Japan earthquake - contamination & consequences outside Fukushima NPP


by jlduh
Tags: consequences, contamination, earthquake, fukushima, japan, nuclear
tsutsuji
tsutsuji is offline
#433
Nov13-11, 01:33 PM
PF Gold
P: 1,220
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20111109f1.html "the government has shifted the focus of its decontamination plan to areas with radiation readings, based on an annual accumulative amount, of between 20 millisieverts and more than 1 millisievert, with the goal of reducing the contamination by 50 to 60 percent over two years."

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/genpatsu-...entaisaku.html The Japanese government has released a decontamination manual for volunteers.On 13 November minister Goshi Hosono gave a hand to a group of 60 volunteers decontaminating houses in Date city, Fukushima prefecture.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Aqx45dUSXI video of Minister Hosono with the volunteers (the meeting before starting to work).

http://mainichi.jp/select/wadai/news...40071000c.html The helicopter maps have been released for Iwate, Yamanashi, Nagano, Shizuoka, Gifu, and Toyama prefectures.

http://radioactivity.mext.go.jp/ja/1...910_111112.pdf Iwate, Yamanashi, Nagano, Shizuoka, Gifu, and Toyama prefectures' helicopter maps.(37 pages).

Tokyo:
http://mainichi.jp/select/wadai/news...40036000c.html The Tokyo water agency has experimented a process using chlorine and activated carbon that enables to remove 40 to 60% of iodine. "If we had known it, we could have kept iodine below 100 Bq/l" (in March, instead of 210 Bq/l).

Chiba:
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/national/ne...OYT1T00461.htm It was found that the company that was supposed to bury the 0.18 ~ 0.37 μSv/h (50 cm above ground) sand from school sandboxes in Kashiwa was instead storing it in the company premises with reuse in mind.

http://sankei.jp.msn.com/region/news...2580013-n1.htm 5 spots above 0.23 μSv/h (maximum 0.59) in one school in Ichihara.

Ibaraki:
http://sankei.jp.msn.com/region/news...2060000-n1.htm Log shiitake shipment is banned in Ibaraki city (outdoor and greenhouse) and in Ami (outdoors), bringing to 6 the number of towns in Ibaraki prefecture with a log shiitake restriction.

Kanagawa:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moAeswWPyeQ (TBS) 2651 Bq/kg (above the 400 Bq/kg standard) in ashes from trees and grass from a park in Yokohama, distributed as fertilizer.

Shizuoka:
http://www.chunichi.co.jp/article/sh...302000003.html The shipment ban concerning dried shiitake produced in Izu city was lifted for the shiitakes harvested after 1 October.

Gunma:
http://mainichi.jp/area/gunma/news/2...40219000c.html Between 28 and 72 Bq/kg was found in mud in 6 sewage plants. Nothing detected in the other 5 plants.

http://mainichi.jp/area/gunma/news/2...40202000c.html 482 Bq/kg in deers. 337 Bq/kg in wild boars. Hunting is allowed again.

Tochigi:
http://mainichi.jp/area/tochigi/news...40337000c.html 517 Bq/kg in nameko mushrooms in Nikko city.

Fukushima:
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/national/ne...htm?from=navlp 713 Bq/kg in dried kakis from Date city harvested in October.

http://sankei.jp.msn.com/affairs/new...3200033-n1.htm 700 Bq/kg in shiitake grown in vinyl houses in Kawamata. 84.5 kg in 845 packs had already been shipped. 95 packs have been recalled from the shops, the other packs are already sold.

http://video.jp.msn.com/watch/video/...36%7C%7C%7C%7C (TBS) 8300 Ha of agricultural land are above the 5000 Bq/kg limit.

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/national/ne...OYT1T01048.htm Fukushima city's 20 kindergartens are requesting a compensation from Tepco because the number of pupils has diminished by 472 pupils.
SteveElbows
SteveElbows is offline
#434
Nov15-11, 12:32 PM
P: 630
The IAEA published the final version of their report into remediation efforts. I haven't had the chance to read it in full yet.

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/...nalreport.html
SteveElbows
SteveElbows is offline
#435
Nov15-11, 01:27 PM
P: 630
Im reading it now. Suggestions I've read about so far are along the lines of:

Involve Universities/academia.

Extend the whole body counter measurements program to remedial workers after they have finished a days work.

Come up with some clear guidelines on what activity levels are suitable for landfill-type disposal.

Balance the psychological/economic impact against the actual real benefits from certain kinds of remedial work, and focus efforts on stuff that can make a real difference to exposure levels. Also consider how much radioactive waste some measures may produce, creating new problems that may exceed the benefits.

Dont label everything that comes from decontamination efforts as waste, you may be able to reuse some of it without exposing the public to unacceptable risk.

Try and educate the public into the importance of dose rates rather than just letting them focus on surface or volume concentration levels.

When you involve local people in decontamination efforts, make sure they are trained, and recognise that you will probably need specialists to do certain work.

Provide signs/other markings on the routes into the 'deliberate evacuation area', along with some instructions for the public (there are currently no signs on roads etc to mark the borders of this zone).

Decontaminating certain areas such as forests, or taking the level of decontamination beyond certain 'optimised levels', may involve time & effort that is not rewarded by an automatic drop in public exposure, and may create new problems by creating more stuff thats classified as radioactive waste.

There will be another airborne survey this month covering the entire Eastern part of Japan.

Praise for various data collection efforts, recommendation to formally describe the management of the collected data in a management plan.

Thats all I have time to look at today, having just reached page 34 where attention turns to agricultural land.
Luca Bevil
Luca Bevil is offline
#436
Nov17-11, 03:09 PM
P: 87
One question to you all (tsutsui san especially thx for the great painstaking work you ar edoing for us all).

is there an assessment of suicide cases among Fukushima evacuees as of today ?
tsutsuji
tsutsuji is offline
#437
Nov19-11, 05:43 AM
PF Gold
P: 1,220
Quote Quote by Luca Bevil View Post
is there an assessment of suicide cases among Fukushima evacuees as of today ?
It does not answer your question about evacuees, but there are suicide statistics about Fukushima prefecture in general:
In the area hit hardest by the nuclear crisis, Fukushima saw 19 more suicides in May 2011 compared with May last year, with a total of 68.
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-08/w...re?_s=PM:WORLD
http://www.npa.go.jp/safetylife/seia...jisatsusya.pdf 2011 suicide statistics per prefecture and per month.
http://www.npa.go.jp/safetylife/seia...sunogaiyou.pdf page 8: 2010 monthly statistics per prefecture and per month.

I calculated the number of suicides in Fukushima prefecture from April to October and found 323 in 2011 versus 314 in 2010 (increase of 9 = +2.9%).
The number of suicides in Japan from April to October was 19269 in 2011 versus 18515 in 2010 (increase of 754 = +4%)
tsutsuji
tsutsuji is offline
#438
Nov19-11, 06:57 AM
PF Gold
P: 1,220
http://www.asahi.com/national/update...111170270.html & http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/2011...032781000.html The ministry of environment, in Tokyo, received a parcel from Fukushima prefecture containing contaminated earth (0.18 μSv/h according to NHK, maximum 0.6 μSv/h according to Asahi). It was found that the contaminated earth was later dumped by a ministry employee in an empty lot near his/her home in Saitama prefecture.

Tokyo:
http://mainichi.jp/select/wadai/news...40005000c.html During the two months that preceded the finding of the 2300 Bq/kg cow on 8 July, only 2 cows had been tested out of the about 2100 cows that were shipped to Tokyo metropolis.

http://eco.nikkeibp.co.jp/article/re...111118/109948/ Incinerators in Tokyo's 23 wards and in the Tama area are going process tsunami debris from Onagawa, Miyagi prefecture. The radiations are 440 Bq/kg (textiles) 220 Bq/kg (tatami mats) 100 Bq/kg (plastics), 77 Bq/kg (paper), 69 Bq/kg (wood). For the treatment of the debris from Miyako (Iwate prefecture), the standard was that ashes above 8000 Bq/kg should not be produced. Using a concentration factor of 33, that meant that the debris should not be above 240 Bq/kg.

Kanagawa:
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/national/ne...OYT1T01356.htm Kanagawa prefecture's rainwater data for the 6 day period from 20 March to 1 April had errors. The largest error concerns the iodine radiation from 21 March 9 AM to 22 March 9 AM. The radiation was 9500 Bq/m which is 28 times as much as the 340 Bq/m value that had been reported then. It is a calculation mistake that was made at a time when personnel from other departments came for help. The mistake was reported to the Ministry of education and science on 13 May, but the ministry failed from immediately correcting the figures.

http://mainichi.jp/life/today/news/2...40106000c.html Tea samples from Manatsuru have been measured with 500, 360, and 290 Bq/kg. The shipment ban has been lifted.

Chiba:
http://mytown.asahi.com/chiba/news.p...00001111190002 A value below the 8000 Bq/kg ( 5100 Bq/kg = 2400 (Cs134) + 2700 (Cs137)) was found for the first time in the ashes from a mud incinerating facility in Abiko on 8 November. In the past values as high as 25000 Bq/kg had been found. 510 tons of 8000 Bq/kg and above ashes produced until October have to be stored in tents. When the values below 8000/kg are considered stable enough, the facility will start burying the ashes again. For the time being tent storage is going on.

http://www.tokyo-np.co.jp/article/ch....html?ref=rank An incinerating facility in Matsudo is going to try burning branches and grass again from 18 November to 28 November, limiting their quantity to 10% of the total and checking the ashes's radiation everyday. Branches and grass burning had been stopped as it was feared that the 8000 Bq/kg standard for ash burying would be exceeded.

http://mainichi.jp/area/chiba/news/2...40104000c.html 831 Bq/kg in outdoor grown shiitake mushrooms in Nagareyama. With Abiko and Kimitsu, this brings to 3 the number of cities in Chiba prefecture with above limit shiitake.

Saitama:
http://mainichi.jp/area/saitama/news...40257000c.html 1300 Bq/kg in one brand of Sayama tea. This brings to 112 the brands of tea above safety level among 1659 brands of tea tested in Saitama prefecture since September.

Gunma:
http://mainichi.jp/area/gunma/news/2...40209000c.html 2500, 900 and 870 Bq/kg in mud generated at 3 water processing facilities

Niigata:
http://mainichi.jp/area/niigata/news...40250000c.html Earth samples were taken in 38 areas in 17 cities and towns where the helicopter survey had found the highest contaminations. All areas are below 0.23 μSv/h. In the two areas above 10,000 Bq/m in Uonuma city, the highest sample had 320 Bq/kg, which is below the ministry of agriculture's 5000 Bq/kg limit. 

http://mainichi.jp/area/niigata/news...40175000c.html Niigata prefecture wants to charge the national government with the cost of the disposal of contaminated waste above 100 Bq/kg instead of the 8000 Bq/kg value proposed by the national government. 100 Bq/kg is the value below which the law regulating nuclear power plant decommissioning allows to process nuclear waste in general waste processing facilities.

Yamagata:
http://mainichi.jp/area/yamagata/new...40092000c.html It has been decided that the "Yonezawa beef" brand name would be attributed only to beef with "no cesium detected (below 25 Bq/kg)", which is more severe than the government safety level of 500 Bq/kg. Beef where cesium is detected will be sold as "Grown in Yamagata" or "Grown in Japan".

Fukushima:
http://www.mhlw.go.jp/english/topics...ions111109.pdf One page listing the food shipment restrictions applying to Fukushima prefecture, updated on 9 November.

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/genpatsu-...0615_idou.html A survey of the mud at the bottom of rivers was performed in September. It was found that the mud is more highly contaminated downstream than upstream, which suggests that the contamination migrates toward river mouths. In Niidagawa river, 3200 Bq/kg was found upstream in Iitate village, and 13000 Bq/kg close to the mouth in Minamisoma. 28,000 Bq/kg was found in Manogawa river in Minamisoma, which is twice the value measured in May.

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/genpatsu-...700_josen.html A decontamination model work was started in Ookuma town (restricted zone). The plan is to decontaminate a 4.5 Ha zone near the town hall, including public facilities and 20 homes. In some places the radiation goes up to 20 μSv/h.

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/genpatsu-...ikaikuiki.html The Japanese government is studying the dispatch of military forces to perform decontamination tasks in the restricted zone.

http://www.asahi.com/national/update...111160523.html 630 Bq/kg was found in unpolished rice (300 Bq/kg in polished rice) from Fukushima city's Oonami district (former Oguni village).

http://mainichi.jp/select/wadai/news...40049000c.html The Oonami district has produced 142 tons of rice. 67 tons are stored by each farmer. 57.6 tons have been shipped to Japan Agricultural Cooperatives. 15 tons have been shipped to relatives or friends. 2 tons have been sold to shops in Fukushima city and Date city. The people who have this rice at home or who received it are advised, at this step, not to eat it. The prefecture administration plans to perform radiation tests with the rice from each farm in the Oonami district.

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/national/ne...OYT1T00353.htm Rice samples from the 4 farms from Oonami district which had shipped rice to shops in Fukushima city and Date city have been tested. The results are 11 Bq/kg, 22 Bq/kg and no cesium detected in the two other farms. The 70 bags (2 tons) were stored in the shops and had not been sold to customers.

http://sankei.jp.msn.com/affairs/new...2040029-n1.htm The Oonami district rice problem was found as a result of a self-decided testing at the local level. 136 Bq/kg before harvest and from 28 to 33 Bq/kg after harvest is what had been found for the Oonami district rice until then. The prefecture administration is studying a plan to reinforce controls by controlling each farm in all areas where cesium was detected after harvest.

http://www.nikkei.com/news/category/...2E2E2E2;at=ALL 550 Bq/kg was found in dried Kikurage mushrooms from Aizuwakamatsu. Shipment is banned. 16 kg (783 bags) have already been shipped to 12 shops and must be recalled.

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/e-japan/fuk...OYT8T00042.htm Radiation control equipment is going to be installed for the general population to use after harvesting vegetables in gardens, taking water from wells, or picking mushrooms in forests. First of all, one equipment will be installed in each of 14 cities or towns in Fukushima prefecture.

http://online.wsj.com/video/voluntee...D57249BA5.html Cleaning efforts in Koriyama.
Azby
Azby is offline
#439
Nov20-11, 07:22 PM
P: 64
An interesting and even-handed journalistic canvassing of opinion on post-Fukushima health risks in Japan:

Future cancers from Fukushima plant may be hidden
By MALCOLM RITTER, Associated Press
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...12dda569488e08


It's refreshingly free of spin. Not a lot of it will be news to people who have been following the debate closely, but I think it will be very good in helping people get up to speed on the main issues.
NUCENG
NUCENG is offline
#440
Nov21-11, 04:07 AM
Sci Advisor
P: 916
Quote Quote by tsutsuji View Post
It does not answer your question about evacuees, but there are suicide statistics about Fukushima prefecture in general:


http://www.npa.go.jp/safetylife/seia...jisatsusya.pdf 2011 suicide statistics per prefecture and per month.
http://www.npa.go.jp/safetylife/seia...sunogaiyou.pdf page 8: 2010 monthly statistics per prefecture and per month.

I calculated the number of suicides in Fukushima prefecture from April to October and found 323 in 2011 versus 314 in 2010 (increase of 9 = +2.9%).
The number of suicides in Japan from April to October was 19269 in 2011 versus 18515 in 2010 (increase of 754 = +4%)
One problam may be separating suicides related to the tsunami, loss of employment, loss of family members and mental health issues other than the Fukushima accident. How many triggers are too many when sometimes one is enough?

You have provided documented numbers, Thank You. I suspect Luca and I might interpret those numbers differently. It is unlikely that unless suicide notes were left by all 323 people we may not be able to tie this to a specific cause. Two years of data doesn't even give us a standard deviation for evaluation of numeric uncertainty.
NUCENG
NUCENG is offline
#441
Nov21-11, 05:11 AM
Sci Advisor
P: 916
Quote Quote by Azby View Post
An interesting and even-handed journalistic canvassing of opinion on post-Fukushima health risks in Japan:

Future cancers from Fukushima plant may be hidden
By MALCOLM RITTER, Associated Press
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...12dda569488e08


It's refreshingly free of spin. Not a lot of it will be news to people who have been following the debate closely, but I think it will be very good in helping people get up to speed on the main issues.
Thank you for posting this article, Azby. It is an excellent example of an article requiring careful reading and evaluation. It describes a potential that the health effects of the Fukushima accidents may not be detectable. For most people, that is a valuable point, much preferred to the hysterical rhetoric of some other stories.

By providing some level of balance, I agree this article is a worthwhile read. However, look at the comments by Ed Lyman of UCS. UCS always makes the point that they do not oppose nuclear power (Yeah, right!) Here is the quote from the article:

"The idea that Fukushima-related cancers may go undetected gives no comfort to Edwin Lyman, a physicist and senior scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, a group that advocates for nuclear safety. He said that even if cancers don't turn up in population studies, that "doesn't mean the cancers aren't there, and it doesn't mean it doesn't matter."

"I think that a prediction of thousands of cancer deaths as a result of the radiation from Fukushima is not out of line," Lyman said. But he stressed that authorities can do a lot to limit the toll by reducing future exposure to the radiation. That could mean expensive decontamination projects, large areas of condemned land and people never returning home, he said. "There's some difficult choices ahead." "


I hope you recognize that he is spinning like a top. What he is saying is that he believes that "thousands" will die as a direct result of radiation. He admits that it may not show up in population studies, but this lack of evidence proves his hypothesis is true because he tells us it is true. The anithesis cannot be true because it also lacks evidence and he tells us it is false. I must have been absent the day they taught that form in Logic class.

In the article you hear the fear and questions from Japanese citizens that comes from this irresponsible grandstanding. If it turns out that the population studies don't find an increase in cancer deaths. if the impact is not measureable, it means exactly that the stress of worrying about it is probably as big a risk.

Go ahead and remediate the contaminated area. Monitor the health of those exposed. Limit future exposures. If cancer numbers change the Ed Lymans out there will claim to be right. If the numbers don't change they will claim to be right. Or maybe , just maybe, it DOES "mean it doesn't matter."

The article didn't claim "We are all going to die!" even though we will, eventually. That is, indeed, refreshing.
joewein
joewein is offline
#442
Nov21-11, 07:38 AM
joewein's Avatar
P: 192
Quote Quote by tsutsuji View Post
I calculated the number of suicides in Fukushima prefecture from April to October and found 323 in 2011 versus 314 in 2010 (increase of 9 = +2.9%).
The number of suicides in Japan from April to October was 19269 in 2011 versus 18515 in 2010 (increase of 754 = +4%)
While any increase in suicides is bad, a lower increase in Fukushima vs. Japan as a whole would at least appear relatively positive. It might indicate fewer people suffering from depression there than one might expect.

On the other hand, about 0.1% of the population of the prefecture perished or disappeared on 3/11 and probably a much larger percentage will have left the prefecture altogether, for example to find work elsewhere or to raise their children in a place with fewer contamination problems.

Without up to date data on who is still around and who isn't it's hard to interpret these numbers.
tsutsuji
tsutsuji is offline
#443
Nov21-11, 11:51 AM
PF Gold
P: 1,220
Quote Quote by NUCENG View Post
You have provided documented numbers, Thank You. I suspect Luca and I might interpret those numbers differently.
How can you know if your interpretation is different from mine as long as I don't provide any interpretation ? My only comment on those figures is that "It does not answer [Luca Bevil's] question about evacuees".
Azby
Azby is offline
#444
Nov21-11, 07:23 PM
P: 64
Quote Quote by NUCENG View Post

I hope you recognize that he is spinning like a top.
Yes, and because I've heard a lot of what Lyman has to say I'm prepared for his take on the matter, as well as for Brennan and many of the others quoted in the article as well. I guess I'm relieved that the author of the article let each of the interviewees state their positions without adding any spin of his own. He kind of simply laid out the "he said, she said" argument.

As for Lyman's position, I agree that it makes my logic neuron hurt (I'm pretty sure I don't have more than one...). But the larger issue is "how few illnesses or deaths are few enough not to worry about?" And I think he's trying to highlight that. We're all forced into the position of accepting a certain number as part of our participation in a developed society, through automobile accidents, carcinogens in our food, etc etc.. If we were one day able to detect these currently undetectable casualties, would we want to change our risk parameters, and possibly eliminate one cause? I think we would, because we want to become a better, fairer, healthier society. It's the same question as, "How safe is safe enough?" And at what point do we decide that the diminishing returns no longer make it worthwhile, and we make individuals responsible for protecting themselves from the lesser risks? Would that even be possible in the case of anthropogenic radiation?

I'd like to add that I'm glad the author said that various other diseases, like diabetes, cataracts and heart problems, have been "hinted at" by some Chernobyl studies, and not, as quite few people insist, that they have been "demonstrated" or "proven." And I'm SO glad he didn't give Busby's lunacy a platform. Looks like the latter is finally getting his due, btw:

"Post-Fukushima 'anti-radiation' pills condemned by scientists
Green party distances itself from Dr Christopher Busby, a former spokesman promoting products following Japanese nuclear disaster"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...ills-fukushima
NUCENG
NUCENG is offline
#445
Nov22-11, 06:52 AM
Sci Advisor
P: 916
Quote Quote by tsutsuji View Post
How can you know if your interpretation is different from mine as long as I don't provide any interpretation ? My only comment on those figures is that "It does not answer [Luca Bevil's] question about evacuees".
I wasn't speculating about your interpretation. I really appreciate all the facts you dig up from Japanese language sources, as my Japanese skills are limited in technical terminology and writing. I was only suspecting that the reason that Luca asked about suicide was to insinuate that any increase was due to the reactor accident alone. I should not have posted this as a reply to your post. Sorry!
NUCENG
NUCENG is offline
#446
Nov22-11, 06:53 AM
Sci Advisor
P: 916
Quote Quote by joewein View Post
While any increase in suicides is bad, a lower increase in Fukushima vs. Japan as a whole would at least appear relatively positive. It might indicate fewer people suffering from depression there than one might expect.

On the other hand, about 0.1% of the population of the prefecture perished or disappeared on 3/11 and probably a much larger percentage will have left the prefecture altogether, for example to find work elsewhere or to raise their children in a place with fewer contamination problems.

Without up to date data on who is still around and who isn't it's hard to interpret these numbers.
Good point!
tsutsuji
tsutsuji is offline
#447
Nov22-11, 01:59 PM
PF Gold
P: 1,220
Quote Quote by NUCENG View Post
...
Thank you for your understanding.

Quote Quote by joewein View Post
Without up to date data on who is still around and who isn't it's hard to interpret these numbers.
According to http://www.pref.fukushima.jp/toukei/...3_3_9houbu.pdf , The Fukushima population decreased by 1.75% from 2,024,401 to 1,988,955 between 1 March 2011 and 1 October 2011. Between 1 March 2010 and 1 October 2010 there had been a 0.43% decrease. The note at the top of the page says that those figures take into account only the departures from and arrivals into Fukushima prefecture that were reported by the citizens to authorities, which suggest that the actual numbers might be different.
NUCENG
NUCENG is offline
#448
Nov23-11, 06:48 AM
Sci Advisor
P: 916
Quote Quote by Azby View Post
Yes, and because I've heard a lot of what Lyman has to say I'm prepared for his take on the matter, as well as for Brennan and many of the others quoted in the article as well. I guess I'm relieved that the author of the article let each of the interviewees state their positions without adding any spin of his own. He kind of simply laid out the "he said, she said" argument.

As for Lyman's position, I agree that it makes my logic neuron hurt (I'm pretty sure I don't have more than one...). But the larger issue is "how few illnesses or deaths are few enough not to worry about?" And I think he's trying to highlight that. We're all forced into the position of accepting a certain number as part of our participation in a developed society, through automobile accidents, carcinogens in our food, etc etc.. If we were one day able to detect these currently undetectable casualties, would we want to change our risk parameters, and possibly eliminate one cause? I think we would, because we want to become a better, fairer, healthier society. It's the same question as, "How safe is safe enough?" And at what point do we decide that the diminishing returns no longer make it worthwhile, and we make individuals responsible for protecting themselves from the lesser risks? Would that even be possible in the case of anthropogenic radiation?

I'd like to add that I'm glad the author said that various other diseases, like diabetes, cataracts and heart problems, have been "hinted at" by some Chernobyl studies, and not, as quite few people insist, that they have been "demonstrated" or "proven." And I'm SO glad he didn't give Busby's lunacy a platform. Looks like the latter is finally getting his due, btw:

"Post-Fukushima 'anti-radiation' pills condemned by scientists
Green party distances itself from Dr Christopher Busby, a former spokesman promoting products following Japanese nuclear disaster"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...ills-fukushima
Thanks for the Busby story. I love it when a socialist discovers capitalism and becomes just another greedy 1%-er. Unfortunately he makes the same mistake most neophytes commiit. He assumes that people will pay more for his product than the market competetive price because he is "special." That is a recipe for failure. When he fails he will blame Capitalism instead of his own stupidity.
tsutsuji
tsutsuji is offline
#449
Nov26-11, 07:20 AM
PF Gold
P: 1,220
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/2011...206531000.html The helicopter surveys of Aomori, Aichi, Ishikawa, and Fukui prefectures have been released, completing the contamination map of the 22 prefectures in Eastern Honshu. The ministry of education and science comments that some mountain ranges have limited the spread of radioactive clouds.

http://radioactivity.mext.go.jp/ja/1...910_1125_2.pdf Helicopter maps of Aomori, Aichi, Ishikawa, and Fukui prefectures.

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/national/ne...OYT1T01108.htm At Abukuma river's mouth, 70 km North of the Fukushima Daiichi plant in Iwanuma city, Miyagi prefecture, the river carries 52,500,000,000 Bq/day into the sea as of August 2011, a study commissioned by the ministry of education and science has found. Upstream in Date city (Fukushima prefecture) the flow is 176,300,000,000 Bq/day. 90% of the radiation is carried by sand in the water. It is believed that some of it is stopped by dams.

Tokyo:
http://mainichi.jp/area/tokyo/news/2...40241000c.html Compost in 13 farms in 6 cities and 4 wards in Tokyo metropolis was found above the 400 Bq/kg standard. The highest was 2150 Bq/kg in Hino city.

Kanagawa:
http://mainichi.jp/select/jiken/news...40107000c.html Whereas Yokohama city had found 129 Bq/kg of strontium in the Okurayama sample and 59 Bq/kg of strontium in the Shinyokohama sample, the ministry of education and science has found only 1.1 Bq/kg of Sr-90 in the Shinyokohama sample, and could not find any Sr-89 in both samples. For that reason, the ministry of Education and science denies any link between the Yokohama strontium and the Fukushima accident, and comments that the measuring method used by Yokohama city was not precise enough, by not distinguishing Sr-89 and Sr-90, and suggests that other natural substances such as lead could have been included in the city's measurement.

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/...dm025000c.html [English] "The test detected 0.82 to 1.1 becquerels per kilogram of strontium 90 with a half-life of around 29 years, within levels observed prior to the nuclear crisis."

Tochigi:
http://www.shimotsuke.co.jp/news/toc...0111125/666412 Radiations between 1100 to 2400 Bq/kg were found in dried shiitake mushrooms in Yaita, Motegi, and Sano, bringing to 10 the number of cities and towns with a dried shiitake ban : Yaita , Sakura, Takanezawa, Shioya, Moka, Motegi, Haga, Ichikai, Mashiko, and Sano.

Miyagi:
http://www.kahoku.co.jp/news/2011/11/20111126t11017.htm Miyagi prefecture has released the results of a survey of tsunami debris. All of them are below the 8000 Bq/kg standard for burial, but some burnable material in Yamamoto (769 Bq/kg) and in Watari (350 Bq/kg) might exceed that level when reduced to ashes after incineration.

Fukushima:
http://www.fnn-news.com/news/headlin...N00212137.html A video showing an experimental decontamination of apple trees after harvest by removing their bark. Pressure washing was also used. A 90% reduction rate is claimed after bark removing and a 50% one after washing. The experiment is planned in 3000 farms in Fukushima city and other places.

http://mainichi.jp/select/wadai/news...40052000c.html 5 more farms have been found with rice higher than the safety limit in the Oonami district. They are located between 1 and 2.5 km away from the farm where the problem was first found. This brings to 6 the number of farms higher than the safety limit, out of 34 farms tested so far in the district. The highest radiation found was 1270 Bq/kg. All of the district's 154 farms will be tested.

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/2011...209461000.html 103 rice bags were above 500 Bq/kg and 27 rice bags were above 1000 Bq/kg among the 864 bags in 34 farms in Oonami district tested so far.

http://mainichi.jp/area/fukushima/ne...70263000c.html Some of the citizens of Namie town (21,000 people) have been dispersed into all of Japan. It is said that only 2 prefectures in Japan are not inhabited by Namie citizens. On 6 November, a traditional Namie festival was held in Nihonmatsu instead, where 3500 Namie citizens are living.

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/national/ne....htm?from=navr 14,600 Bq/kg in wild boars in Nihonmatsu.

http://www.asahi.com/national/update...111250281.html A study of cows in the 20 km range around the Fukushima Daiichi plant found that the radiation is between 20 and 30 times higher in muscles than in blood.

http://mytown.asahi.com/fukushima/ne...00001111240006 Fukushima prefecture has already received 80 requests to test garden vegetables, well water, or mushrooms from private citizens. Appointments have been taken until mid December. Tests were started on 24 November in two facilities in Date and Fukushima city. Results will be released on the prefecture website. Facilities in 12 other cities will start receiving such requests by mid December. Fukushima city government also performs such tests and has received 1200 requests so far, which will keep its testing equipment busy until 18 January. On 18 November the results of 139 tests were released. Many are below the 20 Bq/kg detection level. The highest value was 334 Bq/kg for kiwi fruits. 298 Bq/kg in citrons, 258 Bq/kg in kakis, 62 Bq/kg in apples were also found.

Akita:
http://mainichi.jp/area/akita/news/2...40012000c.html Fallen leaves have been tested in 9 locations in the mountain region. Cesium was detected in 5 locations between 2.6 and 18 Bq/kg. The 400 Bq/kg standard for leaf mold is not exceeded. The radiation at 1 m above ground was between 0.03 and 0.08 μSv/h which is the usual level for Akita prefecture.

http://mainichi.jp/area/akita/news/2...40009000c.html All of the ashes from the general waste incineration facilities are below the 8000 Bq/kg standard. In one facility where 60Bq/kg had been found in June or July in exhaust gas soot, the November value was 11 Bq/kg. In another facility the soot radiation declined to 140 Bq/kg from 196 Bq/kg. 13.4 Bq/kg was found in one facility in exhaust water produced after washing ashes.

Aomori:
http://mainichi.jp/area/aomori/news/...40117000c.html Hachinohe city will process tsunami debris below the 100 Bq/kg standard from other prefectures in addition to its own. Monitoring results will be released on the city's internet home page.
Caniche
Caniche is offline
#450
Nov27-11, 04:28 PM
P: 106
Fukushima:
http://www.fnn-news.com/news/headlin...N00212137.html A video showing an experimental decontamination of apple trees after harvest by removing their bark. Pressure washing was also used. A 90% reduction rate is claimed after bark removing and a 50% one after washing. The experiment is planned in 3000 farms in Fukushima city and other places.

Well removing the bark will for defo ,100% kill all the trees so that should help reduce contaminated produce


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Japan Earthquake: nuclear plants Nuclear Engineering 14198
8.9 earthquake in Japan: tsunami warnings Current Events 671
Fukushima, Japan Constructing an Effective First Response Nuclear Engineering 21
Radiation Contamination Thread re Fukushima Nuclear Engineering 19
Fukushima plant - should I leave Japan? Nuclear Engineering 10