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.'"
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.
Must be awesome to be someone with "vested interest in downplaying any serious problems". Just imagine!!!
Child: Mommmmmmm! I cut my leg with a chainsaw!
Mom: Nah, it's Ok.. you still have another one.
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!
Seems they were fine, burns were a "possibility" and they were taken to hospital only as a precaution.
Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
... 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.
And JFK was killed to prevent alien contact disclosure and the free energy is being oppressed by the Highlanders than run energy companies.
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?
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.
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).
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
And yet, no one seriously injured. Even the 3 people that were standing in highly radioactive water, they only had some redness that went away after a few days. They are just fine now.
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."
When a fucking crane collapsed on them because of the earthquake and tsunami! Some others drowned or were swept away. Yes sir, the tsunami was because of nuclear power! Maybe you should blame the 20,000 people that died on nuclear power too???
Now, get back to burning more coal! Burn baby burn!
For those that say Japan doesn't need nuclear power, you people don't know about economics. Japan is basically in a trade deficit because they have to import coal, oil and gas. Nuclear power saves Japan $50B (not yen, dollars) a year. Not only that, the money spent on nuclear power is spent on local employment using local currency. Coal, oil, and gas have to imported from outside Japan using up foreign reserves. They also create jobs outside Japan, while increasing local unemployment and poverty.
Japan has a choice. It will remain nuclear powered, or it will be taken down a few notches on standard of living scale.
There will probably be a slight increase in thyroid cancer rates. Luckily, thyroid cancer is one of the most-survivable types, especially when detected early, and people who were in the area will be checked regularly. The number of cancer deaths statistically-attributable to this will be very low, and as someone further down noted, the 20,000 dead by the tsunami will far-exceed them.
Further proof that the threat of all things nuclear is just a diversion to take our attention away from the true danger. Dihydrogen Monoxide. This is the true menace to mankind. If we would have rid this planet of this toxic substance years ago those 20,000 people wound not have died (in the tsunami). In fact we wouldn't even be talking about Fukashima at all right now.
I was diagnosed with Thyroid cancer a little under 3 months ago, I had surgery within 2 weeks of the diagnosis.It was diagnosed stupidly early because my GP decided to run a full blood panel when I had to go in to be tested for something entirely different (liver function due to a medication I was on, with previous history of liver issues triggered by prescription pharmaceuticals).
I've been told that due to the size of the tumour (about 8.5mm, too small to feel through the skin) and the fact that it presented as a single tumour only which had not metastasised even within the thyroid that survival rates is talked about in terms of 20 years - after which too many other factors can affect your survival that it can no longer be attributed to a 20+ year old cancer. It wasn't even recommended that I do radiation therapy.
In some respects I felt a bit of a fraud as I barely got sick (I was experiencing significant fatigue and feeling the cold a lot), but got all the 'Oh Noes, it's CANCER!!!111!!!' sympathy. The surgeon told me "If you have to get cancer, this is the one you want to get."
Sara
Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
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.
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
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
Are you seriously citing a website about oil as a reliable source for the dangers of nuclear energy? If so, then you're a fucking retard. And can't even spell "Fukushima", but that's a different issue.
How could any "fallout" from the Fukushima plant affect you 10.000km from here? And how the hell could it kill 14.000 children there? How do you estimate that? Don't you realize that the article you cited doesn't make any fucking sense?
Looks like you're another of the Americans who love to live in fear and ignorance.
My site
Nuclear power does not take into account the storage and reclamation costs. Recall that spent fuel that contains Plutonium-239, has a half-life of 24,000 years. After 240,000 years (10 half lives) only 0.1% will remain. After 720,000 years (30 half-lives) it should be fairly safe. We have yet to even solve that storage problem. And assuming you have, how much would *you* charge for 720,000 years of anything never mind radioactive storage? Then there's the problem just getting it to storage? In the early 2000's the us department of energy looked at the details involved in transferring items to yucca mountain when that was the storage plan. Their public report indicated: "that if 70,000 tons of the existing U.S. waste were shipped to Yucca Mountain, the transfer would require 24 years of dozens of daily rail or truck shipments. Assuming low accident rates and discounting the possibility of terrorist attacks on these lethal shipments, the D.O.E. says this radioactive-waste transport likely would lead to 50 to 310 shipment accidents. According to the D.O.E., each of these accidents could contaminate 42 square miles, and each could require a 462-day cleanup that would cost $620 million, not counting medical expenses."
Fukishima was a minor venting of material to prevent an explosion within the pressure vessel.
Chernobyl was a steam explosion that ruptured the containment vessel and blasted radioactive graphite and fuel rods from the reactor into the atmosphere and onto the surrounding land, and to a lesser extent, the globe.
Fukishima was a bad day.
Chernobyl was a disaster.
They are on such different scales that its not even a little bit close.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
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
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.
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
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