scotia wrote:First - I agree that the BBC is not the only organisation that uses the word "disaster" for Fukushima. However I would expect it to broadcast accurate information - unlike many other organisations. So lets look at the definition you supply - and see if the BBC is making a mistake. Your definition requires Great Loss of Life and/or Great Damage.
Great Damage? A Nuclear Power Station has stopped working - with 4 of its 6 reactors being damaged. Not my definition of a disaster, and I think most rational persons would concur.
I cannot say if The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) meets your criteria for "most rational persons".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_ScaleBut... to sum up, The Fukishima Nuclear Disaster - "
the most severe nuclear accident since the 26 April 1986 Chernobyl disaster and the only other disaster to be given the Level 7 event classification of the International Nuclear Event Scale" - caused:
- Three nuclear reactor core meltdowns and damage to a fourth.
- Resulting in hydrogen explosions blowing apart three reactor containment buildings, spreading radioactive debris outside.
- Resulting in an evacuation zone of 20 kM radius and the evacuation of 154,000 residents due to airborne ionizing radiation.
You then add that consequently:
- Japan switched off all its nuclear power plants causing imports 10 million tons of coal and 24% increased in natural gas imports.
- Half of Germany's reactors were closed down.
That strikes me as a curiously innovative way of demonstrating the insignificance of the event! Shades of "
What have the Romans ever done for us?"
So what would be your personal benchmark for a "disaster"? Total global thermonuclear war - would that make the grade?