much like the other, level 7 or no.


Anonymous said…
I wouldn't put too much stock in this. It is more symbolic than real. These people are under tremendous political and social pressure to admit the very worst that anyone can imagine, simply to satisfy those who would seek to exact their pound of flesh. They've been so browbeaten over this event that they're going to cop to anything just to get people off their backs who are demanding that they grovel in public.

No way this event comes close to Chornobil, the archtypical Level 7. You're looking at 3-6% of the activity release, no fatalities from radiation (which actually puts it as less than Level 4 by that measure), a contained, shutdown reactor that had close to an hour of decay heat removal compared to a prompt critical excursion for an uncontained, operating core. Just the energy release alone makes Fukushima look like a wet firecracker by comparison.
Anonymous said…
no fatalities from radiation (which actually puts it as less than Level 4 by that measure),

Where do the INES ranking criteria require fatalities from radiation for an event to be ranked above Level 4?
Brian Mays said…
"Where do the INES ranking criteria require fatalities from radiation for an event to be ranked above Level 4?"

No, it's the other way around. One death automatically places the event at Level 4. Several deaths will raise it to Level 5. The scale uses several criteria.
Anonymous said…
It seems unfair to me that if you are going to use a single category (activity release) to categorize it as Level 7, you should be able to use a single category (effect on people and the environment) to categorize it as Level 3 (no radiation-related fatalities). I mean, why be selective? If you can use selectivity to paint the worst possible picture, why not use selectivity to paint a more optimistic one? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.


The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.

What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…