Very very few indeed, it's stupidly wasteful. The vast majority of that cleanup is incredibly QALY inefficient, spending millions removing tiny bits of radiati

Very very few indeed, it's stupidly wasteful. The vast majority of that cleanup is incredibly QALY inefficient, spending millions removing tiny bits of radiation from soil that would cause a hundredth of a cancer case. This is because the rules are that they need to return the area to the same radiation levels it used to have, not merely to a safe enough level that further action would be QALY inefficient. Even in 2012 the natural reduction in radiation meant you have only a few square kilometers[1] with exposure levels over 20uSv/h, the level at which we can actually detect a cancer increase. An area that seems to have had less than a thousand people judging by satellite photos. There is no way to justify spending $150 billion cleaning up something that would kill only a couple of people (particularly when you can just pay them the old value of the land/housing and then let them decide whether they want to accept the increased cancer risk) when even in Japan you can save a thousand lives with that money. [1] https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/uploadedImages/wnn/Images/Fukushima_Radiation_map_2011_2012%201280x967.jpg https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/uploadedImages/wnn/Images...