# Moving to Tokyo



## Pinktulips

Hello,

We are relocating to Japan shortly & would like views of Indians already in Japan on a few queries:

1) How safe is Tokyo for infants with respect to radiation levels? I have read that radiation can be harmful esp. for young babies. So this factor is very important for me to decide whether to accompany my husband to Tokyo or perhaps return to India till the child is little older.

2 ) my hubby's office is in Chiyoda-ku. Which is a good residential area near this?

3) how about preschools & are there Indian schools in Tokyo? How good are the local pre/ schools?

4) what are the childcare options?

5) what are the option for a spouse to work with no Japanese skills in Tokyo?

Appreciate your advise. Thanks in advance.


----------



## Rube

Pinktulips said:


> 1) How safe is Tokyo for infants with respect to radiation levels? I have read that radiation can be harmful esp. for young babies. So this factor is very important for me to decide whether to accompany my husband to Tokyo or perhaps return to India till the child is little older.


My advice is don't come. Japan is not safe for infants from what I see on the news. 

On the news tonight there are some kids from Fukushima who's hormones are messed up from the radiation. It's a lot like how my wife's are messed up from her cancer treatment. How much is from food and how much is from the air I have no idea but this idea that Japan is going to escape with no harm is just crazy. A decade from now we'll see the thousands of people with cancer and so on and all the people who are telling people there is no risk will at that point finally keep their mouths closed. 

Tokyo isn't that much further.


----------



## Pinktulips

Thanks for your reply Rube. I have not been able to gather much information on net and hence though of posting the queries on the forum.


----------



## Singapore Saint

I guess it depends on where you will be living.. my wife has a Phd in Physics, with a thesis based on natural levels of background radiation, as has one of our friends. 

Though the situation may be different in Fukishima, from what they have seen of radiation levels in Tokyo, they are no higher than natural levels found in many parts of the world, so in theory there is no difference between living in Tokyo or living in London, you would be exposed to the same levels.. we get involved in many conversations about this and in their opinion, based on the information that has been released, it doesn't appear that there would be too much danger in moving to Tokyo.

Whether you want to believe the information that is being released though is a different matter...


----------



## larabell

Tsukuba University has a geiger counter online and there's another one down in Yokosuka which was intended to monitor radiation levels as nuclear vessels pass into and out of the Navy base. Both have shown readings at background level since April. There are scores of private web sites that post real-time radiation levels but it's hard to prove whether those are accurate. However, they do seem to track one another very closely and the readings are more-or-less the same as in Yokosuka and Tsukuba.

The whole question is what, in the tech world, we would call a religious issue. There are strong opinions on both sides but little in the way of proof either way. I tend to think that with all the public scrutiny this issue receives, there's not much incentive to cook the numbers and, in any case, it would be pretty hard to co-ordinate all the various agencies, including the US State Dept, to all tell the same story if it wasn't at least close to the truth as we know it today.

There are other unknowns. I do believe some tainted food products have escaped detection, which doesn't surprise me given the wide range of products and areas affected. But I don't believe the problem is as widespread as some might have you believe, nor do I believe that there's a massive effort to deceive the public. But nobody really knows the full extent of the damage to the plant because they still can't send anyone in to look. So the full story isn't yet known and probably won't be for years.

As far as contamination, sure... the immediate area surrounding the plant will be at risk for a long time to come. But in Tokyo... well... there's certainly other areas in the world that have higher average background radiation levels than what we're currently seeing in Tokyo and we don't hear of people dropping like flies as a result. Nor do we hear of airline pilots and flight attendants, who are exposed to elevated levels of radiation every day, dropping like flies as a result. So at least some of the "doomsday" talk is certainly hype.

The thing is... you don't really know. You can't test everything you eat, drink, or come in contact with. And you can't see the contamination where it does exist. If you really can't trust the safety measures that have already been put in place, you probably don't want to live here. Of course, you could say the same thing for just about any location on the planet.

I've chosen to stay -- heck, the chances of my getting cancer from Fukushima are probably far less than the chances of getting killed in a drive-by shooting if I went home so... why not... :tinfoil3:


----------



## Pinktulips

Thank you Singapore Saint & larabell for your viewpoints. Hubby is planning a short trip to Japan to gather situation himself.


----------



## Oblivion Child

Pinktulips said:


> Hello,
> 
> We are relocating to Japan shortly & would like views of Indians already in Japan on a few queries:
> 
> 1) How safe is Tokyo for infants with respect to radiation levels? I have read that radiation can be harmful esp. for young babies. So this factor is very important for me to decide whether to accompany my husband to Tokyo or perhaps return to India till the child is little older.
> 
> 2 ) my hubby's office is in Chiyoda-ku. Which is a good residential area near this?
> 
> 3) how about preschools & are there Indian schools in Tokyo? How good are the local pre/ schools?
> 
> 4) what are the childcare options?
> 
> 5) what are the option for a spouse to work with no Japanese skills in Tokyo?
> 
> Appreciate your advise. Thanks in advance.


1) while I do not live in Tokyo (though I do work near Tokyo Disney Land/Sea), I do live just across the bay in Chiba, and honestly we have not seen, so far, any real reason to show much concern, radiation-wise, in the area. As someone else pointed out, there are many websites showing real-time radiation levels, and there is a lot of information out there, though wether it has been politically slanted or not is anyone's guess. But, as with many other expats with a variety of a sons, I chose to stay and continue living with my husband here in Japan after the earthquake. I'm sure the radiation levels cause far more concern the closer you get to Fukushima, but in my opinion, Tokyo is probably just fine.

5) When I first arrived here 2.5yrs ago with my husband (he is Japanese but I am American), my Japanese language skills were very low. I had taken a year of Japanese during high school, but that was, at the time, 8 years in the past, so I rally did not remember much. If you are able to find a job will depend on a lot of things. Most importantly will be your additional skills, and if they are marketable in some way here, and what type of visa you will be on. If you language skills are very high, and you can show an aptitude for teaching, that is an option (whether it is English or otherwise). Some special shops also tend to focus on having foreign staff, but most of those shops would still need a certain level of Japanese language understanding. Those are also few and far between, depending on the area. 

Good luck with whatever you decide!


----------



## Rube

Wondering if any of you who live here now would move here with an infant.


----------



## Singapore Saint

Good question Rube and difficult for me to give a 100% definitive answer as we don't have children.. but for what it's worth, if I did have kids, I'd like to think that we would still move here and I would do so believing that I wasn't exposing them to any risk.

However, I would probably pay much more attention to where food products come from though.. being new to Japan my language skills are 'under-developed', and I am unable to read that bit.


----------



## Rube

On the Japanese news last night they were talking about the governments plan to test all kids in Fukushima for cancer. The plan is they are going to get tested for free 3 times over the course of 7 years or so because they don't expect anything to develop for a while, mentioning that it was something like 4 years later in Russia when kids started to show signs. 

So on one side you have people saying everything is safe and on the other the government setting up procedures to deal with the coming cancers, and the docs didn't really seem to have any doubt about it. 

My kids are 12 and 7 and in Yokohama, where public school lunches included the radioactive beef, but thankfully not in their school. But as a parent I'd tell anybody with an infant to wait a few years if they can before moving to the area. 

But you know, I'm one of those parents who spent time on issues like a baby sling on the back or on the front like a baby bjorn because when you fall you tend to fall forward so the baby bjorn isn't as safe. That's where I'm coming from.


----------



## Singapore Saint

I saw the headlines too and am very glad to see it. Hopefully the tests will pick up any abnormalities in plenty of time to provide treatment and save lives. In Fukushima, I think it's a necessity and I don't doubt the dangers of living there / remaining there and I think that those on the edge of the exclusion zone should be very worried. Unfortunately from what I have seen, many of them seem to have no choice but to stay.

While I personally don't see any danger of moving to Tokyo, I can fully understand people's reluctance to come and also the changing of habits / attitudes since it happened.. as Larabell also said, no-one knows for 100% what the situation is, so the decisions we make will be largely based on our own personalities instead of bare facts. 

Our move was actually confirmed on the morning of 11th March, so we then spent days talking, mulling it over, trying to read between the lines of the news for some facts rather than all of the sensationalist reporting. We felt that for earthquakes, if over 100 million people can incorporate the threat into their everyday lives, then so can we. For the reactors, the threat of a major explosion seemed to have died down after 7-10 days so again, we saw no reason not to come.

My attitude would be summed up as "Yes I could decide not to move to Tokyo and avoid any earthquakes and radiation over the next few years, but I could stay where I am and be hit by a bus tomorrow."

And so far, no regrets at all!


----------



## larabell

My kids are 8 and 11 as of this month and I have no qualms remaining in Tokyo. If I weren't already here and I had an infant, I'd definitely be scouring various sources for information and even asking others for opinions, as the OP did above. In fact, during the first couple weeks of the crisis, I was spending more time online doing research than just about anything else (including work ).

In the end... I probably would have come anyway. I'd certainly not take my kids, let alone an infant, anywhere near Fukushima-ken. But I don't see any credible evidence that residents of Tokyo are doomed to a life of cancer as a result -- the science and the current readings just doesn't seem (to me at least) to bear that out.

As for the testing that's just started in Fukushima... come on. There have been folks (mostly noisy ex-pats, as far as I can tell ) who have been clamoring to have the residents, and especially the kids, of the Fukushima area tested. Now that it seems this is finally going to happen, the tune suddenly changes to: "see... we were right... the authorities know these kids have been contaminated." I don't buy it -- testing is not the same as treatment. There's no way to know, either way, unless you run the tests. I'm glad someone has decided to test these kids -- it was pretty much inevitable, anyway. But I don't read anything into that decision other than the fact that its prudent to run the tests just in case. I truly hope the tests all turn out negative but we may not know that for years (perhaps even decades).

I just finished a book in which the author makes the point that we humans tend to worry a lot about events that have high visibility but low probability (like airplane crashes) while overlooking events that have a much higher probability but aren't nearly as spectacular (like car crashes). Living near the center of Tokyo, we don't own a car. I'm wondering if I haven't actually increased my kids' chances of reaching adulthood by moving away from a culture where you have to drive everywhere and where the occasional nut-job decides to use a local school for target practice to live in a place where the worst thing I have to worry about is where they're going to put all the dirt they scrape off the farms in Fukushima-ken.

Obviously that's an exaggeration but it does point out that there are likely a lot more serious considerations that factor into the decision to move or not to move. But you also have to decide whether or not you can live with not knowing exactly how all this is going to play out. If after all the research and advice, your gut still says: "don't go" -- then don't. If for no other reason than to avoid the added stress of having to constantly read every label on everything you buy for fear of ingesting some trace amounts of Cesium.


----------



## Rube

You could get hit by a bus but you wouldn't let your kid play in the street if you had them, that's the point I was making.


----------



## Rube

larabell said:


> As for the testing that's just started in Fukushima... come on. There have been folks (mostly noisy ex-pats, as far as I can tell ) who have been clamoring to have the residents, and especially the kids, of the Fukushima area tested. Now that it seems this is finally going to happen, the tune suddenly changes to: "see... we were right... the authorities know these kids have been contaminated." I don't buy it -- testing is not the same as treatment. There's no way to know, either way, unless you run the tests. I'm glad someone has decided to test these kids -- it was pretty much inevitable, anyway. But I don't read anything into that decision other than the fact that its prudent to run the tests just in case. I truly hope the tests all turn out negative but we may not know that for years (perhaps even decades).


Noisy ex-pats? Dude you run around this site declearing there is no danger like a Monday morning quaterback. In fact it was after you said "no danger" that radiative beef made it into the lunches at YOKOHAMA. Amazing the nonchalent attitude people have with giving advice on safety when they don't really know themselves.


----------



## larabell

Rube said:


> You could get hit by a bus but you wouldn't let your kid play in the street if you had them, that's the point I was making.


Well... I wouldn't let them play on the streets that have buses running on them just like I probably wouldn't send them on a field trip to Fukushima. But the street I live on doesn't have buses and the city I live in doesn't have elevated radiation readings (at the moment, at least) -- that's the point I was making.


----------



## Rube

How far is it you think Fukushima is? Pretty freaking close, less then 2 hours by car right? There is no doubt there will be cancers, no doubt. zero, zilch.


----------



## larabell

Rube said:


> Noisy ex-pats?


Just to be clear... I wasn't referring to *you* -- I was referring to the dozen or so readers of Japan Today who comment on any hint of bad news by saying: "see... it's like I've been saying all along" (even when you know there's no way the fact in question could have possibly been "known" in advance) and then reply to every piece of good news with: "as usual... the government (or TEPCO) is lying to us." I'd say that qualifies as noisy, wouldn't you?


----------



## Rube

larabell said:


> Just to be clear... I wasn't referring to *you* -- I was referring to the dozen or so readers of Japan Today who comment on any hint of bad news by saying: "see... it's like I've been saying all along" (even when you know there's no way the fact in question could have possibly been "known" in advance) and then reply to every piece of good news with: "as usual... the government (or TEPCO) is lying to us." I'd say that qualifies as noisy, wouldn't you?


Just to be clear....you're the polar of those people you hold with such distain. Seriously do you have any doubt that there will be cancers? The docs on the TV didn't have any and I'm assuming your Japanese is good enough to get your info from the source and not some filtered English site.


----------



## larabell

Rube said:


> How far is it you think Fukushima is? Pretty freaking close, less then 2 hours by car right? There is no doubt there will be cancers, no doubt. zero, zilch.


Three hours and 14 minutes by car from my house, 227 kilometers as the crow flies. But I'm not basing my argument on distance. I'm going by the current readings in Tokyo -- less than 0.2 uSv/hour -- well within the normal background range for this area. In other words, no more than what we all experienced on a daily basis before 3/11 (not counting the food, of course).

The original question was whether it's safe to move to Tokyo today. I believe it is. But I've also said many times that we don't yet know how all this will play out. It's unlikely there will be a massive explosion at Dai-ichi now that the temperature is below boiling but nobody knows yet whether the inner containment vessel has been breached.

There is no doubt that this event has caused legitimate concern *in that area* and has distributed contamination at some level over a much wider range. But the idea that any reading above zero will result in a health risk is ludicrous. No matter where you live, there's a significant level of radiation to which one is constantly exposed -- some natural, some man-made -- and the exact level depends on the geology and altitude. Denver, for example, experiences far higher background levels than Tokyo due to it's elevation -- but we don't see people keeling over in the streets. Executives living in Tokyo probably get more radiation from their annual chest X-rays and international business trips than they're currently getting from the effects of the Fukushima disaster.

Again... that's Tokyo. And it's now. And it assumes you're not going out of your way to buy spinach from Fukushima. I think it's good to have polar viewpoints on a forum like this -- especially on this topic -- because it gives the readers some basis on which to rate the various opinions they might find online.

Speaking of which -- and I haven't checked this guy's math so take this as simply one more polar viewpoint, this page has some interesting comparisons:

https://www.poligo.com/poligo-group...03/15/how-dangerous-is-the-radiation-in-tokyo

(I dunno if I'm enabled for embedded URLs -- if the link doesn't work, PM me).

Personally... and this is only my gut feel... having moved from California to Tokyo I'd be willing to bet that my risk of cancer has increased more from the fact that half the male population in Japan smokes than I have from continuing to live in Tokyo after 3/11. If you want to translate that into saying there's *no* risk... go ahead. As I said before, this is what would be known as a religious topic so I expect to be flamed from time-to-time -- kinda goes with the territory.


----------



## Rube

Like I said earlier, 10 years from now when the cancers come people like you will stay silent.


----------



## Singapore Saint

Good post Larabell and I agree with you. We are not currently being exposed to anything but normal background radiation levels. If I moved back to the South West of England I believe I would be in more danger, as the area is known for having high background levels and although people's accents are funny in that part of the country, there aren't any spikes in cancer levels.

For the cancer rates to increase in Tokyo there obviously has to be a spike in levels. As it stands, that will not be the case. I'm very glad that my wife spent the best part of 8yrs studying natural levels of background radiation and the effect of it on foetal bones as I feel we can make an informed decision.

Rube, this isn't meant to be a provocative question, but why do you still live here? Apologies if you have mentioned this earlier, but you obviously feel strongly about the increased risk of cancer, you believe that the cancer rates will increase dramatically over the next 10yrs and I believe you have young children, so why are you still here? Is it a case of you've been here so long you are naturalised, is your family Japanese, just curious. If your scenario is going to pan out, aren't you risking your children's health by staying here?


----------



## larabell

Singapore Saint said:


> If I moved back to the South West of England I believe I would be in more danger ...


Sure... Radon gas escaping from the rocks. I ran across that in my early research but, since I didn't recall off-hand the name of the area, I've been hesitant to bring it up. I believe the Radon gas issue exists in some areas in the States, too. When I was younger, I recall advertisements for home Radon detectors in every magazine I saw. For some reason, you don't hear about it much any more.

I don't think there's any connection between Radon and funny talking, though, because folks from London seem to have the same problem .



> For the cancer rates to increase in Tokyo there obviously has to be a spike in levels.


For the record, there actually was a spike that lasted several days -- it coincided with the first rain after the initial explosions. But it was still less than 0.5 uSv/hr at it's peak, at least here in Tokyo, which is probably less than a week's normal exposure. PM me if you'd like the list of sites I was following.


----------



## Rube

Singapore Saint said:


> Rube, this isn't meant to be a provocative question, but why do you still live here? Apologies if you have mentioned this earlier, but you obviously feel strongly about the increased risk of cancer, you believe that the cancer rates will increase dramatically over the next 10yrs and I believe you have young children, so why are you still here?


Because we have roots here, grandparents, uncles, aunts, a home, my work and so on. Not as easy to pick up and move. 

If my children were just born though we'd be out of here.

And I'm not the only person who feels strongly about the increase of cancer, all the docs on TV say the same thing. Crazy to think there wouldn't be an increase but I think a lot of people feel that by believing there will be none somehow makes them a cool level headed person compared to what they would call noisy ex-pats. Honestly I think you got some balls not having kids, not understanding Japanese and telling people with infants that it's safe. 

Just this morning they were talking about the radioactive sludge in Tokyo's water treatment plants that is way way above normal background radiation. So much stuff that we don't know that might not ever get out.


----------



## Rube

larabell said:


> For the record, there actually was a spike that lasted several days -- it coincided with the first rain after the initial explosions. But it was still less than 0.5 uSv/hr at it's peak, at least here in Tokyo, which is probably less than a week's normal exposure.


Have you noticed that the government kept saying "no short term danger" and has not once said "no long term dangers"? A lot can be learned by what they don't say but if you have your head in the numbers hoping to find prove that nothing is wrong I'm sure you can find it.


----------



## Rube

From today's paper

"Tokyo, vicinity also contaminated

The contamination has spread even to the Tokyo metropolitan area. One case after another has been reported of radioactive substances being detected in sludge produced at water purification and sewage treatment plants. Local governments now face the headache of figuring out how to dispose of this sludge.

In addition to Fukushima Prefecture, the Environment Ministry is reportedly planning to set up intermediate storage facilities for sludge and soil in seven other prefectures, including Chiba, Ibaraki and Tokyo. We hope the government will construct such facilities as soon as possible.

Yet, the interim storage facilities are fundamentally temporary storage places for soil and sludge until it is sent to final disposal sites for permanent burial. The government must also start planning where those final disposal sites will be."

And there are also hot spots in Tokyo that are way above the numbers people love to quote to say everything is fine. 

They said the food was safe - it wasn't
They said the winds didn't come south - they did
They said it could never happen - it did

"The tests began after an unofficial survey which found that 10 out of 130 children evacuated from Fukushima had hormonal and other irregularities in the thyroid glands, according to AFP news agency.

But those who conducted the survey said they could not establish a link between the irregularities and Japan's nuclear crisis."

So since they can't prove the link it doesn't go down as one.

By the way we were planning on having another child and we put it off for a few years to be safe.


----------



## Rube

Fukushima cancer risk calculation
417,000 cancers forecast for Fukushima 200 km contamination zone by 2061


Scientific Secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR), Professor Chris Busby, has released calculations of the cancer incidence to be expected in fallout areas of Japan. Using data from the International Atomic Energy Agency and official Japanese web sites he has used two methods to estimate the numbers of cancer cases. He compares these results with estimates derived from ICRP modelling.

The "Tondel" Method is based on a conservative study by Martin Tondel in northern Sweden. This examined cancer incidence during 10 years after Chernobyl. It differentiated the varying levels of land contamination and found that the disease increased by 11% for each 100 kiloBecquerels of fallout per square metre of land surface. Professor Busby has applied this factor to the zone up to 100 km from the reactors, where IAEA has reported, on average, 600kBq per sq.m radioactivity. In the 3.3 million population of this 100 km zone a 66% increase over and above the pre-accident rate is predicted in 10 years. This implies 103,329 extra cancers due to the Fukushima exposures between 2012 and 2021.
Applying the "Tondel" method to the ring between 100 km and 200 km from Fukushima, population 7.8 million but lower concentrations of fallout, 120,894 extra cancers are to be expected by 2021.
Assuming permanent residence and no evacuation the total predicted yield according to the "Tondel" method is 224,223 in ten years.

The second method is derived from weighting factors advised by the ECRR on the basis of the different ways in which different radionuclides behave in biological systems. This predicts 191,986 extra cancers in the 0 - 100km circle and 224,623 in the outer ring. Probably half of these will be expressed in the first ten years and the remainder between 10 and 50 years.
Assuming permanent residence and no evacuation the total predicted yield according to the second method will be 416,619 of which 208,310 will appear in the first ten years. There is thus good agreement between the two methods.

The ICRP method predicts 6158 additional cancers in 50 years which, among the 2½ million cancer cases expected normally in that population over half a century, would be invisible and deniable.


----------



## Pinktulips

Thank you Oblivion Child, Larabell, Rube & Singapore Saint for your different viewpoints. Much appreciate.

The moot point of this discussion is to detemine how safe is living in Tokyo for an 'infant'? Infants are especially vulnerable because their bodies and nervous systems are still developing and because they will have more time to accumulate exposure to the radiation and for any delayed effects to develop.

Reading the posts, perhaps if it were just hubby & me, we could take a chance and be there. But the dilemma is because of the baby. Surely am answerable for nit just his health but generations to come.

I will update what hubby gathers after his visit to Tokyo.

I am copying below an article found on this subject for reference since cannot post the URL:

QUOTE

How harmful is radiation exposure? Nuclear disaster in Japan sparks Chernobyl-type cancer fears
BY LINDSAY GOLDWERT	
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

The world is holding its breath as Japan assesses the effects of radioactive contamination from*four nuclear reactors after cooling systems were damaged by Friday's earthquake and tsunami.

More than 210,000 people have been evacuated from areas around the Fukushima plant, and 160 were reported to have suffered radiation exposure.

The U.S. Navy's 7th Fleet, stationed more than 100 miles away to help the earthquake victims, sailed farther away from the stricken plant after detecting unusual levels of radioactivity in the air.*

Seventeen crewmen who flew through the radioactive plume generated by the plant were found to have been contaminated and had to be scrubbed down.

PHOTOS: Satellite images capture before and after images of Japan

Favorable weather conditions on Tuesday allowed several ships to begin creeping back toward the Japanese coast.

At the White House, Nuclear Regulatory Commission head Gregory Jaczko assured Americans that there was "a very low likelihood" of harmful levels of radiation reaching Hawaii or the West Coast.

We spoke with Joseph Mangano, epidemiologist and executive director of the Radiation and Public Health Project about the effects of radiation and the dangers of exposure.*

What is radiation?*

We're all exposed to the kind of radiation that occurs naturally in soil and rocks.* We also receive radiation when we receive dental x-rays or CAT scans.* But the kind of radiation that is causing concern around the world is the kind that is created in nuclear reactor when the atom is split.*

In nuclear fission, when the uranium-235 atom is split, it creates high levels of heat which produce electricity and energy. * It also produces nuclear waste and unstable and harmful radioactive isotopes like iodine 131 and strontium 90.

These nuclear waste particles are harmful and can cause cell mutation and cancer.****

What are the risks?*

People who are exposed to this kind of radiation are at risk of developing certain cancers. Scientists have found higher occurrences of thyroid cancer, breast cancer and leukemia in people who had been exposed to radiation.*

Fetuses exposed to high levels of radiation are often born with birth defects and are prone to developing certain cancers.* There may also be a high rate of infant death.

Is low-level exposure harmful?*

Studies show that there is no such thing as a safe level of exposure to this kind of radiation.* Only the amount of time you are exposed to the radiation, either by skin absorption, inhalation, eating or drinking contaminated products can determine whether you will or will not develop cancer.*

How will people exposed to radiation feel?*

Those who have been exposed to high levels of radiation can cause acute radiation syndrome (ARS), or radiation poisoning. The first symptoms of ARS are typically typically skin rashes, immune failure, weakness, nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. These symptoms, the CDC says, start within minutes to days after the exposure, and last for minutes or days.*

What can Japan expect?

If there's any nation that knows how to deal with the effects of radiation, it's Japan.* The country has been monitoring citizens who were exposed to radiation during the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of WWII.**

Doctors at the Radiation Effects Research Foundation found atomic-bomb survivors in Japan had a 45 percent higher death rate from leukemia and an 8 percent higher death rate from cancerous tumors than the general Japanese population, according to Bloomberg.**

In 1986, a nuclear chain reaction at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in the Ukraine causes thousands of people to be exposed to dangerous radioactive chemicals.* Many of the children in the region developed thyroid cancer in the years following the catastrophe.*

"We believe that the measures the Japanese authorities have taken to protect the population are sufficient," Agnes Buzyn, head of France's Institut de Radioprotection et de Surete Nucleaire, told Bloomberg.**

"Significant radioactivity was released and certainly more than at Three Mile Island," she said, declining to provide figures.*

The Three Mile Island nuclear accident in Pennsylvania that resulted from a partial core meltdown in 1979 was the worst in U.S. history.*
In the five-year period immediately following the meltdown, the number of persons living within 10 miles of Three Mile Island who were diagnosed with cancer rose 64 percent, said Mangano.

UNQUOTE


----------



## Rube

larabell said:


> For the record, there actually was a spike that lasted several days -- it coincided with the first rain after the initial explosions. But it was still less than 0.5 uSv/hr at it's peak, at least here in Tokyo, which is probably less than a week's normal exposure. PM me if you'd like the list of sites I was following.


You knew this was coming. Today in setagaya Tokyo a level of 2.7 on a path kids take to school. Who knows how long it's been like that there. 

I'm sure you're going to say it's well below the level of some city somewhere or something though.


----------



## Rube

And it just keeps on coming...

"The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology said Wednesday that radioactive strontium 90 has been found in sediment on the roof of a condominium in Yokohama.

According to a TBS report, the level of radioactive strontium was 195 becquerels, which is 95 becquerels per kilogram above the government standard.

This is the first time that radioactive strontium with a level higher than the government benchmark has been found so far from the stricken Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, TBS reported.

Yokohama is about 250 kilometers from the Fukushima nuclear plant. "

and this..

"Officials said Wednesday they have found a small area in Tokyo’s Setagaya Ward with higher levels of radiation than evacuation zones around the Fukushima nuclear plant.

Setagaya’s mayor said concerned parents monitoring for radiation asked them to conduct further tests on a roadside spot near a kindergarten in Tsurumaki. Its radioactivity level of 2.7 microsieverts per hour slightly exceeded that of an area about 40 kilometers from the Fukushima Daiichi plant."


So what do you think guys, time to admit we don't have a clue how bad it could be in places as far away as Tokyo? And these are just the places they are testing, not like they are testing every private piece of land out there or every stair well in every mansion. Right now there could be people in Tokyo getting a year's worth of radiation every hour and we wouldn't have a clue.


----------



## Joppa

Rube said:


> "Officials said Wednesday they have found a small area in Tokyo’s Setagaya Ward with higher levels of radiation than evacuation zones around the Fukushima nuclear plant.
> 
> Setagaya’s mayor said concerned parents monitoring for radiation asked them to conduct further tests on a roadside spot near a kindergarten in Tsurumaki. Its radioactivity level of 2.7 microsieverts per hour slightly exceeded that of an area about 40 kilometers from the Fukushima Daiichi plant."
> 
> 
> So what do you think guys, time to admit we don't have a clue how bad it could be in places as far away as Tokyo? And these are just the places they are testing, not like they are testing every private piece of land out there or every stair well in every mansion. Right now there could be people in Tokyo getting a year's worth of radiation every hour and we wouldn't have a clue.


The officials now have discounted the link between the Setagaya incident and Fukushima genpatsu. The radiation was traced to a bottle discovered under the floor of a building nearby, and the suspicions are it must have contained some radioactive material.


----------



## larabell

Joppa said:


> The radiation was traced to a bottle discovered under the floor of a building nearby, and the suspicions are it must have contained some radioactive material.


I'm curious... I was watching the news last night in a bar so all I caught was the captions and I likely missed some of the stories to boot. The story I saw was one of Radium-266 found in Gunma-ken which they believe is not related to the Fukushima disaster. Are we talking about the same story or are there two similar incidents in one day?


----------



## Rube

Joppa said:


> The officials now have discounted the link between the Setagaya incident and Fukushima genpatsu. The radiation was traced to a bottle discovered under the floor of a building nearby, and the suspicions are it must have contained some radioactive material.


The suspicions, which really means they don't have a clue. So again, they don't have a clue but you guys are so sure it's safe. You know something the government doesn't? They haven't discounted anything yet, they said it was unlikely, just like they said it was unlikely the food would be containmated. But I'm glad you think that radiation that is not linked to it makes it safer, that actually scares me more if it's not linked.


----------



## Rube

larabell said:


> I'm curious... I was watching the news last night in a bar so all I caught was the captions and I likely missed some of the stories to boot. The story I saw was one of Radium-266 found in Gunma-ken which they believe is not related to the Fukushima disaster. Are we talking about the same story or are there two similar incidents in one day?


More then 2, there was also the roof top in Yokohama. And there have been reports of spikes all over Tokyo.


----------



## larabell

Rube said:


> You know something the government doesn't?


Chotto matte... Pretty much every post I've made on this forum up to now has included the caveat that I have no idea how all this it going to pan out. Perhaps you missed that part?

You're entitled to your opinion. And, for what it's worth, I think you've managed to justify your opinion without reverting to pseudo-science (which is more than I can say for the JT readers ;-). I thank you for that... really.

The thing is... the original question was whether I (or anyone else currently living here) would be willing to move here if they had an infant. I answered that question in the affirmative and explained my reasoning. You're welcome to do the same (as you have). The ad-hominem attacks, though, are a bit over the top, IMHO. We should be able to debate the issues without resorting to tactics that add no value to the debate... no?

Anyway.. here are a few more personal opinions, for what it's worth. I started to do some actual research on this so I could reference real data, real math, and official web sites... but... given the recent posts I questioned what good that would do since you seem to be convinced that we're all doomed, no matter what we believe.

First, 130-some uSv/hr in Yokohama is noise. You'd probably have to live on that roof for 10 years to see any ill effects. Do the math -- it's kinda fun, actually. The 2.7 uSv/hr in Setagaya is more significant and certainly worth an investigation. I'm curious to see whether the report is legit and, if so, what they think caused it (some have suggested the owner planted the soil to collect insurance but I'm skeptical about that). In the meantime, say out of Setagaya-ku ;-)...

The sites I quoted before are *not* readings taken from some helicopter... they're readings close to the ground from monitoring sites established well before 3/11. As for the suggestion that background radiation is different from radiation from the radiation one would experience from contamination -- that's absolutely true. Background is mostly gamma particles (alpha and beta being absorbed in the upper atmosphere before reaching us) while the Cesium/Strontium/Iodine isotopes that we're seeing from Fukishima mainly emit beta particles as they decay, which are far less damaging than gamma particles). [The Iodine is, by now, mostly moot, as it has a half-life of 8 days.]

I agree that we need more valid readings from more "real life" places like schools and other public facilities (*) -- but I don't believe that the reason we don't have that data is because the "official sources" have been lying. I believe it's more because we simply don't have enough resources to check every nook and cranny. So, of course, as things like this come to the public's attention, they'll bring in the big guns (ie: more sensitive/accurate equipment). There will always be some folks who distrust the officials but, what are we gonna do? Are you willing to spend a few tens of thousands of dollars on a scientific-grade gieger counter or do you think there's enough public scrutiny these days that we can trust the numbers once they're published?

(*) I'd welcome anyone who has an accurate geiger counter to measure the contamination on *my* roof -- I'd even pay for the service.

BTW, there's been some speculation that the gov'ment is checking only for Cesium and not other elements because they already know other stuff is there. That's not how the checking is done. They take accurate measurements of the radiation and each element has a signature. While it's certainly possible that other stuff was detected but only the Cesium was reported -- what possible benefit would there be to saying that contamination exists but hiding the exact nature of the isotopes involved. That's not to say one *couldn't* lie -- but why... especially when you know that the announcement is going to be met with intense public scrutiny.

But... hey... I don't expect to convert the conspiracy theorists in my lifetime...

I saw a report today about Radon-266 found in Gunma-ken. I was in a noisy bar at the time so I couldn't hear the audio but the caption said "<genpatsu ni kankei-nai> kano" -- meaning *someone* doesn't think the discovery is connected to the Fukushima accident. Duh... Radon is commonly emitted from rocks in the ground. It's not even one of the major by-products of nuclear fission. It's likely that, until recently, nobody even tested that area for radiation so how can you say one way or the other that it's definitely from Fukushima or just from the rocks that have been there from the dawn of time. Isn't that just the polar opposite of saying the contamination definitely IS from Fukishima, even when there's no evidence either way?

I'm saying: "we don't know". Some are saying: "we know and it's not good". When something "not good" happens, obviously the latter pundits say: "see, we told you so... it's not good and we predicted it first". I'm just saying that, whether the ultimate outcome is good or bad... whether I'm right or I'm wrong... it just doen't make sense to say: "I know things are bad and you're simply wrong for hoping things *might not* be all that bad", when nobody really knows for sure.

Bottom line... I believe my family and I are as safe here as we would be anywhere else, all things considered and given what I currently know. You obviously don't. We probably won't know who is right for at least a couple decades, if ever (check out the IAEA web page on the effects of radiation -- nobody knows what the effects of low-level radiation (1~50 mSv/yr) are and it's doubtful we'll ever know because of all the other potential cancer-causing agents in our environment. I don't have the patience to argue this out for the next 10+ years -- especially when the experts are saying there's probably no way to even measure the effects.

Sure... cancer will certainly exist 10 years from now. It's even likely there may be a spike in the Fukushima area like there was in Chernoble. Will there be a spike in cancer cases in Tokyo? Do you know for sure? No... Will the effect be any worse than moving, for example, to Denver (50 rem/yr -- over twice the world average)? Probably not... but that's a gut feel -- and I doubt anyone else can give more than a gut feel on this because we simply don't know. It's not like your local University can expose the general populace to low-level radiation just to see what happens ;-). In other words (or maybe the *same* words), we DON'T know.

For the record... if any of this bothers you, you probably don't belong in Japan, infant or not. Everyone has to make their own decision. I choose to worry more about things that have a higher probability of happening than the 0.0001% chance that I (or my kids) may or may not contract cancer because of Fukishima Dai-ichi, as opposed to the 0.01 chance that they may or may not contract cancer because we eat out once or twice a week and half the Japanese population smokes. If you need an excuse to not move to Japan... that's a far better one, IMHO. If you choose to mis-interpret that as saying that I think Japan is 100% safe... be my guest. I'm mostly writing this for the benefit of thinking people who may run across this post when searching for opinions. And... mind you... mine is just one more opinion blowing in the wind and while I hope to hell I'm not wrong, that's certainly no guarantee that I'm not. I just wince when people give 100% guarantees, either way, about something they obviously know nothing about.

And please don't infer anything from the fact that I don't intend to contribute anything further to this thread... please carry on in my stead... the horse is dead from my POV... no offence will be taken.


----------



## larabell

Rube said:


> More then 2, there was also the roof top in Yokohama. And there have been reports of spikes all over Tokyo.


I heard about the rooftop in Yokohama -- but that was Cesium, no? There was some speculation on the JT forum that the Cesium could have been planted there but that seems a bit far-fetched. Rain accumulation seems more likely.

I was curious about the Radium. You know, there are various places in the world where Radium bubbles out of the rocks naturally and if that's been happening here and nobody knew... well... that's a hell of a lot more worrisome than 130-some Bq/kg worth of Cs-137 in Yokohama because... eventually the Cs-137 runs out. The Radium may not...

BTW, I believe I mis-typed the units of radiation in a previous post. I may have said 130-some uSv/hr when I meant 130-some Bq/kg. It's noise if you're talking about a few kg of the stuff at 1 meter with no protection. It's less than noise if there's a roof between thee and the contamination -- less if it's more than a meter away -- and less if it's not quite "several kg". There's a calculator online -- anyone who is interested can PM me for the link.

But 130-some Bq/kg is basically noise...


----------



## Rube

larabell said:


> Chotto matte... Pretty much every post I've made on this forum up to now has included the caveat that I have no idea how all this it going to pan out. Perhaps you missed that part?


It wasn't directed at you. Perhaps you missed that part?


----------



## Rube

larabell said:


> I heard about the rooftop in Yokohama -- but that was Cesium, no? There was some speculation on the JT forum that the Cesium could have been planted there but that seems a bit far-fetched. Rain accumulation seems more likely.
> 
> I was curious about the Radium. You know, there are various places in the world where Radium bubbles out of the rocks naturally and if that's been happening here and nobody knew... well... that's a hell of a lot more worrisome than 130-some Bq/kg worth of Cs-137 in Yokohama because... eventually the Cs-137 runs out. The Radium may not...
> 
> BTW, I believe I mis-typed the units of radiation in a previous post. I may have said 130-some uSv/hr when I meant 130-some Bq/kg. It's noise if you're talking about a few kg of the stuff at 1 meter with no protection. It's less than noise if there's a roof between thee and the contamination -- less if it's more than a meter away -- and less if it's not quite "several kg". There's a calculator online -- anyone who is interested can PM me for the link.
> 
> But 130-some Bq/kg is basically noise...


Less then noise? Since his happened everybody is an expert overnight.


----------



## Rube

larabell said:


> But... hey... I don't expect to convert the conspiracy theorists in my lifetime...


Who is the conspiracy theorist? Me? lol, dude Kan gave an interview that the government thought they were going to lose the whole east coast at first and yet they were telling people to remain calm. Obviously if they hadn't more damage would have been done by the panic then anything else but it's childish to wishfully believe any government tells it's citizens the whole truth after time and time again they are caught lying. 

In your own words you say we probably won't know for decades how bad the damage is and yet you have no qualms declaring it safe. For that I think your more nuts then any conspiracy theorist or noisy gaijin and I have problem saying that you here directly unlike you claiming to be a nice guy by throwing insults at people who aren't here to defend themselves. you get a golf clap for being so cool :clap2:

Internet rules for the weak minded; cool to insult anybody at other sites but not when they are at the site, in that case it's an ad hominem attack.


----------



## Rube

"Yokohama City has stopped using dried shiitake mushrooms in school lunches after detecting 350 becquerels per kilogram of radioactive cesium in its stocks.

The city said on Thursday that it discovered the contamination during its screening of ingredients for school lunches.

Also on Thursday, 830 becquerels per kilogram of radioactive cesium, exceeding the government's limit of 500 becquerels, was detected in shiitake mushrooms grown outdoors on logs in a city in Ibaraki Prefecture.

The city is about 170 kilometers from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant.

Earlier this week, shiitake mushrooms containing radioactive cesium above the official limit were found in 2 cities in Chiba Prefecture.

Restrictions have been imposed on shipments of mushrooms grown by the same method in these cities.

Yokohama says the radioactive cesium detected in the city was below the government's limit, but it has decided not to use dried shiitake in children's lunches for some time."


----------



## Tokyorose

I agree with Rube - I am a grown-up and am still leaving because I don't really know what will happen. Also today we had radiation scares in Setagaya (Tokyo) and Yokohama which is further than Tokyo. My physicist friend and her husband have left so I follow them!


----------



## Rube

And yet again....this time an elementary school showed a level of 3.99 in Tokyo. The more they test the more they find, and they are only testing public land and schools at this point.

God I'm so sick of freaks on both extremes, the "noisy gaigins" as larabell calls them and people like Larabell who put themselves out there as the voice of reason but are just arogant posers.


----------



## Rube

"A radiation dose of 3.99 microsieverts per hour was measured at a primary school in Tokyo Adachi-ku, reports Nikkei."

Again this was not found by government testing, it was citizens who did the test.


----------



## Singapore Saint

Rube said:


> "A radiation dose of 3.99 microsieverts per hour was measured at a primary school in Tokyo Adachi-ku, reports Nikkei."
> 
> Again this was not found by government testing, it was citizens who did the test.


Quoting numbers is totally pointless and meaningless without any form of context... what was the reading on the 10th March..? 

If it was 4.0, what is the problem?

It was 0.1, then obviously we're all going to die.


----------



## Rube

Wait so now that the numbers are higher they are meaningless but when you thought they were low it was proof that Tokyo was safe? Yeah that's about what I expected. 

Here is some context to put it in. 

0.0002 Sieverts (0.2 milli Sieverts) per hour = 1 arm X-ray equivalent per hour. 50 hours at this would roughly equal your years dose of radiation.

So you can ask your wife the "expert" but to me that sounds like the kids could get the equivelent of 20 x-rays per hour at those levels and there is no reason to believe those or higher levels aren't all over Tokyo/Yokohama/Chiba.


----------



## larabell

No... by your own logic, standing there for 50 hours would equal one X-ray. Unless my pocket calculator is broken, you'd have to stand there for almost two months to get the equivalent of a year's worth of average pre-3/11 exposure. This comes out to about half the annual "safe" limit for workers in radiation-related industries. Far more than one should be seeing at a school, I'll admit... but I doubt anyone's going to die as a result.

I know we probably disagree on how much panic to attribute to this news but at least we should try to get the math right so people can make an informed decision.


----------



## Rube

1 microsievert = 0.001 millisieverts so it's 0.00399 millisieverts per hour so you're right, 50 hours would equal an x-ray. 

How many hours have your kids played outside since this has begun? My kids spend about 20 hours a week outside, a lot of that time on their school grounds. So 7 months I'd guess upwards of 600 hours. What's the half life on this stuff? 26 years or so? I don't see it getting better, the only thing they can do is when they find a hot spot (after citizens tell them) is to take the top soil. 

I'm not saying that this would kill anybody, I'm saying that a baby who grows up in this is probably going to have a much higher risk of cancer than ones who don't and that's what this conversation is about, risks to infants and babies. Even most of the kids in Russia who got cancer were treated and lived but why the hell would you even suggest it's a acceptable risk without knowing everything? 

And I'm not panicking at this news, I was expecting this news. Anybody who wasn't expecting this is an idiot.


----------



## Rube

larabell said:


> I know we probably disagree on how much panic to attribute to this news but at least we should try to get the math right so people can make an informed decision.


Dude, you're a tool. I said after our first conversation I didn't want to talk to you and I was an idiot for even trying. You're an arrogant ******* and this site is the worse for having you as a moderator.


----------



## Rube

"TOKYO—Alarmed by recent discoveries of radioactive "hot spots" in Tokyo and other areas far from the troubled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, Japan will soon issue guidelines to help citizens and local officials detect contaminated areas and clean them safely, a government minister said.

"From now on, we must offer equipment and ask people to look well beyond Fukushima to find hot spots," Masaharu Nakagawa, minister of education and science, said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal. He added it was unclear how widely such spots have spread."

The government is now admitting they don't have a clue, when will larabell admit it?


----------



## Singapore Saint

Rube said:


> Wait so now that the numbers are higher they are meaningless but when you thought they were low it was proof that Tokyo was safe? Yeah that's about what I expected.
> 
> Here is some context to put it in.
> 
> 0.0002 Sieverts (0.2 milli Sieverts) per hour = 1 arm X-ray equivalent per hour. 50 hours at this would roughly equal your years dose of radiation.
> 
> So you can ask your wife the "expert" but to me that sounds like the kids could get the equivelent of 20 x-rays per hour at those levels and there is no reason to believe those or higher levels aren't all over Tokyo/Yokohama/Chiba.


It may have escaped your attention that when I commented on low numbers previously, I compared them to background levels. You have taken my comment out of context in order to make a point, which is about what I expected.

As for kindly referring to my wife as an expert, I would prefer to base my opinion on someone who has researched the subject for 8yrs and had papers published rather than trawling google for a few hours.

You initially asked for people's opinions on why they were staying and I have have given you mine and also tried to justify them. In response, all I get is replies telling me that my opinion is wrong.

Suggestion - if you feel like asking a question again and there is a chance that you won't like the answer, then don't ask the question in the first place.

And as for your comments to Larabell, well..that's just unbelievable and highly ironic...


----------



## Rube

I didn't ask you anything, I asked people who have kids, you don't so I don't know why you're even in this conversation. 

The point is it doesn't matter what you ask your wife because she doesn't have all the info, none of us do. Some of us understand that some don't. 

My comments about larabell are totally believable after the crap he talked about other posters on another site and directed towards me in another thread. He's a tool and I stand by my opinion of him. Some people think it's cool to insult within the rules but an insult is an insult and I've had enough of his weak assed insults and to be honest I don't give a damn if I'm banned here because look who there is to talk to? You and him, I wouldn't give you guys the time of day in real life to be honest.

If he thinks it's cool to call people he doesn't agree with noisy gaijins then I have no problem calling him an arrogrant *******.

And for the love of god, never try to use ironic again, most overused term on the net.


----------



## larabell

Rube said:


> How many hours have your kids played outside since this has begun?


Not nearly as many hours as I wish they would. 



> What's the half life on this stuff? 26 years or so?


30 years for Cs-137, which seems to be the preponderance of what escaped. The Cs-137 decays to a radioactive version of Barium for about 3 minutes and then becomes stable (non-radioactive) Barium, for what it's worth.



> I don't see it getting better, the only thing they can do is when they find a hot spot (after citizens tell them) is to take the top soil.


Yeah... but once they do, that takes care of the hotspot. If other sources were reporting average background readings in multi-uSv/hr, I'd have been out of here by now. But, as far as I've been able to tell from the shoddy media reports, we're really dealing with hotspots that can be cleaned up and not with a general trend. I could be wrong and I've been watching the news as carefully as anyone else but the overall numbers haven't driven me to that point yet.

Take that roof in Yokohama, for example. 195 Bq/kg, if I remember right. The limit for food imported into the US is 160 Bq/kg. So if you took 4kg of dirt off that roof and mixed it with 1kg of uncontaminated dirt, you could legally import the mixture into the US as food (not that anyone would actually eat it, but it puts the number into better perspective). Of course, the media doesn't report that -- and only a few people on forums like this one even bother to do the research or run the numbers to get some idea whether the report is really bad, somewhat bad, or just plain uneventful.



> ...but why the hell would you even suggest it's a acceptable risk without knowing everything?


Ahh... now that's an interesting and legitimate question. My answer is that I don't believe the risk is as great as what the media is making it out to be. You don't have to know everything to make the call -- just some basic science and math. There's a really good tutorial on the Princeton University web site:

Initial Radiation Safety Training

It's part of the mandatory training for anyone who is going to work with radioactive materials in the University labs. In there they admit that: "At low dose levels of millirems to tens of rems, the risk of radiation-induced cancers is so low, that if the risk exists, it is not readily distinguishable from normal levels of cancer occurrence." Tens of rems is essentially in the 100s of mSv (that's "m", not "u") so you'd have to stand in that hotspot for quite some time to notice any increase in your risk of cancer... according to Princeton U, at least.

They also estimate that a single dose of 10 mrem (which is about 100 uSv or 30 hours in the Adachi-ku hotspot) could increase your chances of cancer by one in a million. To put that in context, they list several other activities, like smoking 1.4 cigarettes in a lifetime or driving 40 miles in a car, that would have a similar effect on one's life expectancy. This isn't just from a bunch of nuke-crazed crackpots... I keep running across very similar data all over the place, where it's even published at all. And most of it was written before 3/11 ever happened.

But... back to the question. The reason I think this is an acceptable risk is that I accept far greater risks all the time. Just letting my kids go outside at all entails some risk -- if nothing else, because we keep hearing every few months about a group of kids run over by some overworked salaryman who falls asleep at the wheel. There are a lot of things we, as individuals, don't know about the future or about our environment. Even if you leave Japan, that doesn't change the fact that your kids will face a certain amount of risk on a daily basis. All you really need to know is whether the risk of staying is significantly higher than the risk of not. I believe I do know enough to make that judgement call for myself and my family.

Like I say, if I thought the risk of cancer resulting from radiation was any greater than the risks my kids and I face for any other reason, I'd have been out of here long ago. But I don't believe that's the case. At least not here and not now. That doesn't mean I don't continue to watch the news and run the numbers when it's called for. And it doesn't mean I won't change my mind if something truly alarming comes to light.

Which raises the question that Singapore Saint asked a while back. If you really believe that children living in Tokyo are at a significantly higher risk of cancer now than before 3/11 -- why haven't you left yet? I suspect it's because you're not sure either -- which means that you and I really only disagee as to the *degree* of potential risk. Would that be a fair statement?



> ... I was expecting this news. Anybody who wasn't expecting this is an idiot.


But with a potential army of obaasan out checking their neighborhoods with uncalibrated Russian-made Geiger counters, even an idiot will realize that we're in for a lot more reports like this, some (many?) of which are going to turn out to be false alarms or basically "noise" (like the roof in Yokohama). And since we clearly can't depend on the media to put these reports into perspective [1], we probably have to learn to do the research, run the numbers, and evaluate the risks for ourselves.

[1] In actual fact, many media reports have included the phrase: "There is no immediate health concern" and either readers gloss over that part, don't believe it, or interpret it as a cloaked way of saying we're going to suffer sometime down the road. What they're really saying is that, comparatively speaking, this probably wouldn't even have been reported if it had happened prior to 3/11.

I believe I said before that anyone who can't tolerate the stress of not knowing what's going to happen next should probably leave. Even if I'm right and there's no long-term threat, the news is just going to keep coming and there's no doubt in my mind that more hotspots will be found (and, hopefully, cleaned up) and that more false alarms will be reported with no follow-up article explaining what really happened. It's going to be stressful, for sure. If something happens that causes me to change my mind, I'll be sure to post it here. But, for now, I'm haven't seen anything that warrants panic or evacuation.

Ironically, though, it's interesting that Setagaya-ku is incrementally *safer* now as a direct result of the Fukushima disaster .


----------



## Rube

larabell said:


> You don't have to know everything to make the call -- just some basic science and math. .


No, when you're telling people's it's safe for infants you have to know everything, and you don't know very much, none of us do.


----------



## Rube

larabell said:


> In actual fact, many media reports have included the phrase: "There is no immediate health concern" and either readers gloss over that part, don't believe it, or interpret it as a cloaked way of saying we're going to suffer sometime down the road. What they're really saying is that, comparatively speaking, this probably wouldn't even have been reported if it had happened prior to 3/11.


No that is not what they are _really _saying. What they are saying is no immediate risk. You are the only one saying there is no risk, the doctors and experts all say we can expect more cancers down the road. But since you are psychic and know better then everybody tell me my lottery numbers. 

And again, we're talking about risks to infants and babies, not adults and not teenage boys.


----------



## Rube

57.7 microsieverts per hour in Chiba. Gave it a few days before posting it here, wanted to let you guys actually take it in for a sec before you start with your excuses why it's just noise. 

More is coming and the more those "noisy" gaijins are going to be looking less noisy and just concerned. If this news shocks you, if you've been telling people this wouldn't happen, shame on you.


----------



## ChrisOld

I saw the headlines too and am very happy to see him. We hope that the evidence is collected every problem a lot of time to provide treatment and save lives. In Fukushima, I think it is a necessity and I do not doubt the dangers of living there / stay there and I think that those on the edge of the exclusion zone should be very concerned. Unfortunately, from what I've seen, many of them seem to have no choice but to stay.


----------



## larabell

After Fukushima: The Fear Factor (Examining Scaremongering Journalism) | Japan Probe


----------



## Rube

I don't think I'll read your link there buddy, nothing is quit as rude as somebody going to tell you to go read something without the consideration of at least commenting on it themselves.


----------



## larabell

Sorry about that -- I was under the impression you weren't interested in my opinions. Anyway, on the tech forums I hang out on, it's not considered rude to post a just a link if it's relevant, especially one whose text contains the entire headline of the article.

But... for anyone else who would like to hear my comment as a prerequisite to actually reading the article: The article to which I linked was produced in August after a Japanese woman currently living in Britain started wondering why there was such a discrepancy between what the British media were portraying as an "apocalypse" and what she was hearing from her family in Japan. She interviewed someone at the Science Media Center who did some poking around and found that many reporters, when speaking off the record, are ashamed at how the Fukushima incident has been reported in the mainstream media. She spoke with experts in various health and science disciplines and they all said that other than the area in the immediate vicinity of the plant, the health risks in the UK -- and even in Tokyo -- as a result of the disaster were "very, very, very, very small" (her words, not mine) and that reporters had actually been removed from the story by editors because their reporting was "too measured". She also reported that at least one major media editor was apparently not interested so much in the facts as in the fear factor.

And that's mostly what we have here -- fear. Radiation is something you can't see and, without special (and expensive) equipment, you cannot detect. So it really doesn't matter whether we're talking about a major apocalypse, a minor problem that simply requires a bit of cleanup, or a pimple on the face of life itself -- this is *radiation* we're talking about and the mere mention of the word causes most people's brains to disengage (that's not a slam against anyone in particular... that's a commentary on human nature). We fear what we cannot understand.

Anyone who thinks that it's not worth at least *looking* at both sides of the debate and making up one's mind based on science rather than fear, well... shame on them.


----------



## Rube

larabell said:


> Sorry about that -- I was under the impression you weren't interested in my opinions.


Let's be straight here, the only true opinions you've put forth in this thread is how much you despise people you don't agree with and you've come up with some nice "labels" for them. Other than that you've paraphrased what ever source you've read this week and who you put your faith in. Faith is fine for yourself and yours, but again, this thread is advice for people with infants coming to this area. 

So no, I'm not interested in your opinion, but if you want people to read a link you might want to give them a few reasons to, just rude not to.


----------



## larabell

And... again... my purpose was to point out what experts in the field -- people who should know what they're talking about -- are saying so that the original poster with the infant could make up her mind based on facts rather than fear.

I wouldn't advise against allowing an infant to ride in an automobile and yet I've read expert sources who estimate that the risk of an auto accident is much greater than the risk of developing cancer from Fukishima for those living in Tokyo (which, of course, is where the original poster was planning on living). I rely on external sources because, while I happen to know quite a bit of the science myself, I'd prefer not to rely on my own knowledge alone when we're talking about health risks. I fail to see what could possibly be wrong with introducing opinions besides my own into the discussion where they're relevant to the topic at hand.

There's an old saying that "nobody ever got fired for recommending IBM." So a conservative approach would be to simply advise everyone not come to Japan. That's a perfectly valid stance. But it should be stated that way and acknowledged as a conservative opinion that's based more on emotion than science. But that's of little help to the (I would hope many) readers of this forum who don't actively participate in the discussion, who already live here (possibly with kids), and who might be interested in knowing what the risk actually is instead of just getting a blanket statement that living in Tokyo constitutes a major health risk when there's been no credible evidence to that effect.


----------



## Pinktulips

Thank you all for your opinions.....have been following the thread religiously...am certain the varied opinions have been helpful not only to me but many others readers of the forum probably in same scenario....believe everyone have right to their opinion on an open topic of discussion...

For now my update is that hubby is presently in Japan...will update his opinion & findings upon his return...

Enjoy the winters...am certainly missing the crisp & cool weather here in Singapore


----------



## nupat

Hi Pinktulips,

My wife and I are actually in the same position (with 6 month old) so this thread has been extremely helpful.

I'm wondering if you ended up moving to Tokyo and if you have any suggestions/recommendations/change in thoughts?


----------



## Pinktulips

Hi Nupat,

I can understand your situation. It was a very difficult decision for us too. I suggest trying every source to get info to make a proper decision.

We actually decided not to move to Tokyo at present. I met a couple of families with toddlers who moved to Singapore fearing radiation effect. Also, read similar topic on parenting forums where people shared their experience of being affected/ carrying radiation. 

Also, Singapore papers have been reporting on the effects of radiation or radiation found at new places, etc. for us presently this looked like the better decision. In the absence of knowledge of Japanese language, you would not know which food is coming from where & per various baby books baby's brain etc is still developing. An infant can be affected by radiation exposure man times more than an adult.

At the same time I know of people who have been living for years in Japan with young children (not infants) who refuse to leave Japan as its second home to them & they love their life there. Guess its individual decision.

I feel sad to write this since we really wanted to move to Japan. Beautiful country beautiful people. We hope shall be an opportunity in futur when baby is grown up.

Wish you make the best decision for your family.


----------



## nupat

Hi Pinktulips,

Sorry for the long delay and thank you for your candid feedback. We've also decided to relocate to Singapore instead of Tokyo. I do think we can have a safe environment for our infant in Tokyo/Japan, but like you said with the language barrier and unfamiliarity with the culture I think it will add more stress and difficulties. I think it would be a different story if we were completely fluent in Japanese and already had a network of family and friends.

There's always an expected amount of challenges from the culture shock of moving to a new country (part of why some of us want the expat experience), but I think trying to do that as well learning all the new responsibilities (and worries) of being a new parent may not be the best decision for our sanity.

I think Singapore will be the best choice right now - especially at this stage of being a new family - but hope to eventually live in Japan when the baby gets older... at least to toddler age.

Hope you are enjoying Singapore!


----------

