Why is Fukushima nuclear crisis so threatening?

Dmytry

Quote by Argentum Vulpes

Dmytry did you even bother to read either paper? What dose the fact that HBRAs are in third world areas have to do with anything

Very low quality data. Low quality radiation measurements, and low quality healthcare (low quality cancer rate measurement). The lowest is the confidence in the data, the strongest are the deviations from LNT.
In the developed world there was a LOT of people exposed to well measured doses of radiation, and a very good follow up.
Things such as this:
http://baltimorechronicle.com/rupnose.html
and all the other overuses of radiation till the 60s and 70s.
But of course, hormesis proponents won't go and check if high quality data - from the USE of their hypothesis - matches their hypothesis.

. I guess the PhD researchers or the assistants that are sent to do a study are using the cheapest equipment out there and ignoring scientific procedures when taking in data. Thanks for opening my eyes to that fact.

To Iran? Ohh come on.

Also the WHO has come out in a paper stating that iodine deficiency really helped with the uptick in thyroid cancers after Chernobyl. Also Oxford has put out a paper that came to the same conclusion. As for the protection pills being distributed the USSR the government would of had to of handed them out quickly. However they didn't acknowledge the accident till 3 day later after they were embarrassed into it.

Everyone picks on soviet union all the time. But it could do something as simple as dietary supplements. The far bigger difference for Fukushima, if you want to look for differences, is that the wind was blowing to the west into populated areas, versus to the east into pacific ocean.

This really bugs me that you are acting just like the global climate change deniers. You have been shown a mountain of evidence from reliable engineers, and reliable sources, yet you arguments come from sources of questionable reliability or from studies with very narrow scopes.

No, you are linking a bunch of controversial papers that deny LNT and revert back to old hormesis 'hypothesis' which if you recall was the first hypothesis about effects of the radiation. See all the early 20th century quack radium medicines. You are the effects-of-pollution denial person here.
What do you want, totally unanimous scientific opinion?
See, on one hand we have pretty much every nuclear regulatory body, the microbeam studies, the theoretical understanding of cancer. On the other side, we have a couple people - a minority - trying to do statistics on apriori insufficient numbers of people for getting any result, doing it with almost the worst data available. Iran, lol. What's next for the data sourcing, North Korea?

jlduh

I'm sure you will like this... (I just posted it on the "more political thread" about Fukushima).

I post this recent video which debunks MSNBC propaganda proposed at the date of 25th anniversary of Chernobyl accident. MSNBC is owned by GE who also built some of the reactors at Fukushima.

If you didn't know that people returning living in the controled zone around Chernobyl are in fact living LONGER than the ones staying outside, then it's probably because you didn't hear MSNBC propaganda recently...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7BlJ...eature=related

For a long time nuclear activities, even the "civil" ones, were managed in military styles. Now, in addition, private companies make marketing out of them.

In the first case, the lies were called "top secret defense". Now they are called "communication and propaganda for the masses"...

What's threatening in Fukushima crisis?

Well, just an other proof that lies combined to false safety measures leads to unforeseen desaster: some really didn't believe it was possible, but some others didn't WANT to believe it was possible and shut their eyes on purpose.

Money. Power. Ignorance. And lies. A bunch of lies.This is what's threatening, applied to nuclear risks AND consequences.

Dmytry

Plus there's those people who go on how a bit of radiation is good for you (the same way how it was till early 1970s). The attitude that already killed many thousands - not by nuclear accidents, but by things such as nosal irradiation (and this death toll is not estimated from large doses. This death toll was directly measured)

It is just like climate change denial indeed. I didn't really want to make this analogy myself but the parallel is obvious.
Majority of scientists agree with anthropogenic global warming, which goes against interests of fossil fuel industry, minority (openly funded by fossil fuel industry) disagrees, the topic is declared 'controversial' and the idea is that there's not enough proof.
Same for LNT. Majority of scientists agree with LNT which goes against interests of nuclear power industry, minority disagrees, the topic is then declared 'controversial'.
One to one parallel really. Science vs industry clash in both cases, and science takes a while to prevail.

jlduh

As i just quickly read the animated discussion earlier on this thread about effects of radiations and nuclear industries on life, i would like to post this study that i found, which is screening the effects on children of living near a nuclear plant in the US (14 nuclear plants/24 reactors taken into account in this study).

From: Archives of Environmental Health
Date: 2/1/2003
Author: Chang, Carolyn; Dave, Amie; Feinberg, Elyssa; Frimer, Marina; Mangano, Joseph J.; Sherman,

http://www.c-10.org/pdf/Elevated%20c...e%20to%20U.pdf

I just extract some of the main results:

Results

Incidence of all cancers. Incidence for total cancers for children < 5 yr during 1988 to
1997 was higher than the SEER rate near all 14 nuclear plants in our study (Table 4).
The rate for all 49 counties combined was 22.51 per 100,000, or 11.4% greater than the
SEER rate (p < 0.0002). The smallest excess was near the Salem/Hope Creek complex
(+0.7%); the largest occurred near both the Turkey Point and St. Lucie facilities in
Florida (+29.1%).

Cancer incidence in children 5-9 yr for 1988 to 1997 exceeded the SEER rate for 13 of
the 14 areas. The rate for the study counties was 12.15 per 100,000--12.5% higher than
the SEER rate of 10.80 (p < 0.002). The smallest excess was found near the Millstone
reactors in Connecticut (+2.2%), and the largest occurred near St. Lucie (+73.6%).
Incidence near the Crystal River facility in Florida was 6.5% below the SEER rate.

Combining the age groups yields an incidence rate of 17.42 per 100,000--12.4% above
the SEER rate (p < 0.00001). The excess incidence near 3 of the plants (Oyster Creek,
St. Lucie, and Turkey Point) was statistically significant; near the Indian Point and
Brookhaven facilities it reached borderline significance (p < 0.08 and p < 0.07,
respectively). Although county-specific totals are not shown, considerable variation in
rates exists, in part because of the relatively small numbers of cases involved. Still, the
incidence rate for those 0-9 yr of age exceeded the U.S. rate in 38 of the 49 study
counties.

Childhood cancer incidence < 30 mi (48 km) from nuclear reactors was compared with
rates for the remaining counties in the states in which reactors are located. Several
adjoining, less-populated states (New Jersey and Delaware, Connecticut and Rhode
Island, Massachusetts and New Hampshire) were combined to ensure adequate
statistical power. For each of 6 states and combinations of states, cancer incidence for
those 0-9 yr in the counties near reactors was higher than in other counties in the state
(Table 5). The total excess incidence derived from comparing the counties near reactors
with those in the rest of the state, or state combinations, was 5.0% (p < 0.04).
Elevated rates for the New York and Pennsylvania nuclear counties are of borderline significance
(p < 0.055 and p < 0.07, respectively).

Total cancer incidence by race. U.S. black and Hispanic children < 20 yr of age have
cancer incidence rates 23% and 10% below that for whites, respectively. (44) To assess
the effect of race on childhood cancer incidence near nuclear plants, incidence data from
Pennsylvania counties near nuclear plants were studied (the Pennsylvania registry
makes county statistics for whites and blacks more readily available than do registries in
other states). Using SEER data, the 1988 to 1997 U.S. cancer incidence rates for white
and black children 0-9 yr were calculated at 15.88 and 13.28 per 100,000, respectively.
For the 23 Pennsylvania counties located close to reactors, childhood cancer rates
exceeded U.S. rates for both whites and blacks (Table 6).

Incidence of leukemia. We examined the incidence of childhood leukemia in the 23
counties near 5 nuclear plants in Pennsylvania (Table 7). These regions account for
slightly more than half the state's population. Leukemia incidence in the state's nuclear
counties exceeded the U.S. rate by 10.8%; the rate for the remainder of the state was
11.5% below the U.S. rate (p < 0.01). For all other cancers, virtually no difference was
seen between nuclear and non-nuclear counties, even though both exceeded the
national rate (by 2.6% and 3.2%, respectively).

[...]

This study found a consistent pattern of increased childhood cancer incidence in all
study areas < 30 mi (48 km) from nuclear plants in the eastern United States. Our
findings support the biologically plausible concept that susceptibility to carcinogens, such
as radioactivity, is greatest in utero and in early childhood. They also support numerous
analyses documenting elevated childhood cancer rates near nuclear facilities in the
United States and other nations. The finding that cancer incidence for children < 10 yr is
12.4% greater in the study counties than the U.S. as a whole suggests that emissions
from nuclear power plants may be linked with 1 of 9 local cases of childhood cancer.
These descriptive epidemiological findings suggest a relationship between radioactive
nuclides and childhood cancer and should be taken seriously in future research.

andybwell

"I think you mean, increased thyroid cancers in people exposed to radiation as children still show increased thyroid cancers. At least, that's what the article says. "

The Fukushima nuclear crisis is so threatening, especially to children, because they are more susceptible to cancer from the increased radiation levels around the "troubled" plant. However, the Japanese Govt. have not acted on this. Indeed, they have instead increased the allowed radiation level for children so that children can remain in schools near the "troubled" plant!

andybwell

The International Commission on Radiological Protection recommends that all radiation exposure be kept as low as achievable, and for the public, on top of background radiation and any medical procedures, should not exceed 1 mSv per year.

For nuclear industry workers, they recommend a maximum permissible annual dose of 20 mSv averaged over five years, with no more than 50 mSv in any one year.

In Japan the maximum allowed annual dose for workers, 100 mSv, was already higher than international standards. This has been increased in response to the Fukushima disaster to 250 mSv.

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences BEIR VII report estimates that each 1 mSv of radiation is associated with an increased risk of solid cancer (cancers other than leukemia) of about 1 in 10,000; an increased risk of leukemia of about 1 in 100,000; and a 1 in 17,500 increased risk of dying from cancer.

But a critical factor is that not everyone faces the same level of risk. For infants (under 1 year of age) the radiation-related cancer risk is 3 to 4 times higher than for adults; and female infants are twice as susceptible as male infants.

Females’ overall risk of cancer related to radiation exposure is 40 percent greater than for males. Fetuses in the womb are the most radiation-sensitive of all.

In Germany, a recent study of 25 years of the national childhood cancer register showed that even the normal operation of nuclear power plants is associated with a more than doubling of the risk of leukemia for children under 5 years old living within 5 kilometers of a nuclear plant.

Increased risk was seen to more than 50 km away. This was much higher than expected, and highlights the particular vulnerability to radiation of children in and outside the womb.

In addition to exposure measured by typical external radiation counters, the children of Fukushima will also receive internal radiation from particles inhaled and lodged in their lungs, and taken in through contaminated food and water.

A number of radioactive substances are concentrated up the food chain and in people. As a parent, the decision to allow the children of Fukushima to be exposed to such injurious levels of radiation is an unacceptable abrogation of the responsibility of care and custodianship for our children and future generations.

andybwell

Sorry, I forgot the links.
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/3564
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushi...te-NewScie2-11

Drakkith

Quote by andybwell

"I think you mean, increased thyroid cancers in people exposed to radiation as children still show increased thyroid cancers. At least, that's what the article says. "

The Fukushima nuclear crisis is so threatening, especially to children, because they are more susceptible to cancer from the increased radiation levels around the "troubled" plant. However, the Japanese Govt. have not acted on this. Indeed, they have instead increased the allowed radiation level for children so that children can remain in schools near the "troubled" plant!

I wasn't disagreeing with anything you said, I was simply pointing out that your post didn't make sense with what was said in the link.

Twenty years after Chernobyl, increased thyroid cancers in children are still prevalent.

This is incorrect. Thats all.

andybwell

"Twenty years after Chernobyl, increased thyroid cancers in children are still prevalent."

"I think you mean, increased thyroid cancers in people exposed to radiation as children still show increased thyroid cancers. At least, that's what the article says. "

"In childhood, once exposed even to low doses of ionizing radiation, either externally or internally, the cancer-prone cell damage within the thyroid gland can be preserved for a long time. Today, special attention should be paid to a high risk group of individuals who have been exposed to radioactive iodines just after the Chernobyl accident and who are now 20 to 30 year-old. Elucidation of the molecular mechanisms of radiation-induced thyroid cancer is expected to contribute to the disease prevention and treatment in the coming future. "

Yes, and this must now include the children in schools near the Fukushima "troubled" reactors.

andybwell

A different opinon:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...nuclear-safety

andybwell

Thyroid cancer was the first solid tumor reported to be increased in frequency among atomic bomb survivors. 1 Subsequent surveys found a significant excess of papillary thyroid cancer. A straight line adequately describes the relationship between radiation dose and thyroid cancer incidence, relative risks are similar in males and females, and age at exposure substantively influences risk. Risk is highest for children exposed when younger than 10 year but the risk per unit dose following exposure in childhood is higher than for any other radiation-induced malignancy.

andybwell

JAPAN WITHHELD INFORMATION TO AVOID PANIC

http://enenews.com/official-japanese...-causing-panic

andybwell

A different opinion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_L._Orbach

jlduh

To Andybwell: just a reminder about the form (and not the subjects or ideas) so the thread can be easily readable:

- it would be better if you separate what you write yourself from extracts copied from an article that you link: just use the quote function of the forum to put the copied extracts in between. Your messages will be much easier to read for others

example: your message #74 is a copied extract of this article (that i read previously): http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/3595 so it's better to source it with link and put this into quotes.

- if possible group different elements in one message if the subjects are similar to avoid multiple successive posting for one matter.

- your last message is not clear as the wikipedia article on "Orbach" doesn't explain why it is a "different opinion" (different from what?)

Please don't be offensed by these remarks which just have the aim to make your arguments more easily readable (in my opinion!).

gmax137

Quote by jlduh

... Mangano, Joseph ...

http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/...deception.html

JaredJames

Quote by gmax137

http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/...deception.html

Let's keep blogs out of it shall we.

gmax137

Quote by JaredJames

Let's keep blogs out of it shall we.

Well, read it, and read the comments. Follow the links and draw your own conclusions. PF used to be a pretty good place to find roadmaps to real science, not opinions. I see that (sadly) slipping away lately. To be blunt, it seems the crackpots have found PF.

Similar Threads for: Why is Fukushima nuclear crisis so threatening?
Thread	Forum	Replies
Fukushima Daiichi rated?	Nuclear Engineering	49
Japan nuclear crisis	Nuclear Engineering	17
Nuclear Crisis/North Korea	Current Events	7

andybwell	Sorry, I forgot the links. http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/3564 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushi...te-NewScie2-11