Fukushima Japan earthquake - contamination & consequences outside Fukushima NPP

[tsutsuji]

Looks like the map will be released tomorrow (30th for those of us here in Japan).
http://www.fnn-news.com/news/headlines/articles/CONN00206426.html

Thanks. I found the same information after switching from NHK to the Mainichi website and edited my post above.

 

[zapperzero]

http://mainichi.jp/select/today/news/20110830k0000m040082000c.html It shows that the worse place is in Ookuma with 1,545,000 Bq/m² of cesium.

I don't really understand why they are measuring only Cesium. Is it a good proxy for "overall contamination" or what?

 

[tsutsuji]

(TBS news) Wakasagi smelts with 640 Bq/kg of cesium have been found in Lake Oonuma, one of the caldera lakes of Mount Akagi in Gunma prefecture.

 

[zapperzero]

(TBS news) Wakasagi smelts with 640 Bq/kg of cesium have been found in Lake Oonuma, one of the caldera lakes of Mount Akagi in Gunma prefecture.

That's pretty far away. Bioaccumulation sucks.

 

[Gary7]

From Mainichi

http://mainichi.jp/select/wadai/news/20110830dde041040065000c.html

Tepco announced today that a Fukushima Daiichi worker in his 40s died from acute leukemia. The worker's external radiation exposure was 0.5 millisieverts, while his internal exposure was 0 millisieverts, and according to Tepco's acting regional manager Junichi Matsumoto, the attending physician said there was no causative link to the work performed at Daiichi.

According to Tepco, the man had been working for an on-site contractor for about a week in early August, and was in charge of radiation management and management of the entrance at an employee rest area.

He became ill and was attended to by a physician who diagnosed the man with acute leukemia, and the man passed away at the hospital to which he was sent. Tepco received the report of the death from the contracting company on the 16th. Previous health check-ups on the man showed no unusual signs in white blood-cell counts, and it was unclear if the man had performed any previous work at other nuclear power plants.

 

[tsutsuji]

Iodine tablets:

Gen Suzuki, who heads a clinic at the International University of Health and Welfare, told a meeting of the Japanese Association for Medical Management of Radiation Accident (JAMMRA) in Saitama on Aug. 27 that 40 percent of people tested for internal exposure to radiation may have needed iodine tablets. The Japanese government has not instructed any residents to take iodine tablets since the start of the nuclear crisis.
(...)
According to a March 16 analysis on the air outside a 30-kilometer radius of the plant, radioactive iodine-132 and substances that would turn into iodine-132 in about three days accounted for at least 70 percent of airborne radiation.
http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201108290202.html

Nuclear waste:

the central government will build final dumping sites for radioactive waste outside the prefecture, while at the same time asking Governor Yuhei Sato to host temporary sites for the waste.
http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201108290198.html

Industrial products:

"Since industrial products are used in a wide variety of ways--some are used in contact with human skin while others are buried under the ground--it would take a lot of time to set separate standards for each product category," a NISA official said.
http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201108290253.html

"Handbook of Parameter Values for the Prediction of Radionuclide Transfer in Terrestrial and Freshwater Environments", IAEA technical reports series, 2010:

This report provides data for use in assessments of routine discharges of radionuclides to terrestrial and freshwater environments. Some of the data may also be useful for assessing the impacts of accidental releases and releases in the future. The report provides information on radionuclides and on processes to be taken into account in assessments of the radiation impact of radionuclide discharge to terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems.
http://jammra.org/trs472_web.pdf

 

[nikkkom]

I don't really understand why they are measuring only Cesium. Is it a good proxy for "overall contamination" or what?

Caesium is the most easily dispersed long-lived fission product/actinide, because of its volatility. Next one is strontium. Neptunium and Plutonium are, in turn, much less volatile than Sr...

Basically, if you map Cs deposition and determine the boundaries of exclusion zone(s) based on that data only, it is almost 100% certain that dangerous levels of Sr, Pu and everything else are inside this zone too, not outside. Check Chernobul Cs, SR and Pu maps, they can be easily found using google.

 

[clancy688]

It shows that the worse place is in Ookuma with 1,545,000 Bq/m² of cesium. 34 places in Minamisoma, Tomioka, Ookuma, Futaba, Namie and Iitate are above the 1,480,000 Bq/m² evacuation level decided by authorities in Chernobyl.

That sounds odd... the MEXT maps from april showed large areas with well other 15 Mbq C134 and C137 each. Where's that stuff gone to?

http://imgf.tw/892620416.jpg

 

[tsutsuji]

The new Ministry of Education and Science Earth sampling map is available here: http://radioactivity.mext.go.jp/ja/distribution_map_around_FukushimaNPP/0002/11555_0830.pdf (it is the first item at the top of the http://radioactivity.mext.go.jp/ja/distribution_map_around_FukushimaNPP/ menu)

The new Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries maps are available as attachments at the bottom of http://www.s.affrc.go.jp/docs/press/110830.htm

http://www.jfa.maff.go.jp/j/press/kenkyu/110830.html 5 species of fish fished in the Pacific Ocean from April to July have been tested : no iodine detected. 0.03 Bq/kg of strontium detected for Pacific cods. No strontium detected in the 4 other species. The 2000-2010 data for strontium were below the 0.094 Bq/kg detection level. The highest cesium figures are 34 Bq/kg for Pacific cods and 19 Bq/kg for maiwashi pilchards.

That sounds odd... the MEXT maps from april showed large areas with well other 15 Mbq C134 and C137 each. Where's that stuff gone to?

http://imgf.tw/892620416.jpg

I am not sure if it answers your question, but please note that the document in your attachment says "cumulative deposits of Cs 134 and Cs 137" instead of "each".

 

[clancy688]

I am not sure if it answers your question, but please note that the document in your attachment says "cumulative deposits of Cs 134 and Cs 137" instead of "each".

Yeah, but that doesn't change the numbers. The C134/C137 deposition was roughly 1 to 1. So if the MEXT map shows us areas with 30 MBq/m², then it's most likely 15 MBq/m² C134 and 15 MBq/m² C137.

And even if that's not the case then there's something highly wrong. 1,5 MBq/m² C137 contrary to the 30 MBq/m² C134+C137 means, that there's 28,5 MBq/m² C134 which isn't included. And I absolutely don't think that they would leave such a number out. No, the 1,5 MBq/m² doesn't sound right at all. Or all those MEXT maps were indredibly off.

I found the late June MEXT readings: http://eq.wide.ad.jp/files_en/110708plane2_en.pdf

They're only giving ">3 MBq/m²" in this report (contrary to the 6 MBq/m² - 30 Mbq/m² in the first one) for C134 and C137 each, but that's still at least double the number you provided us with. And this 3 Mbq/m² is the lower boundary...

 

[Gary7]

Yeah, but that doesn't change the numbers.

I think there was a mistake in the translation of the original article. http://mainichi.jp/select/today/news/20110830k0000m040082000c.html states the highest reading from Ookuma town is 15,450,000 Bq/m2 (１５４５万ベクレル) not 1,545,000 Bq/m2.

 

[clancy688]

I think there was a mistake in the translation of the original article. http://mainichi.jp/select/today/news/20110830k0000m040082000c.html states the highest reading from Ookuma town is 15,450,000 Bq/m2 (１５４５万ベクレル) not 1,545,000 Bq/m2.

Ahhhh, thx. Should have occurred to me that a magnitude could've been lost in translation... ^^;

According to the IRSN report the biggest C137 deposition in Chernobyl was 37,000,000 Bq/m². Moreover, in Chernobyl 3100 km² surface had depositions of over 1,500,000 Bq/m² compared to 170 km² with over 1,500,000 Bq/m² in Fukushima.

 

[tsutsuji]

I think there was a mistake in the translation of the original article. http://mainichi.jp/select/today/news/20110830k0000m040082000c.html states the highest reading from Ookuma town is 15,450,000 Bq/m2 (１５４５万ベクレル) not 1,545,000 Bq/m2.

Sorry, I should have checked my translation again.

By the way, http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/genpatsu-fukushima/20110829/2035_dojoosen.html was saying that the worse is in Ookuma with １平方メートル当たり２９４６万ベクレル (29 MBq/m², isn't it?) (probably for Cs-134 and Cs-137 added together?). But when I read the NHK's statement about １平方メートル当たり５５万５０００ベクレル (550,000 Bq/m²) "temporary relocation" limit at Chernobyl, I was afraid there was a problem in this NHK article. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tchernobyl_radiation_1996-de.svg says 550,000 Bq/m² (for Cs-137 alone) is for "permanent control zone", and my understanding is that people are allowed to live there, although they need to have regular health checks. For example there is a "pediatric population, 5-17 y old, living in the permanent control zone around the Chernobyl nuclear reactor" mentioned in http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7730059 . The same NHK article says there is a １平方メートル当たり１０００万ベクレル (10 MBq/m²) limit for temporary relocation of populations set by the IAEA. I have no idea if this is for Cs 137 alone or Cs 134 and 137 added together.

 

[clancy688]

Here's a screenshot taken from the IRSN report which should provide at least some clarity:

http://imgf.tw/182135955.jpg

 

[tsutsuji]

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/genpatsu-fukushima/20110902/0500_kouhyo.html The Japanese government is releasing data and a map about 2696 locations in the "restricted area" and in the "planned evacuation zone". Locations where large numbers of people are likely to assemble like schools and parks are included. The highest spot is in the Ottozawa district of Ookuma with 139 μSv/hour at 1 m above ground. The over 19 μSv/hour ([yearly?] accumulation over 100 mSv) zone expands as far as 32 km away from the plant in the North-West direction. On the other hand, 3 km away North of the plant on the coast, it is only 1μSv/hour. These data are available on the MEXT website. They should be useful to build decontamination plans.

http://radioactivity.mext.go.jp/ja/monitoring_around_FukushimaNPP_collect_basic_data/ :
* http://radioactivity.mext.go.jp/ja/1200/2011/09/1201_090116.pdf (33 pages, 8MB) general information about the data, and maps
* http://www.meti.go.jp/earthquake/nuclear/20110901.html menu with the data and detailed maps for each town

The highest spot is spot Nr. 3001:

3001 [Kitadai, Ottozawa, Ookuma] 2011/7/21 11:00 139.0 [μSv/h at 1m above ground] 201.0 [μSv/h at 1 cm above ground]
page 2 of http://www.meti.go.jp/earthquake/nuclear/pdf/monitor04_01.pdf

shown on the map on page 4 of http://www.meti.go.jp/earthquake/nuclear/pdf/monitor04_02.pdf (the area neighbouring the plant on the South-West of the plant)

 

[Azby]

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/genpatsu-fukushima/20110902/0500_kouhyo.html The Japanese government is releasing data and a map about 2696 locations in the "restricted area" and in the "planned evacuation zone". Locations where large numbers of people are likely to assemble like schools and parks are included. The highest spot is in the Ottozawa district of Ookuma with 139 μSv/hour at 1 m above ground. The over 19 μSv/hour ([yearly?] accumulation over 100 mSv) zone expands as far as 32 km away from the plant in the North-West direction. On the other hand, 3 km away North of the plant on the coast, it is only http://www.meti.go.jp/earthquake/nuclear/pdf/monitor04_02.pdf These data are available on the MEXT website. They should be useful to build decontamination plans.

http://radioactivity.mext.go.jp/ja/monitoring_around_FukushimaNPP_collect_basic_data/ :
* http://radioactivity.mext.go.jp/ja/1200/2011/09/1201_090116.pdf (33 pages, 8MB) general information about the data, and maps
* http://www.meti.go.jp/earthquake/nuclear/20110901.html menu with the data and detailed maps for each town

The detailed map showing the area closest to the plant is on page 4 of http://www.meti.go.jp/earthquake/nuclear/pdf/monitor04_02.pdf (Ookuma town)

Tsutsuji, thanks again so much. You're almost always the fastest with the mostest.

 

[zapperzero]

There's a thread on fusor.net where someone analyzes a (recent) soil sample from a gutter in Tokyo.

http://www.fusor.net/board/view.php?bn=fusor_announce&key=1314827083

Gives some idea of the process and the uncertainties involved. Also, Cesium.

 

[alpi]

There's a thread on fusor.net where someone analyzes a (recent) soil sample from a gutter in Tokyo.

http://www.fusor.net/board/view.php?bn=fusor_announce&key=1314827083

Gives some idea of the process and the uncertainties involved. Also, Cesium.

A typical example of "research" carried out by anti-nuclear activists.

 

[zapperzero]

A typical example of "research" carried out by anti-nuclear activists.

Please explain? It's certainly not "research". Just one guy testing one soil sample. Is there anything wrong with the test itself, or what?

EDIT: also, how can someone who experiments with nuclear fusion be "anti-nuclear"?

 

[zapperzero]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904279004576527470755113128.html

Date town peppered with >20mSv/year hotspots. Interesting measurement style:

At each house the inspectors measured two spots—in the yard and at the front door—at heights of about 20 inches and one yard (one meter). In choosing the spots, the inspectors were warned to stay away from areas such as drains, shrubbery and rainspouts, where radioactive elements tend to gather, potentially skewing results.

 

[clancy688]

Interesting phrasing. So they measured "hotspots" while taking care of staying away from the "hotspots".

 

[NUCENG]

Interesting phrasing. So they measured "hotspots" while taking care of staying away from the "hotspots".

Sounds suspiscious, doesn't it? It depends on what they are trying to measure.

If they are trying to characterize the general contamination levels they would have a good reason not to measure where it is being concentrated by other phenomena. That would be conservative, but it would skew their results.

If they are trying to characterize maximum dose consequences they should also be measuring these concentrations. This would also be the method to determine if an area can be released for residents to return.

 

[clancy688]

If they are trying to characterize the general contamination levels they would have a good reason not to measure where it is being concentrated by other phenomena. That would be conservative, but it would skew their results.

Well, it makes a certain sense. When you measure the dose rate at normal locations (the yard for example) where people stay most the time, you can probably decide whether or not the inhabitants should evacuate. As long as you make sure that they (the inhabitants) stay away from the real hotspots (for example the gutter outflow), it should be possible to make such a decision.
But in that case you can't name the locations you measured "hotspots"...

I just recently watched a little german tv report about inhabitants of Fukushima prefecture. There they showed a farmer who measured 90 uSv/h on his, I quote, "front yard". They showed how he did it. He left the door, turned left, went to the corner of his house and put the counter down on the bottom. Maybe one inch besides the gutter's outflow...

 

[Borek]

But in that case you can't name the locations you measured "hotspots"...

Depends on what "spot resolution" you are looking for. On the 1m² scale not checking places were the accumulation is to be expected would be an error, on the 100m² it can skew the results.

 

[zapperzero]

I'm not sure it's a good idea to not go hotspot-hunting. After all, the overall contamination levels outside the zone (excepting places like Namie and Fukushima City) are not so bad. The real, immediate danger, I think, lies in the small hotspots that such a survey is designed to miss.

 

[Borek]

It is all a matter of resources and speed. Obviously the choice is between quick low resolution scan of large area, or slow high resolution scan. Quick scan doesn't block the high resolution scan, but - and that's an important thing IMHO - gives results for large area much faster. I would prefer a fast scan first.

 

[swl]

A typical example of "research" carried out by anti-nuclear activists.

I checked the local park where my children play to ensure that the area was safe. Only 15 meters away from the swing-set and slide, there is a spot where my GM counter reads 0.70μSv/h to 1.0μSv/h. The 'hot' area is not a gutter, but rather above ground in a grassy area with shrubs nearby. The park I'm talking about (Soka Koen) is located 5.3km north of Tokyo, so I have no doubt that it is easy to find contamination in Tokyo too.

I'm not an activist. My only reason for surveying the park is to keep my children away from the areas I find with elevated contamination.

 

[zapperzero]

It is all a matter of resources and speed. Obviously the choice is between quick low resolution scan of large area, or slow high resolution scan. Quick scan doesn't block the high resolution scan, but - and that's an important thing IMHO - gives results for large area much faster. I would prefer a fast scan first.

I would prefer to see resources allocated for a fast, hi-res scan. But yea.

 

[NUCENG]

I checked the local park where my children play to ensure that the area was safe. Only 15 meters away from the swing-set and slide, there is a spot where my GM counter reads 0.70μSv/h to 1.0μSv/h. The 'hot' area is not a gutter, but rather above ground in a grassy area with shrubs nearby. The park I'm talking about (Soka Koen) is located 5.3km north of Tokyo, so I have no doubt that it is easy to find contamination in Tokyo too.

I'm not an activist. My only reason for surveying the park is to keep my children away from the areas I find with elevated contamination.

Your objective is to find the maximum contamination so you can keep your family safe. You can survey where your children actually go and play. That makes your survey efficient and effective.

The Japanese government and TEPCO do not have targets that are so clear so their surveys are trying to find out where the contamination went. When it comes to free release or cleanup their surveys should be more detailed.

What you found should be shouted from the rooftops as an example that every citizen in the exposed areas should understand. Large area surveys do not prove it is risk free for an individual.

That does not mean they are deliberately trying to miss the hotspots as zapperzero accuses, It is a valid criticism that they have not explained this to the public. And unfortunately that isn't the first time.

 

[zapperzero]

TEPCO says it was 571 billion yen in the red in Q2.
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/business/T110810005340.htm

 

[Caniche]

TEPCO says it was 571 billion yen in the red in Q2.
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/business/T110810005340.htm

So who is paying the bill? As if

 

[nikkkom]

The 'hot' area is not a gutter, but rather above ground in a grassy area with shrubs nearby.

Bioaccumulation perhaps. These plants concentrated Cs as plants would usually concentrate K.

 

[Dmytry]

Your objective is to find the maximum contamination so you can keep your family safe. You can survey where your children actually go and play. That makes your survey efficient and effective.

The Japanese government and TEPCO do not have targets that are so clear so their surveys are trying to find out where the contamination went. When it comes to free release or cleanup their surveys should be more detailed.

What you found should be shouted from the rooftops as an example that every citizen in the exposed areas should understand. Large area surveys do not prove it is risk free for an individual.

Hundred percent agreed.

That does not mean they are deliberately trying to miss the hotspots as zapperzero accuses, It is a valid criticism that they have not explained this to the public. And unfortunately that isn't the first time.

One thing that really irked me about this disaster, in the beginning when it was the most important, is the lack of good information on this aspect of the contamination - they would report the contamination figures for cities with two, three, even four figures of accuracy, creating entirely false sense of accuracy, and to some extent playing on people's misunderstanding of difference between radioactivity (as in radioactive dirt) and radiation (as in something that falls off smoothly with distance). They treated the radiation as if it was UV index.

This also goes for this fraud of radiation hormesis and the threshold model, which tries to set a safe threshold or claim a benefit from the low average dose. In principle there could be no safe threshold on the average dose, even if there was a threshold on the safe max dose rate for any tissue, because the doses are not uniform in space and time and may exceed the safe threshold even if the average is below threshold. Thus rendering the threshold model of little use when it comes to declaring contaminated areas safe. Japanese government seem to be rejecting LNT and declaring safe thresholds, while at same time using the averaged doses as if they were to use linear model. That is just bad math.

 

[tsutsuji]

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/national/news/20110907-OYT1T00524.htm & http://www.jiji.com/jc/c?g=soc_30&k=2011090700630 Pr Kunihiko Takeda of Chubu university was asked by the mayor of Ichinoseki, Iwate, to retract his comment aired on television on 4 September asking viewers to throw away Tohoku-grown food, and saying that agriculture should be suspended for one year.

 

[zapperzero]

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/national/news/20110907-OYT1T00524.htm & http://www.jiji.com/jc/c?g=soc_30&k=2011090700630 Pr Kunihiko Takeda of Chubu university was asked by the mayor of Ichinoseki, Iwate, to retract his comment aired on television on 4 September asking viewers to throw away Tohoku-grown food, and saying that agriculture should be suspended for one year.

Go Streisand effect go.

 

[tsutsuji]

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110908p2g00m0dm107000c.html "Above-the-limit cesium found in Iwate beef"

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110908p2g00m0dm109000c.html A 15,000 terabecquerel sea release estimate calculated by researchers doesn't match Tepco's estimate for the unit 2 inlet leak last April. "The big gap indicates radioactive substances could have leaked through other channels"

 

[zapperzero]

"The big gap indicates radioactive substances could have leaked through other channels"

Some of it is simply airborne contamination that fell to the water surface, no?

 

[tsutsuji]

Some of it is simply airborne contamination that fell to the water surface, no?

Yes, the NHK seems to view it that way too :

The researchers say the estimated amount of radioactivity includes a large amount that was first released into the air but entered the sea after coming down in the rain.
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/08_25.html

 

[clancy688]

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110908p2g00m0dm109000c.html A 15,000 terabecquerel sea release estimate calculated by researchers doesn't match Tepco's estimate for the unit 2 inlet leak last April. "The big gap indicates radioactive substances could have leaked through other channels"

It would be nice to know how much of that stuff was C137/134

 

[Caniche]

Some of it is simply airborne contamination that fell to the water surface, no?

True, but concrete is porous. Also what are the chances of a single leak occurring in a plant of this size after an earthquake of that magnitude with multiple aftershocks combined with the pressure of 100,000 tons of radioactive effluent that was never designed for?
Some relevant groundwater analysis might prove enlightening

 

[zapperzero]

True, but concrete is porous. Also what are the chances of a single leak occurring in a plant of this size after an earthquake of that magnitude with multiple aftershocks combined with the pressure of 100,000 tons of radioactive effluent that was never designed for?
Some relevant groundwater analysis might prove enlightening

There was a lot of talk re site geology in the main thread.

 

[tsutsuji]

It would be nice to know how much of that stuff was C137/134

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/science/news/20110908-OYT1T00890.htm "The [15000 TBq] estimate does not comprise Cs-134, so the total is even greater".

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/genpatsu-fukushima/20110909/index.html Internal contamination checks are not progressing fast enough. NHK interviewed local governments and found that 5400, mostly children and pregnant women, or 0.3% of Fukushima population have been tested so far (as of 1 September). The number of whole body counters is not sufficient. The cost of the transportation fees of each person from home to an hospital equipped with a whole body counter is also a problem.

http://mainichi.jp/select/jiken/news/20110909k0000m040089000c.html The number of refugees is 101,931 as of the end of August.

 

[Borek]

http://mainichi.jp/select/jiken/news/20110909k0000m040089000c.html The number of refugees is 101,931 as of the end of August.

Can you clarify - are these just NPP disaster victims, or all earthquake victims?

 

[tsutsuji]

Can you clarify - are these just NPP disaster victims, or all earthquake victims?

The article title is "Fukushima Daiichi NPP: 100,000 refugees outside local government bodies - no prospect of return", so the intention of journalists is to talk about nuclear refugees. Apparently they asked each local government body (city, town or village) in the restricted zone, planned evacuation zone, and evacuation-prepared zone, for the number of inhabitants from their territory who are living outside that territory, and they calculated the total. See the figures for each local government body in the map attached to the article. The name between brackets is the name of the place where each town hall was relocated. Futaba town hall is relocated in Kazo, Saitama prefecture. The question is whether earthquake or tsunami refugees who decided not to come back home although their house is not in a restricted area (like the northern part of Miniamisoma) are included or not. If the map horizontal caption "原発事故で避難している住民の数/number of inhabitants refuging from the nuclear accident" is correct, they should not be included. If the vertical caption "人数は自治体外で生活している住民数/number of inhabitants living outside local government body" means strictly that, then they are. On the other hand, inhabitants of Minamisoma's restricted southern part who took refuge in Minamisoma's northern part are probably not included.

 

[clancy688]

So all in all 0.5 - 1 % of the whole japanese population has been displaced?

What's the meaning of the "25184"-number in the upper corner of the picture, at the location of Minamisoma?

 

[tsutsuji]

What's the meaning of the "25184"-number in the upper corner of the picture, at the location of Minamisoma?

My understanding is that 25,184 Miniamisoma citizens have left the Minamisoma territory and are currently living elsewhere in Japan.

Blog page http://hiroko-abe.at.webry.info/201107/article_8.html provides the following data for Minamisoma

11 March population: 71,635
25 June population: 34,503
Killed: 580
Missing: 109
households whose homes were damaged by tsunami: 1509

 

[clancy688]

Thanks for your answer.

So those citizens are probably from the voluntary evacuation zone or even from locations outside the voluntary evacuation zone.
Do you know how or if they're getting compensated for moving away? Because the government could always argue that they're outside all of the declared zones...

 

[tsutsuji]

So all in all 0.5 - 1 % of the whole japanese population has been displaced?

According to http://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/jinsui/tsuki/index.htm , Japan's population estimate for August 2011 is 127,920,000.

101,931 / 127,920,000 = 0.0007968 (0.08 %)

So those citizens are probably from the voluntary evacuation zone or even from locations outside the voluntary evacuation zone.

As is shown with the colors on the map, the Minamisoma territory is divided into 4 parts. The Southern part is in the restricted (forbidden) red zone. The Northern part is in the normal, unrestricted, white zone. The Middle part is in the evacuation-prepared blue zone. The Western part is in the planned-evacuation yellow zone.

Do you know how or if they're getting compensated for moving away? Because the government could always argue that they're outside all of the declared zones...

According to Tepco's website:

What is temporary compensation (with regard to the evacuation)?

It is payment of temporary compensation, that is, for those who live in the areas, due to the accident of out nuclear power station, of "Evacuation" or "Shelter in Place", or "Planned Evacuation" or "Emergency Evacuation Preparation" , designated by the Prime Minister pursuant to Act on Special Measures Concerning Nuclear Emergency Preparedness, we pay 1,000,000 yen per multi-person household (750,000 yen per single-person household) that will be appropriated to the damages that result from the evacuation, as a part of compensation money.
(...)
With regard to the final compensation, we will announce officially after the accident caused by the nuclear power station is settled and the final version of the above-mentioned policy is established.
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/karibaraihosyou/faq-e.html

The Article's text is fully translated into English at http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110909p2a00m0na014000c.html (but the map is not available in the English version)

 

[clancy688]

According to http://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/jinsui/tsuki/index.htm , Japan's population estimate for August 2011 is 127,920,000.

101,931 / 127,920,000 = 0.0007968 (0.08 %)

Ouch... my mistake, thanks for correction. Mental math isn't my strong suit.

 

[zapperzero]

I'll just leave this here. Citizens decon a school yard, with small child(ren?) in tow.
http://ow.ly/i/hkag
via ex-skf.