[Actually] Radiation problem, 'alternative' takes precedence over 'fear'

Olympic radiation fact check, today, as the last order, I prepared an interview with the 'radioactive expert'.

This is SBS reporter Park Se-yong, who published the book “Radioactive Fact Check” based on past radiation coverage.

Reporter Se-yong Park, a self-approved radiation expert (?), recently wrote a book with Dr. Cho Joo-woo, a senior researcher at the Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety and Technology.

Dr. Choon-woo Cho is the only Korean member of the 13-member International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP), and is one of Korea's leading radiation experts.

It is awkward for a reporter to interview a reporter, and even more so, with a senior in the company, but I thought that it had the advantage of being able to easily explain the difficult radiation problem.

Reporter Park and I went on a business trip to Japan together in September 2019 to cover radiation issues in Tokyo and Fukushima.

Let's take a look at how our society should 'use' the 'Olympic radiation fact check' with reporter Park Se-yong.

I remember going on a business trip to Japan in the fall of 2019 and doing a radiation fact check together.

At the time, I had no idea that I would publish a book like this based on my research.

Just like this year when the Tokyo Olympics were held, there were a lot of inaccurate reports about radiation two years ago.

Of course, when it comes to diplomatic and political issues with Japan, I believe that reports that reflect the people's feelings are inevitable.

Because there is a past history.

However, to what extent radiation affects the human body, this is a matter of science, not politics.

I decided to separate radioactivity from politics and publish a book with more in-depth coverage of what scientific facts are.

No matter how many reports are made, they are highly volatile.

I thought that there should be at least one such book in our society.

First fact check: What is a 'safety standard'?

“Should the Japanese government or local governments ask, “Should we clean up more radioactive pollutants?

Can I stop?" You can think of this as a standard for judging. 0.23μ㏜/h is not a safety standard, but a 'cleaning standard'."

Let's do a fact check. Several media outlets in Japan are reporting that it has "exceeded the safety standard of 0.23μ㏜/h". 

That's not a 'safety standard'. If you write it as a safety threshold, when it exceeds 0.23, it sounds like a dangerous thing, right? Not at all. If you search, Yeongjongdo in Korea is 0.234μ㏜/h as of 13:00 on August 8th. Is it over 0.23? But does the media say that "Yeongjong Island is exposed to radiation risks"? If you write an article like that, you'll probably be in big trouble. What is clear is that Yeongjongdo is safe.

If so, how did this figure come about?

The annual dose limit for the general public is 1,000 μ㏜ (equivalent to 1 mSv). This means that the radiation dose should be managed so as to receive less than 1,000μ㏜ for one year. So, how much do you get paid for 1 hour, and the number you get after counting backwards from 1,000 is 0.23. When you are in the house, it is calculated considering that the building blocks some of the radiation, so it is slightly different from simply dividing 1,000 by 365 and dividing by 24. 

Let me ask you directly. Is it dangerous if it exceeds 0.23μ㏜/h?

So far, Korean reporters have been to Fukushima a lot. Two years ago, I also visited a lot of places over 0.23, including a lot of salty soil. In fact, I even tried to find a place with a high number. That way we can show that the Japanese soil is still contaminated with radiation. If you ask "Is it dangerous if it exceeds 0.23?", it is not. In 2019, there was a report that shocking radiation was measured in Fukushima, and the figure was 90 μ㏜/h. 

That's about 400 times 0.23, right?

Right. But I haven't heard of any people who went there to shoot. Why? The time I stayed there was short. It is true that the high figure of 90 μ㏜/h came out, but the total radiation dose received by the body was not much because it was filmed and moved. Dr. Joo Choon-woo, whom I interviewed in the book, once did a bur tour passing in front of the Fukushima nuclear power plant. It is said that tens of mSv (units of 1,000 times μ㏜) were measured per hour. And yet, since you're passing by on the bus, the amount of radiation your body receives is limited. 

After all, does it matter how long you stay?

That's right. Time must be taken into account to determine whether it is dangerous or not. For reference, 5 out of 1,000 people can die of cancer if they receive radiation of 100 mSv or more, even for a short period of 1 to 2 weeks. 

I think this safety standard issue is at the heart of the Olympic radiation coverage.

Most reporters start to sew the 'first button' of an article based on this standard.

If you go over this, it's dangerous, if you don't, it's okay.

So did I.

By the way, why did the Japanese government make this standard?

You said 0.23 is a number calculated backwards from the annual dose limit for the general public, right?

In other words, exceeding 0.23 does not mean that it is dangerous, but it means "Oh, if I stay here for a year, I can exceed the annual dose limit of 1 mSv."

So what if it exceeds 0.23?

We need to remove more radioactive contamination.

You need to remove some more cesium-stained soil.

I'm not familiar with the term 'decontamination', so the Japanese government or local governments ask, "Should we clean up more radioactive pollutants? Can we stop?"

This can be considered as a criterion for judging.

0.23μ㏜/h is not a safety standard, but a 'cleaning standard'. 

Second fact check: Is it dangerous to exceed 0.4μ㏜/h in food?

Next, let's look at food.

The Korea Sports Association operated a food material verification desk, and made standards as “normal (standard of daily living)” up to 0.3 μ㏜/h, “caution” up to 0.4 μ㏜/h, and “risk” above 0.4 μ㏜/h.

Actually, this is the first I've heard of this number.

Is there any justification?

It's the first time I've heard of this standard.

Actually, 'μ㏜/h' is not a unit of measurement that comes out of inspecting food materials.

When inspecting food materials, it comes out in 'Bq/kg' units.

1Bq/kg means that 1 radiation is emitted per 1 second for every 1kg of inspected food.

The μ㏜/h unit is usually used when looking at the amount of radiation in the air.

When we talked about 0.23 earlier, it was this unit, and it was all about the amount of radiation in the air. 

Are you saying that there is no basis for 'dangerous' above 0.4μ㏜/h?

That's right.

When I went on a business trip to Fukushima, I measured it on the plane, and it came out about 3μ㏜/h, right?

When you go to the US, the radiation dose rate numbers are higher.

Since this is well over 0.4 by the Korea Sports Council standard, would it be a 'very dangerous situation'?

However, no one thinks that occasionally flying an airplane is dangerous because of the radiation. 

So how do we check it?

In order to accurately measure food materials, samples over 1 kg are required.

Measure it with a measuring instrument using germanium semiconductor.

But it takes a long time to get results.

In the past, I brought a lot of Fukushima ingredients to Korea and asked for an analysis company, and it took about a week.

As a result, you can't wait without making a lunch box for the players, right?

So, it is understandable that the Korea Sports Council brought a portable measuring device.

It's not exact, but you can see the results right away. 

Fact-Check #3: Are the bouquets given to medalists dangerous?

Finally, various media raised concerns about the dangers of 'radioactive bouquet'.

Is this really dangerous?

To be honest, I think raising this question is a little overdone.

Bouquets are different from food materials.

Even now, there are still foods that emit cesium 137, a radioactive material.

Occasionally, food materials that exceed the distribution standard (100Bq/kg) are released, and even if they are below the standard, they are still being checked anyway.

Of course, eating it doesn't mean you'll have any problems right away, but it's true that cesium is released. 

However, if you look at the media reports that athletes are concerned about being exposed to radiation from bouquets of radiation, there was no basis for that except that the area where the flowers were grown was 100km away from the Fukushima nuclear power plant.

It does not mean that someone inspected the flowers and detected even a trace amount of cesium, or that the radiation dose rate was high in the vicinity of the farm where the flowers were grown.

If you were really worried about the bouquet, you could have borrowed a radiation meter from the Korean Sports Association's Food Service Center for a while and tried it. 

Concerns need justification.

There must be evidence to examine the evidence, but in simple terms, it is difficult to fact-check because there is no evidence to look at.

Meaning of radiation fact check

“The moment Japan releases contaminated water from a nuclear power plant, it becomes our country’s business. What will happen if reports continue to instigate the fear of radiation until then? The damage can come back to the public. Our society can suffer like a boomerang from the fear of radiation nurtured by the media."

As a fact-check reporter, facts are the most important thing, but I think people should fully respect the fear of radiation. 

Right. Radiation is invisible, invisible, and complicated to explain. Therefore, it is a natural choice to avoid it as much as possible, and it is also a rational feeling of people. As you said, our people's fear of radiation should be fully respected.

However, I think it is necessary for the media to accurately inform the reality of the horror. I believe that the media should not only report reports that promote and reproduce fear without any basis. You can't just write what you want to hear and see. It is detrimental to us in the end.

What specifically is the loss? Radiation should be avoided if possible.

Let's take the Fukushima contaminated water discharge problem as an example. Radioactivity is still a matter limited to Fukushima, but the moment Japan releases contaminated water from a nuclear power plant, it becomes a matter for Korea, right? That's going to be a serious issue. But until then, what will happen if reports continue to incite fear of radiation? 

Fish prices plummet, sashimi restaurant sales are cut in half, and damage can come back to small business owners who are still struggling because of the corona virus. It is that our society can suffer like a boomerang from the fear of radiation that the media has nurtured. What kind of media can go there and say, 'It's okay to eat domestic seafood'?

Can't we just stand still?

We need to somehow deal with the Fukushima contaminated water problem.

I mean that.

The crux of the matter is whether Japan's claims about contaminated water can be trusted.

Also, as Japan claims, after purifying contaminated water, it is necessary to verify whether it is true that radioactive materials other than tritium are properly filtered. 

For example, recently, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is forming an international verification team for contaminated water from the Fukushima nuclear power plant, and there was a report that Dr. Kim Hong-seok of Korea was participating.

I think the IAEA verification results can be more reliable than Japan's own data.

These efforts are important.

Recently, even in politics, there has been a lot of noise about radiation.

Whether left or right, liberal or conservative, they are working hard to make the issue of fear of radiation on the political agenda.

However, I have not seen a politician suggesting concrete diplomatic alternatives on how to deal with the discharge of contaminated water three years later. 

When science becomes a tool of politics, the result is fear without an alternative, and the boomerang is bound to come back to us.

At the very least, I hope our society doesn't have to pay another cost for the fear of radiation.

I have to do that again.

"When science becomes a tool of politics, the result is a fear without an alternative, and that boomerang has to come back to us. At least I hope our society doesn't have to pay another price for the fear of radiation."