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.'"
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!
... 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.
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.
Great article here on the effects of Cherynobyl: http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/backgrounder/en/index.html
It does indeed say many thyroid cancers took years to turn up - but the number STARTED to increase right away, and it's fair to report that hasn't happened.
It seems unlikely that any effects of Fukushima will forever be impossible to count by keeping statistics. You cannot, even with Cherynobyl, ascribe a *particular* cancer case to the one cause, even there they can only say that "the cancer rate is higher by X%". They figure that some extra 4000 will die of cancer (than would have gone on to die of other causes later, of course) - but this is across hundreds of thousands exposed, so it's an increase in cancer rates of 3%-4% on that large group.
Chernobyl had the problem that they DIDN'T STOP DRINKING THE MILK in the area, the contaminated milk. Nobody made that mistake with any food near Fukishima. Worse yet, the kids in the area were iodine-deficient!
The cancer rate increase from Fukishima could be, say, a hundredth of Cherynobyl's (it's probably less), and be 0.03-0.04% ... you'll never be able to say whether the number is higher or not, because the error bar on just COUNTING cancer deaths (when Grandma has cancer and dies of a heart attack, would she have had the attack without the cancer? A doctor's call on that can change the outcome.) is much higher than 0.05%.
The cancer rate around Fukishima could be, say 100,000 dead out of 300,000 people when we add them all up 60 years from now - when the stats said it should have been 101,000. Then some stats guy will have to wearily explain that it was really 101,000 plus or minus 4,000 - and if only 100,000 died, then in that area's case it would have been 99,890, because by 2020, researchers using the disputed "no threshold" model had put the probable deaths at 150.
So our real story here, is why are we caring about a death rate that is smaller than a statistical error bar that nobody gives a crap about, at least as a news story.
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.