Slashdot Mirror
Little Health Risk Seen From Fukushima's Radioactivity
gbrumfiel writes "Two independent reports show that the public and most workers received only low doses of radiation following last year's meltdowns at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan. Nature reports that the risks presented by the doses are small, even though some are above guidelines and limits set by the Japanese government. Few people will develop cancer as a result of the accident, and those that do may never be able to conclusively link their illness to the meltdowns. The greatest risk lies with the workers who struggled in the early days to bring the reactors under control. So far no ill-effects have been detected. At Chernobyl, by contrast, the highest exposed workers died quickly from radiation sickness."
Nuklear! Evil!
You know, I'm really considering selling this damned Y2K bunker.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
The biggest issue in this whole incident was the comparison with Chernobyl. The slightest mention of that name creates panic. Compare something to it, and you'll get a mass of hysterical people.
Of course, that is the approach taken by most media these days.
Not being able to say for sure why one has cancer or some birth defects doesn't make it any less sad or less of a burden on families and healthcare.
No doubt many of the cancers we've had in the U.S. that were a result of the nuclear testing era weren't identified either. Maybe the nuclear deterrent saved us, but it wasn't without a price.
Say, why did the head of the NRC resign? Bad choices with Yucca Mountain? A bit slow to deal with some vulnerability? Someone under his desk? Poor health or another personal issue?
Jim, I think you'd better get down here.... Better hurry...
Tatsuhiko Kodama, head of the radioisotope centre at the University of Tokyo and an outspoken critic of the government, questions the reports’ value. “I think international organizations should stop making hasty reports based on very short visits to Japan that don’t allow them to see what is happening locally,” he says.
insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
After all the lies during the events I have serious doubts about anything coming from official sources there. Its like listing to Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf and thinking "oh yes he has to be telling the truth this time".
"There is little health risks from the Fukashima reactor anamoly"
This is really disgusting because it damages the viability of nuclear power, and that is a resource we should be expanding and modernizing and not getting rid of.
There's been so much lying going on about the whole incident that I just can't believe anything being said about it anymore. If I lived anywhere close to it I'd demand a real investigation, not the usual "foreign 'experts' come, do a tour about the Tokio night clubs and write what they're supposed to" kind.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
"Mainchi reported on Monday: The storage pool in the No. 4 reactor building has a total of 1,535 fuel rods, or 460 tons of nuclear fuel, in it. The 7-story building itself has suffered great damage, with the storage pool barely intact on the building’s third and fourth floors. The roof has been blown away. If the storage pool breaks and runs dry, the nuclear fuel inside will overheat and explode, causing a massive amount of radioactive substances to spread over a wide area. Both the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and French nuclear energy company Areva have warned about this risk."
I am too. There was a lot of radiation released by Fukushima. Don't tell everyone to panic but don't lie and, in effect, tell everyone they are going to be okay either. It is a known fact that gamma radiation destroys DNA. I think one can link some cancers to gamma ray exposure.
Japanese officials have been lying through their Orwellian teeth since day one. When I see these guys pulling some stunts like guzzling a pint of well water, having their kids play in the local playground, and building sandcastles on the beach I'll believe them.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Yeah, it's modern times. Anyway... when I read news I try to get both alternative and mainstream sources covered. I reckon, as the quote goes... truth is usually somewhere in the middle. Having said that, I read a lot recently about fukushima reactor #4. Here's a snippet:
[quote]
The troubled Reactor 4 at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant is at the centre of this potential catastrophe.
Reactor 4 -- and to a lesser extent Reactor 3 -- still hold large quantities of cooling waters surrounding spent nuclear fuel, all bound by a fragile concrete pool located 30 metres above the ground, and exposed to the elements.
A magnitude 7 or 7.5 earthquake would likely fracture that pool, and disaster would ensue, says Arnie Gundersen, a nuclear engineer with Fairewinds Energy Education who has visited the site.
The 1,535 spent fuel rods would become exposed to the air and would likely catch fire, with the most-recently added fuel rods igniting first.
The incredible heat generated from that blaze, Gundersen said, could then ignite the older fuel in the cooling pool, causing a massive oxygen-eating radiological fire that could not be extinguished with water.
[/quote]
So what happened until now I guess shouldn't be the focus of media attention, but rather how to deal with reactor #4 - of course, if these statements are true.
Here's url to the full article:
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20120518/fukushima-dai-ichi-risk-reactor-4-120519/
http://enenews.com/former-fukushima-daiichi-worker-i-believe-the-country-will-be-evacuated-if-the-no-4-spent-fuel-pool-collapses-should-be-hundreds-or-thousands-of-people-working-furiously-every-day
It blows my mind how many "scientifically" minded people there are on Slashdot, and yet, so many people who are scared to think outside of the box. I guess that's the problem with overspecialization.
...already covered this
Nice to see others have finally figured the same thing out.
1. That article is over a year old, rendering any discussion about Iodine moot.
2. Even a year ago, the levels were well below EPA standards.
3. Do they even do regular testing of milk in Vermont for radiation?
Please, if you're going try and make a point then you should try to be a little less "chicken little" about it.
Just as everywhere else in the developed world. (Although actual figures in US states vary between 35% and 53% of people getting cancer - no evacuations so far, despite hugely increased risk in some states.)
There was. The vast majority of it vanished over the past year as the iodine decayed. The majority of the remainder is now washed out to sea and will likely be indistinguishable from the normal radioisotope content of the ocean as is.
So they'll need to do some cleanup and keep an eye on things with their doctor. It's not like everyone will have some hideous cancer as a direct result of this. Get back to me in a couple decades when rates of incidence are trackable and we can see what happened, when, and to who.
At Chernobyl, by contrast, the highest exposed workers died quickly from radiation sickness.
Yes, but if I ever get a terminal illness and decide it's not worth living, I hope* they have a time machine so I can off myself by visiting it. Those highest exposed workers opened an access door to where the control rod manual controls used to be and stared right down into the burning core; others stepped outside and saw a shaft of air ionized by the escaping radiation piercing the night sky -- stuff very few people have ever seen.
So, since nobody saw any phenomena the slightest bit unusual at Fukushima Dai-ichi, maybe there's no point with these endless comparisons to Chernoby?
*"hope" in this context is not to be confused with "believe there is any chance at all of" -- I don't expect time travel of any sort ever to times before the construction of the time machine, and I've no reason to suspect it's definitely possible with that limit, or if it is, that the physics breakthrough would occur any time soon.
Chernobyl is not exactly a fair comparison. That was a massive release with so much radiation in some places you could actually taste it.
Like it or not, Fukushima actually demonstrated that in an absolutely worst case nightmare scenario the releases would not be that bad.
What I think is funny are the people who worry about getting cancer from the minuscule, barely measurable radiation drifting in weather patterns and then sit down to a breakfast of bacon and eggs. Processed meats have a much better statistical correlation for cancer than micro levels of radioactive isotopes, some of which occur naturally.
I know, I know. I'm going to burn in hell now for ripping on bacon.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
That's not really Slashdot truisms, just libertarian truisms (save 3 and 4, perhaps).
true but if the majority of radiation was alpha it is easily blocked unless ingested.
Since what got carried away in the explosions and water was alpha and beta, The danger is less. most of that has become heavily diluted in the ocean.
Radiation has many different effects depending on type. a high dose of one has a different short term, and then long term effect.
Gamma goes through everything but doesn't stick around as much.
Alpha can stick around in an environment for decades continuously poisoning and re-poisoning those who come in contact with it.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Do you have anything conclusive that proves official sources (i.e. the IAEA and NISA) have reported anything incorrectly (or without later publishing the correction)? Media reporting inside of and outside of Japan swung wildly between "everything is fine" and "next Chernobyl?!?!?" with dizzying rapidity and little provocation. And I mean 'proof' other than dodgy blogs citing the-Geiger-counter-I-built-myself-but-never-had-calibrated.
Publicly available data.
Gamma rays go through everything, but doesn't stick around at all.
Alpha particles are helium ions, and are neither poisonous nor particularly prone to sticking around.
That said...
Gamma EMITTERS can be in the environment for extended periods, based entirely on their half-life (long half-life means the emitters are around for a long time, short halflife rather the reverse).
Alpha EMITTERS can be in the environment for extended periods, based entirely on their half-life (same parenthetical comment).
And THAT said...
Gamma emitters are moderately dangerous, but alpha emitters can safely be stored under your bed (an alpha emitter wrapped in yesterday's newspaper is pretty much safe, since an alpha particle won't penetrate a single sheet of paper).
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Is it really so hard to figure out that you could just search for "us states cancer data"?
If this had happened in the US how long would it have been before we'd have seen lawyers on TV advertising legal action? I'm sure findings from independent agencies would have been completely irrelevant to the case.
Looking at "Fairewinds Energy Education" website, it doesn't look like anything other than an anti-nuke shill, producing reports on demand for the anti-nuke hysterics...
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Too funny!
You're obviously unaware that South Korea is WEST of the USA and EAST of China.
So "anyone east of South Korea" includes the USA, but not China, making your point self-contradictory....
Yes. It's also possible to decide that someone who is unaware that the USA is EAST of Korea isn't worth listening to when it comes to discussing complex issues...
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
They said the same thing after Chernobyl. Is anyone buying it this time?
- A Frog in a pond utters an azure cry. -
Unless, you are working there or eating the local food or water, the risks from Fukushima are small, BUT....
Who wants leukemia or thyroid cancer?
Say the risks are 1:100,000, then 37 people will get cancer in LA, alone.
Although the odds are quite low, someone will be the statistic, and it will never be blamed on the source because that is how money works.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
Nuclear tech saves many lives every day(Cancer treatment and detection), as well as powering the most likely long term energy solution.
The Japanese did not use graphite moderated reactors for very well known reasons, Chernobyl being the best example of those reasons... (Negative steam void reactivity coefficient, was a major one, iirc.)
The reactors at Chernobyl were pretty much updated versions of the ones we built during WWII to make plutonium, also iirc.
Idiocy=Bad.
Any tech is only as bad or good as what you use it for, and how you use it is your problem to explain.
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
"...a lot of radiation released by Fukushima." [nitpick: radioactivity would be a better term than radiation]
"A lot" is not a useful description. No, really. I don't just mean you need a number. I mean a lot of mercury is released into the environment too.
And there is a lot of gold in the ocean. So what?
There are many variables your blanket statement does not begin to address.
Over what time period?
In what physical and chemical form?
With what half-lives?
Into what medium?
Over how large an area?
How does it diffuse/propagate?
Who was exposed?
How does it compare to the radiation already present?
etc.
etc.
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
"Tokyo Electric Power Co. has estimated the total amount of radioactive substances discharged from its Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant measured 760,000 terabecquerels, 1.6 times the estimate released by the Economy, Trade and Industry Ministry's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency in February. "
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T120523005514.htm
2019 is going to be the year of Linux on the desktop.
Gamma emitters are moderately dangerous, but alpha emitters can safely be stored under your bed
Not quite. IANA health physicist, but from my reading of Wikipedia, alpha emitters can be the most dangerous of all if they get into your body, because then they dump all their energetic payload into a tissue-paper-width of actual tissue.
So: safe to store under your bed only if they are a solid block of metal. Not at all safe if they are breathable aerosol particles, less safe if they are particles which fall out of the sky onto your food crops or fish, even less safe if they are functional analogues of chemicals that living tissue stores and concentrates long-term, such as strontium, potassium or iodine.
Radioisotopes of potassium seem to hit the sweet spot of maximum bio-damage. Light enough to carry on the wind and fall out on crops kilometres away from the leak site, half-life in the years rather than days, and incorporated into the body and potentially can be concentrated up the food chain (though not for as long as strontium, I believe). And the cancer rate from them will definitely not be measured in bananas.
Does that seem like a correct assessment to you?
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
Over a year old. Yes, right after the reactors blew up, putting any discussion about Iodine precisely in the center of the bullseye.
And no, they weren't below EPA standards, they were at the last-gasp threshold before they started collecting the milk as radioactive waste.
No, but the detectors at the local plant started shrieking. Mind you, these are only supposed to do that when there is a local leak. As in, right there, at the plant itself. The fact that the contamination made it all the way across the Pacific, across the entire United States, all the way to Vermont should scare the bejabbers out you.
Iodine-131 has a half-life of 8 days. It takes upper atmosphere air approximately 10-12 days to get from Japan to Vermont, assuming an average air speed of 150mph at a distance of 3000 miles, based on a polar route for the jet stream.
There should not BE any I-131 in the milk. It should not have survived the trip. But there is I-131 in the milk. Along with Cs-137. Do you know where I-131 comes from? It comes from Uranium and Plutonium.
So. Either we've got Plutonium and/or Uranium fuel raining down on us, and nobody is telling us? Or the amount of I-131 that was ejected is so massive, that it was able to not only survive the trip, but also be detected in the milk after an additional 3-4 days once the alarm was sounded.
I think your chicken is cooked.
[End Of Line]
I used to be a nuclear energy fan (considering that much of the anti-nuclear sentiment is Luddite hysteria),
but the Iran situation made me reconsider. I fear that nuclear power generation might advance
the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
And according to Wikipedia, solar will start reaching grid parity in 2015 and wind in 2020/2025.
I think we can get by with hydro, coal (with pollution-reducing technology) and natural gas
until 2025.
What do you think?
Please see http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/denson7.html.
It argues that those 170,000 people died unnecessarily.
A banana gives off about 15 Bq of radiation, or about 400 picocuries.
The article you've liked to is talking about quantities of Cs-137 giving off about 3 picocuries per liter of milk. A banana is literally over 100x more radioactive.
The high reading of 390 picocuries of I-131 per liter of rainwater a year ago means drinking a liter of that "contaminated" rainwater carries pretty much the same radiation risk as eating a banana.
By giving the other extream you are not invaladiting the nuclear energy is a valid and safe power source when managed properly.
Nuclear energy is a very efficient power source, and we should be expanding it, and stop falling pry to the feet mongers who doesn't know the difference between nuclear energy and a nuclear bomb.
That said it does have some responsibility because it does have dangerious after products, and needs tone well maintain.
However right now, the left is afraid of nuclear, and the right doesn't want to control it. A stupid combination.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Just as everywhere else in the developed world. (Although actual figures in US states vary between 35% and 53% of people getting cancer - no evacuations so far, despite hugely increased risk in some states.)
You know this? Pray tell, how have you come to this conclusion when any rational person would at least desire some evidene? Were there burning bushes involved or did you simple determine it because nuclear power is, after all, made of rainbows and the laughter of children.
From Table 10 in this report available from the CDC here:
Number of deaths due to cancer ("malignant neoplasms") in the USA in 2009: 567,628
Total number of deaths in the USA in 2009: 2,437,163
Thus in the USA in 2009 cancer caused 23.3% of all deaths. Now, take into account that a lot of people get cancer but don't die of it, and you will realize that the granparent's numbers are not unreasonable.
If only nuclear could be done economically. .... and oh, by the way, they wouldn't be finished until 2024... not the 2016 date originally projected.
Unfortunately, it seems to have a "negative learning curve". Plants keep getting more expensive, not less.
Latest from Orlando Sentinel http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-05-05/news/os-progress-energy-rates-beth-kassab-050612-20120505_1_nuclear-plants-nuclear-reactors-progress-energy
It seems that the Progress Energy boondoggle continues. In 2007 it said the twin 1100 Megawatt reactors would cost $5 Billion. In 2008 it said they would cost $14 Billion (plus $3 Billion for transmission lines). In 2011 they said they would cost $24 Billion
The real kicker is that they are allowed to charge ratepayers now for the cost of building these plants even though they won't produce power until 2024 (if then).
This makes Solyndra look like a great investment.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
However right now, the left is afraid of nuclear, and the right doesn't want to control it.
I'm "the left*," and I'm not afraid of nuclear; I support nuclear energy because I care about the environment and acknowledge society's need for a continually-increasing supply of (low-emission, base-load) energy. I know there are others on the left (here on Slashdot) that agree.
* The actual left, not Obama's conservative "left."
Thank you, Edward Snowden.
"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
Severe Nuclear Reactor Accidents Likely Every 10 to 20 Years, European Study Suggests http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120522134942.htm I'm nuclear agnostic, but articles like these leave me a bit uneasy. Only a bit.
2019 is going to be the year of Linux on the desktop.
if he had really a data point showing that the report is wrong, he would show it and falsify the report instead of spouting politic call to authority "we are local so we know better". No you don't, you have data and can refute or you have not.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
The majority of the remainder is now washed out to sea and will likely be indistinguishable from the normal radioisotope content of the ocean as is.
Well we know that isn't true because of the contaminated seafood coming from that area.
So they'll need to do some cleanup and keep an eye on things with their doctor.
"Some" clean up? Very large areas of land need to be decontaminated. Soil replaced, everything (including plants) cleaned off and checked. While protecting the people doing the cleaning.
Outside the exclusion zone children have to wear dosimeters. Lots of people bought monitoring equipment and find that levels around their new rented accommodation (since they basically lost their homes and possessions, not to mention their jobs and communities when they had to leave) are near or above the internationally agreed safety limits.
It's not like everyone will have some hideous cancer as a direct result of this. Get back to me in a couple decades when rates of incidence are trackable and we can see what happened, when, and to who.
You might feel differently if it was your family at risk. Given the unknowns can you blame people for being cautious?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The thing I invite you to ask yourself is this: "Who lied to you?" I live in Japan and speak Japanese passably (though the vocabulary related to nuclear disasters was not a forte of mine at the beginning of the incident). One of the biggest problems I've had with this whole thing is that the information presented in the west by reputable news outlets was *different* from the information being presented in Japan. What was all the more infuriating was that the lies uncovered by the western media were never told in Japan in the first place (as far as I could tell).
I kept listening to the TEPCO news conferences, and listening to the prime minister and then comparing it to what the western press was reporting. It was completely different. Then all of a sudden, the western press would say, "Oh, it's all wrong" and report what was originally reported in Japan. I'm really not sure if it was a translation problem, or what. The news conference would say, "The information we have is consistent with an intact reactor core, but there is a possibility that the core has melted down. We can not be sure at this time." The western press would say, "TEPCO reports that the core is intact". Then when the core was found to have melted down, the western press would change directions. This happened time after time after time.
The IAEA had a web page which detailed the timeline of the disaster from the beginning to the end. It matched my understanding of the information coming from TEPCO and the Japanese government exactly (and differed greatly from my understanding of the information coming from the western news agencies). Unfortunately, it no longer seems to exist on the link I had for it. I invite you to take a look for it on their web page if you want: http://www.iaea.org/
You may be thinking, "It doesn't matter who got it wrong, I can't trust those bastards." But it really does matter. If your primary information source is the western media, you may find that you are not getting the right picture and may be distrusting the wrong people.
Fairewinds Energy Education is an anti-nuclear lobbyist group. Arnie Gundersen has a masters degree in nuclear engineering, and worked in the 70's (I believe... you may have to check that) for a few years in a non-operational reactor. He then went on to spend roughly 20 years as a high school math teacher. During his tenure as a math teacher, he has worked as a consultant for various anti-nuclear lobbyist groups. The information is public record and you can find it on the internet if you look around. This is coming from memory, so if I have made an error, please correct it in a post below.
Gundersen has a history of making fairly alarming predictions. I invite you to search his name, look at his predictions and compare them to what happened. Of note is the information about Chernobyl.
The spent fuel ponds are certainly an issue that has been brought up by more mainstream organizations like the IAEA. I have to say that I am skeptical about the Magnitude 7-7.5 predictions simply because there have been several of them in the area since the big quake.
Studies have also repeatedly suggested a link between RF transmissions and cancer, which anyone with a minimum of knowledge of radiation can tell is utter bullshit.
It's so refreshing when you're affected with cancer to know that you "may never be able to conclusively link your illness to the meltdowns". That makes me want to settle near Fukushima right now.
We can not reliably say whether exposure N (mSv) will cause cancer in person P - we can only predict it based on previous observations.
Predicting the effect from radiation exposure is based on long-term epidemiological study data such as the Japan Life Span Study [1-3]. These compare the disease rates in large populations to neighbouring/control populations where radiation exposure was at natural levels.
These studies form the basis of a statistical reference when establishing the likelihood of developing an illness due to radiation exposure. They suggest that there is a ‘statistically significant increase of the risk of fatal cancer starting at the range of 50–100 mSv, possibly already at 10–50 mSv’ [4].
TFA: "Residents of Namie town and Iitate village, two areas that were not evacuated until months after the accident, received 10–50mSv"
Deterministic effects (i.e. observed reliably above a certain dose threshold) of exposure are seen above 100mSv [4].
TFA: "146 employees and 21 contractors received a dose of more than 100 millisieverts (mSv), the level at which there is an acknowledged slight increase in cancer risk. Six workers received more than the 250mSv allowed by Japanese law for front-line emergency workers, and two operators in the control rooms for reactor units 3 and 4 received doses above 600mSv".
Through previous observations of population exposures to radiation at similar levels, it is statistically likely that this accident will result in an increase in cancer incidence among this population.
[1] Preston, D.L., et al., Cancer Incidence in Atomic Bomb Survivors. Part III: Leukemia, Lymphoma and Multiple Myeloma, 1950-1987 Radiation Research, 1994. 137 (2 (Suppliment)): p. S68 - S97.
[2] Preston, D.L., et al., Solid Cancer Incidence in Atomic Bomb Survivors: 1958–1998. Radiation Research, 2007. 168(1): p. 1-64.
[3] Land, C.E., Studies of Cancer and Radiation Dose Among Atomic Bomb Survivors. The Example of Breast Cancer. JAMA, 1995. 274(5): p. 402 - 407.
[4] Vock, P., CT Dose Reduction in Children. European Radiology, 2005. 15: p. 2330-2340.
Studies have also repeatedly suggested a link between RF transmissions and cancer, which anyone with a minimum of knowledge of radiation can tell is utter bullshit.
And what does that have to do with the likelihood or not of a nuclear power station accident?
You are just trying to smear nuclear power sceptics with the "anti-science" brush, in order to get slashdotters to react in a Pavlovian way.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Nuclear technology is untrustworthy in any scenario where business profit motive is superior an interest to diligence in safety and public welfare.
More so than any other deployed technology, it is completely unforgiving of accidents. The implications of even minor errors in logistics or technical management are frequently catastrophic - on the scale of generations.
The history of private operators, seeking to extract greater profit at the expense of reduced service and oversight, is at complete odds with the interest of safely managing this technology.
Low-bidders, who then use their undue lobby pressure in Government to reduce the burden of public-interest oversight, are not trustworthy with ordinary power generation and mineral extraction.
Governments are not trustworthy, when they are the captive marionettes of private interests that prefer privilege and short-term interest of finance and industry elite, to the general needs of their peoples.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
I'm really not very good at Japanese, and I remember trying to check my understanding of the news coming out of Japan agaist the BBC.
In my assesment and as far as I recall the BBC reported quite faithfully and very slowly what was happening in Japan.
may never be able to conclusively link their illness to the meltdowns
Ah. I see. By "risk" they mean risk of a lawsuit standing up in court...