U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Asia
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-04-2014, 05:03 AM
 
Location: Gatineau, QC, Canada
3,402 posts, read 4,446,886 times
Reputation: 4409

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dport7674 View Post
The cost of airfare and hotels scares me more than the radiation.
Japanese Capsule Hotel
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-04-2014, 06:39 PM
 
208 posts, read 222,650 times
Reputation: 231
Quote:
Post-Fukushima Daiichi Debate Continues: Children Living Near Nuclear Power Plants Not At Increased Risk For Cancer
Post-Fukushima Daiichi Debate Continues: Children Living Near Nuclear Power Plants Not At Increased Risk For Cancer
As i said before, If Japan really was unsafe, every government in the world would be advising to avoid travel.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2014, 07:27 PM
 
Location: US Empire, Pac NW
5,008 posts, read 10,793,962 times
Reputation: 4125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesse44 View Post
A capsule hotel gets old rather quick

If you're really cost conscious you can check out the hostels in the areas you want to visit.

Or you can be like a japanese traveling sarariiman (salaryman) and book a business hotel for rates that are in line with domestic tourist hotels in the States (~$120 / night). Some are nice and come with good views, free breakfast, and even free onsen in some cases. One hotel I stayed in (the Garden Mitsui hotel) in Kyoto has free breakfast and free onsen. If you want a Japanese breakfast you can go to a nearby other hotel and get it for cheap, and quality is pretty decent.

At any rate ...

To the OP, I think the vast majority of people will have no problems whatsoever with you traveling so long as it is not going into the 30 km exclusion zone. The Japanese authorities and scientists, as well as international partners, among them my extended family, have all confirmed that there's literally zero danger for Tokyoites and further south. Will there be random hotspots located near Tokyo and other areas north of there? Sure. They spotted one in a public park in a town north of Narita just recently. They will likely find hotspots for the next 30 years. But the chances of finding one are astronomically small, and are literally zero if you go south of Tokyo.

All other folks who say things like "there's no such thing as a safe dosage of radiation" are pandering to fears that we all have. To those people I basically say "so you live 24/7 in a lead shielded environment with purified water and don't eat tuna, bananas, etc., right? No? Well ... sorry, ou have a risk of cancer too buddy." I'm not going to live my life in fear of boogeymen.

Facts and data. Show it or shut up. I'm an engineer, data will set you free.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2014, 08:48 PM
 
Location: Gatineau, QC, Canada
3,402 posts, read 4,446,886 times
Reputation: 4409
I was not pandering to fears. Obviously it is impossible to avoid radiation throughout your lifetime, I am very much aware of that, but being educated of different sources doesn't hurt. I used exclusively factual information that are supported by many professionals who are not with an agenda to make my opinion. And no, I don't pay attention to any extreme sensationalist Fukushima articles.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2014, 10:44 PM
 
Location: US Empire, Pac NW
5,008 posts, read 10,793,962 times
Reputation: 4125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesse44 View Post
I was not pandering to fears. Obviously it is impossible to avoid radiation throughout your lifetime, I am very much aware of that, but being educated of different sources doesn't hurt. I used exclusively factual information that are supported by many professionals who are not with an agenda to make my opinion. And no, I don't pay attention to any extreme sensationalist Fukushima articles.
I think the issue is just as you pointed out: the risk is not zero, nor is it a life ending cataclysm that many purported "experts" claim it to be.

And the fact is, unfortunately, we won't have reliable data on the long term effects for quite some time. Judging from the plume location, combined with the location of the occasional spillage they've suffered since the "stabilization" leads me to believe that locations in the south-west direction are mostly spared, to the north they are somewhat at risk. Luckily for Japan, the reactor and tsunami occurred in the sparsely populated north-east and their prevailing wind patterns are to the north and east from there.

If folks were super-worried about radiation in Japan, they could steer clear of blue fin tuna (it's getting endangered anyway, so you'd have the eco-cred to go with it) and some of the more bottom-feeders that some folks over there like to eat. And, luckily, most visitors probably won't be eating shark or whale meat, since poisons tend to accumulate in the bodies of predators up the food chain. And, luckily, kelp is harvested all over Japan, so there's a negligible risk of the food sources really. Honestly I'd be more worried about the toxic garbage that China is dumping into the collective food source for 1/4 of the world's population. Talk about irresponsible ... . Japan, for its part, has shut down all its nuke reactors and forcing safety upgrades. They know they got lucky, and would not want to chance again.

Also, if folks were super-worried, I'd recommend a lovely trip down to the Kyushu islands, Kyoto, Nara, and even further south to Okinawa. Japan is really pushing Okinawa, and it's obvious why - it's tropical, the people more easygoing, and the food is astoundingly good. Get to see some of the unique history of the islands, it's one of the places I want to go.

Or you could go far north, to Hokkaido, especially the western seaboard, where the mountains protected their largest city, Sapporo, from the radiation plumes. Hang out with the Ainu people (fun fact, 99% of all Japanese are not really native Japanese. Native Japanese tribes have long since been overrun by mostly Koreans that came over in the 100's AD).

Anyhow, I'd just say at the end of the day, Japan is a pretty big island chain and me, personally, if you're really, really worried about it, would say either go far north or south, starting at Kyoto. The mountainous terrain and the trade winds protected their ancient capital.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2014, 11:41 PM
 
201 posts, read 265,049 times
Reputation: 69
For reference, how does the Fukushima radiation compare to the fallout radiation from the atomic bombs dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki respectively? (i.e. Is it more or less?)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2014, 09:26 PM
 
Location: US Empire, Pac NW
5,008 posts, read 10,793,962 times
Reputation: 4125
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanjelman7 View Post
For reference, how does the Fukushima radiation compare to the fallout radiation from the atomic bombs dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki respectively? (i.e. Is it more or less?)
It's difficult to compare the two events because in one case, the atomic bombs released gigajoules of energy in a searing, single blast that vaporized the bomb casing, people, plants, animals, etc. and released lots of radiation in a single moment that then changed the atomic structure of the ground.

A better comparison would be the nuclear fallout clouds that formed after that, and all other nuclear bombs dropped since them in the infinite wisdom of the Cold War

Just to be clear, too, atomic bombs' fallout clouds carry radioactive isotopes of Strontium, Cesium, Iodine, and many others from the surrounding area, so where you drop a bomb matters about as much as the bomb makeup itself. You'll get a lot more "dirty" soil in the fallout plume, so the composition will be totally different from Fukushima's. So it's more like a dirty bomb terrorist attack than anything else.

So for what it's worth, Fukushima's meltdown was much more of a subdued, "pure" meltdown of an uncontrolled reaction, whereas a bomb's would be total annihilation of the material used in the reaction, not to mention the material in the fallout was much more "pure" in the sense of there being mostly just Sr, Cs, and I isotopes, as opposed to other elements that you'd find in the fallout of a bomb.

Further, as I mentioned earlier, the fallout cloud from the meltdown carried out harmlessly out to the Pacific (and has thus far been confirmed harmless by testing done by Japanese and American private business owners).

Thus, you could safely say that the fallout from Hiroshima and Nagasaki were much, much worse than what Fukushima was. Hundreds of thousands died within a week, and many hundreds of thousands more carried scars, were disabled, and/or had their children born with genetic defects from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Fukushima has caused a handful of deaths from radiation exposure and accidents at the site related to recovery and has not and most likely will not cause issues to large populations.

I don't know if I answered the question ... it's really difficult because it's like comparing apples to oranges.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2014, 11:25 PM
 
Location: Mount of Showing the Way
1,953 posts, read 2,070,228 times
Reputation: 615
福島第1原発:県民調査 甲状腺がん *ども増える - 毎日新聞
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2014, 05:13 AM
 
956 posts, read 1,546,541 times
Reputation: 474
What's it saying? Anyone care to translate for us?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2014, 06:53 PM
 
Location: US Empire, Pac NW
5,008 posts, read 10,793,962 times
Reputation: 4125
Quote:
Originally Posted by OZpharmer View Post
What's it saying? Anyone care to translate for us?
Basically its saying that there's 33 people who are suspected of having cancer and another 42 to being confirmed to have thyroid cancer, an increase of 7 people from this time last year.

However, again, this is not statistically relevant. We're talking an increase of 7 people out of tens of thousands, and only one sampling period. If there's a continued trend, then I'd be worried.

Just last year 30,000 more people got seriously ill from the flu. Next year it will be back to normal. Blips happen. I'd wager there's probably no statistically relevant increase in thyroid cancer cases either nearby, much less nationwide.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Asia
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top