Why did you have to call it Japan's Chernobyl?! The two are completely different in pretty much every substantive way.

It's completely misleading to present all these images under the heading of nuclear catastrophe. The devastation shown was caused by the tsunami and has little or nothing to do with the Fukushima plant. Kesennuma and Minamisanriku towns aren't even anywhere near the evacuation zone around Fukushima.

I completely agree that continuous equation of the Fukushima disaster to that of Chernobyl is misleading and unsubstantiated. The media is responsible for educating the public but since the nuclear catastrophe there has been more speculation and sensational reporting than balanced coverage.

The title of this photo essay should read "Haunting images of abandoned towns and devastation left in the aftermath of Japan's earthquake, tsunami, and the resulting nuclear catastrophe".

As for the Chernobyl comparison, in total land area lost to radiation, not yet as large, but Chernobyl was a single core event as opposed to Fukushima-Daiichi which is a multiple core event. As for total radiation released, that is precisely why the 7 rating. Furthermore, pumping thousands of tons of radioactive water into the ocean is not a good thing, and food chain contamination is in fact occurring.

Comparable to Chernobyl? In some respects worse and still uncontained.

Agree with previous comments. Please either change the title or keep only pictures that are taken from the Fukushima Nuclear power plant disaster zone.

Some communities have suffered from both nuclear disaster and tsunami (Namie, Futaba, Minami-soma, for example), but many other communities were well beyond 80km boundary of the plants and their suffering and recovery efforts are quite distinct (Otsuchi, kesennuma, Minamisanriku, Schichigahama, and Ishinomaki in FP pictures). Please do not misrepresent this catastrophe as if it is just caused by nuclear and radiation - because it isn't.

We know that the dynamics of the Chernobyl incident were very different from those at Fukushima. We also know that Fukushima has been managed far better than the Soviets handled Chernobyl (not well, perhaps, but still far better). That means many fewer people have so far received acute doses of radiation this time, and that the fallout from the airborne releases seem to be much less and far more localized. And the Japanese government says that a month now into the crisis, the chances of another large burst of radiation are “significantly smaller.”

But we also know that along with the airborne releases, large amounts of radioactivity have seeped into the ground and been released into the sea, much of which, it seems, is as yet uncounted. And of course the disaster is still far from over. Radiation may continue to escape for weeks or months to come.

And amid the mixed signals, here’s one more: even as the risk of significant new releases seems to be diminishing, the Japanese government this week expanded the evacuation zone around the plant to include new areas where residents are likely to receive long-term elevated radiation exposure. It’s also becoming increasingly clear that some of these areas will be uninhabitable for at least several decades to come.

So—Fukushima like Chernobyl? Fukushima NOT like Chernobyl? I still believe the comparison is inappropriate no matter how the numbers do or don’t stack up (Are we comparing the nature of the accident? Total radiation released? Area affected? Total impact on human health?) But it’s clearer than ever this week that that’s a losing rhetorical battle, even as it’s also clear that the comparisons are more meaningless than ever.

We know that the dynamics of the Chernobyl incident were very different from those at Fukushima. We also know that Fukushima has been managed far better than the Soviets handled Chernobyl (not well, perhaps, but still far better). That means many fewer people have so far received acute doses of radiation this time, and that the fallout from the airborne releases seem to be much less and far more localized. And the Japanese government says that a month now into the crisis, the chances of another large burst of radiation are “significantly smaller.” http://tinyurl.com/5r23qvk

But we also know that along with the airborne releases, large amounts of radioactivity have seeped into the ground and been released into the sea, much of which, it seems, is as yet uncounted. And of course the disaster is still far from over. Radiation may continue to escape for weeks or months to come.

And amid the mixed signals, here’s one more: even as the risk of significant new releases seems to be diminishing, the Japanese government this week expanded the evacuation zone around the plant to include new areas where residents are likely to receive long-term elevated radiation exposure. It’s also becoming increasingly clear that some of these areas will be uninhabitable for at least several decades to come.

So—Fukushima like Chernobyl? Fukushima NOT like Chernobyl? I still believe the comparison is inappropriate no matter how the numbers do or don’t stack up (Are we comparing the nature of the accident? Total radiation released? Area affected? Total impact on human health?) But it’s clearer than ever this week that that’s a losing rhetorical battle, even as it’s also clear that the comparisons are more meaningless than ever.

Government agencies have been measuring these levels and reporting that you don’t have to worry as everything is under complete control. However, the scientists and university students are demonstrating a different version. They are actually measuring high levels of toxic radiation in our food and water supply that are hazardous to human health. And they are increasing every day. We already that what the “experts” have told us is just not true.

They told us in the middle of March that we had nothing to worry about with the Japanese Nuclear Reactor possibly leaking or exploding, that they had it under complete control. Those same people that were hiding the truth now want us to believe that “radiation poisoning” should be nothing to worry about for the average person.” I don’t buy it! I don't think they are really after the best interests of the "average person", and if you value you and your families health, you shouldn’t buy it either. I’d much prefer to Detect Radiation and be safe rather than sick or dead!

Japan is now very bad. We need to help them people!

According to the International Nuclear Event Scale, that is as bad as officials can imagine.Poor people Japan was a big nation. We need to help then. I saw many Videos about japan crisis.Japan raised the severity level of the crisis at its crippled nuclear plant.Some 170,000 people have been ordered to evacuate the area covering a radius of 12 miles around the plant in Fukushima near Iwaki. A meltdown refers to a very serious collapse of a power plant's systems and its ability to manage temperatures. A complete meltdown would release uranium and dangerous byproducts into the environment that can pose serious health risks.

The government on Friday added some towns outside a 20- kilometer radius of the crisis-hit Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant to the list of areas covered by its evacuation directive, due to concerns over high cumulative levels of radiation.

All residents in Katsurao, Namie and Iitate and some in Kawamata and Minamisoma in Fukushima Prefecture must leave by around late May, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said at a news conference. The announcement came a day after the government declared the 20-km zone around the tsunami-stricken plant a no-go area.

The top government spokesman said the latest expansion was made based on internationally recommended standards and radiation monitoring data collected since the March 11 earthquake and tsunami triggered the country's worst nuclear crisis.

He said there is a possibility of residents of the five municipalities receiving a dose of 20 millisieverts during the course of a year, even if they live outside the no-go zone.

The International Atomic Energy Agency has recommended that the highest planned residual radiation over one year be in the range of 20 to 100 millisieverts in an emergency.

Nuclear tragedy that happened in Japan caused caused by natural disasters, Tsunamy. Chernobyl accident occurred because some workers tried to experiment informally and low-power, which includes action to turn off the emergency cooling system. By the time everyone realizes that the core is too hot, it was too late to play the reverse side of this process (they were less careful with letting the hot channel bend where the pieces of fuel should go there) the next thing they know is the roof has flown, two people were killed and a cloud of deadly gas had spread throughout the region.

As I know, so far Japan still able to handle the impact of this nuclear tragedy. But no doubt this has an impact on social life of Japanese society, especially the need for a healthy life. With financial and technological capabilities that are owned, I believe Japan will recover soon.

In this picture, I am very surprised there are still cities in Japan that uses so many cables in the air. I think they've been using cable in the ground. Very interesting angle to capture this picture, cool.

They should be shut down (all 104 of them). Then the whole East Coast would be dark. California would be dark. Lights out for all of you. Silly people. We have Coal, Natural Gas, Hydroelectric and Nuclear. You can Dream about wind, where I live they litter the land and the 1 Nuclear power plant produces so much more power that we sell the extra (nuclear power) to California. Solar power does the same, It covers vast areas with the panels and still wont produce near what the others produce. But hey... Shut those damn things down! Bring on the DARKNESS!!!

Though they are impressive photographs that report the misery of an earthquake and the tsunami as well, but the title kills the value of those photos.
Why they set such stupid title?
Would an editor judge radioactive pollution to be more sensational than an earthquake and a tsunami?
If yes, an editor did wrong. Misery does not have a difference together.
comments from Japan.

Comparing Japan's disaster to Chernobyl is not really a fair comparison. Japan was struck by a Tsunami causing the devastation and the Nuclear "incident". Chernobyl was caused by "user decisions" and was, at first, attempted to be covered up. While this IS a tragedy and does have long lasting repercussions, Japan is doing what it takes to get this under control. It will most definitely NOT end up in the history books as a direct comparison to Chernobyl.

P90 Workout

As someone already said: Nuclear tragedy that happened in Japan caused caused by natural disasters, Tsunamy. Chernobyl accident occurred because some workers tried to experiment informally and low-power, which includes action to turn off the emergency cooling system. By the time everyone realizes that the core is too hot, it was too late to play the reverse side of this process (they were less careful with letting the hot channel bend where the pieces of fuel should go there) the next thing they know is the roof has flown, two people were killed and a cloud of deadly gas had spread throughout the region. yeast infection Fukushima NOT like Chernobyl? I still believe the comparison is inappropriate no matter how the numbers do or don’t stack up (Are we comparing the nature of the accident? Total radiation released? Area affected? Total impact on human health?) But it’s clearer than ever this week that that’s a losing rhetorical battle, even as it’s also clear that the comparisons are more meaningless than ever.

As for the Chernobyl comparison, in total land area lost to radiation, not yet as large, but Chernobyl was a single core event as opposed to Fukushima-Daiichi which is a multiple core event. As for total radiation released, that is precisely why the 7 rating. Furthermore, pumping thousands of tons of radioactive water into the ocean is not a good thing, and food chain contamination is in fact occurring. earthquake ins I to agree with previous comments. Please either change the title or keep only pictures that are taken from the Fukushima Nuclear power plant disaster zone.

The ever increasing costs of nuclear energy, the unpaid costs of storing the waste for 1,000 years, the human toll in suffering, directly land loses, land use loses, pollution in the ocean, ocean use loss, atmospheric debris, the global loss in every country, the billions of dollars needed to manage the clean up on one nuclear plant and one natural disaster, the millions of prenatal deaths documented from areas of low-level radiation, the impact and distraction that nuclear accidents create because of each disasters great potential to cause harm in addition to its harm is counted in trillions of dollars lost. No nuclear technology is producing trillions of dollars in benefits. No country needs to grow based on today's nuclear technologies - now aging over 50 years old, they are the steam locomotives of the industrial age, still used the same was as they were 50 years ago when many nuclear installations were built, still producing the immensely toxic waste that has the potential to kill millions of children, born and unborn, enslave millions to lives with resperators, special water cleaning technologies with no real hope of ever eliminating the waste in the next 100 generations of mankind, it can only be buried like the heads of those who can't see the problem.