

Elevated radiation claimed at Tokyo 2020 Olympic venues - yapcguy
http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/article/1329729/elevated-radiation-claimed-tokyo-2020-olympic-venues

======
DennisP
"the highest radiation reading - 0.484 microsieverts per hour"

By comparison, background radiation in Rome is about half that, and some areas
in Brazil have ten times that. [http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/07/background-
radiation-levels...](http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/07/background-radiation-
levels.html)

A common response to these comparisons is that the radiation from nuclear
plants is biologically worse in some way. However, the sievert is a unit which
has already been weighted for biological effect.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert)

~~~
Osmium
By comparison, I found this map via a quick Google search:

[http://world-
nuclear.org/uploadedImages/org/info/Naturalback...](http://world-
nuclear.org/uploadedImages/org/info/NaturalbackgroundradiationEurope.gif)

0.484µSv/hour ~ 4.2mSv/year, so according to that map a large chunk of Europe
gets higher readings anyway. Basically anywhere with significant amounts of
granite will naturally have a lot of background radiation:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granite#Natural_radiation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granite#Natural_radiation)

And that's not to mention things areas near coal power plants whose own
radiation levels absolutely dwarf the normal output of nuclear reactors:

[http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1018/do-coal-
pla...](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1018/do-coal-plants-
release-more-radiation-than-nuclear-power-plants)

Which is not to say this news isn't concerning! But it's concerning for other
reasons (i.e. a predictor of future issues with containment and contamination
in the area) rather than an immediate health risk to those attending the
Olympics, which is how the headline might be interpreted.

------
thatoneguy
Anecdotal, but someone might find it interesting:

I've been traveling around with a dosimeter on my wrist (Polimaster PM1208M)
for fun since 2007 & I've traveled to Tokyo a few times since the '11 Tohoku
earthquake. I've seen the radiation levels as high as .10 uSv/hr (same as a
rainy day in Eastern Oregon) and as low as .03 uSV/hr (lower than I've ever
seen it in San Francisco). The most radioactive spot I've been was Rome @ .5
uSv/hr (higher than the areas in the article) & everywhere pales in comparison
to levels at airplane cruising altitude -- as high as 6 uSv/hr.

Anyhow, the radiation level supposedly seen at the Tokyo facility in the
article is nothing compared to Ramsar, Iran and folks are fine there:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsar,_Mazandaran#Radioactivit...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsar,_Mazandaran#Radioactivity)

------
ISL
Can anyone provide an objective summary of the SCMP's political alignment?

~~~
icegreentea
SCMP is a Hong Kong based newspaper. Within HK (which does generally pride
itself on its 'independence' from the mainland), there are some allegations
that SCMP is overly pro-Beijing. That said, they are pro-Beijing from HK's
perspective. Compared to a mainland newspaper, they aren't particularly pro-
Beijing.

That said, I really don't know why it matters here. The news is pretty clear.
Citizen group found elevated Cesium and radiation levels in and around Tokyo,
claims that they are because of Fukushima. Officials do not deny the actual
measurements, but point out that the levels are safe. The paper (if anything)
is weighing on the side of "this is all ok".

~~~
Natsu
I do find this quote problematic: ""It is difficult to have this debate unless
we know for sure whether this radiation is from Fukushima or whether it is
naturally occurring background radiation," said Pieter Franken, founder of the
Japan office of the environmental monitoring organisation Safecast."

As others have pointed out, the sievert is already weighted with respect to
danger. In other words, the source makes absolutely no difference at all. If
you somehow managed to get a huge radiation does from, say, bananas (which are
fairly radioactive due to the potassium) it wouldn't be any better or worse
than the same dose from a nuclear power plant.

That said, it always surprises me that there's no panic over naturally
radioactive foods, like bananas. It's curious that the "unnatural" aspect
seems to cause a disproportionate amount of the fear. FWIW, I enjoyed a nice,
naturally radioactive banana as I wrote this.

------
jrockway
You'll receive 71 microsieverts of radiation just flying to Tokyo (from Paris,
the first number I could find), so I doubt the 0.484 you'll get per hour
amounts to anything.

------
patrickg_zill
The big question of course: does this reading, mean that there will be an
increase in radiation levels until Fukushima is capped/entombed/whatever? Or
is the increase a one-time occurrence?

------
avty
Zerohedge rocks.

