NUCENG said:
I posted the link to the RPI study to spark comments on that very point. We are getting a lot of claims based on sources that have been questioned for being fear-mongering. If this study is correct it will be nearly impossible to link any deaths to the accident.
Because the Fukushima Daichi accident involves four reactors and complete failures of containment, I find that hard to square with what I have read about Chernobyl. I have started with the premise that Fukushima would remain a tragedy due to the fear and dislocation unnecessarily added onto the back of the earthquake and tsunami, even if it didn't result in any latent cases of cancer. Based on what I have read, early onset of thyroid cancers may be the first measureable result if there will be significant consequences. Has anybody got a timeframe for the time of onset in Chernobyl?
I can see that some additional deaths of elderly patients evacuated from the exclusion area may need to be considered accident-related even if they had nothing to do with radiation.
I have a harder time blaming heat stroke on the accident, because the fact is the power reductions are voluntarily exceeding the targets set to avoid rolling blackouts. We are having heat-related deaths in the US with no reactor accidents to blame.
Suicides are another tough nut to crack. If the accident was a part of the cause, was it worsened by the devastation of the earthquake and tsunami? How much of the fear and depression was a result of learning that TEPCO and the Japanese government were lying to the people?
Sounds like a discussion worth having!
There's a certain amount of evidence that gives cause for optimism, and other evidence which suggests that significant risks will continue. And none of it suggests that we can stop being vigilant.
On the cause for optimism side:
--The recent report which Tsutsuji pointed to yesterday which showed that a sample of residents of some of the most contaminated areas (including Iitate-mura) had less than 1mSv of internal radiation. If this is representative of the worst, then I consider it good news.
--I just reread an analysis by Prof Madeline Yanch of MIT, from April 4, in which she outlines health effect projections for Iitate-mura. What she said was closely in line with what many reliable reports said at the time, that even in those areas the increased cancer risk would be in the hundredths of a percent range. In her report Yanch used a cumulative dose rate of 7.6 mSv through early April 2011, while MEXT data of 7/11/2011 projecting through July 2012 shows Iitate to be predominately in the 10-20mSv/yr range, with a small portion in the southeast in the 40-50 mSv/yr range. Still the risk appears to be on the same order of magnitude.
http://web.mit.edu/nse/pdfs/Yanch_impact.pdf
-- The RPI report suggests similar risk levels. Balance these against the clear evidence that the food monitoring system is porous, and hot spots are being discovered in agricultural areas fairly far away from Fukushima. Many local governments continue to resist calls by citizens to decontaminate towns, schools, and neighborhoods. And the government seems to be accelerating the timetable for the return of evacuees to parts of Fukushima without making it clear if, how, and when those towns will be decontaminated. All of these present continuing risk, but all have clear technical solutions and can be addressed. But they haven't been adequately addressed yet four months down the road, so we're justified in being skeptical that they actually will be.
We'll only be able to really evaluate the risk when 1) better contamination maps are released (reported here earlier to be scheduled for late Aug) and 2) when the results of whole-body radiation counts of larger samples of people from a wider geographic area are completed (I expect we'll be getting more information month by month).
As for the cascade of effects which stem from the accident but are not directly caused by it, I think we really should try to understand this as a broad and complex mechanism that puts many damaging processes in motion and accelerates others that existed already. So it's worthwhile to look at it very inclusively, down to mental health, family problems, distrust of Japanese goods overseas, etc, in which case I'd include my friend in Austria who was so stressed out with worry about his friends in Japan that blood vessels in his eyes burst.
Those sorts of psychological reactions by people far from Japan have real consequences, for instance in the fact that worried people in the US bought up all the available geiger counters which meant it's been very difficult for people in Japan who really need them to get their hands on one.
Still, it's equally important to accurately characterize the direct risk from the radiation itself, and to do as much as possible to mitigate and remediate it. When it comes to decontaminating places where people live or food is grown, I can't see any downside to going overboard and cleaning up everything that looks like it might possibly need it, even if the levels are only moderately above background. And the government and/or TEPCO should pay for it.
He's just been promoted to vice president of the Fukushima Medical University in charge of setting up an organization to conduct research on effects of radiation on the Fukushima residents. 
)
