Problems with the International Nuclear and Radiological Events Scale

The International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (INES) is an internationally-accepted scale for judging the severity of nuclear and radiological disasters. According to the INES User’s Manual 2008 edition, “The International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale is used for promptly and consistently communicating to the public the safety significance of events associated with sources of radiation”(1). An earthquake on March 11, 2011, triggered a nuclear disaster at the Fukushima Nuclear Plant in Japan. Three of the reactors experienced partial meltdowns, and radioactive material began to spread into the environment. On April 11, 2011, as the events at Fukushima progressed, the Japanese Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency raised the INES rating from level 5 to level 7, the highest level. Level 7 had only been reached one time before, when on April 26, 1986, during tests at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in the Ukraine, a power surge and failed shutdown caused an explosion and meltdown which sent a cloud of radioactive material into the sky, causing extensive devastation. Chernobyl has gone down in history as a great catastrophe, and when the Fukushima event was rated at the same level as Chernobyl, it drew a lot of attention. On closer observation, however, the direct comparison of the two events is questionable at best.

The rating of the Fukushima nuclear disaster has brought doubts as to the reliability of the the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale(INES). The stated primary purpose of the INES, in the INES User’s Manual 2008 edition, is to “facilitate communication and understanding between the technical community, the media and the public on the safety significance of events”(8). Instead of fulfilling its stated purpose, the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale is proving itself unreliable and deceptive, because it falsely portrays events of very different magnitudes on an equal plane, and has no central body to rate events in an informed, non-subjective manner.

The recent rating of the Fukushima disaster has proved that the INES is subject to putting events of different magnitudes on an equal plane. Though Fukushima and Chernobyl have both been placed at level 7, the Chernobyl nuclear accident had a much greater immediate negative effect on the population than did Fukushima. Not a single death has been recorded at the Fukushima plant from radiation. In Fukushima, two workers were found dead in the reactors. It is believed that they died from external injuries, not radiation. The Chernobyl disaster, on the other hand, had many immediate radiation-related deaths. According to the World Nuclear Association, “Two Chernobyl plant workers died on the night of the accident, and a further 28 people died within a few weeks as a result of acute radiation poisoning”(“Chernobyl Accident 1986”). Using the INES, Two dissimilar events were portrayed on the same level.

Not only were fewer people immediately effected by the Fukushima disaster’s radiation levels, but the radiation output at the Fukushima plant has been far less than at Chernobyl. There was no containment structure for the smoke from the explosion and fire at Chernobyl, so great amounts of nuclear waste were spewn into the sky and spread all around the area. In fact, according to Cham Dallas, PH.D, CBS Nuclear Safety Consultant, "One hundred times as much radioactivity as Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs combined went up into the air at Chernobyl"(Couric). The Fukushima reactors, on the other hand, were housed inside containment domes. There were indeed been explosions at Fukushima, but they originated in those domes, not in the reactors themselves, says Dallas (Couric). The debris from these explosions, therefore, carried very little radioactive material, not enough to even make someome sick. The equal INES ratings given to the two events caused unnecessary fear to the public, because many recalled the alarming radiation levels reported after the Chernobyl incident, and thought that Fukushima was just as disastrous. The INES failed to fulfill its purpose of accurately communicating severity levels, putting events of varying severity on an equal plane.

The INES not only has the tendency to place unequal events on an equal level, but also courts the potential for false ratings altogethr. There is no central body that assigns the ratings, and this can lead to improper assignment of numbers. It is up to the country where the disaster takes place to assign the INES rating. Usually its nuclear agency assigns the level, and in Japan, it was the Japanese Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency that made the decision. Without international cooperation, how can a nuclear disaster, especially a large one with international results, be rated? In the age of global communication, how can an international community get a clear picture of the significance of a catastrophe without international cooperation in rating its severity? If the rating scale is for facilitating communication and understanding, then it should be a central, international body that defines the rating of a disaster.

Not having a central body to rate nuclear events lends itself to subjectivity. The current method of a local agency rating the event, makes it easier for a country not wishing to draw attention to a severe nuclear problem, to downplay its severity. Especially in countries with a heavy-handed government, where it is actually more likely for nuclear disasters to occur due to generally less sophisticated technology, a government could tell its scientists to rate the disaster favorably to benefit the country’s publicity and economy. Then there is the possibility that a particular countries definition or view of what constitutes a serious disaster, could be different from another. This also paves the way for a misguiding rating.

The INES was initiated to effectively communicate the severity of nuclear events. It has failed to do so. Nuclear events of different magnitudes have been rated as equal. The system, without a central rating agency, lends itself to improper and subjective ratings. It is undeniable that the job of the INES, to rate nuclear and radiological events, is a necessary one. Nuclear disasters are serious events, and it is intrinsic that tangible, correct information is shared to the public. The INES, however, has some definite flaws, and it should be either reformed or replaced. A rating scale must be in place that will accurately portray the seriousness of a nuclear or radiological disaster.

Works Cited

Couric, Katie. How Fukushima explosions differed from Chernobyl. CBS Evening News, 14 March, 2011. Web. 28 Apr. 2011.

International Atomic Energy Agency. INES International Nuclear and Radiological Events Scale User’s Manual: 2008 Edition.

IAEA, and Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Nuclear Energy Association, n.d. Web. 2 May 2011.

World Nuclear Association. Chernobyl Accident 1986. WNA, April 2011, Web. 28 Apr. 2011.