Radioactive Concrete From Fukushima Found In New Construction

mdsolar writes "The Japanese government is investigating how radioactive concrete ended up in a new apartment complex in the Fukushima Prefecture, housing evacuees from a town near the crippled nuclear plant. The contamination was first discovered when dosimeter readings of children in the city of Nihonmatsu, roughly 40 miles from the reactors at Fuksuhima Dai-ichi, revealed a high school student had been exposed to 1.62 millisieverts in a span of three months, well above the annual 1 millisievert limit the government has established for safety reasons."

Comments

More importantly,

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are the building new housing complexes in the Fukishima Death Zone? Build prisons instead.

Re:More importantly,

[ae1294]

Why are the building new housing complexes in the Fukishima Death Zone? Build prisons instead.

to spawn tentacle rape demons, have you never watched anime?

Re:More importantly,

[Anonymous Coward]

Thankfully the Japanese have much more common sense than the person and people like him spouting this prison crap.

Prisons are built to take away freedoms, not cause lifelong implicit bodily harm from radiation exposure. I cake a couple of guesses where you're from, that being some first world country who treats their citizens like third world crap and their prisoners like dogs and feel justified in doing so. You are the problem with humanity.

Re:More importantly,

[vlm]

Why are the building new housing complexes in the Fukishima Death Zone? Build prisons instead.

They haven't developed the prison-industrial growth complex like the Americans have. Japan is a civilized society and does not have enough prisoners.

Before someone heartlessly suggests imprisoning the Fukishima workers, the guys who designed it / built it are retired / dead of old age, and a heck of a lot of the operators downed when they were sent home after the earthquake before the tsunami, and you don't need to build an entire prison to house the small number of fall guys left, and there seems little reason to punish the temps sent in after the disaster.

Re:More importantly,

[MightyYar]

Take a look at their drug laws, and how they sentence about a third of non-violent drug offenders to hard labor. I don't think you picked the right country to make a statement about enlightened treatment of prisoners. They may not have the sheer volume that the US does, but then again, who does?

Re:More importantly,

[WrongSizeGlass]

Why are the building new housing complexes in the Fukishima Death Zone? Build prisons instead.

All they need is one kid with a homemade lab growing guppies in that apartment complex to brew up the first in Godzilla's family tree. Hollywood is that desperate for a blockbuster sequel.

Re:More importantly,

[JSBiff]

Wait, why is it the Fukushima Death Zone? Because of the people that died there when they drowned or were crushed by the tsunami?

Nobody has died from the radiation released by Fukushima, and likely no one will.

Re:More importantly,

[Beelzebud]

Yeah because they evacuated the area. You forgot that little fun-fact.

Re:More importantly,

[Anonymous Coward]

Trolling? the DOJ would disagree with the modder. http://www.project.org/info.php?recordID=115

Re:More importantly,

[Microlith]

I expect that even if they had not, still no one would have died.

Since you so sincerely believe that not to be true, would you mind working up the cumulative dose of radiation over the past year for someone inside the evacuated region near the plant?

Re:More importantly,

[wisnoskij]

There is nothing wrong with a little work, it is better then forcing all the prisoners to do nothing.
The absolutely least likely thing to stop someone from continuing to do drugs is putting them in prison.

Re:More importantly,

[Anonymous Coward]

since that movie Back to the Future, I've seen this pattern. Is everyone named Biff an idiot?

I mean, how many people don't understand the simple thing that just because a disaster didn't happen due to taking precautions, the precautions were not unnecessary. You are kind of idiot who would complain about wasted tax dollars if massive efforts were made people were actually relocated during Katrina and not a single person died. Pathetic.

Re:More importantly,

[vlm]

I don't think you picked the right country to make a statement about enlightened treatment of prisoners.

I was commenting on their quantity, both numerically and as a population rate, not their quality. Kind of like saying a heck of a lot more Japanese rent than Americans rent is talking about percentages, going on about how much our apartment buildings suck compared to theirs has nothing to do with the numbers.

Honestly, if they only have 1/10th the percentage of prisoners per population that we have, and we optimistically assume they only incarcerate what would be our worst 10% of inmates, they probably deserve whatever they're getting...

I don't think the Japanese have done the concentration camp / death camp thing since the 1940s, but we're proud patriots because we have Guantanamo Bay, so again I'm unimpressed.

Re:More importantly,

[Anonymous Coward]

Since you so sincerely believe there is no danger in that zone, why don't you go live there?

Re:More importantly,

[Kagetsuki]

I'm Japanese and I actually live about 20 minutes from one of the largest prison complexes in the country. The "hard labour" thing is true but it's not like they're smashing rocks in chain gangs - the prison I'm near they build and repair boats. Other prisons apparently make them do construction or factory style work. Most female prisons they apparently have them do things like cook and clean instead of harder labor. They are awarded the ammount of money for the work they've done at a set rate at the end of their sentence and in many cases they end up with skills (and a work ethic) they can use to make a living.

For juvenile offenders there is some physical labor (cleaning of their living quarters, etc.) but mainly they force them to study.

So the Japanese prison system just tries to make use of those imprisioned to reduce their societal debt, and in the process hopefully make them into valuable members of society by release. Of course if you are making the argument that they shouldn't imprison non-violent drug offenders to begin with it's not like other countries don't do the same. Prisons are societally treated like generic rehabilitation facilities anywhere you go in the world.

Re:More importantly,

[JSBiff]

Nice troll. Attack a meaningless aesthetic issue (someone's knickname on /. - btw, my name isn't Biff, that's just part of a knickname) instead of something meaningful, then put words in someone's mouth that have nothing to do with what they said.

There are some "hotspots" where people should definitely not live till it's cleaned up. The immediate evacuation of the zone was certainly the right thing to do, until the fallout had fallen out, and measurements could be made of actual contamination. At this point, there are many parts of the zone where people can return and live safely, because the increase in radiation in those areas is just too low to be a hazard.

The more contaminated parts of the zone could be cleaned up; that might be happening, I'm not sure, but when you have a few small hotspots, you can clean those up, and leave the areas with very low contamination alone.

Outside of nuclear power, there's very few industries where you can pretty easily save pretty much everyone's life by doing a simple, orderly evacuation for a few weeks, then let people return to their homes. People somehow view nuclear accidents as worse than other Industrial Accidents, but I don't. Industrial Accidents are part of life (a part we try to take as much precaution as possible to avoid, but they will happen from time to time).

It's just that Nuclear Accidents, if you look at it rationally, are mostly much more benign than any other type of industrial accident.

I'd happily go live in the evacuation zone, except, I have no interest in living in Japan. My job, family, and life are here in the US.

Re:More importantly,

[Anonymous Coward]

Prisons are built to take away freedoms.

Clearly you've never been to an American prison.

Re:More importantly,

[ColdWetDog]

You forget that cleaning one's room counts for 'hard labor' in the US.

Re:More importantly,

[MightyYar]

Happy MLK to you, too.

Yes, a disproportionate number of inmates in the US are black.

Look at the punishment meted out for possession of crack cocaine vs. powder cocaine. Answering the question of "why" will probably explain a lot. Racism isn't dead yet. Better, but not dead.

Re:More importantly,

[Krojack]

Truth hurts and some people just can't accept it. I'm sure someone will say those numbers are made-up.

Re:More importantly,

[Microlith]

Immigration difficulties. That and there's no real tech industry out that way. I'd gladly live in Ibaraki or Chiba though (both of which are much closer to Tokyo.)

Re:More importantly,

[MightyYar]

I was commenting on their quantity, both numerically and as a population rate, not their quality.

Yeah, it is quite low. The US is ridiculously high. Good point. I'm just saying that drug penalties are ridiculous in Asia in general. The low incarceration rate may be as much culture as "system"... of course the two are intertwined, but that makes it even harder to look to another culture's system as a model.

Re:More importantly,

[TheRaven64]

I'm pretty sure it does for teenagers in most of the world...

Re:More importantly,

[MightyYar]

We have "hard labor" in the US as well, but I wouldn't hold the US up as a shining star of a justice system. Hard labor has an uncomfortable resemblance to slavery - especially if the "criminal" didn't actually hurt anyone. In the US after the Civil War, blacks were often arrested on bogus or inflated charges just so that they could be used for cheap labor.

Re:More importantly,

[ColdWetDog]

Actually, for most teenagers that I know (I'm looking specifically at my niece), cleaning up their room would be hard labor. Probably on the order of a Superfund site.

Re:More importantly,

[vuke69]

Your personal experience is but a single data point...

Re:More importantly,

[Anonymous Coward]

I can think of several places that fits that description. North Korea, the U.S. and China comes to mind.

Re:More importantly,

[Grishnakh]

I don't know about that. I haven't heard many bad things about Chinese prisons; I think it's because, for any kind of serious crime, they simply execute them. It's the US where we keep people in concrete cells for decades at a time, subjecting them to daily anal rapes so that we can drive them insane.

Re:More importantly,

[blair1q]

>some first world country who treats their citizens like third world crap and their prisoners like dogs and feel justified in doing so

Arizona. Or Texas.

Re:More importantly,

[calzakk]

You are the problem with humanity.

Er, aren't criminals and crime one of humanity's biggest problems?

Re:More importantly,

[blair1q]

So the Japanese prison system is like the American economic system.

Re:More importantly,

[blair1q]

Geckos, not guppies.

Godzilla is a lizard, not a fish.

At least you picked a vertebrate.

Re:More importantly,

[Grishnakh]

The important statistics are the per-capita ones. Obviously, Japan doesn't have the population of the US, while China has far more, so you have to compare using per-capita statistics. According to those, the USA leads the world easily in incarceration, not Japan.

Japan might not treat some of their prisoners well, but obviously they have less crime and many fewer people (per capita) in prison. Why this is, is up for debate; I imagine it has a lot to do with their society, rather than their treatment of prisoners or drug laws. They have an extremely homogeneous society where honor is considered very important, and people commit suicide when they don't do well in school or whatever. That's totally different from here (USA), which is basically the complete opposite: people are completely different (though they largely speak the same basic language), with completely different values and beliefs, and doing well in school is seen as bad.

Re:More importantly,

[vlm]

I'm just saying that drug penalties are ridiculous in Asia in general. The low incarceration rate may be as much culture as "system"... of course the two are intertwined, but that makes it even harder to look to another culture's system as a model.

Oh I donno, here's a statistical model. Assume They lock up only 1% the drug offenders We lock up. Assume people are the same here and there, and 99% of drug offenders follow Cheech and Chong as their role models, and 1% of drug offenders follow the bad guy in the movie "Scarface" as their role model. Here we lock up 100 people and say our lax laws are still too harsh, because Cheech and Chong are funny and cool. They lock up one dude and leave Cheech and Chong wannabes alone, hopefully they just lock up the bad guy from the movie "Scarface" and they give him a really hard time, well, heck, he deserves it, so of course his penalty will be ridiculous.

I think most of the flack the "asian drug laws" like death to dealers get is not bad legislation, but bad judiciary. The bad guy from Scarface, yeah, he would have earned the death penalty, nothing wrong with that legislation. The problem is when their judges completely F-up and they wanna give Cheech and Chong the death penalty, especially if its just killing them to make a political point. Bad judges are not the fault of bad drug legislation, they're the fault of bad judge appointment legislation, bad laws about judicial corruption, etc.

Or in summary, if you're only gonna punish the worst 1%, well, to a westerner used to giving everyone a slap on the wrist, those 1% are getting an overly harsh sentence, but if their judges are competent (if only...), its weirdly enough not a bad idea.

Re:More importantly,

[Grishnakh]

Prisons are societally treated like generic rehabilitation facilities anywhere you go in the world.

It might be that way in other countries, but here in the USA it's just a place for people to be tortured by anal rape, and for prison corporations to make a lot of money. There's no serious effort at rehabilitation there, though they might make than claim.

Re:More importantly,

[blair1q]

A couple of the Fukushima workers were exposed to some pretty heavy dosages. Only a matter of time for them.

And the statistical nature of exposure and the way radiation does its thing means that it's unlikely but possible for anyone exposed to the initial releases of material, or to material that travelled long distances, can ultimately die from it. Japan's population density is much thicker than almost any other place, so this tiny likelihood becomes a statistically significant likelihood across the larger number.

So it's very likely someone will die from the radiation released by Fukushima, but unlikely anyone will ever be able to connect it conclusively.

Re:More importantly,

[Ragzouken]

Shall we compromise and call it the Fukushima Danger Zone?

Re:More importantly,

[MightyYar]

But you don't arrest people because they are statistically likely to be criminals, you arrest people for crimes they actually commit. The crimes for simple possession in Japan are far higher than they are even in the US. Hell, marijuana possession in the US is a misdemeanor in many places under a certain amount. In Japan you can't possess even a tenth of a gram.

Re:More importantly,

[Anonymous Coward]

> Wait, why is it the Fukushima Death Zone? Because of the people that died there when they drowned or were crushed by the tsunami?

Are you sure?
http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/study-fukushima-radiation-has-already-killed-14000-americans

> Nobody has died from the radiation released by Fukushima, and likely no one will.

http://fukushima-diary.com/2012/01/vegetables-deformed-stress/

Seems that if vegetables look like that, people will to.

Re:More importantly,

[an unsound mind]

Let's see... various things that have been and still are criminal: Having sex in an unsanctioned way between two consenting adults. Speaking against the elite of the region you're in. Drinking alcohol.

I'd say "no". I'd say that crime in itself isn't a problem at all - various things that are crimes are, but the fact that something is a crime doesn't make it wrong.

Re:More importantly,

[Bucky24]

Explain? I've never been to an American prison either, but from what I understand they're meant to lock people up and stealing their labor for whoever owns the prison. Sounds like taking away freedoms to me.

Re:More importantly,

[JSBiff]

Yes, I'm sure. That Mangano-Sherman "Study" has been roundly criticized as using extremely flawed methods and cherry picking data to come to a pre-determined conclusion.

Don't believe me? Try Scientific American.

Mutated vegetables? Please, that kind of thing has been going on forever. You'll find wierd looking produce in any garden or field of appreciable size. If you can show that the rates of mutation are much higher, statistically, than *normal*, that's one thing, but having a smart-ass blog with a few mutated fruits and veggies doesn't prove anything.

You could almost certainly even find babies from Japan with Birth Defects that have been born since Fukushima, but again, humans have been being born with Birth Defects for as long as their have been humans. That doesn't mean Fukushima caused those defects.

Re:More importantly,

[JSBiff]

This might sound crass. . . while I do feel bad for those workers, and their friends and family, a couple of deaths in a large industrial accident would be no worse than almost any other heavy industry. Does that mean we should shut down all industry?

My OP was a reply to the claim that there is a "Fukushima Death Zone", and is really more focused on the perceived threat to public health, not a couple workers at the plant.

As for those workers, however, there is a good possibility that they will be fine. Radiation exposure at those levels can increase the risk of cancer, but is by no means a guarantee they will get cancer. Jimmy Carter got a large exposure to radiation as a young naval officer, it doesn't appear to have shortened his life - he's lived to a ripe old age, it seems to em.

Of course, not everyone will be so lucky in the same situation as Jimmy, but the point is, 2 people getting a large exposure which may or may not give them cancer in 10 or 20 years doesn't seem an unreasonable risk for such a hugely beneficial industry as electricity generation.

Re:More importantly,

[BluBrick]

since that movie Back to the Future, I've seen this pattern. Is everyone named Biff an idiot?

Then you fail at pattern recognition - or perhaps you have not seen all three. Yes, Biff Tannen is an idiot, and in every version of history/reality shown, he is an idiot. His descendant Griff Tannen is an idiot, and his ancestor Buford Tannen is an idiot. But there is only ever one Biff Tannen.

Hey, is your surname Tannen, by any chance?

Re:More importantly,

[Anonymous Coward]

It sounds like "affordable" housing in general and Burakumin housing in particular. Got a name for it already... "Lolicon Arms".

Do nukes alter sexual ORIENTation? It made Enola GAY...

Fat Man imploded and Little Boy got rammed...

Made you waste your mod points [wink]...

Re:More importantly,

[Anonymous Coward]

You're crazy. They sit around in air conditioned cells and watch satellite TV on 32" plasma displays. You need to watch some more documentaries about the US prison system.

Re:More importantly,

[catmistake]

The "hard labour" thing is true but it's not like they're smashing rocks in chain gangs - the prison I'm near they build and repair boats.

Do not for a second underestimate the wretched misery of boat construction and repair. If you only knew of the forbidden rock smashing chain gang fantasies of those pitiful sons of bitches...

Re:More importantly,

[tragedy]

That chart prompts a really interesting question. To those taking it to heart as some sort of proof of the inferiority or superiority of some particular group, I have to ask, are you male or female? Because if you're male and looking at that chart and sneering down at blacks and hispanics as inferior, are you also acknowledging vast superiority of women on those same criteria? Or are you being a hypocrite?

Re:More importantly,

[Anonymous Coward]

Given what a whiny bitch you are, they didn't beat you nearly enough.

Re:More importantly,

[mug funky]

perhaps we should substitute "crime" with "antisocial behaviour"?

gimme your hard disk and i'll find something in it that will have you hanged.

Re:More importantly,

[reasterling]

That article on the study you quote is not honest. As a person trained in radiation safety I can tell you that this quote:

WHY IS THE SCIENCE SO HOTLY CONTESTED? Why is there so much dispute about the number of deaths which Fukushima could cause on the West Coast? Because radiation safety standards are set based on the assumption that everyone exposed is a healthy man in his 20s - and that radioactive particles ingested into the body cause no more damage than radiation hitting the outside of the body.

is blatantly FALSE. For simple proof of this consider that every x-ray facility in the US has signage that says something like this:

IF YOU ARE PREGNANT, OR THINK YOU MIGHT BE PREGNANT, TELL THE X-RAY TECHNOLOGIST BEFORE HAVING AN X-RAY COMPLETED - SI EST USTED EMBARAZADA O CREE ESTARLO, INFORME AL TCNICO DE RAYOS X ANTES DE REALIZAR LA PRUEBA DE RAYOS X

Re:More importantly,

[Neil Boekend]

With modern "private" browsers the harddisks of his provider may be more revevealing.

Re:More importantly,

[Neil Boekend]

The question is not wether the numbers are true, but what the cause is. Is the cause:

• "black people are criminals by nature." I assume this is your conclusion from these numbers.
• "There was a delay for black people to be hired. This caused an culture to emerge with only little income. This culture found crime as an accepted means of income."
• "Cops tend to assume black people are criminals, with as proof that there are so many of them in prisons."
• Many other conclusions are possible. More research would be required to make a valid one.

Doubting the conclusions drawn does not mean doubting the data itself.

Disclaimer: none of the above should be seen as an indication of my personal opinion. This can be used as such: Racism (the first conclusion) is always to simple an assumption. The differences between individuals are to big for it to be otherwise. Even if there was large scale data, the results would be changed other factors.

Re:More importantly,

[Neil Boekend]

Maybe it's rehabilitation combined with training for the porn industy?

Re:More importantly,

[Neil Boekend]

The fact that not only Biff is an idiot does not invalidate the assumption that all Biff's are idiots. From his POV, all data points indicate all Biff's are idiots.
Note: I do not know whether this /. Biff is an idiot. I assume he isn't, he's just pro nuke (while AC is anti-nuke).

A bit of perspective

[Sarten-X]

While the use of contaminated materials is something to be concerned about, let's not forget how much radiation this actually is. It's roughly the equivalent of one chest CT scan per year.

Re:A bit of perspective

[ae1294]

While the use of contaminated materials is something to be concerned about, let's not forget how much radiation this actually is. It's roughly the equivalent of one chest CT scan per year.

You want you children growing up with that? 18 years worth? really?

Re:A bit of perspective

[DigiShaman]

Help me out here. Is this radiation transferred by residue, or lingering readings from the constant irradiation. If it's the later, how much radiation are these children actually getting at the source during the times spent at home? Doesn't inverse square law apply with regards to the source of radiation and distance from it?

Re:A bit of perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess everyone in Norway should move, since that place has some of the highest radeon levels in the world...

Re:A bit of perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, comparing something to a CT is like comparing death-tolls to traffic. Did you know that all terrorist attacks of the world ever combined is less than a day of traffic deaths?

Re:A bit of perspective

[Dexter Herbivore]

I have a good friend who married a Japanese girl 2 years ago and moved there. I mentioned to someone that I was planning to visit him and her first reaction was, "Aren't you afraid that you'll die from radiation poisoning?".

The fear of radiation poisoning seems to me to be an infantile reaction similar to fear of the dark(nyctophobia). It's a fear of something that we can't see, and can't quantify with our own senses. Why be mindlessly afraid of radiation when it can be measured and the risks are understood? I'm not particularly afraid of travelling to Tokyo when Fukushima is hundreds of kilometers away and virtually unaffected?

Re:A bit of perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

Radeon? I knew they were high-tech, but didn't know they had a high density of video cards.

Oh, you mean radon?

Re:A bit of perspective

[quenda]

Norway ... has some of the highest radeon levels in the world...

Radeon levels? Is Nvidia an obscene word in the Norwegian language perhaps?

Re:A bit of perspective

[Sarten-X]

From the same chart, 18 years of that (117 mSv), if it were absorbed in only one year, would still be only marginally higher than the lowest dose clearly linked to an increased risk of cancer (100 mSv/year). Since it's being absorbed over 18 years, the body has a much better chance of repairing any damage, so health is most likely not affected.

The human body can take a surprising amount of radiation and do just fine when compared to detectable levels. A report of "radiation found!" really means very little in terms of overall health. Much more concerning is that the contaminated materials were used at all, implying that the construction controls aren't right. Finding some low levels of contamination should lead to an inspection of all buildings recently built by the same company, to see where else (potentially more) radioactive materials have been used, and to assess if there's any real danger.

Re:A bit of perspective

[quenda]

The kid is not radioactive. He carries a "dosimeter" which measures the total dose he receives.
Anyone living in a brick or concrete building gets more radiation than in a timber house, but this particular block has rather more than usual.

Re:A bit of perspective

[Sarten-X]

Yes, I did know that. I'm not concerned about terrorism, either, but I do worry about my wife being late coming back from work.

Re:A bit of perspective

[Sarten-X]

Those are all good questions, which should be answered by the thorough investigation that I hope will follow. If and only if the investigation reveals an actual danger, we should be worried.

Re:A bit of perspective

[somersault]

I mentioned to someone that I was planning to visit him and her first reaction was, "Aren't you afraid that you'll die from radiation poisoning?".

Either she's a complete dumbass, or she was making an awesome Godzilla joke.

Re:A bit of perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but it was caught, and the /. story didn't have any info relating to what that amount was really worth and most people, like yourself, are woefully unaware of what that really amounts to.

btw, one chest CT scan is quite a bit of radiation. It's essentially a numerous series of low regular X-rays compiled to form the tomographic/3d like image. I know a head and chest is amount to several hundred chest x-rays in an adult (I have a lot of radiation exposure compared to most). Worse, children are more susceptible to radiation, and a chest CT scan given to an adult requires more radiation than that given to a child, given modern CAT scans doses are adjusted on the fly for the image being taken to reduce radiation exposure.

So it's not insignificant, but it's not like they swallowed radioactive iodine either.

Re:A bit of perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe she was concerned about the extra radiation dose that you would receive from flying in an airplane at high altitudes.

Re:A bit of perspective

[peragrin]

The correct response is only as much as you fear of dying from tanning.

The real response is people are afraid of what they dont understand.. since the average person is an idiot, and half of them ate dumber than that. They have no understanding of radaition its effects, etc. Therefore it is to be feared. Take a look at religions they love that effect. If it isnt us then it isnt goig to our heaven and often added on then kill it to hell.

Re:A bit of perspective

[Dishevel]

Wasn't there some study of a housing complex somewhere in Europe that had very high radon levels for decades.
IIRC. The study actually showed a lower cancer rate than the norm.

Re:A bit of perspective

[Beelzebud]

Would you live in that building?

Re:A bit of perspective

[edxwelch]

Yeah, nuclear appologists just love that xkcd chart. Unfortunately, it doesn't distinguish from external exposure of radiation and internal exposure. Internal exposure is far more serious.

Re:A bit of perspective

[ae1294]

From the same chart, 18 years of that (117 mSv), if it were absorbed in only one year, would still be only marginally higher than the lowest dose clearly linked to an increased risk of cancer (100 mSv/year). Since it's being absorbed over 18 years, the body has a much better chance of repairing any damage, so health is most likely not affected.

The human body can take a surprising amount of radiation and do just fine when compared to detectable levels. A report of "radiation found!" really means very little in terms of overall health. Much more concerning is that the contaminated materials were used at all, implying that the construction controls aren't right. Finding some low levels of contamination should lead to an inspection of all buildings recently built by the same company, to see where else (potentially more) radioactive materials have been used, and to assess if there's any real danger.

When I was a child I figured one day that I'd break up the sidewalk with a hammer. This isn't bullshit, I don't know why I did so and I got my ass beat but would my parents have had to take me to the hospital if I lived in this place? What if I eat dirt.

I am not against nuke power. We need it... in my backyard even. But we don't have to put up with failure. We have always been told it could never happen. It does... Then everyone says well it's your fault build new reactors... come on now... If the old ones are unsafe turn them off. Prices go up, new ones get built.

Re:A bit of perspective

[Beelzebud]

Given that atomic scientists can't seem to agree on when it becomes dangerous, can you really call a non-expert an "idiot" for not knowing more than the experts?

Re:A bit of perspective

[Sarten-X]

Yes. I also drive a car to work, which is far more dangerous. I also use a laptop on my lap, stand near the microwave, and have a slippery shower floor. I'm a risky person. Please don't tell my insurance agent.

Re:A bit of perspective

[vlm]

Wlet's not forget how much radiation this actually is. It's roughly the equivalent of one chest CT scan per year.

Sure about that? They're getting 1/3 of a mSv per month, so about 4 per year. one chest CT scan is about two dozen or so as a rough rule of thumb. Closer to a CT scan per six years. Since most kids go to primary school about a dozen years, its about the equivalent of two chest CT scans. Not one per year, not two per year, but two. two total. Hmm I went thru two pneumonia x-rays in the last almost 40 years, although those were not CT scans, at any rate the kids are getting about three times the dosage that a middle age non smoker like me is going thru. Not too serious.

Theoretically the girls are getting mammograms every, like, year or something, and each is about 2 mSv, so you do the math. For genetic risk factors my wife gets the girls squashed and zapped every year or so, which is ... 2 mSv per year, so apparently from a radiation dose standpoint its about twice as dangerous as ... being a girl. Not too serious. Well I mean cancer sucks, but I mean the situation of the kids is not much more dangerous for the girls than being tested for cancer.

Also you get "about" 3 or so mSv per year naturally, from eating bananas, cosmic rays, granite countertops, stuff like that, which is pretty much how the scientists pulled the 1 mSv figure out of some orifice, that an extra 33% probably can't hurt anything? I know the radiation dosage in colorado is much higher than sealevel and the Fukushima kids live at sea level, so you can also describe their increase dosage as a height above sea level. I'm guessing their increased dosage is about the same as moving to Denver. Again, not too serious, although I would not want to live in Denver.

Note this average normal does assumes you don't smoke... the polonium in tobacco means one cancer stick per day equals about one mSv per year, so the 4 mSv increase is equivalent to smoking about four cigs per day, roughly, which is probably about as bad as the second hand smoke from living with a smoking parent. Again, not too serious.

Radiation is fun to learn about because its "secret". Even on /. where people know volts and mV and amps and mA, very few know mSv and rads and rems and such and its pretty easy to learn, and fairly easy to memorize rough comparisons, like a cancer stick per day is a mSv per year, or a CT scan is about two dozen mSv, or a natural dose from mother earth is about a mSv per season depending on your altitude, etc etc.

Re:A bit of perspective

[Beelzebud]

Fair enough, it was actually an honest question. A lot of times I see people making claims like that, but then turn around and say they wouldn't live there. At least you are consistent.

Re:A bit of perspective

[na1led]

The fear of radiation poisoning seems to me to be an infantile reaction similar to fear of the dark(nyctophobia). It's a fear of something that we can't see, and can't quantify with our own senses. Why be mindlessly afraid of radiation when it can be measured and the risks are understood? I'm not particularly afraid of travelling to Tokyo when Fukushima is hundreds of kilometers away and virtually unaffected?

And that's what people said about smoking. People don't worry about dangers until it hits them, but as long as I'm aware of it, I'll stay away!

Re:A bit of perspective

[Sarten-X]

Yes. Disagreement among scientists is about the range of problems connected to the range of radiation doses received. Below a given dose, nobody except crackpots thinks radiation causes problems. Above a certain dose, nobody except crackpots thinks radiation's safe. These crackpot thresholds apply to almost any risk. There's a certain height above which a fall is deadly. There's a certain amount of water that can be in the lungs without any problem. There's a certain amount of traffic that can go through an intersection before it will work better with a stoplight.

The non-idiots recognize that some things aren't known perfectly, so they learn the crackpot thresholds and just try to stay on the safe sides, without worrying too much. They don't need to know exactly how much radiation causes what problems, just that a little bit has almost no risk. The idiots are the ones who see "radiation" and immediately assume it's an absolutely-deadly dose, and that the child in TFS is now doomed to die of cancer at 20.

Re:A bit of perspective

[bmo]

>internal exposure is far more serious

Because, you know, people eat concrete every day.

--
BMO

Re:A bit of perspective

[Sarten-X]

I do try to be consistent, though I should perhaps note that given the choice between two identical apartments, with all other things being exactly equal except their yearly radiation dose, I would of course choose the one with lower radiation, because a minimal risk is still risk, and with no cost to eliminate it, I would.

Re:A bit of perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

Since most people don't eat concrete, how exactly is internal exposure relevant to this article?

Re:A bit of perspective

[CrimsonAvenger]

but would my parents have had to take me to the hospital if I lived in this place?

No. Your parents wouldn't even notice if you weren't wearing a dosimeter. Nor would you.

What if I eat dirt.

The biologicals in dirt are far more of a hazard than 1.17 mSv per three months.

You're more likely to get tetanus than experience any noticeable effects from the radiation dose mentioned.

Re:A bit of perspective

[DarkOx]

It's a fear of something that we can't see, and can't quantify with our own senses. Why be mindlessly afraid of radiation when it can be measured and the risks are understood?

Well that is exactly why its scary. We can't register it with our own senses, well unless is so strong as to cause heating. I could be being irradiated right now, and I would not know it. So yea anytime you elevate the risk that could be happening by saying going near the TSA, or the site of recent nuclear safety incident, yes I worry.

Now I also understand *some* of the physics and if I had the tools measure and map it I'd worry less. I don't have those tools so the only option is look for secondary indicators, like TSA uniforms, posted warnings, and exercise caution.

Re:A bit of perspective

[edxwelch]

Actually, yes. Part of the dust in your appartment comes from the concrete, some of which you are going to inhale inadvertantly.

Re:A bit of perspective

[petermgreen]

The article is a bit vauge it sounds like radioative material from the fukushima disaster transferred to the gravel pit (probablly via groundwater) and contaminated the gravel that was used to make the concrete.

Re:A bit of perspective

[Sarten-X]

"Far more serious" perhaps, but at these levels it's still nowhere near serious enough to actually be worried.

Re:A bit of perspective

[element-o.p.]

While there is a part of me that disagrees with the way you flippantly blew off the radiation concern, there is another part of me that genuinely enjoyed the wit you displayed while doing so. Well done indeed, sir!

Re:A bit of perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

atomic scientists

Did you fall through a wormhole from the 1950's?

Re:A bit of perspective

[binarylarry]

Finally a chink in slartibartfast's armor.

Re:A bit of perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, and lets not forget how much radiation those shiny granite kitchen countertops give off in your house too.

Re:A bit of perspective

[mspohr]

Recent studies have shown that CT scans are not completely safe.
One CT scan in a year is estimated to produce one cancer in 270 women (one cancer in 600 men) or about 29,000 a year in the US.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126082398582691047.html

Radiation is not safe and we don't really know if there is a "safe" amount of radiation. It's best to avoid all radiation as much as possible.

Re:A bit of perspective

[blair1q]

One CT scan is like a couple dozen x-rays.

You do not want to get such a thing regularly.

Re:A bit of perspective

[blair1q]

>Please don't tell my insurance agent.

Ohhhh! Where's your risky nature now?

Re:A bit of perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

While the use of contaminated materials is something to be concerned about, let's not forget how much radiation this actually is. It's roughly the equivalent of one chest CT scan per year.

This message brought to you by: your friendly neighbourhood shill in cooperation with Burns Powerplant Industries.

Re:A bit of perspective

[Sarten-X]

Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all... day, I guess. Back to work tomorrow.

Re:A bit of perspective

[ae1294]

No. Your parents wouldn't even notice if you weren't wearing a dosimeter. Nor would you.

... and that is what scares people ...

Re:A bit of perspective

[TheRaven64]

I wouldn't expect 'atomic scientists' to agree on it. They're physicists. The effects of anything on living systems are a long way out of their field of expertise. Ask a biologist or a medical doctor.

Re:A bit of perspective

[bmo]

rebuttal, sort of, with an attempt at logic, but failing to present any fact about common household dust radioactivity, either as a control or as contaminated

I would say in return that concrete can be far more deadly outside the body than in, particularly if it is large and moving.

--
BMO

Re:A bit of perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

How about you move there with your family?

Of course you would. I totally believe you.

Re:A bit of perspective

[K. S. Kyosuke]

but I do worry about my wife being late coming back from work.

Late, as in "the late Dentarthurdent"?

Re:A bit of perspective

[DesScorp]

While the use of contaminated materials is something to be concerned about, let's not forget how much radiation this actually is. It's roughly the equivalent of one chest CT scan per year.

Plus concrete itself is very effective in containing radiation. If broken up and mixed with fresh concrete, it could be diluted to complete safety.

Re:A bit of perspective

[Sarten-X]

It ran to its room crying about how I'm unfair because I won't let it have unrestricted access to my wallet.

Re:A bit of perspective

[s_p_oneil]

According to that chart (which has typos in it and a disclaimer calling you an idiot if you use it to determine what's "safe")*, it's also approximately 1 head CT scan every few months, and it's exposed to children of all ages. It's not directed at one part of the body like an X-ray or CT scan. It's everywhere, it's (relatively) constant, and it's in addition to any other radiation they might be exposed to (which I would expect to be higher than normal given where they live). Ask a doctor who administers CT scans if he'd risk an infant with that much constant radiation, and I'm pretty sure I know what his answer would be.

* Unless it's a bananaphone

Re:A bit of perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not? It may even reduce your risk of cancer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis

Re:A bit of perspective

[Sarten-X]

I grew up a few miles from a nuclear plant. The smoke detectors in my last home used radioactive material (though I haven't checked these yet... maybe I'll do that today). I've visited a few particle accelerators, and worn plenty of dosimeters in my life. Yes, I would live there.

Re:A bit of perspective

[Sarten-X]

Why not? It's still far below the threshold for any conclusively increased risk of cancer, and certainly less dangerous than other activities like driving, showering, or even cooking. Heck, getting a regular CT scan could spot the first signs of many serious diseases, so you'd be even safer!

Re:A bit of perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that the dose is being spread out is significant too. A few mSv a year is well below the dose that would be correctable by the error correction codes present in DNA. It may even improve the body's repair mechanisms. Google "Radiation Hormesis" for details.

Re:A bit of perspective

[Sarten-X]

The purpose of the chart is the same as my post: perspective. 1.6mSv in three months is not deadly, not really even dangerous, and should be seen only as a notification that there's something worth investigating, which is exactly why the annual limit is so low: so special resources can be used to investigate anything higher.

If the infant had a medical reason to get a CT scan each year, that condition is far more dangerous that the radiation from the scan itself. I'd wager the doctor would say to do it in that case.

Re:A bit of perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

Recent studies have shown that CT scans are not completely safe.

Who ever said that they were? They're not something you do for fun; if you get a CT it's because you're already suffering from something more serious than a 1-in-hundreds chance of eventual cancer.

Re:A bit of perspective

[an unsound mind]

The fact that there's ever so barely dangerous amounts of radiation that have less chance of killing you than a very large variety of everyday things?

Radiation isn't Magical Death Rays. The chances are you could live your whole life in these conditions - even eating the concrete - and not be affected in any way.

Re:A bit of perspective

[fnj]

It might interest you to learn that a National Research Council committee to "assess health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation," published by the National Academy of Sciences, disagrees with you.

In their report they state "An important task of the BEIR VII committee was to develop 'risk models' for estimating the relationship between exposure to low levels of low-LET ionizing radiation and harmful health effects. The committee judged that the linear no-threshold model (LNT) provided the most reasonable description of the relation between low-dose exposure to ionizing radiation and the incidence of solid cancers that are induced by ionizing radiation."

The premise of the linear no-threshold model, as its name implies, is that there IS NO safe threshold of radiation exposure below which no harmful health effects can occur.

I don't happen to think the authors of this study are "crackpots". A single alpha or beta or gamma ray hit on a single cell can cause chromosomal damage and increases risk of cancer to some degree. Yes, for small doses, the degree is slight, but it is not zero. It is not at all like water in the lungs, where obviously a single molecule or even thimble-full presents zero hazard of choking to death or drowning.

Re:A bit of perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as you don't drive with your worn out tires and break pads (it's still safe) near me, I suppose. Now if you need a bunch of X-rays done and happen to work in an above-safety levels are as well, you suddenly find yourself out of the safe zone, whereas you would have been in it without the extra dose from home. That is the danger.

Re:A bit of perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a physicist working in the field of medical imaging. The main stream position in the scientific community is that radiation is
harmful even at low dose, because the harm if caused by a statistical effect: The ionizing radiation causes the creation of an ion, which then
might cause a defect in the DNA (or elsewhere). This is usually repaired (live having adapted to the continuous presence of ionizing radiation),
but there is a small risk that this fails and causes problems later. This implies that there is a linear relationship between dose and risk.
While this smodel has been challenged from both directions (with claims that this model over- or underestimates the risk based
on various arguments), it still considered the scientific consensus. So, if you say "Below a given dose, only a crackpot thinks radiation
causes problems", then well, I take this as an insult to me and my profession.

Of course, this does not imply that somebody receiving a low dose of radiation (1.62 mSv) is "now doomed to die of cancer at 20".
That calling others "crackpot" and putting forward such obvious strawman arguments still gets you rated "insightful" on slashdot,
is a sad example of groupthink on this site.

Re:A bit of perspective

[fnj]

Sure about that? They're getting 1/3 of a mSv per month, so about 4 per year. one chest CT scan is about two dozen or so as a rough rule of thumb. Closer to a CT scan per six years.

Well, this reference gives:

Table 13: Typical doses from CT in the UK (2003 review):

    * 9.9 for "Chest, abdomen & pelvis [CT] (lymphoma staging or follow up)"
    * 6.3 for "Chest [CT] (detection of malignancy): 0-1 y old [child]"
    * 5.8 for "Chest [CT] (lung cancer: known, suspected or metastases)"
    * 3.9 for "Chest [CT] (detection of malignancy): 10 y old [child]"
    * 3.6 for "Chest [CT] (detection of malignancy): 5 y old [child]"
    * 1.2 for "Chest, abdomen, & pelvis [CT]: Hi-resolution (diffuse lung disease)"

so I would say the exposure to 4 mSv per year is well within the range for a single chest CT scan.

Yes, there are places that are above average background radiation by the same amount, but that still doesn't mean that routine chest CT scans every year would be regarded as risk-justified without damn good reason.

Re:A bit of perspective

[Goaway]

Plenty of people live in areas with natural background levels that high. There's no indication that it causes them any harm.

Re:A bit of perspective

[Goaway]

Internal exposure is far more serious specifically for alpha emitters, and slightly more serious for beta emitters.

Generally, the radiation sources you would encounter under these circumstances are not alpha emitters, so it doesn't really matter.

Re:A bit of perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally a CHINK in slartibartfast's armor.

Incorrect ethnic slur, please try again using appropriate ethnic slur.

Example: -10 C? There's a NIP in the air, alright

==//==

Re:A bit of perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

I take it you don't consider firebombings to be terrorism?

Re:A bit of perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

This naturally brings up the question as to the litigiousness of the Japanese culture. Methinks that the legal system is structured that ambulance chasing is a no-no. However, that may not necessarily prevent the sharks (the kind that go on television and shove a nail into an orange in camera view and say "That's an eye") in the USA from filing claims on their behalf under the Alien Torts Act.

==//==

Re:A bit of perspective

[ClioCJS]

And some studies have shown that a single CT scan can increase your chance of cancer by 1 in 260. Please refer to the TSA stories being posted on Slashdot.

Re:A bit of perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

There were (and still are, AFAIK) apartment complexes in Taiwan built with rebar contaminated with cobalt-60. A quick search shows a study claiming benefits. That may be what you're thinking of.

Re:A bit of perspective

[Sarten-X]

I should have been clearer. Below a certain threshold, nobody except crackpots thinks that radiation causes common, serious problems, of such severity that the general population should be concerned or significantly alter their daily lives to avoid such situations. It is exactly like water in the lungs, where a thimble-full can lead to complications that lead to more complications that lead to death. As the AC below mentions, the effects at low doses are only statistical.

The report states that there is no 100% safe level of radiation. That should be common sense. However, we still should not overreact to a slightly-radioactive apartment any more than we should overreact to the dangers of the sun exploding tomorrow.

Re:A bit of perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree that not wanting to visit Japan due to radiation is ignorance...

BUT, I can understand where the fear comes from... History is LOADED with examples of dangerous materials being casually used, or with health damage caused by industrial contamination...

- Asbestos was widely used for decades... the ancient greeks knew it caused lung problems, so why was it still regularly used up until the 1970s?
- Lead in paints... Roman's knew lead caused biological problems, we continued to use lead in areas where accidental consumption or inhalation of dust was possible, again up through the 70s...
Radioactive Bed Bath & Beyond tissue holders...
Tainted water (a civil action from 1979ish)...
Pelican Brief whatever PG&E did back then... ...etc

So when I hear "Oh this is only equivalent to xxxx" or "There's nothing to be worried about with a little elevated radiation!" I question whether:
a) they don't know WTF they are talking about
b) they DO know WTF they are talking about, but the present theories will ultimately be proven wrong
c) they are lying

So casual dismissal of these potential risks in Japan and this construction material is the same as casually dismissing threats like Radon by saying "oh it's very low level!" ... I agree it's very low level, and I wouldn't have an issue with spending an afternoon in a basement with high Radon... but do I want to live in that building? Do I want to work there? No!

So would I not visit Japan due to fear over radiation poisoning? Of course not, but I would think twice about living in certain parts of it... just like there are certain parts of the US, Russia, Europe, etc that I might like to avoid...

Re:A bit of perspective

[ToasterMonkey]

Below a given dose, nobody except crackpots thinks radiation causes problems. Above a certain dose, nobody except crackpots thinks radiation's safe.

Does the second class of people actually exist or did we create them to make the first group feel better?

Just saying... I don't think distribution of these crackpots among pro/anti-nuclear groups is uniform.

Re:A bit of perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

Saying that it's 2 CT scans total isn't comforting. According to:
        CT Scans Linked to Cancer

One of the studies, which examined more than 1,000 adult patients at four hospitals, projected that the dose of radiation received in a single heart scan at age 40 would later result in cancer in 1 in 270 women and 1 in 600 men.

For a single individual with health issues, those odds are probably worth it. For kids just going to school, those odds are terrible and you don't get anything good in return for the exposure.

Re:A bit of perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

You shouldn't have more than one CT scan in a lifetime. Were you referring to a chest Xray? There is a big difference between the two.

Re:A bit of perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

It is insignificant in comparison to constant radiation you are exposed on daily basis, if you live, well, almost anywhere!!

life evolved in a radiation field that was much more intense than today. The annual effective radiation dose from natural and man-made sources for the world's population is about 3 mSv

http://www.ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/ramsar-natural-radioactivity/ramsar.html

Re:A bit of perspective

[s_p_oneil]

"If the infant had a medical reason to get a CT scan each year, that condition is far more dangerous that the radiation from the scan itself. I'd wager the doctor would say to do it in that case."

Agreed, but I was thinking of the head scan every 3 months, and I can't imagine the doctor asking for it that often unless the child was dying, in which case risking cancer when he's older is better than just letting him die now. While I know that the current "safe" levels are incredibly low (a fraction of what's considered even a little dangerous), I don't know what studies, if any, have determined how much more strongly radiation levels affect infants. I wonder if the person in charge of the company who decided to sell the contaminated concrete instead of properly disposing of it knows. That's the real issue here, IMO. Did they carefully dilute it until it was deemed "safe"? My guess would be no since it's above the legal level.

Re:A bit of perspective

[CrimsonAvenger]

No. Your parents wouldn't even notice if you weren't wearing a dosimeter. Nor would you.>/BLOCKQUOTE>

... and that is what scares people ...

What? The fact that you'd show no symptoms of this exposure ever is scary?!?

Did you know you'll never show symptoms from taking a shower either? That ought to be even more scary, since you do it more without showing symptoms.

Fact is, 1.17 mS over three months isn't enough to cause a problem for anyone. That exposure rate (1.17mSv/90 days) for your entire life would be unlikely to cause any noticeable effect on you.

Re:A bit of perspective

[c0lo]

While the use of contaminated materials is something to be concerned about, let's not forget how much radiation this actually is. It's roughly the equivalent of one chest CT scan per year.

In the space of 3 months. Which means the equiv of 4 chest CT scans per year - and this ignoring the potentially needed actual CT scans.

Re:A bit of perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

While the use of contaminated materials is something to be concerned about, let's not forget how much radiation this actually is. It's roughly the equivalent of one chest CT scan per year.

Try 1000 and in two months so that is 6000 xrays a year.

Re:A bit of perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

We're just a couple of days out from the /. post about DHS X-ray Car Scanners, where the summary suggested "the cancer risk of CT scans can be quiet high". A commenter suggested that chest (heart) scans were an even higher risk because they required imaging the heart as it beats.

Re:A bit of perspective

[mug funky]

but you may not be here tomorrow...

Re:A bit of perspective

[reasterling]

even eating the concrete - and not be affected in any way.

Are you sure?

Re:A bit of perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

I think to suggest there is a threshold is a bit of manufactured controversy. The curves I've seen all extrapolate very close to the origin. And we can't get much closer to the origin because we are naturally radioactive we don't have enough people dying at low doses to justify the cost of finding a threshold.

Re:A bit of perspective

[cffrost]

I'm not particularly afraid of traveling to Tokyo when Fukushima is hundreds of kilometers away and virtually unaffected?

No, you're not. But I suspect you already know this? :o)

Re:A bit of perspective

[Neil Boekend]

Doesn't matter, saved costs.

Re:A bit of perspective

[EricTheO]

While the use of contaminated materials is something to be concerned about, let's not forget how much radiation this actually is. It's roughly the equivalent of one chest CT scan per year.

Yeah and Doctors are being told not to order CT scans unless absolutely needed. I know because my doctor was upset when he found out I was given a CT in a visit to the Emergency Room after recently having had 2 CT's. CT's are much higher and longer duration doses of X-rays than a standard X-ray. All this coupled with the fact that my treament later was to require fluoroscopy. It's the accumilation of radiation over time from many sources that can put you in danger.

Re:A bit of perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're a child, then you're building up your skellington with Calcium from milk and any other sources of Calcium your body finds handy (such as dust from concrete, soil, vegetables).

The other chalcogenids are similar in chemical effect to Calcium so they can also get incorporated to a small degree: Magnesium, Strontium, Barium, Radium.

If you incorporate Radium (like Marie Curie) or radioactive Strontium-90 (a decay product from Uranium fission) in your bones, you carry it with you your whole life, irradiating you from within your body. That's why Sr-90 is called a "bone-seeker".

Now on-topic about Fukushima: nobody ever talks about the Sr-90. I don't know if this is because it's harder to measure than Caesium; maybe it's an alpha-emitter and therefore harmless and easy to shield if it's away from your body.
To repeat: if it's in your own skeleton or teeth it's never away from your body (gonads, bone-marrow).

Re:A bit of perspective

[cavebison]

It's roughly the equivalent of one chest CT scan per year.

Equivalent in what way? I hope you're aware there are different types of radiation. Some can give you a healthy tan or heat your dinner, another kind will turn you into the Hulk.

The chart makes no distinction between types of radiation, and makes a terrible mistake of scale. Putting a block showing a 1-week dose beside a slightly larger block showing a 1-year dose.

That is not the way to represent comparative data. It's a ridiculously useless chart.

Re:A bit of perspective

[cavebison]

The fear of radiation poisoning seems to me to be an infantile reaction similar to fear of the dark(nyctophobia).

Sorry but that's a meaningless comparison to make.

We spend hours in the dark every day all our lives without ill effect, no matter how psychologically unpleasant it is under some circumstances. We do know the dark itself can't hurt us.

However everyone knows that spending time exposed to radiation sources increases your likelihood of cancer. Standing in the sun all day does that. I doubt you could convincingly equate fear of sunburn with fear of the dark.

People are justifiably scared of reports of radiation for many reasons, not least because authorities as well as companies tend to downplay readings. We've already seen that happening in Japan, with many people now relying mostly on the external European measurements.

So, dismissing people's reactions like that is rather unwarranted and just taking the opposite extreme to the one you are decrying.

Re:A bit of perspective

[AmiMoJo]

The correct response is only as much as you fear of dying from tanning.

Comparing contamination from nuclear accidents to tanning or flying isn't like-for-like either because with contamination there is the danger that radioactive material can get inside the body and sit there indefinitely which is what significantly increases the risks. The overall level may be low but over a very long period of time and without the protective barriers around organs that protect them from radiation (e.g. the skin) the danger is far greater.

Like many others you are also avoiding the issue of serious health problems and focussing purely on deaths. Most of the children living near Chernobyl didn't die, but cases of leukaemia and cancer to the oesophagus where severely elevated. If you were a parent would you be okay with risking your child's health like that, even if you knew the chances of them actually dying were pretty low?

Re:A bit of perspective

[AmiMoJo]

Sure about that? They're getting 1/3 of a mSv per month, so about 4 per year.

Just by living there, but the risk is that contaminated dust, soil or food can get inside the body and do much more harm. The body protects organs from most external radiation, but if it gets inside them and sits there for decades that is when you start to see large numbers of cancers and other complications.

That is why limits on radiation in food are so much lower than the background level limits, and why contaminated building materials are such a big deal.

Re:A bit of perspective

[AmiMoJo]

The human body can take a surprising amount of radiation and do just fine when compared to detectable levels.

From the outside, yes. From the inside where even small amounts of alpha radiation that can't penetrate the skin will be able to affect your organs for decades and decades you have a problem.

Re:A bit of perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

Comparing contamination from nuclear accidents to tanning or flying isn't like-for-like either because with contamination there is the danger that radioactive material can get inside the body and sit there indefinitely which is what significantly increases the risks.

We're talking about lightly radioactive concrete. No one is going to ingest significant quantities.

Re:A bit of perspective

[an unsound mind]

I said the chances are. There isn't an amount of radiation small enough to be perfectly safe, but the specified amount of radiation isn't large enough to cause noticeable symptoms in most people. This doesn't depend on the person, just sheer dumb luck.

Re:A bit of perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

If the material used in the concrete or the water used to settle it contains contaminated material, the contamination will be in the concrete blocks. This has nothing to do w/the natural radiation in concrete or it being more than normal. These dose rates are far above what you would expect for concrete.

Additionally, concrete chips and breaks off in little bits. That is now a dust form containing radioisotopes, which is the definition of contamination. Some of this gets in and on the clothing of the student. It doesn't 'make' him radioactive, but it does mean he could be carrying contamination with him everywhere he goes.

This is a fairly significant event. If it was elevated in the microsievert range i would have said "who cared", but msv is huge.

Re:A bit of perspective

[reasterling]

I was refering to the eating of concrete without effect. :)

Re:Anti - Nuke Scare Tactics!!

[Dexter Herbivore]

I've made a couple of O/T posts recently on /. This is another one. What the hell is going on with these racist n-word posts that keep popping up on /. recently, I would think that it's trolls, but they always seem to be ACs in the first 4-5 posts made on an article. It seems like they're far too active to be your standard troll.

Re:Anti - Nuke Scare Tactics!!

[CRCulver]

Clearly you weren't on Slashdot in 2003 and 2004, when the GNAA (Gay Nigger Association of America) troll group dominated the early posts in a comment thread. A handful of scattered, rather pathetic comments like the OP is nothing to be concerned about.

Re:Anti - Nuke Scare Tactics!!

[ae1294]

It works...

From TFA

[Anonymous Coward]

The gravel used in the cement came from a quarry in the town of Namie, located just miles from the Fukushima plant. While Namie sits inside the government mandated 12-mile “no-go” zone because of radiation concerns, it wasn’t completely closed off until the end of April, meaning the gravel was exposed to radiation spewing from the Fukushima plant during that time.

Mystery solved. The only thing we need to know is if the contractors got the gravel at a "special discounted price".

Re:From TFA

[vlm]

The gravel used in the cement came from a quarry in the town of Namie, located just miles from the Fukushima plant. While Namie sits inside the government mandated 12-mile “no-go” zone because of radiation concerns, it wasn’t completely closed off until the end of April, meaning the gravel was exposed to radiation spewing from the Fukushima plant during that time.

Mystery solved. The only thing we need to know is if the contractors got the gravel at a "special discounted price".

Another important question is did they analyze the isotopic signature of the accident debris and match it to the isotopic signature of the gravel?

People forget that power plant and the processing plant were radioactive before the accident, theoretically all behind closed doors. I'm Sure This Doesn't Happen In Japan, but in a third world country like China or the USA, I would not be totally surprised if something got dumped in a nearby gravel pit back in '73. Digging it up again after an accident in 2011 proves virtually nothing about the accident. If they dig up Jimmy Hoffa's body in that quarry, that doesn't mean the reactor accident killed Jimmy Hoffa.

Re:From TFA

[Anonymous Coward]

The gravel was "hot", so yes.

Re:From TFA

[Locutus]

don't forget that the radioactive rocks also allowed them to work 2nd and 3rd shifts during the power outages too. Love that green glow on a moonless night. lol

Scooby Doo, look what you've done!

LoB

Re:From TFA

[mug funky]

my money is on this.

the concrete industry has a rich history with organized crime.

part of the reason for the Twin Tower's revolutionary construction was because they couldn't guarantee a good supply of concrete, so they rethought the construction somewhat.

when Japan's madly rebuilding, sometimes the wrong contractor might just get the job.

Re:From TFA

[sesshomaru]

I'm thinking of Tony Soprano's crew dumping asbestos off in the New Jersey wilderness.

Oh, and of Marge Simpson's pretzel business.

Calling Dr. Freeman

[Kaenneth]

I guess one important question is, what's the half-life of this particular contamination?

And is it (relativly) sealed in, or can it become airborne?

Re:Calling Dr. Freeman

[Beelzebud]

Well TFA says that the radiation levels are higher inside the building than outside of it.

Re:Calling Dr. Freeman

[quenda]

TFA says caesium in the concrete, so 30 years half life.
And if the concrete of the apartment becomes airborne, you have bigger worries than the radiation.

Re:Calling Dr. Freeman

[jonbryce]

Caesium 134 has a half life of about 2 years, and caesium 137 about 30 years. It is mostly gamma radiation, so that will get through the amount of concrete typically used to make walls.

Re:Calling Dr. Freeman

[Baloroth]

The article specifies Cesium. I assume this is Cesium (or Caesium)-137, half-life 30 years, or Cesium-134, half life 2 years. The decay chain is mostly to Ba-137 (half life 153 seconds), which emits gamma rays of 662keV. Cs-134 doesn't seem to have a description of the decay chain on wikipedia, and based on what I can see I would assume it is produced in much smaller quantities (i.e. not a major factor). Also, it is in the gravel used to make concrete: chances of airborne contamination are tiny. Finally, they just say the radiation inside is higher than outside (concrete is a radiation shield, so this is unusual), not how much. Seems like a pretty small problem: 1.62mSv/3 months is higher than you want but not incredibly dangerous or even incredibly high.

Re:Calling Dr. Freeman

[Baloroth]

Correction (meant to change but didn't): it is barium-137m, a radioactive isotope. Ba-137 is a stable non-radioactive isotope that ends the chain. Also, Cs-137 -> Ba-137m produces some beta radiation, Ba-137m -> Ba-137 produces gamma.

Re:Calling Dr. Freeman

[MightyYar]

It's probably Cesium, and that's 30 years. It is apparently in the foundation, and is much higher on the first floor. Technically I think Cesium is water-soluble but it's probably not an issue when encased in concrete. It's probably a tear-down, but maybe they can use methods similar to radon remediation to reduce the effect.

Re:Calling Dr. Freeman

[nedlohs]

Radon remediation is all about getting the radon out of the building. Providing ventilation and airflow is every so slightly different than trying to extract something from concrete...

Radon (and the chain it decays to) is alpha and beta as well - so getting it outside so you won't be breathing it in as much is fine. With gamma (the next step in the chain, a couple of minutes after cesium beta decays is a gamma producer) not so much since it doesn't really care about the walls...

Re:Calling Dr. Freeman

[MightyYar]

Yeah, that makes sense. I mean, radon is a heavier-than-air gas, and the only reason it is a problem is that people inhale it... It's pretty trivial to just put a fan down low and blow it out. The cesium is causing trouble from deep inside the foundation. Unless you shield it, it's going to be a problem. Probably cheaper to just demo the place - though depending on the structure they might be able to lift it and replace the foundation.

16 chest x-rays / year

[Anonymous Coward]

1.6mili Cv is 160micro Cv - that's 4x4= 16 chest X-rays /year

Re:16 chest x-rays / year

[digitrev]

1.6 mSv is 1600 uSv. Just clarifying.

A few retards born every now and won't hurt

[G3ckoG33k]

Because radiation is not THAT dangerous?

Or, which I'm more inclined to believe, it is just a risk some governments are willing to take, with their underlying sentiment "A few retards born every now and won't hurt the polls too much."

Cynicism.

Re:A few retards born every now and won't hurt

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, some governments allow this stuff to slip by.

http://www.cdph.ca.gov/Pages/NR12-003.aspx

Re:Anti - Nuke Scare Tactics!!

[Dexter Herbivore]

From memory, they didn't post as AC though. Although it may just be wishful thinking that leads me to remember it that way.

64 chest x-rays / year

[mdsolar]

And that dose was in only three months, so it is 64 chest X-rays per year.

Re:Anti - Nuke Scare Tactics!!

[g0bshiTe]

Wow, talk about a blast from the past. I had all but forgotten the GNAA.

Funny thing about that, is locally there is a adolescent/teen sports league called the GNAA. I laugh whenever I see the fliers.

Easy Solution. . .

[JSBiff]

So, the cesium is in the concrete. We need a way to block the radiation. Lead is usually a pretty good material for blocking radiation.

Oh... Lead Paint!

You're welcome.

John Hodgeman would be proud.

On a more serious note, does this actually matter? Kids don't stay at home 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, so any estimates of the increase in exposure should, I hope, include the fact that kids are going to be gone something like 1/4 - 1/2 of the time they live there?

We live in a constant bath of low-level radiation. I'm not too worried about a slight increase in that background level of radiation.

Life evolved to live in varying levels of low-level radiation and survive. I'd have no fear of living there, or having my kids live there (I don't currently have kids, but I have no fear of low levels of radiation).

Re:Easy Solution. . .

[gl4ss]

when you carry a dosimeter, it's not an estimate of exposure, it's a measure of exposure.

Cocktopus

[iONiUM]

I believe he's talking about the legend of the cocktopus.

Re:Cocktopus

[GameboyRMH]

You put horns and a tongue on the monster and didn't make them cocks? Big opportunity missed XD

Radioactive Cars Too?

[na1led]

So should we continue to buy Honda's and Toyota's? I certainly don't want a vehicle that's going to expose me to radiation.

Re:Radioactive Cars Too?

[vlm]

So should we continue to buy Honda's and Toyota's? I certainly don't want a vehicle that's going to expose me to radiation.

My wife has an '05 toyota. Its not made of cement, and to my best knowledge they have not switched to cement since then.

I have heard innumerable stories about people building canoes and small boats out of concrete, which I suppose you'd want to avoid in this application. Most concrete canoe stories seem to end with an explanation that they sunk it in the lake because it weighed 600 pounds, or to avoid rebar corrosion they avoided rebar, so it promptly cracked and sank. That's the only cement vehicle anecdote I've heard of, until your /. comment.

Re:Radioactive Cars Too?

[treeves]

If they come with the extra apostrophes, they're a bargain at any price, and I'll take two, please.

Re:Radioactive Cars Too?

[na1led]

Really? I thought they made Flintstone cars? ... No Shit their cars aren't made of cement! My point was what's made in Japan could be radioactive .. PEROID! Would you eat their food? Probably not, unless you carry a Geiger counter on you to test it. The materials they use to make Cars come from the surrounding area I'm sure, and could easily become contaminated with some level of radiation.

Re:Radioactive Cars Too?

[russotto]

My point was what's made in Japan could be radioactive .. PEROID!

My car was made before the Fukushima radiation release. In Hiroshima. Oh well, at least it's AMERICAN radioactivity.

Re:Radioactive Cars Too?

[Algae_94]

His point is that unless Honda and Toyota started making cars out of concrete, thinking they are radioactive is fear-mongering until there is actually evidence of that. I would eat their food, as it most definitely will have passed through a port with radiation monitors to get to me and be seen as safe to eat or be destroyed (see here). I also smoked for many years and drink a decent bit, so I don't exactly do everything I can to live a pristine and safe life.

Does Carfax report if a used car has been known to be in radioactive hot spots?

Re:Radioactive Cars Too?

[na1led]

You sure put a lot of trust in the FCC and Governments to keep you safe. I'm sure none of them would ever think of lying to you!

Re:Radioactive Cars Too?

[will_die]

New cars would not be the problem.
Where the problem will be is with used parts. Thieves will get into the area and strip cars and sell the parts which will then enter normal supply routes. The only thing that way of solved this is flood may of ruined alot of items.

Re:Radioactive Cars Too?

[na1led]

You bring up a good point. Imagine all the poor people salvaging contaminated stuff and selling it on Ebay or suppliers here in the U.S. And like we are going to test everything that comes in this country for radation, I don't think so.

They should just raise the limit again

[Anonymous Coward]

They should just raise the limit again and all this goes away.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/16/501364/main20043822.shtml

In the apartment's defense,

[need4mospd]

They're already receiving glowing reviews.

Re:In the apartment's defense,

[blair1q]

I give it three thumbs up.

Does the nuke industry troll here?

[GodfatherofSoul]

Or are Slashdot posters that infatuated with nuclear? Seems like no matter what news comes out on that disaster, we've got apologists crawling out to explain how we don't need to worry about it and any concerns are the ignorant fears of the anti-nuke brainwashed.

Re:Does the nuke industry troll here?

[vlm]

Or are Slashdot posters that infatuated with nuclear? Seems like no matter what news comes out on that disaster, we've got apologists crawling out to explain how we don't need to worry about it and any concerns are the ignorant fears of the anti-nuke brainwashed.

A site with endless ranting about software / IT FUD in the early years, then along comes totally non-scientific fear mongering anti-nuclear FUD, what could possibly go wrong?

Re:Does the nuke industry troll here?

[The Wild Norseman]

Or are Slashdot posters that infatuated with nuclear? Seems like no matter what news comes out on that disaster, we've got apologists crawling out to explain how we don't need to worry about it and any concerns are the ignorant fears of the anti-nuke brainwashed.

Yes, because posts like this

by Tyr07 (2300912) on 10:15 16 January 2012 (#38714956)
*snip*
If I lived there, I'd have radiation meters weaved into my clothes.

People go 'OH it's not that much' FINE, let government leaders live in those places. I wouldn't want my life shortened at all, I'm thinking 40 years down the road I don't want to die from horrible radiation inflicted disease, nor do I want to find out some sort of penis monster finds me attractive.

are the epitome of rational and calm appraisal of the dangers...

640 chest x-rays / year

[mdsolar]

Right.

Japan didn't fail, Radiation did.

[Tyr07]

It wasn't Japan that lost the war. It was Japan's army, it was there fault.

In this case it's not the Japan government letting their people get radiation, it's radiations fault.
If I lived there, I'd have radiation meters weaved into my clothes.

People go 'OH it's not that much' FINE, let government leaders live in those places. I wouldn't want my life shortened at all, I'm thinking 40 years down the road I don't want to die from horrible radiation inflicted disease, nor do I want to find out some sort of penis monster finds me attractive.

Re:Japan didn't fail, Radiation did.

[vlm]

I'm thinking 40 years down the road I don't want to die from horrible radiation inflicted disease

If you did, how would you know the disaster caused it? Seriously?
Since the typical dose per person is lower than the natural dosage, almost all of the people in Japan who die from "horrible radiation inflicted disease" will have gotten their exposure from smoking, eating bananas, getting doctor xrays, getting dentist xrays, taking transcontinental flights, eating certain seafood, etc etc etc.

Re:Japan didn't fail, Radiation did.

[Tyr07]

I wouldn't have a way of knowing, and even if I could, I could be hit by a bus tomorrow, suddenly it doesn't matter.

My point is just because I wouldn't know if it caused it, doesn't mean I want to increase the chances it does. I also don't smoke, have had maybe two x-rays my entire life, I don't like / eat seafood, and I've never taken a flight.

So...yeah. You can keep your radiation to yourself. (I don't like Bananas either)

brilliant!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Now pave all the roads with this new concrete! No more need for street lights! :)

Check your damn units. At least on wikipedia.

[arisvega]

well above the annual 1 millisievert limit the government has established

1.62 mSv is not "well above" 1 mSv - it is practically the same.

Physics courses should be mandatory for "journalists"- as usual, they have no fucking clue what the hell they are writing about.

Re:Check your damn units. At least on wikipedia.

[ColdWetDog]

Hey - it's nearly double. That has to be significant. Especially with that many decimal places.

Wrong

[mdsolar]

The chart says 40 microsieverts for one chest X-ray. TFA says 1.6 millisieverts in three months. So, the rate is 640 chest X-rays per year, not one. That is much higher than the NRC's public exposure limit of 100 mrem/year (1 millisieverts/year).

Re:Wrong

[Sarten-X]

I said a CT scan, not an x-ray. A CT scan (7 mSv on the chart) is made from a few hundred "normal" x-ray images, composited on a computer. This kid's getting about 6.5 mSv/year from his house. The 1mSv/year exposure limit is for a "member of the public", meaning that if an average person had more than that amount of exposure, it's abnormal and should be investigated (as it is here), because there might be a dangerous radiation source nearby. A malfunctioning x-ray machine in a doctor's office that turns itself on every night and continuously irradiates a neighboring house would be dangerous. A small amount of radioactive contamination in concrete is probably not.

Re:Wrong

[vlm]

The chart says 40 microsieverts for one chest X-ray. TFA says 1.6 millisieverts in three months. So, the rate is 640 chest X-rays per year, not one. That is much higher than the NRC's public exposure limit of 100 mrem/year (1 millisieverts/year).

Well now you're getting things all confused. First of all a CT (computerized tomography) x-ray takes a zillion xrays at different angles and combines them in a computer with some pretty funky math to make cool 3-d model. Been a long time since a took a nuke physics class (20 years?) but yeah there probably are 100s of xrays taken in one CT scan. A CT scan with only one image taken is kind of a misnomer. Doctors do have to have a reasonable excuse for a CT scan, not just for the heck of it like they do plain x-rays. Are those lumps pneumonia or cancer? Apparently its obvious in a 3-d scan, exactly how I donno. Now a days they use the MRI.

The NRC public exposure limit is NOT 1 mSv per year. I get around 4 times that just by living a natural life. I understand its possible in some weird situations to live at sea level and get as low as 2 mSv/yr and its possible to live in a brick house on a granite mountain with granite countertops in Colorado and get somewhere near 10 mSv/yr. The limit you are quoting is an additional 1 mSv caused by "something". This is a NRC thing but unlike global warming or whatever most nuke physicists worldwide seem to all kind of believe in the 1 mSv number no matter which country they live in (Japan is not under NRC jurisdiction, but I'd be shocked if their standard wasn't about 1 mSv/yr). For x-ray techs this is a serious concern. For a waitress working in a non-smoke free state, this is a serious problem from polonium in tobacco. For a dude going to school, assuming you catch this with dosimeter badges instead of a gamma spectrometer, a mSv here or there is darn near lost in the noise unless you put a lot of work into lifestyle analysis to prove its not coming from lifestyle choices.

Re:Wrong

[vlm]

The 1mSv/year exposure limit is for a "member of the public", meaning that if an average person had more than that amount of exposure, it's abnormal and should be investigated (as it is here), because there might be a dangerous radiation source nearby.

I like your explanation and on /. an EE explanation MIGHT go ever better. It reminds me of FCC mandated RF exposure guidelines. Below this specified level of RF power you simply don't have to care. That doesn't mean that a microwatt over means you've instantly built a flaming open air microwave oven beam weapon of death, which can be built if you use multiple orders of magnitude more power, it just means here's an arbitrary line beneath which you just say "who cares".

I forget the UL labs AC leakage current for residential grade appliances, like if you touch this exposed metal in one hand and ground in the other hand the measured ammeter current must be less than .... I don't remember but it is or was around a couple hundred uA, less than one mA anyway. That doesn't mean that at 2 mA you'll die. In fact even a pretty sick person can survive twenty or thirty mA (remember it as enough to light an old fashioned LED). It just means for regulatory reasons once you get a leakage current below, say, 10 uA you simply don't care about its effects on the human body; its categorically safe. Being a little above categorically safe doesn't mean instant sparking death. Being 3 or 4 orders of magnitude above categorically safe, umm, I'd worry about that. Back in ye olden days I had an old vacuum tube R-392 receiver with bad blocking caps that had a leakage current around 2.0 mA... painful to touch if not properly grounded, but it wasn't going to kill me, although I was well aware it was in no way low enough to be safe enough to be UL listed.

Re:Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

The remarkable thing about this thread is not the usual Slashdot "Hey, build a nuclear reactor in my backyard, I'm a big risk taker (here in my mom's basement)" responses, but the degree of sang froid about CT scans. That's a big jolt of rays in one hit, folks, be glad you can get MRIs instead.

Eating doughnuts in the control room

[mdsolar]

can be boring without slashdot. If they are not here, they are probably napping....

RTFA

[mdsolar]

The limit is 1 millisievert PER YEAR. The dose was accumulated in three months so the rate is 6.4 millisievert PER YEAR, well above the limit.

Re:RTFA

[bussdriver]

I thought Japan was lowering their limits on radiation recently to make it appear not as bad? What used to be the safe amount?? Or is this just in general while other specific things were lowered? I definitely remember reports on politicians adjusting the limits but do not remember what there were on (may have been for crops) and if they were forced to restore the previous limits.

Re:RTFA

[mdsolar]

Actually, it is the other direction, they raised the limit for nuclear workers, up to 150 mSv, probably per emergency. They raised the limit for children as well but then lowered it back again. They went from 1 mSv per year (as in TFA) to 20 mSv per year back down to 1. http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/29/world/la-fg-japan-radiation-children-20110529

Re:RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

I work in nuclear physics laboratory and I'm allowed to take up to 20 mSv per year. I can assure you that taking even 20 mSv (which is 20 times the limit) does not affects your health at all. Look for statistical data about nuclear plant workers, they are allowed to take 50 mSv per year and there are no statistical discrepancies for cancer probability between this high risk group and civilians.

The 1mSv is really highly conservative!

Re:RTFA

[arisvega]

so the rate is 6.4 millisievert PER YEAR, well above the limit.

WHAT limit? Did you even understand my point?

And Orange Fiestaware

[shoppa]

If you've got a Geiger counter, orange Fiestaware is the cat's meow.

1.6 mSv is 0.00162 mrem.

http://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/consumer%20products/fiesta.htm Estimates for consumer exposure to the uranium in the glazing of orange Fiestaware show you could rack up to a mSv in just a few hours exposure.

Who wants to bet, that this batch of concrete had some orange Fiestaware mix into it, or perhaps just a natural concentration of pitchblende, and it has nothing to do with Fukushima?

Worse things to worry about. . .

[Idou]

When there are still questions regarding how much radioactive material is still being spewed out and contaminated debris is being incinerated (and reintroduced into the atmosphere) through-out the country, I would have to say that concrete is a safer place to have radioactive contamination. At least it is better than the lungs, kidneys, and other vital organs . . . which is much harder to measure and remains one of the great unknowns of this crisis.

Re:Worse things to worry about. . .

[mdsolar]

What is interesting here is how radiation is being spread through normal commerce. If Indian Point were to meltdown, we'd likely see similar patterns. The NRC thinks it can do a staged evacuation in that case, but is seems as though it would not work as proposed.

Yes you did

[mdsolar]

Sorry for misreading.

Concrete is naturally radioactive

[Anonymous Coward]

Concrete in many parts of the world is naturally radioactive.

He said CT scan

[mdsolar]

He said CT scan not a simple X-ray, much more radiation.

No

[Sycraft-fu]

It is that there are some smart people who post here, people who can look at numbers and do a bit of math, and thus realize that this story is in fact a complete non-story since the levels are so low.

The anti-nuke crowd gets all worked up over radiation as a boogeyman without any thought. None of them seem to appreciate that you are exposed to radiation every day, every where, just by living. They seem to think ANY amount of radiation is evil.

Also plenty of people on Slashdot can do risk analysis and understand that yes, nuclear power has risks but so does everything else in the world. They've looked at the risk, and decided it was worth it.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not the "anti-nuke" crowd. As a a physicist, I am convinced that "ANY amount of radiation is evil",
because even a single ion created in you body might cause cancer (with an extremely low propability).
Of course the additional risk from radiation caused by e.g. the Fukushima accident might be so low that
on an individual basis this can be neglected, but if there is a high number of people affected, then this
small individual risk may still be a concern. This is why radiation limits are set by the government
and this is also why it is clearly a concern if this limit is exceeded, even if the individual risk for this
kid is extremely low.

Re:No

[Xylantiel]

Maybe you should stick to physics instead of pontificating on public health topics then.

The amount of radiation discussed here (a few mSv/yr) is comparable to the variation in background radiation from place-to-place on the earth. So if this is an issue, we should be talking about moving large populations out of regions of naturally high radiation, like, oh the USA. (Japan appears to have a surprisingly low background radiation level.)

The reason this is potentially important is that there could be other sites with higher contamination. Keeping track of this stuff around Fukushima is important, but not because "any amount of radiation is evil," but because too much radiation is a public health problem and any amount of excess radiation might lead to detection of an otherwise unnoticed case of too much radiation.

Wrong conversion

[mdsolar]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert#SI_multiples_and_conversions 1.6 mSv is 160 mrem

Absolutely . . .

[Idou]

Japan is extremely efficient and wastes little. That makes contamination containment a lot more difficult. I doubt any comprehensive high level mapping of the interactive supply chains exist, but that is what will need to be created to really contain anything. Concrete is a nice dead-end, at least for however long the structure will last. However, how will they dispose of these structures without reintroducing radioactive dust into the atmosphere again?

I think the Fukushima accident will show that the NRC and all other similar regulators have grossly, grossly underestimated the amount of intricate planning and updating of plans is required to prepare for such accidents. Costs of maintaining such plans will be the enormous but insignificant to the costs of not having a viable plan when an accident does occurs.

Title is misleading

[karmicoder]

Umm... all concrete is radioactive. All. Perhaps this concrete is a wee bit more radioactive, but last time I checked, rocks contain traces of things like Potassium, Uranium, and virtually every other naturally occurring radioactive element. It's no big deal unless you eat it... and if so, you're probably a person that also eats silica gel and has a host of other medical problems.

Re:More importantly, "Nothing to see, move along"

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, we'll see. In Chernobyl the evacuation zone was much bigger than in Japan now. In Russia Tokio would be evacuated. And still Chernobyl was the reason for 2 million deaths. If nobody dies in Japan, because of Fukushima, that would be very strange.

Media blackout is enormous in Japan (and in other parts of the world). But listening to the words of Arnie Gundersen (fairewinds.com) who was (if i remember correctly) the scientific adviser in cases of Three mile Island and Chernobyl, and who speaks openly and scientifically, you might be wrong, and a much bigger disaster has happened then the US media presents (or any other mainstream media).

Also, measuring only radiation is one thing. Nobody talks about hot particles that were distributed (and inhaled by all of us) that make much more damage (plutonium dust etc).

But as big media houses say: "Nothing to see, move along".

Re:More importantly, "Nothing to see, move along"

[JSBiff]

There weren't 2 million deaths from Chernobyl. Crackpots keep spewing out junk science studies that are deeply flawed, and people who have a pre-existing bias to accept every bad thing said about nuclear power keep latching on to such studies (just like the one the previous post mentioned about the 14,000 deaths from Fukushima) with no skepticism at all. They have plenty of skepticism for anything good said about nuclear power. Anything that contradicts their bias.

Seriously, the only "study" which concludes 2 million deaths from Chernobyl has basically been retracted by the New York Academy of Sciences, who published a translation of it in the U.S.

http://www.nyas.org/Publications/Annals/Detail.aspx?cid=f3f3bd16-51ba-4d7b-a086-753f44b3bfc1

On that page, they have a link to a review of the "study" by a scientist that NYAS decided was important to link to. Here's some enlightening quotes from that review:

"In the opinion of this reviewer, the authors unfortunately did not appropriately analyze the
content of the Russian-language publications, for example, to separate them into those that
contain scientific evidence and those based on hasty impressions and ignorant
conclusions."

"The value of this review is not zero, but negative, as its bias is obvious only to specialists,
while inexperienced readers may well be put into deep error."

"Yablokov's
assessment for the mortality from Chernobyl fallout of about one million (!) before 2004
(Subsection 7.7) puts this book in a range of rather science fiction than science. It is obvious
that if such a mass death of people occurred, it would not have remained unnoticed, even
more because it is not so much about the population of the three countries, than about the rest
of Europe and even countries outside Europe (!)."

That is a non story.

[aepervius]

"1.62 millisieverts in a span of three months"

Big Fucking Deal. Here around due to the granitic rock and radon , we are getting in average a bit less than 5 mSv per year. For Japan it is about 1mSv. Assuming that radiation dose per 3 month is in addition to the normal natural dose, they are geeting per year about the same as we got in our house : around 5 mSv per year. And the world average is around 2.5 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation. Anything under 10 mSv per year I would not even bat an eye.

Re:Anti - Nuke Scare Tactics!!

[Anonymous Coward]

There used to be porn stories whenever an article about OOXML or any Microsoft antitrust lawsuit or the SCO lawsuits came up.

<tinfoil-hat>
Maybe it is to discourage people who aren't familiar with the normal, slightly higher signal-to-noise ratio from reading those Slashdot discussions, or to have them blocked by their corporate parental guidance filter or something.
</tinfoil-hat>

Fukushima

[Sasha-Whitefur]

Somebody has forgotten, about Hiroshima and Nagasaki.