CNet:
I'm inside one of the reactors at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, site of the worst nuclear disaster in history. It's pitch black, with only a flashlight to light my way. I glide over a metal catwalk, heading deeper into the reactor. But then, when I turn to walk down the stairs, I hit an obstruction.
At that moment, a loud buzzer, like something out of an old game show, blasts into my ears, breaking the whole illusion.
OK, so I'm not actually in the Unit 1 reactor at Fukushima –- the radiation level at its core is high enough that even minutes inside would be a death sentence. I'm in a virtual reality setup at the Naraha Center for Remote Control Technology, about a half-hour drive south of the Daiichi facility.
VR could be a solution for work in environments like Fukushima where humans dare not go.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by turgid on Saturday March 09 2019, @11:07AM (4 children)
Chernobyl was the worst nuclear disaster in history. A significant quantity of reactor core material was ejected into the environment.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 09 2019, @12:14PM (3 children)
I wouldn't be so sure about that. A quick googling around various sources (including wikipedia-which-is-not-a-source) seems to indicate that, in terms of radioactive material ejected into the environment, Fukushima tops Chernobyl.
However in terms of health consequences it's the other way around for now. We'll only know for sure in 40 years.
Oh and there is that "a lot of Fukushima's radioactive stuff goes directly into the Pacific Ocean" that we don't know when and how it's going to bite us back. At least with Chernobyl, we could more or less follow the clouds :-P
(Score: 2) by turgid on Saturday March 09 2019, @02:03PM (1 child)
In what terms? There are different kinds of radioactive materials, with different levels of "radioactivity," different kinds of radiation (alpha, beta, gamma, neutrons) and different chemical toxicities. Simply counting up the total number of "Becquerels" is not particularly useful, but is what the public get to see.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 09 2019, @07:21PM
tho strickly speak "becereuls" are not a super scientific way to understand radiation, the
term "radiation" is a misnomer itself.
it should rather be called "how much stuff in your otherwise solid and eternal environment is falling
apart MAGICALLY (only statistically predictable thus MAGIC) and is trying to convince the surrounding
reality to join in on the death spiral of decay."
and for that notion, beceurels is TEH BEST to measure it.
"radiation, the cancer of reality".
lumping heavy photons into the "radiation" mix is like a investment fund with 99% FFF and 1% AAA classed stocks. remove the light and the 3vil of "radiation" becomes very very obvious!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 09 2019, @04:17PM
And that's why Googling doesn't replace experts that know things. Might as well start Googling around how to build a bridge or an electric 10 ton shovel.
Hint: Comparing Chernobyl to Fukushima is like comparing emissions from an open pit tire fire to a natural gas pipeline explosion. Sure, there is fire in both, but one kind of gives you bad aftertaste.