Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Japan Power News

Japan's Nuclear Refugees, Still Stuck In Limbo 78

mdsolar tips this story at the NY Times: "Every month, Hiroko Watabe, 74, returns for a few hours to her abandoned house near the damaged Fukushima nuclear plant to engage in her own small act of defiance against fate. She dons a surgical mask, hangs two radiation-measuring devices around her neck and crouches down to pull weeds. She is desperate to keep her small yard clean to prove she has not given up on her home, which she and her family evacuated two years ago after a 9.0 earthquake and a tsunami devastated the plant five miles away. Not all her neighbors are willing to take the risk; chest-high weeds now block the doorways of their once-tidy homes. 'In my heart, I know we can never live here again,' said Ms. Watabe, who drove here with her husband from Koriyama, the city an hour away where they have lived since the disaster. 'But doing this gives us a purpose. We are saying that this is still our home.' While the continuing environmental disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi plant has grabbed world headlines — with hundreds of tons of contaminated water flowing into the Pacific Ocean daily — a human crisis has been quietly unfolding. Two and a half years after the plant belched plumes of radioactive materials over northeast Japan, the almost 83,000 nuclear refugees evacuated from the worst-hit areas are still unable to go home."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Japan's Nuclear Refugees, Still Stuck In Limbo

Comments Filter:
  • Re:How about.... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) * on Wednesday October 02, 2013 @04:00PM (#45018215) Homepage Journal

    Even if you don't care about your own life long term, what do you expect your life to be like living there? No younger people will go there, most of your neighbours will have gone, no services, no support. As an added bonus any chance of getting compensation will disappear because you proved your home is habitable. Of course everything in it is worthless now, at least until it is decontaminated and most of it just isn't worth the hassle. That is assuming it even works, a lot of stuff fails if not maintained or used for a couple of years.

    Also cancer tends to be a painful and unpleasant death, so it's not something you just decide to take a chance on. Don't expect the doctor to visit you in the exclusion zone either.

  • Re:How about.... (Score:1, Interesting)

    by carnaby_fudge ( 2789633 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2013 @04:19PM (#45018417)
    Is the situation at all like Chernobyl? My understanding is that wildlife there is strangely thriving. Possible this isn't true, but it may be interesting.

    Maybe, maybe not. [wikipedia.org]
  • Re:How about.... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2013 @06:51PM (#45020235)
    It's worth pointing out that this sort of dislocation of people from their homes is hardly unique to nuclear plants. Construction of Three Gorges Dam [wikipedia.org] included forcefully relocating 1.3 million people. Itaipu [stanford.edu] required relocating 59,000 people. About 3000 were relocated for Grand Coulee [wikipedia.org]. And the failure of the Banqiao series of hydroelectric dams [wikipedia.org] resulted in 11 million people losing their homes (in addition to ~170,000 being killed).

    At least with Fukushima, these people were dislocated only because of an accident, and will eventually be able to reclaim their homes. With hydroelectric dams, those homes and towns are gone for as long as the dam is operational. But that doesn't fit the narrative that renewable energy is harmless while nuclear is evil, so nobody thinks of it that way.

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (5) All right, who's the wiseguy who stuck this trigraph stuff in here?

Working...