You're absolutely right, Although if this nth study could stop the nonsense about the health danger of these scanners why not ? Of course this do not answer the real question of the cost/benefit ratio of these devices in the first place, but at least it will stop idiots using pseudo-science and fear mongering to fight them and have a rationale debate over the costs of airport security.

Yeah and there are canals and a giant face sculpture on Mars too. The guy is either suffering from pareidolia or drinking too much vodka.

Fukushima prefecture is 14500 km2 and 2M inhabitants less than 8% of the territory and 3.5% of population have been evacuated.

Most of the japanese would be perfectly OK eating food from Fukushima prefecture without fear-mongering idiots scaring a gullible population with occasional radiations level in food lower than one would find in a simple banana or brazil nut.

Exclusion will be lifted next year for all areas with less than 20mSv/y of radiations level, that's more 80% of the evacuated area. Also half the radiations are due to Cs-134 with a half-life of 2 years. That mean all zones will be available in less than a decade, including municipalities like Namie or Iitate.

There's a big difference between what you are allowed to receive every years during your carreer and a maximum environmental exposure that could hypothetically only happen one year. I'm sure the inhabitants of Ramsar who live with a natural radioactivity level of more than 100mSv/y would be laughing a lot at this.

Yeah sure I wonder how any other energy production facilities would have fared facing the same earthquake and tsunami. Do you really think the Japanese government will be dumb enough to replace nuclear plants with tenth os thousands of off-shore tsunami-proof windmills ...

Obviously missing data in TFA: estimated cost of production for these marvelous batteries ...

So this is a computation using a statistical model to give estimates of the soil contamination, and it becomes facts and measured quantities in the ground. But worse, look at the original scale provided by the authors of the paper: it clearly shows the areas under 2500Bq/kg, but the journalist conveniently merged it with the upper-bound area and also avoided the use of the green/blue colors usually associated with safe values in any mapping. Maybe the original map had not enough red and orange area for effective scare-mongering ? BBC I am disappointed...

At least an investment that makes sense, instead of wasting taxpayer money in subsidizing the existing inefficient solar panels (and worse, purchasing them abroad where they're produced with the most polluting industry).