Daily apologizes for story on airborne radiation after Fukushima fire

the government will continue to provide "accurate and objective information" about the fire's effects.

And if you believe that I've got a bridge for sale...

They should never apologise for telling the truth. The spread of nuclear radiation is big news and should be talked about.

breed hysteria long enough and you get fake news, who knew?

If you believe scientists when they talk about global warming, why not believe scientists when they say that the radiation is not a danger, when they monitor it daily and consistently, and when they say that any deaths that might occur will be statistically equivalent to zero? Now of course I am talking to NORMAL people here, because the article shows clearly that journalists do not think like normal people.

Kudos to Fukushima people for standing up against "the nonsense campaign."

Just out of interest.

What actually happens to radioactive particles scattered over a forested area and subjected to the extremes of strong winds fanning a fire. Do they remain in situ, disperse a little or....?

I'm ignorant in these matters. A scientific explanation welcomed.

Creating a fake news headline to spark fear and hysteria in the masses?

sounds like someone has been watching the American media! (looking at you FOX news)

"there has been no change in radiation readings in areas NEAR the site of the fire"

Shouldn't they be be specifically checking areas down wind from the fire?

I wonder how many times it rained heavily there.

Most all dust would have been accumulated into the soil by now making it hard for it to raise as air pollutant.

"If you believe scientists when they talk about global warming, why not believe scientists when they say that the radiation is not a danger"

I know there's an entire cottage industry of online conspiracy theorists grossly exaggerating the effects of what happened at Fukushima. But skepticism and fears at home and abroad would have been dramatically less if the government hadn't lied through their teeth before, during and after the disaster. Most people (except Trump voters) trust scientists but it depends who's writing their checks. As well, things like this rarely alleviate fears:

"In 2014 Japan enacted the State Secrecy Law. The Fukushima incident falls under this law, and as a 'state secret' independent investigations and reports are forbidden by law" (Wikipedia)

"What actually happens to radioactive particles scattered over a forested area .......?"

This has been studied by real scientists. Radionuclide particles are extremely small, mostly in a fine dust. They were spread in areas that have been mapped carefully by many scientists. The radiation levels have been reported DAILY since about 3.17 in daily newspapers in the area.

The particles blew mostly northwestward and settled on the ground. Some settled on structures or on vegetation. The particles on the ground were rinsed away or settled further into the clay layer, as any gardener will tell you, and many scientists HAVE found. Particles on vegetation and structures were almost all washed away into surface soil.

The area has had 30 or so strong typhoons since 3.11. All structures have been pressure washed. Most standing trees have been pressure washed. Surface soil has been removed.

So what radioactive particles are left? Not a lot at all. And what is left is 6 years decayed, so it is even less harmful than it was originally. New vegetation there, in fact 6 years of vegetation, is what burned, right? So even the ash from this new burn is probably almost entirely clean.

Anyone who has been there and seen it will tell you that the overgrowth is more of a hazard than the radiation unless you get really close to the plant, where there is decidedly little overgrowth, and more radiation.

It's sad to see so many people with no knowledge at all of radiation or even basic physics making so many comments and speculation about things they do not understand.

People fear "radiation" on a completely irrational basis. The levels of radiation near the plant are actually not that high, if compared with natural background radiation in other parts of the world.

People can actually live under these elevated radiation levels without much fear of having ill effects on their health. Radiation is a threat when one of the following is true:

 

Very very high radiation levels, enough to cause radiation sickness. In order to experience this, you need to veeeeerry close to a place highly radioactive, like the core of the reactor, without any kind of protection. These levels are normally not encountered on the open, with the only real world exception being lake karachay, which was a radioactive dumping site on soviet Russia for many decades, enough to make it the most polluted place on earth.

Constantly consuming food with radioactive isotopes of elements that have biological relevance, and can be absorbed by the body. These have a very short half life, which make them very radioactive, but at the same time, it means that these isotopes disappeared just after a year of the incident.

 

So, what we are left is with isotopes with a medium or high half life, without much biological relevance, making just the background radiation a little more elevated than the "norm" of that area.

Also, radiation is not something that the government can just hide, as many of you with conspiracy theorist tendencies tend to think. Radiation is something that ANYONE with a sensor can detect. That's why the many radioactive disasters the old Soviet Union tried to cover up were foiled by any of the countries near the site.

I know I'm probably be down-voted because I'm saying something that is not "popular", but I'm tired of seeing so many ignorant people spreading fear and misinformation.

"cottage industry of online conspiracy theorists"

If we agree on that, we can agree on anything. My experience is that what the Japanese government and the local Japanese press told ME on and after 3.11 has been useful and truthful. What I SAW is that the NRC misinformed the American congress about how serious matters were at the plant. I SAW foreign governments pressure the Japanese and fan the flames of panic. I SAW the English language press fail to investigate the news of Fukushima properly. I SAW the Japanese government later distort what was actually happening at the plant for Kan's political gain.

The theme was picked up and the press ran with it, all the time forgetting about the 20,000 or so dead and missing elsewhere in Japan.

So you read the news then. I read the news then. But I had to choose whom to trust because I live downwind of Fukushima Daiichi. My government told me to evacuate. I did not. And the reason is that the information from my local news and the local government made more sense, and it was correct. I was able to evaluate it scientifically.

I have bet my life that all this anti-nuclear hysteria is wrong. I guess I still am. Fortunately, that means I don't have to look at business owners and government officials as ghoulish, money grubbing, evil people who caused a catastrophe out of greed. I have challenged and questioned my decision to stay here OFTEN. I can't reject the hypothesis that this was an unfortunate accident involving well meaning people who had a really bad day.

Mostly poor and older people who have chosen to remain in and near affected areas in Fukushima are being used as a political tool to keep the hysteria going. It attracts interest and "teaches the controversy." The cottage industry foments hate, hate speech, bullying, and libel.

I see a large industrial accident that is being cleaned up by well-meaning people who get up in the morning and eat an onigiri for lunch. They are all good people and I have never seen any evidence to the contrary.

Meanwhile, a tunnel with nuclear waste collapses in Washingtom State. The Energy Department seem to be saying there's nothing to worry about there, either.

Move along, folks. Nothing to see.

" know I'm probably be down-voted because I'm saying something that is not "popular", but I'm tired of seeing so many ignorant people spreading fear and misinformation"

I am very sure I know the feeling. For about six years now.

Luis presents his good news as someone with knowledge and experience. What do you think, everyone? Do his opinions matter as much as those of, say, an English teacher from Kita-kyushu? He knows math. He studied science.

As long as we are talking about fake news, and before we get too many people posting links to the uniion of uninformed scientists or greenwhatever, let me suggest that people read some of the wonderful articles written by actual scientists and reviewed and accepted by actual scientists instead of relying on pre-biased pre-digested sites. Pick any old field you want and evaluate the findings of studies on a critical basis, mathematically. Find information that was not written or chosen "for you."

What Luis is talking about is the CONSENSUS among scientists. Like global climate change. Like vaccination. Luis is worried about being downvoted, but why? His is the reasoned and prevailing opinion among people who KNOW about this stuff. He is reporting the scientific CONSENSUS. He will be upvoted everywhere but here. Why is that? Real scientists are working every day to try and bring people the truth, but people are too busy gullibly following fake news from some daily in Western Japan.

Thanks for the good news Luis. You have brought light where there was darkness. You will always get an upvote from me, and from at least 30 people in Fukushima.

Nobody is an expert on Fukushima scientist or not because nothing like this has ever happened before.

It is certainly plausible to expect a fire to spread contamination as that is exactly what happened at Fukushima-explosions and fire and the consequent fallout was measure all over the Northern hemisphere.

Now, is there a chance that radioactive particles can move from place to place and be inhaled as they do so?

If there is a chance then that should be investigate.

And radiation should be investigated....

5Speedracer5: "If you believe scientists when they talk about global warming, why not believe scientists when they say that the radiation is not a danger, when they monitor it daily and consistently, and when they say that any deaths that might occur will be statistically equivalent to zero?"

So, you should believe North Korean scientists who say the country is profitable, just beacuse they are scientists, I guess, by your logic? The reason people believe the scientists -- ALL scientists -- who speak of climate change is because they all do and it is proven fact. They don't necessarily believe the 'scientists' in Fukushimat that are hired by the pro-NPP government because of vested interests, especially when they hesitate to let in international observers and scientists to measure things. If you can't see the difference, it's because you're blinded by said vested interests. It's like demanding people believe the scientist sponsored by a coffee company saying "Coffee is better for you than tea, and healthy!" because they believe scientists in others situations. What's more, the government and scientists in the area have a history of lying and leaving out all sorts of facts, saying "the sudden spike in thyroid cancer is not reflective of the Fukushima disaster" and other hogwash.

Following the disaster the government increased the level for Fukushima to 20 millisieverts per year. We're all exposed to background radiation of an average 2.5 millisieverts a year. You have to reach exposure levels of 100 mSv a year (others say it's 50 mSv) before there's any evident increase in cancer.

Sieverts is actually not a good way to measure how likely a person is to develop cancer, not only because radiation is just one variable on how likely you are to develop cancer, and it is actually more impactful your genetics, but also because Sieverts is just the radiation of the place. The way you meassure the actual impact radiation has on a person is with grays, which is equivalent to sieverts but in actual absorbed doses of radiation by the body.

Depending on many variables, even under the same background radiation, the actual dosage a person will receive can variate a lot.

Let's have Ramsar, Mazandaran, Iran as a example. That place is one of the most naturally radioactive cities on this planet. The average radiation is kind of hard to measure, because it does variate a lot, but it's somewhere about 100 mSv a year, but the actual dose most people receive in this place is of about 10 mGy per year.

Also the average 2.5 millisiverts people are exposed really depends a lot of were you live and your life style. If you use airplanes a lot, you can easily go over that median.

What's more, the government and scientists in the area have a history of lying and leaving out all sorts of facts, saying "the sudden spike in thyroid cancer is not reflective of the Fukushima disaster" and other hogwash.

I'm just going to quote what the World Health Organization had to said about the so called "sudden sipkes" in thyroid cancer.

There have been recent reports about thyroid cancer cases being diagnosed among children exposed to low doses of radioactive iodine as a result of the Fukushima accident. These reports should be interpreted with caution. A large excess of thyroid cancer due to radiation exposure, such as occurred after the Chernobyl accident, can be discounted because the estimated thyroid doses due to the Fukushima accident were substantially lower than in Chernobyl. Nevertheless, the highly-sensitive thyroid screening of those under 18 years old at the time of the accident is expected to detect a large number of thyroid cysts and solid nodules, including a number of thyroid cancers that would not have been detected without such intensive screening. Similar or even slightly higher rates of cysts and nodules were found in prefectures not affected by the nuclear accident. The substantial number of cases that have already been observed in the Fukushima Health Management Survey have been considered likely due to the sensitivity of the screening rather than to radiation exposure. Further analysis of epidemiological data being currently collected in Japan will be necessary to evaluate a potential attribution of thyroid cancer to radiation exposure.

Well then write to the government that its incorrect to set the radiation limit exposure to one miilisievert per year for the country and 20 millisieverts per year for those living in Fukushima. I'm sure they'll be grateful for your input.

And I'm grateful for your sarcasm, but I actually do not agree with the government limits, in the way that it is actually harming more people.

Many people can still not go back to their homes, and many people are just plain scared because of all the misinformation, and even if they can, they are just choosing not to.

Goverments have to play the politics game, so their judgement is rarely 100% backed by science, as you maybe think, but more with what will be more popular on the oncoming elections.

That is why almost all political parties in Japan have adopted an anti nuclear stance they never had before the accident.

Luis David Yanez Today 01:12 pm JST

Sieverts is just the radiation of the place. The way you meassure the actual impact radiation has on a person is with grays, which is equivalent to sieverts but in actual absorbed doses of radiation by the body.

No, you understand wrongly. The doses of radiation absorbed is measured with Grays. But different types of radiation have different effects on the body. So, actual effect of radiation is measured with Sieverts. Sieverts is Gray times damage factor. The damage factor of X-rays, Beta rays and Gamma rays is 1. So, the Gray and Sieverts are the same for these rays. The damage factor of Alpha rays is 20, reflecting severer damage caused by the ray. "The way you measure the actual impact radiation has on a person" is with Sievert.

The damage factor of X-rays, Beta rays and Gamma rays is 1. So, the Gray and Sieverts are the same for these rays. The damage factor of Alpha rays is 20, reflecting severer damage caused by the ray. "The way you measure the actual impact radiation has on a person" is with Sievert.

You are actually right, I had my units mixed, Sieverts is equivalent to Grays on equivalent dose, so I retract any statements about using Grays as a measure to calculate probability of cancer, the Sievert is far more acurate in this kind of calculations. I had the confution of Sieverts being Becquerels.

It's stated in the government energy plan that nuclear energy will be used to generate 20% of total power demand and I expect we'll see about 20 reactors being given permission to operate once the safety inspections and updates are done.

I live in Hokkaido. The only nuclear plant in Hokkaido, the Tomari Nuclear plant, has been shut down since 2012 without any good explanation as to why, just claiming it to be in a "regular inspection", which should normally be of a few months, but it has been 5 years and there is still no light as to when this plant will be allowed to restart.

All these "regular inspections" that have lasted years on almost all the nuclear plants on the country have costed billions of yens and have no other intent than to delay as much as posible the restart of any plant, basically crippling them.

Hilarious thread! You'd be exposed to more gamma radiation from the smoke detector above your bed than you would from airborne isotopes after a forest fire. Let's be rational all you panic stricken doom-sayers, shall we? A forest fire burns with intense heat. The few isotopes that survive the intense heat of the fire are lifted into the upper atmosphere with the ash and smoke as the hot air rises and are spread over a vast area. They way most people are carrying on is as if somebody just dumped a load of nuclear waste in your garden. Get a grip people!

The nuclear disaster was a man made one and easily could have been avoided with the proper safety measures which would have been cheaper that the current costs running into may tens of trillions.

So I guess you missed seeing the wall of sea water 10 meters high smashing into the reactor which is right next to the shores or not heard that the earthquake was once in a 1000 year event which nobody had predicted before hands.

It's easy to criticize after the event had happened but did you even had a notion that this would happen let alone say it in public before 3.11?

Talk is also very cheap and that is all I hear about this event from you.