Slashdot Mirror


Fukushima Soil Contamination Probed

AmiMoJo writes "New research has found that radioactive material in parts of north-eastern Japan exceeds levels considered safe for farming. The findings provide the first comprehensive estimates of contamination across Japan following the nuclear accident in 2011. An international team of researchers took measurements of the radioactive element caesium-137 in soil and grass from all but one of Japan's 47 regions. The researchers estimate that caesium-137 levels close to the nuclear plant were eight times the safety limit, while neighbouring regions were just under this limit."

27 of 95 comments (clear)

  1. Re:See, this just shows how safe nuke is ... by Moheeheeko · · Score: 4, Informative

    A huge earthquake and a tsunami both well above the level the plant was designed to withstand and it took it, with just some slight explosions and making great swathes of land uninhabitable for generations.

    Nuclear power ftw!

    Lets not forget the reactor up the coastline that took just as big of a hit..and came out relatively unscathed because someone took the time and knowledge to build it higher than sea level in a country prone to Tsunami.

    Poor Engineering FTW!

  2. Re:Worse than Chernobyl by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 4, Funny

    It will be fine. The next generation of henti will just include the tentacles on the girls to begin with

  3. Re:See, this just shows how safe nuke is ... by ClioCJS · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They built a plant that was supposed to last 100 years, and only set it up to survive smaller earthquakes. At the time of build, there had been 10 earthquakes in the last 1000 years big enough to f Fukushima up. Divide 1000 years by 10 earthquakes that bad = 1 per 100 years. And it was supposed to operate for 100 years. The arrogance of "maybe we'll get lucky this 100 yrs" vs. "let's make it work for 0.2 higher on the richter scale" is what is at fault here.

    --
    -Clio
    Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
    Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
  4. Mostly estimates by Hentes · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The study seems to be based on few actual measurements, it is mostly a modeling of how the material spread. Additional measurements are needed in the areas where the model predicted high dosage.

    1. Re:Mostly estimates by mcguiver · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The exciting(?) thing about this study though is how small of an area is contaminated beyond the legal limit. Since Cs is the major radionuclide that was released then these mappings should also be closely correlated to background doses. Given the conservative estimates that are used for setting regulations I am even more convinced that the general Japanese public is in essentially no danger from the radiation. I would like to see a more detailed analysis of the area right around the plant but given the picture in the article it gives me hope.

      Many in the anti-nuclear crowd like to spout off and say that Fukushima has rendered vast amounts of land unusable for generations. This news actually bodes well for the Japanese people that in a couple of years all the land that was previously not part of the power generating stations might be returned to original state.

    2. Re:Mostly estimates by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I am even more convinced that the general Japanese public is in essentially no danger from the radiation.

      I agree, and to put my money where my mouth is I will be back in Tokyo and Chiba next month. I was there when the accident happened too and at the time I calculated that I probably received more radiation from a few years of flights than I did on the ground.

      Still, the scale of the economic problems this is causing cannot be ignored. I'm not just talking about the contamination, the delay in getting other nuclear power plants back on line has to be considered too. Unfortunately due to the nature of nuclear power it does take longer to check, repair and re-start reactors compared to other forms of energy. Japan has few natural resources in terms of oil, gas or coal so the government put a lot of money into nuclear. Over-reliance on a single source is generally a bad idea, but at least now there are viable alternatives that didn't exist 10 years ago like solar thermal and wind.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  5. Re:...is this supposed to be some big suprise? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 5, Informative

    The only thing that surprises me is that someone seriously came out with a study prior to this one saying the soil was A-OK after what happened.

    Of course, if you read TFA, you find that the legal limits are only exceeded in the area immediately around the plant, and that everywhere else it's fine.

    In other words, we have this exclusion zone. And we shouldn't be farming there....

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  6. If I remember my Cold War optimism correctly... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If memory serves, protocol for maximizing survival after a nuclear 'event' requires feeding the most contaminated food materials to elderly people, or people without useful skills, as the former are likely to die of natural causes before radiation-induced cancers get them and the latter do not enhance group survival chances.

    1. Re:If I remember my Cold War optimism correctly... by edxwelch · · Score: 2

      > feeding the most contaminated food materials to people without useful skills
      You mean give to the marketing and advertising people? Good idea

  7. Re:Worse than Chernobyl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Already been done. You're not into monster girls I take it?

  8. Re:See, this just shows how safe nuke is ... by MightyYar · · Score: 3, Informative

    Ploughing, and some fertilisers can help farmers reduce plants' uptake of the dangerous elements, and binding agents can be added to animal feed to reduce their uptake from the gut, he added.

    Oh, no! How will humanity survive???

    BTW Cesium-137 half life is about 30 years, so "uninhabitable for generations" is a bit of a stretch. The only way that statement could be true is in the area immediately surrounding the plant, and only If they do absolutely nothing at all - no treatment, no cleanup, nothing. Then, yeah, it would take 90 years to get down to the limit.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  9. Re:See, this just shows how safe nuke is ... by russotto · · Score: 3, Informative

    A huge earthquake and a tsunami both well above the level the plant was designed to withstand and it took it, with just some slight explosions and making great swathes of land uninhabitable for generations.

    With radiation levels of 8 times the safe level for farming, it'll take 3 half-lives for them to decline to the safe level. Or, about 90 years, as Cs-137 has a half-life of about 30 years and it decays to the stable barium-137.

  10. Not good for farming, but perfect for gardening by sandytaru · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Although the land won't be suitable for farming for many years, botanists already know how to accelerate the cleanup by using plants that soak up radiation and contamination like sponges (phytoremediation.) Such contamination studies have been done at several major universities (including my own local one, which cleaned up an area that had been contaminated with non radioactive mercury within one year.) The question is whether Japan will swallow its pride and have its farmland turned into short term radioactive gardens.

    --
    Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    1. Re:Not good for farming, but perfect for gardening by sandytaru · · Score: 3, Informative

      There are two options: For the long term contamination that will be around for decades, the best thing to do is plant trees (sourgum trees have been proven to work.) The trees will pull the radioactive matter into their tissue, and keep it locked away safely for the remainder of the tree's life For the shorter term contaminants with brief half-lives, mustard plants (annuals) are preferred. If necessary, they can be "harvested" and stored in nuclear waste facilities until they're clean. The most important thing, however, is to get the radioactivity out of the soil and thus out of the groundwater supply. When the material is in a perennial plant, it's bound and the rate of release into the air and soil is dramatically reduced. In the case of non-radioactive materials, many of the soaked up materials are chemically altered by the plant into a much less harmful form, so that even if it is an annual that biodegrades, the material returned to the soil is in a less dangerous form.

      --
      Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    2. Re:Not good for farming, but perfect for gardening by aliquis · · Score: 2

      By my estimations they will look something like this:
      http://www.flickr.com/photos/alttext/247484506/

  11. Re:See, this just shows how safe nuke is ... by Moheeheeko · · Score: 4, Informative

    Except the earthquake is not what caused the problems. The generators that were shut down by flood waters, effectively killing the cooling system, causing overheating and eventually meltdown, Did.

  12. Re:See, this just shows how safe nuke is ... by MightyYar · · Score: 2

    And of course you can just skim the soil off of the worst areas and put it in a big pile with a "do not touch until 2100" sign. Expensive for farmland, but definitely within the scope of human endeavor. Hell, Cesium-137 even has industrial uses - maybe there is a way to extract it.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  13. alternate response by ClioCJS · · Score: 2

    ...And what created the biggest flood waters to hit the plant ever? An earthquake. Tsunamis aren't an unknown phenomenon that they didn't know about when the plant was built.

    --
    -Clio
    Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
    Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
  14. Re:See, this just shows how safe nuke is ... by symbolset · · Score: 2

    Except that it is farmland. So they'll just plow it in, diluting the concentration.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  15. Journalism at its best as usual ... by slb · · Score: 3, Informative

    So this is a computation using a statistical model to give estimates of the soil contamination, and it becomes facts and measured quantities in the ground. But worse, look at the original scale provided by the authors of the paper: it clearly shows the areas under 2500Bq/kg, but the journalist conveniently merged it with the upper-bound area and also avoided the use of the green/blue colors usually associated with safe values in any mapping. Maybe the original map had not enough red and orange area for effective scare-mongering ? BBC I am disappointed...

    --
    http://www.transparency.org
  16. Re:See, this just shows how safe nuke is ... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

    AND except for the Japanese government still hasn't come clean about the extent of contamination. And seemingly has no plans to do so.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  17. Re:...is this supposed to be some big suprise? by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 2

    I have to quote each time this topic pops up those two idiots on slashdot on March 16. 2011:

    AnonGCB (1398517) says:

    It's funny because what is happening in Japan is exactly why Nuclear Power is SAFE!

    An earthquake 7 times more powerful than the biggest it was built for hit, and all that happened to the reactors that didn't shut down cleanly was a small amount of radioactive noble gases, which decay within minutes. Even if the cores DO melt, they're safely contained in ... wait for it... containment chambers!

    Containment chambers indeed!

    On which kannibal_klown (531544) answers:

    Hey, I know it. But Joe Sixpack is gonna say "But look at their problems now, I don't want that here." Bla bla bla

    Beavis and Butthead anyone?

    I just read through a lot of that thread. It's really telling how many well-educated, smart people here on Slashdot, who really SHOULD know better, always run and start parroting whatever the media the tells them and sticking their heads in the sand when the shit REALLY hits the fan.

    Fukushima is STILL emitting dangerous radiation, and the crisis is STILL far from over, while it may not be over for at least a decade. That's the reality, and that so many people who claim to be in the upper echelons of intelligence choose to ignore it, frankly scares the shit out of me.

    The coal crisis begins the moment a plant goes into operation. A coal plant operating normally spreads deadly (carcinogenic and even radioactive) pollution over a huge area. Coal proponents such as yourself accept the damage, even though it's greater than the damage of a nuclear plant by a large margin, because it's spread over a greater area. Whether or not you realize it, you're advocating for the entire world to become an exclusion zone.

    --
    "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
  18. What is a safe level of K-40 by tp1024 · · Score: 2

    We do have numbers regarding natural radioactive substances in the environment and human bodies. Among them potassium-40 which decays into Argon-40, the third most common gas in our atmosphere - about 250 times more common than CO2. We also have numbers regarding decay products of uranium in areas where there are above-average levels of those in the soil. The results show that there is no difference in health even in areas contaminated more heavily than this.

    Note that it takes about 60-120Bq of Cs-137 to equal 1Bq of Alpha radiation - because there is a quality factor ("damage multiplier") of 20 involved and Alpha decay has energies between about 3 and 8 MeV, whereas Cs-137 only has a quality factor of 1 and about 1MeV. All those are measured in Bq/kg, because it is a pervasive property of the soil that won't go away.

    1. Re:What is a safe level of K-40 by tp1024 · · Score: 2

      In general, if you want to know specific data, it's best to look for it yourself. Most people feel disinclined to do this for other people most of the time. However, you may try:
      Radioactivity and health: A history (1988)
      http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/servlets/purl/6608787-H6blQd/6608787.pdf

      Warning, almost 2000 pages and 115MB worth of data to download. No, I didn't read it yet, I was merely trying to find a comprehensive source on the topic. Yes, it is not up to date, but it shows the historic development of the field until two years after Chernobyl.

      I could have pointed to you to any number of studies of the soil contents of radionuclides, but most of those were pay-walled (a common problem not just in this area) and I hate referring to summaries and abstracts. Search google scholar if you want to see them. But there were several that had an excess which was equivalent to more than 2500Bq of Cs-137 compared to average concentrations when you add up Thorium, Uranium and their decay chain products.

  19. Re:...is this supposed to be some big suprise? by tp1024 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Show me one anti-nuclear protagonist mentioning risk assessments and mitigation procedures. If they would, they would have to admit that effective procedures are in place wherever people cared about the placement and number of emergency generators (2 per reactor is not enough, 4 per reactor is standard. The shutdown German reactor at Isar-1, for example, had 8 emergency generators.), wherever they installed filtered containment vents and catalytic converters to prevent hydrogen explosions. All that is standard at least is France, Germany and Sweden. (I don't mention other countries, because I don't know anything about them and I stopped making assumption about such things on March 12th or so.) They would also have to admit that Fukushima Daiichi was one of the worst governed nuclear power plants in the world.

    Hence, they don't. It is the pro-nuclear side that must make those points. All argumentation about lack in safety standards undermines the position of the anti-nuclear side, because of the anti-nuke dogma that nuclear power can't be safe, safety standards must not be talked about unless it is to dismiss the present state of safety of some plant. Talking about a lack of safety standards of a plant after an accident reinforces the revolutionary notion that safety standards can actually improve safety (as you could see in the accident-free shutdown in all other tsunami-hit powerplants) - which is not in the interest of the anti-nuclear crowd.

    So what does it say about the situation, when the pro-side has to argue with arguments that the anti-side should have brought forth, while the anti-side has basically decided not to argue and resorts of FUD and dogmatism instead?

  20. Re:See, this just shows how safe nuke is ... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    To be fair there were a lot of towns build in areas that no-one expected to flood. The Japanese spend a huge amount of time and money preparing for natural disasters, after all they do have very regular earthquakes and tsunami. Fukushima Daiichi survived the tsunami fairly well except for the backup generators which were its Achilles heal, and which at Fukishima Daini up the cost were made flood-proof.

    So rather than is being a problem of where the plant was built it was the failure of TEPCO to fix the backup system's vulnerability to flooding which they were warned about.

    Most Japanese people do not blame anyone for failing to predict the scale of the tsunami. Everyone did their best and it was simply an event beyond what anyone thought was possible.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  21. Re:See, this just shows how safe nuke is ... by tp1024 · · Score: 2

    But half the current radioactivity of Cesium is Cs-134 with a half-life of 2 years (thus being 15 times as radioactive for equivalent amounts). Which basically reduces the time by 30 years outright. It is known from other sites (Sellafield, Chernobyl) that a lot of the Cs will inevitably be removed by erosion, migrating deeper into the soil and being absorbed by clay minerals - thus not being bio-available (that is, staying in the soil and not being taken up by plants growing in the soil).

    Without decontamination we're still talking about decades.

    But it's not like Sellafield or Chernobyl, because the problem is limited to Cs. There is no Sr-90, no activation products or Plutonium to speak of (some 0.6Bq/kg were found right next to the power plant - it is not clear whether this is from the powerplant or Cold War residue which has similar concentrations in Japan.)