FUTABA, Japan — Futaba is a modern-day ghost town — not a boomtown gone bust, not even entirely a victim of the devastating earthquake and tsunami that leveled other parts of Japan’s northeast coast.
Its traditional wooden homes have begun to sag and collapse since they were abandoned in March by residents fleeing the nuclear plant on the edge of town that began spiraling toward disaster. Roofs possibly damaged by the earth’s shaking have let rain seep in, starting the rot that is eating at the houses from the inside.
The roadway arch at the entrance to the empty town almost seems a taunt. It reads:
“Nuclear energy: a correct understanding brings a prosperous lifestyle.”
Those who fled Futaba are among the nearly 90,000 people evacuated from a 12-mile zone around the Fukushima Daiichi plant and another area to the northwest contaminated when a plume from the plant scattered radioactive cesium and iodine.
Now, Japan is drawing up plans for a cleanup that is both monumental and unprecedented, in the hopes that those displaced can go home.
The debate over whether to repopulate the area, if trial cleanups prove effective, has become a proxy for a larger battle over the future of Japan. Supporters see rehabilitating the area as a chance to showcase the country’s formidable determination and superior technical skills — proof that Japan is still a great power.
For them, the cleanup is a perfect metaphor for Japan’s rebirth.
Critics counter that the effort to clean Fukushima Prefecture could end up as perhaps the biggest of Japan’s white-elephant public works projects — and yet another example of post-disaster Japan reverting to the wasteful ways that have crippled economic growth for two decades.
So far, the government is following a pattern set since the nuclear accident, dismissing dangers, often prematurely, and laboring to minimize the scope of the catastrophe. Already, the trial cleanups have stalled: the government failed to anticipate communities’ reluctance to store tons of soil to be scraped from contaminated yards and fields.
Continue reading the main storyAnd a radiation specialist who tested the results of an extensive local cleanup in a nearby city found that exposure levels remained above international safety standards for long-term habitation.
Even a vocal supporter of repatriation suggests that the government has not yet leveled with its people about the seriousness of their predicament.
“I believe it is possible to save Fukushima,” said the supporter, Tatsuhiko Kodama, director of the Radioisotope Center at the University of Tokyo. “But many evacuated residents must accept that it won’t happen in their lifetimes.”
To judge the huge scale of what Japan is contemplating, consider that experts say residents can return home safely only after thousands of buildings are scrubbed of radioactive particles and much of the topsoil from an area the size of Connecticut is replaced.
Even forested mountains will probably need to be decontaminated, which might necessitate clear-cutting and literally scraping them clean.
The Soviet Union did not attempt such a cleanup after the Chernobyl accident of 1986, the only nuclear disaster larger than that at Fukushima Daiichi. The government instead relocated about 300,000 people, abandoning vast tracts of farmland.
Many Japanese officials believe that they do not have that luxury; the area contaminated above an international safety standard for the general public covers more than an estimated 0.3 percent of the landmass of this densely populated nation.
“We are different from Chernobyl,” said Toshitsuna Watanabe, 64, the mayor of Okuma, one of the towns that was evacuated. “We are determined to go back. Japan has the will and the technology to do this.”
Such resolve reflects, in part, a deep attachment to home for rural Japanese like Mr. Watanabe, whose family has lived in Okuma for 19 generations. Their heartfelt appeals to go back have won wide sympathy across Japan, making it hard for people to oppose their wishes.
But quiet resistance has begun to grow, both among those who were displaced and those who fear the country will need to sacrifice too much without guarantees that a multibillion-dollar cleanup will provide enough protection.
Soothing pronouncements by local governments and academics about the eventual ability to live safely near the ruined plant can seem to be based on little more than hope.
No one knows how much exposure to low doses of radiation causes a significant risk of premature death. That means Japanese living in contaminated areas are likely to become the subjects of future studies — the second time in seven decades that Japanese have become a test case for the effects of radiation exposure, after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The national government has declared itself responsible for cleaning up only the towns in the evacuation zone; local governments have already begun cleaning cities and towns outside that area.
Inside the 12-mile ring, which includes Futaba, the Environmental Ministry has pledged to reduce radiation levels by half within two years — a relatively easy goal because short-lived isotopes will deteriorate. The bigger question is how long it will take to reach the ultimate goal of bringing levels down to about 1 millisievert per year, the annual limit for the general public from artificial sources of radiation that is recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection. That is a much more daunting task given that it will require removing cesium 137, an isotope that will remain radioactive for decades.
Trial cleanups have been delayed for months by the search for a storage site for enough contaminated dirt to fill 33 domed football stadiums. Even evacuated communities have refused to accept it.
And Tomoya Yamauchi, the radiation expert from Kobe University who performed tests in Fukushima City after extensive remediation efforts, found that radiation levels inside homes had dropped by only about 25 percent. That left parts of the city with levels of radiation four times higher than the recommended maximum exposure.
“We can only conclude that these efforts have so far been a failure,” he said.
Minamisoma, a small city whose center sits about 15 miles from the nuclear plant, is a good place to get a sense of the likely limitations of decontamination efforts.
The city has cleaned dozens of schools, parks and sports facilities in hopes of enticing back the 30,000 of its 70,000 residents who have yet to return since the accident. On a recent morning, a small army of bulldozers and dump trucks were resurfacing a high school soccer field and baseball diamond with a layer of reddish brown dirt. Workers buried the old topsoil in a deep hole in a corner of the soccer field. The crew’s overseer, Masahiro Sakura, said readings at the field had dropped substantially, but he remains anxious because many parts of the city were not expected to be decontaminated for at least two years.
These days, he lets his three young daughters outdoors only to go to school and play in a resurfaced park. “Is it realistic to live like this?” he asked.
The challenges are sure to be more intense inside the 12-mile zone, where radiation levels in some places have reached nearly 510 millisieverts a year, 25 times above the cutoff for evacuation.
Already, the proposed repatriation has opened rifts among those who have been displaced. The 11,500 displaced residents of Okuma — many of whom now live in rows of prefabricated homes 60 miles inland — are enduring just such a divide.
The mayor, Mr. Watanabe, has directed the town to draw up its own plan to return to its original location within three to five years by building a new town on farmland in Okuma’s less contaminated western edge.
Although Mr. Watanabe won a recent election, his challenger found significant support among residents with small children for his plan to relocate to a different part of Japan. Mitsue Ikeda, one supporter, said she would never go home, especially after a medical exam showed that her 8-year-old son, Yuma, had ingested cesium.
“It’s too dangerous,” Ms. Ikeda, 47, said. “How are we supposed to live, by wearing face masks all the time?”
She, like many other evacuees, berated the government, saying it was fixated on cleaning up to avoid paying compensation.
Many older residents, by contrast, said they should be allowed to return.
“Smoking cigarettes is more dangerous than radiation,” said Eiichi Tsukamoto, 70, who worked at the Daiichi plant for 40 years as a repairman. “We can make Okuma a model to the world of how to restore a community after a nuclear accident.”
But even Mr. Kodama, the radiation expert who supports a government cleanup, said such a victory would be hollow, and short-lived if young people did not return. He suggested that the government start rebuilding communities by rebuilding trust eroded over months of official evasion.
“Saving Fukushima requires not just money and effort, but also faith,” he said. “There is no point if only older people go back.”
Because of an editing error, an article last Wednesday about problems in cleaning up land contaminated by the nuclear disaster in Japan misstated, at one point, the amount of Japan’s land mass covered by the evacuation zone around the stricken Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. The zone is 0.3 percent — not 3 percent — of the land mass. (The article correctly described the area as a 12-mile zone.)


45 Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
The comments section is closed. To submit a letter to the editor for publication, write to letters@nytimes.com.
Jim Hopf
San Jose December 7, 2011I was confused by the "size of Connecticut - 3% of land area" statement, given that the evacuation zone is only ~100 square miles. I figured it out after reading all the references to a 1.0 mSv limit. The evacuation zone is based on a 20 mSv threshhold. Cleaning or evacuating all lands over 1 mSv would be patently absurd; extraordinary cost with no measurable health benefit. I can only hope the Japanese regain their sanity and apply a more rational goal of 10-20 mSv.
The statement that annual doses over 1 mSv are "not recommended for long term habitation" is utterly false, and a misreading of ICRP limits. Under that standard, the entire earth is not suitable for long-term habitation, since natural background radiation levels are over 1 mSv per year everywhere. In the US, the average person's exposure is ~6 mSv. Natural background doses range from 1-2 mSv per year to well over 10 mSv per year, and no correlation between background radiation levels and cancer incidence has ever been observed or demonstrated. In fact, clear statistical evidence of health impacts only exists for annual doses of 100 mSv or more.
A more reasonable policy would be to reduce doses to ~10 mSv per year (i.e., roughly the top of the range of natural background levels) in the places where people actually reside. Once that is done, people should be allowed to return. Millions of people (worldwide) live in regions that see ~10 mSv per year (naturally), with no negative health impacts.
Eri
US December 7, 2011First, do we believe the Japanese government and the company acting together with them? If yes, then everything is normal, there are no meltthroughs, and a cold shut down is days away.
On the other hand, reports are coming out about multiple melt throughs, radioactive fuel rods being thrown several miles away from the plant in a huge explosion that either emptied a spent fuel pool or came out of a reactor, and huge releases of radiation that are ongoing.
On top of that, at least 3 reactor cores have (at least) MELTED DOWN, so we have at least three out of control nuclear fires in THREE or more reactors. The water may be keeping the tops of these molten blobs of 60 TONS or so cool, maybe the top 2 inches or so..
But what about the bottom of the 60 ton blob of molten volcano radiation emitting in each of however many reactors? The bottom is at 5,000 degrees.. Concrete and steel melt at much less.
Where are these blobs? Are they outside the reactors? Are they still inside? Who is checking to see where they actually are, compared to what is being reported? Where are the pictures or video cameras to track this?
What is being done to keep this molten, out of control nuclear fire from going down into the ground, hitting groundwater and then exploding? One 60 ton blob of molten poison exploding could be enough to be a life extinction event for humankind, globally.. We have at least three of these going down, down, down... plus a couple of highly radioactive spent fuel pools
Rod Adams
Forest, VA December 8, 2011Eri:
You have a very active imagination that is not grounded in an understanding of physics, thermodynamics or nuclear technology.
The melted cores are now cool. They are producing very little decay heat; what is being produced is being taken away by the water and the surrounding materials.
Melting steel or concrete does not require temperature, it requires heat which has to be delivered in a certain quantity in order to overcome the latent heat of fusion. I realize this terminology might be a little strange to you, but it is standard lingo in thermodynamics. Please do a little studying of the topic before making public pronouncements designed to instill fear in others.
The nuclear cores in Fukushima Daiichi units 1-3 were all badly damaged, but the vast majority of the material in those cores - in excess of 99.9% - remained inside the multiple layers of structures designed to contain them. For units 2 and 3 the very first layer outside of the nuclear fuel cladding itself - the reactor pressure vessel - did most of the containing. Simulations of the events and conditions for unit 1 indicate that the core there penetrated about 7/10ths of a meter into a containment/foundation structure that is about 13 meters thick and has several layers of concrete and steel.
In other words - what are you so worried about. Do you have stock in ExxonMobil or some other natural gas supplier that is making huge profits by selling natural gas?
Michael
Seoul, Korea December 7, 2011The article states that the evacuation zone covers 3% of the landmass of Japan. I think that statement is incorrect and should be checked. If that kind of exaggeration of numbers can make it into the article, it really makes one wonder. If the evacuation radius around the facility is 20 miles, I would come to 0.4%.
Chris
Toronto, On December 7, 2011I think the three percent wasn't just the evacuation zone. The article does say "much of the topsoil from an area the size of Connecticut is replaced ". That would account for the 3%, would it not?
vulcanalex
Tennessee December 7, 2011Well two cities were bombed, some survived many years and there are new cities there. If you can do this I see no reason that the current issues can't be overcome.
DSS
washington December 7, 2011My first instinct was to go to google maps and map out a 12 mile circumference from where I am sitting to get a feel for the size of the affected area. As I sit in downtown Washington DC, the contaminated area would encompass the entire metropolitan area within the beltway. This bring both the scope of the disaster and the magnitude of the clean up in to a more comprehensible measurement as opposed to an abstract data point half a world away....
David
Maryland December 7, 2011With Japan's population on the decline, why repopulate the evacuation zone? Abandonment is preferably. Too much radiation risk.
graham hart
uk December 7, 2011The Japanese should realise that Nuclear power is not the answer.
Also the Japanese should buy Sakhalin island from the Russians.
Alan
Tsukuba, Japan December 7, 2011Radiation fears are hugely overblown.
My family lives 100 miles from the plant and we visit relatives who live 20 miles from it. I just applied for permanent residency so we can stay here in Japan.
Kent
Dallas December 7, 2011Actually I believe “Nuclear energy: a correct understanding brings a prosperous lifestyle.” is correct, however there is a massive misunderstanding evidenced by many. It is unfortunate that this plant, built using what is essentially 1950's technology is seen as a representative of what nuclear energy can be for the world. It is an example of a very old and unsafe design, yet it still survived pretty much intact a direct hit from a huge earthquake and Tsunami. It only failed because it was shut down automatically and therefore needed to rely on its backup cooling system diesel generators. this is part if its bad design.
In fact Nuclear is the best hope for this planet surviving the perils of climate change and the dangers of relying on fossil fuels.
There is a design, called a Liquid Floride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) that is walk away safe. It cannot melt down, since the fuel is already melted. It has no high pressure parts that can explode. It uses an abundant fertile nuclear isotope that cannot be used to make bombs, It also consumes nearly all its nuclear "waste" and what remains is only a fraction of that of conventional plants.
It would be a shame that the bad press about Fukashima derails progress on much better, safer nuclear. Who would be happy using a 1960's computer? Why should we be stuck with 1950s nuclear plants
If you are not familiar with LFTRs just search thorium energy or watch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4
akiwak
RI December 7, 2011Thank you. At last, a calm and reasoned response. The Fukushima accident is tragic and devastating to those people who are directly affected by it. It is neither tragic nor devastating to inhabitants of California, Florida, Oregon, or NY. We will no more abandon the development of nuclear energy than we will abandon our major cities and suburban areas. We will not stop relying on or using electricity. As nice as it is to imagine we could go back to living a simple agrarian lifestyle (my ideal, as well), the simple fact is that we will not. There's no going back. Nuclear is our future. No future comes without a cost.
Barbyr
Near Chicago December 7, 2011If you call 3 melted reactor cores and hundreds of tons of used fuel exposed to the air by huge hydrogen explosions "pretty much intact," I wonder what "badly damaged" would look like.
Shill alert!
Robert Marvos
Bend, Oregon December 7, 2011Folks, just to put things in perspective, nuclear contamination is not the only thing that is measured in terms of half-life. The strength of concrete is measured that way. It has a half-life of 30 years. Look at the concrete structures around you; see any deterioration? Now think of cesium and its life span -- a short time? I think not.
RC
is a trusted commenter Minnesota December 7, 2011Critical questions remain unanswered. For example, are fish for human or other animal consumption presently contaminated with radiation from Fukushima? What radionuclides besides I-131 and Cs-137 have entered the ocean? Do these include plutonium or uranium? Is this information being withheld, or is nobody bothering to make these measurements?
Jim Hopf
San Jose December 7, 2011All fish from the ocean (in the local region) as well as all land animals in the region are being closely monitored for contamination, and the limits are very strict (i.e., are much lower than the levels required to have any measurable health impact).
The I-131 has completely decayed away. Many isotopes will be monitored, but isotopes other than cesium will not contribute significantly to doses from eating these foods. This is clearly confirmed by measurements.
plang1
rhode island December 7, 2011radiation continues to pour out of japans melted down reactors millions of radioactive cars and other items are being sent around the world huge amounts of ocean water have been contaminated and the question is how many will die around the world a 100 million? 200? more??
Jim Hopf
San Jose December 7, 2011Try ~zero. No radiation-related deaths have occurred, and no measurable increase in cancer incidence is expected.
Meanwhile, worldwide fossil fuel use causes hundreds of thousands of deaths every single year (~1000 every single day), along with global warming.
Radiation releases have been reduced to negligible levels (millions of times smaller than the rate during the first week, during which 95-99% of the radiation was released). Given that the reactor cores (and materials) have cooled significantly, there is no credible circumstance (including future earthquakes, etc..) under which a significant release could occur.
ParinelloTF
USA December 7, 2011The article is informative and exposes many saddening issues facing the Japanese. However, after all the Nuclear Energy disasters that have taken place in other parts of the world, was it wise for Japan to even consider building such a plant?
For the rest of us - have we forgotten about the dozens of Radiation Accidents that have taken place - seems we minimize them because we only hear about the big ones - but there are many more - just google it.
The real questions: Is Nuclear Energy worth the Risk? Should we let Scientists use our planet and our lives as testing grounds for their laboratory experiments? Isn't it just a matter of time until we have another Major Nuclear Meltdown? Have we become so overly dependent on energy that we are willing to risk our lives and the lives of our progeny in order to have it?
Are Solar and Turbine energy sources safer and more practical? They don't pose the risk of spewing Toxic Radioactive particulates into the environment - the one in which we grow our food and where all the animals live. Our survival and living environment are one and the same.
We forgot how we lived before electricity, autos, planes and have lost sight of our natural environment. We've not much time left as plants are proliferating across the landscape - soon there won't be any place to hide contaminants. As vast the earth's expanse there is only so much room - we have the capacity to destroy it all - perhaps the human quest for power needs containment.
jimD
SF, ca December 7, 2011If there ever was a reason for the people of Japan to mobilize an 'Occupy' movement this should be their flash point. It is criminal what TEPCO in collusion with their dishonest government is perpetrating on the defenseless people of Japan (and the world since radiation poisoning know no political boundaries!). The latest 220 tons of highly radioactive wastewater to have been discharged recently presents grave dangers to the health of both humans and all living creatures that are exposed. Enjoy your sushi all!
Stan Smilan
Lake Worth, FL December 7, 2011The general public simply does not understand that exposure to ionizing radiation causes genetic damage -- and, genetic damage causes genetic mutations that are the precursors of cancer. Cancer is a genetic disease.
Everyone seems to understand that a computer program can be corrupted by a virus, and will not open or function as intended -- genes function in a similar manner. However, you can delete a computer program and reinstall it with a fresh copy; unfortunately, radiation-induced, genetic damage is irreversible (permanent.) And, each radiation exposure is cummulative.
According to the National Association of Atomic Veterans (www.naav.com ) there is no such thing as a "safe radiation level."
ItsMyChoice
Portland, OR December 7, 2011The general public doesn't understand that radiation can cause cancer? Who in the first world *doesn't* think that it does? Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy (NMR) was renamed Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) to get past the widespread public fear of anything related to the words nuclear or radioactive.
Oh, and the NAAV is going to have some difficulty finding a radiation-safe place. There isn't anywhere in this universe that doesn't have radiation.
This is not to minimize the major problems now and in the future that the Japanese will have to deal with due to the Fukushima failures. In the surrounding region of Japan and nearby ocean there will be significant health and environmental effects for a long time. However, away from those areas you're at greater risk from radiation in flying to Grandma's house for Christmas than from radiation from Fukushima. And at greater risk overall driving to and from the airport than you are on that plane.
Kent Wong
Calgary, Canada December 7, 2011Excellent journalism.
Well, with all these radioactive isotopes leaking into the Pacific - will they not eventually reach the mouths of everyone in the world?
Last time I checked, rain water that goes into the soil here in Alberta, Canada (above Montana) eventually exits out in the Gulf of Mexico. I don't think many water sanitation sites (or any) are equipped to detect and clean water of radioactive isotopes.
Plus then all the imported seafood, etc.
I realize the ocean is incredibly vast, but I've reports where those reactors are STILL spilling contaminate into the ocean everyday. At this rate, won't the ocean life and seafood industry in Japan be completely destroyed?
JoeNY
EnWhyC December 7, 2011Fortunately the incident is not quite that bad as to have meaningful effects far from Japan. Keep in mind that there's a low level of natural radiation, varying from place to place. Radon, for example, is common in areas where the the Earth's granite bedrock in near the surface.
That's not to minimize the severity or toxicity of the accident to those affected: I wouldn't find next to the reactor or move to the contaminated zone. Radioactive isotopes of cesium are no joke and I would not care to be an experiment of carrying far above background levels in my body.
But simple dilution renders the dangers minuscule if you are hundreds, much less thousands of miles away. Living on Earth, traveling on a jet airliner or having a simple x-ray, much less a CAT scan all subject you to some amount of ionizing radiation, and those amounts are far larger than what you'll see in Calgary from this incident. *How much* and how it's delivered are the difference between *shrug* (your hazard level from Fukushima) or *scram* (the hazard level of living next door to Fukushima).
Roodath
NY December 7, 2011Cesium is the largest radionuclide produced amidst nuclear waste by volume. It does not take decades to clean up really, the correct word is centuries. Its half life of loss of radioactivity is 30 years. So, a radionuclide's hazardous life=10-20 half lives, which means 300-600 years just to 'clean up' the cesium. The body recognizes cesium like it is potassium, which is the major electrolyte within our cells. When the Japanese folks absorb this radionuclide it will go everywhere in the body, wreaking havoc & cancer. And that is just cesium, which is one of the easiest radionuclides to measure for contamination. What's not mentioned in this article is that cesium has been measured in massive amounts in the rivers around Fukushima, & it is in the groundwater. 50 BILLION becquerels/hour/day of cesium are measured running out into the Pacific Ocean. According to a Swedish study for every 100,000 becquerels per square meter of ground contamination cancer incidence increased by 11%. That's just for comparison. When a nuclear plant fissions uranium, more than 500 radionuclides are produced every day. Tho these may not be mentioned, they are all over Fukushima & now running out into the Pacific Ocean, contaminating it and all forms of life within it. Just one example is plutonium-239 that causes lung cancer with a mere microgram. A pound of plutonium inhaled into the lung can theoretically cause 454 MILLION lung cancers. Do the walruses & whales deserve this? Sad mess.
Steve Bolger
New York, NY December 7, 2011By the time the land is clean again, Japan may have spent as much on each square meter as it costs to buy land in Tokyo.
oystershucker
Cambridge, MA December 7, 2011Martin Fackler and The New York Times, you did a great job to show the devastation of the tsunami in Japan before and after. You guys have elevated the modern journalism to the next stage. Well done and thank you.
orlandojpn
Tokyo, Japan and New York, NY December 7, 2011And it remains: What can be done in our short lives to fight these isotope half-lives?
The elderly want their ancestral land back whole, their posterity wants an unmasked life for them and their children.
A brave and valiant nation living with a deadly nuclear spectre - as the world looks on perplexed.
O Japan, Japan wherefore art thou Japan?
jw
Boston December 7, 2011This heartbreaking situation should serve as a lesson for all of us and every government on the planet: Do not mess with Nature.
But don't hold your breath...
destiny king
troy al December 7, 2011i just want to say this is a good site thanks!
sas
nyc December 7, 2011this article seems to tacitly imply that the situation at the reactor sites is under control.
is that really the case?
Roodath
NY December 7, 2011No, they are not. You have 3 meltdowns and water still above boiling temp in reactors 1-3. The melted down fuel rod assemblies are in respective blobs eating away the concrete at the bottom of the concrete containments. In fact, in reactor one there is only a yard of concrete thickness remaining before the last line of defense, the 1.5 INCH thick steel containment. Once these are eaten thru, you'll have a tragic 'China Syndrome' where the radioactive mass with over 500 radionuclides present eats its way into the groundwater, possibly also causing explosive reactions. Hydrogen explosions within the containment remain possible in reactors 1-3. There are NO HEALTHY FUEL RODS remaining in reactors 1-3. And the fuel pool for reactor 4 is the main one that is still giving off radiation, & intermittently becoming critical. TEPCO misleadingly tells us that soon there will be the goal reached of a 'cold shutdown.' That means in about 2 months they hope to get the water covering the melted down cores & fuel pools below boiling temperature. Below 212 degrees F is 'cold' in 'cold shutdown.' As noted in the Dec 4 Times article thousands of tons of radioactive water are still present in the basements of the reactors, & a 45 ton leak occurred this past weekend, much of this going directly into the Pacific Ocean. But don't worry, they're building a retaining wall that may be finished and working within 2 months to block further flow into the Pacific. & also a tent to catch steam
Joe
Brooklyn December 7, 2011Containment walls and steam- catching tents? What happens when the next earthquake and sunami occurs, and does anyone doubt that one will occur before the radiation is gone? I agree with those people saying that the first order of international priority is to contain the reactors and radiation leakage. Japan needs to focus on this for the foreseeable future and stop trying to sugar-coat their cesium.
TC
DC December 7, 2011The damage may be on a par or even worse than Chernobyl. Would anyone like to draw a connection between the vast amount of highly radioactive water dumped into the Pacific and last weeks' death of 25 sperm whales stranded on a Tasmanian sandbank.
Roodath
NY December 7, 2011This is where research must be done. Fukushima is (has?) poisoning the Pacific Ocean and all forms of life within it. 6 whales were tested for cesium contamination and 2 proved positive, but not at significant levels, whatever that means. What reference frame do we have for radioactive contamination? What about the various 500 radionuclides produced as nuclear waste in all nuclear reactors every day? How could we ever test for all of these and their effects on innocent life forms, that some of us may be eating? 50 billion becquerels per hour per day of just cesium are flowing out into the Pacific daily right now. How much can the Pacific take before it is way too late for our largest ocean, that is NOT finite in size? Were those sperm whales tested for radioactive contamination in Tasmania? Fukushima must get these plants under control ASAP. And then what about the other 450 nuclear plants in the world? What happens when there is a next nuclear accident? We have the technology of sun and wind producing electricity. USA is #1 wind power nation currently. Over past 2 years we erected 15,000 megawatts of wind turbines equal to approx 5 1000 megawatt nuclear plants without the nuclear danger or massive expense & corruption that accompanies nuclear power construction and operation. Research is one thing, practicality and respect for life over profit is quite another. Also, 90% of cesium is NOT dissolved as expected, but is suspended on particles falling in waters
Laura
Madison December 7, 2011This seems premature. Until the reactors are dismantled could another earthquake result in coolant loss and further releases? What is clear from maps of the hot spots around Fukushima and from maps of Cesium-137 contamination after the above-ground nuclear testing and after Chernobyl is that radiation is not spread evenly. Some areas may make no sense to try to clean up, while others closer to the plant may be surprisingly clean. The first thing ought to be detailed testing around the entire country to prevent further exposures and to identify areas that make sense to clean.
45 Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
The comments section is closed. To submit a letter to the editor for publication, write to letters@nytimes.com.