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.
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."
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.
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...
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...
So far, Fukushima workers as a group are experiencing much lower than normal Leukemia rates. Where is that headline?
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...
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.
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.
Still, sunlight is the most important source of radiation caused cancer by far.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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.
In another news, Whole Foods now offers a "Piece Of Fukushima" line of face creams. They're aimed at organic-gluten-free-vegan crowd and reduce the risk of leukemia. They also glow in the dark.
That's 675 people that would have leukemia whether they were part of the cleanup or not.
Well it is, as long as you can be allowed to upgrade/replace aging reactors and not blocked by environmentalists and anti-nuke protesters from building a safer replacement.
Om, nomnomnom...
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.
Link - http://ganjoho.jp/en/professio... goes through cancer diagnosis rates in Japan. For ages 30-34 Leukemia diagnosis rates at between 2.5 & 3 per 100,000. For all age range males it is between 4.5 & 10.6 per 100,000.
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.
(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 ]
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 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
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
> 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....
To clarify I didn't intend to claim that the 1600 deaths among evacuees were from radiation induced cancer. The worker didn't die, he is merely seriously ill and it is thought more than likely as a result of exposure during the clean-up operation.
The GP was talking about the 1600 deaths, that's what I was addressing. The statement that this cancer was most likely caused by exposure to radioactive material from Fukushima is backed up by TFA and by the judgement of the government ministry staff, who base their decision on medical evidence.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
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.
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."