Thursday, July 28, 2011

Radiation Levels in Tokyo, Japan, Thursday July 28, 2011 at 8:38 am

It's Thursday July 28, 2011 at 8:37 in the morning.  A slight rain has hit the Kanto area. Here is a map from Yahoo Japan:

I wanted to use this rainy day chance to measure the background radiation levels here in Tokyo. As you can see from the video, I measured the air and near a drainage spot in the road.

The levels were well within safe ranges between 0.11 ~ 0.12 microsiverts per hour. The levels are usually between 0.09 ~ 0.12.

For more up to the minute readings on the air and water with comparisons and simple, easy to understand instructions on how to read and understand them, see


Anonymous said...

I thought you weren't talking about the nuclear issue anymore?

You still seem to miss the point about the health risk. It is not an immediate issue, it is a mid to long term effect so no one is expecting 1000's to simply drop down dead. The workers at Fukushima have done a great job in controlling this disaster. They prevented an out right disaster by their actions in the first few weeks (which is why the gaijin then returned as it was clear the situation was not getting any worse). Now the air born radiation is reducing which is what you would expect as the situation improves day by day, step by step.

But as you can see, the risk of food contamination is high and ingestion of radiative particles that remain in your body emitting radiation at a localised point seems to be a real problem. Constantly telling us about Chernobyl as if it is was clear cut with agreed outcomes is also an unfair representation. The statistics of Chernobyl are heavily debated and you can read anything from 4000 to 400,000 deaths - take your pick.

What you need now is to concentrate on the food risk. Why don't you use your energy to highlight such problems and actually help people to resolve them by arguing for very visible, and independent food testing labs.

I expect your reply will be the same as normal to this comment. Belittle the writer as if he is a drop out gaijin who knows little of Japan and can't read kanji, seems to be a tactic many stand up comedians take too.

mikeintokyorogers said...

Thanks Anonymous,
The readings today were taken by me with my geiger counter. It's a rainy day here. Until now, many people have said that the rains brought out more radiation. I wanted to check for myself. I did. Sorry to offend you.

I take your point about Chernobyl. But I believe that your stats are way off. It's NOT 4,000 to 400,000. It's 50 ~ whatever. You take your pick.

Spiked Magazine Chernobyl disaster 25th Anniversary.

Here's some more: Chernobyl disaster.

UNSCEAR has conducted 20 years of detailed scientific and epidemiological research on the effects of the Chernobyl accident. UNSCEAR now states:

Among the residents of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine, there had been up to the year 2005 more than 6,000 cases of thyroid cancer reported in children and adolescents who were exposed at the time of the accident, and more cases can be expected during the next decades.

Notwithstanding the influence of enhanced screening regimes, many of those cancers were most likely caused by radiation exposures shortly after the accident. Apart from this increase, there is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to radiation exposure two decades after the accident.

There is no scientific evidence of increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality rates or in rates of non-malignant disorders that could be related to radiation exposure. The incidence of leukaemia in the general population, one of the main concerns owing to the shorter time expected between exposure and its occurrence compared with solid cancers, does not appear to be elevated. Although those most highly exposed individuals are at an increased risk of radiation-associated effects, the great majority of the population is not likely to experience serious health consequences as a result of radiation from the Chernobyl accident. Many other health problems have been noted in the populations that are not related to radiation exposure.

My entire point is this (and always has been): We live in a world full of dangers. People should be smart about it and not allow the mass media to fool you into worrying about things that have little or no chance to affect you. Be smart. Get informed and don't be a sheep.

Your chances of dying from coal or oil based industry pollutions are 1000's of times higher than Fukushima... People stuff their faces with poisons and processed foods 24/7. Our government is ruining us and sending us into bankruptcy. You are probably going to die poor...

Our governments make war and kill millions of people all over the world (using depleted Uranium too) and people don't make a whimper about it.

Mr. Anonymous, I am a fair minded person. On my blog, I list other reputable blogs who take an opposite opinion of me (diverse opinion is good and healthy).

Your idea about independent food labs is a typically socialist idea. And who, pray tell, will pay for this? You expect our government to take our taxes and pay for it? The very same government who has f*cked up this entire Fukushima affair from the get-go? When will people ever learn? This same government that can't even repair a hole in the road on time and under budget and people want them to take over more parts of their lives!?

Nope. You won't hear me arguing or such nonsense. I am anti-anything mandated in such a fashion.

Your last comment is typically weak. Sorry. I don't know about stand up comedians as I don't watch TV. You seem to have an attitude and a big mouth. You'd make a good blogger.

Write and write well and you, my friend, will see that I link to your blog.

mikeintokyorogers said...

PS: You wrote: "You still seem to miss the point about the health risk. It is not an immediate issue, it is a mid to long term effect so no one is expecting 1000's to simply drop down dead."

Yet later on you claim that 4,000 to 400,000 died from Chernobyl. It's been more than 25 years after Chernobyl.

The total deaths reliably attributable to the radiation produced by the accident therefore stands at 62 by the estimate of UNSCEAR.

Chernobyl proven deaths by UNSCEAR 2011 report.

So, you might argue that this is a government agency that is corrupt. Excellent argument too (if you say that) so why would you want another government paid agency to study the health risks to our food? You mean, like the swell job the FDA does in the USA? Ha!

Anonymous said...

I kind of want ones of those handheld scanners.

The comments reminded me again of that old old man who survived ground zero during WWII in Japan, twice. He simply amazes me and really challenges my thinking of all the fear based themes the goberment and others put forth.

At the same time, your handheld scanner readings were reassuring in a way statements by the goberment can never be. However; your test reminds me i am concerned about Alberta, Canada and the rest even more so, especially in light of the silence by the goberment there.

Wanna see something really scary?
Check out the comments towards the end of this thread, there's some real goberment trusting love for ya. The historical FACTS should be enough to at least make you say, WHoa! And, No, I'm not talking about the astronaut stuff:

[Warning, this information is not suitable for those with weak minds. But of course they wouldn't be here in the first place anyway, mostly. Weak minds like to dismiss things Before they know the Facts.]

Marc Sheffner said...

In Rod Adams' article Arnie Gundersen going international, a commenter G Filipponi writes, "The 2006 Chernobyl accident Greenpeace report said that, because of the April 26. 1986 nuclear accident, 6 million more fatal cancer cases would have occured in the following decades in the contaminated countries (practically all of Europe).
None of this happened; the most pessimistic reports prepared by UN agencies (WHO, UNSCEAR, IAEA and others), speak of 60 confirmed deaths and other 4000 “alleged” (which is not possible to directly associate to the disaster) for cancer and leukemia. The Greenpeace estimates were based on the well-known theory LNT (Linear No Threshold Theory) which has been widely refuted by eminent scientists"

and provides two links.

Marc Sheffner said...

Anonymous wrote, "You still seem to miss the point about the health risk. It is not an immediate issue, it is a mid to long term effect so no one is expecting 1000's to simply drop down dead."

Perhaps not, but are you expecting 1000's to die slowly in the long term? Why? On what basis? Please provide some facts so that readers can follow your reasoning.

"the risk of food contamination is high"
Again, on what basis are you saying this? Or are you referring to the already revealed facts of food contaminated by radioactive materials?

"The statistics of Chernobyl are heavily debated"
Yes, they are, but those engaging in this heated debate are not all equally informed, nor are they all necessarily motivated purely by the disinterested search for truth. The statistics you quote are evidence of that.

Anonymous said...

Mike, hate to be nit-picky, but you shouldn't get so riled up about reader's comments... I wouldn't call this post "writing about the nuclear issue." "Writing" connotates a lot more than this post does which is a mere "report" on what happened.

Murasaki Shikibu said...

Spread information, not fear.

Sometimes it's necessary to laugh at a serious situation. Comic relief is therapeutic.