[UlisesAC4]

David Jiménez Ex Director of the Spanish Newspaper El Mundo was there in Fukushima. In one of his commentaries (extracted mainly from his interview in the podcast of Jordi Wild) explains that he encountered rescuers who showed him Geiger instruments measuring unsafe levels of radiation.

And a really gossip comment comes from JDM car lovers that have gone to Fukushima and show abandoned cars with again unsafe radiation levels.

It is not easy to react to a possible nuclear disaster after a heavy earthquake anyways.

[panick21_]

Unsafe based on standards made incredible extreme because of the anti nuclear movement in the 70s based on false science.

This was the great trick the environmental movement bulled, they made so much panic about radiation that acceptable amounts were lowered to absurd levels. This was all based on suds-science. If this science were even remotely true, people in Denver would by dying of cancer at incredible rates.

There are also lots of places that have more radiation because sand beaches (historically associated with healing sands). People living in that region for 100s of years should also suffer from higher cancer rates and don't.

There are still people in Germany flipping out about the fact that some mushrooms have 'unsafe levels of radiation' and yet lots of people eat them and it has no effect what so ever.

[justatdotin]

the limits are purposefully set -below- the level at which unacceptable risk of biological impact.

that is quite logical, scientific and consistent with approaches taken in relation to other biological hazards.

[shkkmo]

Yes, of course the limits are below "dangerous" levels. That, in itself, says nothing about what we should call "safe" levels.

Radiation has two types of dangers, chronic and acute. Our understanding of what levels of radiation cause acute damage is pretty limited and not very precise since we simply don't have that much data. However, I highly doubt that anything close to those levels of radiation were measured anywhere outside the reactor complex.

In terms of chronic danger, the official stance is that there is no safe amount of radiation exposure and the general principle in managing exposure is ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable). Lifetime cancer risk is cumulative so higher levels just add to that cumulative risk faster.

Thus there isn't really a clear "level of acceptable impact" but rather, we set arbitrary levels to to to limit that cumulative addition of cancer risk. Like with many things, that risk is a price you pay for other things that are important to you, like flying, living in denver, or getting xrays.

[rasz]

No, the limits are set below natural background radiation in many inhabited places on earth (Ramsar, Guarapari).