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."

15 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. 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
  4. 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"
  5. 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.

  6. 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.
  7. 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.

  8. 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.
  9. 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.

  10. 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
  11. 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?

  12. 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