Not the best comparison; California is fairly sparsely populated, with concentrations in the SF and LA/SD areas. Being an island nation (well, a several-island nation), you'd expect Japan to be a bit more dense.
Consider that the population density of Japan is less than a third that of a somewhat average-density city like Austin, TX, and is even less dense than that of the state of New Jersey.
There is no evidence to suggest that Dai-ichi is actually a "disaster," let alone one anywhere near the scale of Chernobyl. Do you even know anything about the design of the plant at Chernobyl? Orders of magnitude less safe than even these pretty-old Dai-ichi reactors.
"Not the best comparison; California is fairly sparsely populated, with concentrations in the SF and LA/SD areas. Being an island nation (well, a several-island nation), you'd expect Japan to be a bit more dense.
Consider that the population density of Japan is less than a third that of a somewhat average-density city like Austin, TX, and is even less dense than that of the state of New Jersey."
If Austin or New Jersey had either the area or population close to that of Japan, maybe these would be relevant comparisons.
If you want to compare cities, try comparing New York to Tokyo, which at least are somewhat comparable. Though even there, Tokyo is far more populous, while NYC is far more densely populated.
"There is no evidence to suggest that Dai-ichi is actually a "disaster""
I guess you've been reading different news than than I have. What I've been reading says three of the reactors have exploded and a fourth has caught fire. There have already been reports of radiation leaks and at least 160 people have been exposed to radiation (so far). Sounds like a "disaster" to me.
Now, whether it escalates to the scale of Chernobyl (or larger) remains to be seen.
If Austin or New Jersey had either the area or population close to that of Japan, maybe these would be relevant comparisons.
Ok, let's reframe: I shouldn't even have bothered. Comparing the population density of a country like Japan to a state like California (as you originally did) is meaningless.
I guess you've been reading different news than than I have. What I've been reading says three of the reactors have exploded and a fourth has caught fire.
Then you've read wrong, or at least drawn the wrong conclusions from it. I haven't read up on the 3rd explosion, but two of them were "cosmetic" in nature and only affected the building structure around the reactors (the purpose of the structure is to keep weather out and is not designed to keep nuclear material in). Neither of the reactors "exploded." Yes, there were explosions at the reactors, but those are two very different things.
I still don't agree that this is a disaster by many reckonings of the term, but I recognize that people are free to define the severity to invoke it as they wish. I just happen to disagree.
Now, whether it escalates to the scale of Chernobyl (or larger) remains to be seen.
Consider that the population density of Japan is less than a third that of a somewhat average-density city like Austin, TX, and is even less dense than that of the state of New Jersey.
There is no evidence to suggest that Dai-ichi is actually a "disaster," let alone one anywhere near the scale of Chernobyl. Do you even know anything about the design of the plant at Chernobyl? Orders of magnitude less safe than even these pretty-old Dai-ichi reactors.