![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm rather surprised that the unit used there was in mSv. A "level of radiation" generally means a dose rate and is measured in sieverts per time unit. Furthermore, where does the 200Sv figure for Tchernobyl comes from? In any case, I'm switching to mSv/h for Fukushima. Regards, ConradMayhew ( talk) 12:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
For acute effects in biological systems and for doses to non living things, the Gray should be used. Dr Mark Foreman ( talk) 21:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
What about the fact that in Chernobyl, general containment was achieved within a week, whereas the Fukushima reactors are both not contained, still critical, and left blowing radiation into the atmosphere after more than a year? -- 79.193.62.185 ( talk) 05:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Some of the "radiation released" numbers are in so-called "Iodine-equivalent" Bq and some in real Bq (In general the total radiation amounts are Iodine-equivalent, but it's hard to tell for some), this creates quite some confusion. It also seems some of the references cited are confused about this distinction, making it hard to check which is which. ( 88.115.80.54 ( talk) 03:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC))
The numbers for "Radiation released" are very misleading. For Chernobyl it seems to be a total, for Fukushima it is the number from one month only (and since then afaik huge amounts of radiation continued to leak). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.47.143.43 ( talk) 09:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
A section comparing the damage to the reactor vessel and secondary containment structures would be relevant. I.e. the chernobyl reactor basically disintegrated, and the fukushima reactor vessel? has it been breached or not? this is an important question to answer and should be answered here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.41.198 ( talk) 05:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
The 4 GW and 4.7 GW rating is for the entire complex, it may make some sense to break out the MW capacity of the damaged units, as well.
Chernobyl Units 2-4 are basically intact.
Fukushima 5,6 are relatively undamaged.-- Patbahn ( talk) 02:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Where did those number come from? 180 tons for Chernbyl, 1600 for Fukushiima? Even allowing for 4 times the reactors at Fukushima, it seems awfully high. For Chernobyl, I computed 245 metric tons (1661 assemblies, 137.5 kg U per assembly). If anyone has the weight of U per Fukushima assembly (in the reactor and in the pool, if not the same) I'd really appreciate it.
Is it worthwhile breaking out the radio-isotopes released by isotope?
The I-131 release numbers are different from the Cesium and Trans-uranics.
It may need it's own table to be listed.-- 108.18.177.140 ( talk) 03:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Does it even mean anything for amount of radiation released towards the atmosphere? It seems like just giving the atmosphere a big X-ray, who cares? Or does PBq also measure radioactive **material**? (something that seems to matter because it then gets into food etc. and releases radiation into tissue) Blargg ( talk) 10:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
There is no propert distinction between the mode of release, soil, atmospheric, only sea. Also noble gases are totally skipped; Arnie Gudernsen mentioned they were x3 than Chernobyl: youtu.be/snBzZnMNNfg?t=38m51s Sperxios ( talk) 23:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Comparison of Fukushima and Chernobyl nuclear accidents. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
The Chernobyl reactor 4 fuel weight needs a second look. I understand the calculation (fuel bundle weight x total number of bundles = total fuel load) but that number isn't matching up properly with what's out there.
99% of sources and literature speak of only 180-200 tons loaded in the reactor at the time of the accident. The very few number of sources that speak of the ~240 ton fuel load seem to derive from this bundle weight calculation. In fact the top three search results of 240-250 tons all derive from the info on this wikipage. (The top hit being this page). All the articles and journals I found speak of the 180 ton number. I would have suspected some confusion due to conversion from Russian weight units but the Soviets adopted the metric system in the 1920's.
The most logical answer seems to be that the core wasn't 100% loaded at the time of the accident.
(Sources)
Comparison should inclue at least 3 mile island — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.20.250.196 ( talk) 12:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
A few days after the telescoping-arm investigation, a small-tracked cleaning robot with a high-pressure water nozzle and a scraper was inserted. This operated for 2 hours before the radiation had degraded the camera too much to continue. Neither the telescoping unit nor the cleaning robot had an actual radiation detector, and radiation levels were inferred from camera noise and degradation of the cameras. TEPCO’s first announcement was that radiation levels were estimated to be as high as 530 Sv/hour; the succeeding estimate was over 600 Sv/hr. Either would be fatal to a human after a few minutes’ exposure. Finally, on Feburary 16, Tepco inserted a second robot into the reactor. This one is called the “Scorpion” because it has a folding “tail” containing powerful lighting and a camera. It operated well for about 30 minutes before becoming immobile, but was able to obtain about 6 hours of video images as well as better radiation measurements, which showed maximum levels of about 210 SV/hr. While this is lower then the previous estimates, it is also considered more accurate and within an order of magnitude. It would also be fatal to humans after a few minutes’ exposure.
https://www.toshiba.co.jp/about/press/2015_06/pr3001.htm
The robot is approximately 54cm long and 9cm high and wide, and is equipped with two cameras, LED lights, a radiation dosimeter and a thermometer. Remotely operated by a wired cable, the robot will enter the PCV along a pipe approximately 10cm in diameter.
This should settle the argument once and for all. Garzfoth ( talk) 05:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm rather surprised that the unit used there was in mSv. A "level of radiation" generally means a dose rate and is measured in sieverts per time unit. Furthermore, where does the 200Sv figure for Tchernobyl comes from? In any case, I'm switching to mSv/h for Fukushima. Regards, ConradMayhew ( talk) 12:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
For acute effects in biological systems and for doses to non living things, the Gray should be used. Dr Mark Foreman ( talk) 21:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
What about the fact that in Chernobyl, general containment was achieved within a week, whereas the Fukushima reactors are both not contained, still critical, and left blowing radiation into the atmosphere after more than a year? -- 79.193.62.185 ( talk) 05:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Some of the "radiation released" numbers are in so-called "Iodine-equivalent" Bq and some in real Bq (In general the total radiation amounts are Iodine-equivalent, but it's hard to tell for some), this creates quite some confusion. It also seems some of the references cited are confused about this distinction, making it hard to check which is which. ( 88.115.80.54 ( talk) 03:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC))
The numbers for "Radiation released" are very misleading. For Chernobyl it seems to be a total, for Fukushima it is the number from one month only (and since then afaik huge amounts of radiation continued to leak). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.47.143.43 ( talk) 09:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
A section comparing the damage to the reactor vessel and secondary containment structures would be relevant. I.e. the chernobyl reactor basically disintegrated, and the fukushima reactor vessel? has it been breached or not? this is an important question to answer and should be answered here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.41.198 ( talk) 05:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
The 4 GW and 4.7 GW rating is for the entire complex, it may make some sense to break out the MW capacity of the damaged units, as well.
Chernobyl Units 2-4 are basically intact.
Fukushima 5,6 are relatively undamaged.-- Patbahn ( talk) 02:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Where did those number come from? 180 tons for Chernbyl, 1600 for Fukushiima? Even allowing for 4 times the reactors at Fukushima, it seems awfully high. For Chernobyl, I computed 245 metric tons (1661 assemblies, 137.5 kg U per assembly). If anyone has the weight of U per Fukushima assembly (in the reactor and in the pool, if not the same) I'd really appreciate it.
Is it worthwhile breaking out the radio-isotopes released by isotope?
The I-131 release numbers are different from the Cesium and Trans-uranics.
It may need it's own table to be listed.-- 108.18.177.140 ( talk) 03:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Does it even mean anything for amount of radiation released towards the atmosphere? It seems like just giving the atmosphere a big X-ray, who cares? Or does PBq also measure radioactive **material**? (something that seems to matter because it then gets into food etc. and releases radiation into tissue) Blargg ( talk) 10:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
There is no propert distinction between the mode of release, soil, atmospheric, only sea. Also noble gases are totally skipped; Arnie Gudernsen mentioned they were x3 than Chernobyl: youtu.be/snBzZnMNNfg?t=38m51s Sperxios ( talk) 23:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Comparison of Fukushima and Chernobyl nuclear accidents. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
The Chernobyl reactor 4 fuel weight needs a second look. I understand the calculation (fuel bundle weight x total number of bundles = total fuel load) but that number isn't matching up properly with what's out there.
99% of sources and literature speak of only 180-200 tons loaded in the reactor at the time of the accident. The very few number of sources that speak of the ~240 ton fuel load seem to derive from this bundle weight calculation. In fact the top three search results of 240-250 tons all derive from the info on this wikipage. (The top hit being this page). All the articles and journals I found speak of the 180 ton number. I would have suspected some confusion due to conversion from Russian weight units but the Soviets adopted the metric system in the 1920's.
The most logical answer seems to be that the core wasn't 100% loaded at the time of the accident.
(Sources)
Comparison should inclue at least 3 mile island — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.20.250.196 ( talk) 12:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
A few days after the telescoping-arm investigation, a small-tracked cleaning robot with a high-pressure water nozzle and a scraper was inserted. This operated for 2 hours before the radiation had degraded the camera too much to continue. Neither the telescoping unit nor the cleaning robot had an actual radiation detector, and radiation levels were inferred from camera noise and degradation of the cameras. TEPCO’s first announcement was that radiation levels were estimated to be as high as 530 Sv/hour; the succeeding estimate was over 600 Sv/hr. Either would be fatal to a human after a few minutes’ exposure. Finally, on Feburary 16, Tepco inserted a second robot into the reactor. This one is called the “Scorpion” because it has a folding “tail” containing powerful lighting and a camera. It operated well for about 30 minutes before becoming immobile, but was able to obtain about 6 hours of video images as well as better radiation measurements, which showed maximum levels of about 210 SV/hr. While this is lower then the previous estimates, it is also considered more accurate and within an order of magnitude. It would also be fatal to humans after a few minutes’ exposure.
https://www.toshiba.co.jp/about/press/2015_06/pr3001.htm
The robot is approximately 54cm long and 9cm high and wide, and is equipped with two cameras, LED lights, a radiation dosimeter and a thermometer. Remotely operated by a wired cable, the robot will enter the PCV along a pipe approximately 10cm in diameter.
This should settle the argument once and for all. Garzfoth ( talk) 05:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)