Fukushima should be ranked LEVEL 10 nuclear disaster (INES scale only goes up to 7) — Plant Worker: We caused the “worst kind” of accident (VIDEO)

Published: November 7th, 2017 at 7:47 am ET
By

79 comments


Excerpts from Risk Analysis (pdf), Vol. 37, No. 1, 2017 (emphasis added):

  • Of Disasters and Dragon Kings: A Statistical Analysis of Nuclear Power Incidents and Accidents
  • [T]he cost of the two largest events, Chernobyl and Fukushima (March 2011), is equal to nearly five times the sum of the 173 other events. We also document a significant runaway disaster regime in both radiation release and cost data, which we associate with the “dragon-king” phenomenon… we find that the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES) is inconsistent in terms of both cost and radiation released. To be consistent with cost data, the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters would need to have between an INES level of 10 and 11, rather than the maximum of 7…
  • [T]he upper category (7) clearly contains events too large to be consistent with the linear relationship. For instance, the largest events (Fukushima and Chernobyl) would need to have an INES score of 10.6 to coincide with the fitted line…
  • RUNAWAY DISASTERS AS “DRAGON-KING” OUTLIERS — In a complex system with safety features/ barriers, once an event surpasses a threshold, it can become uncontrollable, and develop into a “runaway disaster”—causing disproportionately more damage than other events…
  • [F]or the costs to be consistent with the INES scores, the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters would need to be between an INES level of 10 and 11, rather than the maximum level of 7…

Japan Times, Sep 2, 2017: “Whether you take the viewpoint of a Tepco employee or a local resident, the outcome was far from satisfactory,” [former Fukushima Daiichi worker Ryuta Idogawa] says. “As a plant operator we caused a huge accident — the worst kind. Technicians train over and over, and are charged with ensuring this kind of thing doesn’t happen. That the accident did happen makes us the lowest of the low. From the viewpoint of a resident, the disaster meant they couldn’t go home. That we destroyed entire communities was bad enough. However, they were our communities as well.”

See also: Nuclear engineers urging IAEA to create “Level 8” on INES scale for Fukushima

Watch: Nuclear Engineer says Level 8 on INES Scale is needed for Fukushima-like disasters (VIDEO)

Published: November 7th, 2017 at 7:47 am ET
By

79 comments

Related Posts

  1. Host: Fukushima may be one of biggest events to ever affect us in modern times — Gundersen: It should be ‘Level 8’ on INES scale (AUDIO) January 10, 2014
  2. Media finally gets it right? Bloomberg: “Before Fukushima, Chernobyl was ranked the world’s worst nuclear accident” September 30, 2013
  3. TV: Isn’t Fukushima Daiichi at least a 21 on International Nuclear Event Scale, equal to 3 Level 7’s? “Global catastrophe… Disaster of unimaginable proportions” (VIDEO) August 22, 2013
  4. Gundersen: Level 8 on INES Scale is needed for Fukushima-like disasters (VIDEO) August 30, 2012
  5. Top Japan Nuclear Officials: Fukushima is an unprecedented disaster — “It’s probably the worst nuclear accident to ever happen in the world” (VIDEO) October 12, 2013

79 comments to Fukushima should be ranked LEVEL 10 nuclear disaster (INES scale only goes up to 7) — Plant Worker: We caused the “worst kind” of accident (VIDEO)

You must be logged in to post a comment.