Listen to this Podcast
More 60-Second Science
“We are definitely in uncharted waters, particularly given that the spent fuel pool appears to either not have water or have very little water. It’s completely exposed to the atmosphere.”
David Biello is Scientific American’s energy and environment editor. He appeared earlier today, March 17th, on WNYC radio’s morning program, The Takeaway.
“So if that does indeed begin to melt down, which it seems it may have already done, that radiation would be released directly.”
Even in the best-case scenario from this point onward, is the Fukushima site now a radioactive waste dump for years to come?
“Yes. There’s no question that the contamination is significant. That’s why the workers had to cease their efforts and take cover at various periods. This is going to be like Chernobyl.”
Hear the entire interview at thetakeaway.org, and go to SciAm.com for continuing coverage of the state of the Fukushima nuclear site in Japan.
—Steve Mirsky
[The above text is an exact transcript of this podcast.]
See what we're tweeting about
17 Comments
Add CommentWhat exactly is meant by "being like Chernobyl"? Are we expecting to see 31 employees and firefighters dead in the next three months? Is there a huge fire creating a cloud of radioactive cesium that is going to contaminate soils at thousands of kilometers away?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChernobyl was a huge catastrophe, it's difficult to top that. Not only the accident was larger, but the government didn't act quickly to evacuate people and take other measures... Lessons learned from Chenobyl alone make it difficult that a similar thing might happen. 2011 Japan is not 1986 USSR.
Fukushima might get ugly, maybe worse than Three Mile Island. But Chernobyl proportions? That is a bold claim.
Who gave this information about the fuel pool getting out of water, was it the same person who told Iraq had WMDs?
I used to have real respect for Scientific American, but it definitely seems like they have lost their minds on this issue. They seem to have jumped on the band wagon of the popular sensationalist press.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisQuoting an editor is not talking to an expert or someone that is even knowledgable about nuclear power or it's industry. Just what qualifications does he have to make such irresponsible statements? Does he have some "crystal ball" such that he can tell the future?
Sheesh, I'm so tired of the "talking heads" claiming that they know this or that.
As someone that has spent the last 30 years of his life operating and training the Reactor Operators or Senior Reactor Operators at several nuclear facilities in the U.S. I am so glad I know "crap" when I hear it.
How can Hiroshima and Nagasaki be thriving modern cities following the nuclear bombing of those sites not too long ago but we are expected to believe that the area where these nuclear accidents happen will be wastelands forever...really, let's get some objective reporting on this and drop the panic mongering.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA suitable report for a radio program called 'The Takeaway" - a term used by those who don't want to learn any more than necessary for casual discussions with those they don't want to talk to.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFortunately there are much better reports available - does this article contribute anything of value?
And in an industry where trillions of dollars are up for grabs, no one would EVER lie, cheat, murder or steal to
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisobtain those trillions.
ugh... I would've hoped that Scientific American, of all organizations would stick to science and avoid hyperbolic conjecture of the lay-media... here are some links to better written articles on this subject:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20257-why-fukushima-daiichi-wont-be-another-chernobyl.html?page=2
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/03/nuclear-crisis-radioactive-fue.html
and this one...:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=japan-nuclear-fallout
Once again SA has gone for sensationalism over fact. I suggest for accurate information readers should go to: http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/17/fukushima-17-march-summary/#more-4112
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you like horror movies & actually believe them, SA will be your choice.
Granted that this article is mostly useless fearmongering, I have to point out, that an airburst bombing like Hiroshima or Nagasaki have little to do with meltdowns. The areas around Chernobyl are still devoid of people today. There is still too much radioactive cesium present. While it won't be an empty unsafe zone forever, the meltdown at Chernobyl did in fact render the areas most contaminated uninhabitable for a few generations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe radiation poisoning in hiroshima was almost exclusively due to direct exposure to the radiation of the blast. (a duration that is quite shorter then a minute) There was no long term contamination with radioisotopes. The energy of the blast tossed the radioisotopes produced across a much much larger distance. Where as when Chernobyl burned, there was nowhere near the energy to disperse the fallout.
I would not be surprised to see the fukushima plant itself be abandoned as unsafe for people. Though not likely much beyond the plant itself.
"Yes. There’s no question that the contamination is significant. That’s why the workers had to cease their efforts and take cover at various periods. This is going to be like Chernobyl."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs this really the type of reporting that Scientific American is doing now? There are multiple problems with that statement starting with the misunderstanding of the word "contamination" and ending with a comparison to Chernobyl made with what sounded like a straight face.
This was a seriously disappointing podcast to hear.
Fuel exposed in reactors 1, 2, & 3 per the JAIF Japan Atomic Industrial Forum - March 18th @ 16:00 per their status update http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1300433768P.pdf
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a long time fan of 60 second science I find this episode extremely disappointing! So much so that I took the time to register on SciAm just to leave this comment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI hope the author reads www.MITnse.com (the MIT blog set up to follow the Fukushima plant disaster from the perspective of our top experts) and posts another podcast with a better informed perspective. An apology wouldn't hurt either. I mean, I assumed SciAm was an informed science news service, so when I saw this post I was legitimately scared and wondering how I had missed the severity of the situation. Turns out I only missed the fact that I can no longer trust SciAm's content. Very disappointed.
Posted from my iPhone
Though I have been fan of Scientific American Magazine for many years.I'm so sad that Scientific American have gone for sensationalism.That is not only matter of ethics of mass media. Sensationalism under this kind of situation could endanger evacuees and earthquake victims.Actually in Fukushima prefecture many people are waiting for relief supplies, water, foods, battery, oil, heating appliances and so on, however the fear of radioactive contamination is interfering with logistics of them.Some truck drivers turned back in front of quake-hit area.Though those unfortunate events were caused by unclear message from government authorities, trusted media's sensationalism could confound the situation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI too was dissapointed by the misuse of Scientific Americans editors of the trust placed in this magazine.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are residents who have moved back into the Chernobyl area. I have seen reports that they (mostly older people) are actually living longer than those who accepted evacuation. There are also reports that the wildlife in the Chernobyl reserve is doing very well. Probably due to lack of human competition.
Radiation isn't as dangerous as the press likes to claim. The current panic over finding trace amounts of radioactive iodine in tap water and on some food plants in Japan is telling. The regular reporting press has a reason for blowing up the problems. They sell advertising based on numbers of views. The number of views go up sharply when they are screaming that the world is about to end.
Fast forward around 2 months, and this will all be seen as the useless panic that it really is. Just look at the panic buying of sodium iodide tablets after this all broke. The results are that there is a shortage to send to those who live close to the power plant where they might be actually needed.
Scientific American needs to ask experts who are experts in the field being discussed, instead of quacks. Mr. Mirsky, this is JUNK SCIENCE. Mr. Bello is an editor, not a biophysicist. He lacks evidence from the site, and is mostly responding to the emotional coverage and maybe might be extensions that are filling up the newscasts. Next year, this magazine will be embarrassed to have ever been a part of this mess.
Ukraine imprisoned its epidemiologist expert on health damage due to radiocativity from Tchernobyl. Let's hope he has been released so that the true figures on cancers and development defects be known to the world's publics. The International Atomic Agency report of just 32 deaths at tchernobyl shows the extent of the international cover up. When Nuclear goes wrong, it goes very wrong indeed. Let the people be the judge.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course this is like Chernobyl, it is an out of control nuclear facility spewing radiation. A sarcophagus may be required, the expertise is now available. The new very large no-fishing zone may provide some very interesting research data and environmental benefits. This all points to the importance of onshore fish farming as a valued pollution-free protein source.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course this is like Chernobyl, it is an out of control nuclear facility spewing radiation. A sarcophagus may be required, the expertise is now available. The new very large no-fishing zone may provide some very interesting research data and environmental benefits. This all points to the importance of onshore fish farming as a valued pollution-free protein source.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this