Fukushima and problems with INES

Asian Correspondent ^ | 12 April, 2011 | Gavin Atkins

[AustralianConservative]

The reason why it could be argued that Fukushima does not rate as a 5 on INES is that there have been no deaths from radiation so far. Three workers died as a result of the earthquake and tsunami, but while a few workers have been hospitalised as a precaution, nobody has died from radiation poisoning at Fukushima.

Using this reasoning, Fukushima should not even rate as Level 4 on INES, because this is supposed to include “At least one death from radiation”.

Strangely, Level 7 on INES does not require any deaths to be reported from radiation, which arguably makes it more applicable to Fukushima than Level 5 and even Level 4. Fukushima is clearly a very serious accident that should rate very highly compared to other accidents. But should it really be Level 7, which is:

• Major release of radioactive material with widespread health and environmental effects requiring implementation of planned and extended countermeasures.

Clearly, the Fukushima accident has required major countermeasures that will require a lot of environmental work, but can anyone anywhere point to widespread health effects?

While a handful of workers have been hospitalised, nobody has yet been able to point to a single health problem, let alone widespread health problems.

To me, it looks plainly like Level 6:

Significant release of radioactive material likely to require implementation of planned countermeasures.

[AustralianConservative]

http://asiancorrespondent.com/52273/fukushima-and-problems-with-ines/

[Wingy]

Two ways to look at this. Either the situation is worse then reported, requiring a level 7, or rather then look like they’re minimizing the situation they go all the way to a 7 and will back down later as the reactors cool.