Is it safe to live 100 km from Fukushima for short time?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the safety of living in Sendai, Japan, which is less than 100 km from the Fukushima nuclear disaster site. Participants explore concerns regarding radiation levels, health risks, and the safety of local food and water sources, particularly in the context of a short-term stay of two months.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses uncertainty about the safety of staying in Sendai due to varying radiation levels, suggesting a range of 0.4-0.6 mSv and questioning its implications for health over two months.
  • Another participant suggests that the radiation dose of 0.4 to 0.6 mSv is significantly lower than natural background radiation levels, implying that it is generally safe.
  • There is a calculation presented by a participant who misunderstands the mSv measurement, leading to an exaggerated estimate of total exposure over two months, which is corrected by others.
  • Some participants assert that living in Sendai would not result in high radiation exposure, stating that significant levels would only be encountered near the reactor site.
  • Concerns are raised about the quality of tap water in Japan, although one participant states that radiation in air and water is no longer a concern, attributing risks primarily to contaminated ground.
  • Participants reference maps showing radiation levels, with one asserting that Sendai is safe and only slightly above natural background levels.
  • There is a correction regarding the reliability of an interactive map, with some participants indicating that it is outdated but still useful for understanding contamination levels.
  • Another participant shares a recent map resource, suggesting that Sendai is far from areas with elevated radiation levels.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the safety of living in Sendai, with some asserting it is safe based on radiation levels, while others remain cautious about potential health risks, particularly regarding water quality. The discussion does not reach a consensus on the overall safety of the area.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight various assumptions regarding radiation exposure, the reliability of sources, and the interpretation of mSv measurements. There is also uncertainty about the current state of contamination and the implications for health.

sarabiobio
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
I would like to know if is safe to stay in Sendai (less than 100 km from Fukushima). I have read different information in internet but I think is better to ask a expert, I am not sure about the radiation since it seems is not stable, it could be between 0.4-0.6 msv if I understood, is that ok to live there for 2 months? what about the food, swim in the sea and drink water? what are the health risk nowadays?
Thanks in advance
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
0.4 to 0.6 mSv is way below the dose you naturally get per year no matter where you live, and many places have more natural radiation than that within 2 months.

If you go there via an intercontinental flight, that alone can give you something like 0.1 to 0.2 mSv as radiation dose.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: sarabiobio and jedishrfu
mfb said:
0.4 to 0.6 mSv is way below the dose you naturally get per year no matter where you live, and many places have more natural radiation than that within 2 months.

If you go there via an intercontinental flight, that alone can give you something like 0.1 to 0.2 mSv as radiation dose.

Thanks for your answer, I don't know too much about what mSv means but according to what I search in internet that's per hour, so I thought 0.06 per hour means 0.06x24x 60days = 86.4 mSv in total one would get there during 2 months (I read the dose is accumulative that is why I did that, and then I read clsoe to 100mSv start to have some effects in the body that is why I was worried. Please correct me if I am wrong.
 
You certainly won't live in a place where you get 86 mSv in two months. You would probably have to live on the reactor site for that.
 
mfb said:
You certainly won't live in a place where you get 86 mSv in two months. You would probably have to live on the reactor site for that.

so you mean is nothing to worry about? even drinking the water from the tap water and so?
 
There is nothing to worry about.

I don't know the quality of Japanese tap water, it could be problematic for chemical or biological reasons.
 
6 years after the event, the radiation which can affect you comes entirely from the contaminated ground (and trees which pull salts from it) - air and water do not contain any radioactive particles by now, it is all washed off. (Well, unless there would be a large forest fire in the contaminated zone, which is not usual).

Looking at the contamination map, you only need to avoid some rather small territories. I bet you can't easily get there anyway, since they are evacuated or restricted, but anyway, here's the map.

Sendai is located on the shore, at the very top of this map.

fuku_evac_zone_2011_2014.jpg
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: mfb
I found this interactive map

http://www.nnistar.com/gmap/fukushima.html

Interactive means it's new and kept updated, but in this case this is not important, since contamination is in the ground and therefore is not moving.

It is mainly useful because it shows a larger area, and this allows to easily see what is the "natural" level (rad levels farthest from the Fukushima) and how much Sendai is different from it. The answer is: Sendai is ok. At most, twice as much as background, which is less than worldwide natural variability.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: mfb
  • #10
Correction. Looks like the "interactive" map is actually old, not updated for years. Still useful, though.
 
  • #12
nikkkom said:
This one is recent

http://safecast.org/tilemap
Sendai is far away from any regions with even slightly elevated radiation levels.

There are various inhabited places with natural radiation levels of more than 1 µSv/h, that is the orange color surrounding the yellow areas.
 

Similar threads

Why can’t decay heat be harnessed to safely shutdown a nuclear reactor?
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
11K
Graduate What is the Difference Between Becquerel and Sievert in Measuring Radioactivity?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K