Slashdot Mirror
First Cancer Case Confirmed From Fukushima Cleanup (nhk.or.jp)
AmiMoJo writes: Japan's labor ministry has confirmed the first cancer case related to work at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. Following on from reports of elevated levels of child cancer and 1,600 civilians deaths from the evacuation, this is the first time that one of the 44,000 people involved in the clean up operation has been diagnosed with cancer resulting directly from the accident. The worker was involved in recovery and cleanup efforts at the plant after it suffered a meltdown in March, 2011. He was in his late 30s at the time, and has been diagnosed with leukemia. The ministry has approved workers' compensation. Radiation exposure has been linked to the onset of leukemia.
The only link this cancer has to Fukushima is that "it can't be ruled out". Of course we can't prove the negative, but based our many years of studying radiation exposure at these levels, there is a much greater likelihood that this was just another case of cancer, and not caused by exposure at Fukushima.
Unfortunately out of thousands of people, there are going to be cancer cases (1.5% leukimia rate in the US), and so of the thousands of workers (over 45,000 according to reports) that have been at Fukushima, there are going to be some people with cancers, and some with leukemia. But one thing is for certain, every single case will come with the "cannot be ruled out" disclaimer, and get misleading headlines.
An accurate headline should read, "one person out of 45,000 that have worked on Fukushima recovery has developed cancer". In the US , approximately 1.5% of people will be diagnosed with leukemia, and it is more common in men than women. Did this guy smoke cigarettes? The risk is higher if he did. The news reports ignore important stuff like this. In a given group of 45,000 people, we should expect to see over 10 cases of Leukemia per year, but we've only seen one in 3-4 years. Why is that?
According to established radiation science and statistics, it is highly unlikely that this cancer is from exposure at Fukushima. He might be lucky that he and his family will receive significant compensation, unlike the many Leukemia sufferers who never worked at Fukushima.
Lets all hope he can get top notch treatment and beat it, and same for the many other Leukemia sufferers that don't get the headlines or the compensation.
And not to mention the 1600 deaths thrown in for effect are not radiation related, and not even from Fukushima, but basically any elderly person who has died in the area since the accident. It is sad that the anti-nuke crowd must rely misleading headlines and twisted statistics. How pathetic they are.
Over 1% of the population will be diagnosed with leukaemia at some point in their lives. So of 44,000 people, that is many hundreds. One case is statistical noise. If his exposure was really only 19.8 millisieverts, its probably not the cause.
No. Cancer takes more time to develop, we're only 4 years after the disaster. The announcement is to soothe the local and international disgruntled commenters about Tepco actions and consequences. You see, the disaster had people develop cancer - but there's only one person affected.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
The form of radiation that causes the most cancers, year after year, remains sunlight.
That's a good point.
I also suggest, if we're going to report this sort of thing, that we start reporting every time someone dies from disease due to a coal plant.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I know there's a lot of speculation and argument as to why but I think we're losing focus.
The fact is that a person who is sick because of this disaster and helped lessen it's influence is ill.
God speed to them and my best wishes.
You did great for your country and your people, and you have my respect from thousands of miles away.
The causal link can never be proven, but the worker in question was exposed to a dose over the legal limit during the clean-up operation. The deal was always that in exchange for taking on this risk, if workers developed cancer later they would be looked after and compensated.
The news report states this clearly:
Ministry experts determined that he was likely to have contracted leukemia following cleanup work at Fukushima Daiichi. They found he had been exposed to a total of 19.8 millisieverts of radiation from his work at various plants. He was exposed to 15.7 millisieverts at the Fukushima plant.
Compensation is granted if a nuclear power plant worker has been exposed to annual radiation of 5 milliseverts and has developed cancer more than a year afterward.
They are applying the agreed rules, and in any case determined that there likely is a causal link. Keep in mind that it's not just the dose, it's the type of exposure. Workers at the plant likely ended up with material inside their bodies, where it is much more likely to cause cancer than with external exposure.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
No one, including myself who submitted the story, claimed that those deaths were from radiation. They are a result of the nuclear accident though. People has to be evacuated (there was no realistic choice at the time) and lost their homes and communities. 1600 died before they might otherwise have been expected to as a result. That's pretty clear and straight forward.
Why do the pro-nuke crowd always have to attempt a straw man argument in every debate? Why not address the actual points being raised and defend your pet technology? You could argue that 1600 deaths is worth it for nuclear power, a perfectly rational, if somewhat utilitarian point. You could argue that in Japan the alternatives are worse, something we could debate at length. But no, you went for the straw man, trying to paint people who object to nuclear power as dishonest.
Maybe you should examine your own actions before making that claim.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Background exposure is rather different to the type of exposure the workers got at the plant. Most background exposure can't even penetrate the outer layer of the skin. It's also worth pointing out that where background levels are high, much of it is often due to radiation from the sun, and that is actually quite dangerous if you get too much exposure, especially if you have white skin.
The exposure that the workers got involved material like caesium, which got inside the bodies and can't easily be removed. When treated for cancer it was possible to examine blood or tumours that were removed and see these particles in them, indicating the source of the DNA damage that lead to cancer.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
> They are a result of the nuclear accident though.
A neat trick, given that they were caused by unnecessary panic over this... It's also neat how you do not have to justify the deaths from coal power, our main alternative to nukes.
Well, there is one other option, I suppose--you could go without electricity entirely, but then you wouldn't be posting here....