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.
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.
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?
No, thermal usually means coal.
I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous.
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.
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!
... 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.
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.
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?
Anyone know how they made up the slack besides conservation?
Yes.
Japan takes on more Iranian crude oil
Japan’s energy costs spiral higher
Trade Deficit in Japan Hits Record
Japan's energy imports may outweigh stimulus gain
Skyrocketing energy imports increase Japanese trade deficit
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
A new nuclear plant costs billions of dollars, and the only way they ever get built at all is if the government guarantees to backstop disaster liability with taxpayer dollars. Otherwise private investors would never touch them.
That doesn't sound particularly cheap to me. And in fact it isn't.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
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.
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
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
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