Skip to main content

Tuesday Morning Update

UPDATE AS OF 8:30 A.M. EDT, TUESDAY, APRIL 12:

Japan’s nuclear safety agency has raised the crisis level of the Fukushima Daiichi accident from 5 to 7 on the seven-level International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale. The new rating puts the Japanese incident on the same level as the 1986 Chernobyl accident—even though Japanese authorities estimate that radiation released at Fukushima is only 10 percent of the amount released from the Ukrainian plant.

The new level designates Fukushima as a “major accident,” up from an “accident with wider consequences.” Level 7, the highest on the scale, describes an event with “a major release of radioactive material with widespread health and environmental effects requiring implementation of planned and extended countermeasures," according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, which sponsors the ratings.

For the new rating, the Japan Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency combined the accidents at reactors 1, 2 and 3 as a single event. Previously, separate level 5 ratings had been applied to each reactor. The earlier level 3 rating (“serious incident”) still applies to reactor 4.

Japanese authorities may revise the INES rating at the power plant as more information becomes available.

Comments

Cyril R said…
Actually Fukushima released 3 to 6 percent of Chernobyl.

http://uvdiv.blogspot.com/2011/04/fukushima-rated-ines-level-7.html

What matters much more is the dose, not the release. For example reprocessing plants routinely release more radiation than Fukushima, La Hague emits a Fukushima every two to four years. Because the nuclides are all noble gasses that just float away in the atmosphere, the dose is tiny so has no effect on public health.

Popular posts from this blog

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

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 …

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.

Huh?

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…