Ukraine still fears another Chernobyl-size disaster at Europe’s largest nuclear plant via Reader Supported News (NPR)

Julian Hayda

13 december 22

Sophia Arkadiyivna remembers when the Soviet Union built the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in 1977, just 20 miles from the village where she served as mayor.

After years of atomic energy powering big Russian cities like Moscow, Leningrad and Voronezh, the USSR was finally ready to expand the technology to other Soviet republics like Ukraine. Soviet propaganda promised easier jobs and cleaner air.

“We didn’t have a reason to distrust the government. They showed us how good things could be,” she says.

Or so she thought at the time. It didn’t take long for Arkadiyivna to turn skeptical.

She heard from friends and relatives who worked at the Chernobyl plant that authorities would cut corners and pump up power production for the USSR to export to other Eastern bloc countries.

“The Russians always wanted more — faster, more!” she recalls. “It was greed.”

[…]

How Russia’s nuclear energy helped lead to an independent Ukraine

The Soviet Union put nuclear science at the center of its Cold War strategy — both economic and military.

“Moscow developed nuclear energy above all to control everything — to keep it close and protected from possible conflict,” says Oleksandr Sukhodolia, a Ukrainian energy policy expert.

Like many aspects of Soviet life, the nuclear industry was defined by ethnic segregation.

“Ukraine was looked at like a kind of outback. … As far as nuclear power was concerned, Ukrainians were not trusted to run it themselves,” says David Marples, a historian at Canada’s University of Alberta and author of multiple books about the Chernobyl disaster.

After the disaster, Soviet Ukrainian bureaucrats raised difficult questions about why they weren’t involved in oversight.

Yuriy Samoilenko was the chief environmental inspector at Kyiv’s city hall at the time of the Chernobyl meltdown. He says he knew there were some risks associated with nuclear energy, but felt misled by the government in Moscow about the scope of the blasts. After all, the power plant is just 60 miles north of Ukraine’s biggest population center.

“Why did they say it was safe to go outdoors? Why did they build it so close to Kyiv?” Samoilenko says. “Why was it all such a secret?”

He linked up with Ukraine’s nascent independence movement to find some answers.

“Before Chernobyl, I didn’t understand why we needed to be independent. But I did understand that we’re no less deserving of dignity than Russians,” Samoilenko says.

Soon other environmental scientists joined with the dissidents, and established an organization called Green World. The Soviet government tolerated youth environmental movements, but behind closed doors, the group pushed for Ukrainian independence.

“The only way to protect the environment is through democratic action — because everybody has to be involved in protecting the things that affect everybody,” says Samoilenko.

By 1991, they had their wish. Ukraine declared independence and the Soviet Union fell apart.

“All anybody needed to do to vote for independence was say one word: ‘Chernobyl,'” Samoilenko says.

Ukrainians were finally in charge of their own nuclear industry, responsible for 12 large nuclear reactors, with several more planned.

The Chernobyl cleanup took a substantial chunk of newly independent Ukraine’s national budget. Meanwhile, dependence on nuclear energy crept up to 55% of the country’s production, according to the IAEA. That rate of production is second only to France.

“Nuclear power has never really gone away, it’s even gone up despite Chernobyl,” says Marples, the historian in Alberta.

Nuclear fears and the Russian invasion

Sophia Arkadiyivna is now retired as mayor of her hometown of Kupovate. Ukraine’s government erased the village from the map in 1999. That’s because it’s in the 60-mile-wide “exclusion zone,” which was deemed too dangerous for the public after the Chernobyl disaster.

[…]

She speaks Ukrainian, with a few Belarusian words peppered in. This village is closer to the border with Belarus — just 10 miles to the east — than to the former Chernobyl plant. She says she used to believe there wasn’t much difference between Ukrainians, Belarusians and Russians.

“Us old folks raised our kids to believe in God: Don’t steal, don’t kill, don’t bother anyone, live virtuously, have a soul, help people,” she says while angrily chopping vegetables to pickle for the winter.

“But the Russians beat us, raped us. And today they don’t want there to be a free Ukraine.”

Hundreds of other retirees like her lived through the Russian occupation of the exclusion zone in March, as did thousands of Ukrainian officials and workers who continue to maintain the vital power infrastructure that passes through the zone.

Oleksandr Havrylenko, the safety chief in the exclusion zone, says the Russians stole radios, tires, batteries or alternators from his entire fleet of vehicles. Many had smashed windows or bullet holes in the doors.

“I give it a 50-50 chance they’ll be back,” Havrylenko says of the Russian forces.

Instead of working on necessary tasks around the zone, Havrylenko and his team are still cleaning up after the Russian occupation. Having survived the month-long occupation, though, they can hardly imagine the stress that people working at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant are under.

“I’m very, very scared,” says Serhiy Biruk, a top official with the Ukrainian agency that manages the exclusion zone. He’s been involved in the Chernobyl cleanup for 37 years.

After Russia forcibly annexed the territory in September, Ukraine’s power utility says occupation officials forced Ukrainian nuclear workers to sign new contracts acknowledging Russia’s control over the power plant.

“I don’t think the Russians know what the real danger is,” Biruk says.

But a potential meltdown is only half the dilemma, according to Anna Ackermann, co-founder of a Ukrainian environmental group called Ecoaction.

“Ukraine’s energy system was meant to function with Russia and Belarus,” she says. While Ukraine did separate its grid from those countries after 2014, Anna Ackermann says that nuclear energy is centralized by its very nature.

With the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant now disconnected from the Ukrainian grid, Ukraine loses a substantial proportion of its power generation. That’s been exacerbated by Russia’s attacks on energy delivery infrastructure across the country over the past couple of months.

Ackermann says people want their energy production to be even more local. They’re looking to the lifestyles of people like Arkadiyivna, relying on off-grid utilities like batteries and solar panels to survive.

“We’re entering a new area where Ukrainians want autonomy,” says Ackermann. Autonomy, like energy sources and homesteads they know how to sustain.

“It’s a striking difference with nuclear power plants,” Ackermann says.

Read more.

Posted in *English | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Ukraine still fears another Chernobyl-size disaster at Europe’s largest nuclear plant via Reader Supported News (NPR)

「被爆2世」の援護策、国の責任認めず 長崎地裁が原告の請求を棄却 via 朝日新聞

 原爆被爆者の子である「被爆2世」らが、援護策を講じない国の責任を問い、1人あたり10万円の国家賠償を求めた訴訟の判決が12日、長崎地裁(天川博義裁判長)であった。天川裁判長は原告の請求を棄却した。

 原告は長崎で被爆した親を持つ、長崎、福岡、大阪、広島の4府県に住む55~75歳の2世25人と、亡くなった1人の承継人3人の計28人。

(略)

原告側はこれを、不平等で憲法違反だと主張。対策を怠ってきた国に「立法の不作為がある」と訴え、1人あたり10万円の慰謝料を求めた。

 原告側は、放射線の遺伝的影響について、動物実験などから発がんリスクの増加を含む影響が証明されていると指摘。人類も例外であるとは考えられず、被爆2世が遺伝的影響を受けることは否定できないと主張。被爆2世も同法の適用対象と定めるよう求めていた。

 国側は、動物実験で得られた結果を人に当てはめることはできないと反論。これまでの研究で原爆放射線が次世代の人に影響を与えたデータはなく、遺伝的影響を示す科学的根拠がないなどとして、国に立法義務はないと棄却を求めていた。

 被爆2世による訴訟は広島地裁(原告計28人)でも争われており、今回が初の司法判断だった。(寺島笑花)

全文は「被爆2世」の救護作、国の責任認めず 長崎地裁が原告の請求を棄却

Posted in *日本語 | Tagged , , | Comments Off on 「被爆2世」の援護策、国の責任認めず 長崎地裁が原告の請求を棄却 via 朝日新聞

Ministry plans tests on reusing Fukushima soil in Tokyo area via Asahi Shimbun

The Environment Ministry is eyeing the Tokyo metropolitan area for its first trial runs outside Fukushima Prefecture on reusing soil decontaminated after the 2011 nuclear disaster, The Asahi Shimbun learned on Dec. 6.

The ministry said the tests will take place at three government-related facilities in Tokyo, Saitama and Ibaraki prefectures.

But authorities said they have yet to gain the understanding of residents at all three candidate sites on the reuse of the soil, which still contains low-level radioactive substances.

[…]

The decontaminated soil has been kept at an interim storage facility in Fukushima Prefecture, but a law requires final disposal of the soil outside the prefecture by 2045.

The volume of decontaminated soil in Fukushima Prefecture, excluding the difficult-to-return zones where radiation levels remain high, is about 14 million cubic meters, enough to fill 11 Tokyo Domes.

Reusing the soil is part of the government’s efforts to reduce that volume before disposal.

The ministry is considering conducting the tests at the Shinjuku Imperial Garden in Tokyo, the National Institute for Environmental Studies in Tsukuba, Ibaraki Prefecture, and the National Environmental Research and Training Institute in Tokorozawa, Saitama Prefecture.

Tokorozawa city will hold a briefing on the plan for about 50 residents on Dec. 16.

Under the experiment in Tokorozawa, decontaminated soil will be reused for lawns, and tests will be conducted to verify changes in radiation doses in the air.

For the trial runs in Tokyo and Ibaraki Prefecture, the soil will be used for parking lots and flower beds.

“We would like to use the experiments to gain public understanding regarding the reuse of the soil,” Environmental Minister Akihiro Nishimura said at a news conference on Dec. 6.

Only soil that measures below 8,000 becquerels per kilogram, the threshold set by the government, will be used in the trial runs.

The ministry has been conducting experiments on reusing the decontaminated soil for farmland in Iitate, Fukushima Prefecture.

But plans for similar tests in Minami-Soma and Nihonmatsu cities, also in the prefecture, fell through after residents opposed.

Read more.

Posted in *English | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Ministry plans tests on reusing Fukushima soil in Tokyo area via Asahi Shimbun

RADIOACTIVE: The Women of Three Mile Island New Film by Heidi Hutner has World Premiere via Nuclear Hotseat

NH #598

This Week’s Feature:

It’s hard to get the full picture of what nuclear is and what it does across to the general public. Isolated news stories, nuclear industry full-press spin, ADHD news cycles, and the public’s general lack of memory obscures the horrible truth about what happens when a nuclear reactor goes off the rails.

Thus it is cause for celebration when a full length documentary appears that tells the nuclear story clearly, completely, with human focus and all the compelling arguments in place. RADIOACTIVE: The Women of Three Mile Island was produced and directed by ecofeminism professor-turned-visual journalist Heidi Hutner.  The film received its world premiere on Sunday, December 4 as part of the Dances with Films Festival in New York.  For Nuclear Hotseat, Joe DeMare conducted on-site “You Are There” interviews with participants in the film and audience members, and Priscilla Star, founder of the Coalition Against Nukes, gave us a report afterwards.  

Nuclear Hotseat Hot Story with Linda Pentz Gunter:

Macron and nukes?  Sacre Bleu!  
 

Numnutz of the Week:

How does the head of the country that experienced Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Fukushima justify all this planned/intended nuclear expansion?

[…]

Posted in *English | Tagged , , | Comments Off on RADIOACTIVE: The Women of Three Mile Island New Film by Heidi Hutner has World Premiere via Nuclear Hotseat

原告「被曝が原因」9割以上と主張〜甲状腺がん裁判  via OurPlanet-TV

東京電力福島原子力発電所事故以降、甲状腺がんと診断され、手術を受けた男女7人が東京電力を訴えている裁判で9日、がんの原因が放射線被曝による確率(原因確率)が、多くの公害事件などで因果関係が認められてきた水準に比べてはるかに高く、90%以上であるとする意見書を裁判所に提出した。

原告側が今回、裁判所に提出したのは、岡山大学の津田敏秀教授の意見書。津田教授は「福島県内で過酷事故に遭わなければ、甲状腺がんがなかったであろう」確率を「原因確率」と呼ぶとした上で、原告7人の原因確率は、最も低い人で約95%、最も高い人では99・5%に達するとしている。

原告側の西念京佑弁護士は法廷で、これら原因確率は、過去の裁判で因果関係を認められてきたヒ素中毒や環境アスベスト(50%)や大気汚染訴訟やじん肺(70〜80%)に比べても、はるかに高い水準にあると主張。過去の判例では、原因確率が7〜8割を超えると、その事実だけで因果関係があると認めてきたとして、裁判所に対し、原告のがんは放射線被曝に起因するものだと考えるべきだと強調した。

[…]

意見書を書いた津田教授は、これまでに水俣病、じん肺、淀川大気汚染などの裁判に関与してきた環境疫学の専門家で、福島原発事故については、福島で多数、見つかっている小児甲状腺がんは、放射線影響以外には考えにくいとする論文を2015年に、国際的な科学雑誌「エピデミオロジー」で公表している。

口頭弁論で、当時中学1年生だった原告は、「病気になったのが身内や友達じゃなく自分でよかった」「母に申し訳ない」「友達のことが心配」「看護師さんに申し訳ない」など複雑な胸中を語った。これに対し、期日後の会見で、北村賢二郎弁護士は「10代20代でがんになった若者がそんなことを言うということがどういうことなのか、実状を捉えて、この問題について取り扱ってほしい」と強く訴えた。

原文とビデオ

アーカイブ「311子ども甲状腺がん裁判」第3回口頭弁論期日集会

Posted in *日本語 | Tagged , , | Comments Off on 原告「被曝が原因」9割以上と主張〜甲状腺がん裁判  via OurPlanet-TV

小児甲状腺がん328人に〜福島県民健康調査 via OurPlanet-TV

東京電力福島第一原発事故後に福島県で行われている「県民健康調査」の検討委員会が3日、福島市内で開かれ、新たに12人が甲状腺がんと診断された。これまでに、県の検査によってがんと診断された子どもは296人となり、がん登録で把握された集計外の患者43人をあわせると、事故当時、福島県内に居住していた18歳以下の子どもの甲状腺がんは338人となった。

[…]

アンケートをめぐり県外と県内の委員が対立

事故から11年が経過し、「甲状腺検査」以外の検査は事実上、終了した県民健康調査。検討委員会の議題も初めて、甲状腺検査のみとなった。この日は、検査対象者と保護者向けのアンケート調査の質問項目をめぐり、議論が白熱した。

口火をきったのは、環境省の神ノ田昌博環境保健部長。アンケート項目に、「放射線被曝による健康影響は将来的にも見られそうにない」としているUNSCEAR(国連科学委員会)2020報告書の結論について、理解しているかを追加すべきだと強く主張した。また、検査の見直しなどを主張してきた宮城県立こども病院の室月淳産科科長や国立がん研究センター社会と健康研究センター検診研究部の中山富雄部長も、神ノ田氏の意見に賛同した。

これに対し、双葉郡医師会の重富秀一会長や福島県病院協会の佐藤勝彦会長は、県民にはさまざまな意見があると反論。一方的な意見を押し付けかねないと反対した。また、福島大学の富田哲特任教授は、甲状腺がんとなった当事者がどうおもうのかと強く反発。さらに、甲状腺がんが被曝によるものではないという意見が、検討委員会の結論となっているが、2巡目解析の際には意見が対立したと指摘。両論併記を求めたにもかかわらず、自分の意見は報告書に盛り込まれなかったと怒りをあらわにした。

アンケート調査は、甲状腺評価部会から要望が出ていたもの。甲状腺がんが、通常よる数十倍の割合で見つかっていることについて、精密な検査の結果、治療の必要のないがんを見つけているとする「過剰診断」論を主張する委員らが、検査の「デメリット」が県民に伝わっていないなどとして、調査を求めていた。来年度以降、無作為抽出した6,000人に対して、アンケートの質問票を送付するとしている。

[…]

ビデオ

Posted in *日本語 | Tagged , , | Comments Off on 小児甲状腺がん328人に〜福島県民健康調査 via OurPlanet-TV

Concrete melted off ‘pedestal’ for damaged reactor in Fukushima via the Asahi Shimbun

The concrete support foundation for a reactor whose core melted down at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant has deteriorated so much that reinforcing bars (rebars) are now exposed.

Masao Uchibori, governor of Fukushima Prefecture, has expressed concerns about the earthquake resistance of the “pedestal” for the No. 1 reactor at the crippled plant operated by Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO).

Strong quakes struck off the coast of the prefecture in 2021 and 2022.

[…]

The cylindrical pedestal, whose wall is 1.2 meters thick, is 6 meters in diameter. It supports the reactor’s 440-ton pressure vessel.

The interior of the No. 1 reactor’s containment vessel was inspected in May for TEPCO’s eventual plans to retrieve the melted nuclear fuel that dropped to the bottom of the vessel during the 2011 nuclear disaster.

The study found that the normally concrete-encased rebars were bare and the upper parts were covered in sediment that could be nuclear fuel debris.

The concrete likely melted off under the high temperature of the debris.

The International Research Institute for Nuclear Decommissioning (IRID), an entity set up by power utilities and nuclear reactor manufacturers, conducted a simulation in fiscal 2016.

IRID said seismic resistance would remain uncompromised even if about one-quarter of the pedestal was damaged.

However, only a part of the pedestal was inspected during the May study, and only from the outside.

The pedestal’s inside remains a mystery.

“The pedestal’s soundness is of foremost concern,” said Kiyoshi Takasaka, a former engineer with Toshiba Corp. who is now an adviser to the Fukushima prefectural government on nuclear safety issues. “It is important to first inspect the pedestal from the inside.”

TEPCO has prepared six types of robots to detect the fuel debris and perform other tasks in a series of inspections at the No. 1 reactor.

An internal study of the pedestal is planned toward the March end of the fiscal year as the final mission during the inspections. The task carries the risk of the robot hitting the sediment or other obstacles and being unable to return.

“We understand people’s concerns very well,” Akira Ono, president of TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi Decontamination & Decommissioning Engineering Co., told a news conference in October. “We hope to finish studies inside the pedestal by the end of this fiscal year.”

He said his company will scrutinize whether the previous assessment of seismic resistance is still applicable.

Haruo Morishige, who has been studying the Fukushima nuclear disaster, called for immediate emergency safety measures, such infusing concrete to reinforce the pedestal.

“There is a critical defect in terms of quake resistance,” said Morishige, based on a photo showing the interior of the No. 1 reactor. 

Morishige studied aseismic structural design for nuclear reactors when he worked for Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd.

He also served as an on-site manager for the No. 3 reactor at the Ikata nuclear plant operated by Shikoku Electric Power Co., including when the reactor was being built.

The photo, released following the May inspection, shows how concrete covering the cylindrical “inner skirt” of the pedestal had melted off, laying bare part of the steel frame and rebars from the bottom to the top.

The inner skirt’s functions connect the reactor pressure vessel with the containment vessel. But the melting of the concrete has separated the pressure vessel from the containment vessel, and weakened the structure’s quake resistance, Morishige said.

The loss of concrete has also decoupled the pedetal’s walls from the floor, making it more prone to sway during seismic events, he added.

Morishige said that all concrete around the rebars inside the pedestal has likely melted away.

He also said fuel debris that flowed out from an aperture likely melted concrete around rebars over about a quarter of the outside circumference of the pedestal.

His simulation has shown that the support capability of the pedestal is now about three-eighths of the original level.

“In such a state, the reactor could topple over in an earthquake of upper 6 on the Japanese seismic intensity scale (of 7),” Morishige said.

He added that repeated exposure to seismic shocks could cause cracks in the remaining concrete, further undermining quake resistance.

“The very fact there are chances of the reactor toppling is unacceptable,” he said. “Officials should proceed with safety measures and inspections at the same time.”

(This article was written by Keitaro Fukuchi and Tetsuya Kasai.)

Read more.

Posted in *English | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Concrete melted off ‘pedestal’ for damaged reactor in Fukushima via the Asahi Shimbun

Nuclear plant along Lake Michigan will not reopen after federal application denied via Michigan Live

By 

COVERT TOWNSHIP, MI – A last-ditch effort to restart the Palisades Nuclear Plant has failed.

The proposal to restart the nuclear power plant along Lake Michigan was contingent on approval from the federal government, which was denied last week.

The plant on the shores of Lake Michigan shut down its nuclear reactors for the last time May 20. Holtec International bought the plant June 28, with the goal of decommissioning the plant by 2041.

Holtec applied for U.S. Department of Energy’s Civilian Nuclear Credit program, which would allow them to restart the plant. That application was denied by the federal agency, Holtec announced Friday, Nov. 18.

The closure was in part because of financial issues and because fuel is running out, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer said previously. The shutdown was announced in 2017.

“We fully understood that what we were attempting to do, restarting a shuttered nuclear plant, would be both a challenge and a first for the nuclear industry,” Holtec said Monday, Nov. 21, in an email statement. “While the DOE’s decision is not the outcome many had hoped for, we entered this process committed to working with our federal, state, and community partners to see if the plant could be repowered to return to service as a provider of safe, reliable, and carbon-free generation.”

Whitmer supported the application. In April, Whitmer asked for federal dollars to keep the plant open in Van Buren County. 

[…]

Read more.

Posted in *English | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Nuclear plant along Lake Michigan will not reopen after federal application denied via Michigan Live

特定復興再生拠点区域外にある飯舘村の一部 避難指示解除へ via NHK News Web 福島News Web

飯舘村では、東京電力福島第一原子力発電所の事故のため帰還困難区域となり避難指示が続いている長泥地区のうち先行して除染などを進める「特定復興再生拠点区域」になっていない地域の一部について、いわゆる「除染なき避難指示解除」の枠組みを使って、来年春の大型連休ごろに避難指示を解除する方針を明らかにしました。
「拠点区域外」の避難指示解除の具体的な時期が示されたのは、初めてです。

立ち入りが厳しく制限される帰還困難区域となっている飯舘村の長泥地区は、全体の17%が先行して除染などを進める「特定復興再生拠点区域」として来年春の避難指示解除を目指していて、このほかの地域についても来年春以降段階的に解除したいとする案が示されていました。

国と飯舘村は、20日、福島市内で住民説明会を行ったうえで記者会見を開き、国による除染が行われていなくても自治体に土地活用の強い意向があれば放射線量が下がり住民が帰還しないことなどを条件に避難指示を解除できる「除染なき避難指示解除」の枠組みを使って、来年春の大型連休ごろに、「拠点区域外」の一部の避難指示を解除する方針を明らかにしました。

解除されるのは、地面にコンクリートを打つなどして放射線を遮る国の実証実験が行われていた6400平方メートルの土地で、村内の「拠点区域外」の0.07%にあたります。

放射線量が十分下がったことが確認されたことから、こうした実証事業の成果を広く見てもらうため自由に立ち入れるようにするということです。

「拠点区域外」の避難指示解除の具体的な時期が示されたのは、初めてです。

また、これにあわせて村内の拠点区域の避難指示をすべて解除する方針も示されました。

[…]

全文

Posted in *日本語 | Tagged , , | Comments Off on 特定復興再生拠点区域外にある飯舘村の一部 避難指示解除へ via NHK News Web 福島News Web

避難指示が解除された大熊、双葉町の放射線量 各所にあるホットスポット via 東京新聞

 東京電力福島第一原発が立地し、原発事故で高濃度に汚染された大熊町では6月30日、双葉町では8月30日、それぞれ主要地域の避難指示が解除された。故郷に帰る選択肢ができたことは喜ばしいが、どこまで放射線量は下がったのか。10月29、30の両日、首都圏のほか両町でも測定活動を続ける丹野心平さん(42)とともに調べた。(山川剛史)

[…]

 双葉町は相対的に線量は低めで、特に敷地造成したJR常磐線双葉駅周辺は毎時0.1マイクロシーベルトを下回る地点も多かった。ただ、北側の高台にある住宅地は明らかに高く、周辺の森を調べると、どこも3マイクロシーベルトを優に超え、土も1キログラム当たり12万ベクレル超と、放射性廃棄物の基準(同8000ベクレル)の15倍超あった。事故以来、傾いたまま放置されている廃工場周辺にたまった土からは100万ベクレルを超える汚染が確認された。
 大熊町の大野駅周辺は元の線量が非常に高く、商店街など大半の建物が解体されたのに、路上でも毎時0.6マイクロシーベルトあった。車を降り、歩いて調べると、各所で急に線量が上がるホットスポットに遭遇した。
 大熊町の除染検証委員でもある東大の小豆川(しょうずがわ)勝見助教は「除染して終わりではなく、引き続き調査、対策、周知が必要だ。高線量の地点では、だれもが分かる表示が必要だ」と話している。

[…]

全文

Posted in *日本語 | Tagged , , | Comments Off on 避難指示が解除された大熊、双葉町の放射線量 各所にあるホットスポット via 東京新聞