Please read this through to the source article.
The first section regarding Chernobyl demonstrates that we should not choose to believe the whitewashing found in the public media.
Then the same for Fukushima.
I hope that the respected gentleman who debated with me in the early days of the Fukushima destruction and radiation emissions, are now allowing themselves to open up to reality.
Information debating accuracies in reports, which sometimes make, either accidentally or intentionally, comparative dangers appear worse than they are, for example the related article below from ‘femalefaust’, do not seem to understand that the Fukushima NPP continues to spew forth massive amounts of radiation AND the end is not in sight.
Chernobyl has been contained, so comparisons of total emissions do not make sense.
Comparisons of human life and health issues where the gross and serious birth defects, for one example, still occurring as a result of the Chernobyl emissions are covered up, may however make sense. Down the track problems need to be assessed by real evidence comparisons and not the publicly released filtered or agenda driven releases.
Related articles
- Fukushima Radiation Hitting the Streets of LA (activistpost.com)
- U.S. Army General: The Whole Northern Hemisphere is at Risk of Becoming Largely Uninhabitable Because of Fukushima (newsworldwide.wordpress.com)
- Operators Admit Fukushima Radiation Levels Exceed 2 1/2 Times Announced (blacklistednews.com)
- Fukushima Update: The West Coast Is In Peril… (genuinewitty.com)
- Chernobyl’s Real Horror Show Isn’t the Radiation, It’s the Economics (theatlantic.com)
- REPEAT AFTER ME: “RT Is Wrong: Fukushima is NOT 4½ Chernobyls (But It IS Worse)” (femalefaust.blogspot.com)
The GOLDEN RULE 
no, i did & do understand the gravity of the situation, and i want this to be clear. i simply did not want the anti-nuclear activist ‘side’ to be discredited by having misunderstood terms, and because of these misunderstood terms, to arrive at discreditable conclusions.
with what we understood at the time, i do not think RT was correct in saying that Fukushima was 41/2 Tchernobyl. perhaps i inflected my headline incorrectly? “but it *IS* worse’ (than Tchernobyl) — that is to say, Yes, it is in fact worse, just as far as we are able to tell, *not* four and a half times worse.
it may very well be estimated to be worse to that extent as of the writing of this comment, Saturday, October 19th, 2013; i do not know, not having done the calculations.
i wouldn’t be surprised.
i have been attempting to make as much clear to all (see, for example, “Fukushima is about to get really really bad,” here, or even better, albeit repost, “Think Of It As [less than a] Month To Avert An Extinction Level Event,” here (headline updated).
apologies for appearing not to be part of the solution. thank you for your work; be seeing you.