Fukushima Japan earthquake - contamination & consequences outside Fukushima NPP

[mikefj40]

Let me explain medical science, it draws no conclusions only opinions and in science you can't ignore either one as you must draw a theory based on facts.

Call it opinion or critical analysis. Azby's post convinced me that the book is fundamentally flawed.

 

[Luca Bevil]

Hi Azby,
I will refrain from quoting since your post is already long enough.

While I can agree that the book being debated needs to be carefully scrutinised, peer-reviewed, and reappraised for conclusions, it is also true that, as you point out, it contains raw data that can be analysed. It is in a sense surprising for me that no other scientist has taken this approach instead of simply critising and discounting the book as being biased (which probably is to a certain extent) and not peer-rewieved.

Furthermore some of the opinions that you cite to counter its scientifical grounds are from highly biased people like Rod Davis whose opinions are far less scientific than anything I have ever read in my entire life, so please let me take that criticism as of null value.

Once again you cite a statement, about the air travel induced exposures, that is plagued by the same ambiguity that we already discussed.
Airline travel does expose passengers to cosmic rays, and hence increased external radiations, but it does not expose assengers to inhalation or ingestion of radioactive nuclides, which are in most cases the prevalent concern for long term consequences of population affected by nuclear accidents like the ones in Chernobyl or Fukushima.

In short I agree with you we are a long way from establishing the real consequences of accident such as Chernobyl or Fukushima.
Probably the most balanced estimate that I've seen so far is the one from the union of concerned scientist (that are not so different from Greenpeace etimates BTW)
http://allthingsnuclear.org/post/4704112149/how-many-cancers-did-chernobyl-really-cause-updated

but this is my personal opinion, and certainly more data needs to be collected and analysed about this issue.

In the meantime, I think it is fair to say, as a first rough rule of thumb, for policy decisions makers and risk assessment specialists, that no other human endeavour other than nuclear has the potential of resulting in single accidents of such a level of damage and risk.

We can just think about what would have happened if SP4 had failed at Fukushima, as the NRC and G. Jazco feared in the first few days (and quite understably so given the level of structural damage, there).

Once we have that clear in mind we can discuss about CO2 emission consequences of non-nuclear power generation, or whichever else policy aspect we might like to discuss.

Trying to cloud that evident truth by citing overly optimistic statistics on consequences, extremely low probabilities for failures (that the world discover being based on erroneous assumption after the fact) is unacceptable.

Of course I am not saying that you are trying to do that.

I am just making a general statement about my position on the issue.

 

[Azby]

Luca,

I think we agree on most of this. A few comments:

<It is in a sense surprising for me that no other scientist has taken this approach instead of simply critising and discounting the book as being biased (which probably is to a certain extent) and not peer-rewieved.>

I think papers have already begun to percolate upward, and we will see more and more references to them in coming years, some confirming, some refuting. The biggest problem being that so few of them are in English or other Western European languages. I think Yablokov has probably given this body of work a taint from which it will be difficult to recover, however.

<Furthermore some of the opinions that you cite to counter its scientifical grounds are from highly biased people like Rod Davis whose opinions are far less scientific than anything I have ever read in my entire life, so please let me take that criticism as of null value.>

I'll accept that. Still I don't think Davis is being dishonest in what he reports here.

<Probably the most balanced estimate that I've seen so far is the one from the union of concerned scientist >

Right, that's Lisbeth Gronlund, whom I quoted. I wouldn't mind taking a poll to see who else considers that a reasonable estimate. I'm inclined to give it great weight. The big problem being that like all the others it relies so heavily on collective dose estimates, a very blunt instrument, but one we seem forced to use.

As for the air travel analysis, Mays is writing in NEI notes, and we know that the NEI is a major pro-nuclear organization. But his point that the UCS methodology would give extremely high numbers for cancer fatalities from air travel was intended to show that collective dose studies probably give us very unrealistic results.

<(that are not so different from Greenpeace etimates BTW)>

Yes, but, Greenpeace estimates 270,000 cases of cancer, 93,000 of them fatal, plus an additional 200,000 deaths from other diseases (can't find the exact reference at the moment, sorry);
Gronlund first suggested 34,000- 140,000 excess cancers, 16,000-73,000 of them fatal, then revised it to 27,000 to 108,000 excess cancers,12,000 to 57,000 of them fatal. Is it fair to say Greenpeace's estimate is much higher?

Still compared to Yablokov (on p 210)...

"Thus the overall mortality for the period from April 1986 to the end of 2004 from the Chernobyl catastrophe was estimated at 985,000 additional deaths."

...UCS and Greenpeace are within a order of magnitude.

(sigh)

All I have to do is step back for just a moment to feel ashamed at the ease with which we toss around these numbers. Because even understanding the many greater risks we accept in our daily lives, in fact I think even one "civilian" death from an accident like this is unacceptable. Because in the case of Fukushima it's only one part true accident and many parts engineering failure, poor planning, unethical political behavior, and misrepresentation of risk, mainly in pursuit of profit.

 

[NUCENG]

All I have to do is step back for just a moment to feel ashamed at the ease with which we toss around these numbers. Because even understanding the many greater risks we accept in our daily lives, in fact I think even one "civilian" death from an accident like this is unacceptable. Because in the case of Fukushima it's only one part true accident and many parts engineering failure, poor planning, unethical political behavior, and misrepresentation of risk, mainly in pursuit of profit.

You were making good points right up to there. "Even one death" is an impossible standard to meet. As you stated, we accept so many things in our daily lives that already fail to meet that requirement. Do you drive a car? Do you go to the beach? It is meaningless to classify a death from any preventable cause as better than another and it is also meaningless to say that a death from a nuclear accident is worse than any other preventable cause. You recognized that and then in the next sentence you basically say, "But nuclear is different." Why?

Distinctions of "civilian" deaths are also falacious. Every death is regretable. I am certain you aren't saying that the plant workers who died at Fukushima deserved it.

Even if the radiation releases at Fukushima resulted in no immediate or latent deaths, the economic losses and disruptions to lives of the evacuees would be a tragedy. Suppose we could prove in a few years that only one person had developed a cancer and died. Woukd that justify disrupting the economy and shuting down 30% of Japanese electrical generation? Suppose it was a hundred deaths. There is no right or wrong answer. Whatever we do has unforseen consequences. It is equally valid or invalid for someone to say, "If eliminating the risk of a nuclear accident causes even one death, for instance, due to temporary increased dependence on fossile fuels, it is unacceptable."

Philosophy and physics may start out with the same letters but after that they are quite different things. Physics can't exist without numbers and numbers are meaningless in philosophy.

 

[Luca Bevil]

Hi Azby,

in fact I do think that our evaluations are not at all dissimilar, as for the Greenpeace estimetes I quoted them only to say that they are in the same order of magnitude.

You were making good points right up to there. "Even one death" is an impossible standard to meet. As you stated, we accept so many things in our daily lives that already fail to meet that requirement. Do you drive a car? Do you go to the beach? It is meaningless to classify a death from any preventable cause as better than another and it is also meaningless to say that a death from a nuclear accident is worse than any other preventable cause. You recognized that and then in the next sentence you basically say, "But nuclear is different." Why?

Distinctions of "civilian" deaths are also falacious. Every death is regretable. I am certain you aren't saying that the plant workers who died at Fukushima deserved it.

Even if the radiation releases at Fukushima resulted in no immediate or latent deaths, the economic losses and disruptions to lives of the evacuees would be a tragedy. Suppose we could prove in a few years that only one person had developed a cancer and died. Woukd that justify disrupting the economy and shuting down 30% of Japanese electrical generation? Suppose it was a hundred deaths. There is no right or wrong answer. Whatever we do has unforseen consequences. It is equally valid or invalid for someone to say, "If eliminating the risk of a nuclear accident causes even one death, for instance, due to temporary increased dependence on fossile fuels, it is unacceptable."

Philosophy and physics may start out with the same letters but after that they are quite different things. Physics can't exist without numbers and numbers are meaningless in philosophy.

In expanding the point that NUCENG is writing about I can share the view that there is no reason to evaluate as tragedy the loss of a single life from a nuclear accident more than it is a tragedy a death related to any other human activity.

The problem though is different, in my opinion, it is the fact that the threshold at which a nuclear accident can become of apocaliptic proportions is much easier to reach than in other types of technology accidents.

As a striking example we can for example point (as I already did) to the structural integrity of SFP4 in Fukushima. Had that structure collapsed or even just drained, as was entirely possible given structural damages and after shock quake raging on, and it was difficult to assess in those first days, the accident would have resulted in a tragedy enourmusly worst that it in fact has.

It is speculative, but quite easy to predict I think, that with a "open air meltdown" going on, control would have been impossible or almost impossible at all reactors with results that can be reasonably feared as massive radioactive release, widespread terror, people fleeing the Tokyo area in mass, logistic chaos, financial chaos on markets worldwide, enormously enlarged evacuation zones, with financial burden unsustainable even for Japan (and we are seeing what a turmoil in a little economy like Greece can bring about).

The fact that Rod Davis is criticising Jazco for instructing, in such a scenario, US citizens to evacuate for at least 80 km around the plant is, in my humble opinion, sufficient proof that his point of view (and not G. Jazco's) is totally biased.
I would not go as far as to accuse him of being dishonest or just plainly a lobbyst, but certainly I do discount any of his opinions of a factor of about 99,999999%.

 

[tsutsuji]

The opinion developped by Mito Kakizawa at the House of Representatives Budget Committee on May 16th (see http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/national/news/20110521p2a00m0na021000c.html ) is that if no internal contamination surveys are conducted now among the general citizens, it will be more difficult for them to make their case in court, should they suffer from cancer later, years from now. It will be more difficult to assess the causality between NPP troubles and cancer.

Mito Kakizawa had to rely on the data for workers at nuclear power plants because until that day (May 16th) no such internal contamination survey had been performed among the general population.

A follow-up :

Those selected will undergo thorough testing for internal radiation contamination, including testing with a whole body counter as well as checks of the thyroid gland where radioactive iodine can readily accumulate. Urine samples will also be tested to determine if radioactive materials were ingested.

2011/06/18 - Fukushima prepares extensive study of radiation health effects on residents
http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201106170203.html

With only 100 people or so, the sample is small. I wonder if this is enough to take into account a variety of lifestyles and behaviours during the first weeks of the accident.

 

[Azby]

You were making good points right up to there. "Even one death" is an impossible standard to meet. As you stated, we accept so many things in our daily lives that already fail to meet that requirement. Do you drive a car? Do you go to the beach? It is meaningless to classify a death from any preventable cause as better than another and it is also meaningless to say that a death from a nuclear accident is worse than any other preventable cause. You recognized that and then in the next sentence you basically say, "But nuclear is different." Why?

Distinctions of "civilian" deaths are also falacious. Every death is regretable. I am certain you aren't saying that the plant workers who died at Fukushima deserved it.

Even if the radiation releases at Fukushima resulted in no immediate or latent deaths, the economic losses and disruptions to lives of the evacuees would be a tragedy. Suppose we could prove in a few years that only one person had developed a cancer and died. Woukd that justify disrupting the economy and shuting down 30% of Japanese electrical generation? Suppose it was a hundred deaths. There is no right or wrong answer. Whatever we do has unforseen consequences. It is equally valid or invalid for someone to say, "If eliminating the risk of a nuclear accident causes even one death, for instance, due to temporary increased dependence on fossile fuels, it is unacceptable."

Philosophy and physics may start out with the same letters but after that they are quite different things. Physics can't exist without numbers and numbers are meaningless in philosophy.

That's all well put, NUCENG, and I guess I was talking there about how I feel rather than what I would accept as policy. So yes, it's philosophy on my part. I don't think nuclear is different, except in the scale and duration of negative effects when disasters like Fukushima or Chernobyl happen. When things break down they can break down in a truly massive way. I've accepted the risks of nuclear power because I agree that it's important to get coal plants offline as quickly as possible to help slow climate change, and because accidents have been rare. It's more the large role that human error, mismanagement, and corruption have played in this current sequence of events that make me consider it an absolute wrong. I'm from New Orleans, and I feel the same way about the failure of the levees after Hurricane Katrina. But am I willing to accept risk compromises in reality? Yes. I've even been known to eat at McDonalds...

As for the difference between risk to civilians and to workers, I think ethically there's a big one. Not that one's life is worth less than another's, but even in cases where laborers have been put to work with inadequate preparation, they've made the choice and are aware that it's a dangerous job when they sign on, like most industrial jobs are. They probably even signed a waiver. People living miles away from the plant have been put at risk with little or no say about it.

So maybe this should move to a philosophy thread, but am I crazy to think that energy sources should be designed to be safe enough that we can walk away from them with no casualties when they break down? What represents a "safe and clean" energy ideal? How far away is nuclear from achieving that? Where's my "Mr. Fusion" like in "Back to the Future"?

Finally, it's especially infuriating because TEPCO and other Japanese electrical utilities have been encouraging Japanese people for years through advertising and promotions to consume more electricity, to switch from natural gas to "all electric" homes. The utilities themselves sell kitchen appliances, hot water heaters, and other household electrical items, and partner with housing manufacturers to promote the use of electricity in more areas of the home. Nearly every toilet seat in the country is electric! It's counterintuitive I know, since we've seen parallel increases in efficiency in appliances, lighting, and other devices during this period, but a lot of the capacity that the nuclear plants add in this country serves an artificially generated need. And at the same time very little R&D has gone towards developing promising sources like geothermal. If government and the industry here had really tried to develop safer alternatives instead of merely pursuing what appears to have been the most expedient and profitable route, and if they had really assessed the risks of siting the Fukushima plants where they did, instead of papering them over with winks and nods, then I would probably feel more accepting of the human and material cost we've incurred.

Which we are right now trying to determine...

 

[Luca Bevil]

Finally, it's especially infuriating because TEPCO and other Japanese electrical utilities have been encouraging Japanese people for years through advertising and promotions to consume more electricity, to switch from natural gas to "all electric" homes. The utilities themselves sell kitchen appliances, hot water heaters, and other household electrical items, and partner with housing manufacturers to promote the use of electricity in more areas of the home. Nearly every toilet seat in the country is electric! It's counterintuitive I know, since we've seen parallel increases in efficiency in appliances, lighting, and other devices during this period, but a lot of the capacity that the nuclear plants add in this country serves an artificially generated need. And at the same time very little R&D has gone towards developing promising sources like geothermal. If government and the industry here had really tried to develop safer alternatives instead of merely pursuing what appears to have been the most expedient and profitable route, and if they had really assessed the risks of siting the Fukushima plants where they did, instead of papering them over with winks and nods, then I would probably feel more accepting of the human and material cost we've incurred.

Which we are right now trying to determine...

Now I agree completely :-)

What you underscore is not so dissimilar from what happens in France where 58 nuclear reactors are operated to get a procapita C02 leve of emission that is not that much lower than Italy which is and will be operating 0 reactors.

My house uses only low consumption light bulbs, has an independent high efficiency gas heater for bth hot water and heating (caldaia a condensazione I am unsure about the translation in english), good thermal isolation from the outside environment, only high efficiency electric home appliances... I cut my house overall energy consumption by more than half with respect to the situation that was in place when I bought it 15 yrs ago.

While driving i really miss nothing having earned the possibility of driving a luxorious Mercedes Benz E-Klasse coupè... but I chose the dual stage turbocompressed "250" diesel engine that leaves intact my pleasure and confort of driving, being capable of reaching almost 250 km/h, but that can cover 20 km with one single liter of diesel fuel
when carefully driven at 110 km/h on an highway.
Is it enough ? probably not but it points, I think, to a path toward a much clever and cleaner and safer future than installing nuclear reactors everywhere ...
Paying a somewhat higer price for electricity is an incentive to this line of thinking.

 

[NUCENG]

That's all well put, NUCENG, and I guess I was talking there about how I feel rather than what I would accept as policy. So yes, it's philosophy on my part. I don't think nuclear is different, except in the scale and duration of negative effects when disasters like Fukushima or Chernobyl happen. When things break down they can break down in a truly massive way. I've accepted the risks of nuclear power because I agree that it's important to get coal plants offline as quickly as possible to help slow climate change, and because accidents have been rare. It's more the large role that human error, mismanagement, and corruption have played in this current sequence of events that make me consider it an absolute wrong. I'm from New Orleans, and I feel the same way about the failure of the levees after Hurricane Katrina. But am I willing to accept risk compromises in reality? Yes. I've even been known to eat at McDonalds...

As for the difference between risk to civilians and to workers, I think ethically there's a big one. Not that one's life is worth less than another's, but even in cases where laborers have been put to work with inadequate preparation, they've made the choice and are aware that it's a dangerous job when they sign on, like most industrial jobs are. They probably even signed a waiver. People living miles away from the plant have been put at risk with little or no say about it.

So maybe this should move to a philosophy thread, but am I crazy to think that energy sources should be designed to be safe enough that we can walk away from them with no casualties when they break down? What represents a "safe and clean" energy ideal? How far away is nuclear from achieving that? Where's my "Mr. Fusion" like in "Back to the Future"?

Finally, it's especially infuriating because TEPCO and other Japanese electrical utilities have been encouraging Japanese people for years through advertising and promotions to consume more electricity, to switch from natural gas to "all electric" homes. The utilities themselves sell kitchen appliances, hot water heaters, and other household electrical items, and partner with housing manufacturers to promote the use of electricity in more areas of the home. Nearly every toilet seat in the country is electric! It's counterintuitive I know, since we've seen parallel increases in efficiency in appliances, lighting, and other devices during this period, but a lot of the capacity that the nuclear plants add in this country serves an artificially generated need. And at the same time very little R&D has gone towards developing promising sources like geothermal. If government and the industry here had really tried to develop safer alternatives instead of merely pursuing what appears to have been the most expedient and profitable route, and if they had really assessed the risks of siting the Fukushima plants where they did, instead of papering them over with winks and nods, then I would probably feel more accepting of the human and material cost we've incurred.

Which we are right now trying to determine...

No, you are not crazy. I am trying to get explanations for a lot of things here too, but I am getting very sensitive to the natural tendency to go for absolutes (even one death) or the opposite tendency to throw up our arms and sit in a corner waiting to die. The correct path lies somewhere between those extremes and only reason will lead us there.

 

[Luca Bevil]

Interesting reportage on Sky Italy about Fukushima consequences.

I hope to find it on the web and post it.

In short at 30 km from the plant 9 microSieverts/h in many areas in a traveling car, one hot spoy at 113 microSieverts/h at ground level.

 

[razzz]

Ok, I'll provide some links and critical analysis:

==========
Yes, the disclaimer on the NYAS site:

http://www.nyas.org/publications/annals/Detail.aspx?cid=f3f3bd16-51ba-4d7b-a086-753f44b3bfc1

is couched in very subtle terms. The main point is that they yanked it from publication, and have never said that they support the findings or vouch for the quality of the science. There was a lot of behind the scenes criticism from NYAS members about the publication, on scientific grounds, and I believe some people lost their jobs over it. And I believe this statement to be accurately reported:

“In no sense did Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences or the New York Academy of Sciences commission this work; nor by its publication do we intend to independently validate the claims made in the translation or in the original publications cited in the work. The translated volume has not been peer-reviewed by the New York Academy of Sciences, or by anyone else.”

Douglas Braaten, Director and Executive Editor, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, communication to George Monbiot, 2nd April 2011, as cited in
http://www.monbiot.com/2011/04/04/evidence-meltdown/


Also,

http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com/2010/09/chernobyl-consequences-myths-and-fables.html
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2010
Chernobyl Consequences - Myths and Fables Versus Science
by Rod Adams

"After reviewing the book, a number of nuclear professionals, including some credentialed and experienced radiation effects specialists began exchanging emails wondering how the New York Academy of Sciences could have possibly accepted this book for publication based on a number of specific errors, omissions and outright denials of the scientific method. At least one member of the email discussion group is a member of the New York Academy of Sciences; he volunteered to contact the people in charge of publications to find out what could be done.

After some discussion, the people at the NYAS agreed that the document did not reflect the views of the academy, but that the decision to publish the document was made before the person who is currently in charge of publication arrived in his job. That person has stated that he has no authority to withdraw the publication, but he did issue a statement that provides some, but not much, distance between the document and the NYAS. "


============
Charles, Monty (2010) "Chernobyl: Consequences of the catastrophe for people and the environment" in Radiation Protection Dosimetry (2010) Vol. 141 No. 1. Oxford Journals. pp. 101–4.

Downloadable at:
http://wonkythinking.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Charles-review.pdf

In his review, Monty Charles (School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Birmingham) found the conclusions in the book statistically flawed, unclear, and contradictory. I.e., bad science. i encourage you to read the entire review (as well as Ian Fairlie's more positive one in the same journal). But an excerpt:

"Numerous facts and figures are given with a range of references but with little explanation and little critical evaluation. Apparently related tables, figures and statements, which refer to particular publications often disagree with one another. The section on oncological diseases (cancer) was of most interest to me. A section abstract indicated that on the basis of doses from 131I and137Cs; a comparison of cancer mortality in the heavily and less contaminated territories; and pre- and post-Chernobyl cancer levels, the predicted radiation-related cancer deaths in Europe would be 212 000–245 000 and 19 000 in the remainder of the world. I could not however find any specific discussion within the section to support these numbers. The section ends with an endorsement of the work of Malko who has estimated 10 000–40 000 additional deaths from thyroid cancer, 40 000–120 000 deaths from the other malignant tumours and 5000–14 000 deaths from leukaemia—a total of 55 000–174 000 deaths from 1986 to 2056 in the whole of Europe, including Belarus, Ukraine and Russia. These numbers confusingly, do not agree with a table (6.21) from the same author. The final section on overall mortality contains a table (7.11), which includes an estimate of 212 000 additional deaths in highly contaminated regions of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine. This figure is for the period of 1990–2004, and is based on an assumption that 3.8–4.0% of all deaths in the contaminated territories being due to the Chernobyl accident. One is left unsure about the meaning of many of these numbers and which is preferred."

==============
Mona Dreicer,
2010. Book Review: Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment. Environ Health Perspect 118:a500-a500. doi:10.1289/ehp.118-a500
Online: 01 November 2010

http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.118-a500

Monica Dreicer made similar criticisms in Environmental Health Perspectives, pointing out flawed methodology, biases, and unsupported assertions. She concludes by saying that we need good studies of the health effects of Chernobyl, but that they must be objective and scientifically rigorous (which Yablokov's book is not):

"To document the negative impacts of the accident—the authors’ objective—many of the articles present lists of excerpted facts, tables, and figures taken from the large number of referenced studies to support the stated conclusions. The inconsistent use of scientific units, the grouping of data collected with variable time and geographic scales, the lack of essential background information, and the consistent exclusion of scientific research that reported lesser or no negative impacts leave objective readers with very limited means for forming their own judgments without doing their own additional extensive research. In fact, many major technical studies and reports on the impacts of the Chernobyl accident have been excluded."

[snip]

"Two significant methodological biases underpin the conclusions that are drawn by the authors from the large amount of data presented: the application of a downward extrapolation of the linear radiation dose–effect relationship with no lower threshold, and the distrust of the ability of epidemiologic methodologies to determine the existence of a statistical correlation between measured or calculated radiological dose and measured impacts.

The first issue has been around for decades and continues to be debated by the scientific community. However, by discounting the widely accepted scientific method for associating cause and effect (while taking into account the uncertainties of dose assessment and measurement of impacts), the authors leave us with only with their assertion that the data in this volume “document the true scale of the consequences of the Chernobyl catastrophe.”

Indeed, the world should not forget Chernobyl. We should continue to aid the affected populations and pursue the best possible understanding of the true impacts, taking care to be as objective and scientifically rigorous as possible."

=======
Lisbeth Gronlund, writing in the Union of Concerned Scientists "All THings Nuclear" blog:
http://allthingsnuclear.org/post/4704112149/how-many-cancers-did-chernobyl-really-cause-updated

After providing estimates of mortality due to Chernobyl fallout, she points to Yablokov's book which gives much higher figures, and observes:

"The book is based on a wide variety of material, which has been compiled in a manner that is difficult to discern. …..Moreover, the book notes that at least some of this source material would be rejected by “Western” scientists (p.37):

'It is correct and justified for the whole of society to analyze the consequences of the largest-scale catastrophe in history and to use the enormous database collected by thousands of experts in the radioactively contaminated territories, despite some data not being in the form of Western scientific protocols. This database must be used because it is impossible to collect other data after the fact.'

Given this disclaimer, we have to discount the conclusions of this book, at least unless and until further information becomes available."

==============

I would note that many have criticized Gronlund's figures themseves as having been based on flawed assumptions, particularly weaknesses inherent in collective dose estimates, which lead them to be unreasonably high -- even though they're much lower than what Yablokov et al suggest. You may have seen this post by Brian Mays in NEI Nuclear Notes, in which he points out that the same methodology leads to even higher cancer rate estimates for air travel over a 10-year period. It's intentional provocation of course, but also a reality check:

http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2011/04/ucs-science-how-many-cancers-did.html

Sunday, April 17, 2011
UCS Science: How Many Cancers Did Airlines Really Cause?

"Using Dr. Gronlund's methodology (which was taken from the BEIR VII report), we should assume that "the expected incidence and mortality of solid cancers and leukemia are 0.1135 cancer cases and 0.057 cancer deaths per Sv." Thus, because of radiation exposure due to the airline industry, the expected number of cancer cases is 79,000, of which some 40,000 should result in death.

[snip]

It is somewhat illustrative to compare these numbers to the numbers presented by Dr. Gronlund for the Chernobyl accident: 68,000 cancer cases with 34,000 deaths. Given these numbers, one can scientifically conclude that the airline industry is far more dangerous -- in terms of deaths due to low-dose exposure to radiation -- than old, Soviet-era nuclear reactors."

============
Finally, if anyone has time it's worthwhile to read the CERRIE report of 2003, which gave a very full hearing to Busby, Yablokov, the data they presented from FSU nations. The data were almost uniformly judged to be unsupportable.

http://www.cerrie.org/report/

Sample quote:

p47: "10 The Committee was divided on the robustness of the human data. Some members
judged that the FSU data were sufficient to show that radiation can cause a detectable
increase in minisatellite mutations in the human germline.[reading further its clear that these members are Busby and his close colleague Richard Bramhall] Other members were not persuaded and cited evidence of inconsistent results from FSU studies; insufficiencies in
some study designs; substantial problems in the estimates of doses received; and, for one
study, the failure to adequately validate the mutation assay system used. In addition, the
results of genetic studies with the offspring of externally irradiated Japanese A-bomb
survivors and of cancer therapy patients were inconsistent with many of the FSU data, in
that no excess of mutations was detected."

It's like this in almost every case. Busby's findings and Yablokov's FSU studies contradict a vast amount of solid and verified research, and their own methodologies are extremely flawed often in elementary and obvious ways (as in the Sellafield leukemia clusters).

Busby claimed bias and whitewash later, of course, but he got a very fair hearing, and was allowed to chair sessions and workshops. Ian Fairlie was a co-chair, and in addition to Busby and Bramhall, Greenpeace was also represented. Busby and Yablokov constantly claim suppression, censorship, and conspiracy, but in fact they couldn't have gotten a more positive hearing.

===========
My conclusions: Busby and Yablokov have both been solidly refuted and discredited. They present what "looks" like a ton of evidence but isn't. Groups or individuals who use their data to support agendas cannot legitimately claim to be justified on scientific grounds. But scientists know never to say "never," and that we can only we proven wrong. There is undoubtedly some useful and important data in the FSU studies, and we need to find it. I think the best way is to translate as many of them as possible in full and make them available to all researchers to evaluate objectively.

Many people obviously got sick after Chernobyl, often in mysterious ways, but even though Busby, Yablokov and others have had years to make their case they've been unable to demonstrate that the radiation itself is responsible -- except in instances like high leukemia rates which were already predicted by the science and generally accepted by specialists. We need to understand what went on after Chernobyl not least because it has great bearing on what we will see after Fukushima, but bad science, particularly when it circulates in the media and is accepted in some circles as supported fact, which Yablokov's does, is worse than useless. It's actually irresponsible and damaging. In the case of Japan, this kind of misinformation has doubled the mistrust and tripled the anxiety, while the justifiable levels of both are high enough already.

Now back to trying to find out what the real hazards we face are.

Thanks for doing that post, I know it is time consuming.

What you fail to point out is that the book assembled known scientific reports (at the time) and then wrote opinions on the reports. The fact the book has been criticized means it has been reviewed and flaws found. Was the book flawed in its entirety? Also you fail to point out this is mostly a medical opinion book on radioactive fallout and its consequences on the human body. No where is medical science definitive, there are always exceptions equated in percentages. To ignore the book is to ignore the science it reported on.

Read the book's foreword again, states the obvious.

 

[Azby]

A follow-up :


With only 100 people or so, the sample is small. I wonder if this is enough to take into account a variety of lifestyles and behaviours during the first weeks of the accident.

I think it's a step in the right direction, and agree that the sample size is probably too small. I heard that there are not many full-body scanners available, which is probably why they feel the need to limit the sample. Tsutsuji, do you have more information about how many scanners are available and where?

The article implies that only members of this sample will be surveyed about their movements and food/milk consumption habits. I would think that the written survey at least should be made available online to a much larger population -- thousands at least. A big problem is that affected populations have dispersed, and need to be located quickly. A wide online survey would enable that.

Why didn't they have all this in place on standby long before the accident? Along with teams trained to take environmental radiation measurements that could cover wide areas quickly? Perhaps we should insist that prefectural governments which approve nuclear plants must implement these measures as part of the approval process. So maybe it's not needed for 20 or 30 years, but when you do it's there and ready.

 

[Luca Bevil]

I think it's a step in the right direction, and agree that the sample size is probably too small. I heard that there are not many full-body scanners available, which is probably why they feel the need to limit the sample. Tsutsuji, do you have more information about how many scanners are available and where?

The article implies that only members of this sample will be surveyed about their movements and food/milk consumption habits. I would think that the written survey at least should be made available online to a much larger population -- thousands at least. A big problem is that affected populations have dispersed, and need to be located quickly. A wide online survey would enable that.

Why didn't they have all this in place on standby long before the accident? Along with teams trained to take environmental radiation measurements that could cover wide areas quickly? Perhaps we should insist that prefectural governments which approve nuclear plants must implement these measures as part of the approval process. So maybe it's not needed for 20 or 30 years, but when you do it's there and ready.

One reason: cost.
In Italy the pro-nuclear camp insisted heavily on the supposed cost competitiveness of nuclear power generation, private investmentes with zero added costs for the state (burdened with public debt as you most likely know), and future supposed benefits for energy costs to consumers (they just forgot to mention that the bid/asK price formation process for electricity in Italy just does not allow cost saving on production side to be transferred to the public, but this is topic for other threads).

 

[Azby]

Thanks for doing that post, I know it is time consuming.

What you fail to point out is that the book assembled known scientific reports (at the time) and then wrote opinions on the reports. The fact the book has been criticized means it has been reviewed and flaws found. Was the book flawed in its entirety? Also you fail to point out this is mostly a medical opinion book on radioactive fallout and its consequences on the human body. No where is medical science definitive, there are always exceptions equated in percentages. To ignore the book is to ignore the science it reported on.

Read the book's foreword again, states the obvious.

Thanks. Would you believe I had those references close at hand?

I've read the foreword a number of times. Grodzinsky claims conspiracy, claims ongoing suppression of data, claims that the dangers of internal doses have been ignored by official bodies. Sorry, he's just damaged his case. But I agree when he says that the experience of these researchers is very important in furthering our knowledge of the risks inherent in large releases of radiation into the environment.

I don't think it's intended to be a medical "opinion" book, because Yablokov insists on nearly every page that his conclusions are obvious and incontrovertible. And the nature of the flaws in the book are such that we are unable to assess the accuracy of most of the claims in it. Others have reviewed many of the papers referenced, and found many problems with the papers themselves (I refer you again to the CERRIE report, and encourage you to read the reports of the individual meetings and workshops as well).

As I've said earlier, there must be solid, worthwhile research in there, but it's impossible for us to determine the standards he used for inclusion, and impossible for us to find the solid studies in it. This is why I think he's done that body of work a great disservice and has probably set back research in this area instead of advancing it.

And I hate to harp on this, but he references Busby prominently many times as an authoritative source, despite the fact that all of his main theses have been thoroughly refuted many times. The findings of Gofman and Petkau are also fairly central to Yablokov's thinking; the flaws in the former's work have been recognized for years, and the latter's findings are a controversial outlier. This is very flimsy science.

As I mentioned before, the bulk of the problems lie in chapter 2, dealing with human health; much of the content in chapters 1, 3, and 4 is more objective, verifiable, and therefore useful in my opinion.

It's important to understand what happened after Chernobyl. I say this book should be done over more carefully and objectively as an index of abstracts, with the translated papers made available online.

 

[Azby]

A follow-up :


With only 100 people or so, the sample is small. I wonder if this is enough to take into account a variety of lifestyles and behaviours during the first weeks of the accident.

I just saw a news item that says "Fukushima Pref to conduct health checks on 2 mil residents"

http://www.japantoday.com/category/...ium=email&utm_source=jt_newsletter_2011-06-19

<<FUKUSHIMA —
The Fukushima prefectural government said Saturday that it will conduct health checks on 2 million residents to ease their concerns over the effects of radiation exposure.

Checkups will start at the end of June with an examination of 28,000 people in three municipalities nearest the stricken Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant—Iitake village, Kawamata and Namie.

Local residents have been complaining about the lack of information being given out by authorities on the harmful effects of radioactive substances.

About 90,000 residents of the prefecture have been displaced since the March 11 crisis.>>

Now that's more like it!

 

[jlduh]

These stupid parents decontaminate the school by themselves with teachers despite the fact that authorities say it's safe! How unreasoned are they, they should be educated to avoid such irrational fear!

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/19_15.html

Parents and teachers decontaminated an elementary school building in Date City, Fukushima Prefecture, on Sunday.

About 80 parents and teachers at Tsukidate elementary school thoroughly washed windows and verandas with high-pressure water jets and brushes.

[...]

One parent who participated in the clean-up said he wanted to do something for children because the government's response has been slow.

School principal Masayoshi Murakami says he hopes the clean-up will help to ease children's and parents' worries.

 

[Borek]

I don't see it as a problem - if what they did was just water wash it was completely harmless, if it makes them feel better that's already a positive effect.

 

[jlduh]

Humm Borek, i was just with my sarcasm mode "ON" you know, counterfeiting the way some people could speak of them?

Nobody can stay purely rational with that kind of situation, everybody should accept this...

 

[Azby]

New contamination contour map

New contamination contour map from Prof Yukio Hayakawa from Gunma Univ. can be downloaded at:

http://gunma.zamurai.jp/pub/2011/18juneJG.jpg

higher res:

http://gunma.zamurai.jp/pub/2011/18juneJD.jpg


Comments?

 

[razzz]

New contamination contour map from Prof Yukio Hayakawa from Gunma Univ. can be downloaded at:

http://gunma.zamurai.jp/pub/2011/18juneJG.jpg

higher res:

http://gunma.zamurai.jp/pub/2011/18juneJD.jpg


Comments?

I think it was Gundersen in a June 12, 2011 http://vimeo.com/25002205" said even after TEPCO reevaluated the radiation fallout to double their previous estimate that they still believe that 98% of the radiation still exist in the remaining damaged fuel. In an earlier video he also said that it was a good thing wind conditions didn't carry fallout from Unit 3's blast across Japan or it would have cut it half, it would have been a no go zone for trains and automobile traffic. He's the only one that seems to openly mention these types of things.

The charts just look ugly to me. If washing down a Japanese school is good enough for the parents and teachers then it must be enough for the US Navy to scrub down its nuke aircraft carrier.

Over at the http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/" he's keeping track (among other things) of the water levels in the pits of Units 2 & 3, on the right hand side of the home page.

In the http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJjbNw07OUA" early on he says the shroud replacement was complete in Unit 4 and his ex-GE pal left for the US after the quake.

 

[razzz]

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/06/guest-post-global-nuclear-update.html
There is another map at this link.

 

[Azby]

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/06/guest-post-global-nuclear-update.html
There is another map at this link.

Yes, that's the NNISTAR map.

http://www.nnistar.com/gmap/fukushima.html

It's pretty reliable so far, and appears to be updated daily. Note that these are not ground measurements, but 0.5m - 1m height, and with unspecified equipment. I believe Hayakawa based his map on these readings, and supplemented them with his own.

 

[robinson]

Radioactive material detected in Iwate pastures

The Iwate Prefectural Government has again detected a radioactive substance above the state limit in pasture grass in several areas in the prefecture. The prefecture asked farmers in the areas to refrain from feeding the grass to their livestock.

The prefectural government found on Tuesday radioactive cesium exceeding the limit of 300 becquerels per kilogram in grass collected from pastures in four areas, including Tono and Otsuchi. The areas are located about 150 to 200 kilometers north of the Fukushima nuclear power plant.

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/16_17.html

 

[tsutsuji]

I've mentioned that example twice, both times in response to the same comment that only nuclear accidents create long term environmental damage. There are plenty more examples of other industrial accidents causing severe ecological consequences, I point to this one because its effects are particularly long lasting.

Without being "accidents", dams are also causing ecological destructions over large areas. For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akosombo_Dam#Impacts and http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7140217.ece (about the Three Gorges Dam)

 

[tokyo_dom]

Firstly i would like to thank all the very knowlegable members for discussing this topic with such detail. Forgive me if the following questions are somewhat amateur in nature...

As my nickname suggests, i live in Tokyo, and while the air radiation levels have not really worried me thus far, i am starting to get concerned with the amount of radiation in food such as fish, vegetables and meat. The seemingly random government checking of certain foods is not as thorough as i would like for peace of mind when i do my weekly shopping. It seems that virtually ALL vegetables come from Ibaraki prefecture these days (north of Tokyo, south of Fukushima), and while i would like to support those farmers, i also like to support my own health.

While I do realize that your typical geiger counter/dosimeter is not much use for accurately measuring radiation in food, but i would like to know if there is anything i can do to approximate food radiation on my own.

I assume that by now, the main radioactive sources left in food/vegetables will be Cs-137 (and Sr-90). Are there any formulas that could help me calculate how many microsieverts i would expect to see caused by these isotopes by holding the geiger counter against a piece of spinach in my shopping basket?


1. Would the 'legal limit' of 500bq/kg for Cs-137 register any more than the background radiation in Tokyo for approx 300g of spinach? (Avg background radiation s 0.10-0.16 microsieverts/hr)

Of course spinach is just an example, but if its possible here, i would like to apply the formula for other vegetables/foods.


2. Would there be any merit in trying to build my own food radiation sensor, using a thick steel pot or something as a radiation isolator; to discount background radiation during food checking? (using the aforementioned geiger counter)

Thanks in advance for any info you can give me.

 

[tokyo_dom]

Perhaps i have answered my own question, but would this be useful?
http://www.radprocalculator.com/Gamma.aspx

Cs-137
300g @ 500bq/kg = 150bq
distance of 1cm or so (geiger counter sitting on top of it)
= 0.1146uSv/h, or similar to background radiation levels here.

I suppose some sort of device to reduce/cancel out background radiation might be useful

 

[tsutsuji]

http://www.saitama-np.co.jp/news06/22/09.html : 26,100 Bq/kg of cesium were found in ashes from burnt sewage cakes in Chichibu city on 19 May. The highest value for Saitama prefecture on 10 June was found at the sewage plant in Toda city with 15,000 Bq/kg. Cement companies refuse to recycle ashes above 100 Bq/kg. 40 tons of ashes are produced everyday in 5 plants in the prefecture.

 

[robinson]

Well here is something I never thought I would read. Japanese have cesium and iodine in their pee. Which means they have a body burden of it.

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20110627a2.html

 

[Borek]

Well here is something I never thought I would read. Japanese have cesium and iodine in their pee.

The way it is reported is as meaningless as possible.

More than 3 millisieverts of radiation has been measured in the urine

3 mSv per what?

 

[robinson]

I feel the same way about the figures they give about the contaminated water.

 

[robinson]

For the first time since reactor problems started, we will have actual data and science applied to study the effects of a meltdown on people.

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20110627x2.html

No more guessing and playing games about the effects, like what happened in Russia.

 

[Jim Lagerfeld]

Take a quick read of this french analysis, particularly Koto-ku in Tokyo showing cesium in the tens to hundreds of kbq/m2:

http://www.acro.eu.org/RAP110620-OCJ%2801%29-v1.pdf

Then compare those figures against this swedish epidemiological study:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1732641/pdf/v058
p01011.pdf

Conclusion? Cancer rates in parts of Tokyo are undeniably going up.

 

[swl]

So, nothing over 260,000 Bq/m2 measured in Tokyo?
That's an acceptable soil contamination level for my kids to be playing in, right?

 

[zapperzero]

That's an acceptable soil contamination level for my kids to be playing in, right?

Umm, wait. What?

 

[Gary7]

Conclusion? Cancer rates in parts of Tokyo are undeniably going up.

Certainly possible, but I wouldn't say its a certainty (or "undeniable") given the Swedish study that was linked. Firstly, the study says it does not take into account the ingestion of local produce, which presumably plays a significant role in internal exposure rates (and therefore cancer rates). I don't think the residents of that section of Tokyo are growing much of their own produce in that soil. Secondly, the highest level mentioned in Tokyo in your first link is for an extremely localized area in the northern part of Tokyo, while the Swedish study seems to be describing areas of far more widespread contamination. There could also be a bias induced by increased awareness and screening for cancer post-Chernobyl.

Just my two cents.

 

[swl]

Certainly possible, but I wouldn't say its a certainty (or "undeniable") given the Swedish study that was linked. Firstly, the study says it does not take into account the ingestion of local produce, which presumably plays a significant role in internal exposure rates (and therefore cancer rates). I don't think the residents of that section of Tokyo are growing much of their own produce in that soil. Secondly, the highest level mentioned in Tokyo in your first link is for an extremely localized area in the northern part of Tokyo, while the Swedish study seems to be describing areas of far more widespread contamination. There could also be a bias induced by increased awareness and screening for cancer post-Chernobyl.

I agree that nothing is certain, and the opportunity for the injection of bias to slant the outcome of the data is hard to compare between Sweden and Japan. I don't know which country has a stronger vested interest in the promotion of nuclear power.

I'm not sure I understand your point about Koto ku being an "extremely localized area", but I would like to point out that the population density in Kotou ku is very high at over 11,000 people per km. This is greater than double the population density of Stockholm at 4,500/km.
And most of the produce for Tokyo comes from the rural areas in Tohoku and northern Kanto; areas much closer to Fukushima than Tokyo is.

 

[Jim Lagerfeld]

Certainly possible, but I wouldn't say its a certainty (or "undeniable") given the Swedish study that was linked. Firstly, the study says it does not take into account the ingestion of local produce, which presumably plays a significant role in internal exposure rates (and therefore cancer rates). I don't think the residents of that section of Tokyo are growing much of their own produce in that soil. Secondly, the highest level mentioned in Tokyo in your first link is for an extremely localized area in the northern part of Tokyo, while the Swedish study seems to be describing areas of far more widespread contamination. There could also be a bias induced by increased awareness and screening for cancer post-Chernobyl.

Just my two cents.

These are very fair observations, and I definitely considered some of these arguments before I posted.

Firstly, regarding local produce. As a resident of Tokyo, I can confirm that we are not consuming many products grown in Tokyo. However - and swl alludes to this - agricultural production in Japan is extremely localised. Due to strict import tariffs and government advocacy, more than 90% of what is on sale in Tokyo at the moment is produce from radiation affected areas. Fukushima cucumbers, Ibaraki Spinach, Chiba carrots. I am following the spirit of the IRSN recommendations regarding providence of produce, and I am struggling to find anything produced outside the wider contamination zone. At this point it comes down to how much faith one puts in the Japanese testing regime as compared to the limitations put in place in Sweden after Chernobyl.

As for the 'extremely localized' contamination figures for eastern Tokyo, I would point out that we are discussing these measurements due to the action of concerned citizens. These figures seem isolated due to that fact that no one is measuring on a systematic level - concerned parents in Koto-ku went out to the local park, sunk a spade and sent the soil away for testing. The fact that they stumbled upon such a hot spot suggest to me that, far from being 'extremely localized', the problems are in fact much more wide spread than has been admitted, although we can revisit this again when a more comprehensive survey has been undertaken. However I would bet you the price of a geiger counter that, by using the previously mentioned NNISTAR map along with the expanding citizen led mapping at safecast.jp, I could go out tomorrow and find you 10 soil samples bearing comparable levels of contamination in wider Eastern Tokyo.

Finally, it is worth noting that the Swedish study dealt with lower contamination levels - it broke contamination down into band of <3000, 3000-29 0000, 30 0000 - 39 000, 40 000 - 59 000, 60 000 - 79 000, 80 000 - 120 000 bq/m2. The results were surprisingly linear, so if (hypothetically) most of Koto-ku is 10 times less contaminated than the 200,000 bq/m2 hotspot in the public park in Oshima, the conclusion remains the same - cancer rates in parts of Tokyo can be expected to increase.

 

[Azby]

I can't vouch for the source, but this article claims that Prussian Blue, the most effective chelation agent (not exactly "antidote") for Cs-137 ingestion is nearly unavailable in Japan, and imports and domestic production are slowed by red tape and indifference. I'll try to verify this information, but it makes me want to tear my hair out.

http://www.truth-out.org/fukushimas-cesium-spew-eludes-prussian-blues-deadly-catch-22s-japan-disaster-relief/1308930096


As for the radioactive cesium and iodine detected in urine samples from Fukushima residents, I'm again very frustrated that the reporting is so spotty. The same was the case when radionuclides were detected in breast milk some time back. Why can't they include a "tech info box" or something with links to the original study, demographic info, what the radiation levels are like where they live, what they've been eating, etc.. For those who had iodine in their urine, did they follow up with a thyroid survey? Etc..

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20110627a2.html

 

[nikkkom]

Well here is something I never thought I would read. Japanese have cesium and iodine in their pee. Which means they have a body burden of it.

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20110627a2.html

More than 3 millisieverts of radiation has been measured in the urine of 15 Fukushima residents of the village of Iitate and the town of Kawamata, confirming internal radiation exposure, it was learned Sunday.

Not surprising. Iitate lies directly in the path of north-west fallout "tongue". It is probably the worst-hit village.

 

[Gary7]

@swl
The point I was trying to make was that Koto-Ku is an area of some 39 km2, and of that area there seems to be a massive variance in the level of contamination. Some areas (Oshima 9-2) have contamination of 122 kBq/m2, while other areas (Higashisuna, which is maybe a kilometer from Oshima 9-2) have contamination of about 1 kBq/m2. This is what I mean by the highest level being in an extremely localized area, and to my mind it seems a bit too simplistic to say that cancer will increase in Tokyo based on the data presented.

@ Jim Lagerfeld
As a fellow Tokyoite and fellow survivor, let me say its good to meet you here. I don't know whether or not 90% of what we are buying at our house is coming from the affected areas, but I am somewhat encouraged by the widespread testing that is going on. Some may call me naive for believing the government on this, but if they are discovering and publicizing contamination in green tea from Shizuoka I am optimistic that they are not hiding contamination levels of other products. Regarding contamination in eastern Tokyo; I don't have any argument with your observations here. I am intrigued by the wide variance of contamination levels in such a relatively small area, but as you say, we can revisit this again at another date. To your last point, if the relative risk is 0.11 per 100 kBq/m2, how do we apply this to residents of Tokyo in a way that is meaningful? Right now the only area in this survey that has this level of contamination is the park in Oshima. Many of the other areas, including the produce-growing areas, have levels of contamination that are below the threshold associated with any incident increase in cancer.

I guess I'm just hyper sensitive to blanket statements concerning radiation risk. Its a conversation we have almost nightly around the dinner table at my house.

 

[Jim Lagerfeld]

Thanks for your considered response Gary, for us in Japan this debate is much more personal.

Regarding the Shizuoka Tea, I'm wondering if you have access to the full story, as I tend to look at that particular example as another reason not to believe that the random testing and voluntary suspensions are as effective as they could be.

If you read these translated articles in reverse order you'll get a reasonably full picture http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/search/label/Shizuoka, but in short radiation was first detected in fresh tea but the growers and the governor conspired to exclude the final product from further testing to 'avoid confusion'. An organic home delivery company in Tokyo commissioned independent tests and proved that the final shipped product from some regions was indeed contaminated. The Governor relented and ordered further testing, however the delay had meant that most of the first harvest had already shipped, hence the contaminated tea getting seized at the French airport.

Regarding 'blanket statements', the only one I've been hearing - and I've lost count - is the 'contamination levels will not effect human health' 「健康に影響はない.」line. This is at best mistaken and at worst misleading, as the LNT (Linear Non-Threshold) hypothesis reminds us that there is no 'threshold'. In fact 65 teachers at Tokyo University petitioned their own school to stop making those 'no health impact' claims, as they viewed it as scientifically dishonest given that they have a campus at Kashiwa, another area on the Tokyo border with contamination in the order of 100 kBq/m2.

http://sites.google.com/site/utokyoradiation/home/request

Personally, I'd much rather see the 'no risk to health' myth put to bed so everyone can focus on better minimizing the risk. On a side note, I think the 11% increase in relative risk per 100 kBq/m2 compares to roughly 2300% for smokers vs non-smokers, so I'm staying in Tokyo but cutting down on smokes!

 

[zapperzero]

Personally, I'd much rather see the 'no risk to health' myth put to bed so everyone can focus on better minimizing the risk. On a side note, I think the 11% increase in relative risk per 100 kBq/m2 compares to roughly 2300% for smokers vs non-smokers, so I'm staying in Tokyo but cutting down on smokes!

Good for you! Smoking in contaminated areas is a bad idea anyway - smokers tend to inhale through their mouths, bypassing all that nice filtration equipment Pachacamac gave us.

 

[clancy688]

I can't vouch for the source, but this article claims that Prussian Blue, the most effective chelation agent (not exactly "antidote") for Cs-137 ingestion is nearly unavailable in Japan, and imports and domestic production are slowed by red tape and indifference. I'll try to verify this information, but it makes me want to tear my hair out.

Sounds like Japan. I still remember what happened after the Kobe earthquake. They detained swiss rescue dogs because of quarantine issues. After a few days they were freed - and got assigned to places with all rubble already cleared. What the hell is a rescue dog supposed to do there?
Same story for JAL flight 123. American forces arrived at the crash site right after impact. But japanese government ordered them away because the JSDF would do the job. Which arrived not until the next day. And found a mere four survivors out of over five hundred.

History doesn't repeat itself, but it repeats its lessons...

 

[Jim Lagerfeld]

Ex-skf translates this article - 2,700bq/kg found in green tea grown in Itabashi ward, Tokyo.

http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2011/06/2700-becquerelskg-cesium-from-teas.html

 

[nikkkom]

Ex-skf translates this article - 2,700bq/kg found in green tea grown in Itabashi ward, Tokyo.

Same thing happened after Chernobyl: Georgian tea (Caucasus, not US Georgia) was found to accumulate significant levels. Drying process of tea makes leaves work as an air filter.

Another thing to check for in Tokyo area is residential ventilation air filters and such...

 

[tsutsuji]

http://jp.wsj.com/Japan/node_258611 The Wall Street Journal has a fresh new interview (his first one since he resigned from his government job) of Toshiso Kosako, described as Japan's number one radiation safety expert. He says the government is underestimating the contamination of the sea and fish in order to lower the decontamination cost. The rice harvest, next autumn, is also a matter of concern. If the radiation in the rice from the Tohoku region becomes a scandal, consumers may refuse to buy it.

The English version of the article is here : http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304450604576419560689685524.html

 

[Azby]

A fairly detailed and objective description of the degree of contamination of Japanese green tea, and various repercussions thereof, from a tea supplier's newsletter:

http://www.teamuse.com/article_110701.html

 

[tsutsuji]

http://www.afpbb.com/article/disast...pbb&utm_medium=topics&utm_campaign=txt_topics Hot spots found in Fukushima City in a study made by the Kobe university school of marine study at the request of citizen groups. They are above the government level of 10,000 Bq/kg with radiations of 46,540 Bq/kg in Earth samples in one area and between 16,290 and 19,220 Bq/kg in three other areas.

http://www.jiji.com/jc/eqa?g=eqa&k=2011070500588 air radiations were measured between 3.2 and 3.83 microsievert/hour. The citizen groups stress that these areas would fall into the compulsory relocation area category if they were located in Chernobyl. At a school where the City government found 0.15 microsievert/hour, the study found 1.86 microsievert/hour and 13,812 Bq/kg.

 

[Caniche]

Run away

 

[Azby]

Nishio Masamichi, a radiation expert at the Hokkaido Cancer Center, recently wrote a long article for the Toyo Keizai magazine. It's summarized in English here:

http://japanfocus.org/events/view/100

Original Japanese here:

http://www.toyokeizai.net/business/society/detail/AC/548a752507bc6c3aa0fd3db058e8098a/page/1/

Most of it is very informed criticism, particularly of government actions since the disaster began. I agree with quite a lot, if not most, of what he says. It's also interesting to note that he does not accept Busby and Yablokov's risk predictions:

"The European Committee on Radiation Risk argues that existing risk models do not take internal exposure into account. High rates of internal exposure will mean a dramatic increase in cancer risk for Fukushima residents, with as many as 400,000 cases predicted by 2061. Nishio argues, however, that these calculations rest on some shaky assumptions and that the number is too high."

Busby and Yablokov are key members of the European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR).

I'd like to see this article translated in full. I think it would add a lot to the debate.