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."

12 of 143 comments (clear)

  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 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.

  2. 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 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
    2. 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!
  3. 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 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?

  4. 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.