Radioactive strontium detected in 10 prefectures
TOKYO —
Radioactive strontium, thought to have been released following the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster last year, has been detected in 10 prefectures across Japan, the government said Wednesday.
The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology confirmed that small amounts of radioactive strontium have been detected in Akita, Iwate, Yamagata, Ibaraki, Tochigi, Gunma, Saitama, Chiba and Kanagawa Prefectures, as well as in Tokyo, Fuji TV reported.
The ministry said that the highest detected level was in Ibaraki where readings of 6 becquerels per square meter were detected. A ministry spokesman was quoted as saying that radiation at this level has a negligible effect on human health, Fuji reported.
The government’s findings come weeks after the Tokyo Shimbun reported the Koto Association for the Protection of Children held a press conference in the Tokyo metropolitan government building on June 7, to announced the results of a survey it carried out, which showed high levels of radioactive cesium in an athletic ground near the Tobu sewage sludge processing plant in Tokyo.
The research, carried out by the association and Professor Tomoya Yamauchi of Kobe University, found cesium levels of 230,000 becquerels per square meter, an amount six times higher than the limit set for material leaving the radiation exclusion zone in Fukushima, Fuji reported.
Japan Today
Order by Time Order by Popularity
35 Comments
Login to comment
7
gogogo
Remember people the government is only testing food for cesium!
-2
Ms. Alexander
If it really has a negligible effect, why even report it? People will get more scared than they already are. Way to instill paranoia!
4
gogogo
Anyone know where the Tobu sewage sludge processing plant in Tokyo is actually?
10
Cletus
A negligible effect. Wow thats really reassuring there. Not no effect but negligible, feel sorry for anyone that happens to suffer from these negligible effects
Cant wait for our resident nay sayer to come and critisise these findings. Floors open Basroil
9
Lowly
Too late, ms Alexander
No-one trusts the government or the nuclear industry AT ALL now. If they found it and didn't report it, what do you think would happen? Their best bet is to be open about any and all tiny details relating to this disaster and also get outside independent bodies/ ppl to confirm any finding or analysis they make whenever possible. Like a dog with his tail between his legs. Otherwise things will just get worse.
0
JaneM
Because if they do not report it and it comes out as a piece of news in a newspaper someday everybody will be saying that they have yet again hidden important information - regardless of the fact that it is a small amount and probably do have negligible effects on human health.
6
Probie
@gogogo
It's in between Kasai Rinkai Kouen, and Shin Kiba.
Address: 東京都江東区新砂3-8-1
3
SquidBert
6Bq per m2 for strontium is not a whole lot. But strontium is a bone seeker where it gets absorbed and can be pretty nasty. I think the main concern would be the possibility of absorption and concentration in growing crops.
230 000 Bq /m2 for cesium is alarming. (But article does not say where)
-1
basroil
The Japanese law (which was there since long ago) on Strontium-90 states 0.03Bq/cm^3, or 300Bq/m^2 per cm of soil. This reading is 50 times smaller than the legal limit, and probably near the detection capability of the scintillator tubes. Luckily it is a beta emitter with practically no gamma component, so not as dangerous as other isotopes.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki should still have higher levels of strontium though, 20% of the strontium from nuclear bombs should still exist there.
7
ultradork
Note to self: do not live near sludge treatment plants in Tohoku or Kanto
5
Farmboy
Radioactive strontium is hazardous only when taken into the body, where it lodges primarily in your bones, so as long as you haven't eaten food or ingested liquids in the last year and a half, you have absolutely nothing to worry about.
Plus, the reading of radioactivity is low, and as long as the geiger remains in its lead-lined holder, it should remain low. Nah, seriously, it probably IS low, but internal radiation isn't a happy thing at any level, even if it's "negligible."
7
Farmboy
I remember reading about cesium, strontium and plutonium being released from Fukushima in this old article:
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/AJ2011100112896
So... now we have seen recent news about cesium and about strontium. Maybe in another few months we can hear about plutonium?
5
the-grouch
Here we go... another reason to say I TOLD YOU SO. Last week I went with my family to Ibaraki, Oorai and I was right. I feel good that I didn't get in the water. I feel sorry for all the people who were at the beach. So now this is being reported..ok SO what is the truth? Where is it safe to go in Kanto? Is it too late to panic? I am disgusted...with these findings.
13
Ivan Coughanoffalot
A ministry spokesman was quoted as saying that radiation at this level has a negligible effect on human health,
Well, that's got to be good enough for me. Who could doubt a ministry spokesman, after the exemplary job they've done thus far?
2
Charles M Burns
Radioactive strontium is hazardous only when taken into the body, where it lodges primarily in your bones, so as long as you haven't eaten food or ingested liquids in the last year and a half, you have absolutely nothing to worry about.
Plus, the reading of radioactivity is low, and as long as the geiger remains in its lead-lined holder, it should remain low. Nah, seriously, it probably IS low, but internal radiation isn't a happy thing at any level, even if it's "negligible."
Good one.
-1
basroil
FarmboyJul. 25, 2012 - 03:14PM JST
You can just read the reports and know that there is plutonium, but so small of amounts that most low end sensors can't even detect it.
-2
basroil
SquidBertJul. 25, 2012 - 02:56PM JST
Most tests by the government and TEPCO use 50cm, so we have about 500-750kg of topsoil (loose topsoil is about 1.2 times water density). That means it's between 460 and 300Bq/kg, well under the legal limit. If they only used 10cm of topsoil for the sample instead though, then you have very close to the limit (2500Bq/kg x2, since Cs-134 makes up half the radiation and limit is based on both), but still under it. Interestingly, the alarmists in other articles always used a very value of 53kg/m^2, which ends up being less than 5cm. Using that then you get 4100Bq/kg, which is above the legal limit for another three decades without accounting for biological removal.
7
valley-of-the-shadows
What about Fukushima?
5
SquidBert
Basroil,
I have checked the original report, and they do not state the depth of the sample (as far as I could understand the Japanese).
But the article clearly states
So let's just agree for once, that it is not good.
-2
basroil
SquidBertJul. 25, 2012 - 05:03PM JST
Definitely not good for whoever is in charge.
I think the author here is mixing and matching units that should never be mixed. All government limits are in Bq/kg, not Bq/m^2, so if there is six times higher, they better explain how they got from kg to m^2 in the first place.
The "same as trash" limit is 8000Bq/kg, which has nothing to do with soil, and would come out to about 29kg/m^2 measurement, or about 2cm of dirt at the site. With only that depth, they might as well just plow it over if the rain doesn't wash it out first.
2
Cricky
SquidBert if you continue to quote facts I will be foced to post a dazzling array of statistics and links and also use a condeseding tone not once but many times over several posts, please refrain from using facts and you concerns as they contradict my point.
7
billyshears
A lot of the country`s rice supply come from these prefectures.
If you've eaten rice from these areas, how are you supposed to know whether or not you've also eaten some amount of strontium? Can the government guarantee this rice is safe for daily consumption? Does saying that such amounts "have a negligible effect on human health" also take into consideration the accumulative effects of these negligible amounts when consumed on a daily basis (especially for the young)? I think these are the questions that the public want answers to...not a lot of statistics that are meaningless to the average person.
5
Kabukilover
As usual: "...a negligible effect on human health..." And I say bah humbug.
Don't trust anything the government of Noda the clown tells you. This coming from the national government arm of the nuclear mafia. Trust your geiger counter. And trust foreign news media and independent experts more than anything you hear from paid "experts," politicians and the capitalists.
The nuclear mafia wants to ram nuclear power down your throat and then "gain the public's understanding" after that.
Look at the number of prefectures that are contaminated in some way and then consider the number that are left. Fact is that Japan cannot afford another nuclear accident. We just don't have that much land to waste.
1
SquidBert
Cricky,
I am sorry that was unfair of me. :)
6
Euphoria
Me wonders why Fukushima not mentioned in the list of prefectures :-/. ?
4
Ranger_Miffy2
WHERE ARE THE MAPS? Just stating an entire ku as "contaminated" is worse than useless. As we all know by now, the radiation clouds followed the valleys and winds. Should we just simply overlay those maps with these statistics? Where is the factual, illuminating journalism?
5
marcelito
Yeah... What's are the results for Fukushima...anyone knows?..or are they too bad to publish?...
5
Ali Khan
The mismanagement and the negligence which happened during the disaster, i think it is still continue. we need a comprehensive picture of the events from an independent body, which could be trusted.
0
Leslie Corrice
While releasing this story tends to aggravate those already gripped by mortal fear of radiation (radiophobia), it is something that recieves Press-pop from other media outlets. Thus, Japan Today is merely doing what is good for business. However, it should be noted that 6 Becquerels/meter is about half the radioactivity in one banana, a bag of potato chips or a helping of broccoli from naturally-occurring potassium-40. K-40 is also a so-called bone-seeker. The bottom line is this...just because Sr-90 is detectable, does not mean "dangerous". In fact, 6 Bq/m wouldn't hurt a bacterium. This is a detectable, but biologically innocuous level.
3
presto345
So 230,000 becquerels per square meter amounts to just a truck load of bananas?
-6
YuriOtani
The radiation was there before 311. The series of open air atomic tests in China is the reason. The Chinese and Russians set off some really large ground burst atomic bombs. The 2 American bombs were air burst over their targets and would not have created as much fallout.
This article is more fear mongering in the push to scare Japan STUPID.
1
butakun
This article omits the fact that the level was 1/60 that recorded during the 60s.
0
billyshears
Well, this is what I found on the net. The old banana story appears to be something akin to an urban myth.
Strontium (chemical symbol Sr) is a silvery metal that rapidly turns yellowish in air. Strontium is found naturally as a non-radioactive element. Strontium has 16 known isotopes. Naturally occurring strontium is found as four stable isotopes Sr-84, -86, -87, and -88. Twelve other isotopes are radioactive. Strontium-90 is the most important radioactive isotope in the environment, although strontium-89 can be found around reactors, and strontium-85 is used in industry and medicine. trontium-90 is chemically similar to calcium, and tends to deposit in bone and blood-forming tissue (bone marrow). Thus, strontium-90 is referred to as a "bone seeker." Internal exposure to Sr-90 is linked to bone cancer, cancer of the soft tissue near the bone, and leukemia. Risk of cancer increases with increased exposure to Sr-90. The risk depends on the concentration of Sr-90 in the environment, and on the exposure conditions. The nuclear apologists who try to confuse people by saying low level radiation is not dangerous are trying to tell you that potassium is the same as radioactive cesium, radioactive strontium, radioactive uranium, radioactive plutonium, radioactive iodine, etc.. These are all POISONS, compared to potassium in a banana.
0
billyshears
Bananas are radioactive because they contain some Potassium-40. So do many things. But the reason this idea (that the dangers of radioctivity can be measured in bananas) is absurd is that different radioisotopes exist which have different biological affinities. Potassium is uniformly distributed in the body and so can be compared with external radiation. Not so substances like Strontium-90 and Uranium 238 or Plutonium 239 which have high affinity to DNAS and so can deliver their energy where it is effective in causing mutation. Almost all of the potassium 40 radiation is wasted.
Prof Chris Busby, Aberystwyth
This article (same as the one above), while somewhat informative for the uninitiated, is rather misleading from a scientific perspective. The "banana equivalent dose" is frowned upon by radiation protection specialists like me. While it's true that bananas contain potassium and, by extension, radioactive potassium-40, humans don't simply absorb all of the radiation that the potassium-40 emits. The body keeps a more or less constant inventory of all the potassium it needs. When you ingest potassium, some of it is retained and the extra potassium is excreted. As a result, some of the "banana equivalent dose" is not retained in the body but passes right through. Because this amount also differs from person to person, it's not a good method of comparison. Comparing it (the danger to humans from radioactivity) to a known quantity, such as a chest or dental x-ray, would be more scientifically accurate while allowing you to make the same point to your readers.
John Harvey PhD, Atlanta, Georgia, United States
5
BessonovYan
That is false. Low level radiation in man it continuously damage to health. That is more terrible than outside higher radiation level.
Back to top