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.
Complete nonsense Slashdot as usual.
His workers compensation was part of his contact.
Plenty of people get Luekemia.
There is not a single person in the world who can determine what caused this.
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.
It is important to know their criteria for the decision, not just the decision itself.
From TFA:
"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."
that depends certainly upon the irradiation level... and some of the Fuk workers received a pretty high irradiation dose.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
that depends certainly upon the irradiation level... and some of the Fuk workers received a pretty high irradiation dose.
No, none of them got high doses.
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...
He was entitled to a payout regardless of the cause.
The only thing confirmed was that.
According to TEPCO, seven TEPCO workers were exposed to radiation over the limit of 100 millisievert by the morning of 20 March
And it's "According to Tepco" ....
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
About a half-dozen people worldwide received the same news at their doctor, thanks to exposure to emissions from diesel vehicles and coal-fired power plants.
Ric Romero will not have more on this breaking story tonight at 11, though, because those cancer cases are boring. No scary glow-in-the-dark stuff, no chanting protesters, no sit-ins at administration buildings, no outraged editorials.
Life goes on, except when it doesn't.
Albeit for the U.S. since I can't read Japanese. The death rate from leukemia in the U.S. (p. 401) is about 3.8 per 100,000 for males aged 45-54 (figure a few years between diagnosis and death, since he was diagnosed in his late 30s). It's tough to say for certain without a demographic breakdown of the 44,000 clean-up workers. But 1 case per 44,000 (2.3 per 100,000) is pretty close to what you would expect from the general population.
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.
"Clean, safe, and too cheap to meter"
You are welcome on my lawn.
That's a good point
Really? w
In the aftermath of the accident, 237 people suffered from acute radiation sickness (ARS), of whom 31 died within the first three months (...) over 6000 cases of thyroid cancer have been reported
Stop waiting.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
The worker mentioned in the story had a total dose of about 20 millisieverts, and included his work at another plant plus the Fukushima dose. Some reports made it seem higher, but they were adding the 15.7 mSv in twice.
One worker, who was exposed to 670 mSv, has about a seven percent higher chance of developing cancer sometime in his life. The rest had smaller doses.
On the other hand, two workers died from heart attacks brought on by heat exhaustion caused by the radiation suits.
The only link this cancer has to Fukushima is that "it can't be ruled out".
Well, at least the Fukushima workers now have ironclad anti-cancer insurance. Any condition any of them develop will be automatically assumed to have come from Fukushima, and Tepco will be on the hook.....
Also, hopefully, they were all given some sort of short-term compensation and much extra hazard pay for all the perceived hazards they endured.
ok, you're right I'm wrong lol
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Still, sunlight is the most important source of radiation caused cancer by far.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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?
That's a very good question, but it's a bit misleading to quote U.S. statistics - it might be different in Japan. There are countries with significantly higher/lower rates of particular cancers (and other diseases) for various reasons, and we should be quoting the "normal" rate for this cancer in Japan, not the USofA.
They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
But 1 case per 44,000 (2.3 per 100,000) is pretty close to what you would expect from the general population.
The actual rates in the general population are much higher.
You are quoting based on numbers of deaths vs. number of people contracting Leukemia.
The actual numbers a 13.0 per 100,000 people, for 2014, per the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society:
https://www.lls.org/sites/defa...
Nobody disputes the deaths from acute radiation sickness cases. However, "millions of cancer patients" have not materialized.
You are off by a factor of 100.
43000 people in USA are diagnosed with leukemia. Out of over 300 million.
It's about 0.013%
Not 1.5%
Whether he deserves the payout is a different issue from how the media should cover it.
That's 675 people that would have leukemia whether they were part of the cleanup or not.
1:44000 cancer rate is much better than the general population. Statistically, it sounds more like radiation prevents cancer. Statistically, there should be about 200 cancer cases in that 44000, and 10 or so of them leukemia.. Or are there 201/11 cases, so the last one is being assigned to the cleanup, and we aren't hearing about the other 200 because people don't understand statistics, so the truth is kept from us for our own protection?
Learn to love Alaska
It's impossible to assign a single cancer death to any diffuse cause such as pollution or radiation. Three people were "confirmed" dead at Fukushima: two drowned when the tsunami came over the seawall, and one was in a high crane on the property that tipped over during the earthquake.
And you conclude that because the exposure was higher than the allowed limit it must have been "high"?
3500-4500 millisievert (sources vary) is "high". That is the LD50 for near term lethality with no medical intervention.
2000 is "high". That is LD10 and causes haemmorhage.
1000 is borderline. Practically nobody dies. Mild sickness.
200 is not high. Temporary reduction in white cell count is about it.
100? No detectable gross effects. Most definitely not "high" in any meaningful sense. The occupational annual exposure limit in the US for workers in the industry is 50. They just went moderately over that. There are places on the earth where the natural background approaches 40.
According to here - http://ganjoho.jp/en/professio... the highest incidence rate recorded in Japan for Leukemia was 10.6 cases per 100,000 which occurred in men in 2010. Over the prior 25 years it ranged from 4.5 to the peak of 10.6 but interestingly all the lower counts are early in the records. So either instances of Leukemia have doubled or instances of diagnosis have double (or combination of course).
So realistically we would expect to see between 2 and around 5 cases of Leukemia in the given population. Once you get above 5-6 per year you would definitely argue that there had been an impact.
In the US, they've entertained the idea to stop testing donor's blood for HTLV-1/2 because it's so rare in North America, but in Japan, the virus is epidemic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
Based on the criteria for compensation described in the article, it looks like the HTLV status of this worker has never been taken into any consideration, so just because his claim was valid and was accepted, doesn't at all mean that there's a correlation between the events.
So they can tell exactly where you 'caught' your cancer from now? I dunno. It sounds a lot like Astrology and Climatology to me. Not real science.
It is the radio-isotopes ejected from the exploding reactors that are the threat to people, as opposed to the radiation. Radioactive *isotopes* analogue other elements when presented to a metabolism in the food chain. Take plutonium for example, it analogues iron when presented to a human metabolism, is a high energy alpha emitter and is extremely toxic.
Oppenheimer's work found that 1 millionth of a gram of plutonium is a carcinogenic dose in the human body and Leukemia is a consequence of absorbing plutonium chloride. Whether you believe this was related or not to Fukushima depends on if you think this man absorbed a microgram or two of 239 pu from cleaning up a recently exploded nuclear reactor.
Some radioactive isotopes analogue appear to be nutrients to living metabolisms, so they bio-accumulate in the food chain. They cannot be detected with the senses like (taste, touch etc) no matter how toxic to life processes they are.
Once a radio-isotope is inside the body, the body identifies it as a nutrient and uses it as such. If it is deposited in the bones, in the case of a calcium analogue like strontium 90 as an example, it will continue to emit radiation creating a condition for cancer to incubate (typically 6 years). An iron analogue, like plutonium 239, will most likely end up where all the other iron in the body goes.
When the subject dies and is buried or cremated those radionuclides are released back into the environment where it is available to be ingested again. This is the nature of radioactive isotopes and the primary reason containment of Nuclear industry radio isotope effluent is so important.
Looking to the patterns of absorption, six years after Chernobyl the W.H.O were recording the incidents of thyroid cancer in children increasing in thousands per month before their funding to continue recording the data was pulled by the IAEA, who maintain interdiction powers over the WHO publishing about matters involving the Nuclear Industry and health reporting.
So it is reasonable to expect 2017 as the *start* of seeing the direct effects of people who have been exposed to radioisotopes either in the air (through fallout) or the water table as directly from the accident, hopefully there will be very few. That these cases are happening in 2015 suggests that the people working at the reactor suffered much more exposure than we were led to believe by TEPCO.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
(1.5% leukimia rate in the US {..} In the US, approximately 1.5% of people will be diagnosed with leukemia, {...} 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?
Why is that? That's because the number you have are for the US, and this happens in Japan.
Numbers might differ (e.g.: Among cardiovascular Japan has lower rates of heart stroke, and more brain stroke) for a whole range of reasons.
(Different environment, different habits lifestyles, some slight genetic difference, specially given Japan high tendency to remain isolated/insular across history, etc.)
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Ministry experts determined that he was likely to have contracted leukemia following cleanup work at Fukushima Daiichi.
The Ministry confirmed nothing.
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.
The claimant does not have to even show that the cancer is related to the work. It may or may not be but based on the chance they get compensated.
I know it is strange for some countries but some governments compensate based on likely causes and not absolute proof.
You also need to take into account random variability. It seems* that you need to have above 8 cases per year for it to be statistically significant for a single year, but if it is a persistent pattern, less will do.
:-)
*Unless I have made a mistake in my statistics, which is really likely. To get a conservative estimate, I used the binomial distribution with 45000 trials and a change of success in each at 0.0001, and then checked at what number of successes the cumulative probability of getting more successes was below 0.05. Please correct me if I am in error
The form of radiation that causes the most cancers, year after year, remains sunlight.
That's a good point
Really? w
In the aftermath of the accident, 237 people suffered from acute radiation sickness (ARS), of whom 31 died within the first three months (...) over 6000 cases of thyroid cancer have been reported
So, 6000 cases of cancer over 30 years, which is around 200 per year. Are you saying that there are less then 200 cases of skin cancer per year worldwide? Even if all of those 6000 cases where in the same year, the number of skin cancer cases, most of which are caused by the sun, would dwarf that number.
http://www.cancerresearchuk.or...
No need, my numbers are accurate, so long as most of the cleaners weren't retired, called up for a cleaning.
Learn to love Alaska
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
That is a gross oversimplification. Receiving a dose of 200uSv via exposure to something like x-rays is very different to being exposed to 200uSv that includes particulate matter that will accumulate inside the body. The former is a one time "hit", the latter is much more likely to lead to cancer because the material can sit inside the body slowly damaging DNA.
Sadly that XKCD chart and nonsense like the "banana equivalent dose" have spread a lot of misinformation about this. Not all types of radiation exposure are equal.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The diagnosis itself is not a causal one, and the exposure "is nearly four times the annual dose allowed for nuclear workers in Japan but is less than half the amount US nuclear workers can be exposed to in a single year." (BBC: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...).
As for the 1,600 deaths in the evacuation - not one of them was as a result of exposure to anything except the hysteria that comes from exactly this kind of overblown fluff.
Disgusting.
Elevated by increased screening, not by radiation. http://thebreakthrough.org/ind...
No, they did not determine there is a causal link, the author of this particular article you chose did write it so as to mislead you into believing. Read some other articles that more accurately explain it please.
You are off by a factor of 100. 43000 people in USA are diagnosed with leukemia. Out of over 300 million.
It's about 0.013% Not 1.5%
No,
Approximately 1.5 percent of men and women will be diagnosed with leukemia at some point during their lifetime
http://seer.cancer.gov/statfac... Of course, leukemia kills many of its victims rather quickly, so at any given time there is not 1.5 percent of the population with leukemia.
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.
Soothe? You think politicians and Tepco are so stupid to think admitting this as a disaster related victime will soothe anything? It revives the public interest that was slowly dwindeling and could cost Tipco a big amount of money. NOT something either of them would do voluntarly.
If they admitted this as a disaster related victim I'm sure they felt they had no choice...
There is a difference in the statistics, so it is good you point this out. The 1.5% US stat is the probability to contract Leukemia in one's lifetime, the incidence rate in Japan you cite is the number of new cases of Leukemia in a given year. Yours is the better number to use. Thanks.
I smell your fear or anything labelled 'radioactive'. Have any facts to back up you assertions? Don't bother, I know the answer.
Your assertion is wholly unconvincing sans citations. Care to provide links to your source material, or are you simply trying to push you anti-nuclear, anti-government agenda?
Almost 16,000 people are known dead with another 1200 missing after the tsunami. We have no idea how many got sick or injured. One case of cancer that hopefully will not be fatal makes the news.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
God damit. No it is not a fucking 100000 year problem. Where you come up with this shit. Reprocess it is like 100 to 200 years. Not reprocess something like 3-8 centuries depending on how you slice "background rates".
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
Citation please. Specifically which statistics and which science are you referring to?
Really. You're suggesting a man working at a site containing three exploded Nuclear Reactors in some form of melt down is *unlikely* to have contracted cancer from being exposed to the variety of radionuclides absorbed there. That is truly a breathtaking leap of faith considering you don't know what work he did there and how long he did it for. Instead, you're saying we should be looking at his personal life for a *more likely cause* like smoking cigarettes. Now there is a potent warning against the dangers of cigarettes.
Perhaps we shouldn't rule out the possibility of exposure to highly soluble plutonium chloride created when sea water was pumped into the reactor cores to cool them. Coincidentally it is an iron analogue that would probably circulate in the blood as a highly energetic alpha emitter were you to absorb enough of it.
Well there is something we can agree on. These people risked being exposed to the highly energetic elements ejected when those three reactors exploded and worked there for days and months after the disaster. No one really knows how much material was there and because of their work we are all indebted to them for the situation not becoming any worse. I hope every single one of them and their families are looked after for the rest of their lives.
TEPCO executives may have been assholes, however the TEPCO workers are real life heros.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
It's really hard to say, I think - the radiation exposure it possibly a risk factor. But how long does it take from exposure to detection of cancer is a detail I'm not sure about.
If you consider, for example, the connection between having sex and having a baby (and for the sake of example, ignore all the signs in between), and you took a sample of women who had babies three months after having sex, you could perhaps conclude that there is no relationships between having sex and having a baby.
Is 4 1/2 years enough time after the radiation exposure for cancer to develop and be detected?
You will be able to get far better statistics by looking at your Fukushima population in say 2030 and comparing your cancer rate to the general population.
It's really hard to say, I think - the radiation exposure it possibly a risk factor.
It's not radiation exposure so much as the absorption of radionuclides from the reactors. From the amount of seawater used to cool the plant plutonium chloride is extremely likely to have been created.
But how long does it take from exposure to detection of cancer is a detail I'm not sure about.
Is 4 1/2 years enough time after the radiation exposure for cancer to develop and be detected?
From what I've learned about Chernobyl, I was expecting six years. I really hope it is unrelated because for it to be this early it is concerning about how much and how energetic the elements released were. Only TEPCO can tell us.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Reprocessing is *not* theoretical. How do you think we enrich in the first place? Also the french are doing as are the Japanese. Just on a small scale. But yea its being done. Not theory. And yea reprocessing does work like that. Pulling numbers out of your arse like 100000 years? WTF, citation required. You won't find one outside a equally clueless post on the internet.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
When you don't have facts, clam conspiracy and cover up. 'only TEPCO knows' is utter bullshit. There are plenty of surveys of area contamination and details are published annually (link below). Exposures are tightly monitored. You can measure internal contamination quite easily, it is done in portal monitors every time a worker leaves the site.
http://www-pub.iaea.org/books/...
Here is something to help you better gauge the risks. The exposure received by this worker is closer to the zero mark than the next mark above it (250).
http://jmsc.hku.hk/sites/healt...
Sadly, they won't. I've noticed their posts since they decided I was their foe. She simply refuses to look at, confirm, or accept any contrary evidence and will repeat the same thing in another thread - even when given proof that the opposite is true. They appear to be an otherwise thinking person but some subjects make them immune to facts. It's kind of pathetic when you can't admit you're wrong and continue to spout the same drivel over and over again as if it's factual. To pat myself on the back, I'm wrong so often that I've acclimated to it.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
That is a gross oversimplification. Receiving a dose of 200uSv via exposure to something like x-rays is very different to being exposed to 200uSv that includes particulate matter that will accumulate inside the body. The former is a one time "hit", the latter is much more likely to lead to cancer because the material can sit inside the body slowly damaging DNA.
If you believe in the linear no-threshold model then it makes no difference whether the dose is received in a single hit or an extended time period.
Those who doubt LNT usually suspect a dose-response curve that goes in the opposite direction to what you are suggesting.
Particulate exposure could conceivably be worse for you due to the exposure being localised to one part of the body, but that has nothing to do with the timescale over which the dose is spread.
Sadly that XKCD chart and nonsense like the "banana equivalent dose" have spread a lot of misinformation about this.
The main issue with the concept of a "banana equivalent dose" is homeostasis of potassium levels, which again has nothing to do with any of the points above.
Some Wikipedia "facts."
Radiation can cause cancer in most parts of the body, in all animals, and at any age, although radiation-induced solid tumors usually take 10–15 years, and can take up to 40 years, to become clinically manifest, and radiation-induced leukemias typically require 2–10 years to appear.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I, umm, didn't even read the summary completely so I don't have a point or anything. I'm just including this so that we have some actual facts that can be cited. Hell, I'm not even sure who the facts support. However, now we have some because I was, for once, not lazy. You're welcome. I don't know if they're the correct facts or even the information needed but, damn it, we've got data!
Now back to your regularly scheduled poop flinging and screeching.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Which is why you're on my 'friends' list. It's funny to see the people who double down on their mistakes. They'll insist their right. They're almost as bad as the ones who don't reply - you know, damned well, they got automatic reply notifications.
It's a lot easier, and honest, to just admit you're wrong and learn something. This is not a bad thing. It's a good thing to learn something - and even to change your opinions or course of action based on new information. Yet, somehow, this is seen as a bad thing. I do not know why, I can only presume it is ego but I can't understand why others appear to cheer it on or support it. As mentioned in another thread, it's as silly as people getting mad when some politician changes their view based on new information. No! They learned something! How evil!!!
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Some of these people feel they are justified in misleading and misrepresenting, because of their "cause". They don't care about their credibility as they know they will continue to to find followers and those that simply accept what they say. We find some of those folks right here on Slashdot as well. And if you present them with facts, in the end they can just claim conspiracy and coverup.
It is very frustrating.
The way I look at it, I never need to lose an argument, by as soon as I realize I'm wrong, switch to the other side and then I'm winning again.
It sucks to be wrong, but it sucks more to remain wrong.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
First of all, they aren't your claims to support, but thanks for trying. MrDfrom63 has to be able to prove the statements he made aren't "bullshit", the onus of proof is on him.
You however are missing the difference between radiation and radionuclides, in particular which ones and their quantity. I suspect plutonium chloride so, they are the incorrect "facts" to support the OP's "bullshitting".
An ad hom attack before engaging in any dialogue is the typical response of someone who has no argument to offer. Perhaps if you educated yourself about how soluble plutonium chloride is and where in the body you would expect it to accumulate considering it is an iron analogue we may have been able to have a polite conversation.
Instead I'll let you get back to your kool-aid as it is unlikely you have anything constructive to add.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
You need look no further than the Japanese governments own inquiry for that opinion:
The TEPCO Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant accident was the result of collusion between the government, the regulators and TEPCO, and the lack of governance by said parties. They effectively betrayed the nation’s right to be safe from nuclear accidents. Therefore, we conclude that the accident was clearly “manmade.”
See it's not me saying the word "collusion", it's the *official* investigation.
If you read that report you'll find sentences like "were aware of the risk of core damage from tsunami" and "nor did TEPCO take any protective steps against such an occurrence. "
And here is another one "In order to get evidence of this collusion, the Commission was forced to exercise our legislative right to demand such information from NISA, after NISA failed to respond to several requests"
So before you go waving your fatty finger at me, I suggest you get a better understanding of the facts. We already have positive proof that TEPCO do not disclose information and official evidence that they engage in cover ups.
Thanks for the link, I'll make a point of reading it so I can excoriate you with it later. More than likely you've done a 30 second google search, you haven't read it and, you just want to look like you are in some possesion of facts. So care to point me to where in that 1200 odd pages of a report, by an agency who promotes nuclear power, should look to find support of your claims? It should be easy, but I doubt you can.
So is information and I will provide you with some context. According to the IAEA's founding papers "The agency shall seek to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity through the world." Since you are so intent on claims of a cover up I'll draw your attention to the interdiction clause (12.40) the IAEA has over the WHO drawn up on 28 May 1959, at the 12th World Health Assembly:
"Whenever either organisation [the WHO or the IAEA] proposes to initiate a programme or activity on a subject in which the other organisation has or may have a substantial interest, the first party shall consult the other with a view to adjusting the matter by mutual agreement"
In other words, the WHO grants the right of prior approval over any research it might undertake or report on to the IAEA , widely known in the scientific community as the instrument that gags their work. Unless of course you beleive the IAEA has an interest in malaria or Aids research it has effectively gagged the WHO from reporting on health matters Nuclear.
Consequently the facts reveal your ignorance with very little effort on my part. Since you have very little manners, it is a service that is my pleasure to provide.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
uggh. You are saying TEPCO is covering up dose information but point to a report that says nothing of that sort, and doesn't even cover the timeframe since the event. We know the exposure information as there is much study that has been going on by multiple parties. So if you want to just point to that report every time you want to fall back on the cover up excuse, there is not much I can do to respond. Bottom line is, we have very good and very detailed exposure and contamination information.
The IAEA is the expert body on this type of thing. That is why you need to pay attention to their finding and reports. Unlike all those that make un-backed claims or twist data or information, the IAEA publishes the detailed data set, the methods, the formulations of the results, and the results. If you want to dismiss them because they support safe and peaceful use of nuclear technology, then please find another credible body that presents anything close to what they do. The best way for them to support safe and peaceful nuclear is to be accurate and credible. They have proven to be over the years.
There is no benefit to the nuclear industry or the IAEA to underplay the release data. If they show lower exposure data than reality, and then if the cancer rate is higher than they claim, that would do great damage to the industry. As we have seen, the health impacts of Chernobyl are certainly not worse than the IAEA reports on that event. Since after 75 years of multitudes of studies on radioactive exposures, its clear that the health impacts of exposures as we see from Fukushima event are statistically negligible.
You can take the holier than thou tact, but you undermine it with dismissal and reliance on cover up claims. I just call it like I see it.
Bottom line is, we have very good and very detailed exposure and contamination information.
Produce it. The exact pages in the report I should read. Show me the data, show me the evidence.
You can take the moral superiority tact, but you undermine it with an inability to produce evidence that highlights you are bullshitting. I just call it like I see it.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Citation please. Specifically which statistics and which science are you referring to?
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Citation please. Specifically which statistics and which science are you referring to?
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
The IAEA reports show contamination maps. I'm not sure what else you expect.
Seriously, I am supposed to cite the thousands of studies performed over the last 75 years?
I'll help you get started, but the hell if I'll do your work for you.
https://www.google.com/search?...
“It is a solid, unusually large study of individuals exposed to very low doses of ionizing radiation,” says epidemiologist Jørgen Olsen, director of the Danish Cancer Society Research Center in Copenhagen. The finding implies that some cases of leukaemia will even be caused by a high level of natural background radiation, he adds, “though the increased risk for an individual is going to be vanishingly small”.
http://www.nature.com/news/res...
And here is a picture, since you don't seem to do any research on your own of the many published and easy to find studies;
http://hamaoka.chuden.jp/engli...
Citation please. Specifically which statistics and which science are you referring to?
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Here is something to help you better gauge the risks. The exposure received by this worker is closer to the zero mark than the next mark above it (250). http://jmsc.hku.hk/sites/healt...
You CLEARLY have no understanding of the differences between radiation and radionuclides and no understanding of external and internal exposure.
Repeat after me R.A.D.I.O.N.U.C.L.I.D.E..A.B.S.O.R.P.T.I.O.N
Citation please. Specifically which statistics and which science are you referring to?
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
OK. "Radionuclide Absorption"
I can say it too. Sounds scary. Do you really think you are on to some big thing that these doctors don't fully understand?
Contamination & internal exposure is easily monitored. It is fully considered, I assure you. You can find plenty of reference in the IAEA reports.
OK. "Radionuclide Absorption"
I can say it too. Sounds scary. Do you really think you are on to some big thing that these doctors don't fully understand?
No, just something you don't understand. You CLEARLY have no understanding of the differences between radiation and radionuclides and no understanding of external and internal exposure.
Repeat after me R.A.D.I.O.N.U.C.L.I.D.E..A.B.S.O.R.P.T.I.O.N
Contamination & internal exposure is easily monitored. It is fully considered, I assure you. You can find plenty of reference in the IAEA reports.
Produce the evidence, the exact pages in the IAEA report.
Citation please. Specifically which statistics and which science are you referring to?
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
My god, there are hundreds of pages of data in those reports. I don't know what you expect me to research for you, but I'm tired of you ignoring tons of published information and then challenging me about details. I pointed you directly to starting points, but you would rather claim you know some big thing that these established doctors don't. What a waste.
Show me your research, I've shown you mine.
Contamination & internal exposure is easily monitored. It is fully considered, I assure you. You can find plenty of reference in the IAEA reports.
Produce the evidence, the exact pages in the IAEA report.
I'll let you into a little secret: I've already done it. That's how I KNOW you are a bullshit artist'e. Now I'm quite tired of your word twisting, mouth mangling bullshit for now, so I'm going to go and stop wasting time on you for a while I do something more interesting.
Repeat after me R.A.D.I.O.N.U.C.L.I.D.E..A.B.S.O.R.P.T.I.O.N
MrDfrom63's research: "quickly google: low+dose+radiation"
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha,bwaaahahahhahahahabwaaahahahahahahAHAHAhahahAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Now you are denying that contamination can be monitored, and need me to provide proof? Please. I suppose you might deny the sun will rise tomorrow as well. Do I need to provide proof of that?
https://www.google.com/search?...
https://www.google.com/search?...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
The guy got more hard radiation than is desirable, but if we're going to talk about possible ingestion of radioactive materials we need to know about the protective gear. Was the guy in a waterproof suit? Did he bring his own air? Were there any failures in his suit? If he was properly suited up at all times, his exposure should be minimal.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Only against the maximum rate that has ever been seen in the population. Your maths is correct but if you base your assumption on the mid point of the range, ie 7.5 you will find that 5-6 cases becomes statistically significant. However like all statistics the conclusions drawn can always be shifted around based on chosen start points.
One of the main reasons that more people are discovered with cancers after such events is quite simply that medics are actively looking for such things vs "ordinary" circumstances, which is a shame as most cancers triggers are chemical, not radiological (even lung cancers related to polonium are more likely to be from the polonium breakdown products than the alpha radiation)
Along the same lines, the main reason why more people are discovered with cancer these days is simply that more people are living long enough to get cancers in the first place. With a few exceptions we've eliminated almost every other disease that can kill you at a younger age.
Japan has several medical hotspots for problems and none of them are radiation related (Hiroshima and Nagasaki have cancer rates 0.25% above background rates).
Minimata is one area where the causual link is well known and researched (mercury dumping in the bay). Other areas have similar single point origins.
Old age is one of the largest "causes" of cancers.... :)