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

[Mr D from 63]

Obviously the cancer rates are going to go up, especially for the workers at the plant. It's biology. Radiation and DNA don't mix well. In a few more years more cases will show up. I am sure the workers all took extra iodine to protect their thyroid gland, but that won't prevent things like leukemia.

Congratulation, you win the aware for the highest concentration of unsubstantiated claims and assumptions in two lines of text.

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:Too soon

[Uecker]

Only if you subscribe to the linear no-threshold model which we know is wrong.

Other in the fairy-tale world of slashdot's nuclear fanboys, we know nothing like that. In fact, we have a lot of confirming evidence
that the LNT holds to very small doses.

We live on a planet bathed in radiation and our biology has evolved to deal with this.

This is a fallacy. That we adapted to radiation doesn't mean that radiation is good for us.

the problem is we don't have a better model to use for policy recommendations but don't confuse that with reality.

The problem is people having opinions about science without being able to read the relevant scientific literature.

Re:Too soon

[The Real Dr John]

I win the aware?

Re:Too soon

[Mr D from 63]

Sorry , "win the award". Typo.

Re:Too soon

[Mr D from 63]

we have a lot of confirming evidence that the LNT holds to very small doses.

No, actually we don't. The one common thread between studies of very low dose exposures is that they all have results which pretty much fall within the uncertainty band of the study itself. There are some high dose CT scan studies that may show a correlation, but they have problems reconciling that CT scan patients are a higher risk group for all diseases to begin with. Then there are some radon exposure studies that show lower cancer rates in high exposure areas. As a whole, the only thing that is certain is that effects at low doses are so small they are very hard to statistically model and get consistent results. So they stick with LNT because that is all they have.

Re:Too soon

[The Real Dr John]

For those interested, there is a vast amount of research you can look into at PubMed, like this article. The folks here at /. who dismiss radiation risks are not being realistic. There is a big difference between background radiation and a nuclear plant core meltdown in terms of isotopes and exposure levels.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

Re:Too soon

[The Real Dr John]

I knew what you meant, I was pointing out how you were not putting lots of thought or effort into your response.

Re:Too soon

[Mr D from 63]

I'd equate my effort to the effort you expended coming up with points that can be substantiated.

Re:Too soon

[Mr D from 63]

Please, what matters is actual exposure to people, not radiation levels at which nobody is exposed. Yes, high radiation exposure can cause cancer. Nobody is arguing that it cannot. Just spouting on about 'radiation causes cancer' is useless. Sunlight causes cancer too. Don't go outside!

Re:Too soon

[serviscope_minor]

In fact, we have a lot of confirming evidence that the LNT holds to very small doses.

Can you give a link?

Re:Too soon

[The Real Dr John]

By saying yes it causes cancer, and then dismissing that fact you just said nothing. Do you agree that more than enough radiation was released from the melted cores to cause cancer in the people exposed to enough of it? Do you also admit that people have greatly different levels of ability to repair their DNA based on their genetics? Therefore, some people almost certainly got exposed to enough radiation there, including plant workers trying to handle the crisis, got enough exposure.

Re:Too soon

[durrr]

The LINEAR part is wrong because intracellular coping mechanisms(DNA repair, mopping up reactive oxygen species(which is one of the damage modes of ionizing radiation)) have a range in which they function optimally. Asssuming a fully linear relationship there could no repair or maintenance done at all which is a ridiculous suggestion.

The NO THRESHOLD part doesn't hold up either as there's no detectable cancer rate curve among radiation worker that correlates to their doses inside the allowed intervals.

  If we compare a radiation worker that only does administrative work and accumulates 1mSv to one that works in a hotlab and accumulates 16mSv we should see a 16 times increase in radiation related cancer according to the LNT, but that's not what we see in the real world.

Re:Too soon

[oh_my_080980980]

Really, so this research is correct and the other research is not. Nice cherry picking Potsy.

What they article said is it's TOO EARLY to tell. It DID NOT say radiation exposure will not cause pediatric thyroid cancers.

Re:Too soon

[oh_my_080980980]

Like you substantiated your points. Moron.

Re:Too soon

[oh_my_080980980]

No because he's a fucking moron who thinks he understands the science of radiation exposure causing cancer, i.e, a troll.

Re:Too soon

[Mr D from 63]

No. There is no other research. That 'Study" from Toshihide Tsuda that was put forth that claimed thyroid association with Fukushima actually used the data from the studies these experts are performing, but purposely cherry picked that data and misrepresented it. The experts that conducted this study have very clearly explained why the conclusions of Toshihide Tsuda are bunk and that Tsuda clearly did not know what the data even meant.

Tsuda has no expertise in these matters. I'll believe the cancer doctors that are doing the work and can actually explain it properly.

Re:Too soon

[trout007]

Everything you said was correct except for "It is obvious that more than enough radiation was released to cause cancer in some of the people exposed". What I am saying is that the LNT model is fine for setting policies for safety. But it doesn't do a good job of predicting the number of cancers in a situation like this. You would need to know the dose history for each individual.

Re:Too soon

[Uecker]

We can statistically detect the effect from very low dose received in CT scans in large scale studies:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...

http://www.bmj.com/content/346...

Re:Too soon

[Uecker]

The LINEAR part is wrong because intracellular coping mechanisms(DNA repair, mopping up reactive oxygen species(which is one of the damage modes of ionizing radiation)) have a range in which they function optimally. Asssuming a fully linear relationship there could no repair or maintenance done at all which is a ridiculous suggestion.

Why do you think this? A linear relationship at low doses is fully consistent with repair. You are reading the wrong websites.

The NO THRESHOLD part doesn't hold up either as there's no detectable cancer rate curve among radiation worker that correlates to their doses inside the allowed intervals.

Radiation workers receive a very low dose, so obviously the minimal excess risk is hard to detect. But this does not imply it doesn't exist.
But funny: There just appeared a large scale study which claims to show this effect:
http://www.bmj.com/content/351...

If we compare a radiation worker that only does administrative work and accumulates 1mSv to one that works in a hotlab and accumulates 16mSv we should see a 16 times increase in radiation related cancer according to the LNT, but that's not what we see in the real world.

There is a huge risk to get cancer anyway. What is 16 times bigger is the additional excess risk which is extremely small even if it is 16 times bigger.

Re:Too soon

[MrKaos]

we have a lot of confirming evidence that the LNT holds to very small doses.

No, actually we don't. The one common thread between studies of very low dose exposures is that they all have results which pretty much fall within the uncertainty band of the study itself.

Citation please. Specifically which statistics and which science are you referring to?

Re:Too soon

[Mr D from 63]

You clearly can't read through a successive thread, can you?

Re:Too soon

[MrKaos]

I'll go one step further since you pointed it out in the other discussion. Here is a list of some scientific studies on the effects of tritium, with references, in case there is any doubt regarding Triated water's effect on living beings.

Tritium is biologically mutagenic *because* it's a low energy emitter. This characteristic makes readily absorbed by surrounding cells. The available evidence from studies conducted journal a list of effects. From those works;

Tritium can be inhaled, ingested, or absorbed through skin. Eating food containing 3H can be even more damaging than drinking 3H bound in water. Consequently, an estimated radiation dose based only on ingestion of tritiated water may underestimate the health effects if the person has also consumed food contaminated with tritium. (Komatsu)

Studies indicate that lower doses of tritium can cause more cell death (Dobson, 1976), mutations (Ito) and chromosome damage (Hori) per dose than higher tritium doses. Tritium can impart damage which is two or more times greater per dose than either x-rays or gamma rays.

(Straume) (Dobson, 1976) There is no evidence of a threshold for damage from 3H exposure; even the smallest amount of tritium can have negative health impacts. (Dobson, 1974) Organically bound tritium (tritium bound in animal or plant tissue) can stay in the body for 10 years or more.

It's often said "of all the elements in nuclear waste tritium is one of the more harmless ones" and while it's more benign than most other radioactive effluents it's toxicity should not be under-estimated.

Tritium can cause mutations, tumors and cell death. (Rytomaa) Tritiated water is associated with significantly decreased weight of brain and genital tract organs in mice (Torok) and can cause irreversible loss of female germ cells in both mice and monkeys even at low concentrations. (Dobson, 1979) (Laskey) Tritium from tritiated water can become incorporated into DNA, the molecular basis of heredity for living organisms. DNA is especially sensitive to radiation. (Hori) A cell's exposure to tritium bound in DNA can be even more toxic than its exposure to tritium in water. (Straume)(Carr)

First, as an isotope of hydrogen (the cell's most ubiquitous element), tritium can be incorporated into essentially all portions of the living machinery; and it is not innocuous -- deaths have occurred in industry from occupational overexposure. R. Lowry Dobson, MD, PhD. (1979)

References;

Komatsu, K and Okumura, Y. Radiation Dose to Mouse Liver Cells from Ingestion of Tritiated Food or Water. Health Physics. 58. 5:625-629. 1990.

Dobson, RL. The Toxicity of Tritium. International Atomic Energy Agency symposium, Vienna: Biological Implications of Radionuclides Released from Nuclear Industries v. 1: 203. 1979.

Hori, TA and Nakai, S. Unusual Dose-Response of Chromosome Aberrations Induced in Human Lymphocytes by Very Low Dose Exposures to Tritium. Mutation Research. 50: 101-110. 1978.

Straume, T and Carsten, AL.Tritium Radiobiology and Relative Biological Effectiveness. Health Physics. 65 (6) :657-672; 1993. [This special issue of Health Physics is entirely devoted to Tritium]

Laskey, JW, et al. Some Effects of Lifetime Parental Exposure to Low Levels of Tritium on the F2 Generation. Radiation Research.56:171-179. 1973.

Rytomaa, T, et al. Radiotoxicity of Tritium-Labelled Molecules. International Atomic Energy Agency symposium,Vienna: Biological Implications of Radionuclides Released from Nuclear Industries v. 1: 339. 1979.

Re:Too soon

[Mr D from 63]

I gave you the starting point to find tons of studies on low level exposure. All good studies discuss uncertainties in the data and conclusions. You can easily find them, google is your friend.

Unless you are claiming there are no studies on low dose exposure, LNT, or that somehow you cannot find them, or that they don't have the uncertainties I discussed. Which are you denying?

Re:Too soon

[Uecker]

You can make very good arguments to why one should not freak out about radiation even from accidents such as Fukushima. But please, dear nuclear fanboys, don't base it on non-mainstream scientific positions (to put it nicely) such as "LNT is wrong". This only makes you look stupid.

Re:Too soon

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

Hmm... I'm not sure I agree with that study's methodology. First off, it's a retrospective study, and not a well-controlled one at that. Second, their 90% CI is really large - and their choice of 90% CI is suspicious. In any retrospective study when you can analyze a lot of things, you have to lower the p-value you use to determine statistical significance, because if you look at a lot of different things with the same data set, you're likely to see some sort of relationship purely by chance. However, instead of lowering it (from the usual 0.05, which is admittedly somewhat arbitrary), they raised it to 0.1. They also have a huge discrepancy between their mean (20.9 mGy) and median (4.1 mGy). Lastly, if you look at their one figure, the error bars for most doses overlap with a relative rate of 1 - meaning they can't say whether it's statistically different from the normal population.

Re:Too soon

[Mr D from 63]

My points are based on real world data, not just fear factor, accusations of cover ups, and scary words. Here are some real world results that you will find hard to digest, and back up my points about conservatism in the models.

Chernobyl Cancer Study Harvard 2005: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t...

Predicted number of Leukemia cases (above normal) up to 2005 = 940

From 2012 study: http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/12049...

Actual number of Leukemia cases as of 2012 = 136

Re:Too soon

[trout007]

I think asserting that something as complicated as risk of cancer, which has multiple mechanisms, in the human body, which has multiple defense, from radiation, which has multiple sources and modes of exposure, just so happens to be a linear relationship with a zero crossing makes you look stupid. As I previously wrote the LNT is great for policy on prevention and protection of workers but reality is quite different.

Re:Too soon

[chmod a x mojo]

Radiation and DNA don't mix well. In a few more years more cases will show up. I am sure the workers all took extra iodine to protect their thyroid gland, but that won't prevent things like leukemia.

There are some studies ( and more that are needed ) that show that people living in areas with a "high" ( at least higher than normal ) background radiation have a significantly reduced risk of cancer over-all.
Whether that is from the elevated radiation levels destroying mutations faster than they form, or an evolutionary process where people with resistance to genetic mutations that lead to cancer survive to make up the population is what is being looked into.

I personally don't think that it is the evolutionary process, at least not predominantly. Usually fatal cancers from radiation show up after decades, long enough for people to reach breeding age and reproduce. That said, it's not impossible though.

Re:Too soon

[Mr D from 63]

The problem remains that while we assume there can be low dose impacts, it is very hard to study because the increase in risk is so low, and there is are so many variables that make it hard to have a big enough study and control group that eliminate other factors. People that get CT scans are already in a different group than the normal population, as they already have some health problem. It is very hard to reconcile these factors.

I am OK with the LNT model as long as it is used properly. It is conservative and we should certainly be conservative when it comes to radiation exposure. But when using it for predictions, the uncertainties need to be considered.

Re:Too soon

[Mr D from 63]

The term 'enough exposure' is meaningless in this context. At low doses of the amount the workers have been exposed, the increase in risk is so small that we don't expect to statistically be able to see it. That does not mean there will be zero cancers, and nobody is claiming that. But there certainly will not be many additional cancers.

As for this particular study, they know the tumors found in the first screenings are not due to Fukushima because they know the size and growth rate of tumors, and can use that established medical knowledge to understand that they had to have started forming before the accident. That is pretty straightforward, and it certainly doesn't deny that eventually a cancer may be caused by irradiation from Fukushima. Nobody ever claimed that.

Re:Too soon

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

Nice try but as usual you have nothing.

You're a horrendous shill or sock puppet, I cannot tell which and the only reason I reply to your comments is to illustrate what a bullshit artist'e you are. My instinct tells me I am not the only one who has noticed and it was very entertaining watching how effortlessly your mindlessness was exposed.

I'm sure I will get modded into oblivion, but I don't care because that absolutely made my week. I want you to know, I am still laughing at you, right now.

Nice ad hominem, dude. You aren't providing any good evidence (cell biology studies from the 70's don't count - methods were exceedingly primitive then, and if you can't cite anything more recent, you don't have much of a leg to stand on) either. This whole "OMG I'm so amused at how bad you are and how much better I am trolololol" thing is just silly. Act like an adult. Be the person Mr. Rodgers would want you to be.

Re:Too soon

[Mr D from 63]

I made a mistake in the numbers above. My apologies, here is corrected information, please ignore above.

The first study shows expected additional cases due to radiation, the second shows total cases. The first study also includes a higher population in addition to the workers.

Here is a corrected comparison just using the worker population

Harvard study: Worker Population: Predicted cases of Leukemia up to 2005= 80
UNSCEAR study: Worker Population: Number of cases of Leukemia up to 2012 attributable to radiation = 16

Re:Too soon

[The Real Dr John]

Agreed, but if you have watched any of the videos from the area where people are walking around with dosimeters that are showing substantial radiation levels miles from the plant, then obviously people were exposed, and because many cancers won't show up for 5, 10 or even 20 years, that we can expect more cases.

I was a big fan of nuclear power decades ago when I was a kid. Now as an adult biologist, I am not so much of a fan anymore.

Re:Too soon

[The Real Dr John]

You may be talking about radiation hormesis, where low doses that are above background levels cause defense and repair mechanisms to kick in. So a test plant or animal might have a response that looks beneficial, even though it is happening because of a biological stressor. However, the studies that I have read on this don't ever talk about humans, they talk about bacteria, plants and insects and things like that. Plus, they are talking several times background radiation, not hundreds of times.

Re:Too soon

[Uecker]

Well, it is the low dose regime, where the effect is believed to be essentially statistical which means that it must be linear (the risk from individual double strand breaks to get cancer accumulates). Of course you can speculate that there is a non-statistical effect because some kind of response mechanism is triggered by radiation which goes beyond simple repair mechanisms which are always active. Such mechanisms exist but there is not much evidence that they play a role at very low doses. It is also obvious that the most natural assumptions about those mechanisms would imply that LNT _underestimates_ the cancer risk at low doses, because additional repair stimulated by radiation would reduce risk with higher dose.

Finally, it is not much me who believes that LNT is still our best guess. It is the scientific consensus, which you can easily confirm by doing a proper literature search. Ofcourse, if you just google you will find a lot of website stating the opposite.

Re:Too soon

[sjames]

The error bars are big enough to cover any conclusion you'd care to make.

Even the summary table shows U.S. workers with more cancer but lass radiation dose than U.K. workers.

Re:Too soon

[Uecker]

The error bars are big enough to cover any conclusion you'd care to make.

Well, effects are small, but it is another study where the data is an agreement with LNT and provides no evidence for any non-linear effect. We also have large scale studies for exposure from CT with similar conclusions. At higher dose, we have the data from atomic bomb survivors which indicates a linear relationship. Finally, we have good understanding about how ionizing radiation causes cancer and this implies a linear relationship even at low dose, and there is not any convincing explanation or evidence for a non-linear effect at such low doses.

Even the summary table shows U.S. workers with more cancer but lass radiation dose than U.K. workers.

That is a meaningless comment. There can be many reasons why there are a different numbers of cancers for U.K. and U.S unrelated to radiation.

Re:Too soon

[sjames]

Actually, based on tyhe data, it's a study that shows LNT or inverse LNT or random results, depending on how you want to coerce the finding. Any of those and more will fit comfortably within the error bars.

We also have studies showing that people in higher background radiation get less cancer and that radiologists in the UK live longer than other medical professionals.

Since we know our cells have some ability to repair radiation damage but that it is rate limited, LNT would actually be an astonishing result.

Re:Too soon

[MrKaos]

Nice ad hominem, dude.

It would seem you are adept at the ad-hom yourself using it in an attempt to discredit the evidence presented, whilst presenting none yourself.

Unless you have read the history of dealing with this troll you wouldn't really understand how exceptionally patient I've been. He has never provided any links or evidence to support his claims until the most recent posts and ad hom attacks have been his dominant characteristic among a number of other tactics. My patience is limited.

You aren't providing any good evidence (cell biology studies from the 70's don't count - methods were exceedingly primitive then, and if you can't cite anything more recent, you don't have much of a leg to stand on) either.

Yet you haven't shown me where this work on tritium has been superseded with anything more recent leaving the onus on me to waste my time proving your argument. It's so interesting that you comment here instead of the original post and omit the reference from the nineties. If you've got some citations to share, I'd welcome them.

Nothing I've posted required subsequent correction as my troll friend has needed to do.

Act like an adult. Be the person Mr. Rodgers would want you to be.

Yet here you are doing exactly the same thing as my troll friend. Instead of explaining your position you choose to attack me and my argument with nothing to contribute except a sentence and an air of moral superiority and arrogance. I don't really know who Mr Rodgers is so perhaps he would tell you that by taking the approach you have you come off as a hypocrite.

Re:Too soon

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

Pointing out your use of an ad hominem is not, itself, an ad hominem.

I don't have a dog in this fight; my position is that you're being a jackass. I'm not trying to argue about the effects of radiation here. While Mr D has also not provided evidence, at least he was polite.

For some reason, I typo'd his name: he's Mr. Rogers. Further reading.

Re:Too soon

[SmilingBoy]

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

I can see it clearly now - the Fukushima nuclear accident was caused by increased thyroid cancer rates in the prefecture.

Re:Too soon

[Mr D from 63]

You have correlation :)

Re:Too soon

[Uecker]

Again, that you think that googling for confirmation is a meaningful contribution in a scientific discussion just shows how detached you are from reality.

Re:Too soon

[Uecker]

Since we know our cells have some ability to repair radiation damage but that it is rate limited, LNT would actually be an astonishing result.

You seem to believe this. As a physicist, I disagree. Even from very basic arguments it is clear that LNT is natural assumption. The effect is either purely statistical (each hit from ionizing radiation carries a very small independent risk that it is not repaired properly and causes cancer) : Then it must be linear. Or there is some kind of feedback mechanism, i.e. bit more radiation stimulates additional repair. Then it is also approximately linear for very small changes in radiation but maybe indeed be non-linear for slightly higher changes in radiation. The problem with this is: 1. We do not have any clear evidence for this. 2. It would imply that LNT _underestimates_ the risk because repair is not as good for lower doses (where repair is not stimulated) and linearly extrapolating from high doses to low doses therefor underestimates the risk. A non-linear effect which would cause the linear prediction to overestimate the risk would be if the repair mechanisms get overwhelmed at some point, but is absurd to assume that this is the case at such low dose (as many point out, we adapted to some level of radiation).

Re:Too soon

[Uecker]

I am not entirely sure what your point is . The first number seems to be a prediction for a large group of affected people and the second the number of cases in a specific subgroup of people, so it does not contradict the first. In fact, the conclusion from the latter study is "We found a significant linear dose response for all leukemia".

Re:Too soon

[sjames]

You don't get to assume spherical cows in a vacuum on this one.

One interesting study of radiologists showed they actually fared a bit better than people without that small extra dose of radiation. In other words, that small amount of occupational exposure had a NEGATIVE risk. In other words, LNT was OVER-estimating the risk of their exposure.

Meanwhile, a rate limited repair mechanism would imply a threshold point where the harm goes way up once above it, or if you prefer, it goes down on the low side.

Even the simplest model where there is a minimum stimulation to activate the repair mechanism which has a limited capacity would result in three different regions in a graph of exposure vs. risk. That doesn't sound at all linear to me, how about you?

As for whether LNT over or under estimates the risk, that would depend on what parts of the complex curve the statistical samples came from.

Re:Too soon

[Uecker]

You don't get to assume spherical cows in a vacuum on this one.

One interesting study of radiologists showed they actually fared a bit better than people without that small extra dose of radiation.

You can find "interesting studies" showing that homeopathy work etc... I work with MDs who expose themselves to radiation to help others. I have also worked in a radiotherapy lab in the past. I am not scared of radiation. But I know most of the related literature and the overwhelming consensus is that radiation is harmful at any dose. The idea that LNT is obsolete is a fringe position in the scientific community which almost nobody even takes seriously.

Meanwhile, a rate limited repair mechanism would imply a threshold point where the harm goes way up once above it, or if you prefer, it goes down on the low side.

This is true, but this is a highly contrived scenario. Why would a repair mechanism be rate-limited at such low doses? This is not plausible at all. A repair mechanism might get overwhelmed at high dose, but we talk about extremely lose dose. Think about it a bit more: A rate-limited repair mechanism at extremely low dose would imply that a cell hit by ionizing radiaton somehow decides not to repair a double-strand break because slightly more other cells have been hit than usual and the (body-wide?) repair limit has been reached. Why would something like this evolve? How would the body keep track of this limit? How would an individual cell even know?

Even the simplest model where there is a minimum stimulation to activate the repair mechanism which has a limited capacity would result in three different regions in a graph of exposure vs. risk. That doesn't sound at all linear to me, how about you?

This is not the simplest model. The simplest model is that there is no extra stimulation of repair mechanism at such tiny additional doses and repair is just the regular repair mechanisms (which are already very good). This is the simplest model and directly leads to LNT. Again, it is also the most plausible: Why should there be a additional repair mechanisms already at such tiny additional dose? But even the idea that extra repair is stimulated at low dose means that LNT underestimates dose, only if you assume that repair gets overwhelmed already at very small additional dose leads to the idea that LNT could overestimate dose... Again, it is not plausible at all that a tiny additional dose already overwhelms our repair mechanisms.

As for whether LNT over or under estimates the risk, that would depend on what parts of the complex curve the statistical samples came from.

Exactly, but while it is theoretically possible that non-linear effects exist, there is - so far - no clear evidence for such non-linear effect at extremely low dose. So the simplest theory which has to be preferred by Occam's razor is the linear one. And at moderate dose we know that the effect linear.

Re:Too soon

[Uecker]

"lose dose" -> "low dose"
"LNT ... estimates dose" -> "LNT ... estimates risk"

Re:Too soon

[sjames]

This is true, but this is a highly contrived scenario. Why would a repair mechanism be rate-limited at such low doses?

It is an OBSERVED scenario. Evolution is a funny thing and tends to be "lazy". It tends to also concern itself only with conditions that are encountered in nature at the time it evolves. I can guess that the mechanism requires some stimulus to work at all because it costs energy. I can guess that it has a limited capacity due to practicality and the unlikely usefulness at higher exposure.

This is not the simplest model.

Yes, if we agree to toss reality and observation out the window, we can just put a dot at the origin and call it good. It is the simplest model that matches observation. See this for example.

Consider, there are a number of people who refused to leave their homes in the Chernobyl exclusion zone. LNTY says they should be dead by now. They are not.

I'm not suggesting we go back to radium water for good health, but it does appear that the risk is greatly exaggerated at low dose.

Many organizations only use LNT out of an abundance of caution.

Re:Too soon

[MrKaos]

The first study shows expected additional cases due to radiation, the second shows total cases. The first study also includes a higher population in addition to the workers. Harvard study: Worker Population: Predicted cases of Leukemia up to 2005= 80 UNSCEAR study: Worker Population: Number of cases of Leukemia up to 2012 attributable to radiation = 16

So somehow because you come out with a bunch of numbers about Leukemia cases that is supposed to disprove LNT? You're not even making any sense. The studies you linked to both support LNT. The second one goes even further:

We found a significant linear dose response for all leukemia

And further still by *specifically* mentioning low doses:

Exposure to low doses and to low dose-rates of radiation from post-Chornobyl cleanup work was associated with a significant increase in risk of leukemia, which was statistically consistent with estimates for the Japanese atomic bomb survivors. Based on the primary analysis, we conclude that CLL and non-CLL are both radiosensitive.

So the article you link to doesn't just refute your claims about LNT, it refutes your entire argument about contracting Leukemia from radioactive sources.

Then further still by uncovering a link to a type of cancer previously thought *unrelated* to radiation:

The data indicated elevated risks for both CLL and other leukemias. We therefore extended the study through 2006, with a near doubling of the number of leukemia cases.

I gave you the starting point to find tons of studies on low level exposure. All good studies discuss uncertainties in the data and conclusions. You can easily find them, google is your friend.

And the first time you used it you disproved your own argument, thanks for saving me the effort. Please continue.

Unless you are claiming there are no studies on low dose exposure, LNT, or that somehow you cannot find them, or that they don't have the uncertainties I discussed. Which are you denying?

I supplied you with references to low dose studies on what is thought to be the most benign radioactive substance, Tritium. It is impossible to believe that you read those reports before posting them.

You are not entitled to your own facts.

I made a mistake in the numbers above. My apologies, here is corrected information, please ignore above.

Again, and as usual, you cannot support your argument with anything. This time, you disproved you *own* argument.

Re:Too soon

[MrKaos]

I am not entirely sure what your point is .

Neither am I, but I read them as well and it destroys his own argument. I have no idea where these fanboys come from however they all seem completely deluded. Arguing with them is like being in some sort of nonsensical alternate reality.

the ATA and the ITC

[turkeydance]

wh ATA b ITC h

Re:wow

[tomhath]

We are all exposed to radiation every day.

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.

Re:So NOW they say it!

[Mr D from 63]

When it was being claimed in the media that there had been NO effects of radiation on non-employees of the nuclear plant, we did not hear these disclaimers. But now that a study shows the possibility of thyroid cancer in children, the "experts" say it's too early to tell. So why did they not say that when the claim was being made that there was no effect?

They have not said there can be no effect. Theoretically there can be but statistically it is shown that there probably won't be. Due to uncertainly of impacts at these low levels (due to the fact that the impacts are so small they are hard to measure with any statistical significance) the conservative approach is assume there may be and do the testing/screening. One could make a case that it is unneeded, but due to the public fear mongers and to ease concerns, the testing makes sense. Also, it can provide us with more useful data on the topic.

So far, it appears they caught some cases of thyroid cancers that existed prior to the accident, and these cases were caught earlier than they normally would have. So those kids are lucky in that sense, as the likelihood of successful treatment for them is now higher.

radiation caused by...

[melmut]

Cancer causes radiation!

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

[thegarbz]

Oh please no, I can see the headline now:
"Fukushima accident caused high rates of cancer in Kagoshima, BE AFRAID!"

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:screening

[tomhath]

This seems to be directly at odds with some of the claims made by this new study.

The study *assumed* the higher rate was not due to a higher screening rate, but that assumption did not hold up when someone actually looked at real data instead of making an unsubstantiated assumption.

We were surprised to see so many children with thyroid cancer,” said Dr. Nagataki, of Nagasaki University, the Radiation Effects Research Foundation in Hiroshima, and the Radiation Effects Association in Tokyo. But “We did not find regional differences in the prevalence of thyroid cancer within Fukushima Prefecture...The confirmed thyroid cancers identified in post-disaster screening thus far “appear to have already occurred prior to radiation exposure,” Dr. Suzuki argued. ”

Re:screening

[AmiMoJo]

We were surprised to see so many children with thyroid cancer,â said Dr. Nagataki, of Nagasaki University, the Radiation Effects Research Foundation in Hiroshima, and the Radiation Effects Association in Tokyo. But âoeWe did not find regional differences in the prevalence of thyroid cancer within Fukushima Prefecture...The confirmed thyroid cancers identified in post-disaster screening thus far âoeappear to have already occurred prior to radiation exposure,â Dr. Suzuki argued. â

The journalist who wrote this article seems to be really confused here. It's like they chopped together a few unrelated statements that they thought were building towards the same point. Let's break it down:

1. There are a surprising number of children with thyroid cancer. It isn't clear what is surprising - merely the number above the normally detected rate, or the number above the expected rate when you do mass screening.

2. They did not find regional differences within Fukushima prefecture. This contradicts the earlier study directly, and doesn't seem to be supported by the data. As noted in the earlier study, one area had zero cases and there was a statistically significantly higher number in one area just outside the evacuation zone.

3. The cases that have been detected appear to have occurred before exposure to radiation. This seems to be at odds with the study's own findings that the ages of those affected do not follow the normally expected pattern.

Without reading the full interview it's not at all clear what he is trying to say.

Re:screening

[Mr D from 63]

Yes, they found more cancers than they expected on the first screening pass. But the tumor sizes in those cases generally showed that they must have started before the accident, and the frequency within the population did not correlate at all with the exposure profile. So it was quite clear that something else is the cause of these initial high numbers.

They are careful, as they should be, to not draw any conclusions as to how many cancers may eventually arise due to Fukushima radiation or any other cause. That will come with more screening data over the long term. It is interesting to note that there were relatively few additional cancers found on subsequent screening passes.

Its refreshing when you get an article that has a clear professional explanation, and only speaks to the data at hand.

Re:It's time for "radiation deniers"...

[ssam]

I would not want to move my children to somewhere that is increasing its fossil fuel use.

Re:It's time for "radiation deniers"...

[Mr D from 63]

^classic!

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.

The courage of my convictions

[PopeRatzo]

I did my own study on the effects of radiation. Here are my findings:

https://youtu.be/6YEarMyIAzs

Re:So NOW they say it!

[tripleevenfall]

Yes.

When you have no evidence toward a certain conclusion, you say "there's been no evidence found."

When only a sample too small for conclusions has been found, you say "it's too early to tell."

Not hard to understand.

Re:So NOW they say it!

[Mr D from 63]

Good, you should have expected that from Tsuda. But somehow you didn't challenge him on that, did you? I suppose you will still cling to his bunk.

Re:So NOW they say it!

[tripleevenfall]

I'm not sure who this Tsuda chap is, but if you'll let me know his bunk's addy I'll consider clinging to it.

Re:So NOW they say it!

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

The experts on thyroid cancer probably want to push back against what they see as flawed conclusions and alarmist claims. That same group may have also made a statement when people said there had been no effect, and it just didn't make it here.

Re:So NOW they say it!

[Mr D from 63]

He was the one who purposely published a 'study' that misused this data, and resulted in many news articles recently about a huge increase in Thyroid Cancers. I am sure you saw them, they were discussed here as well, and I said then his story was bunk but many here defended him.

MOD PARENT UP - Re:Too soon

[MrKaos]

I wouldn't know whether to moderate you +Funny, +Informative or +Insightful.

Please someone throw some mod points at this man.

Re:So NOW they say it!

[AmiMoJo]

We don't need to wait 50 years to see that there will be certain health consequences. For example, an increase in thyroid cancer is clearly evidence from Chernobyl.

The author of this study is at best saying it is too early to tell, but that is largely irrelevant. It will always be impossible to tie individual cancers to a particular event, so the only reasonable course of action is to compensate everyone affected.

Cherry Picking

[s.petry]

Radiation is dangerous and causes cancer. We know this, and have repeatedly proven that fact. We cover ourselves in lead when getting X-rays, and the operator takes the picture from a different and shielded room because radiation is dangerous. We have evacuated areas contaminated with radiation because decades of testing found radiation to be deadly in numerous ways both long term and short term.

That children near Fukushima may have the same risks as children in a different area for one particular type of cancer based on one method of testing does not negate the dangers of radiation. That we don't immediately have people running around with massive amounts of tumors or dropping over dead from radiation poisoning does not negate the dangers of radiation. The risks are known and very real, and if anyone has doubts I'm sure they can find some very cheap beach front property in Japan.

Maybe, just maybe, fear mongering would not be so easy if people were honest to begin with. White washing is not the best, or even a good, answer to fear mongering.

Re:Cherry Picking

[ssam]

Nobody disagrees that ionising radiation can cause cancer. But at the small doses that members of the public were exposed to there is valid debate over whether the increase in cancer risk is zero, almost zero or just tiny. Sensational headlines spread fear and stress, which likely is having a worse effect on people than the actual radiation.

Re:wow

[tomhath]

Obviously you are trolling, but the point is that we don't all die of cancer.

Re:So NOW they say it!

[Hussman32]

Except the clear evidence really isn't that clear, there are differences between men and women in the UK of 3 to 1.5 per 100,000 people, and thyroid cancer is up to 15 per 100,000, the peak of your referenced graph, (with an increasing trend) in the US. As the US was further away from Chernobyl, does that mean it helped people prevent thyroid cancer?

I'm not sure what the reasonable course of action is, but giving money to everyone isn't it.

What happened to the iodine tablets?

[ilsaloving]

Based on current knowledge, there *shouldn't* be any occurrences of thyroid cancer. Thyroid cancer caused by these circumstances is a known problem with a known solution: giving everyone iodine tabets for a couple weeks. The solution is so simple and solid that this shouldn't have even need to be discussed.

Yet for some reason tablets were not dispensed (http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201108298140), and now 'experts' are being paraded around to downplay real concerns.

People like to claim that Fukushima shows the dangers of nuclear energy. It didn't. It showed the dangers of what happens when you hire idiots to run important infrastructure companies. It shows the dangers of electing scientifically ignorant morons to run a country.

Now Japan is going to blanket the country with coal plants, which is ultimately going to be even worse because of all the radioactive elements that are gonna be spewed into the atmosphere. And that's ignoring the particulate crap and other compounds that will also be spewed from the coal, and the massive consumption of precious land that will now be necessary to hold all these new plants.

Re:What happened to the iodine tablets?

[pakar]

FYI - Just in China about 270000 people die due to coal-plants per year..

Re:So NOW they say it!

[khallow]

But now that a study shows the possibility of thyroid cancer in children, the "experts" say it's too early to tell. So why did they not say that when the claim was being made that there was no effect?

Two weeks ago, when this story broke on Slashdot, we fellow Slashdotters told you there were serious problems with the research such as absence of control groups, no actual evidence for a difference in thyroid cancer rates, and no demonstrated correlation with radiation exposure even if we did assume there was a difference in thyroid cancer rates.

Now, the experts are telling you the same thing. When are you going to get the clue?

Re:At last, some common sense!

[GuB-42]

I wouldn't but that's because it is a kinda boring small city in Japan, not because of the radiation. Living in Japan is not for everyone.
It isn't a good tourist place either, however, don't hesitate to go to Matsushima, it is not that far from Fukushima and it is a very nice place.

I just don't care whether LNT models are right

[rbrander]

While the vitriol washes across the page and the duelling citations go to great indent levels, I'd just like to say, I don't care.

Nobody cares about the 24,000 people dying of coal-related causes in the US every year (over 100,000 world wide), they're just dismissed (emotionally speaking, which translates to newspaper column-inches and TV minutes) as "background", life is tough, has some risks, cars hit people, crazy people shoot innocent people...etc.

So you guys go ahead and argue whether the worldwide cancer death rate would be microscopically higher if all the coal plants were replaced with nukes. I'm sure it's a very interesting argument to doctors and biologists and nuclear engineers and stuff, but the rest of us have lives to get on with and we can't go worrying over problems that are undetectable without a well-run society doing careful statistics on very large numbers.

The cost of coal in lives is so much larger it doesn't require all that careful a record-keeping. I just read that 70% of the 29 coal miners killed in that explosion a few years back had black lung, when the industry average is 3% - caused by cheaping out on the coal-dust suppression, presumably, since that's also what blew up. The uranium-mining industry can't remotely compare. And their industry deliberately pumps all their combustion products straight into the atmosphere, mercury and all; they've harshly resisted any filtration.

Compared to coal, nuclear risks just disappear in perspective.

Thyroid cancer? Doubt it.

[Chalnoth]

Thyroid cancer is one of those things that is incredibly easy to overdiagnose. Apparently about a third of people have "microtumors" in their thyroid, but only about 1 in 200,000 people die from thyroid cancer. Here's one article that talks about the problem of overdiagnosis of thyroid cancer.

Re:Just like for Tchernobyl disaster...

[Chikungunya]

That example was so bad it hurts. The position is "this data is not enough to say that these cancers were caused by radiation" that is completely different and much more rational.

Hey everybody, it's cool!

[r-diddly]

Radiation doesn't cause cancer now!

Re:Too soon - Ad homs

[MrKaos]

Pointing out your use of an ad hominem is not, itself, an ad hominem.

However the way you used it, it was.

ad hominem:

adjective

1.appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.

2.attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

Had you decided not to include my argument in your statement(2), then it would not be. Since you did, it is.

my position is that you're being a jackass.

Welcome to slashdot Mr Ward. My position is you're coming off as a bit of a smart ass instead of the adult Mr Rogers want's you to be.

Some of use have Karma to burn which means we can be a jackass if we feel it is appropriate. It was appropriate to flame because MrD is the first definition and he has been a troll sockpuppet since long before you were posting here. I'm guessing for you that's probably about a year so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because you're new here. If you have a problem with me excercising my freedom of speech then I suggest that you are in the wrong place. I am certainly glad you are exercising yours.

It's a bit of a confrontational way to introduce yourself. You're probably right I should hold myself to a higher moral authority however I haven't roasted a troll for years and I really enjoyed it so I am completely unapologetic.

I think your pseudonym is hilarious and very clever btw, so it's lovely to "meat" you.

While Mr D has not provided evidence,

(FTFY) to back up his claims, I did.

at least he was polite.

A polite troll is still a troll and MrD is pretty crafty polite troll who appeals to groupthink. I reject the inference that I wasn't being polite about it though, I think I was pretty good humoured.

How tolerant should I be? I am only human and my tolerance is limited. I don't accept bullshit on this matter. Trivializing it the way MrD does shows he is not prepared to argue sincerely.

For some reason, I typo'd his name

It's no way to treat a role model, he seems like such a nice man. How ironic that he is a puppeteer and my reply unknowingly frames you as a sockpuppet, my sincerest apologies. Is there a specific lesson about niceness you want me to see?

Perhaps Mr Rogers wouldn't tell you 'you are being a hypocrite', maybe he'd just say "Why don't you just try being nice".

Perhaps this quote from Voltaire is worth considering:

What is tolerance? -- it is the consequence of humanity. We are all formed of frailty and error; let us pardon reciprocally each other's folly -- that is the first law of nature

I'm certain Mr Rogers would wholeheartedly agree.

Re:Too soon - Tritium

[MrKaos]

I don't have a dog in this fight;

Mr D hasn't presented anything to back his claims other than his own diatribe and some quick google searches, so neither does he.

You however have said something very specific:

You aren't providing any good evidence (cell biology studies from the 70's don't count - methods were exceedingly primitive then, and if you can't cite anything more recent, you don't have much of a leg to stand on) either

Ok, help me out then. Are you referring me to more recent works on Tritium?

What are your specific criticisms of these studies, have they been dis-proven?

Are you telling me there is a reason why I should change my mind about the consequences of Tritium in the body, and where it is deposited when it gets there?

Are you suggesting that their is no damage caused by beta emissions on the DNA in the reproductive organs as these studies suggest?

Are you suggesting that radionuclides absorbed into and remaining in the body will not do damage to the cells or DNA relative to the amouint of radiation they emit?

MrD claims that the information about the magnitude of radionuclide products released at Fukushima is in the IAEA report but is yet to say where in the 1200 pages I will need to look to find exactly how much and of which radionuclide effluents have been released. It is the fist link he has posted to back his claims and I doubt he has read it at all. I've been meaning to read it anyway. Apart from having some doubts about the veracity of information from an organization by whose own charter states it is dedicated to the expansion of Nuclear Power, I think he is confused about external and internal radiation exposure, the potential for radionuclides to accumulated inside the body and, the damage it can cause once it is there.

I'm not trying to argue about the effects of radiation here.

Neither am I, directly. Specifically I am discussing the radionuclide products released by the Fukushima disasters. I don't think it is possible to do a proper statistical analysis without this information, otherwise how would you know what to look for, the effects will take so long. WHO reports it took about 6 years for the most direct exposures to manifest into Thyroid difficulties from the Chernobyl disaster before their funding was cut.

Also I think it's too early to start talking about cancers from the Fukushima disasters - so don't think that is what I am saying.

As Japan eats seafood I expect they probably have more iodine in their diet so it's reasonable to presume there will be other differences. I don't think the Japanese government is helping by suppressing information. I hope for the best because we wish good will to people.

Perhaps you have specific expertise to offer so if you have anything to say about the works I referenced. I'm open to changing my mind on things if people can provide the evidence of why it should be done. This is a pretty complex subject and the biology is only one aspect. I will welcome a conversation with you based on fact in a civil discourse.

Re:Too soon - Tritium

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

Sorry it's taken me a while to reply.

I'd suggest this paper, this one, and this. Tritium is obviously dangerous, but it does appear that there is a low acceptable dose. DNA can certainly be damaged by radiation emitted from radionuclides, I don't think anybody will contest that. And of course, I agree that it's too early to pin cancer cases on Fukushima. The Japanese government should be handling this better, I fully agree on that point too.

Re:Too soon - Ad homs

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

To address a few points here - if Mr D is a troll (I've been here less than a year, you're right) then I can see why it could be appropriate. I have no problem with you using your freedom of speech, and I certainly wouldn't try to stop you.

I think your pseudonym is hilarious and very clever btw, so it's lovely to "meat" you.

Thanks! I've only had one person attack me for being an AC so far, but I still enjoy it.

Mr. Rogers was under-appreciated, I think. No worries - I know people do sockpuppet here, and it can be hard to tell the difference. I quite like that Voltaire quote, I may have to use it sometime.

Re:Too soon - Ad homs

[MrKaos]

Damn man - you're really cool - thanks for being sane!

Thanks! I've only had one person attack me for being an AC so far, but I still enjoy it.

It's the joke that produces the reaction that is funny, I'll keep an eye out for the lols!!

All the best Mr Ward!!!

Re:Too soon - Tritium

[MrKaos]

Sorry it's taken me a while to reply.

No problem. I gisted them and these look like good studies. I will read them over the next couple of days - thank you.