Fukushima: 1,600 Dead From Evacuation Stress

seven of five writes: The NYT reports that radiation-related hysteria and mistakes have cost the lives of nearly 1,600 Japanese since the Fukushima disaster. The panic to evacuate, not the radiation itself, led to poor choices such as moving hospital intensive care patients from hospitals to emergency quarters. The government's perception of radiation exposure risk, rather than the actual risk itself, may have caused far more harm than it prevented.

Comments

Another Win For the Anti-Nuclear Guys

[Anonymous Coward]

So fearmongering by the anti-nuclear body has lead to more deaths. Those guys are really doing a great job of increasing carbon emissions, increasing energy prices, increasing deaths due to continued use of coal fired power states, and now increasing deaths thanks to the fear of nuclear power that they've been spreading for years.

The reaction to Fukushima was totally overblown, and the media made it sound like a global catastrophe when in reality it was a minor incident that was primarily caused by continued use of a reactor that should have been retired. Had it been replaced by a newer reactor, as it should have been, the whole incident would never have happened, but then that's another example of how the anti-nuclear guys are endangering lives by not allowing newer reactors to be built.

Re:Another Win For the Anti-Nuclear Guys

[Mistakill]

You must realize that the Japanese people a fairly strong memory of the direct and indirect effects of Nuclear events, unique in it's own respect, after Hiroshima and Nagasaki...

I doubt anyone in Japan would have wanted to be within 1000km of Fukushima and understandably so

Re:Another Win For the Anti-Nuclear Guys

[Mr D from 63]

Some Clarifications to the 1600 are in order;

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/ne...

Around 90 percent of those who died of indirect causes were aged 66 or older, according to Reconstruction Agency statistics published in September.

Unlike those caused by collapsed buildings or tsunami, indirect deaths are determined by municipal panels by examining links between the disaster and the cause of death. This occurs when a relative of a deceased files a request.

Causes of indirect deaths include physical and mental stress stemming from long stays at shelters, a lack of initial care as a result of hospitals being disabled by the disaster, and suicides.

Many of these deaths happened well after the evacuation. So effectively all deaths of the elderly displaced are blamed on Fukushima. It appears there is extra compensation if you can attribute a death to Fukushima.

Re:Another Win For the Anti-Nuclear Guys

[Uberbah]

99.99999999% of Americans were completely unaffected by 911. So it must not have made any impact on the nations consciousness or changed any policies, right?

Re:Another Win For the Anti-Nuclear Guys

[Uberbah]

The Green movement has none of the power in Japan that it does in the US and Europe

If the Green movement had the power in the U.S. that nuke fans thought it did, all coal and nuclear power in the country would have been replaced with solar panels. In the Carter Administration.

After Fukushima, foreign Greens and their pet journalists swarmed in to fire up a mass movement like the ones in Western countries.

Greens didn't tell the Japanese that TEPCO was a habitual, corner cutting liar that put their employees and surrounding region at risk. TEPCO did that through their corruption and hubris.

But because there is no anti-technology movement in Japan, they will figure out how to do better next time.

Standard nuke fan storyline: if you oppose nuclear power, you're a luddite! Reality: you can be fascinated by the technology, but realize that nuclear power is the most expensive technology ever invented by man.

Let's pretend that the IAEA isn't as incestuous with the industry it's supposed to oversee as Treasury is with Goldman Sachs, and that there will never be a nuclear meltdown again, anywhere. Nuclear power is still completely unjustifiable, as no plant rolls the full cost of it's construction, operation, security, maintenance into the rates it charges much less storing the waste for hundreds of years.

Nuclear power == corporate pork and fluffing Tom Swift fanboys.

Unintended consequences

[Anonymous Coward]

This is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of unintended consequences of nuclear power, which seems to leave suffering in its wake for generations when something goes wrong. The bombings in Japan, Chernobyl, TMI, and now Fukushima. The children of the victims' children and the environment will continue to suffer the effects of a power that is just too great for humans to be in control of. Nuclear power has been a disaster and widespread adoption of clean, renewable energy can't come soon enough.

Re:Unintended consequences

[rasmusbr]

Nuclear power has been a disaster and widespread adoption of clean, renewable energy can't come soon enough.

Bullshit.

There have been multiple individual coal mining accidents that have killed more people than the entire nuclear industry has ever killed. Millions of people are estimated to die prematurely every year from pollution-caused heart and lung disease, and coal is one of the main culprits.

Every decision ever made to invest in nuclear instead of coal has been a life saving decision. The same could be said of investment in wind an solar in places where they can partially replace coal, but wind and solar will need to be paired with energy storage or long-range low-loss power distribution. Until we have either a cheap scalable energy storage technology or superconducting power distribution wind and solar will never replace coal.

And don't get me started on hydroelectrical dams. Dam breaches have killed more people than we could ever hope to kill with flawed nuclear reactor designs if we tried on purpose.

And yet

[drinkypoo]

The government's perception of radiation exposure risk, rather than the actual risk itself, may have caused far more harm than it prevented.

And yet, Tepco downplayed and lied about the actual risk, and the amount of radioactive material released, literally at every turn. That is, literally everything Tepco said about it was a lie, and it was actually more and higher than they said literally every time. Perhaps the public loses confidence in official reports when they are all lies?

Re:And yet

[AmiMoJo]

Even if TEPCO had been more honest, the reality is that no one knew how bad it was going to be. They lost the ability to monitor the reactors and had to assume the worst. It could easily have resulted in far more material being ejected into the atmosphere and surrounding area. Evacuation was the only option.

The evacuation was an inevitable consequence of the accident. The accident killed 1600 people so far.

Humans Can't be Trusted with Nuclear Power

[Anonymous Coward]

In *every* nuclear disaster, the *first* reaction of the people in charge is to lie:

1 - Chernobyl. Lies.
2 - Three Mile Island. More lies.
3 - Fukushima. More lies.

And before someone says this is an issue with private companies running nuclear facilities, remember that the initial Chernobyl denial and coverups happened under the control of a communist government, so it swings both ways.

The Other Victims.

[Mr D from 63]

You'll find that there were many deaths also associated with the indirect effect of the tsunami and earthquake across Japan. A high number of suicides,stress on the elderly were part of it. And the depression of many who lost loved ones or lost their homes and all their belongings.

The devastation from the earthquake and tsunami was massive, but all those victims get ignored because of the focus on Fukushima. 60 minutes did a Fukushima documentary, and didn't even find 30 seconds to acknowledged those countless tragedies.

Re:Oh No!

[Orgasmatron]

Yes, all zero of them have been fully counted.

Re:Emergency simulation tool needed

[drinkypoo]

An ex-colleague of mine,

You were fired for your poor communication skills? Drop the monospace text, snowflake. Nobody wants to respond to your comment even if the content is correct, because up yours too. And up yours is what you're saying when you set monospace text, which is harder to read. HTH, HAND! dbag.

Same issue with Hurricane Evacuations

[trout007]

Evertime there is a Hurricane Evacuation you get a couple dozen that die from car accidents or falling off ladders boarding up their houses to prevent looting, etc. That is one of the reasons politicians are wary of calling evacuations unless really needed.

Re:Same issue with Hurricane Evacuations

[AthanasiusKircher]

Evertime there is a Hurricane Evacuation you get a couple dozen that die from car accidents or falling off ladders boarding up their houses to prevent looting, etc. That is one of the reasons politicians are wary of calling evacuations unless really needed.

And yet politicians also seem lined up to cheer for security "theatre" at airports, when it can result in similar indirect deaths and injuries.

What am I talking about? Despite the common fear of flying and airplane accidents, car accidents are MUCH, MUCH more common to result in death or serious injury. Some studies have indicated that people choosing to travel by car rather than plane in the months after 9/11 may have resulted in the deaths of over a thousand more people.

I know a number of people who fly less frequently now partly because of how annoying it is to deal with unnecessary airport security. I have made that choice myself a few times, particularly for shorter road trips (say, less than 5-6 hours) where I'd be tempted to take a shuttle and fly before. Now it's just not worth the extra hassle and time -- I usually allow a lot more time than I used to pre-9/11 when showing up to the airport, in case the security lines are long or some idiot shuts them down with a water bottle or doesn't take his shoes off. And I have to be much more careful about what I pack or carry on with me -- in my car, I can bring whatever I want.

Anyhow, there are many estimates that road traffic increased by a few percent (particularly around holidays) due to people avoiding airports and TSA hassles. Driving is significantly less safe than flying. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the TSA has indirectly caused the deaths of hundreds or even thousands of people due to these kinds of decisions.

Anyhow -- going back to hurricanes, there are plenty of other reasons why politicians may be hesitant to call for evacuation. It does lead to panic. But it also generally increases spending on emergency services (something that requires more tax dollars, something politicians don't want to have to raise), while simultaneously moving people out of their jurisdictions, where they don't patronize local businesses for days (and, as you point out, looting can make things even worse), even with a "false alarm." People lose income as well if they evacuate for something that turns out to be a "false alarm," which also can be a hit for the local economy. Thus, the local economy takes a hit, the government budget takes a hit in providing extra services... all economic problems that politicians want to avoid unless absolutely necessary. I'm not saying they don't take unintended deaths into account, but that's probably not their primary concern.

Re:Oh No!

[Mr D from 63]

They are the foremost experts on this type of analysis, and they are not a nuclear power associated body but rather work to ensure global nuclear safety for all radio logical venues, including medical, weaponry, power, industrial, etc. You can find your personal excuse to dismiss these well documented reports, and instead believe whatever you decide, but you'll have a hard time finding the data, basis, and proven methodology presented in these reports. Do you dismiss IPCC reports on global warming as well?