Japan's Nuclear Refugees, Still Stuck In Limbo

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Japan's Nuclear Refugees, Still Stuck In Limbo

Posted by Soulskill on Wednesday October 2, 2013 @07:29AM from the moving-at-the-speed-of-bureaucracy dept.

mdsolar tips this story at the NY Times: "Every month, Hiroko Watabe, 74, returns for a few hours to her abandoned house near the damaged Fukushima nuclear plant to engage in her own small act of defiance against fate. She dons a surgical mask, hangs two radiation-measuring devices around her neck and crouches down to pull weeds. She is desperate to keep her small yard clean to prove she has not given up on her home, which she and her family evacuated two years ago after a 9.0 earthquake and a tsunami devastated the plant five miles away. Not all her neighbors are willing to take the risk; chest-high weeds now block the doorways of their once-tidy homes. 'In my heart, I know we can never live here again,' said Ms. Watabe, who drove here with her husband from Koriyama, the city an hour away where they have lived since the disaster. 'But doing this gives us a purpose. We are saying that this is still our home.' While the continuing environmental disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi plant has grabbed world headlines — with hundreds of tons of contaminated water flowing into the Pacific Ocean daily — a human crisis has been quietly unfolding. Two and a half years after the plant belched plumes of radioactive materials over northeast Japan, the almost 83,000 nuclear refugees evacuated from the worst-hit areas are still unable to go home."

21 of 78 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

How about.... by durrr · 2013-10-02 07:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

That you give us actual fucking measurement numbers in millisievert per unit of time instead of scaremongering with ambigious definitions.
If I were 74 years old and my home had an annual 5mSv radiation dose(technically in excess of 2x civilian limits). I would live there, whole fucking year. And if I die of cancer, I'd have done so anyway.
1. Re:How about.... by Russ1642 · 2013-10-02 07:48 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  It's not that simple. It isn't a constant exposure. You hang around long enough and you'll ingest stuff, which is a whole other ball game.
2. Re:How about.... by AmiMoJo · 2013-10-02 08:00 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Even if you don't care about your own life long term, what do you expect your life to be like living there? No younger people will go there, most of your neighbours will have gone, no services, no support. As an added bonus any chance of getting compensation will disappear because you proved your home is habitable. Of course everything in it is worthless now, at least until it is decontaminated and most of it just isn't worth the hassle. That is assuming it even works, a lot of stuff fails if not maintained or used for a couple of years.
  Also cancer tends to be a painful and unpleasant death, so it's not something you just decide to take a chance on. Don't expect the doctor to visit you in the exclusion zone either.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
3. Re:How about.... by Russ1642 · 2013-10-02 08:04 · Score: 2
  
  I was simply saying that they can't simply provide a measure of the radiation exposure and report it. You'd basically have to do a long-term study to figure out what the danger from exposure is. Care to volunteer?
4. Re:How about.... by dunkelfalke · 2013-10-02 08:04 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  And also don't breathe. Because dust can be radioactive.
  Maybe the people aren't as stupid as you think they are. Maybe you are not as clever as you think you are.
  
  --
  "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
5. Re:How about.... by AmiMoJo · 2013-10-02 08:05 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Yeah, a 74 year old woman is going live like a fucking frontier pioneer.
  I don't think you understand what those people even miss. It's not the building or their land, it's the home they had and the community it existed in. Both are gone now and can never come back - even if they finished decontamination tomorrow half the people have moved on with their lives and won't come back.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
6. Re:How about.... by Tailhook · 2013-10-02 09:28 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Green is 50
  No. The green is clearly labeled "Less than 20". The yellow is 20-50 mSv / year, 50 being the annual limit for workers in the US.
  
  There is a lot of red on the map.
  Looks like about 15 sq. miles of red, unintended nature preserve, with >50 mSv/year. All the iodine-131 is long gone so that map is depicting cesium and strontium decay, which will persist for 300 years.
  
  --
  Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
7. Re:How about.... by nospam007 · 2013-10-02 10:18 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  "Import food and use rainwater reserviours/wells."
  Nice try, but they'll live in tents for the rest of their life.
  That's THE risk of nuclear power, they have no insurance, so you'll get about 10.000 bucks for your lavish home if you're lucky.
  BTW on other news, the Swiss are complaining to the EU that Germany ruins their nuke Spiel by exporting cheap Solar and Wind energy to Switzerland, a third cheaper (4 cents instead of 6), so even their pumping reservoirs aren't being used anymore for spikes at midday, Germans solar power is way cheaper.
8. Re:How about.... by Solandri · 2013-10-02 10:51 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  It's worth pointing out that this sort of dislocation of people from their homes is hardly unique to nuclear plants. Construction of Three Gorges Dam included forcefully relocating 1.3 million people. Itaipu required relocating 59,000 people. About 3000 were relocated for Grand Coulee. And the failure of the Banqiao series of hydroelectric dams resulted in 11 million people losing their homes (in addition to ~170,000 being killed).
  
  At least with Fukushima, these people were dislocated only because of an accident, and will eventually be able to reclaim their homes. With hydroelectric dams, those homes and towns are gone for as long as the dam is operational. But that doesn't fit the narrative that renewable energy is harmless while nuclear is evil, so nobody thinks of it that way.
9. Re:How about.... by TapeCutter · 2013-10-02 11:00 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Wildlife is thriving because of the lack of humans, the contamination affects their health but nowhere near as much as living amongst humans does. Wildlife also thrives in the Korean DMZ, to them a carpet of land mines is safer than living with humans.
  
  --
  And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
10. Re:How about.... by AmiMoJo · 2013-10-03 00:13 · Score: 2
  
  Not, it's not worth pointing out. The fact that other people have been forced out of their homes does not lessen the suffering of the Fukushima refugees. Also, comparisons between Japan, the world's third largest economy and a very modern democratic country, with places like China are not very useful.
  Most people will never be able to reclaim their homes or most of their possessions. It either isn't possible or isn't worth decontaminating them so at best they may be replaced, but then they will be left with a worthless house in a ghost town that no-one wants to buy. The victims are pushing for the government (since they are basically TEPCO's insurers) to buy their homes at the old market value and pay them compensation on top.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Retirement colonies? by Hatta · 2013-10-02 07:49 · Score: 2

How about letting the elderly live there? It takes time for low level radiation to cause tumors. If you're old enough that you won't be around to see the cancer, you have nothing to worry about.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
1. Re:Retirement colonies? by a.d.trick · 2013-10-02 07:57 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Old people usually need younger people to take care of them.
Re:A challenge. by CrimsonAvenger · 2013-10-02 07:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

Umm, just exactly what problem are you asking them to solve?
I thought the subject was Fukushima, which is NOT "a threat to all life on our planet".

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Re:A challenge. by kellymcdonald78 · 2013-10-02 09:27 · Score: 2

I guess then the new cover building and fuel transport crane that has been built over unit 4, doesn't exist. Not to mention all of the work to restore the service floor and fuel handing machinery plus the testing and inspections that are being done in preparation of starting to remove stored fuel next month is a figment of peoples imagination. The 123 pgase updated TEPCO decomissioning plan approved June 27 by Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry must be a fairy tail. Care to try again with some facts instead of "AHHHHHH WE'RE ALL DEAD!!!!!!!!!"
Holding Pattern by mdsolar · 2013-10-02 09:47 · Score: 2

The problem seems to be not knowing if the clean up will happen or not. Since no one knows how to do the job, that is not too surprising. But, at least there is a promise of compensation for lost property if the clean up is a no go. If the same thing were to happen at Indian Point, the NRC has said there would be zero compensation. http://www.nextgov.com/defense/2013/09/new-york-wonders-where-nuclear-cleanup-funds-would-come/70800/?oref=ng-dropdown And, if you check your home owners policy, there is nothing there either.
1. Re:Holding Pattern by AmiMoJo · 2013-10-02 10:01 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The problem is that compensation for property isn't enough, not by a long shot. Those communities are gone. People's jobs, whole companies are gone. They money will never be enough.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Confused about radiation levels by AmiMoJo · 2013-10-02 09:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

The radioactive material from Fukushima Daiichi accumulates in the soil and in the plants. Digging and pulling plants out of the ground is pretty much one of the most dangerous things you can do around there.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Radiation levels & evacuation by tlambert · 2013-10-02 10:53 · Score: 2

Radiation levels & evacuation
The Japanese government is coming close to lifting the evacuation order; the radiation is declining quickly. Here are the cumulative numbers from 3/23/2011 to 5/2/2011:
5/2/2011: 24.14 milli-sieverts (3/23 - 5/1); +2.99 milli-sieverts from previous week)
4/25/2011: 21.15 milli-sieverts (3/23 - 4/24; +3.17 milli-sieverts from previous week)
4/18/2011: 17.98 milli-sieverts (3/23 - 4/17; +3.5 milli-sieverts from previous week)
4/11/2011: 14.48 milli-sieverts (3/23 - 4/10; +4.14 milli-sieverts from previoius week)
4/4/2011: 10.34 milli-sieverts (3/23 - 4/3; +5.527 milli-sieverts from previous week)
3/28/2011: 4.813 milli-sieverts (3/23 - 3/27; +3.276 milli-sieverts in 3 days)
3/25/2011: 1.537 milli-sieverts (3/23 - 3/24)
Source: http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/saigaijohou/syousai/1304002.htm
They intend to allow unrestricted repopulation of the area in early 2017. To get the 20 mSev level for 40 days, they had to pick the days right after the disaster.
The radiation levels are actually not that high these days, since most of the continuing leakages is from the poorly isolated holding pond, which they have failed to repair, into the the ocean, as opposed to into the air, which is what happened initially.
1. Re:Radiation levels & evacuation by AmiMoJo · 2013-10-03 00:17 · Score: 2
  
  Those are the overall levels measured in free air. Because the material accumulates there are hot spots everywhere, and activities like playing or digging in the earth are dangerous. The government won't allow people back until the decontamination is complete, and at the moment it looks unlikely to be done by 2017 because in areas where it has been attempted it has failed.
  In any case, how many people do you think will want to go back after 6 years? They will have moved on, got new jobs, maybe started a family or died.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Perspective by mdsolar · 2013-10-02 17:07 · Score: 2

Jim,

Just click "log in" in the upper right and you'll be offered a chance to get a laughably high user number like mine. I think you are mistaken on a number of areas here. For example, people can buy flood insurance. They can't buy nuclear accident insurance.