national

Tokyo starts disposal of tsunami debris from Iwate

64 Comments

The Tokyo metropolitan government accepted the first load of tsunami debris from Iwate Prefecture on Thursday.

About 30 tons of debris from Miyako City arrived by train at a freight station in Shinagawa Ward on Thursday morning, NHK reported. The debris, in six containers, was divided into combustible and non-combustible containers, then loaded onto trucks and sent to three waste disposal and incineration facilities.

It is the first time that debris from the devastated Tohoku region has been sent outside the region for disposal.

In order to reassure other prefectures that the debris is not radioactive, the Iwate and Miyagi prefectural governments last month started started testing rubble for cesium and other other radioactive elements.

Miyagi, Iwate and Fukushima prefectures have massive mountains of rubble, said to weigh more than 23 million tons. However, prefectural government officials say that all storage areas are now full and that they need to ask other prefectures to help with disposal.

Iwate prefectural officials said they burned some of the debris in September and October, and said that radiation levels in the air dropped after the incineration to about .15 microsieverts, NHK reported.

The debris that arrived in Tokyo on Thursday is mainly wood and metal. Tokyo metropolitan government officials said the debris was measured for radiation before it left Iwate and again upon its arrival in Tokyo.

Tokyo plans to receive 11,000 tons of debris from Iwate by year's end. Officials say this month will serve as a trial period, with contractors carrying 40 tons of the debris per day. The capital will start accepting debris from Miyagi Prefecture early in 2012, and receive a total of 500,000 tons from the two prefectures by the end of March, NHK reported.

Since Tokyo first announced in late September that it would accept tsunami debris, it has received more than 1,800 complaints from residents by phone, fax and on its website, opposing the decision due to fears that radioactive substances would escape into the air if contaminated debris is burned.

The disposal facilities being used are all in an industrial zone in Koto Ward, near Tokyo Bay. The non-combustible debris will be buried in landfill areas in Tokyo Bay.

© Japan Today

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

64 Comments
Login to comment

This isn't happy news. Burning stuff from northern Tohoku shouldn't be a big problem, but burning stuff from Fukushima is nuts. It would take quite some time to properly check tons of waste for radiation, and you know this just isn't going to happen, at least not after the cameras leave.

-1 ( +6 / -5 )

PS:

Iwate prefectural officials said they burned some of the debris in September and October, and said that radiation levels in the air dropped after the incineration to about .15 microsieverts, NHK reported.

I love this quote. What does this tell you? Do you think radiation burns up?

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Rather than radiation, a more realistic question is what is happening with all the asbestos so commonly used in buildings? Following the distruction of the towns, hurried movement of the rubble and now incineration, are we going to see a spike in lung cancer and mesothelioma in the thousands invloved in the clean up?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

There is Cesium 137 in Tokyo, so why not in that debris?

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

What do you mean there is Cesium 137 in Tokyo? Explain JapanGal.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Since Tokyo first announced in late September that it would accept tsunami debris, it has received more than 1,800 complaints from residents by phone, fax and on its website, opposing the decision due to fears that radioactive substances would escape into the air if contaminated debris is burned.

Assuming these were all Tokyo citizens, it would be 0.015% of the population. Hardly a groundswell, and good to know that they are very much the minority.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Understandable that Tokyo is equipped to handle the amount of debris, but is this the only solution for getting rid of it? I think disposing of the debris in the devastated areas is probably the safest solution for everyone. Time to build the necessary equipment, or transport it, to Tohoku and create a few jobs in the process. Seems to me sanitation jobs for the tohoku area could go on for a few years, if not 10.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

"Oh, yeah, it has been tested. Publish the test results? No way."

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Funnily enough the showed the whole process on the news yesterday. At which steps the stuff was tested(multiple times) and also what the readings were.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

I think disposing of the debris in the devastated areas is probably the safest solution for everyone.

Although it sounds logical, I blieve the currnet issu is that the presence of debris is slowing down the rebuilding process.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Joseph Garrett BaxterNov. 04, 2011 - 09:29AM JST

What do you mean there is Cesium 137 in Tokyo? Explain JapanGal.

I have a geiger counter Joseph. Top of the line hand held brand new and calibrated with Cesium 137.

I have been locating hot spots, specifically near drainage areas. 2.2 plus mserveits.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Japan Gal, how high above these hotspots are you holding your Geiger counter?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

It's a shame that some people are treating this as bad news. The volume of debris is incredible, literally gigantic piles just sitting there. Iwate doesn't have the capacity to dispose of it in any timely manner. This is an important step in the recovery, and I think people should be happy that Tokyo can help out and make a meaningful difference. It's really not a good issue for casual radiation fears (i.e JapanGal) or accusations of a coverup (i.e. cactusJack).

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

About a centimeter above. You cannot touch it or it will contaminate it.

Back ground radiation is higher than what they are quoting on the news too. I check the back ground radiation at 1 meter from the ground.

With the hot spots, you often see foot prints in the dirt, which means people are carrying it into their places of work and homes. I test my shoes after going out now.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Airon

2.2µSv is nothing to laugh at. It is five times the upper so called safe limit.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Taking potentially radioactive material and burning it in the largest metropolis in the world for for all of us to breath is incredibly stupid.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

JapanGal, yes, but nothing to do with disposal of tsunami debris.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The crap they are burning is toxic, on one level or another. Arguing about the level of toxicity is stupid. It contains several unknown and longterm particles. Transporting it just spreads the love.As above posters have said build and facilitate the disposal as close as possible to the source. Farming it out throughout the country is... Stupid! There are hot spots NOW how big will they get when this stuff is burnt.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

So you're using it wrong then? At least according to the members of safecast who have told me that unless you have the top of the range equipment (costing thousands of dollars) you are going to get distorted data. In fact it's almost like you're testing soil samples which a Geiger counter isn't equipped to do. It's like measuring the temperature of the kitchen and holding the thermometer next to the open oven door.

The definition of a hotspot (according to What Zichi posted) is when at a height of one metre the area is 1msv higher than the surrounding area. I haven't seen anything online to dispute that. Or what safecast say.

I may be wrong, and if i am please provide links, but basically your results carry no scientific data. The 1 metre ones are very useful though.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Keep your geiger in a ziplock bag and try to measure at 1 metre. 10 times and average it.

And we worry about burning waste!? This concrete company in Chiba poured thousands of litres of water with around 1000 bq of isotopes directly into Tokyo Bay! Even AFTER they found out the water was contaminated. Why? Because the law is 'fuzzy'. http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20111103p2a00m0na009000c.html Cowboys.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Heda, do you walk or fly? Shoes get contaminated.

People touch their shoes when they put them on. And the radioactive material can go from the hands to the mouth/ eyes etc. Not good at all.

Watch some videos on how to use a Geiger counter and you will see that they use them very close to the material.

Putting a GC in a plastic bag stops some forms of radiation. Please look it up.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Cricky.

Any proof that the rubbish is toxic and it WON't get burned for the most part. Of course you can proof that video-taped and broadcasted evidence is wrong. Stress, etc will kill you sooner than any radiation induced cancer, lost a few family members due to cancer, etc.

Agree with Heda.

Just having a pre-calibrated counter don't mean much, as they need to re-calibrated per site/reading and proper procedures need to be followed(takes a trained person). Lots of reports on TV where they pitch various instruments and show the readings vs professional equipment.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

they need to re-calibrated per site/reading

Untrue.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

JapanGal.

Proof, it.

All the experts and sites say they need to be as to account for natural background radiation, etc. Makes sense to most people.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Easy.

I also got a weight-scale that helps me measure food, etc. I do love to do bakings, etc.

Yet, when I put a bowl on it I do need to reset it to "0" as I need to compensate for the weight of the bowl. If I don't my measurements will be off and what I create will fail.

Same principle. Put a bowl on or take it to a new environment = need to reset. Same is even true for cars that need to be retuned for different attitudes.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Look, I've repeated what I've been told by members of safecast, an organisation that builds Geiger counters. I've seen them laugh at people getting excited when they put the Geiger counter on/near the ground and getting excited over the false data.

Test however you like. But the data at one metre is acceptable data.

And if that's not good enough, look at Darren's post. We've disagreed on pretty much everything with regards to this incident yet he also says that you should be measuring at a height of one metre.

But keep taking your readings and I'll be very happy to see those from one metre.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Natural back ground noise is easy to check my friend.

The numbers put out on the news daily have been wrong.

I have an art business, but I also have the highest degree available through SUNY in Art and Science. If I wanted to teach that I could. I am a bit shy of credit on the biology end, but that would be easy to resolve. Physics, Chemistry, and Earth Science are on my teaching credentials.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Ahhh... Not sure what you want to say! A few family members dropping off due to cancer? Proof you want...dude/dudet is there a die from cancer threshold? At what point does burning crap, asbestos, radiated goods etc and pumping it into the local environment become alarming? I am saying we have an area that will be TOXIC for generations use it for all this crap. That's all, do not spread it, proof or not.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

How to determine the type of radioactivity?

Position the Geiger counter near the suspected source of radioactivity, without aiming the open window at the source. If you are getting a reading, it is most likely Gamma and/or X-radiation or high energy Beta, and can be read in terms of mR/hr or µSv/hr.

Next, place an 1/8" thick piece of aluminum between the instrument and the source. If the radioactive indication stops or decreases, it is most likely Beta radiation, and can be read in terms of CPM. Most common isotopes emit both Gamma and Beta radiation. bullet

Now aim the open window of the Geiger counter at and immediately next to the suspected source of radioactivity. If this gives you a reading versus no detection through the housing itself, then the radioactivity is from Alpha, Beta, or low energy Gamma. Next, place a piece of aluminum foil between the open window and the radioactive source. If the radioactive indication stops, it is likely Beta radiation, and should be read in terms of CPM.

Now do the same test with a sheet of paper between the open window and the radioactive source. If the radioactive indication stops, it is most likely Alpha, and should be read in terms of CPM.

In the course of your readings, be careful not to contaminate the detector with radioactivity by physically touching the radioactive source or by holding the source above the open window of the Geiger counter.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Lets just say I don't claim to have the credentials that Heda and JapanGal claim here(no proof so far). Not my field.

But I do rely on my common sense and experiences and which are echoed by many people worldwide(some better trained and educated than myself and with verifiable credentials from major universities and national groups/Institutions).

For any poster here if you claim X back it up with verifiable data that can be cross-checked by 3rd parties. Anything less is just ....

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Please read above your post It"S ME

2 ( +3 / -1 )

I'm shocked at the way this has deteriorated into yet another radiation debate. The article states it's regarding tsunami debris and in particular about a load from Miyako being disposed of in Tokyo. All the people fear mongering, have you checked where Miyako City is? Nowhere near Fukushima. Why does every article related to the aftermath of 3/11 result in people on here assuming doom and gloom about radioactive contamination.

I'm sure there are many readers who have actually spent time in the area north of Fukushima helping to clean up and have observed first hand the utter devastation. There's debris that needs to be cleared, it's not radioactive waste, it's debris. Parts of houses, business, appliances, cars....

Just read back through the comments from top to bottom and be ashamed at what some of you wrote.

-2 ( +1 / -4 )

So then perhaps you can explain why you're getting all excited about someone walking through the contaminated spot (it's not a hot spot by any definition). As you have such a strong science background you feel the need to highlight it, perhaps you can tell us what the expected reading would be for the shoe. Once it's walked home. And how that compares with what the background reading is.

Substantially lower? Same as everything else? You don't say. It's almost as if it's been diluted..

Go back to your university (at least I'm assuming that's what SUNY is) and measure the radiation that's on the ground. And then measure it in the air. Guess what, the radiation levels will be higher on the ground - and almost certainly as high as you're currently getting in Japan.

You're measuring something and then comparing them with other results.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

It"S me, I haven't claimed any credentials. I have simply repeated what I've been told by the people who build Geiger counters.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

ignoranceisrife

Spot on. And I apologise for being drawn into the debate that's off topic. As you rightly say this is from Miyako and as someone who was there in April and I can assure you that it's very, very far from Fukushima.

And I personally don't like to call it debris. I know that it is in the true sense of the word but as I'm sure when you've been there you haven't seen it as debris. But part of people's lives.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

i've just discovered that i've been eating yogurt from iwate prefecture every day for the last few months. nice. unfortunately i've just realised that it is nearly impossible to avoid radiation. if you're not getting it from the air you're ingesting it from the food you're eating. common sense and intuition tell me that things are going to get a whole lot worse before getting better. don't believe radiation is dangerous? google polygon and kazakhstan. or felugia in iraq. terrifying. being a woman of child bearing age i'm now wondering about the risks of having a baby in these times. please see* http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/11/kazakhstans_radioactive_legacy.html please educate yourselves. this is a serious problem. it's time to take our heads out of the sand!

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Stupid Ishihara! WTH is he thinking?? Bringing that radiation junk to Tokyo!! IDIOT!!

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Iwate isn't radioactive folks. Accept it. People in the affected regions of Iwate have suffered enough. They don't need people in Tokyo slowing down the recovery based on nothing.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Asbestos, Dioxin, and lots of other chemicals.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Elbuda, please check where Miyako is, maybe lookup some photos of the devastation caused along the coast line of Iwate. This is about tsunami damage and helping with the cleanup, nothing more. Nothing to do with radioactive waste, not sure where you got the idea from that Tokyo is accepting radioactive junk.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The debris is, of course, being sorted, same as regular garbage. Toxic materials will not be burned.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Airion,

You keep saying its not radioactive waste, sorry but your hollow words are meaningless when even NHL are saying it is contaminated. That being said it is below the allowable limits, and if it isntu then the brains in power would just do the usual and raise the limits.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Thumb me down to your hears contents and post as many ad hominem as you like. Don't change the facts.

Little of that rubbish is radioactive(of course open to be proven wrong). Neither is the fact that you will most likely due from other factors than radiation induced cancer in the next 20-30years. Don't wish it on anyone as I seen it 1st-hand often and know that we all carry cancer-cells from birth and it can strike anyone at any time.

0 ( +2 / -1 )

It's me,

I agree with what you say that the levels are not a concern, and for the most part l agree with what you are saying. I however am not buying the bs Airion is pedaling. He is going the complete opposite extreme like everything is rosy. When infant yes the waste won't kill you stressn will. But burying your head in the sand and pretending there is no problem like Airion is not the answer either. For the record one thumbs up for you

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Spidapig24, point me to your data.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Airion,

My data? Try checking out Nhk as they are reporting it. They had it on their news last night and it's of the web again today. So if you care to check rather than keep up your standard no contamination line (you are starting to sound like a tipco announcement).

Oh and.please feel free to show me your data that there is absolutely NO contamination at all

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Spidapig24, I watch the news and read the paper regularly, so it's not that I'm out of the loop. My evidence that the debris is not radioactive is this very article. As for NO contamination? I'm not making that argument. Heck, even the US has received radioactive particles from Fukushima. I'm saying it's negligible.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

For those of you who don't know about the previous cesium contamination, and there seem to be quite a few of you, please watch the NHK clip provided at this website.

http://www.nippon-sekai.com/main/articles/fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-power-plant-crisis/cesium-detected-in-industrial-waste/

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Airion

Spidapig24, I watch the news and read the paper regularly, so it's not that I'm out of the loop. My evidence that the debris is not radioactive is this very article.

Ah so one article doesnt mention it so it must be the case right? The article states it was tested before departure and at arrival yet they make no mention in this article of the results. Yet in another article it states "Officials conducting random radiation checks on the rubble said a sample had a reading below the maximum allowable level set by Tokyo", and yet another quote from a different outlet "Tokyo Metropolitan Government will regularly measure the amount of radiation in the incinerated ash" and yet another "Tokyo decided to process rubble from disaster-hit areas after detecting only 133 becquerels of radioactive cesium per kilogram of ash generated after rubble was incinerated" So just because an actual amount isnt specified in this article doesnt mean there is non there.

As for NO contamination? I'm not making that argument.

UM SORRY!!!! Did you forget this little gem

Iwate isn't radioactive folks. Accept it. People in the affected regions of Iwate have suffered enough. They don't need people in Tokyo slowing down the recovery based on nothing.

You said that at 3:36pm. But now you are changing your tune and saying you never said it. Make sure you use your mirrors while you back up there Airion.....

Heck, even the US has received radioactive particles from Fukushima. I'm saying it's negligible.

I agree its negligible, however you made a grand statement and slammed those that differed. Yes it is negligible, yes on its own it wont hurt you. What people are saying is why would you willingly spread this disaster across the entire country by doing as the government is. Why not contain it however negligible to one are and build the infrastructure to deal with it there.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Spidapig24, sorry, radiation is everywhere, so I figured I could say it "isn't radioactive" and people would understand I don't mean it to an absolute level. We agree it's negligible, so I don't know why you're so hostile.

Thanks Farmboy for the link, good to know. Shows that all the testing they're doing is definitely needed.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Ok, let's make believe that there was no fallout from rain with Cesium 137 in the Iwate rubble (cough). What about all of the other chemicals and especially asbestos? You have to burn at an extremely high temperature to deal with asbestos alone, and also have super scrubbers. All that junk should be dumped around DaiIchi TEPCO plant. I would not care if it ended up 10 Kilometers high, but it should not be spread around this tiny little island country to share the burden. It is pitiful.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Again, the debris is being sorted. They're not just throwing it in a pile and igniting it. Please let's not ignore the article: it says it's being divided into combustible and non-combustible. Asbestos and chemicals would be in the non-combustible debris.

So I guess the question is, why spread it around the country? The rubble has been tested for radiation once in Iwate and once in Tokyo. The risks from disposing of it in Tokyo is very small. Balance this with the fact that debris disposal is an important, concrete step toward recovery. What I hear is people saying the tiny risk to themselves outweighs the chance to help the disaster area in a meaningful way.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Airion

Please let's not ignore the article: it says it's being divided into combustible and non-combustible. Asbestos and chemicals would be in the non-combustible debris.

Sorry but that statement is utter garbage. So they are going to remove asbestos of timber? or chemicals that may have leaked and been absorbed into wood and porous materials. When these houses and buildings where demolished it wasnt done cleanly all these materials have been sitting in big piles together. Chemicals and harmful dusts settling on things being absorbed into things. Let me ask you this and lets just discuss asbestos, is the waste sorted in a closed environment? is there chances of dust escaping while its being sorted? Asbestos isnt dangerous when its in the form of sheeting for example. Its the dust that is the issue. So how are they managing that risk alone.

So I guess the question is, why spread it around the country? The rubble has been tested for radiation once in Iwate and once in Tokyo.

Yes it has and according to various news outlets it is testing positive. Below safe levels but still positive now that radioactive substance will be burned (how much will escape into the air), the ash will then be used as landfill and dumped in Tokyo Bay. Again its below safe levels but you are introducing a higher (than natural) contamination into an area and therefore will be raising the radiation levels in that area. The dust that is used in the bay for landfill will then enter the waterways and ecosystem. Not to mention the fact its being transported across country. You see the problem you are taking a contaminate (numerous types actually) and spreading them across the country to affect numerous areas. Rather than leave them in one area where the contamination already exists and deal with it there.

And yes l know the levels are in the safe range (which safe range is that? Pre 3/11 or post?) but why spread any of the contaminants any more than necessary.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Exactly Spida.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Spidapig24, I agree with what you're saying about leaking chemicals. What can be sorted will be sorted, what can't, well, can't. Still, I think the risks are "very small" including the accumulation of safe levels of radiation in Tokyo. Why not leave them in one area where the contamination already exists? Well, Iwate is already out of storage space as the article says, which is why it's being sent to Tokyo in the first place. Why not just pile it up somewhere else and leave it? Well, did you know the massive pile of debris sitting in Yamada, Iwate Prefecture was smoldering for some time because of a fire that started somewhere inside? You can't just leave it piled up. It needs to be dealt with.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Airion, By all means deal with it! But don't spred the problem across the entire country. That's all I'm saying. Contain the damage to one or two areas not the length and breadth of the country as the geniuses seem to be doing at the moment.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Correct Spida. There is plenty of space around the nuclear plants. 20 km diameter. Dump the junk there, and not here.

There is enough fallout here as it is especially in Setagaya. Do not bring your umbrella in your home on Sunday after it rains.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Spidapig24, but I think the problem is it CAN'T be dealt with in Iwate. Not now anyway. Not dealing with it now means delaying the recovery. I understand that this means spreading the risk across the country. My point is this very small risk is an acceptable sacrifice for the sake of the recovery.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

And when people tried to complain, Ishihara just told them to "shut up" (黙れ)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And when people tried to complain, Ishihara just told them to "shut up" (黙れ)

Must be from his new book: The Japan That Can Say "Shut Up."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

While I personally have doubts about 'no radiation' ( studies showed that the radioactive coint was lowered when they removed debris.. Which means...?lol) they have a huge fight on their hands getting rid of it. Out of the numerous prefectures and cities that had originally afreed to Hosono's 'spread the tears' doctrine and said they would accept debris, now only 54 remain. Of those, count in Osaka's Hashimoto. He signed Osaka on without putting the taxpayers in the loop and is now moving on from the Governor role, am I right? It will be burned in Sakai. Many places are keen to accept 'non-radioactive debris' but few citizens want radioactive debris that is burned in incinerators with just a cloth bag to catch the particle ash. And why should they? I don't pay taxes to have radioactive particulate matter flying around my city and into my daughter's lungs. Excuse me for not trusting the government or the cowboy companies they employ to burn the radioactive waste. ( some of which are Tepco owned anyway) or MEXT to tell me the truth. My city is online to accept non-radioactive debris and I am fine with that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So it's like I said, "This soup isn't salty." and Spidapig24 came in and said "Oh, that means you're saying there's NO salt in this soup?" Then I'm like, "I'm not saying there's NO salt." Then Spidapig24 says, "Oh, you're backtracking!"

The point I want to make is, I see a lot of NIMBY here, but not much compassion for Iwate.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Asbestos and chemicals would be in the non-combustible debris.

Wanna bet?!

This crap is being burned not 8 kms from where we live. I am also not too worried about radiation, but I am REALLY worried about the asbestos and all the chemicals. My husband reliably informs me there will be a "filter" to capture the asbestos particles before they are released into the atmosphere. Does anyone know if that is true?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nicky Washida. Most asbestos is sorted and disposed of in land fill as it requires very high temperatures to destroy it. Few incinerators reach the temperature required to destroy the material and as the fibres (which are the danger) are so small, filters that will capture smoke and chemicals from the incineration process will not necessarily capture asbestos fibres.

That having been said, the real worry with asbestos containing materials in buildings is when they are disturbed they release fibres in the immediate vicinity which can be breathed in directly or transferred by attaching to clothing or being walked around. The problem in the areas devastated by the earthquake and tsunami is of course the huge amount of building material disturbed. Those involved in the clean up operation need to be suitably protected (ie respirators, hooded coveralls, gloves. over-boots) when moving this material. In the pressure to get the rubble shifted, that isn't always happening. The workers and volunteers taking part in the clean up and disposal of the rubble are, in many cases, doing so at greater risk to their health than the workers at Fukushima who are at least having their exposure monitored and limited.

As for the incineration process 8km from you, I wouldn't worry too much. Any fibres released will quickly dissipate in the air and with very little asbestos fibre in the air, your risk is very low indeed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

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