Radiation protection expert criticizes comparison of Fukushima to Chernobyl

May 18, 2011

In the opening editorial to the latest edition of the Journal of Radiological Protection, published today, Wednesday 18 May, radiological protection expert Professor Richard Wakeford of the Dalton Nuclear Institute, The University of Manchester, gives a detailed account of events at Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Station, and poses several questions that remain unanswered, several weeks on from the earthquake and tsunami on 11 March.

Taking a close look at information disclosed by Japanese government ministries, the , the and others, Professor Wakeford details events at the six different reactors, and the consequent releases of radioactivity.

While praising the organisational abilities of the Japanese authorities and the heroic efforts of emergency workers, Wakeford is critical of alarmist pronouncements from some of those in authority outside Japan, and offers perspective on the radiological hazard the emergency poses.

Professor Wakeford highlights a peculiarity of the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (INES). The INES, designed to communicate to the public the severity of events at nuclear facilities, rather confusingly brackets Fukushima with Chernobyl as a Level 7 major accident, despite Fukushima only having released 10% of the radioactivity released by Chernobyl at the time the INES announcement was made.

Professor Wakeford explains, "Since Level 7 is the highest rating on INES there can be no distinction between the Fukushima and Chernobyl accidents, leading many to proclaim the Fukushima accident as 'another Chernobyl', which it is not……. A situation which has led to criticism of the INES."

Wakeford also highlights how lessons have been learnt since Chernobyl and have helped guide the actions taken by Japanese authorities, including the establishment of a 20km radius evacuation zone, banning the consumption of contaminated foodstuffs, issuing stable iodine tablets, and the monitoring of the thyroids of nearly 1,000 children in badly affected areas.

Professor Wakeford also compares the reality on the ground – sad but orderly evacuations and low level radiation risks among the most vulnerable – with the pronouncements from some of those in authority outside Japan which, Wakeford writes, "have been breathtaking in their extravagance."

"Gunther Oettinger, European Commissioner for Energy, was reported on 15 March as saying, 'There is talk of an apocalypse and I think the word is particularly well-chosen.' Such remarks could have triggered panic in Tokyo and flight on the roads south, which would almost certainly have caused accidents and deaths."

While the monitoring of radiation levels across and beyond Fukushima Prefecture, and among those most likely to be affected, has returned results more encouraging than much of the speculation would suggest, Wakeford does point to some serious ongoing concerns.

One difficult decision facing the Japanese authorities is when and if evacuees are allowed to return to their homes. This will be especially problematical in the sector to the north-west of the site that has been particularly badly affected, and measures are likely to be needed in certain areas to reduce radiation levels before people are permitted to live there permanently.

Another key concern is how authorities will contain and deal with the highly contaminated water that has been found to be present on the Fukushima site.

Many questions surrounding events in Fukushima remain unanswered, most hinging on whether emergency systems were adequate to meet foreseeable, even if unlikely, circumstances.

Professor Wakeford concludes, however, in admiration of Japanese courage, "Given the difficult background circumstances pertaining in Fukushima Prefecture as problems mounted at the Fukushima Dai-ichi NPS, the organisational abilities of the Japanese authorities in dealing with the evacuation, monitoring and protection of the public has to be admired. In particular, the heroic efforts of the , battling under conditions that were often atrocious, should not pass without respect and praise. I for one bow to their courage."

Explore further: Japan disaster not similar to Chernobyl: officials

More information: iopscience.iop.org/0952-4746/31/2/E02

Related Stories

Japan disaster not similar to Chernobyl: officials

May 17, 2011

The potential health consequences of the nuclear crisis at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi plant are not equal to those caused by the disaster at Chernobyl, Japanese health officials said Tuesday

IAEA worried about radiation in Japan village

March 30, 2011

Radiation levels recorded at a village outside the evacuation zone around the quake-striken Fukushima nuclear plant are above safe levels, the UN atomic watchdog said Wednesday.

US West Coast: on frontline from nuclear cloud?

March 14, 2011

California is closely watching the crisis at a Japanese nuclear plant, but officials downplayed the threat that a radioactive cloud blown across the Pacific could pose for the US West Coast.

Recommended for you

Dutch open 'world's first 3D-printed bridge'

October 17, 2017

Dutch officials toasted on Tuesday the opening of what is being called the world's first 3D-printed concrete bridge, which is primarily meant to be used by cyclists.

1 comment

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

not rated yet Jun 01, 2011
The Indians appear to have found a substitute for uranium in Thorium. How will this new source of fuel be incorporated into the present nuclear plants,or will they have to redesign the entire plant to fit into the grids in India?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.