national

65% of Fukushima evacuees have no intention of returning home: survey

13 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© KYODO

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

13 Comments
Login to comment

Can’t say I blame them. I wouldn’t either.

12 ( +12 / -0 )

Despite a declining population, the number of deaths is rising in the prefecture.

I wouldn’t go back there either...

8 ( +8 / -0 )

Having been displaced for this long most have new lives and realy wouldn't want the second life trauma of starting again in a dead or dying city.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Fukushima should be used for storing industrial waste and replace Aoamri for spent fuel storage. 120 km from Tokyo. Very convienient.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I enjoy trips to Shinchi in Fukushima, which is at the border with Miyagi Ken. Passed by the reactors and saw mounds of packed soil to be disposed of.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Fukushima is a very large prefecture. The larger area didn't receive radiation while other prefectures did. The government decrease the levels of radiation allowed in foodstuffs by International Standards by times 10.

Originally, 150,000 people evacuated from within the 30 km zone around the doomed nuclear plant. The headline is alarmist. 60% of 522 people stated no intention to return to the prefecture. From a survey sent to 4,876.

Only 10.7% responded.

Originally, I think about 30,000 people actually left the prefecture. Some returned. Some families remained separated.

I believe the 30 km exclusion zone should have remained in place until the end of the nuclear disaster.

Radiation map made by civilians shows slow levels of background radiation in the larger area of the prefecture.

Higher levels remain around the nuclear plant.

https://jciv.iidj.net/map/

Another radiation survey is by Safecast

https://safecast.org

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Of course they don't. It's still a hot zone, feral animals roam wild, and the economy is moribund. It was based on natural resource extraction, agriculture and small-scale manufacturing to begin with, which are low wage and labor intensive. And then there are the winters...

3 ( +3 / -0 )

To many bad memories...

1 ( +1 / -0 )

FYI, I went to Fukushima early this year with my trusty Geiger counter. Depending on location between 4-7 times the rest of japan.

the bags of sil on the roadside were the highest. Don’t worry, the soil is being used for concrete and shipped all over japan.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

What contamination? The government has assured us that everything is fine.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Goodlucktoyou

FYI, I went to Fukushima early this year with my trusty Geiger counter. Depending on location between 4-7 times the rest of japan

I have to question since you didn't measure the "rest of Japan".

Personally I prefer the civilian radiation maps I linked to.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Why go back?

1) They've had over 9.5 years living in their new locations. They have new friends, routines etc

2) The government has effectively subsidised their moves away from their old homes through compensation payments and other emergency grants.

3) The neighborhoods they lived in, in many cases, just do not exist any more.

4) Because the locals moved out, the range and depth of social services (housing, banking, heath, retail, government etc) are either curtailed or have changed markedly from when they lived there.

5) There is still the stigma of Fukushima,

6) The vast majority have taken the opportunity to move closer 'better areas' than Fukushima. IE closer to Tokyo or one of the larger cities.

7) Continuing urban drift. Why move back to a rural area when you are given the chance to start afresh. Especially if you are older will become more dependent on healthcare and public services in your latter years.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

As they were raptured with their rots from places they have been living for a long time. The evacuation wasn´t according to British nuclear experts not necessary based on the radiation. The risk for lung cancer 1 percent while an astronaut following the Mars lander during one year do increase the risk for lung cancer with 3 percent. Smoking do increase the risk with 1 500 percent.

When they now becoming comfortable at their new site they wouldn´t wish to be raptured once again specific as the service and society duty do not function at their original site.

Death of people as effect of the evacuation should be avoided if no evacuation at all had happened. Their were a huge traumatic stress that they live under and wouldn´t happened. A better solution had to be an evacuation during a specific time and then moving back.

Nuclear have killed 41 persons as effect of the disaster in Chernobyl. 28 imediately and three persons within seven days plus ten children as effect of lack of ionide.

Compare that with 166 persons killed worldwide in accident of Wind Power (2016). What is the most dangerous?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites