Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Researchers Say Fukushima Child Cancer Rates 20-50x Higher Than Expected (ap.org)

Posted by Soulskill on from the long-term-risks dept.

New submitter JackSpratts writes: According to the Associated Press, "A new study says children living near the Fukushima nuclear meltdowns have been diagnosed with thyroid cancer at a rate 20 to 50 times that of children elsewhere, a difference the authors contend undermines the government's position that more cases have been discovered in the area only because of stringent monitoring.

Most of the 370,000 children in Fukushima prefecture (state) have been given ultrasound checkups since the March 2011 meltdowns at the tsunami-ravaged Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant. The most recent statistics, released in August, show that thyroid cancer is suspected or confirmed in 137 of those children, a number that rose by 25 from a year earlier. Elsewhere, the disease occurs in only about one or two of every million children per year by some estimates."

143 comments

  1. Survey bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Of course when you go looking for something, you find more of it.

    1. Re:Survey bias by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Just so.

      In the rest of the world, children do not routinely get several ultrasounds per year to check for thyroid cancer. Is it really suprising that we'd find much more of something we're looking Really Hard to Find?

      So, I guess my real question is: Where's the control population that gets the same checks as the Fukushima population? And what's their rate of thyroid cancer?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    2. Re:Survey bias by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Precisely. There is no control group for what this person claims. When control groups are considered, these kids actually exhibit the same results. They find a lot more potentially cancerous cells when they screen with sensitive tests that have not been used before.

      What was done here is to take one set of data from screening and ignore all others. And yet, people actually print this crap.

    3. Re:Survey bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They DID already acconut for this. READ T F A

    4. Re:Survey bias by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's called population based screens. We have studied thyroid cancer for decades for obvious reasons. It's actually one of the easier things to (eventually) diagnose. We know what the baseline should be, the studies are getting higher than baseline levels.

      The one criticism from TFA

      Scott Davis, professor at the Department of Epidemiology in the Seattle-based School of Public Health, said the key limitation of Tsuda's study is the lack of individual-level data to estimate actual radiation doses.

      Which apparently is true but does not invalidate the population based frequency data:

      David J. Brenner, professor of radiation biophysics at Columbia University Medical Center, took a different view. While he agreed individual estimates on radiation doses are needed, he said in a telephone interview that the higher thyroid cancer rate in Fukushima is "not due to screening. It's real."

      It is something that should eventually be pretty clear, the issue now is to get as many cancers diagnosed when it's "easy" to treat.

      Now, does anyone actually believe what TEPCO says about how much radioactive material went airborne? I certainly don't. They haven't said anything truthful since the disaster occurred unless they have had to backtrack after somebody else called them on it.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    5. Re:Survey bias by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When control groups are considered, these kids actually exhibit the same results.

      Really? The child cancer rates are 20-50x higher everywhere than people think?

      You should read the article.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:Survey bias by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 0
      I read TFA.

      I especially liked the tear-jerker about the poor kid who started getting nosebleeds.

      Mind you, I'm not really sure why the author thinks that the nosebleeds are in any way related to thyroid cancer (the girl in question was not mentioned as one of the 137).

      I was also amused by the PhD who said "this isn't screening, it's real!". How the hell does he know? Did he actually go over there and examine patients or anything? And if he did, why wasn't that mentioned in TFA? Seems more likely he had a good sound-bite, so they ran with it in spite of him knowing nothing specific about the subject.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    7. Re:Survey bias by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      ... with ultrasound?

    8. Re:Survey bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Those screens are meaningless unless compared to a control. If you run a more sensitive test, you can find more pre-cancerous cells... but those exist in lots of people, not just the people near Fukushima. You have to do the same test on a control group or you're not comparing apples to apples here.

      I don't have to believe TEPCO at all--radiation is measurable. Let's look at measurements and methodology.

      You have thousands of earthquake deaths and we're still freaked out over the 0 people who have died from radiation.

    9. Re:Survey bias by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, they are not cancer rates at all, they are discovery of potentially cancerous cells, most of which are benign. In any detailed screening using this method, you will discover more cases that would not normally be discovered.

      The cancer rate is not higher than anywhere else. They tricked you into reading it that way.

    10. Re:Survey bias by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      It's CANCER. Even if you don't go looking for it, if you wait long enough the patient dies from it. Incidence rates of all sorts of cancers are well documented all over the world.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    11. Re:Survey bias by ilguido · · Score: 1

      There are many benign forms of cancer. You could easily live for years or even decades without noticing it, and in the meantime you could die from something else.

    12. Re:Survey bias by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Interesting

      benign forms of cancer

      No there are not. And yes I am a doctor. Cancer is by definition NOT benign. Now you may be referring to less aggressive cancers and yes there are plenty of those. Basal cell carcinoma for example. Some prostate cancers. Cervical cancers. All of those are very slow in the growing and spreading. However thyroid cancers, due to their location, are obvious pretty quickly. People tend to wonder about that lump sticking out of their throat.

      Still all of that is besides the point. When autopsies are performed, any cancers are noted even when the patient dies of unrelated conditions. For example almost ALL men over age 80 and ALL men above 90 have prostate cancer, although most of them die from something else. So yes you're right in that cancer can go undetected. But you are wrong in thinking we don't know exactly what the "normal" amount of cancer is in a population.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    13. Re:Survey bias by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Just so.

      In the rest of the world, children do not routinely get several ultrasounds per year to check for thyroid cancer. Is it really suprising that we'd find much more of something we're looking Really Hard to Find?

      So, I guess my real question is: Where's the control population that gets the same checks as the Fukushima population? And what's their rate of thyroid cancer?

      Is thyroid cancer one of those benign cancers that doesn't cause you to get ill? I ask because only if that's true is it possible for the rate in a control population to be the same as for the Fukushima children and we're not aware of it. Given a rate of 20-50 times the normal rates it doesn't seem possible that it's not related to the reactor meltdown.

    14. Re:Survey bias by hey! · · Score: 1

      But not necessarily at a higher rate than the established base rate.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    15. Re:Survey bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for this. My wife used to do cancer research but because I'm not a biology nerd I didn't feel comfortable putting these idiots in their place.

      Thanks for a much needed dose of reality, Doc.

    16. Re:Survey bias by gweihir · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That is nonsense here and rather obviously so. (The lies of the nuclear-apologists are really staggering and so is their stupidity...)

      The ultrasound makes you find it earlier, you know when there is a better chance to treat it. It does not make you find more at all. Cancer has a way it making itself known at some point and it has an extremely low spontaneous remission rate (i.e. it almost never vanishes by itself).
       

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    17. Re:Survey bias by gweihir · · Score: 2

      On the other hand, hairline fractures heal and vanish by themselves and many do not cause problems. Both not true for cancer. And for the _rate_ it does not matter at what time it has been detected. Really, how stupid are you people?

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    18. Re:Survey bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ehhh, What's up, doc?

    19. Re:Survey bias by khallow · · Score: 0, Troll

      Now, does anyone actually believe what TEPCO says about how much radioactive material went airborne?

      That is completely irrelevant.

      The one criticism from TFA

      Let us note that now there are other criticisms of the research. And lack of correlation with radiation exposure is another warning sign that this research is far from definitive.

      It is something that should eventually be pretty clear, the issue now is to get as many cancers diagnosed when it's "easy" to treat.

      Unless, of course, the cancers aren't actually cancers and treatment ends up causing more harm than it prevents.

    20. Re:Survey bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a gross understanding of both cancer, and of what the quoted statistics actually mean.

      The rate of diagnosis is higher - but when's the last time you got screened for thyroid cancer?

    21. Re:Survey bias by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Presumably if I had got thyroid cancer at a young age I would know it by now at the age of 63. I don't think I've ever been screened for thyroid cancer but of course during my yearly check-ups the doctor does palpate my thyroids to see if they're swollen and does check my level of thyroid hormones in the blood screenings. I don't know how long you can have thyroid cancer and not have it diagnosed but I doubt it's more than a few years.

    22. Re:Survey bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Incorrect. It has been estimated that every person has a handful of "cancers" at any one time, but a normal immune system kills them before they become symptomatic. They only rarely get out of control and result in a disease that requires treatment.

    23. Re:Survey bias by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      Just so.

      In the rest of the world, children do not routinely get several ultrasounds per year to check for thyroid cancer. Is it really suprising that we'd find much more of something we're looking Really Hard to Find?

      So what you are saying is that if a child does not get tested for thyroid cancer, the child will cure themselves of it?

      Seriuoosly cancer does not work like that most of the time. As in the really rare cases of spontaneous remission.

      If in a normal population, of say 100,000 children let's say 5 get thyroid cancer

      If these children in Fukushima get 25 cases for everty 100,000 children, and that is survey bias, and there is no statistical difference, Your thesis is that either testing causes thyroid cancer, or that the 20 extra children in teh unexposed set miraculously got better.

      Christ man - get you ass back to infowars - because that's the craziest shit I ever heard.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    24. Re:Survey bias by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Precisely. There is no control group for what this person claims. When control groups are considered, these kids actually exhibit the same results. They find a lot more potentially cancerous cells when they screen with sensitive tests that have not been used before.

      So what you are saying is that no one thought to compare the death rates? If children are going undiagnosed, in your idea that the cancer rates are the same - then they'll just die - apparently with no one knowing why.

      Seriously people, this is some of the stupidest reasoning ever. You figure the children from the control set would just mysteriously dissapear and no one knows about it?

      Talk about confirmation bias! deny, then come up with ridiculous proclamations.

      So is radiation effects on organisms going to become the new global warming/creationist/moon landing/aliens/chemtrails/water rainbows denialist touchstone?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    25. Re:Survey bias by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 2

      You don't understand what a control set is. They need to conduct the same screenings on control populations to determine if there is any statistical difference from the Fukushima population. And to this point, when that has been done, the findings of the Fukushima group are consistent and even lower than other groups. But this person intentionally ignores that data and rather uses a comparison against historical unscreened populations, which of course are going to be much lower because they haven not been screened.

      Its is simple scientific methodology, and it is completely ignored here in pursuit of a FUD driven agenda.

    26. Re:Survey bias by HiThere · · Score: 1

      It may well be several years, but I'd be surprised if it were several decades.

      The problem is, what is the false positive rate? I don't know the test at all, but there are rates of false positives that would make this not in the slightest alarming, and there are also rates that would make this horrendous. (And lets not forget that there are also false negatives, to complicate the matter.)

      FWIW, skimming the article did not reveal either the name of the test or the expected rate of false positives, making it impossible to evaluate.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    27. Re:Survey bias by HiThere · · Score: 1

      No, it's not cancer. It's an indication of possible cancer. What is the rate of false positives? I don't know, you don't know, the article didn't say. It also didn't name the test, so you can't easily look it up.

      You can't accurately tell whether this is normally expectable or horrendous. The information to decide that isn't present.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    28. Re:Survey bias by khallow · · Score: 1

      So what you are saying is that if a child does not get tested for thyroid cancer, the child will cure themselves of it?

      It is worth noting that does happen. Plus, sounds like we're not actually speaking of cancer. It's very possible that this won't develop into cancer over the course of a human lifetime.

      because that's the craziest shit I ever heard

      Yea, right. Now it's crazy to want basic scientific procedures, like use of a control group, followed.

    29. Re: Survey bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sound like a fucking idiot. Just stop. Cancer in fact does cure itself all the time you dumb shit.

    30. Re:Survey bias by sjames · · Score: 1

      Seriuoosly cancer does not work like that most of the time. As in the really rare cases of spontaneous remission.

      We don't actually know that. We know that thyroid cancer that gets bad enough to be symptomatic doesn't just go away spontaneously. We have no idea what percentage of cases detected in intensive screening will just go away because intensive screening is rare. We don't know how many of the positives are false.

      We have much better data on breast cancer screening. The big surprise there was that 20% of the detected (but asymptomatic) cancers do spontaneously regress.

      That may or may not be the same for thyroid cancer. We better figure that out fast or a lot of kids will get a lot of unnecessary procedures done on them and will end up on replacement therapy for life.

    31. Re:Survey bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Go back and read the comments of all of the Slashdot articles about Fukashima. Every single one had comments about how this disaster proves that nuclear is safe even though it obviously proved that nuclear is more dangerous than we thought (I, for example, had bought the nuclear industry lie that the Japanese know how to run plants and lack of discipline in the West is a big cause of problems). It's one of they ways that you tell whether people have a "truthful"/scientific viewpoint. Once their original explanations become impossible, do they immediately change to another one which matches their original conclusions or do they, however briefly, consider that they may be wrong? Think global warming:

      • there is no warming; the planet is cooling
      • okay, there is warming but it's just temporary
      • okay, there is long term warming but it's just localised
      • okay, there is long term global warming but it's not caused by man
      • okay, there is long term man made global warming but it's not serious
      • okay, there is long term man made global warming but it's not possible to do anything
      • okay, there is long term man made global warming but we should find a technical solution to compensate
      • okay, there is long term man made global warming but that can't safely be compensated for but... (no real idea where they will go next?)

      The same process happens in different places at the same time and you can even find the same people making different arguments from above to different groups. If you pay attention, within about two steps you have worked out the motivation driving the answers, which is to say that fossil fuel companies should not be held responsible.

      In this case the answer they are looking for is "nuclear is safe and we should be allowed to build more nuclear power plants". The facts are just an inconvenience to shape out of the way.

      Now, the thing to note is that there's a very specific thing wrong with this study. The control is not perfectly matching. The scientists involved say that the effect is real, the slashdot commentators, and some critics in the media say that the effect is not. Soon, however, someone will do a properly controlled study. One group or the other will turn out to be wrong. Watch to see if anyone changes their view just because they turn out to be wrong.

    32. Re:Survey bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now, does anyone actually believe what TEPCO says about how much radioactive material went airborne?

      That is completely irrelevant.

      Why is it irrelevant how much radioactive material went airborne?

      The one criticism from TFA

      Let us note that now there are other criticisms of the research. And lack of correlation with radiation exposure is another warning sign that this research is far from definitive.

      Let us also note that the data was not collected and made available to the public making this a very convenient argument for you. Care to cite a source of such strictly controlled information that such a University could access?

      It is something that should eventually be pretty clear, the issue now is to get as many cancers diagnosed when it's "easy" to treat.

      Unless, of course, the cancers aren't actually cancers and treatment ends up causing more harm than it prevents.

      Here you are, a Nuclear Shill planting the seed of a meme "Those children would have never suffered if they didn't start treating them for thyroid cancer". You're almost a professional.

      It wouldn't matter if this was peer reviewed a thousand times, every argument that criticizes the nuclear industry would be irrelevant to you.

    33. Re:Survey bias by ultranova · · Score: 1

      It may well be several years, but I'd be surprised if it were several decades.

      If an abnormal growth doesn't cause symptoms for several decades, it's by definition a benign tumour, not a cancer.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    34. Re:Survey bias by ultranova · · Score: 1

      The lies of the nuclear-apologists are really staggering and so is their stupidity...

      Perhaps. And perhaps the Anonymous Coward you're answering is pro-nuclear. We don't know, since he only made a comment on methodology. What we do know is that you're following a tribal politics approach to engineering decisions, which will most certainly result in lots people getting hurt needlessly, either directly or through economic consequences.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    35. Re:Survey bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't understand, no, don't WANT to understand, that cancer rates 20-50x higher than normal would be EASILY noticed if it were merely an artifact of intensive screening by the death rates of billions of people worldwide from cancer.

    36. Re:Survey bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is thyroid cancer one of those benign cancers that doesn't cause you to get ill?

      There is no such thing as a benign cancer. Tumors can be benign or malignant - the malignant ones are called cancer.

    37. Re:Survey bias by delt0r · · Score: 4, Informative

      It not a higher rate of cancer. It is a higher rate of *potentially* cancerous cells. But that is how screening works. Rather high false positive rates but generally much less invasive or cheaper than the more expensive test that has a low false positive rate.

      Here is the test. I test 400,000 children for a cancer that has a prevalence rate of 1 in a million. The test has a .1% false positive rate. If my child tests positive what is the probability my child really has the cancer. Note most doctors get this wrong.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    38. Re:Survey bias by delt0r · · Score: 1

      is that you angle o sphere?

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    39. Re:Survey bias by delt0r · · Score: 1

      or just a growth, aka like a wart. Our cells do that quite a bit throughout the body. It is why biopsy are needed.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    40. Re:Survey bias by delt0r · · Score: 1

      No they don't have 137 confirmed cases. They have 137 *potential* cases from a test that has a *false positive* rate. The quote are media BS "Dude on a phone said...". Show me the data. Real data, not "OMG Radiation!" Incidentally they don't even have that data. How many of the 137 were not exposed to *any* radiation?

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    41. Re:Survey bias by ilguido · · Score: 1

      Still all of that is besides the point. When autopsies are performed, any cancers are noted even when the patient dies of unrelated conditions. For example almost ALL men over age 80 and ALL men above 90 have prostate cancer, although most of them die from something else. So yes you're right in that cancer can go undetected. But you are wrong in thinking we don't know exactly what the "normal" amount of cancer is in a population.

      Are you suggesting that every dead person gets a full autopsy? Because that is not even close to be true.

      About cancer and tumors: you're right, but I don't think that who wrote this article knows the difference.

    42. Re:Survey bias by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but there are slow growing cancers as well as aggressive ones. Just because your doctor decides not to treat your prostate cancer doesn't mean that it's not cancer, it just means that it's not an aggressive one, and you'll likely die of something else before it causes problems. (Well, and treating it is, itself, likely to cause problems.)

      So the cancer not being an aggressive cancer wouldn't mean it wasn't a cancer. Benign tumors are different, and inherently limited (until, of course, they mutate). Most people have several benign tumors and just don't know it.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    43. Re:Survey bias by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Are you suggesting that every dead person gets a full autopsy? Because that is not even close to be true.

      In some countries, close to it. However you don't have to autopsy every single person to get a pretty good idea of how the situation is in the general population. If you did then statisticians would be out of work. Enough autopsies have been performed over the years to get fairly reliable data - but autopsies are not the only source of data. They were my counter to the "hidden cancer" argument. Quite a lot of people with cancer actually do see a doctor about it. Sometimes too late. But the capture rate is pretty high.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    44. Re:Survey bias by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      And now that I think about it: when you have no idea why someone drops dead, that person certainly gets an autopsy in all but the poorest countries. So the guy who didn't know he had cancer and died from it - well there you go, he gets added to the statistics. So the ONLY case that probably wouldn't get covered is the guy with a known chronic illness who dies from his illness and who by the way had an asymptomatic, undetected cancer. That's a very small segment of the population. OK I'm done.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    45. Re:Survey bias by rch7 · · Score: 1

      You may read about similar screenings in different areas, not related to Fukushima. The suspected case rate is lower near Fukushima. Suspected case doesn't mean full blown cancer. It may be just some cista for further monitoring. So these rates are not comparable at all.
      Typical Japanese diet is already rich in iodine. It is unlikely radioactive iodine would have much effect because of this. It was different after Chernobyl. Radiation levels were higher, typical diet was not iodine rich, and most important Gorbachev tried to hide it until radioactive cloud reached Scandinavia, so most people didn't take any precautions and were receiving full dose of radiation on first days.
      Some people are just paranoid or ready to lie to push their agenda.

    46. Re:Survey bias by ilguido · · Score: 1

      That is not even close to be true. The number of autopsies in the western world dwindled since the '70s. Here an article about autopsies in the Canton Ticino (Switzerland, not a poor country by any means): 304 autopsies in 1977, 144 in 2007. The same trend is present in all the other University and Cantonal hospitals of Switzerland. According to this site in the United States before 1970, autopsies were performed in 40% to 60% of all cases involving hospital deaths, while in recent years, that number has decreased to approximately 5%.

      So it is very likely that cancer cases can go unnoticed and that official statistics are based on an undersampled number of cases. This is quite evident in the case of Chernobyl, where the survival rate is exceptionally high, even though Belarusian and Ukrainian health systems are in a dire state since the '90s.

    47. Re:Survey bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You test 400,000. At a 0.1% false positive rate, 1 in 1000 tested will show a false positive, so of the 400,000, you'll get around 400 "positives".

      Your child has a 1 in 400-ish chance of having the cancer.

      Have I understood that correctly?

    48. Re:Survey bias by delt0r · · Score: 1

      Close enough. We expect slightly less than half a person to have a true positive. So it is closer to 1:800 chance that they have cancer. Wondering if anyone was going to answer. Btw that is the statistics of these 136 or whatever children that have not passed these tests. Mostly likely none of them have thyroid cancer.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    49. Re:Survey bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not my problem.

      Which neatly sums up the way the nuclear industry deals with its problems.

    50. Re:Survey bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's CANCER [...] if you wait long enough the patient dies from it.

      Popular misconception. Most tumors (including supposedly malignant tumors) resolve spontaneously. You are quite likely to have already had some.

      Routine screenings for most cancers result in an overall INCREASE in mortality. Tumors are found and removed. Everyone slaps each other on the back and feel good. More patients die. Why? Because many of these cancers would have disappeared by themselves and the mortality rate attributable to surgical complications exceeds the rate of mortality decrease because of cases discovered earlier. The expense, hassle, stress and suffering of the routine screenings for cancer (and many other diseases, btw) is better completely avoided with a very small number of exceptions.

      But, oooooh, it's CANCER!

  2. Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "20-50 times higher"... right?
    Still only 137 suspected or confirmed (note, not all confirmed).

    Big percentage of small number = slightly bigger small number

    1. Re:Hmm... by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 2, Funny

      Reminds me of using 6-sigma process on a widget made of 112 parts and 16 widgets/year.

    2. Re:Hmm... by Rei · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Big percentage of small number = slightly bigger small number

      Perhaps you should go around hospitals and explain this to the children with the excess cases of thyroid cancer while they're receiving their chemo.

      --
      The human body can be drained of blood in 8.6 seconds given adequate vacuuming systems.
    3. Re:Hmm... by ilguido · · Score: 2

      I don't think that early diagnosed thyroid cancer is treated with chemotherapy.

    4. Re:Hmm... by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Usually the thyroid is surgically removed and the person goes on thyroid hormones for the rest of their life.

    5. Re:Hmm... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Thyroid cancer can be treated with surgery and radiotherapy, that leaves a scar on the front of your neck. Sadly we know from experience that children will be bullied because of this mark, and will face discrimination. A course of radioactive iodine is usually taken to kill any remaining thyroid cells, and makes you quite sick for a while.

      After treatment, you have to take thyroxine for the rest of your life. That's 70+ years for these kids. Thyroxine has some side effects. Because you have no thyroid you can't absorb calcium properly either, so it tends to weaken your bones and make your teeth fall out eventually. Obviously you have to take perception medicine with you everywhere and be very careful playing sports etc. For children it can affect growth if not properly treated.

      In about 15 years their parents will start to get thyroid cancer too.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:Hmm... by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 2

      Reminds me of using 6-sigma process on a widget made of 112 parts and 16 widgets/year.

      Or using Critical Path Management for programming projects when you are the only programmer in the organization.

      Boss: [interrupting work] "I need to see a CPM chart with tasks and personnel."
      Programmer: "Okay." [produces chart with a horizontal row of connected boxes] "See? There's only one path, it's all critical, and it's all me."
      Boss: "Better get on it then."

      --
      <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
    7. Re:Hmm... by ilguido · · Score: 1

      Is this sarcasm?

  3. Same old trickery by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 0, Troll

    We've seen this hoax before, why am I not surprised there are people still pushing it? The only difference with this one is how poorly written it is. Cancer rates are actually lower than expected/normal around Fukushima.

    The same old deception. Use data from ultrsensitive tests that detect more pre-cancerous cells than what is found under normal testing, then claim that is an increase. But when these same tests are performed on control groups anywhere, they find similar increases in detection of pre-cancerous cells. A simple read of these claims show they completely lack any reasonable baseline or control group methods. Add it to the list of deceptions that keep being debunked but keep showing up.

    http://educate-yourself.org/cn...

    http://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/...

    http://www.aljazeera.com/indep...

    And, of course, the article linked in the submission doesn't actually even present a real case of cancer, just hints there may be, and twists quotes from random sources, not showing the context in which they were stated. They reference the data is from a university study, but do not supply the conclusions of that study nor write the article with input from anyone involved in that study.

    1. Re:Same old trickery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      the spelling error in the title shows how much effort they took...

      Reserchers Say Fukushima Child Cancer Rates 20-50x Higher Than Expected (ap.org)

      Reserchers... reserchers.. can someone buy the editor a vowel

    2. Re:Same old trickery by Triklyn · · Score: 3, Informative

      http://fukushimavoice-eng2.blo...

      found in the comments of the article.

      some kind of english translation, if you take it at face value, they were real enough to operate on, at least 99 of them were.

    3. Re:Same old trickery by Locke2005 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Give the editor a break... he has a vowel obstruction!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    4. Re:Same old trickery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You posted random blogs as your sources and got modded up? Slashdot is a bunch of conspiracy nuts at this point.

    5. Re:Same old trickery by Triklyn · · Score: 2

      checked the pdf linked in the rando article, don't read japanese, but google translate seems to believe that the blog post reflects the pdf reasonably well

      https://www.pref.fukushima.lg....

      which seems like a pretty shitty looking but reasonably legitimate government website.

      so yeah. i'm not bothered enough to question it further.

    6. Re:Same old trickery by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      who is they? that seems like a slashdot error.

    7. Re:Same old trickery by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 0

      And there is no indication of departure from the norm.

    8. Re:Same old trickery by chipschap · · Score: 0

      Definitely a slashdot editor's error, but besides poor editing, it seems like slashdot posts a lot of material that is poorly "reserched" with misleading headlines and questionable content.

    9. Re:Same old trickery by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      well, from what i gather pediatric thyroid cancer is 20ish in a million, vs here you've got something in 370,000?

      don't care enough to dig in further.

      just that the article seems to be good for the numbers and and it's not 1 real case vs 135 false positives.

    10. Re:Same old trickery by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 2

      Well, if one kid's cancer is discovered early and treated due to the enhanced screening started after the Fukushima event, that kid may be lucky that Fukushima took place, otherwise it may have been too late when discovered.

    11. Re:Same old trickery by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 1

      Parent did NOT deserve 'Troll'. The study mentioned in TA is controversial. People are moderating with their balls not their brains, and their balls shrivel up when anyone suggests there may not be some dire emergency at Fukushima related to killer radiation. But even so,

      We've seen this hoax before, why am I not surprised there are people still pushing it? The only difference with this one is how poorly written it is. Cancer rates are actually lower than expected/normal around Fukushima.

      Calling it a 'hoax' is going way too far, you should calm down too. It's still early to make definitive statements about cancers, but there is certainly no 'spike'. One of the main reasons the government took the (courageous) position that the thyroid abnormalities were unlikely to be associated with the disaster was, abnormal nodules were detected 'too soon' after the disaster when screening began, and their own health professionals assured them that these conditions take years to develop and were more likely the result of some pre-existing condition. And the last in-depth study was some 10 years prior, so when Fukushima occurred there was a lack of recent baseline. A cause for concern surely but not

      The same old deception. Use data from ultrsensitive tests that detect more pre-cancerous cells than what is found under normal testing, then claim that is an increase. But when these same tests are performed on control groups anywhere, they find similar increases in detection of pre-cancerous cells. A simple read of these claims show they completely lack any reasonable baseline or control group methods. Add it to the list of deceptions that keep being debunked but keep showing up.

      I'm upset at Fukushima disinfo too, but what can you do about it, especially when the AP is clearly in the market for scare stories, and the usual journalistic burden of proof and balance that applies in other things is relaxed. If your own child was given ultrasound and a 'nodule' showed up, you would not be subject to a hysterical reaction. The doctor would assure you that it should be monitored, but they do form and dissolve naturally. You'd be given nutritional supplements. Yet researchers feel free to insinuate a cause when it suits them. And even if they don't, journalists feel free to insinuate on their behalf by offering side-stories that make a 'connection'. To the slashdotter who ejaculated

      It's their fault for not being born in the great state of AMERIKA!

      and was also modded Troll... you're not far off the mark. The United States and others have added potassium iodide (for iodine) to its table salt for some 80 years now to counter endemic Goitre. Traditionally Japan has not iodized its salt because the national diet has been heavy with seaweed, a natural source, and there were were concerns that fortified salt plus seaweed might supply an over-abundance of iodine, which is also harmful. Perhaps some Japanese children have been starting to prefer Western diets and should, as are other rural populations, consider the benefits of iodization.

      http://educate-yourself.org/cn...
      http://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/...
      http://www.aljazeera.com/indep...

      all good sources for learning about the hysterical Fukushima over reaction that pull no punches. A lot of what has passed for 'news' has been crap. Look out for closet anti-Islam liberal bias though. Linking to the Christian Science Monitor is OK but l

      --
      <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
    12. Re:Same old trickery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am a Japanese who was living in east Japan. This website that you introduced is so trustworthy. The women who made it was a pediatrician in Japan. She is living in US now. After the Fukusima accident, she has chased this case all the time. She is a reliable woman. I am glad you found this website. Most of Japanese have ignored this report. Thank you.

  4. Apples to oranges... by superdave80 · · Score: 0

    show that thyroid cancer is suspected or confirmed in 137 of those children

    Elsewhere, the disease occurs in only about one or two of every million children per year by some estimates."

    Why do you include 'suspected' cases? How about splitting up those two completely different diagnoses? If it is 1 confirmed and 136 suspected, that would change the conclusion of this study, since it could potentially put it more in line with the estimates. Also, you would need the results of the same ultrasound checkups on a few hundred thousand kids living outside Fukushima to really determine if there is an increased risk of cancer or not. Going by some vague estimates isn't as accurate.

    1. Re:Apples to oranges... by jbengt · · Score: 1
      More than suspected:

      Shinichi Suzuki, M.D., Ph.D.
      Chair, Division of Thyroid and Endocrine Surgery
      Fukushima Medical University Hospitala
      translation:
      . . . Furthermore, 23 (24%) cases were positive for lymph node metastasis, and 2 cases (2%) were suspected of distant metastasis — multiple lung metastasis. . .

    2. Re:Apples to oranges... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      If they separate them they'll not be as scary and not have the desired impact. We can't have that, can we?

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  5. Cancer Rates 20-50x Higher Than Expected by frovingslosh · · Score: 0

    That is shocking, particularly since many people expected them to be about 100%.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:Cancer Rates 20-50x Higher Than Expected by tgv · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with you?

  6. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Are the usual pro-nuke ppl. here going to trumpet the same old "no injuries from Fukushima" line, over and over again?

    1. Re: So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would think by the way they talk, that they would both welcome more meltdowns and insist that radiation is actually good for children. Being alarmist is one thing, but arguing against radiation being bad for kids is a new level of whackadoodle.

    2. Re:So... by Shatrat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's no control for this study. You might as well logically conclude that ultrasounds cause thyroid cancer based on this.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    3. Re:So... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Are the usual pro-nuke ppl. here going to trumpet the same old "no injuries from Fukushima" line, over and over again?

      Probably, but nobody except other wackjobs believes them. The more interesting but infinitely harder to address question is whether or not nuclear power, with all it's warts (Chernobyl, Hanford, Fukishima, bog-knows-what-all-is-left-in-Russia) is more or less dangerous than fossil fuels in general.

      My best guess is that it's considerably safer since the data on coal looks pretty bad.

      The only real problem for nuclear is that it's too damned expensive compared to fossil fuels and now even solar and wind. It's a horribly complex technology that it's adherents fucked up badly by not carefully and consistently holding to the highest of engineering standards (like naval reactors). They cheaped out and they are paying the price.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:So... by khallow · · Score: 1

      You have to show there is a problem first.

    5. Re:So... by Cyberax · · Score: 2, Informative

      So, how many of these children died from cancer so far? Answer: none.

    6. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are retarded for not understanding what it being discussed and still insisting on posting here. Even more retarded are the idiots that modded you up.

    7. Re:So... by gweihir · · Score: 1

      They will. The stupid is strong with these.

      So far they have not managed to kill all of humanity, but they will keep trying until they succeed. I hope that some day we can screen for this type of evil early on and can drown them a birth.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    8. Re:So... by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Nuclear technology is great.

      Except when you have humans in the loop.

      Then .. it's pretty terrible.

      We need smaller, automated nuclear power which automatically shuts down by design where it is literally impossible for it to screw up.

      And then it still will a few more times over the next century. But then the lost areas will be a mile in radius rather than 12.5 miles to 50 miles in radius.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    9. Re:So... by pauljlucas · · Score: 1

      And if there's equipment failure (like there was at Fukishima caused by the earthquake and tsunami), it wouldn't have mattered if it was automated. Automated equipment can still fail (especially when it's exposed to sea water).

      --
      If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
    10. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nuclear accidents result in immediate problems for the population that is responsible for them - the people that run the plant and live near it.

      Fossil fuel results in long term problems for everyone in the world, whether they use fossil fuels or not. These long term problems are global and much more persistent than nuclear fallout from Chernobyl. People will be living in Fukishima long before ice caps reform.

      So yes, I prefer almost any type of nuclear power station over fossil fuel. Nuclear forces *us* to deal with waste and short term accidents instead of just kicking the can down the road so our great-great-great-great-grand-children are shafted instead.

    11. Re: So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hush cunt...hush.

    12. Re:So... by lazy+genes · · Score: 0

      It depends on funding.

    13. Re:So... by Spinalcold · · Score: 1

      You are right that it's all about comparing risks of different power. But fear of radiation is harmful on it's own. 1600 people died from fear of radiation while thus far no one has died of the radiation (estimates I've read vary greatly so I'm not going to quote any of them about the long term effect). Whatever your opinion about nuclear power, the FEAR of it is a problem and IS costing lives, whether that is this type of fear or keeping us dependent upon fossil fuels which cost a lot of lives.

    14. Re:So... by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Except they were. Several workers died while cleaning up the mess.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    15. Re:So... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      So far they have not managed to kill all of humanity, but they will keep trying until they succeed.

      Do you actually believe this, in which case you're insane, or are you simply lying about other people to make yourself seem better?

      I hope that some day we can screen for this type of evil early on and can drown them a birth.

      So killing children is awesome when it advances your political goals. But then what ground do you have to call other people evil for killing people accidentally?

      Seriously, can't you just watch wrestling or something for this sort of thing, and come discuss serious matters when your tribal instincts have been satisfied?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    16. Re:So... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      The only real problem for nuclear is that it's too damned expensive compared to fossil fuels and now even solar and wind.

      That's only a problem in the west where we not only don't have a level playing field by we actively balance it away from nuclear towards both green AND coal to protect the interests of the existing industries while paying lip service to the greenies.

      If you look to the middle east and to the west they can't build the things fast enough, and yet they don't seem to be bankrupting themselves.

    17. Re:So... by delt0r · · Score: 1

      Lets also not forget the 20 meter tsunami that caused this nuclear incident killed or washed away the better part of 20,000 people. Children included.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    18. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      holy fucking shit, anti-nuclears are fucking retarded, it's unbelievable.

    19. Re:So... by macpacheco · · Score: 1

      Not from radiation. Its quite hard to run around using full face masks breathing though regulators. Depending on radiation levels people are severely limited in how much time they can spend being exposed to radiation.
      The fact is those standards are quite exaggerated. If radiation exposure limits were relaxed deaths could have been avoided by allowing people to do their jobs in a lesser hurry.
      Tsunami killed 20 thousand people. Forced evacuation in a hurry killed hundreds. If people were allowed to stay in all likely hood far less people would die from cancer long term than died in the stress of a hurried evac (mainly elderly deaths). Or evac them more carefully.
      Fear of radiation actually kills people. Radiation itself only killed in Chernobyl and some older medium severity accidents (affecting people inside the reactor building). There were also many accidents in USSR, they actually hid stuff under the rug and lied about stuff back then.

    20. Re:So... by macpacheco · · Score: 1

      The tsunami killed 20 thousand people. A nearby oil refinery burned for days, killed dozens polluted the environment just as seriously as the nuclear reactor, but got no attention as nuclear/radiation=sensational, oil fire=boring.
      The problem isn't nuclear its the media that has been bribed by fossil fuel interests to put nuclear power under a microscope while giving fossil fuels a pass.
      Even if Fukushima eventually kills a hundred, it should have been a non event, as coal kills as many people every DAY ! Oil/Natural gas kills a hundred people every MONTH !
      So yeah, nuclear is safe, and you're being paranoid and unfair to the facts.

  7. Stop spreading misinformation. by Jack9 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Unless you have a double blind study to point to, why the fuck are you linking to some 3rd-hand article? "A new study says" is meaningless, in this context.
    Don't cite articles and call it news. We have a standard of proof, so follow it or you're part of the misinformation problem.

    --

    Often wrong but never in doubt.
    I am Jack9.
    Everyone knows me.
    1. Re:Stop spreading misinformation. by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      you have the lowest uid number i have personally seen. :) yay low 5 digit

    2. Re:Stop spreading misinformation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If only epidemiology were so simple. Care to point me to the double blind study showing that cigarettes cause cancer?

    3. Re:Stop spreading misinformation. by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 1

      Digit envy?

      --
      Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
    4. Re:Stop spreading misinformation. by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      well, yeah, don't you digit-envy it too?

      sweet sweet sexy 5 digit number... ooh, soooo close to 4 digit.... mmmm

    5. Re:Stop spreading misinformation. by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      and here's something

      http://fukushimavoice-eng2.blo...

    6. Re:Stop spreading misinformation. by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 1

      C'mon man! Size Doesn't Matter!

      --
      Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
    7. Re:Stop spreading misinformation. by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      it's not about size baby,

      it's about duration ;)

    8. Re:Stop spreading misinformation. by Josef+Meixner · · Score: 2

      So you intend to sign up to a study where you have a 50% chance to receive radiation which has a high likelihood of causing thyroid cancer? No? Why not, as you believe there is no proof it should be harmless, no?

      As you only accept one standard of proof, care to show me a setup to proof the existence of gravitation. I mean you just have to do the same experiment, one time with and the other without it, as obviously only a double blind test can show that there really is an effect.

    9. Re:Stop spreading misinformation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Some people say..."

    10. Re:Stop spreading misinformation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If only epidemiology were so simple. Care to point me to the double blind study showing that cigarettes cause cancer?

      You forgot to say "done on humans"

  8. old fashined Cold War Nuclear Bunker Remedy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Once it was a standard Item to Equip in your cool backyard or basement buried shelter medical kit.
    Iodine Tablets that protect the thyroid form radiation?
    They knew this in the 50's why aren't the children receiving this now as a precaution? Or is it now considered unsafe?

    1. Re:old fashined Cold War Nuclear Bunker Remedy? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Informative

      Once it was a standard Item to Equip in your cool backyard or basement buried shelter medical kit.
      Iodine Tablets that protect the thyroid form radiation?
      They knew this in the 50's why aren't the children receiving this now as a precaution? Or is it now considered unsafe?

      They thought about it.

      Dr. Yamashita, former Director of Fukushima Health Mangagement Suryey and a leading figure of thyroid cancer study in the world, has been actively involved in thyroid cancer research in Chernobyl for over 20 years since 1991. Dr. Yamashita was a radiation risk advisor for Fukushima prefecture at the time of the nuclear accident. Despite his experiences in Chernobyl, he assured that distributing iodine tablets to residents in Fukushima, even in the evacuation zones, was unnecessary. However, the distribution of iodine tablets had been discussed within Fukushima Medical University (FMU), especially during the first 1 week after the accident.

      But because no permission was given by the national government and the prefecture, the plan was never carried out. .

      Surprisingly, there was a group of people who took the iodine tablets under the circumstances. They were doctors, nurses, administrative stuff and their children/relatives, and the students of Fukushima Medical University.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  9. Correct treatment? Radioactive iodine abalation. by tlambert · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Correct treatment? Radioactive iodine abalation.

    If only they had some radiation with which to treat those cancers... particularly radiation in shell fish, given shell fish are a common source of iodine.

    Isn't it more likely that avoiding eating fish would account for the difference (assuming there is one, after you control for "suspected cases", and you compare to a relatively unexposed genetically similar population of children elsewhere in Japan, I mean)?

  10. editors... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please try to spell the at least the title correctly

    1. Re:editors... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I'm not really sure that you should be commenting about the editing practices unless your post was an attempt at humor? You seem to have some extra words in there.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  11. "Reserchers"? by codeButcher · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Reserchers"? Seems even the words are not immune to mutations.

    --
    Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
  12. Nuclear meltdown = cancer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SSSssssssssshhhocking

  13. Shocking! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's almost like they covered up how much radiation there actually was...

  14. Attie the Atom by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    "Clean, safe, and too cheap to meter."

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  15. All you fucking nay-sayers out to protect your... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...precious modernistic energy and technology!

    The study was released online this week and is being published in the November issue of Epidemiology, produced by the Herndon, Virginia-based International Society for Environmental Epidemiology. The data comes from tests overseen by Fukushima Medical University

    It sounds like that journal has been around for more than 25 years, and the study was done by a PUBLIC medical university. Why should there be such a great bias there to defeat the nuclear industry?

  16. Re:Correct treatment? Radioactive iodine abalation by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    One of those things I never understood.. how can arsenic be both a carcinogen, and a commonly used cancer cure?

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  17. Re headline: suggest "reserching" 'speling' by fnj · · Score: 1

    N/T

  18. Re:Correct treatment? Radioactive iodine abalation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Cancer cures are generally (always?) accomplished by killing cancerous cells, they're typically things that are bad for your body which is why they're targeted.

  19. let's start a new baseline by jafac · · Score: 1

    It's okay, because "nobody died in this nuclear accident".

    --

    These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  20. At least there's a silver lining by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    The GOOD news is that most thyroid cancers are treatable and survivable - except for the undifferentiated thyroid carcinoma which will kill you rather quickly and nothing can be done.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  21. Re:Correct treatment? Radioactive iodine abalation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most of our efforts at non-radiation curing cancer are attempts to kill the cancer before the treatment (or cancer) kills you.

  22. Astroturf... by Grog6 · · Score: 1

    Yeah, a 12 mile exclusion zone from a Quad Chernobyl, pretty much.

    Of course, none of the old rods that were in storage in the pools above the reactors burned and vaporized into the air, or anything. :) After they were exposed to the air for days or weeks.

    Hydrogen explosions in the main buildings when it was vented is the big memory I have; seeing that on the news, and knowing why there's hydrogen to vent, I know pretty well what happened to the reactors.

    Vitamin R; it's good for you. :)

    (to the paid astroturfers:)
    Check out what happens to an irradiation victim; there are IAEA papers on criticality accidents that are very informative.
    A real asshole would wish that all the paid astroturfers that have kids get to experience this first hand, with their families. But I'm not an asshole.

    The Louis Slotkin incident in only one of such occurrences; that's a rough way to fucking go. Look it up.

    A nosebleed can be a nosebleed.
    A nosebleed due to sudden temporary or permanent leukemia is a radiation exposure symptom.
    (permanent as in all the blood cells dying; a lot like ebola, really, at the end)

    Stories like this make it easier to make out the astroturfers; it's amazing that people actually get paid to shill. I'll never understand, I guess. :)

    --
    Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
    1. Re:Astroturf... by macpacheco · · Score: 1

      Radiation is everywhere.
      Massive distance from radiation levels that are likely to give you cancer from actual levels @ Fukushima.
      Radiation isn't like fire you can see and avoid. On the other hand radiation is everywhere.
      A little radiation is proven to be good for you. Otherwise cancer levels at Denver, SLC, Aspen and Vail must be higher than in NYC or LA. In fact its the opposite.
      If 20x background radiation levels were bad, there would be a serious pattern of more cancers among jet pilots than general population, last I heard, there are none.
      Astronauts at the ISS get 100x normal background levels radiation even with al the shielding. OMG 100x normal background, that must be deadly. Where are the dead astronauts ? And the ones that died from cancer. Trip to the moon even higher radiation levels (outside van allen belt). Where are the dead astronauts ???
      You need to go a thousand times higher than normal background levels before we can begin to argue that results in people have higher cancer risks.
      Yet radiation levels in Fukushima outside the plant never got that high. Never got to ISS high radiation levels.
      Chernobyl was the only serious accident because the guts of the reactor burned for days, vaporizing all kinds of nasty stuff. Still 2 million deaths was predicted, but 1000 so far (including suicide by vodka) predicted 10 thousand.
      Its easy to have this anti nuclear prejudice and write everything that doesn't match your deadly expectations as a conspiracy theory.
      Every new nuclear accident actually serves to prove our radiation standards are too strict. Those radiation standards are a big part of why nuclear is too expensive. We shouldn't actually need that proof, as many radiation studies already indicated that, but US NRC and other nuclear regulatory bodies are too concerned with making nuclear as expensive as possible instead of making it safe without crazy and unreasonable regulation.

  23. This can mean only one thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This can mean only one thing, and that is that these "researchers" are not good at their jobs. Then the outcome is not what is expected, it is because the expectations were wrong.

    1. Re:This can mean only one thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It could also mean you don't know what the fuck you are talking about

  24. Re:Correct treatment? Radioactive iodine abalation by gweihir · · Score: 1

    The thing is that current cancer therapies cause cancer. The the risk is just less than 100%, so it is worth it.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  25. Re:All you fucking nay-sayers out to protect your. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The screening data is from Fukushima Medical University. They are not making these claims. Their data is being used by the "environmental" society you referenced in a biased manner. They used the guise for the Fukushima Medical University to try and claim a peer review, however society study was not. I see they fooled you as well. They are good at that.

  26. They didn't give the residents iodine tablets by Solandri · · Score: 1
    Don't blame nuclear for this one. They didn't give the residents iodine tablets. They distributed the tablets at the time of the accident, but never gave them to the evacuated residents. That's pretty much like if the Titanic had had enough liferafts to save everyone, but after it struck the iceberg they decided not to put anyone aboard the liferafts. Yeah the ship sank, but the deaths were caused by the safety measure in place to save the people aboard not being used, not the sinking itself.

    It's a horribly complex technology that it's adherents fucked up badly by not carefully and consistently holding to the highest of engineering standards (like naval reactors). They cheaped out and they are paying the price.

    Yup, it's fucked up so badly that it kills fewer people per MWh generated than any other power source, including solar, wind, and hydro. Shame on us for creating the safest form of power generation in the history of mankind.

    You can't compare to a vacuum. You can't look at fatalities or injuries caused by a nuclear accident, compare to some hypothetical universe where that nuclear power plant (and only that nuclear power plant) didn't exist, and criticize nuclear power for killing those people. A valid comparison must use opportunity cost. Everything has some danger, some risk of death.. If the nuclear plant hadn't been there, some other type of plant would've had to be there to generate the same amount of electricity. That's the alternative case you have to compare against, not a vacuum. How many deaths would that alternate power plant have caused?

    When you crunch the statistics that way, you find that had the nuclear plant been replaced by any other type of power plant, statistically you would've killed more people. Even wind, solar, and hydro are more dangerous. Or put in relative terms, replacing coal, gas, hydro, wind, and solar plants with nuclear plants saves lives.

  27. Misleading title by YoungManKlaus · · Score: 1

    Rates are 20-50x higher than _normal_, everyone _expected_ a significant increase.

  28. Yeah, but they have't *died*. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or at least not yet, so this PROVES nuclear is safe, even when it fails (due to something that is 100% not any fault at all in the design, operation, procedures or company structured responsibility).

  29. Stress by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

    Stress does all sorts of bad stuff to you, and the constant stress of having your hometown flooded, irradiated, possibly losing family members and being permanently uprooted can't be good.

  30. 40% of world's malnourished children are in India by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    40% of the world's malnourished children are in India.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...

    Why nobody is concerned?

  31. There isn't enough radiation exposure by macpacheco · · Score: 1

    OMG ! All of this paranoia.
    Radiation level was far too low to actually cause detectable increase in cancer cases.
    I'm positive when this is all said and done, 10 years from now there will be no significant increase in cancer cases and no reason to believe in additional cancer deaths over normal levels.
    Having small cancer formations happen to a lot of people without actually being a 'cancer case'. It could be benign, it could also not evolve into cancer (uncontrolled multiplication of cells).
    Radiation safety standards are too paranoid.
    Chernobyl was calculated to kill 2 million people. Instead running counter is around 1000 people (including suicide by vodka) and highest scientific peer reviewed estimates less than 10 thousand people. From 10 thousand to 2 million, that's 200x discrepancy.
    TMI killed nobody and didn't cause any detectable increase in cancer levels.
    So once again, the anti nuclear paranoid are creating a whole story of mass cancer cases and deaths, so once this is disproven those with anti nuclear bias can cry "conspiracy theory with tepco, japanese government and IAEA sweeping it under the rug".
    From sea level radiation levels in LA or NYC to airline flying = 20x increase in radiation levels. From sea level to ISS = 100x increase in radiation levels. Yet pilots/flight attendants and astronauts aren't dying from cancer in droves. Exposure levels from Fukushima were much lower than ISS. So no cancers and no deaths.