Fukushima Soil Contamination Probed 95
AmiMoJo writes "New research has found that radioactive material in parts of north-eastern Japan exceeds levels considered safe for farming. The findings provide the first comprehensive estimates of contamination across Japan following the nuclear accident in 2011. An international team of researchers took measurements of the radioactive element caesium-137 in soil and grass from all but one of Japan's 47 regions. The researchers estimate that caesium-137 levels close to the nuclear plant were eight times the safety limit, while neighbouring regions were just under this limit."
Re:Worse than Chernobyl (Score:5, Funny)
It will be fine. The next generation of henti will just include the tentacles on the girls to begin with
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Gov't / media responses to crisis is very telling (Score:1)
Crisis in Fukushima and Japan is far from over. It's just begun. Expect to see "lost decades" due to all kinds of sicknesses due to radiation exposure. Please study the material below, also for your own knowledge and safety:
MUST SEE VIDEO: Japanese officials confronted with question wether people in Fukushima has the same rights as other people to protect themselves against radiation, and their surprising answer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rVuGwc9dlhQ [youtube.com]
VIDEO: Fukushima children
Re: (Score:2)
i love it when "balanced reporting" involves putting the "sky is falling" and the "nothing's happening" people in the same room.
shades of grey suck. it's all about contrast.
Re: (Score:2)
I hate it when establishment-defenders mods a perfectly good post down (not referring to your post, but to moderators).
Exactly why I de-bookmarked /. years ago. Too many closed-minded elitists who seek to mute those opinions that disagree with their own world-view. Good luck believing this latest propaganda-piece which is not based on any real measurements, but on theoretical models.
Can't be bothered reading facts of course. Cognitive dissonance with the establishment would hurt too much. Cowards.
Re:See, this just shows how safe nuke is ... (Score:4, Informative)
A huge earthquake and a tsunami both well above the level the plant was designed to withstand and it took it, with just some slight explosions and making great swathes of land uninhabitable for generations.
Nuclear power ftw!
Lets not forget the reactor up the coastline that took just as big of a hit..and came out relatively unscathed because someone took the time and knowledge to build it higher than sea level in a country prone to Tsunami.
Poor Engineering FTW!
Re:See, this just shows how safe nuke is ... (Score:4, Insightful)
To be fair there were a lot of towns build in areas that no-one expected to flood. The Japanese spend a huge amount of time and money preparing for natural disasters, after all they do have very regular earthquakes and tsunami. Fukushima Daiichi survived the tsunami fairly well except for the backup generators which were its Achilles heal, and which at Fukishima Daini up the cost were made flood-proof.
So rather than is being a problem of where the plant was built it was the failure of TEPCO to fix the backup system's vulnerability to flooding which they were warned about.
Most Japanese people do not blame anyone for failing to predict the scale of the tsunami. Everyone did their best and it was simply an event beyond what anyone thought was possible.
Re: (Score:2)
That's still a touch too black-and-white ; the earthquake and tsunami were always possible, but they were not considered a sufficiently high probability to be designed against. Those probability assessments have no doubt been revised.
Other commentators are forgetting that there is a reason the reactors were built at sea-level : they need the cooling water. Putting them (say) 100m above sea level would increase the po
Re: (Score:2)
Some of the design assumptions (e.g. the probability of earthquakes of magnitude X) may have been incorrect, with hindsight, but that is a different thing from being recklessly negligent.
I don't think many people would accept that. When it comes to nuclear safety they expect that all conceivable dangers are addressed, no matter how remote. For example new reactors in France are airplane proof, just in case someone decides to crash a jet liner full of fuel into one. Highly unlikely but the consequences are so severe it is deemed necessary.
TEPCO should have improved the emergency cooling system when they were warned about it. Even if the probability was extremely low they should have done it.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not disagreeing that TEPCO's various technical and financial calculations were incorrect. But that is a different thing to being "reckless", in both legal and moral senses.
(There are specific charges in the legal system that I work under that make a very clear distinction between acti
Re: (Score:2)
Being "recklessly negligent" has a very specific meaning
I know, which is why I didn't say it. My point has nothing to do with the definition of phrases in your comment, it is based on the fact that people in general are unlikely to accept that any decision which involves calculating the odds of a particular disaster happening. As far as they are concerned when it comes to nuclear if there is any danger at all which can be defended against failure to do so is unacceptable.
That is why French reactors are now being made suicide-jet-aircraft-attack proof. With re-en
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:See, this just shows how safe nuke is ... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
alternate response (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
All your OP implies is damage directly caused by the earthquake, nowhere does it say anything about the other effects. No need to go double posting on the guy.
Except that Moheeheeko is incorrect. There WAS significant damage done by the earthquake. And more by the tsunami. And both events were well within historical values that TEPCO and Japanese government geologists chose to ignore (go look for the citation if you're really interested).
So yes, it was a huge earthquake and huge tsunami. However, if Japanese regulators had actually been regulating they would have 1) insisted that TEPCO build up defenses to deal with larger quakes and tsunamis than the plant w
Re: (Score:1)
Except that Moheeheeko is incorrect. There WAS significant damage done by the earthquake.
The International Atomic Energy Agency seems to disagree with your personal opinion.
http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/fukushima/missionsummary010611.pdf [iaea.org]
"Although all off-site power was lost when the earthquake occurred, the automatic systems at TEPCO`s Fukushima Dai-ichi successfully inserted all the control rods into its three operational reactors upon detection of the earthquake, and all available emergency diesel generator power systems were in operation, as designed."
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway: Earthquakes make tsunamis. If you are building an island reactor that must withstand earthquakes, it must be set up to also withstand the tsunamis that may come with an earthquake. ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU'RE AN ISLAND SURROUNDED BY WATER.
Re: (Score:2)
Err, unless you're using a different meaning of "biggest", "flood", or "ever" to me and the dictionary . . .
Hang on - I read what you wrote as being "planet", not "plant", but "plant" makes sense as well.
On my mis-reading as "planet", the biggest flood waters to hit the planet ever were either the draining of Lake Missoula across the "scablands" of NW USA (see this [wikipedia.org] summary and references therein) about 15,000 years ago, or o
Re:See, this just shows how safe nuke is ... (Score:4, Informative)
Oh, no! How will humanity survive???
BTW Cesium-137 half life is about 30 years, so "uninhabitable for generations" is a bit of a stretch. The only way that statement could be true is in the area immediately surrounding the plant, and only If they do absolutely nothing at all - no treatment, no cleanup, nothing. Then, yeah, it would take 90 years to get down to the limit.
Re:See, this just shows how safe nuke is ... (Score:4, Informative)
With radiation levels of 8 times the safe level for farming, it'll take 3 half-lives for them to decline to the safe level. Or, about 90 years, as Cs-137 has a half-life of about 30 years and it decays to the stable barium-137.
Re: (Score:3)
And of course you can just skim the soil off of the worst areas and put it in a big pile with a "do not touch until 2100" sign. Expensive for farmland, but definitely within the scope of human endeavor. Hell, Cesium-137 even has industrial uses - maybe there is a way to extract it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
AND except for the Japanese government still hasn't come clean about the extent of contamination. And seemingly has no plans to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately, Japan is more or less free, so studies like this can run around taking measurements and publishing them.
Re: (Score:3)
Without decontami
...is this supposed to be some big suprise? (Score:2, Informative)
You'd have to be pretty dense to believe that.
Re:...is this supposed to be some big suprise? (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, if you read TFA, you find that the legal limits are only exceeded in the area immediately around the plant, and that everywhere else it's fine.
In other words, we have this exclusion zone. And we shouldn't be farming there....
Re: (Score:2)
Japanese Government response to crisis (Score:1)
MUST SEE VIDEO!!:
Japanese officials confronted with question wether people in Fukushima has the same rights as other people to protect themselves against radiation, and their surprising answer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rVuGwc9dlhQ [youtube.com]
VIDEO: Fukushima children forced to drink radioactive milk at school:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Aq4JG9ULVNE [youtube.com]
Fukushima-get up to date on repressed news:
http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/much-of-northern-japan-un [endoftheam...ndream.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I hate it when establishment-defenders mods a perfectly good post down (referring to moderators).
Exactly why I de-bookmarked /. years ago. Too many closed minded elitists who seek to mute those opinions that disagree with their own world-view. Good luck believing this latest propaganda-piece which is not based on any real measurements, but on theoretical models.
Can't be bothered reading facts of course. Feelings of cognitive dissonance with the establishment would hurt too much.
This is not even worth my ti
Re: (Score:1)
I'd like to respond to this, merely out of respect for such an opinion contrary to the /. mantra of: "getting high moderation means insightful or interesting posts". Long long ago, when I started /. I was fascinated by the moderation system. However, I also read posts by people complaining only finding the real gems at -1 or 0 (I do not have the time nor inclination for such tasks).
Now having posted with karma bonus, and getting moderated down, just for posting sincere videos and articles, I see what those
Re: (Score:2)
Well all I can do is thank you for your post and hope that you will persist, this is where I find gems too. As for the Dogmatic Nuclear fanboi Skeptics found here on slashdot all I can suggest is that you draw a real sense of entertainment from disassembling their psyches after demolishing their arguments, after all you may find that it serves you in face to face situation when you encounter the same arguments.
Believe me I share [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:1, Redundant)
I have to quote each time this topic pops up those two idiots [slashdot.org] on slashdot on March 16. 2011:
AnonGCB (1398517) says:
It's funny because what is happening in Japan is exactly why Nuclear Power is SAFE! An earthquake 7 times more powerful than the biggest it was built for hit, and all that happened to the reactors that didn't shut down cleanly was a small amount of radioactive noble gases, which decay within minutes. Even if the cores DO melt, they're safely contained in ... wait for it... containment chambers!
Containment chambers indeed! On which kannibal_klown (531544) answers:
Hey, I know it. But Joe Sixpack is gonna say "But look at their problems now, I don't want that here." Bla bla bla
Beavis and Butthead anyone?
Re: (Score:3)
I have to quote each time this topic pops up those two idiots [slashdot.org] on slashdot on March 16. 2011:
AnonGCB (1398517) says:
It's funny because what is happening in Japan is exactly why Nuclear Power is SAFE!
An earthquake 7 times more powerful than the biggest it was built for hit, and all that happened to the reactors that didn't shut down cleanly was a small amount of radioactive noble gases, which decay within minutes. Even if the cores DO melt, they're safely contained in ... wait for it... containment chambers!
Containment chambers indeed!
On which kannibal_klown (531544) answers:
Hey, I know it. But Joe Sixpack is gonna say "But look at their problems now, I don't want that here." Bla bla bla
Beavis and Butthead anyone?
I just read through a lot of that thread. It's really telling how many well-educated, smart people here on Slashdot, who really SHOULD know better, always run and start parroting whatever the media the tells them and sticking their heads in the sand when the shit REALLY hits the fan.
Fukushima is STILL emitting dangerous radiation, and the crisis is STILL far from over, while it may not be over for at least a decade. That's the reality, and that so many people who claim to be in the upper echelons of intelligence choose to ignore it, frankly scares the shit out of me.
The coal crisis begins the moment a plant goes into operation. A coal plant operating normally spreads deadly (carcinogenic and even radioactive) pollution over a huge area. Coal proponents such as yourself accept the damage, even though it's greater than the damage of a nuclear plant by a large margin, because it's spread over a greater area. Whether or not you realize it, you're advocating for the entire world to become an exclusion zone.
Re:...is this supposed to be some big suprise? (Score:4, Insightful)
Hence, they don't. It is the pro-nuclear side that must make those points. All argumentation about lack in safety standards undermines the position of the anti-nuclear side, because of the anti-nuke dogma that nuclear power can't be safe, safety standards must not be talked about unless it is to dismiss the present state of safety of some plant. Talking about a lack of safety standards of a plant after an accident reinforces the revolutionary notion that safety standards can actually improve safety (as you could see in the accident-free shutdown in all other tsunami-hit powerplants) - which is not in the interest of the anti-nuclear crowd.
So what does it say about the situation, when the pro-side has to argue with arguments that the anti-side should have brought forth, while the anti-side has basically decided not to argue and resorts of FUD and dogmatism instead?
Re: (Score:2)
+1 interesting, informative, insightful.
Re: (Score:1)
Prove it. Straight up. You make some very absolute claims here. And I call bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
No. based on the evidence at the time, it was a reasonable conclusion.
Don't allow confirmation bias to cloud your hindsight. And it's not nearly as bad as the headline makes it look.
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds to me like you just read the summary and stopped there. Or maybe I am just pretty dense. Why do you accept think this study disagrees with the other one? And if it did, why would you favor this study over the other one? If you read the articles, they are actually talking about two different things.
The original study is [nature.com] you scoff at is based on nearby measurements, while this new one is based on mathematical modeling. The original study measured plants at "around 9 becquerels per kilogram, muc
Mostly estimates (Score:5, Interesting)
The study seems to be based on few actual measurements, it is mostly a modeling of how the material spread. Additional measurements are needed in the areas where the model predicted high dosage.
Re:Mostly estimates (Score:5, Insightful)
Many in the anti-nuclear crowd like to spout off and say that Fukushima has rendered vast amounts of land unusable for generations [helium.com]. This news actually bodes well for the Japanese people that in a couple of years all the land that was previously not part of the power generating stations might be returned to original state.
Re:Mostly estimates (Score:4, Interesting)
I am even more convinced that the general Japanese public is in essentially no danger from the radiation.
I agree, and to put my money where my mouth is I will be back in Tokyo and Chiba next month. I was there when the accident happened too and at the time I calculated that I probably received more radiation from a few years of flights than I did on the ground.
Still, the scale of the economic problems this is causing cannot be ignored. I'm not just talking about the contamination, the delay in getting other nuclear power plants back on line has to be considered too. Unfortunately due to the nature of nuclear power it does take longer to check, repair and re-start reactors compared to other forms of energy. Japan has few natural resources in terms of oil, gas or coal so the government put a lot of money into nuclear. Over-reliance on a single source is generally a bad idea, but at least now there are viable alternatives that didn't exist 10 years ago like solar thermal and wind.
Re: (Score:1)
If I remember my Cold War optimism correctly... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
> feeding the most contaminated food materials to people without useful skills
You mean give to the marketing and advertising people? Good idea
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot lawyers!
Re: (Score:2)
No need. They'll prey on the marketing and advertising people. Well, they'll try to prey on everyone, but because M&A has been weakened by low-level chronic radiation sickness, they're the ones naturally selected.
Or, to not coin a phrase, "I don't have to outrun the lawyer; I just have to outrun you."
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, and the rest will die off from an infectious disease contracted from an unsanitized telephone.
Re: (Score:2)
And for maximum poetic justice, get them to market the contaminated food to each other, precisely on the basis that it will only kill people who have outlived their usefulness!
Wonder what clever ad campaign they'll come up with to dupe each other into death...
Not good for farming, but perfect for gardening (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Not only that, the mad botanists can use all that delicious radiation to make our food taste even better, and grow an army of monster plants so that nobody dare mess with them in class!
Re: (Score:1)
Ones grows an army of monster plants so the plants can defend themselves from the evil vegetarains.
After all vegetarians only attack things that cant fight back.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, man. I can grow some killer tomatoes in that stuff! Though I might have to get some advice from John Astin on how to keep them from getting away from me.
Re: (Score:2)
By my estimations they will look something like this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alttext/247484506/ [flickr.com]
Re: (Score:2)
What happened to 'the solution to pollution is dilution'. Depending on the foodstuff, why not just ensure that the contaminated stuff is mixed with a suitable quantity of the good stuff. Works fine for ergot (and mouse urine/faeces) in wheat, and no doubt there are lots of other contaminants in food at 'acceptable' levels that people simply aren't aware of.
Re: (Score:2)
The Japanese are already diluting contaminated food with good food! I read not long ago about them mixing in bad rice with good rice to dilute the radiation exposure; making more 'bad' food as a result. I realize this sort of thinking is just fine for all our food, like how rats and mice are in our grain products and are spread out or how much shit their is in McDonalds low grade meat (look it up, its all real.)
Eating a little shit is NOT the same as a little nuclear waste. I don't want some particle in me
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather get cancer than the hantavirus.
Re: (Score:1)
Io
Re:Not good for farming, but perfect for gardening (Score:4, Informative)
Journalism at its best as usual ... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Note a) the abundance of weasel words and other verbal subterfuge [urbandictionary.com] to imply that things are really bad and b) the map shows the upper bound estimate of the average (or so I presume, given the reference to local scale exceed
Re: (Score:2)
What is a safe level of K-40 (Score:3)
Note that it takes about 60-120Bq of Cs-137 to
Re: (Score:2)
Any non-minor release of radioactive substances is unacceptable. (Coal, natural gas and geothermal, for example, release additional radium, radon, lead-210 et
Re: (Score:3)
Radioactivity and health: A history (1988)
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/servlets/purl/6608787-H6blQd/6608787.pdf [osti.gov]
Warning, almost 2000 pages and 115MB worth of data to download. No, I didn't read it yet, I was merely trying to find a comprehensive source on the topic. Yes, it is not up to date, but it shows the historic deve
Re: (Score:2)
food safety (Score:1)
Sooner or later consumer confidence will be destroyed because of radiation risks. It will be difficult for the food consumers to develop any trust in the food they can buy and eat. Chances are high that any domestic produ