Experts Chime In To Explain Fukushima Thryoid Cancer Concerns (cancernetwork.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Experts and the lead author of the Fukushima study findings explain what the data really tells us and the flaws in claims that there is a link between the disaster and cancer rates. From the article: "It is too soon to determine the influence of radiation exposure on thyroid cancer risk among children and adolescents who were exposed to the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant disaster in Japan, according to the lead author of findings presented at the 15th International Thyroid Congress (ITC) and 85th Annual Meeting of the American Thyroid Association (ATA) this week in Lake Buena Vista, Florida."

Comments

Too soon

[Anonymous Coward]

It is too soon to determine the influence of radiation exposure on thyroid cancer risk

But they'll keep looking until they find something else that can be misinterpreted.

Re:Too soon

[Mr D from 63]

The confirmed thyroid cancers identified in post-disaster screening thus far “appear to have already occurred prior to radiation exposure,”

Which is exactly what you would expect when you begin thorough sensitive screening that has not been previously performed. It was the initial screenings where a majority of the cases were discovered, then much less in subsequent screenings.

Unfortunately, this article doesn't get the press that the bullshit study articles did. Our media is in a sad state.

Re:Too soon

[trout007]

Only if you subscribe to the linear no-threshold model which we know is wrong. We live on a planet bathed in radiation and our biology has evolved to deal with this. The problem is we don't have a better model to use for policy recommendations but don't confuse that with reality.

Re:At last, some common sense!

[Mr D from 63]

Repeat after me: Correlation does not imply causation, people!

Particularly when you don't even have correlation.

screening

[ssam]

If you give everyone an ultrasound then you find lots of nodules and cysts. Repeat the study in other parts of japan unaffected by radiation and you get the same.
http://www.nature.com/articles...

Re:screening

[AmiMoJo]

That was considered and rejected in the study showing elevated levels of thyroid cancer:

The investigators noted that the approximately 30-fold overall increase in thyroid cancer incidence might be the result of a screening effect, meaning there could be silent thyroid cancer cases among children in the unscreened parts of Japan. They conclude, however, that the magnitude of the IRRs is too large to be explained by such an effect.

They also compared this to the closest analog event in the history of nuclear power. âoeIn Chernobyl, excesses of thyroid cancer became more remarkable 4 or 5 years after the accident in Belarus and Ukraine, so the observed excess alerts us to prepare for more potential cases within a few years,â the authors wrote.

This seems to be directly at odds with some of the claims made by this new study. A 30x increase seems difficult to explain away by better screening - especially when you look at the timing. If it was merely due to screening you would expect the higher levels to have been immediately apparent after the accident, rather than taking years to emerge. The new study also notes that the age of the victims does not align with what would normally be expected, but does not offer an explanation as to why.

Re:So NOW they say it!

[Anonymous Coward]

They said it all along, you just weren't listening, or your chosen media outlets didn't find it news-worthy. Here's an article from March 2012, the year after the disaster;

"Yogi Berra supposedly said, "It's tough making predictions, especially about the future." He was right. However, there is an out for forecasters trying to predict long-term medical consequences of the Fukushima nuclear facility accident: The final reckoning will take about 50 years; they are unlikely to be around to be judged wrong."

50 years, got it? Also

"But there is also good news from Chernobyl. After intensive study of hundreds of thousands of people, there are no convincing data of increased leukemia or other cancers, even among the 500,000 cleanup workers who received the highest doses. It may be too soon for a final call, but so far the situation looks favorable."

Too soon for a final call on Chernobyl, even after all these years, much less Fukushima.

Don't talk about "the media" and "experts" as if they are some sort of homogeneous entities.

Re:So NOW they say it!

[Mr D from 63]

They said it all along, you just weren't listening, or your chosen media outlets didn't find it news-worthy. Here's an article from March 2012, the year after the disaster;

"Yogi Berra supposedly said, "It's tough making predictions, especially about the future." He was right. However, there is an out for forecasters trying to predict long-term medical consequences of the Fukushima nuclear facility accident: The final reckoning will take about 50 years; they are unlikely to be around to be judged wrong."

50 years, got it? Also

"But there is also good news from Chernobyl. After intensive study of hundreds of thousands of people, there are no convincing data of increased leukemia or other cancers, even among the 500,000 cleanup workers who received the highest doses. It may be too soon for a final call, but so far the situation looks favorable."

Too soon for a final call on Chernobyl, even after all these years, much less Fukushima.

Don't talk about "the media" and "experts" as if they are some sort of homogeneous entities.

Good post.