Fukushima's Fallout of Fear

gbrumfiel writes "Experts believe that the many thousands who fled from the Fukushima nuclear disaster received very low doses of radiation. But that doesn't mean there won't be health consequences. Nature magazine traveled to Fukushima prefecture and found evidence of an enormous mental strain from the accident. Levels of anxiety and PTSD-like symptoms are high among evacuees. Researchers fear that, in the long run, the mental problems could lead to depression and substance abuse among those who lost their homes. In other words, even if no one develops cancer as a direct result of radiation, the health effects could still be very real."

Comments

This is about information policy

[rrohbeck]

If officials would reliably issue accurate statements there would be much less reason to stress out.

Re:This is about information policy

[joe_frisch]

Does this lead to suggesting that the government downplay risks since the fear causes more injuries that the actual risk? Should we avoid technologies that scare people even if there is not data to support that fear?

I think the study is probably valid, but I think people need to be very careful on how this information is incorporated into policy.

Re:This is about information policy

[iYk6]

Or even more reason to be afraid...IIRC part of the problem was they weren't telling people how bad it really was wasn't it?

That was the problem. By lying, officials were indirectly telling people that the nuclear disaster was so bad that they had to lie. Plus, not knowing how bad it is adds another layer of stress.

Re:This is about information policy

[maxwell demon]

Quite the opposite. There's nothing causing more fear than the government found downplaying the danger. As soon as the government is found downplaying, all claims by the government that there's no or only little danger completely lose any credibility they may have had, and people assume the worst.

Re:This is about information policy

[EdZ]

If officials would reliably issue accurate statements there would be much less reason to stress out.

They did. Even prior to the hydrogen explosions, I was following the IAEA and NISA reports on exactly what was going on, complete with regularly updated radiation levels for various sampling stations.
However, if all you're getting in media reports is fearmongering over THIS NUMBER IS 100 TIMES BIGGER THAN THIS OTHER NUMBER! (and neglecting to mention the units, let alone a helpful comparison to commonly encountered levels of radiation) you'd be forgiven for thinking that the people who know what's going on aren't telling anyone. They are, it's simply that nobody is bothering to listen (and think).

Re:This is about information policy

[pixelpusher220]

Yeah well even the summary still doesn't attribute all lost homes to the nuclear accident as you claim.

The Summary says that the effects from the 'accident' (the reactor) include PTSD for people who lost their homes. That's quite clearly attributing tsunami issues since far more people 'lost' homes to the tsunami than to the reactor failure...which isn't a fair metric.

I will happily take the RTFA blame as I didn't, but the summary is still quite clearly 'bad'.

So let me get this?

[scsirob]

.. Are they saying that fear mongering will kill more people than the radiation from actual nuclear disaster? Wow.
So that means, on the death toll scale:
1. The actual Tsunami
2. Traffic accidents from people trying to flee
3. Stress related deaths
4. Radiation related deaths

Re:So let me get this?

[fredprado]

That seems accurate, but I would say that there are still a lot of other items between 3 and 4.

Re:So let me get this?

[Cryacin]

You forgot #847. Tripping over cat and falling down stairs whilst hurriedly running to basement to get to fallout shelter.

What about drowning?

[vlm]

Experts believe that the many thousands who fled from the Fukushima nuclear disaster received very low doses of radiation. But that doesn't mean there won't be health consequences.

Yeah I think having your friends, family, and coworkers drown might stress them a wee bit, even if americans think nothing happened there but a minor nuclear power incident.

A home is a terrible thing to lose

[fnj]

Losing your home, let alone all your possessions, is a horrific thing to go through, no matter what the process of loss is: nuclear accident, hurricane, bankruptcy. I believe it is a more devastating loss than the one you have when you reach a certain age and the truth of your own mortality comes into full focus. Losing everything the day your own light goes out forever, there is a sense of loss in the anticipation, but there is no "you" to miss anything afterwards. Losing all your "stuff" on the other hand is the hurt that just keeps hurting.

Low-dose radiation isn't a big deal

[Robotbeat]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/01/11/like-weve-been-saying-radiation-is-not-a-big-deal/

"A very big report came out last month with very little fanfare. It concluded what we in nuclear science have been saying for decades – radiation doses less than about 10 rem (0.1 Sv) are no big deal. The linear no-threshold dose hypothesis (LNT) does not apply to doses less than 10 rem (0.1 Sv), which is the region encompassing background levels around the world, and is the region of most importance to nuclear energy, most medical procedures and most areas affected by accidents like Fukushima."

Re:Low-dose radiation isn't a big deal

[A beautiful mind]

I'm going to undo a bunch of mod points with this post, but I wanted to point out that the blog post you cite is flat out wrong.

I'd like to say that I'm for building more nuclear plants of 4th or later generation design and that even with the LNT model, the maximum number of deaths from Fukushima might be on the level of a single bus accident. That said, the blogpost is incredibly misleading. It took me a while to track down the original source that the post claims to cite from UNSCEAR and it's this paragraph:

In general, increases in the incidence of health effects in populations cannot be attributed reliably to chronic exposure to radiation at levels that are typical of the global average background levels of radiation. This is because of the uncertainties associated with the assessment of risks at low doses, the current absence of radiation-specific biomarkers for health effects and the insufficient statistical power of epidemiological studies. Therefore, the Scientific Committee does not recommend multiplying very low doses by large numbers of individuals to estimate numbers of radiation-induced health effects within a population exposed to incremental doses at levels equivalent to or lower than natural background levels;

What they are saying in short is that the statistical uncertainty is strong enough at low levels of radiation doses WRT cancer risk is that it's not possible to tell whether the LNT model is true or not and THEREFOR it shouldn't be used to say "this many people will die from this much low level radiation". They aren't saying that LNT is wrong. They aren't saying that LNT is right. They are saying we don't know.

The quote from the report is from here. It's from the latest report to the general assembly, page 16.

Re:very low doses?????

[BlackThorne_DK]

Please do me a favor. Don't go to the Grand Central Station with a geiger counter. Also stay away from Capitol Hill i D.C. and any other granite or marble building.
Also bananas could be scary to look at, and flying to the east coast would also be a no-go.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interact/facts.html

I wouldn't have you ramp up that nuclear fear too high, or you might be a part of statistics.

Radiation is all around us, and the scientist are not even sure it is a bad thing.

Implications

[sjames]

Given that, I wonder how the total financial meltdown courtesy of Golden Sacks and co. complete with people losing their homes, income, and healthcare compares to every reactor in the U.S. suffering a Fukushima style meltdown all at once.