Slashdot Mirror
Japan's Radiation Disaster Toll: None Dead, None Sick
An anonymous reader writes "This article discusses a recently-released U.N. Scientific Committee report which examined the health effects of the accident at the Fukushima nuclear plant. Their conclusion: 'Radiation exposure following the nuclear accident at Fukushima-Daiichi did not cause any immediate health effects. It is unlikely to be able to attribute any health effects in the future among the general public and the vast majority of workers. ... No radiation-related deaths or acute effects have been observed among nearly 25,000 workers involved at the accident site. Given the small number of highly exposed workers, it is unlikely that excess cases of thyroid cancer due to radiation exposure would be detectable.' The article even sums up the exposure levels for the workers who were closest to the reactor: 'Of 167 exposed to more than the industry's recommended five-year limit of 100 mSv (a CT scan exposes patients to up to 10 mSv), 23 recorded 150-200 mSv, three 200-250 mSv and six up to 678 mSv, still short of the 1000 mSv single dosage that causes radiation sickness, or the accumulated exposure estimated to cause a fatal cancer years later in 5 per cent of people.' The report also highlights the minute effect it's had on the environment: 'The exposures on both marine and terrestrial non-human biota were too low for observable acute effects.'"
Says who? People who have a vested interest in downplaying any serious problems...
Give it 5 years. Then we'll see what the toll really was. Maybe.
On which side of the argument? 0 sick or with a minutely increased chance of cancer sounds a bit low, but closer to the truth than the media hysteria immediately following the event.
They have more than enough power projected to meet summer demand despite having only 2 of 50 nuclear power plants online:
http://japandailypress.com/no-electricity-austerity-measures-for-japan-this-summer-0926652
Anyone know how they made up the slack besides conservation? More coal? The article mentions "electric power companies have been looking to thermal power generation for their supplies", but it's not clear what that means - geothermal?
The true message of this article should be quite different: All nuclear power must be abandoned this instant, forever, because, well, umm, if all the millisieverts were put together and given to a baby, it might get radiation sickness.
Won't somebody think of the children?
And for those who are mentally challenged: .
Perscriptio in manibus tabellariorum est.
And meanwhile, foreign media all but ignore the close to 20 000 dead from the tsunami; that was the real disaster.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
This story is not true.
12 people have a cancer by radiation.
If you look at enough people anywhere, you'll find cancer cases, but not necessarily from radiation:
Thyroid cancer found in 12 minors in Fukushima
FUKUSHIMA – An ongoing study on the impact of radiation on Fukushima residents from the crippled atomic power plant has found 12 minors with confirmed thyroid cancer diagnoses, up from three in a report in February, with 15 other suspected cases, up from seven, researchers announced Wednesday.
The figures were taken from about 174,000 people aged 18 or younger whose initial thyroid screening results have been confirmed.
Researchers at Fukushima Medical University, which has been taking the leading role in the study, have said they do not believe the most recent cases are related to the nuclear crisis.
Source?
Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
There have been plenty of people in Japan that have gotten sick, many with common acute radiation sickness, such as hairloss, teethloss, stroke, Thyroid, etc, They just ignore reporting the victims or classify their illiness to something else so they can claim it not a problem.
As Orwell wrote " 'He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.", he that controls the news controls the past and future.
naïvety, stupidity, and fixed beliefs.
Something seems maybe not quite right; wasn't there an engineer(s) who inadvertantly stepped in a pool of radioactive water, and got enough exposure to get skin burns? My google-fu is lacking, I can find references to the incident, but I can't find their estimated doses - I remember it being a big deal at the time, though...
JAPANESE RESILIAAAAAAANCE,notice that in bombardment pictures those fucking Toris never fall!
Japan itself has been fixated on the nuclear aspects of the disaster. They're used to earthquakes and tsunamis and know that there isn't that much that can be done to prevent those disasters. They've focused on the nuclear aspect because 1. it's a newer type of disaster and 2. unlike earthquakes and tsunamis, it could have been prevented with a little more planning.
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
And meanwhile, foreign media all but ignore the close to 20 000 dead from the tsunami; that was the real disaster.
Nobody is ignoring the tragic lose of life from the tsunami. This story is about the nuclear power plans and the ability of the Japanese people to adjust to other forms of energy (including dirty coal).
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
On which side of the argument? 0 sick or with a minutely increased chance of cancer sounds a bit low, but closer to the truth than the media hysteria immediately following the event.
Stop it! Just, stop.
How in the hell are we going to get the dumb masses whipped up into a hysterical advertisement-selling frenzy of fear and framed debates and phoney controversy if you keep injecting rationality into the discussion? For that matter, how the hell are we going to perpetuate our addiction to Middle Eastern fossil fuels if you act all calm and rational about nuclear energy? For fuck's sake man, if you aren't REALLY CAREFUL you might even encourage critical thinking. Think about what that would do to the marketing and PR industries!
Don't you understand? Don't you get it?! We have huge investments in the status quo. Don't rock the boat! I mean, it's not like we were going to put someone like you on mainstream television anyway, so all you gotta do is stop being rational on this Internet thingy that we can't dominate and be the gatekeeper for, and we're fine.
Signed,
The Five Corporations Controlling American Mass Media
This story is not true.
Now you're arguing with UN scientific research just like those "anti-science" AGW sceptics.
Yay for cherry picking your preferred science.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
That we need to stop nuclear power immediately
love,
antinucular-activist
Researchers at Fukushima Medical University, which has been taking the leading role in the study, have said they do not believe the most recent cases are related to the nuclear crisis.
In a homogenous society like Japan, what would you expect them to say? Do you also know that the Japanese never used Korean "comfort women"? Except maybe in Okinawa:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22666899
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
In another story the families of the irradiated workers are claiming how nice it is to have a night light for free...
never bring a twinkie to a food fight.
... because some of the subcontractors were forced to shield their counters. The problem was even discussed on Slashdot. This means that the numbers are underestimated. Probably badly, knowing how japanese usually keep quiet on this kind of problems.
Chance of this story getting widely reported: none.
Since this story doesn't advance the opportunity for governments to exercise and consolidate power over individuals, it will not be widely reported.
This. In a rage I gave up trying to follow the disaster in the media after just a few days as it became clear there was little interest in the tens of thousands dead and harrowing stories of survival.
It's all the more screwed up seeing as how the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill happened just a year before. Eleven people died, instantly. Because unlike a modern nuclear reactor, oil will in fact explode with a giant fireball if something goes wrong. Unlike Fukushima, the ensuing geiser of oil quickly polluted hundreds of thousands of square miles to an extent that it was easily and prominently seen from space. Our solution to this was to dump millions of gallons of toxic and carcenogenic chemicals on top of it until we couldn't see the oil any more. Problem solved! Out of sight, out of mind. Meanwhile, how many billions of sea creatures perished and how many new cases of cancer are we going to see in the decades to come? We'll probably never know, because oil disasters just aren't sexy like nuclear disasters are.
Oh yeah, and I am sick and fucking tired of not being able to eat large amounts of the tastiest fish in the sea because they are contiminated with huge amounts of mercury, primarily (from my understanding) through the burning of coal. Imagine the hysteria we'd see if the fish were actually mildly radioactive instead of merely full of toxic heavy metals that, unlike most radioactive sources, linger in your body unless you undergo chelation therapy.
Nuclear sucks, it has security issues (although it could also safely and usefully dispose of all the Uranium 235 in the world, an angle I rarely hear anyone mention), and it's not renewable. But it would be so, so nice if people would fucking grow up and make even a token effort at objectively evaluating opportunity costs instead of continually screaming at the top of their lungs about pet issues.
There's almost no oil consumption for electricity generation, and until we get a large fleet of electric cars nuclear electricity will displace very little oil burning.
What nuclear power does is displace coal, thus saving thousands of lives every year.
Indeed. But they confirmed 5 cases out of 174.000 tested children... when the prevalence rate of thyroïd cancer is less than 2 in 1.000.000 in this area of Japan and age range, according to the article you are citing. Smells fishy to me.
Isn't there a long delay between exposure and visible cancer? Does the fact that the cases are visible now imply that they must have started before the accident?
Low capital costs, and at current prices low fuel costs.
The prevalence rate you quote is a lot narrower age range than "children under 18" mentioned as being diagnosed with thyroid cancer. For some kinds of thyroid cancer, age of exposure and development of problems make a huge difference. Additionally, is that the prevalence rate found due to thyroid cancer found from symptoms, or found from screening? Thyroid cancer is one of the cancers heavily discussed when talking about issues of over-diagnosis, where some times the treatment has much greater risks than not treating it at all, and that screening finds a lot more cases of it that would otherwise gone unnoticed because a portion of thyroid cancer never produces any symptoms or health impact.
Perhaps OP should have included the next sentence in the article in question:
They point out that thyroid cancer cases were not found among children hit by the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident until four to five years later.
IN other words, check back in a few years, but until then, chill....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Indeed. But they confirmed 5 cases out of 174.000 tested children... when the prevalence rate of thyroïd cancer is less than 2 in 1.000.000 in this area of Japan and age range, according to the article you are citing.
Smells fishy to me.
When you screen 100% of a population for a disease there's going to be a higher incidence rate than when only those showing obvious symptoms are found... especially for a disease like thyroid cancer, which is typically slow growing so it may not be discovered for years.
The 2 in a million rate is for "those aged 10 to 14 in Japan", while the screenings were for "174,000 people aged 18 or younger". A big difference in age range.
But there are still wingnuts who claim they can detect the radiation as far as California, that all tuna in the oceans are radioactive, etc.
The blinding stupidity of the human race and it's gullability for what they read/see on the internet will never cease to amaze me.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
From the article:
A swift evacuation of 200,000 residents within a 20-kilometre radius of the plant helped protect them â" WHO estimated most residents of Fukushima prefecture received doses of 1-10 mSv in the first year.
[...]
About 1000 deaths have been attributed to evacuations. About 90 per cent were people older than 66, who suffered from the trauma of evacuation and living in shelters. Sadly, those of them who left areas where radiation was no greater than in naturally high background areas would have been better off staying.
Philosophical Question: Do those 1000 deaths not count because they were not directly due to radiation poisoning? I mean, they wouldn't have happened if there had been no meltdown...
The trouble is coal-fired power stations emit more radiation than nuclear reactors do. From the article: "fly ash emitted by a power plant [...] burning coal for electricity carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy." That statistic is from 1978, and nuclear reactor technology has greatly improved since then (and continues to improve).
Mar 2011: "Tokyo Electric, the owners of the plant, said five workers had been killed at the site, two were missing and 21 had been injured." link
Apr 2011: "On March 24, three workers at the Fukushima nuclear power plant were exposed accidentally to high localised radiation while standing in contaminated water". link
Jul 2011: "A newly released document says the Japanese government estimated in April that some 1600 workers will be exposed to high levels of radiation in the course of handling the reactor meltdowns at the stricken Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant". link
Dec 2011: "Masao Yoshida, who led the fight to bring Japanâ(TM)s crippled Fukushima nuclear station under control, steps down tomorrow for medical treatment after almost nine months directing the disaster response from inside the plant". link
Dec 2012: "Dozens of workers received potentially cancerous doses of radiation to their thyroid glands during recovery work at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, according to data submitted to the World Health Organization. link
July 2012: "An executive at construction firm Build-Up in December told about 10 of its workers to cover their dosimeters, used to measure cumulative radiation exposure, with lead casings when working in areas with high radiation, the Asahi Shimbun newspaper and other media said." link
July 2012: "Japanese officials are investigating whether workers cleaning up in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster were pushed to shield their radiation meters so they could keep working for longer on the contaminated plant". link
AccountKiller
In a 2004 study on this very subject, it was determined that the mean latency period for thyroid cancer to appear after radiation exposure was over 30 years. Some appear sooner, of course, but many appeared much later than that. What is the point of this report? At best, the proclamation of not causing any noticeable immediate harm is premature. But saying that the exposure is "unlikely to be able to attribute any health effects in the future" borders on irresponsible, and seems driven by an agenda.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1356259/
Our great computers fill the hallowed halls
Testing for cancers in a population at this time is all about establishing exactly what cancers existed before the problem. so you can accurately determine what effect the plant's failure will cause.
As the numbers seem slightly high, I suspect regression toward the mean will cause a drop in the number. That will cause confusion in the masses!
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
I wonder. If one takes all the Slashdotters that, in responding to this post, tout the accuracy of the IPCC report (ostensibly a UN Body), but decry this report as being wrong, bad science, improper collection, etc. I wonder what that would look like. My hunch is that when the science agrees with your worldview you see the subject opinion as science, consensus, etc. and when it doesn't, it's a fraud... probably equally so for those observers on the left (most Slashdotters) as those on the right on a per capita basis.
Maybe that article sometime ago about biases in viewing science results based on political viewpoints might prove out in a way the authors of that study thought only applied to conservatives.
Fallout 4 Fukushima!
Could be all kinds of reasons, which is why neither you nor me are experts in epidemiology.
Bull. They admit the comfort women, it was even explicitly mentioned in an ill-posed statement by the mayor of Osaka.
Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
They're used to earthquakes and tsunamis and know that there isn't that much that can be done to prevent those disasters.
There isn't much that can be done... except of course for building a huge sea wall.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
So they minimized the number of statistical radiation-induced deaths down to some small value by permanently evacuating an area of hundreds of square miles around the reactor? Still doesn't sound like a trivial thing to me.
And how many people would have gotten lung cancer if this reactor had never existed and they'd been burning oil or coal all of this time? Nuclear power is the safest practical form of power we have right now. This was one of the oldest designs for a reactor that's still in use, it was hit by one of the largest natural disasters in history, the aftermath was poorly handled and it still survived. One of the most astonishing things about this entire event is that people still call it a disaster. This reactor performed exactly as it was designed. It did not melt through the containment vessel, sink down to the water table and cause a radioactive steam explosion (like Chernobyl)
Lastly, comparing this event to Chernobyl in anyway is outright ridiculous. Go read up on the event... Chernobyl was a real disaster. This event was a success in that the safety systems prevented something far more terrible from happening.
In a homogenous society like Japan
What the hell is that even supposed to mean, except for "I don't want to believe this"?
Given the small number of highly exposed workers, it is unlikely that excess cases of thyroid cancer due to radiation exposure would be detectable.
If plant management had any competency at all, the workers were given potassium iodide doses, which proved highly effective at preventing thyroid cancer in people exposed to Chernobyl's radiation.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
0 sick or with a minutely increased chance of cancer sounds a bit low,
Not if you actually looked at the radiation dose recieved by the few workers (~3?) who got the highest doses.
IIRC it was between 150-300mSv for most of the workers, which is generally "you should probably let a hospital check you out, but youre gonna be fine".
Im not an expert, but doesnt cancer from radiation take YEARS to develop?
Sorry, not gonna buy a "i got cancer in two years" narrative.
Fascinating... except we'll need to wait a few decades to finish collecting the data before we can analyze it and draw conclusions.
Won't find me arguing....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Of over 4,000 people who developed thyroid cancer from Chernobyl, something like 9 of them died from it with all of the rest cured yielding about a 99.9% success rate of curing people.
IN other words, feel free to quote the full statistics.
50 people dead, 4000 projected to die over 20+ years from after effects, assuming car wrecks or heart disease dont get them first.
Nuclear power has the lowest deaths per terawatts hour of any energy source.
There are 12 children already confirmed with thyroid cancer, and 15 more suspected cases. This is in spite of the fact that thyroid cancer cases were not common among children affected Chernobyl until about five years afterwards. The normal rate of thyroïd cancer is less than 2 in 1.000.000 in this area of Japan and age range,
As far as I remember in the whole history of civil nuclear power there were roughly 687 fatalities recorded by civil nuclear power, even if one includes cases of long term neglected diseases.
On the other hand, in the same time around 2.500.000 people died of hydropower with 250.000 alone in one major dam bust 40 years ago in china.
As nuclear power produced roughly 10 times as much energy in the same time based on "deaths per watt" hydropower is 35.000 times more lethal than nuclear power.
Tell this to the believers of the anti nuclear church and they will nail you to a cross... always look on the bright side of life...
"Life is short and in most cases it ends with death." Sir Sinclair
How much of that cost is tied up paying off the dozens of NIMBYs, Government officials at every level, outreach programs to counteract fear mongering, and anti-nuclear consumer/civil advocate groups? Is nuclear not a feasible option because of what it *actually* costs to drop a plant there or because of all the associated bullshit that the government requires?
The UCS isn't exactly unbiased. They want good old fashioned dollars pumped into R&D, which is a costlier, longer term, and riskier investment.
Rather than attacking a technology that isn't about to go away anytime soon, the UCS should be engaging in the more constructive discussion of bringing these costs down, reducing risk to public safety, and educating the public.
You know, after reading all of these reports and comments by those saying there is no harm, I wonder why they even bother to put shields on nuclear cores in the first place and to work so hard to avoid discharges of contaminated water. Heck, these reactors blew up and nothing bad happened! Right?
Yeah, no. You won't see any of the apologists or big CEOs moving their kids to Fukushima and eating food grown there. Just the poor schmucks who can't afford to move will be stuck there and told not to worry, or seek compensation, because nothing bad happened.
I remember reading reports a few years back about how people went into these areas, got covered in radiation burns and died. Now no one died? WTF?
You might want to actually give the necessary context when spewing out statistics, for all we know (without looking it up ourselves) there are 30 million people in the area you're referring to. If this were the case the number of cases would be lower than normal.
Money, Power, Stupidity.
Of course there are no immediate deaths from radiation leakage for the Fukushima Incident ! Yet, 10 to 20 years from now the citizens will be dying from the cancers initiated by the radiation leakage, even as far away as the Tokyo Prefecture.
The Government of Japan at that time will face a 'healthcare bureaucracy banking crisis.'
Well that crisis is for the unborn Japan, not the dying Japan of today.
I live in Japan. I have been here for eleven years, and I've been through the earthquake/tsunami and all the aftermath.
I call your post bullshit. Cite your references/sources if you want to be taken seriously.
My site
I thought the death toll of animals and pets left behind was pretty staggering. I guess they don't count.
If Fukushima is a success story, then so is Chernobyl (they managed to build a containment dome, which Japan has failed to do), and I don't want to see what you would consider a disaster. The only redeeming feature of Fukushima was that the radiation spread out over the Pacific rather than raining down across continental Europe.
Nuclear is good, but old reactor designs are spectacularly bad. Too bad restrictions on all things nuclear are so severe that spent fuel has to be stored on site, and new reactors can't be built. Saying nuclear energy isn't safe because LWRs melt down is like saying that cars aren't safe because the Model T doesn't have air bags.
It's sort of like the blue line, only with a whole country.
There is a slight difference between the accident in Chernobyl and that in Fuckushima. In the first one, the reactor vessel was blown fully open, releasing a lot of its healthy content. In Japan, allegedly, the reactors are still more or less intact, or if they aren't, most of the radioactive waste is underground. Hence, the acuteness of the need for a dome is different. Also, Fukushima's four reactors released about 10% of the becquerels that Chernobyl did.
Also, Chernobyl's radiation did not really "rain down across continental Europe", it was largely contained in and around Pripyat, and practically all of the amount that could have any effect spread out over parts of Ukraine and Belarus. Which counts as "continental Europe" only in academic discussions of geography.
Hey, same death toll as Three Mile Island!
Smells fishy to me.
...must hold my tongue...must not make sushi joke...
I am anarch of all I survey.
I'M IN MARKETTING, you insensitive clod!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes, the saving grace of Fukishima was that the core didn't burn and get spread over Japan. Luck rather than good management though.
No, the vast majority of Fukushimas fuel never left containment.
Here's the obligatory chart so you can compare the 2. They are not even remotely in the same league: http://xkcd.com/radiation/
I work in the nuclear industry. While I consider it the safest bulk power generation around, there is potential for things to improve both in and out of nuclear power. Solar and Wind show promise, but are definitely not at the point of being able to compete with nuclear's price. Maybe in 10 years, maybe in 20 years, maybe never. But we should be looking at the right here and now for the "best" choice to generate power.
I, like some other people have said, don't like the fact that this is 2 years later and is not likely to show a significant cancer rate for a few more years. Chernobyl caused some health risks. When were those truely noticable in the general population? 5-10 years later. So this study has the advantage of proving what we already know, that cancer rates 2 years after even a bad accident aren't much higher(aka Go Nuclear Power!) they also allow people to argue against Coal(aka Go Nuclear Power!).
What really needs to be examined is:
1. Cancer rates years from now.. say 5-20 years.
2. Other consequences such as PTSD(potential increases in crime rates), economic losses(cost of lost homes, etc), and marine biology.
3. What would cancer been like if alternatives had been used such as coal? Its fairly well documented that coal plants release relatively massive amounts of radioactive materials into their environment because of radioactive impurities in the coal. One study showed that as many as 10k people a year die in the USA alone from lung cancer that is likely from coal impurities alone.
So how many people will die from cancer from the nuclear accident versus how many would die if there had been coal? I'd bet coal is quite a bit higher.
So how many people will die from the nuclear accident versus how many died from the earthquake? I bet the earthquake is quite a bit higher.
Is the "cost" of life worth what was gained to society as a whole? That's a personal belief.
I think the whole argument should be waiting a few more years before we start concluding what the long term health benefits are. I also think anyone dismissing this report now will dismiss the next report because the numbers will just be "too low" no matter how many zeros are on that number.
The real reality? Many people need to grow up and look at the whole picture. It may or may not favor nuclear power. But you know what I know for sure.. the discussion won't end in my lifetime. No matter how many studies support the economic value of nuclear and no matter how many people may develop cancer many people will dismiss the studies as heavily favoring nuclear power anyway.
Before calling someone illiterate, maybe you should read up on thyroid cancer and how it is heavily discussed can frequently go nearly indefinitely with no symptoms, hence a lot of questioning of the value of screening for and performing procedures with slight risk to remove. it gets discussed quite a bit the medical literature... assuming your literate too
Better reactor design, not luck. No good management, but management failure is an issue that isn't really related to the technology.
I have been here for eleven years working for General Electric's nuclear power division.
FTFY.
12 Thyroid Cancer Cases Confirmed in Fukushima Children: Preliminary Results of FY2011/FY2012 Fukushima Thyroid Examination
The Eleventh Planning Committee of the Prefecture Health Management Survey met on June 5, 2013. The preliminary data for the thyroid ultrasound examination was released to the press at the meeting.
Overall, a higher percentage of Fukushima children, tested in the Fiscal Year Heisei 24 (FY2012), are showing thyroid ultrasound abnormalities than the Fiscal Year Heisei 23 (FY2011) in all assessment categories. In addition, the average diameter of the tumor increased.
Higher percentages of children have nodules larger than 5.1 mm or cysts larger than 20.1 mm, which put them in the assessment B category, qualifying for the secondary examination consisting of thyroid blood tests, a more detailed thyroid ultrasound examination, and a fine-needle aspiration biopsy if warranted.
The press is reporting that there are 28 cases suspected of thyroid cancer out of 174,000 children tested and that 12 of the 28 have been confirmed to have papillary thyroid cancer. This is a bit misleading, as not all the children in the B assessment category in the Fiscal Year 2012 have finished or even begun the process of secondary examination. In other words, there could be more cases of thyroid cancer diagnosed in these 174,000 children.
There were 205, of 40,302 examined, qualifying for the secondary examination in FY2011, and 7 of the 12 suspected cases were confirmed to have papillary thyroid cancer. In FY2012, 16 were suspected of having thyroid cancer, and 5 of them were confirmed to have papillary thyroid cancer. However, 16 is not by any means the final count for the FY2012 group, as only 27.3% of the eligible 935 children have begun the process of the secondary examination.
Notable is the fact that 442 of 935 eligible for the secondary examination are from Koriyama, where the appeal for a group evacuation was denied recently. To date, only 1.1% or 5 of the 442 Koriyama children underwent secondary examination, yet 2 are already suspected of having thyroid cancer.
http://fukushimavoice-eng2.blogspot.com/2013/06/12-thyroid-cancer-cases-confirmed-in.html
for all we know (without looking it up ourselves)
Why are you arguing if you haven't even bothered to Google it?
"did not cause any immediate health effects" yeah because radiation causes long term effects, stupid.
So this article is supposed to make us feel good about the whole thing, saying, "look, nobody died, nobody is going to be sick, nuclear power is as safe as could be"? That is all fine and dandy (although some people are questioning these statements above), but what about the 100km^2 or so of land that have become uninhabitable for the next few decades? What about the tens of thousands of people who had to be relocated? Or does that not count because those people did not actually die, but basically just lost all their possessions and livelihood? Tough luck? Sacrifices for the greater good?
Sure, nobody seems to have died from direct consequences of the accident yet, but taking this as an argument for nuclear power is ignoring all the indirect damage that has been done, and that is definitely linked to the accident, and not the earthquake or the tsunami.
So it will work for Fukushima!
The control of the information is not with WHO you think it is.
or pussy joke
It's pronounced 'nucular'. Nucular.
If Fukushima is a success story, then so is Chernobyl (they managed to build a containment dome, which Japan has failed to do), and I don't want to see what you would consider a disaster.
You're comparing a minor loss of containment (Fukushima), to a complete and total loss of the containing vessel and a radioactive fire to help turn a fixed radiating source into an airborne radiation containment that spread over half of Europe (Chernobyl).
If you think these events are remotely comparable in scale you must be devoid of all capabilities for rational thought.
FYI: http://japandailypress.com/fukushima-thyroid-cancer-cases-rise-to-12-confirmed-15-suspected-0530049
Fukushima children thyroid
Help stamp out iliturcy.
I guess you don't read the Japan Times.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Not the AC that posted, but:
More cancer cases confirmed
The anti-nuclear power luddites are going to be so disappointed.
Liberty in your lifetime
Because Japan has better detection equipment and can catch it earlier. In fact a much higher number of children have growths on their thyroids, but they are not yet cancerous.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
What about the workers that died trying to stabilize the plant?
Same as Chernobyl: Nuclear Hysteria -> early screening -> increase in detected cases. I don't think that the Ukrainian Health System is that good, however, according to the WHO, the recovery rate from thyroid cancer "caused" by the Chernobyl disaster is far higher than usual. That means one only thing: early screening.
The earthquake that caused the tsunami that made Fukushima break (whew!) also damaged several dams in the area.
One of them washed away five homes and killed at least four people.
In response to this, they shut down the energy source that didn't kill anyone.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
Funny, as we've always been told that all the reactors being built were "totally safe!" and accidents like Tschernobyl and Fukushima would happen only once every 1000 years.
We have had no killer asteroid lately
So killer asteroids are safe
But it is reasonable that the industry will not ween itself for many years to come
But obviously you can't believe this, because they came to the wrong answer. They must've been bought. (First post? No, not likely.)
For those who claim this is a grand conspiracy theory, you can see the difference between theory and practice, within the actual text of the agreement, summed up by this 2004 quote of Dr Michael Fernex formerly of the University of Basel who worked for the WHO;
"Six years ago we tried to have a conference. The proceedings were never published. This is because in this matter the organisations at the UN are subordinate to the IAEA. Since 1986 the WHO did nothing about studying Chernobyl. It's a pity. The interdiction to publish which fell upon the WHO conference came from the IAEA. The IAEA blocked the proceedings; the truth would have been a disaster for the nuclear industry"
This is the history of how the International Atomic Energy Agency has been able to deal with the human health implications of Nuclear disasters by muzzling the science and medicine that can be conducted. For an accident as serious as Chernobyl even the hamstrung report from the World Health Organisation said;
"The international experts have estimated that radiation could cause up to about 4000 eventual deaths among the higher-exposed Chernobyl populations, i.e., emergency workers from 1986-1987, evacuees and residents of the most contaminated areas. This number contains both the known radiation-induced cancer and leukaemia deaths"
Imagine, based on the actual evidence, what the WHO may have been able to uncover had they been allowed to actually reveal the actual truth of the disaster. The Guardian however points out that the IAEA is ignoring the evidence of the volume of deaths occurring as a result of the Chernobyl disaster.The UNICEF report "Human consequences of the Chernobyl nuclear accident" summarised it neatly;
"Life expectancy for men in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine, for example, is some ten years less that Sri Lanka, which is one of the twenty poorest countries in the world and is in the middle of a long drawn out war"
This isn't from any radioactive fallout from the accident though, it's the economic fallout from a collapsed regional economy manifest as suicide and mental illnesses. So because they didn't die from cancer or radio isotopes those numbers don't get included.
Since cancer takes years to incubate, thus premature deaths and birth defects manifest over time. After this generation, the next generation and long after this disaster has passed into lore it will still be well within the toxic half-life of radioactive isotopes such as cesium 137, strontium 90 and plutonium 239.
The genetic abnormalities and diseases caused by this accident are generations away and unlikely to be seen by anyone alive today and direct exposure will occur as long as there is a food chain to absorb these isotopes and people to eat that food. So the occurrence of recessive gene damage that occurs across generations as the likelihood of combining those genes is increased as more people in the population ingest radionuclides via whatever means.
What we will never know is how many pregnancies fail to com to term from this catastrophe, however we are able to count birth defects, now a common occurrence after the Chernobyl disaster. The New York Academy of Sciences report r
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
And I guess you choose to ignore those paragraphs that conflict with your confirmation bias. From the article you quoted:
Researchers at Fukushima Medical University, which has been taking the leading role in the study, have said they do not believe the most recent cases are related to the nuclear crisis.
Last month, U.N. scientists assessing the health impact of the Fukushima nuclear crisis said the radiation dose for residents in the region was much lower than Chernobyl and that they do not expect to see any increase in cancer in the future.
My site
More like not using an ancient Soviet design for their core. Not good management, just reletively better engineering.
'Radiation exposure following the nuclear accident at Fukushima-Daiichi did not cause any immediate health effects. It is unlikely to be able to attribute any health effects in the future among the general public and the vast majority of workers. ...
that's a bald faced lie! www.fairewinds.com www.llrc.org have information to the contrary.
We've got a swath of "hot" sea water coming across the Pacific and the end of the fiasco is no where in sight.
Your citation is from BLOGSPOT? Seriously?
No *human beings* ... yet. Overlooking all the dogs, cats, cattle, birds, bugs and other wildlife that the damage quickly finished off. The human cost will be more apparent after 2 or 3 more decades of denial and astroturfing.
"You must try to forget all you have learned. You must begin to dream." -- Sherwood Anderson
Hello,
This person said he was having symptoms, namely, feeling the cold and being significantly tired. Having a messed up thyroid, even if not immediately fatal, is no fun at all.
I'm glad he got treatment and hope it helped.
--PM
Accepted cost of fossil fuels:
- average of many deaths per day in coal mining and oil extraction
- acute/obvious environmental damage
- acid rain
- global warming via CO2 emissions and the cost of all the damage, food insecurity courtesy of weather pattern changes, etc.
- all the radiation that comes out coal-plant smokestacks (many times the radiation from nuclear plants)
- all the war, politics, human right abuses necessary to ensure oil supplies
Nuclear power:
- moronic design (no containment dome) and mistake led to one Chernobyl
- a very rare 10m tsunami creates problems if it knocks out the vulnerable backup diesel generators for nuclear plants, all of which had shut down properly
- uranium enrichment divertable to bomb-making is NOT necessary -- see the CANDU design (i.e. tell Iran that if they want nuclear power, build a CANDU)
- need to take care of the waste rather than dumping it into the atmosphere and water bodies as is done with fossil fuels (bummer!)
irrational monkeys: EEEK, forget the accepted costs for fossil fuels, whatever you do don't use nuclear power!!
Of COURSE, conservation and all other energy sources should be on the table too, many of which are better under certain circumstances than either of the above means of power generation.
Yes I realize that -- which is why I claimed that potassium iodide prevents thyroid cancer, which is true, and made no other claims for it.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
And the Agenda 21 folks are.. you guessed it.. the UN, the very same folks who now say.. "hey radiation is GOOD for you!"~ "See.. all that Cesium and plutonium hasn't made anyone sick..!" "All the doctors listing increased cases of thyroid cancer are simply dumb..!" The UN officially called maintaining the worlds population above 500 million is "unsustainable", and the excess population must be gotten rid of.. "Hey how about a little radiation in the food chain?".. MMM irradiated donuts...
Right, I don't agree with you, therefore I am subhuman. Nice sentiment there. If you were born a few hundred years earlier, I suspect you would take pleasure in burning people at the stake.
No, the comparison is NOT a matter of the relative "badness" of the accidents, it is a comparison of the incompetence leading up to the accidents, and the degree of resolution of the accidents. They had comparable degrees of incompetence heading into the disasters. The responses, however, are on two different levels, with Chernobyl being far superior. With a dome in place, future problems are limited. At Fukushima, you get another big earthquake, or another tsunami, and you could have the first modern example of the depopulation of a major metropolis. This is assuming the spent fuel containment pools come tumbling down (great idea there, keeping the spent fuel in a pool near the top of the structure).
That is probably the odds of a given reactor experiencing a disaster. Considering there are 437 such reactors in existence, they were actually fairly conservative with their estimates. Of course, such a failure rate is totally unacceptable. This is why you want intrinsically safe designs, rather than overdesigned shitshows that require constant oversight (and that only burn less than 1% of their fuel).
No not subhuman, just irrational as you have displayed again suggesting that because I disagree with you that you should burn at the stake.
As for the responses now you're actually displaying your ignorance. The responses to Chernobyl were horrific. In Japan they rushed in to contain the issue, announced a state of nuclear emergency within the day, they rushed to evacuate the people (poorly but straight away), and above all they rushed in supplies of iodine to all the people in the area. Chernobyl was heavily criticized for how heavily the government downplayed the risk, the local city wasn't even evacuated. The government didn't even admit there was a major incident until 2 days later after several people were sent to hospital with radiation sickness. The result was a lot of cancer related deaths.
Just because someone dropped a dome over Chernobyl (which I remind you was a completely exposed reactor) does not make the response good. Fukushima doesn't have a cement casket because it doesn't need a cement casket. The reactor core is not and never was exposed. The meltdown happened internally and all radiation released was through relief venting of hydrogen. The cask over Chernobyl was to allow it to decay before cleanup can start. That was nearly 30 years ago. Comparatively Toshiba claim that the Fukushima cleanup can be done within 10 years.
Please don't try and tell me how bad Fukushima was compared to Chernobyl.
I won't be re-visiting this thread.
It is really hard to believe that a scientific committee will publish such a report when:
- the WHO (World Health Organization) published last February an official report proving the contrary ( Health risk assessment from the nuclear accident after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami based on a preliminary dose estimation. 28/02/2013.)
- 12 Fukushima workers (grunts) are already officially diagnosed with thyroid cancer and 15 others are considered "under suspicion of thyroid cancer" and are under medical watch.
- the sheer number of kids living in the surrounding within the 40km perimeter around Fukushima and whose thyroid problems are already officially diagnosed (after Fukushima) and are under medical scrutiny.
Even though the japanese governement doctors tend to say that the cases of Thyroid Cancer are unrelated with the fact that they are working at Fukushima, because they appeared "too quickly", maybe they should also consider the fact that they are constantly exposing themselves to radiation dosage much higher than what is legally authorized and that is also a proven fact.
Plus the sole number of 12 proven cases of Thyroid Cancer + 15 cases under scrutiny in the same work environment is a very high percentage (euphemism).
So, really, who are they kidding?
As we say in french : Ils marchent sur la tête ! (trans. : they act foolishly!)
It reminds me when the french government said that the Tchernobyl radiation cloud stopped at the french border and never crossed the country. Just as stupid and foolish!
It depends of the radiation dose you take on a daily basis... And the workers are submitted daily at a 5 years dose, when not worse.
This event was a success in that the safety systems prevented something far more terrible from happening.
Just one question: What did they do with the water used to cool down the reactor exposed to the sky? How did they treat/recycle/decontaminate/clean it?
And then talk to me about "safety systems" and "success story".
Plus right now it happens to the people and to the workers of Fukushima exactly what happened to the people of Nagasaki and Hiroshima : they are treated as outcasts. And that is a fact.
SO talk to me again about "success story"...