Radioactive Concrete From Fukushima Found In New Construction

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Radioactive Concrete From Fukushima Found In New Construction

Posted by samzenpus on Monday January 16, 2012 @04:24AM from the when-recycling-goes-bad dept.

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."

40 of 237 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

A bit of perspective by Sarten-X · 2012-01-16 04:30 · Score: 5, Informative

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 do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
1. Re:A bit of perspective by ae1294 · 2012-01-16 04:35 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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?
2. Re:A bit of perspective by Dexter+Herbivore · 2012-01-16 04:43 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  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?
3. Re:A bit of perspective by quenda · 2012-01-16 04:43 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Norway ... has some of the highest radeon levels in the world...
  Radeon levels? Is Nvidia an obscene word in the Norwegian language perhaps?
4. Re:A bit of perspective by Sarten-X · 2012-01-16 04:44 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
5. Re:A bit of perspective by quenda · 2012-01-16 04:46 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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.
6. Re:A bit of perspective by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-16 04:54 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Maybe she was concerned about the extra radiation dose that you would receive from flying in an airplane at high altitudes.
7. Re:A bit of perspective by peragrin · 2012-01-16 04:54 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
8. Re:A bit of perspective by Sarten-X · 2012-01-16 05:02 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
9. Re:A bit of perspective by vlm · 2012-01-16 05:04 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  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.
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
10. Re:A bit of perspective by Sarten-X · 2012-01-16 05:11 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
11. Re:A bit of perspective by mspohr · 2012-01-16 06:04 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Re:More importantly, by ae1294 · 2012-01-16 04:30 · Score: 4, Funny

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?
From TFA by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-16 04:39 · Score: 5, Informative

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".
Calling Dr. Freeman by Kaenneth · 2012-01-16 04:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

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?
1. Re:Calling Dr. Freeman by quenda · 2012-01-16 04:47 · Score: 2
  
  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.
2. Re:Calling Dr. Freeman by jonbryce · 2012-01-16 04:51 · Score: 2
  
  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:More importantly, by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-16 04:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

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, by vlm · 2012-01-16 04:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Re:More importantly, by WrongSizeGlass · 2012-01-16 04:57 · Score: 4, Funny

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.
64 chest x-rays / year by mdsolar · 2012-01-16 04:57 · Score: 2

And that dose was in only three months, so it is 64 chest X-rays per year.
Cocktopus by iONiUM · 2012-01-16 05:01 · Score: 2

I believe he's talking about the legend of the cocktopus.
Re:More importantly, by JSBiff · 2012-01-16 05:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

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:Easy Solution. . . by gl4ss · 2012-01-16 05:07 · Score: 2

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

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
In the apartment's defense, by need4mospd · 2012-01-16 05:08 · Score: 4, Funny

They're already receiving glowing reviews.
Does the nuke industry troll here? by GodfatherofSoul · 2012-01-16 05:10 · Score: 2

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.

--
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
1. Re:Does the nuke industry troll here? by The+Wild+Norseman · 2012-01-16 05:45 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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...
  
  --
  "A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
Re:More importantly, by Kagetsuki · 2012-01-16 05:30 · Score: 5, Informative

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.
RTFA by mdsolar · 2012-01-16 05:39 · Score: 4, Informative

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:More importantly, by MightyYar · 2012-01-16 05:53 · Score: 2

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.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:More importantly, by Krojack · 2012-01-16 05:54 · Score: 2

Truth hurts and some people just can't accept it. I'm sure someone will say those numbers are made-up.
No by Sycraft-fu · 2012-01-16 05:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

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:More importantly, by ColdWetDog · 2012-01-16 06:09 · Score: 4, Funny

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.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Wrong conversion by mdsolar · 2012-01-16 06:09 · Score: 2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert#SI_multiples_and_conversions 1.6 mSv is 160 mrem
Re:More importantly, by vuke69 · 2012-01-16 06:09 · Score: 5, Funny

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

--
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so. ~ Douglas Adams
Re:More importantly, by Grishnakh · 2012-01-16 06:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

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, by blair1q · 2012-01-16 06:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

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, by an+unsound+mind · 2012-01-16 07:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
That is a non story. by aepervius · 2012-01-16 09:54 · Score: 3, Interesting

"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.

--
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Re:More importantly, by catmistake · 2012-01-16 11:25 · Score: 2

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...

--
The Admin and the Engineer