As far as contamination goes, my information is ~12 hours out of date, so I won't argue that point. I will point out, however, that it's not the level of radiation that matters, but the specific isotopes causing it. Radioactive Iodine, for example, is particularly dangerous because it has a relatively long half-life and naturally concentrates in the lymph nodes. Shorter-lived isotopes, like N-16, will contribute to high radiation levels but not have any real health effects.
As for this not being on the same scale as Chernobyl, I doubt even a full, uncontained meltdown would be as bad as that. Chernobyl made heavy use of graphite, which burned for a long time, spewing long-lived fallout everywhere. Fukushima I uses a different design, with less inherent risk.
As for this not being on the same scale as Chernobyl, I doubt even a full, uncontained meltdown would be as bad as that. Chernobyl made heavy use of graphite, which burned for a long time, spewing long-lived fallout everywhere. Fukushima I uses a different design, with less inherent risk.
Wikipedia has a pretty decent article on the matter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents#O...
Fukushima is still listed as INES 4, or lower than TMI, although that could change.