4 ms·

What is this article meant to signify? Is it just to reassure people who travel to Tokyo? Fukushima is 300 Km north of Tokyo, so while the radiations in the la

What is this article meant to signify? Is it just to reassure people who travel to Tokyo? Fukushima is 300 Km north of Tokyo, so while the radiations in the latter might be low, the former, (correct me if I'm wrong), is a lost city that won't be possible to inhabit for thousands of years. That, in my opinion, is a more relevant fact.

anarchy8 13y ago
I thought people were still living there now? I remember news reports from half a year ago.
wpietri 13y ago
Do you have a source for that? What I've read suggests that the towns involved are seen as safe to return to: http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/08/14/japan-decontamination-fukushima-idINDEE97D0G220130814 http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/08/14/japan-decontaminati... The main problems from what I've seen are psychological and social. Which are still real problems. One expert says: "We know from Chernobyl that the psychological consequences are enormous. Life expectancy of the evacuees dropped from 65 to 58 years -- not [predominately] because of cancer, but because of depression, alcoholism and suicide. Relocation is not easy, the stress is very big. We must not only track those problems, but also treat them. Otherwise people will feel they are just guinea pigs in our research." -- http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/studying-the-fukushima-aftermath-people-are-suffering-from-radiophobia-a-780810.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/studying-the-fukus...
teraflop 13y ago
Some clarification: Fukushima is a prefecture covering 14,000 square kilometers, with about 2 million residents. The town of Ōkuma, where the Fukushima Daiichi power station is located, had a population of 11,000 and has been evacuated to a radius of 10 km. That's a very conservative exclusion zone that reflects a slightly increased lifetime risk of certain cancers; the area that's actually "uninhabitable" is extremely small. No need to blow things out of proportion.
maratd 13y ago
> the former, (correct me if I'm wrong), is a lost city that won't be possible to inhabit for thousands of years. You are horribly wrong. The radiation levels there have fallen off as well. And as far as people are concerned, there are people living in Chernobyl right now, which was far worse.
- the_mitsuhiko 13y ago
  > And as far as people are concerned, there are people living in Chernobyl right now, which was far worse. [citation needed] Aside from that Pripyat is what should be discussed.
jessriedel 13y ago
> Fukushima ...(correct me if I'm wrong), is a lost city that won't be possible to inhabit for thousands of years. Please edit your comment. You're completely wrong, and it's unsubstantiated speculation like this that drapes everything in FUD. People are already returning to the immediate vicinity of the power plant, having only been excluded this long because of ludicrously conservative recommendations. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/10659577/First-Fukushima-evacuees-to-return-to-their-homes.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/1065957... (The actual city of Fukushima and the rest of the Fukushima prefecture have been safe, even according to the highly conservative recommendations, for a long time now. I'm not sure they were ever even evactuated. As teraflop notes, the above article refers to the small town of Ōkuma in which the reactor was located.) As expected, the actual harm caused by the meltdown is essentially undetectable above background levels, and is trivial compared to the tsunami disaster that precipitated it. Most of the harm done comes from fear mongering when no actual risk exists. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/10/us-japan-fukushima-children-idUSBREA280RJ20140310 http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/10/us-japan-fukushima...
- pyre 13y ago
  > when no actual risk exists Now who's over-stating their case? 0% risk?
  - chc 13y ago
    Please don't stoop to this level of discourse. If there are two possible readings of a comment, one reasonable and one unreasonable, it's best to choose the reasonable one.
Sharlin 13y ago
Fukushima-the-city, the capital of the Fukushima prefecture, has almost nothing to do with the Fukushima Daiichi disaster. It was practically not affected at all and is certainly not "lost".

anarchy8 13y ago

I thought people were still living there now? I remember news reports from half a year ago.

wpietri 13y ago

Do you have a source for that? What I've read suggests that the towns involved are seen as safe to return to: http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/08/14/japan-decontamination-fukushima-idINDEE97D0G220130814 http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/08/14/japan-decontaminati... The main problems from what I've seen are psychological and social. Which are still real problems. One expert says: "We know from Chernobyl that the psychological consequences are enormous. Life expectancy of the evacuees dropped from 65 to 58 years -- not [predominately] because of cancer, but because of depression, alcoholism and suicide. Relocation is not easy, the stress is very big. We must not only track those problems, but also treat them. Otherwise people will feel they are just guinea pigs in our research." -- http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/studying-the-fukushima-aftermath-people-are-suffering-from-radiophobia-a-780810.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/studying-the-fukus...

teraflop 13y ago

Some clarification: Fukushima is a prefecture covering 14,000 square kilometers, with about 2 million residents. The town of Ōkuma, where the Fukushima Daiichi power station is located, had a population of 11,000 and has been evacuated to a radius of 10 km. That's a very conservative exclusion zone that reflects a slightly increased lifetime risk of certain cancers; the area that's actually "uninhabitable" is extremely small. No need to blow things out of proportion.

maratd 13y ago

> the former, (correct me if I'm wrong), is a lost city that won't be possible to inhabit for thousands of years. You are horribly wrong. The radiation levels there have fallen off as well. And as far as people are concerned, there are people living in Chernobyl right now, which was far worse.

the_mitsuhiko 13y ago
> And as far as people are concerned, there are people living in Chernobyl right now, which was far worse. [citation needed] Aside from that Pripyat is what should be discussed.

jessriedel 13y ago

> Fukushima ...(correct me if I'm wrong), is a lost city that won't be possible to inhabit for thousands of years. Please edit your comment. You're completely wrong, and it's unsubstantiated speculation like this that drapes everything in FUD. People are already returning to the immediate vicinity of the power plant, having only been excluded this long because of ludicrously conservative recommendations. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/10659577/First-Fukushima-evacuees-to-return-to-their-homes.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/1065957... (The actual city of Fukushima and the rest of the Fukushima prefecture have been safe, even according to the highly conservative recommendations, for a long time now. I'm not sure they were ever even evactuated. As teraflop notes, the above article refers to the small town of Ōkuma in which the reactor was located.) As expected, the actual harm caused by the meltdown is essentially undetectable above background levels, and is trivial compared to the tsunami disaster that precipitated it. Most of the harm done comes from fear mongering when no actual risk exists. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/10/us-japan-fukushima-children-idUSBREA280RJ20140310 http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/10/us-japan-fukushima...

pyre 13y ago
> when no actual risk exists Now who's over-stating their case? 0% risk?
- chc 13y ago
  Please don't stoop to this level of discourse. If there are two possible readings of a comment, one reasonable and one unreasonable, it's best to choose the reasonable one.

Sharlin 13y ago

Fukushima-the-city, the capital of the Fukushima prefecture, has almost nothing to do with the Fukushima Daiichi disaster. It was practically not affected at all and is certainly not "lost".