Fukushima Japan earthquake - contamination & consequences outside Fukushima NPP

[clancy688]

Hm... I'm not so sure about those hotspots.

Wasn't it said that the official radiation readings in the evacuation zone were performed 1-1,5m above the ground?
So we probably can't compare that radiation to the measures from Tokyo.

 

[Azby]

In your gentle words "I believe that regions around Chernobyl have suffered a collapse in health terms as well as other social breakdowns, and that these effects are long-lasting. Some of it is due to radiation itself, but how much? I've been reading interesting research by Moller and Mousseau on birds after Chernobyl, and they turn up a lot of effects. Some species proliferate, some don't, some that eat insects that nest in the ground don't fare well if those insects are affected by ground radiation that doesn't affect the birds directly, etc.. The cascade of environmental effects is unpredictable in many respects, and so we need to be vigilant. We have a duty to continue to investigate possible health risks from low doses of radiation on humans, but so far the fact is that none have been found."

I share your evaluation that the cascade of environmental effects is unpredictable.

Given that I hardly can understand your claim "so far the fact is that none have been found".
Not even the highly debatable (to say the least) Chernobyl forum report has reached that conclusion. Instead they reache the 4.000 additional tyroid cancers conclusion.

I do believe that regions around Chernobyl have suffered a collapse in health terms.
And quite obviously associate that with the massive release of radioactive material that happened there. Any additional psychological stress there (in excess to the not excellent average condition in the former Soviet Union) is in any case casually related to the accident.

Some volunteer work there may give to readers a more precise sensation about that ... much more precisely than evaluating the effects that there might or might not have been observed in birds, or trees.

As an observation sample I'd rather rely on the children that many italian (and not only italian) families have welcomed as guests in these yeras to let them clear at least a bit their bodies from Cs137.

We have a long way to go to fight this monster.
To put it gently.

I appreciate the way you put that, Luca, and I also feel you misunderstood me.

I wasn't suggesting that no negative health effects have been seen from Chernobyl radiation, such as the well-documented cases of thyroid cancer. Those were from fairly high internal doses, such as from drinking the famous contaminated milk. I was talking about low doses, specifically below the 5mSv exposure level. Please understand I'm not being evasive. The LNT model is widely accepted on theoretical grounds, but the onset of cancer caused by exposure to lower levels of radiation has never been solidly demonstrated.

A very useful paper on the subject is "Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: Assessing what we really know", by Brenner et al, from PNAS Nov 25, 2003:

http://www.pnas.org/content/100/24/13761

"For x- or

y-rays, good evidence of an increase in risk for cancer is shown at acute doses 50 mSv, and reasonable evidence for an increase in some cancer risks at doses above
5 mSv. As expected from basic radiobiology (10), the doses above which statistically significant risks are seen are somewhat higher for protracted exposures than for acute exposures; specifically, good evidence of an increase in some cancer risks is shown for protracted doses 100 mSv, and reasonable evidence for an increase in cancer risk at protracted doses above
50 mSv."

These kinds of results have been confirmed time and again in a variety of ways, on thousands of subjects in thousands of studies. Lower doses may or may not cause cancer, but let's assume they do, even if the risk is minuscule, because that seems to be the safer way, hence LNT. The Chernobyl data remains equivocal.

I know this issue has been debated endlessly for years, and will continue to be. In the case of Chernobyl I'm led to believe that:
-- When a person has gotten sick despite having been exposed to only low-level radiation, it's probably not the radiation itself that made them sick.
-- That many people undoubtedly got sick from having received greater exposures than predicted based on the mapping of contamination that was done, and we need to understand these contamination pathways and the migration of nuclides through the environment much better.

So yes, an accident like Chernobyl or Fukushima starts its own chain reaction of negative consequences. We have a situation here in Japan where parents of children who have received a few microsieverts of radiation are terrified that this will cause cancer, because they'e heard that from people like Busby. I do volunteer work resettling evacuee families -- interviewing them about physical and mental health needs, jobs, legal issues, collecting furniture, helping them find new homes, etc -- and have met many whose previous homes are by any objective measure quite safe, but who have been so frightened by rumors they've heard that they've abandoned everything and have become jobless, homeless, and destitute. And their kids often run fevers.

In the interest of solving problems I prefer to distinguish between "things that have been caused by the release of radiation" and " diseases that are directly caused by radiation." To give an example that is almost funny, a friend who lives in Europe was so distressed by the events in Japan that he developed a stress-related eye infection. But no one could plausibly claim that his infection was caused by Fukushima radiation.

All of it needs to be dealt with of course, and right now mapping the contamination thoroughly is the most important task, followed by learning how to predict how the contamination patterns may change over time. This in addition to implementing a thorough system for monitoring food. And of course, stopping the release of the radiation itself.

 

[razzz]

Yablokov's book is being criticized as biased. You accuse others of being biased, but you offer biased opinions to show you are right - it never works.

Besides, Yablokov book is not considered a peer reviewed work, and as such doesn't meet PF criteria of a valid source.

Care to provide a link where the book is not founded in science or do you feel safe hiding in grey areas?

 

[Luca Bevil]

I appreciate the way you put that, Luca, and I also feel you misunderstood me.

I wasn't suggesting that no negative health effects have been seen from Chernobyl radiation, such as the well-documented cases of thyroid cancer. Those were from fairly high internal doses, such as from drinking the famous contaminated milk. I was talking about low doses, specifically below the 5mSv exposure level. Please understand I'm not being evasive. The LNT model is widely accepted on theoretical grounds, but the onset of cancer caused by exposure to lower levels of radiation has never been solidly demonstrated.

A very useful paper on the subject is "Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: Assessing what we really know", by Brenner et al, from PNAS Nov 25, 2003:

http://www.pnas.org/content/100/24/13761

"For x- or

y-rays, good evidence of an increase in risk for cancer is shown at acute doses 50 mSv, and reasonable evidence for an increase in some cancer risks at doses above
5 mSv. As expected from basic radiobiology (10), the doses above which statistically significant risks are seen are somewhat higher for protracted exposures than for acute exposures; specifically, good evidence of an increase in some cancer risks is shown for protracted doses 100 mSv, and reasonable evidence for an increase in cancer risk at protracted doses above
50 mSv."

These kinds of results have been confirmed time and again in a variety of ways, on thousands of subjects in thousands of studies. Lower doses may or may not cause cancer, but let's assume they do, even if the risk is minuscule, because that seems to be the safer way, hence LNT. The Chernobyl data remains equivocal.

I know this issue has been debated endlessly for years, and will continue to be. In the case of Chernobyl I'm led to believe that:
-- When a person has gotten sick despite having been exposed to only low-level radiation, it's probably not the radiation itself that made them sick.
-- That many people undoubtedly got sick from having received greater exposures than predicted based on the mapping of contamination that was done, and we need to understand these contamination pathways and the migration of nuclides through the environment much better.

So yes, an accident like Chernobyl or Fukushima starts its own chain reaction of negative consequences. We have a situation here in Japan where parents of children who have received a few microsieverts of radiation are terrified that this will cause cancer, because they'e heard that from people like Busby. I do volunteer work resettling evacuee families -- interviewing them about physical and mental health needs, jobs, legal issues, collecting furniture, helping them find new homes, etc -- and have met many whose previous homes are by any objective measure quite safe, but who have been so frightened by rumors they've heard that they've abandoned everything and have become jobless, homeless, and destitute. And their kids often run fevers.

In the interest of solving problems I prefer to distinguish between "things that have been caused by the release of radiation" and " diseases that are directly caused by radiation." To give an example that is almost funny, a friend who lives in Europe was so distressed by the events in Japan that he developed a stress-related eye infection. But no one could plausibly claim that his infection was caused by Fukushima radiation.

All of it needs to be dealt with of course, and right now mapping the contamination thoroughly is the most important task, followed by learning how to predict how the contamination patterns may change over time. This in addition to implementing a thorough system for monitoring food. And of course, stopping the release of the radiation itself.

Thanks for the article and the more expanded explanation of your point of view.
There is an excellent post by Dmitry in this forum that puts in statistical terms an evaluation of the matter that I share completely.
I'll search for it.

 

[mikefj40]

Care to provide a link where the book is not founded in science or do you feel safe hiding in grey areas?

I had read that the New York Academy of Sciences was distancing itself from Yablokov's book because it was not peer reviewed. I think there's no better evidence of this than the fact that the book is out of stock and will not be reprinted by the Academy. It's a very unusual decision for a publisher not to reprint what appears to be something that sells.

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

 

[Borek]

Care to provide a link where the book is not founded in science or do you feel safe hiding in grey areas?

I was mainly referring to the statement by NYAS, one that mikefj40 already linked to. That was also mentioned in Azby's post (and I don't refer to his personal opinion, he cited the same NYAS opinion on the subject).

Note that I never stated book is not founded in science, that's your interpretation of my words.

 

[razzz]

I was mainly referring to the statement by NYAS, one that mikefj40 already linked to. That was also mentioned in Azby's post (and I don't refer to his personal opinion, he cited the same NYAS opinion on the subject).

Note that I never stated book is not founded in science, that's your interpretation of my words.

Careful when backtracking, you might trip up.

From the NYAS link,

"The Academy is committed to publishing content deemed scientifically valid by the general scientific community, from whom the Academy carefully monitors feedback."

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.

 

[Borek]

Careful when backtracking, you might trip up.

I am not backtracking, I am clarifying. Yablokov's book is not considered peer reviewed and as such is not a valid source. Please read forum rules. Whether it is founded in science or not is at this stage irrelevant.

 

[razzz]

I am not backtracking, I am clarifying. Yablokov's book is not considered peer reviewed and as such is not a valid source. Please read forum rules. Whether it is founded in science or not is at this stage irrelevant.

Non sequitur.

Posted 4/28/2010

NEW YORK—“Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment,” Volume 1181 of Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, published online in November 2009, was authored by Alexey V. Yablokov, of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Alexey V. Nesterenko, of the Institute of Radiation Safety (Belarus), and the late Prof. Vassily B. Nesterenko, former director of the Belarussian Nuclear Center

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

It is important that you are capable of comprehending what you are reading.

 

[Azby]

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

It is important that you are capable of comprehending what you are reading.

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.

 

[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.