Document: 1600 Fukushima Workers Thought to Be Exposed to High Radiation

In this Monday, July 25, 2011 image made off video released by the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano, center, wearing protective gear, makes his way during his inspection tour at the crippled Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant at Okuma, northeastern Japan. (Photo: IAEA / AP)

A newly released document says the Japanese government estimated in April that some 1600 workers will be exposed to high levels of radiation in the course of handling the reactor meltdowns at the stricken Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant.

The figure was released in a document from the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), which is in charge of regulating Japan’s nuclear industry, after the Japan Occupational Safety and Health Resource Center requested the information be made public, according an article published on Thursday in the Mainichi Daily News.

The government defines high exposure levels for workers as over 50 millisieverts per year. Under normal Japanese law, it is illegal for nuclear workers to be exposed to more than 100 millisieverts per year, but in the wake of the March 11 crises, the government raised the exposure limit to 250. The April 25 document, however, expresses concern for the safety of its dozens of other reactors: if this many of nuclear workers face such high exposure, they may be not be able to legally work at other nuclear plants in the coming year.

The number, it should be noted, is only an estimate. To date, only six workers have been recorded as exposed to more than 250 millisieverts per year, and less than 420 workers have been recorded as having been exposed to 50.

Meanwhile, on Monday, IAEA head honcho Yukiya Amano donned his own protective gear to get a look at the grounds of the crippled plant with members of Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO). (You can tell which one Amano is because, well, his name is written all over his white suit.)

Radioactive emissions from the site have dropped to a fraction of what they were in early days of the accident. A person standing at the edge of the plant today could expect to be exposed to about 1.7 millisieverts per year, compared to the worldwide average of 2.4 millisieverts per year of background radiation, according to the World Nuclear News.

That’s the good news. The bad news is that that does not in any way take into account the long-term contamination from the radioactive elements that were dispersed over the ground and other surfaces in March. That contamination is thought to cover an area as large as 621 square miles — or, roughly, the size of Houston.

Krista Mahr is a reporter at TIME. Find her on Twitter at @kristamahr. You can also continue the discussion on TIME’s Facebook page and on Twitter at @TIME.

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Ecocentric

    Don Farrall

    Falldown: Radioactive Fallout From Fukushima Posed Little Threat to the U.S.

    Nearly a year after the Japanese tsunami and subsequent meltdown at the Fukushima nuclear plant, the good news is that the risk from radiation doesn’t seem to be as high as many initially feared. Take the Pacific Ocean, for example, where most of the radioactive fallout from the plant eventually ended up. Nicholas Fisher, a marine science professor at New York’s Stony Brook University, took samples of the seawater three months after the accident. He found levels of radiation that were elevated, but still just a fraction of the amount of radioactivity sea life is exposed to from naturally occurring potassium in seawater.

    Nick M Do

    Gasbag: Why No President Can Bring Us $2 Gasoline

    It’s Presidents’ Day as I write this, so if you were lucky enough to have the day off, give some thanks to Washington, Lincoln and all the other chief executives — even stinkers like James Buchanan and Andrew Johnson. Of course in modern American politics, every day is really Presidents’ Day — so central is the occupant of the White House to the perceived state of the nation. Good news or bad news, foreign or domestic, the President gets the credit — and he gets the blame, whether he actually deserves either.

    Bloomberg via Getty Images

    Pipeline Politics: Are the Oil Sands “Game Over” for the Climate? One Study Says No

    There are no shortage of reasons why the Keystone XL pipeline has become such a hot button issue for environmentalists. Many worry about the risks the project could pose to the Ogallala aquifer in Nebraska, where the pipeline was originally designed to pass. Indeed, when President Obama rejected Keystone XL in January, his stated concern was the potential threat to local water supplies.

blog comments powered by Disqus