Many news organizations (e.g. CNN, Huffington Post, etc) are referring to the Japan incident as something as severe as Chernobyl, i.e. a nuclear event with International Atomic Energy Agency rating "7". I'm skeptical of this equivalence because the radiation from Japan's Fukushima Dai-ichi plants seems to be predominantly cesium and iodine, whereas Chernobyl's radiation included more dangerous isotopes such as plutonium.

Is the Japan nuclear disaster as dangerous to human health as Chernobyl (both locally and around the world)?

Note: This question is similar to (but not the same as) Can a “second Chernobyl” happen at the nuclear reactors damaged by the tsunami in Japan?

  • 4
    I haven't been able to find a non-Wikipedia quick summary of the INES scale, but Wikipedia defines a level 7 as including widespread release of radioactivity requiring some action over a sizable area. This happened at Chernobyl, and is happening at Fukushima Dai-ichi. The INES level doesn't address how big the area is, what the levels of radioactivity are (other than requiring some action), or what the action is. There is no reason to equate the two. They're both in the top INES category, but that isn't intended to measure absolute severity. – David Thornley Apr 13 '11 at 2:47
  • 2
    The amount of radiation released from the Fukushima Daichi reactors is about 10% of that from Chernobyl. Although the current crisis has been upgraded to the same level, 7, of the Soviet disaster this has more to say about the inadequacy of the ranking system than the similarity of the disasters. – user1841 Apr 13 '11 at 3:38
  • 3
    Standardized disaster scales can trivialize comparison as is evidenced by this case. A scale that was designed in order to categorize nuclear disasters gives fuel for journalists to sensationalize the story based on direct comparison. Calling Fukishima a second Chernobyl is facetious and trivializes the huge differences between the two. Fukushima is certainly a major nuclear disaster and deserves its level 7 rating, but that hardly means it is the same as Chernobyl in terms of severity, death, and human effect. – crasic Apr 13 '11 at 3:55
  • Do you have citations about what isotopes were released by Fukushima and Chernobyl? – Andrew Grimm Apr 13 '11 at 4:47
  • 1
    I'm reopening now, as this is a question about an ongoing event please comment on or correct out-of-date information you see. – Mad Scientist Apr 15 '11 at 6:13

It has been some time since the accident and a number of comprehensive studies have been performed. I think it is worthwhile to start with one of the most authoritative articles by the Journal Nature, Fukushima’s doses tallied — Studies indicate minimal health risks from radiation in the aftermath of Japan’s nuclear disaster (23 May 2012):



The Chernobyl incident is now well documented, see e.g. Wikipedia's article "Chernobyl Disaster". Fukushima has only just begun being studied, and much of the information still derives from contemporaneous articles (to which this article links to many).

At the time of this writing, it seems reasonable to conclude that the Fukushima incident will have a fraction of the impact of Chernobyl, based on the analysis below. In particular:

  1. The amount of radiation released by Fukushima is a fraction of Chernobyl;
  2. The spread of the radiation from Fukushima is unlikely to hit highly populated areas like Chernobyl's radiation did;
  3. The types of isotopes released by Fukushima are not as dangerous as those released by Chernobyl; and
  4. The reported effects of Fukushima are significantly less than Chernobyl's reported effects;
  5. Comprehensive studies indicate that the amount of cancer developed by Fukushima may actually be at or less than background rates for cancer.

The impact of Fukushima could be substantially greater in one area compared to Chernobyl: post traumatic stress disorder. From the Nature article noted above:


There remains the possibility for Fukushima to become a significantly worse disaster if an earthquake occurs, as per noted scientist and host of the Nature of Things, David Suzuki:




It is not clear what paper Dr. Suzuki is referring to.

Here is the analysis:

Amount of radiation by absorbed energy

The amount of radiation by absorbed energy in millisieverts per hours at Fukushima seems to have been a fraction of about a fiftieth (1/50th) of Chernobyl's at what seem to be comparable water sources.


Sample recorded levels during Chernobyl (See: JPRS Report Economic Affairs, "Chernobyl Notebook" by G. Medvedev June 1989):

  • Vicinity of reactor core: 300,000 mSv/h
  • Water in Level +25 feedwater room: 50,000 mSv/h


Highest reported level during Fukushima accident: 4,000 mSv/h reported as the level at a pool of water in the turbine room of reactor two. (See: The Guardian, "Japan doubles Fukushima radiation leak estimate", June 7, 2011)

Spread of the radiation geographically

The spread of radiation from the Japan incident over human habitats is significantly less than that of Chernobyl because much of the radiation from Japan dispersed over the Pacific ocean.


From Wikipedia's article "Chernobyl Diaster effects"

The explosion at the power station and subsequent fires inside the remains of the reactor provoked a radioactive cloud which drifted not only over Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, but also over the European part of Turkey, Greece, Moldova, Romania, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Finland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Austria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Poland, Estonia, Switzerland, Germany, Italy, Ireland, France (including Corsica4), Canada5 and the United Kingdom (UK).6


Much of the Fukushima radiation has dispersed over the Pacific Ocean. (See: Christian Science Monitor, "Fukushima raised to level 7 the same category as Chernobyl but Chernobyl had10 to 100 times more radiation", April 12, 2011)

Amount and types of radioisotopes

While parts of the fuel rods and graphite particles were ejected into the atmosphere at Chernobyl, only iodine, cesium and Xenon-133 have been noted in the media reports about releases from Fukushima.

While some reports of plutonium have been reported in the soil, greater amounts of plutonium were discovered in Japanese soil after overseas nuclear testing. (See: The Guardian, "Japan doubles Fukushima radiation leak estimate", 7 June, 2011)


Iodine released has been at a fraction of that of Chernobyl of about one fourteenth (1/14th) to one eight (1/8th). The measured amounts are: Fukushima: 770,000 terabecquerels of iodine-131 (The Guardian, "Japan doubles Fukushima radiation leak estimate", June 7, 2011); Chernobyl: 5.2 million terabecquerels (See: The Globe and Mail article "Japan Haunted by spectre of Chernobyl").

Cesium-134 and -137

A paper, A. Stohl, P. Seibert, G. Wotawa, D. Arnold, J. F. Burkhart, S. Eckhardt, C. Tapia, A. Vargas, and T. J. Yasunari “Xenon-133 and caesium-137 releases into the atmosphere from the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant: determination of the source term, atmospheric dispersion, and deposition”, Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., 11, 28319–28394, 2011, states "For [cesium 137], the inversion results give a total emission of 35.8 (23.3–50.1) PBq, or about 42 % of the estimated Chernobyl emission" (the "Stohl paper").

By this estimate Fukushima has released 40% of the radioactive caesium of Chernobyl. This is significant, and by this metric Fukushima is not on par with Chernobyl, strictly speaking, but it is in the same order of magnitude. As well, Chernobyl released many much more dangerous particles, namely radioactive isotopes of plutonium and uranium.


According to the Stohl paper, under the metric of Xenon-133 release, Fukushima exceeds Chernobyl:

Total a posteriori 133 Xe emissions are 16.7 EBq, one third more than the a priori value of 12.6 EBq (which is equal to the estimated inventory) and 2.5 times the estimated Chernobyl source term of 6.5 EBq

The authors note that their measurements of Xenon-133 exceed inventory, and "Emissions cannot exceed 100 % of the inventory, so this may indicate that our inversion overestimates the emissions." The estimate may be revised over time.

Xenon-133 has a very short half-life in the body, of "a few minutes", so it doesn't stay in the body very long. There's a well referenced post on the UC Berkeley Department of Nuclear Engineering on the effects of Xenon, which concludes:

So the bottom line is: Xe-133 does not stay in the body very long, and it's not very dangerous even if it's in the air around you.

So while Xenon-133 has been released from Fukushima in amounts greater than Chernobyl, and Xenon-133 is a radioactive isotope, the effects on human health of Xenon-133 even in amounts released from Fukushima are likely a fraction of the effects of the releases of more dangerous isotopes from Chernobyl (i.e. radioactive isotopes of plutonium, uranium, caesium, iodine).

Strontium 90

Strontium 90 has been noted to be seeping into the bedrock near Fukushima, by the BBC and NBC. The latter states:

Tokyo Electric Power (Tepco), ..., said nearly 30 times the permitted level of the radioactive isotope was discovered in a well dug last month outside the turbine hall of Reactor No.2.


It seems that not a great deal of analysis has been done on amount and effect of the Strontium.

The article True facts about Ocean Radiation and the Fukushima Disaster notes:

The leaking groundwater contains strontium and tritium which are more problematic than Cesium-137. But it sounds like strontium accumulates in bones and is only problem if you eat small fish with the bones in, like sardines (and it will only affect sardines caught near Japan since they don’t travel far).

In general

From the Wikipedia article on the Chernobyl disaster remarking on the radioisotopes released from Chernobyl:


  • About 1760 PBq or 400 kg of I-131, 55% of the radioactive iodine in the reactor, was released, as a mixture of vapor, solid particles, and organic iodine compounds. Caesium (85 PBq Cs-137[79]) and tellurium were released in aerosol form.


Reported health effects


The actual effects of Chernobyl are somewhat contested and vary dramatically. At the least, it is acknowledged that 237 people reported acute radiation sickness, with 31 deaths within 3 months. Some claim the deaths may be as high as 200,000 to 900,000. (See: Wikipedia's article: "Chernobyl disaster")


21 workers have reportedly been affected by minor radiation sickness. (See: Nuclear crises: How do Fukushima and Chernobyl compare?).

In the wake of the earthquake and tsunami it may be difficult to find accurate recordings of any effects of the nuclear incident alone.

Note regarding iodine: Thyroid cancer, caused by radioactive iodine, has been considered by some to be one of the main causes of death from Chernobyl. Iodine tablets are being distributed in Japan that prevent thyroid cancer. (See: Japan to Distribute Iodine Tablets Near Nuclear Plant, Newser.com, March 12, 2011; See also Wikipedia's article "Chernobyl disaster" at Assessing the diasaster's effects on human health). It's also noteworthy that thyroid cancer is treatable with very high success.

There were reports of [Caesium in baby milk]:

... tests found up to 30.8 becquerels of caesium per kilo of Meiji Step powdered milk.

The milk was recalled; there was no indication of the amount of distribution before the discovery. The distribution is noted to be limited to Japan only.

Around 70 sailors aboard the USS Reagan are making a claim for compensation for exposure to radiation.

Update — January 2014

A number of other recent resources have cropped up, including:

Other resources

There are some reasonably comprehensive articles on the comparison, including:

  • 10
    That's the way to do it! – Sklivvz Apr 17 '11 at 21:10
  • I can report that Japan sets pretty stringent contained activity limits for those building radioactive sources for scientific use (previously 1 microCurie, now 10,000 Bq). It that is part of a unified policy, one would expect the regulatory limits on acceptable releases to be pretty tight as well. – dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten Apr 17 '11 at 23:18
  • 3
    Isn't the study claiming 200,000 to 900,000 deaths from a study that wasn't peer-reviewed? – Andrew Grimm Apr 24 '11 at 6:42
  • yes. Those "estimates" are original figures produced by the WHO based on no real data whatsoever, and later perpetuated by pressure groups after the WHO changed their estimate to several dozen to hundreds. – jwenting Apr 29 '11 at 7:40
  • I would agree that the immediate impact of Chernobyl was far greater. However Fukishima is still leaking radiation into the sea of japan where the currents take it into the pacific. I am truely skeptical of what the government says is "Safe" when ingested. I am unconvinced that we are done seeing the effects of this disaster. – Chad Oct 26 '11 at 18:07

One difference between Fukushima and Chernobyl for human health is the distribution of iodine tablets. According to the linked article, the biggest problem was radioactive iodine causing cancer, which the tablets can prevent. Chernobyl didn't distribute the tablets well, while Japan did.

Of course, this is only good for human health. This wouldn't affect, say, environmental impact - unless they decided to distribute tablets to the animals!

Edit: It seems no civilians in the area used iodine tablets, on the grounds they didn't receive enough exposure for it to be justified: Was stable iodine distributed post-Fukushima by the Japanese government?

  • @Downvoter: Why the downvote? – Andrew Grimm Apr 23 '11 at 13:41
  • 3
    because it's completely irrelevant. There was never a need to distribute iodine tablets to people in Tokyo, just as there was no need to distribute them to people in Amsterdam after Chernobyl. Thus their distribution makes no difference. It also doesn't affect the contamination, merely possibly (if there's any effect) some of the results of that contamination. – jwenting Apr 29 '11 at 7:42
  • @jwenting: The article said the tablets were distributed to people living "near Fukushima" (not sure if that means the reactor, or the province), not Tokyo. – Andrew Grimm Apr 29 '11 at 8:11

It looks that most of the information of the past were deliberately silenced.

Here is a recent article about the disaster:


  • 2
    That's an interesting link Mario. The article at first strikes me as a bit scaremongery (radiation=bad; counterculture funding=impossible, ...), the article takes quite a few sweeping strokes rather than focusing on specific data (unreferenced radioactive iodine cancer cluster), and the author has some odd conclusions that I am not convinced are supported by the data. It is an op-ed though, so this is not unexpected. Perhaps you could pick out and include few choice quotes though that illuminate the Fukushima-Chernobyl relationship. Others may be able to provide supporting references. – Brian M. Hunt Aug 26 '13 at 17:38
  • Whilst this may theoretically answer the question, it would be preferable to include the essential parts of the answer here, and provide the link for reference. – Sklivvz Jan 5 '14 at 14:52
  • RT (as a voice of Putin) is a worst ever source of information. – alex Jan 5 '14 at 15:06
  • @alex That sounds like an exaggeration. Although Russia Today indeed has an agenda, why would a Russian government-funded publication have an agenda against nuclear energy — an industry in which Russia has a lot of interests? – gerrit Mar 2 '15 at 5:43
  • @gerrit: I decided to quit those arguments. I found totally useless to talk to who does not want to be open and objective... – Mario Vernari Mar 2 '15 at 6:20

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .