This call for sources, at the same time demanding they be sensible and have to use sensible definitions in this kind of discussions has an unfortunate "get off my lawn" tone to it.
Clearing the area is also already openly discussed by the Japanese governement. By contrasting "overzealous safety organizations" with "sensible risk based analysis" you put excatly no argument forward but already indicate what you would do with any such source.
I, personally, have provided citations for every single person who requested one of me as far as I know, not to mention answering quite a few requests made to others. Feel free to trawl my comment history looking for examples. If you can find one that I haven't seen, I'll go dig up a citation to support it.
It's hard to trust someone's opinion if they can't explain the facts upon which they base it. Of course I'm still wrong sometimes, but the exercise helps me to prove to myself whether or not I know what the hell I'm talking about. I often find new information and refine my opinions accordingly. That's how I learn.
No shit?
"The radiation levels and the finding of Pu in the ground, leaking out radioactive water and the like have already been reported to death."
None of which lead to "20 (presumably square) km" being rendered anything remotely resembling uninhabited. I still haven't heard anything that would even permanently condemn the land the reactor is on. The mere presence of plutonium in the water isn't that interesting.
It may help for context to realize that my house is a RADIOACTIVE DEATHTRAP. I have RADIOACTIVE GASSES seeping into my basement that were ABOVE THE LEGAL LIMIT. No, I am not kidding. I have a radon remediation system running all the time. See that bright red blotch in southern Michigan in [1]? That's where I live and have lived all my life. If we freaked out in linear proportion to people who are freaking out about the stuff happening in Japan, we wouldn't be talking about how Detroit is depopulating due to the bad economy, we'd be talking about how Detroit is a radioactive uninhabitable wasteland.
Except it isn't.
In fact, I bought this house knowing it was a RADIOACTIVE DEATHTRAP. It didn't significantly reduce the value, even, I didn't even get a deal. The radon remediation system has a big radioactivity symbol on it, so I seriously live in a house with a for-serious radioactivity symbol in it. I find myself wondering how many people flipping out do too.
I suppose arguably I can't really afford to just flip out and call it the holy and proper response or I'd have to, I don't know, burn my house down or something.
"By contrasting "overzealous safety organizations" with "sensible risk based analysis" you put excatly no argument forward but already indicate what you would do with any such source."
Bullshit. Flat out bullshit. I will happily accept analysis that shows that some exposure would trip the rather conservative limits of, say, the US OSHA or EPA. What I have seen is that it remains orders of magnitude below those limits for almost everybody who isn't right on top of the plant, like, on the property. It sounds like you're the one trying to hide irrational beliefs from the light of sanity, not me.
There is plenty of suggestive evidence, like the nytimes article EScott11 referenced, showing cesium 137 contamination 200% of Chernobyl levels 25 miles from the plant, or the recent Greenpeace video where they max out their Geiger handhelds 35km from the plant, that there are going to be some fairly widespread consequences to the contamination of soil by radioactive material.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/04/02/world/asia/ass...
"As the water leaks out, you keep on pouring water in, so this leak will go on for ever," said Dr John Price, a former member of the Safety Policy Unit at the UK's National Nuclear Corporation.
"There has to be some way of dealing with it. The water is connecting in tunnels and concrete-lined pits at the moment and the question is whether they can pump it back.
"The final thing is that the reactors will have to be closed and the fuel removed, and that is 50 to 100 years away.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/04/01/3179487.htm
I actually heard an interview with this guy, and he was assuming the exclusion zone (20km from the plant I think?) would remain for at least 50 years.
[citation requested] I haven't seen any hint of that. Is that from actual scientific reports based on sensible standards of "unlivable" (i.e., based in sensible risk analysis), or is it just based on unscientific worries?
And did you have a hard time finding "uncontaminated" meat because there was actually a shortage of meat that was scientifically unsafe to eat, or because there was a shortage of meat due to an overzealous safety organization that proactively condemned vast swathes of goods unnecessarily to look active and because people are just really scared? Because if the latter, this turns the argument circular; nuclear is dangerous because governments overreach and aggressively condemn things because nuclear is dangerous.
If you got actual sources, I'd love to hear about them, in all seriousness, and then I'd like to know why I didn't hear about 20 kms being rendered uninhabitable yet. But I'd like to see the citation first.