Nuclear "disaster" porn

ABC Science Online news editor Darren Osborne puts the effects of the Fukushima nuclear "disaster" into perspective:

To read a figure such as 1,000 microsieverts per hour and ask 'Is that safe?' is like asking whether 40 degrees Celsius is too hot to survive. It depends on a number of factors such as, how long are you exposed to it, what type is it, or what were you wearing at the time.

In the case of Fukushima, most of the radiation being emitted is gamma radiation, emitted by radioactive isotopes such as xenon-137, krypton-85, iodine-131 and caesium. With the exception of caesium-137, most of these have short half-lives (decay quickly). The concentrations, up to this point, have been very low.

This is in contrast to Chernobyl, where material from the core of the reactor exploded into the air, raining down across a large swathe of Europe. It included large amounts of caesium-137 and strontium-90, which become part of the food chain. Radiation levels close to the reactor were up to thousands of times greater than those currently measured at Fukushima.

The lack of a containment vessel, disregard for safety procedures, and a delay in evacuating people near the reactor made the effects at Chernobyl much worse.

Comparing Chernobyl with Fukushima is like comparing apples with oranges.

It's good to see the ABC injecting some sense into the otherwise near-hysterical media treatment of a nuclear mishap.

Update More cold water is dumped on the overheated disaster hype:

The worst nuclear accident in history was the Chernobyl explosion of 1986 in what is now Ukraine. Nuclear experts have repeatedly stated that the Japanese situation cannot get as bad as Chernobyl. New Scientist explains why.

Read it here.