Fenrakk101 wrote:
Murph deserves a medal for all that research



As for the incident being "more serious than the media lets on," I put almost no weight on that argument. Media is a broad term that extends beyond the TV, and there are countless reputable sites (Huffington Post being just one of them) that report on global incidents that American news will never tell you about. None of them have expressed such a high level of panic, and it's not because they're ignorant of the situation. Your argument is based entirely on the notion of, "I want to believe (x), so I'll ignore every article claiming (y) and every proof against (x) because that's not what I want to believe."



As Murph said, I appreciate that your thread has made me more informed of the situation, but that is thanks moreso to Murph's research than to your sensationalist claims trying to garner attention. I wouldn't worry about the meltdown, whether you live in the States or even in Japan (unless you're in a contaminated area, in which case you've already received some sort of instructions or safety measures from the government).

I apologize for my over-reaction. I only meant to inform, but I misled. Sorry.

Igncom1 wrote:
Not to mention 'nuclear-activist' when we still use oil and coal which are frankly far worse...





I mean stand for clean power, that all well and good. But pick your battles, and fight the worst ones first.

Windmills - many of them! But then I get reminded of this Comic:

Not to mention 'nuclear-activist' when we still use oil and coal which are frankly far worse...





I mean stand for clean power, that all well and good. But pick your battles, and fight the worst ones first.

Just had to add this article I came across this morning:



"Fukushima apocalypse: Years of 'duct tape fixes' could result in 'millions of deaths' "

By Christina Consolo





Christina Consolo is an opthamology photographer and researcher via taking a Duke university workshop (not even a degree). She turned nuclear-activist some time ago, but doesn't have any experience or credentials remotely related to the field. She's an eye expert and photographer; here's her linked-in, she has no appreciable degrees/certifications (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/christina-consolo/36/b60/889). Sorry, calling yourself an expert doesn't make you one.



Reddit reply to article, by an actual expert:

http://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/1kku96/fukushima_apocalypse_years_of_duct_tape_fixes/

Nosferatiel wrote:
Look at the citations. If there are none, that's totally unreliable in the first place. If there are citations of themselves, I'd also distrust this, in general.

There are some people around with such ridiculous theories, that they start circle-citing themselves to gain some credibility on paper.

Yeah not very common to cite yourself, unless its follow-up research. Not so good if its the basis for new research.



Besides citations, the author's aim and affiliations can be just as useful in picking out shoddy research. (I was curious and did some reading....oh boy looks like another long post..)



The 'most scientific' article discussed, "Elevated airborne beta levels in Pacific/West Coast US States and trends in hypothyroidism among newborns after the Fukushima nuclear meltdown",

Authored by Joseph (JJ) Mangano and Janette Sherman.



Both are vocal activists against nuclear energy and hold major positions in the non-profit Radiation and Public Health Project, which publishes anti-nuclear 'research' articles.

Read up a bit more on the group. They've been at it for years, and no one takes them seriously enough to publish research refuting it because there is little supporting it. They used this to support their argument that the 'truth' was being hidden, so the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission served up this ♥♥♥♥♥ slap in 2004 :

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/tooth-fairy.html



Good read:



Cause-and-Effect Relationships and Scientific Methodology





Authors of the Radiation Public Health Project reports have stated or implied that claimed statistical associations between cancer rates and reactor operations are cause-and-effect relationships. However, statistical association alone does not prove causation, and well-established scientific methods must be used to determine that for two things that appear to be associated over time, it can be concluded that one causes the other.



A simple example helps illustrate this point. A college professor gives the following example of a causal inference: “In the winter I wear boots. In the winter I get colds. Therefore, boots cause colds.” A strong statistical association exists between wearing boots and the health effect of colds. There is, however, an argument about whether boots cause colds.



There are principles of good science that are recognized by the scientific community such as whether a study can be replicated; whether it has considered all data or was it selective (e.g., in the population or in the years studied); whether a study evaluated all possible explanations for the observations; was the data used evaluated for validity and reliability; and whether the study’s conclusions were subjected to independent peer review, evaluation and confirmation.



There are a number of questions about the Health Project studies with regard to methodology, assumptions, and conclusions. Generally, these studies have not followed good scientific principles.



Frequently, they have

• not established control populations for study;

• not examined the impacts of other risk factors;

• used very small sample sizes to draw general conclusions;

• not performed environmental sampling and analysis;

• selectively chosen to ignore data in certain geographic locations or during certain periods of time because they did not “fit”;

• not subjected their data to the independent peer review of the scientific community as a whole; and

• used an incorrect half-life for Sr-90 which gives a false impression that strontium levels in the environment are decaying more rapidly than in baby teeth.



The evaluation of health effects from exposure to radiation is an ongoing activity of the NRC’s involving public, private and international institutions. The NRC routinely seeks out new scientific information that might reveal health and safety concerns. It reviews independent studies of nuclear safety issues and embraces opportunities to inform the public about the results of such reviews. Based on all the preceding discussion, NRC finds there is little or no credibility in the studies published by the Radiation Public Health Project.

Nasarog wrote:
You didn't mislead, you panicked. That happens often because our news is so one sided and singular in it's nature. It's very difficult to find a story that covers more than one aspect of an event these days.

This, so true. No worries DesertFoxx, take it as a learning experience to always check your sources like others have said. Always think along the lines of "Its too good to be true".

You also have the classic, namely the same bunch of ridiculous theorists citing each other.



That way, if you don't know better, you think that the information is verified, at it quotes something else.



Usually, I try to make sure the sources are respectable institutions, be it Labs, NGOs, Universities or others. (For example, as far as nuclear energy goes for France, the CRIIRAD is - in my eyes - a better source of information than the press releases from EDF).



In those internet /wikipedia / tweeter days, makes sense to double- and triple-check everything. The problem is not anymore getting the information, it is more sorting it out.

Nosferatiel wrote:
Look at the citations. If there are none, that's totally unreliable in the first place. If there are citations of themselves, I'd also distrust this, in general.

There are some people around with such ridiculous theories, that they start circle-citing themselves to gain some credibility on paper.

Look at the citations. If there are none, that's totally unreliable in the first place. If there are citations of themselves, I'd also distrust this, in general.

There are some people around with such ridiculous theories, that they start circle-citing themselves to gain some credibility on paper.

Fenrakk101 wrote:
Check the sources for the articles too, they are often easily respectable (for example, if it was a study by NASA) or easily disregarded (like some of the sources the original article here referred to). If the article doesn't have sources, I wouldn't even take it seriously.

Yeah, ofc, I always do that



E.g. at statistics I look for the amount of people they have asked, etc.

Fenrakk101 wrote:
Check the sources for the articles too, they are often easily respectable (for example, if it was a study by NASA) or easily disregarded (like some of the sources the original article here referred to). If the article doesn't have sources, I wouldn't even take it seriously.

Yeah, ofc, I always do that



E.g. at statistics I look for the amount of people they have asked, etc.

Tredecim wrote:
You are right - that's why I try to read different newspapers from different countries.

Check the sources for the articles too, they are often easily respectable (for example, if it was a study by NASA) or easily disregarded (like some of the sources the original article here referred to). If the article doesn't have sources, I wouldn't even take it seriously.

Nasarog wrote:
You didn't mislead, you panicked. That happens often because our news is so one sided and singular in it's nature. It's very difficult to find a story that covers more than one aspect of an event these days. WHat happened in Fukushima is pretty bad, but it's not the worst. What made it stand out was the current news cycle and how everyone covers the same occurrence and tries to outdo each other. Then add in bloggers and internet sleuths, and it's very difficult to tell truth from fiction these days.

You are right - that's why I try to read different newspapers from different countries.

DesertFoxx wrote:
I apologize for my over-reaction. I only meant to inform, but I misled. Sorry.

You didn't mislead, you panicked. That happens often because our news is so one sided and singular in it's nature. It's very difficult to find a story that covers more than one aspect of an event these days. WHat happened in Fukushima is pretty bad, but it's not the worst. What made it stand out was the current news cycle and how everyone covers the same occurrence and tries to outdo each other. Then add in bloggers and internet sleuths, and it's very difficult to tell truth from fiction these days.

We don't hear much about the aftermath of Fukushima incident these days, but this is a serious issue that is already affecting west coast states, and will affect everyone on Earth in several decades.



In fact, the term, "aftermath" seems premature as the incident is ongoing; radioactive water is leaking to Pacific Ocean as we speak, and the potential collapse of plant 4 will pose a significant threat to our environment and all lives on this planet.



Here is a radiation picture taken in March 2012. It only took about an year to spread that much.







Here are the examples of the effects the radiation from Japan is having on America. I will post a link below so you can read related articles yourselves.



1) "Samples of milk taken across the United States have shown radiation at levels 2000 percent higher than EPA maximums."



2) "The highest detected levels of Iodine-131 in precipitation in the U.S. were as follows (normal is about 2 picocuries I-131 per liter of water): Boise, ID (390); Kansas City (200); Salt Lake City (190); Jacksonville, FL (150); Olympia, WA (125); and Boston, MA (92)."



3) "The study, conducted by scientists with the Radiation and Public Health Project, found that babies born shortly after the incident were 28 percent more likely to suffer from congenital hypothyroidism than were children born in those states during the same period one year earlier. In the rest of the U.S., which received less radioactive fallout, the risks actually decreased slightly compared with the year before."



Note that radiation can travel through both wind and sea currents.



Avoid sea food, and try not to consume products from Japan and west coast states.



Oh, and don't go to Japan. Rich Japanese people are already evacuating the country, and their government actually considered evacuating Tokyo back in January. It's that terrible. There are talks that it may even lose its sovereignty (especially if plant 4 collapses). It all sounds exaggerated, but things are a lot worse than the media lets on, and the radiation from the incident is equivalent to several hundreds of Hiroshima bombs. It's just not the same.



Try this article:



http://jeromiewilliams.com/2013/04/12/holy-fukushima-radiation-from-japan-is-already-killing-north-americans/

Oh sweet Austria, not a single plant in our country but manye right around the borders.



Ps: Nos: Not a Meltdown, but Majak is missing! (so many people don't know about it)

Murph deserves a medal for all that research



As for the incident being "more serious than the media lets on," I put almost no weight on that argument. Media is a broad term that extends beyond the TV, and there are countless reputable sites (Huffington Post being just one of them) that report on global incidents that American news will never tell you about. None of them have expressed such a high level of panic, and it's not because they're ignorant of the situation. Your argument is based entirely on the notion of, "I want to believe (x), so I'll ignore every article claiming (y) and every proof against (x) because that's not what I want to believe."



As Murph said, I appreciate that your thread has made me more informed of the situation, but that is thanks moreso to Murph's research than to your sensationalist claims trying to garner attention. I wouldn't worry about the meltdown, whether you live in the States or even in Japan (unless you're in a contaminated area, in which case you've already received some sort of instructions or safety measures from the government).

Igncom1 wrote:
I would love to display the effects of environmental damage that coal power plants have caused when compared to nuclear, just to put it into perspective.

Yeah, good idea

Isn't it preferable considering conventional fuel sources?

Igncom1 wrote:
I would love to display the effects of environmental damage that coal power plants have caused when compared to nuclear, just to put it into perspective.

Regardless, nuclear waste is a wee bit more concerning in the shortterm.

I would love to display the effects of environmental damage that coal power plants have caused when compared to nuclear, just to put it into perspective.

Just to add to Nos, the Three Mile Island incident didn't even cause that much damage. It was quickly contained by safety measures, and research after the fact has showed that very little came from what contamination did escape. Only saying so because, well, that's in my neck of the woods here in PA (or was, until I moved for college).



Anyway, I agree with the others. The likelihood of Japan being overthrown over all of this is slim to none. I just see it as an impetus to actually start developing better safety protocols and systems, and making sure these things will work, instead of going with the lowest bidder. It kind of just looks like Foxx got caught up in sensationalist media. I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing cries of doom from those sources soon, that we're all going to fry as the sun flips its magnetic poles in the next few months.

THE WATER IS BOILING< THE WATER IS BOILING AND FULL OF RADIATION... RUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUN AND HIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIDDDDDDDDDDDDDE!



WHERE????





Anyways, Murph is absolutely correct.



DesertFoxx, I hope you don't like the fly, because you should research radiation and exposure at 35k feet.

I'll just add a little history, taken from wikipedia though http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_meltdown#Meltdown_incidents .

Small scale meltdowns of reactors:

1952 NRX Ontario, Canada

1954 BORAX-I Idaho, USA

1955 EBR-I Idaho, USA

1957 Windscale Sellafield, England

1959 Sodium Reactor Experiment California, USA

1966 Fermi 1 Michigan, USA

1967 Chapelcross nuclear power station Scotland

1969 Saint-Laurent Nuclear Power Plant France

1977 A1 Plant Czecheslovakia

1980 Saint-Laurent Nuclear Power Plant



Major meltdowns with large scale environment contamination, not including submarine accidents:

1969 Lucens Reactor Switzerland

1979 Three Miles Island Pennsylvania, USA

1986 Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant USSR

2011 Fukushima I Japan



Although it is true that each and any of those events, safe maybe Lucens that was stationed in a cave, lead to some global and a lot local contamination, not one of these incidents has overthrown a state. I disbelieve japan to be the first.



That said, we might improve safety a lot, if we put more money into researching better reactor technologies (see e.g. this article http://www.nature.com/news/nuclear-energy-radical-reactors-1.11957 ) than just using the first and cheapest technology we just happen to invent.



On the rest I do agree with Sharidann and Murph. Your original post seems to be very much panicked and selective of information, I wouldn't even call them facts, in most of cases.

I am nowhere near the level of murph as far as scientific background or research goes.



That said, I find your reaction after his post quite problematic.



Why ?

You pay lip service to the answer murph posted but then you just spam arguments without backing them up with facts.



Example:

Plant 4 goes, game over for Japan and the rest of us ? how ? do you have some research showing the effects of a meltdown of plant 4 ? Last time I checked, Chernobyl in 1986 was a LOT worse and we are still around. Where are your facts ?



Example 2:

"Some countries do not allow travel to Japan anymore" ... ok, which ones ? and did they allow travel to Japan Pre-Fukushima ?



I could continue but frankly, if you are truly concerned about the situation in Fukushima, back up your assertions with facts, otherwise, please stop spreading half-truths or outright lies.

DesertFoxx wrote:
Ahhh! So long!



Thanks for the in-depth reply though. I appreciate your research and I must say, I am somewhat relieved a bit. A bit.



The situation is a lot more serious than we are told, but I have nothing to really argue against your scientific research since numbers or methodologies trump any non-official statements like mine.



Japanese government knows their country is pretty much screwed, and they are doing their best to put cheery face on and tell everyone everything is under control.



If the plant 4 goes, it's game over for Japan (and the rest of us). People already don't trust their government there because of the incident. Imagine what would happen if they hear that the entire Japan is radioactive (as a result of plant 4 collapse). Japan will be in mass panic and lose its sovereignty. I really hope they fix it soon.



Sure, ocean is big, but that doesn't mean the continuous leak of the radioactive water isn't going to affect everyone on this planet. These things will poison fishes, which will then travel to different parts of the world. Continuous consumption of these fishes will result in cancer.



I said rich people, but I generally meant those who can afford to evacuate their whole family from Japan. Some countries do not allow travel to Japan anymore.



If we could see the effects of radiation right away, you could tell it significantly affected west coasts. In several decades, there will be reports of increased incidence of cancer.



Things are bad right now, but will be worse if they don't contain the situation soon.

Ahhh! So long!



Thanks for the in-depth reply though. I appreciate your research and I must say, I am somewhat relieved a bit. A bit.



The situation is a lot more serious than we are told, but I have nothing to really argue against your scientific research since numbers or methodologies trump any non-official statements like mine.



Japanese government knows their country is pretty much screwed, and they are doing their best to put cheery face on and tell everyone everything is under control.



If the plant 4 goes, it's game over for Japan (and the rest of us). People already don't trust their government there because of the incident. Imagine what would happen if they hear that the entire Japan is radioactive (as a result of plant 4 collapse). Japan will be in mass panic and lose its sovereignty. I really hope they fix it soon.



Sure, ocean is big, but that doesn't mean the continuous leak of the radioactive water isn't going to affect everyone on this planet. These things will poison fishes, which will then travel to different parts of the world. Continuous consumption of these fishes will result in cancer.



I said rich people, but I generally meant those who can afford to evacuate their whole family from Japan. Some countries do not allow travel to Japan anymore.



If we could see the effects of radiation right away, you could tell it significantly affected west coasts. In several decades, there will be reports of increased incidence of cancer.



Things are bad right now, but will be worse if they don't contain the situation soon.

Do not take blogs or any single article, research or otherwise, as fact. Do not spread any information unless you have, with due dilligence, verified it yourself, otherwise you are doing a disservice to those you have told. May have gone a bit overboard on this reply, ha, but I sure feel more informed on the subject (hopefully will inform others also!). As far as I'm concerned, Fukushima has the potential to cause a lot of problems, but until more information and research is in, I'm going to have to side with the EPA, W.H.O., and other governmental agencies that largely agree with my conclusions below.





The issue of radiation and contamination of food and water supplies is an important one. That being said, the information and links you provide do not hold up to scrutiny, nor do most likeminded blogs or articles about the subject. I understand that the Fukushima event has caused and has the potential to cause deleterious effects in humans in the United States and elsewhere outside of Japan. However, current data and research available does not suggest the risk is as significant as is portrayed in these and similar articles. TBH I was not initially well informed on the topic, and your thread urged me to do further research on my own; below, I've provided information and links that either downplay or outright refute the 'facts' (unsupported conclusions, really) purported by jeromiewilliams.com and others.





1) From jeromiewilliams.com link provided :

"Samples of milk taken from across the United States have shown radiation at levels 2000 percent higher than EPA maximums."

I followed the link provided by jeromiewilliams.com to the referenced Natural News article, and it states

"...milk samples from at least three US locations have tested positive for Iodine-131 at levels exceeding EPA maximum containment levels (MCL), and in once [one] case more than 2000 percent higher than MCL, cumulatively."



Jeromiewilliams statement is misleading, as it implies that there were multiple samples (samples) obtained from across the US, when in reality there was one sample from one location that showed the 2000% higher levels. Raw data used in the Nature News article can be found here: https://opendata.socrata.com/w/pkfj-5jsd/y34g-bnf3?cur=w_bE5ToS3hx&from=root



Looking at the data, it shows that a total of 8 US cities had detectable levels of I-131; however, 2 of these cities' come into question as no detectable levels were found at secondary measuring location in these cities. Los Angeles, California is the city they refer to for the 2000% higher levels.



Of course, 2000% higher than a technically arbitrary level is irrelevant. The important thing is, how high is it right now, is this higher than in the past, and is getting worse?? The answer can be found here:

http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/erams_query_v2.simple_output?Llocation=State&pStation=0&subloc=CA&media=PASTEURIZED+MILK&radi=Iodine-131&Fromyear=1978&Toyear=2013&units=Traditional



Prior to 1991, I-131 levels were generally as high or higher than they are today.

From 1991 to 2010, no I-131 levels were detected. (where did it go? see #3,5)

From March 2011 to June 2013, I-31 levels went from 2.86, 4.1, 0.7, -3.5, 0.5, -0.1

This indicates a spike in I-131 from March 2011-April 2012, then a return to levels that were either 'normal' or contained less than the standard used (indicated by negative numbers).



Point 1 feels sufficiently busted.





2) "As far as the water supplies are concerned, it is important to note that the EPA is only testing for radioactive Iodine-131. There are no readings or data available for cesium, uranium, or plutonium -- all of which are being continuously emitted from Fukushima"



The EPA has not tested for uranium or plutonium isotopes since the Fukoshima incident; their most recent data is from 2010. This fact makes the conspiracy theorist in me curious, but to be fair there also is no data for these isotopes from Aug 2006-Nov 2010 (interestingly, during the 1990's they tested these isotopes every year...). Note this applies only for data in Los Angeles, CA.

Well let's go to where there is some data on uranium and plutonium radioactive isotopes. How about right next to the Fukushima plant? They tested there, and could not find any radioactive uranium isotopes that could not be explained by background radiation (ie uranium that was present in the soil to begin with, whether through natural processes or previous nuclear reactions). (source= http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu11_e/images/110713e16.pdf)

They also tested for radioactive plutonium isotopes near the plant, and found that they were "equivalent to the fallout observed in Japan when the atmospheric nuclear test was conducted in the past." and additionally that it did not pose a major threat because the "detected plutonium is equivalent to the density in the soil under normal environmental conditions". Meaning that most plutonium isotopes detected were likely not from the Fukushima incident, but from previous nuclear explosions over the last 50+ years. (source= http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11032812-e.html)

Though these are Japanese sources, I could not find any information considered more or as reliable.



Ok, so now what about caesium-137? (yes it is spelled caesium, not cesium as the well-versed Jeromie Williams states) Data provided by the EPA shows that, where data is available, caesium- 137 is at levels higher than in the 1990s. Time to freak out, right? Well, caesium levels were actually higher in the late 1970s and 1980s than they are now, and dropped to undetectable levels just years later during the 1990s up and to the measurements taken after the Fukushima incident.



To be fair, Iodine-131 may be at some of the highest levels recorded according to EPA measurements available. (See #3)



Are radioactive things dangerous? Damn right they are. I just hate when people blow things out of proportion and provoke an unnecessary, reactionary response. This is not unprecidented in the slightest, but it is reason for concern.

tl;dr - Radioactivity was generally many times higher 20+ years ago than it is today. Its just higher now than it was in the 1990s and 2000s.





3) Iodine-131 was released in most abundance in the Fukushima incident, and as far as I can tell is the isotope that increased to the highest historical levels. However, it does not pose as significant of a long-term problem as the other radioactive isotopes do, as it has a much shorter half life (8 days). Of course the author makes a blanket statement: "Radioactive isotopes of the type released from Fukushima have a half-life of 30,000 years". I feel like the author is trying a lot harder to mislead than to educate the reader.





4) Reply to: "The study, conducted by scientists with the Radiation and Public Health Project, found that babies born shortly after the incident were 28 percent more likely to suffer from congenital hypothyroidism than were children born in those states during the same period one year earlier. In the rest of the U.S., which received less radioactive fallout, the risks actually decreased slightly compared with the year before."



This exerpt is from an article titled, "Elevated airborne beta levels in Pacific/West Coast US States and trends in hypothyroidism among newborns after the Fukushima nuclear meltdown"

There are many problems with this study, the authors, and their conclusions that I will not fully go into here. Suffice it to say that many in the scientific, medical, and energy communities do not support the conclusions made by the research. Put simply, they measured one variable in several chosen locations over a chosen time; they compared this data to another chosen time, and made the conclusion that the differences in data was due to the Fukushima incident. Variable was hyperthyroidism; as hyperthyroidism has numerous causes, the researchers should have incorporated historical data (more than 1 year before and after...sheesh), changes in population and health, access to care and frequency of diagnoses, etc. For instance, what if the passage of Obamacare allowed more people to go to the doctor, which caused more people to be diagnosed with hyperthyroidism? That's not a real increase in the incidence of hyperthyroidism, let alone an increase due to the Fukushima incident. That's just one among numerous potential things that could affect the tested variable, and they incorporated none of this in their study methods, design, or statistical analysis. One tested variable, no confounding variables...laughable in a supposed 'scientific' study. The fact that some MSN and ABC outlets picked it up means nothing, its just bad science. More research is needed (my favorite conclusion of any research article).



On the other hand, the slightly more prestigous W.H.O. released a report stating:

" A breakdown of data, based on age, gender and proximity to the nuclear plant, does show a higher cancer risk for those located in the most contaminated parts. Outside these parts - even in locations inside Fukushima Prefecture - no observable increases in cancer incidence are expected." (source= http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2013/fukushima_report_20130228/en/index.html)





5) Radioactive seawater, as seen in the picture you posted, is not a concern for the US according to the EPA and other experts. Just like oil spills, water acts as a diluent (distributes) and sequesters (buries) radioactivity. I've read a few recent articles about this; they all have provocative titles, but when examined show that there isn't much concern unless you live in Japan or the surrounding countries. For example, from the article "Japan nuclear body says radioactive water at Fukushima an 'emergency' ", also says, referring to the release of radioactive seawater, that "With the amount of dilution that would occur, any kind of release in Japan would be non-detectable here [intheUS]".





6) As to your point on rich Japanese evacuating the country...I remember hearing a blip about that a while ago, but I cannot find any information on this to refresh my memory. Care to provide more info?



Yes, some Japanese officials said they considered an evacuation of Tokyo when they " did not know the actual extent of damage at the plant", meaning that in reality the incident did not warrant an evacuation. (source=http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/28/world/asia/japan-considered-tokyo-evacuation-during-the-nuclear-crisis-report-says.html)



And Japan sovereignty has nothing to do with Fukushima. What are you referring to?