No rise in cancer rates after Fukushima disaster - UN

[alp227]

Source: BBC

Cancer rates are not expected to rise as a result of the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, UN scientists say.

The evacuation of thousands of people shortly after the accident in 2011 sharply lowered their exposure to radiation, a draft report concluded.

The World Health Organisation has said local residents have a slightly higher risk of developing certain cancers.

Reactors at the Fukushima nuclear plant were crippled by an earthquake and tsunami that killed some 19,000 people.

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22737548

[Buzz Clik]

1. we'll see..

[DeSwiss]

2. BS

[cstanleytech]

9. Maybe, maybe not. We wont really know for sure for years however

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Fukushima_and_Chernobyl_nuclear_accidents is pretty interesting as it would seem that Fukushima wasnt nearly as bad as Chernobyl assuming the numbers are correct though of course Fukushima does have an issue right now with water still pouring into the reactor so who knows what will happen because of that down the road.

[DeSwiss]

16. I always have my doubts. Always. About everyone. Even myself.

But I do know enough not to believe the fucking UN. Particularly since they also have a conflict of interest representing and beholdened to the nations building and producing these hellish machines and/or the one's that are supplying the radioactive poisons to run them. The UN as an organization is basically a good idea gone terribly wrong.

Alternately, the reports from citizens in Japan say otherwise. There are plenty of other sources out there: blogs, videos and newsletters from the actual people being affected (here's one for starters - ENENEWS). Those reports from the people with the cancers and illness carry more weight with me.

- It is rare these days when I ever accept the words from the ''official'' voices of the 4th estate and/or government (which is essentially the same). They're the same voices we've been listening to all along, and look where that's got us.......

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

20. No maybe about it

And not only is this much worse than Chernobyl, it is not over.

[cstanleytech]

22. "this much worse than Chernobyl" Will you please provide the link to that

as the data at the wiki site I posted says the exact opposite of what you are saying so a link to the source you are using would be ever so helpful, thank you.

[DeSwiss]

40. Here:

http://tinyurl.com/l4pu4ue

[cstanleytech]

46. I asked for a specific link that you used to form that opinion

what you supplied looks more like a haystack with some needle supposedly hidden inside I am supposed to uncover.

[Archae]

49. The first actual non-video link is "Natural News."

A woo site.

That speaks volumes.

[DeSwiss]

50. Too much work, huh?

Right.

[cstanleytech]

51. Yes, apparently it was to much work for you to link properly but

I shall be magnanimous and forgive you.

[FBaggins]

53. Too much imagination required

Avoid the woo.

[oldbanjo]

26. It is already affecting the US.

[FBaggins]

32. only by driving some people around the bend

certainly not as a health issue (other than the aforementioned mental health)

[Bennyboy]

3. Interesting this...

Goes against earlier studies as well. It seems hard to believe for me actually.

[tavalon]

30. That would be because you possess a working brain

Turn it off and this will make perfect sense.

[FBaggins]

33. untrue

it's consistent with all of the actual studies.

[benld74]

4. That is mis-spelled, it should be a 'daft' report not a draft report,,,

[KamaAina]

7. DUzy!!

[Mnemosyne]

5. Ok. I feel sooo reassured now. nt

[caraher]

6. UNSCEAR tends to lowball cancer estimates

Here's Wikipedia's summary of their Chernobyl findings:

The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) produced a report [78] drastically different to many appreciations of the effects previously produced. The report concludes that 134 staff and emergency workers suffered acute radiation syndrome and of those 28 died of the condition. Many of the survivors suffered skin conditions and radiation induced cataracts, and 19 have since died, but not usually of conditions associated with radiation exposure. Of the several hundred thousand liquidators, apart from indications of increased leukaemia risk, there is no other evidence of health effects. In the general public, the only effect with 'persuasive evidence' is a substantial fraction of the 6,000 cases of thyroid cancer in adolescents observed in the affected areas. By 2005, 15 cases had proved fatal.

The total deaths reliably attributable to the radiation produced by the accident therefore stands at 62 by the estimate of UNSCEAR.

The report concludes that 'the vast majority of the population need not live in fear of serious health consequences from the Chernobyl accident'.

They tend to be very conservative about attributing cancer to nuclear accidents, erring on the side of saying cancers are not clearly attributable to the radiation where there is any doubt. It's pretty clear that the decimal is in the wrong place for their Chernobyl death estimate, and the same methodology is what gives us this report for Fukushima.

[tavalon]

29. This ball is so low, it's under water,

with the baby salmon who will be coming back to us in about 2-3 years. So, I'm sure they'll be able to say that cancer rates won't rise in the northwest of the US either. Sad thing is, they really do think we're just this stupid.

[KamaAina]

8. Well, since cancer always develops within two years of exposure, I'd say we're out of the woods

[KansDem]

10. Uh-huh...

If you believe this, I've got a palm tree in Wisconsin to sell you...

Arnie Gundersen, Fairewinds Chief Engineer: When there’s no liquid inside the containment, there’s no capture of the cesium. So whatever cesium was inside that containment was leaking out of the containment. […]

Well that changes the game dramatically. Instead of 1% of the cesium, it’s likely that 20 or 30% of the cesium were released.

At that point, that’s very similar to what we saw at Chernobyl. So I’ve been saying the Fukushima accident was very comparable to the Chernobyl accident […]

They’re trying to claim that only 1% of the cesium got out because that’s what the old tests showed. What the old tests showed don’t match this slide 67 (right), the infrared picture. The infrared picture shows hot radioactive gases being released directly out into the atmosphere 9 days after the accident.

It’s a really important discovery and I hope that the people doing dose assessments will understand that they’re not dealing with a reactor containment that had water in it. They’re dealing with a reactor containment that had hot gas in it.

http://enenews.com/game-changer-fukushima-cesium-release-20-30-times-higher-revealed-video

[2Design]

11. more news media lies n/t

[proverbialwisdom]

12. More to consider.

Last edited Fri May 31, 2013, 04:27 PM - Edit history (1)

http://www.rogerwitherspoon.com/


Roger Witherspoon writes Energy Matters at http://spoonsenergymatters.wordpress.com/
BIO: http://www.rogerwitherspoon.com/bio.html


A Lasting Legacy of the Fukushima Rescue Mission:

Part 1: Radioactive Contamination of American Sailors

http://bit.ly/12dzbLe

Part 2: The Navy Life — Into the Abyss
http://bit.ly/Y5jXCJ

Part 3: Cat and Mouse with a Nuclear Ghost
http://bit.ly/VWSmFm

Part 4: Living With the Aftermath
http://spoonsenergymatters.wordpress.com/2013/03/15/a-lasting-legacy-of-the-fukushima-rescue-mission-part-4-living-with-the-aftermath/


Related Posts:

Japan’s Throwaway People and the Fallout from Fukushima
http://bit.ly/wMMiSK

White House Moves Swiftly to Replace NRC’s Jaczko
http://bit.ly/YsPqgF

[blackspade]

13. Sure, whatever.

I guess we will see how long it takes them to reverse course on this.

[byeya]

14. The USA bombed itself 86 times in the 40s, 50s and early 60s(N-tests) and the cancers

didn't start to show up for ten or more years.

I am not putting much stock into this paper.

[Fearless]

15. It takes fucking twenty years to see the effects!

[caraher]

17. The headline is misleading...

The story is that, based on the UN estimates of exposure, they expect no significant rise in cancer rates. Yes, they do know there's a latency period of many years... I think there's a lot to criticize in the UN report, but the fact that it takes time to develop cancer is not among them.

The headline writer, however, is an idiot.

[sulphurdunn]

18. Drink deeply

of the Kool Aid. All is well. There is nothing to fear. Everything is under control.

[SoapBox]

19. Uh....ya....right...sure...

Whatever happened to those workers that went in to that death trap?

[cstanleytech]

23. I havent heard to be honest.

I do recall hearing or reading that most if not all of them volunteered as they were older so their odds of getting cancer was already higher though I assume exposure to the radiation at Fukushima will probably raise the % though how much of a % chance I wouldnt hazard to guess.

[AndyTiedye]

21. Running Interference for What's Left of the Nuclear Industry

The Beeb is not what it used to be.

[Canuckistanian]

24. No, of course not...

All that radioactive material was flushed gently and harmlessly out to sea.

Nothing to see here. folks. Disaster averted.

[oldbanjo]

25. total bull shit

[lunasun]

27. and everyone in Japan please do carry on now !

[tavalon]

28. That's quite absurd

I'm not even going to give it any consideration. I thought the UN hired smart but apparently, just political. Asshats.

[bucolic_frolic]

31. It would have to be a Flash Cancer

to appear so soon.

Give 'em 10 years, 15 years.

[roomtomove]

34. Don't believe a word of this crap

If I recall, IAEA quashed the UN/WHO reports and research on Chernobyl, as it would be detrimental to the nuclear energy program promoted by the IAEA.

[roomtomove]

35. Link on the IAEA and the WHO

http://mondediplo.com/2008/04/14who

[pam4water]

36. Right sure >.>

[silvershadow]

37. Oh, really?

1. It's a bit early to make that assessment, don't you think?
2. Even if true, time will tell the real story.
3. If already known false, the truth will come out.
4. I, for one, don't believe it for a nanosecond.

[Octafish]

38. WHO may've missed the report that found 41-percent of Fukushima kids with thyroid abnormalities.

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201303090076

Must be the new normal.

[FBaggins]

39. It isn't the "new normal"

It was the OLD "normal".

The baseline study for the kids far away from Fukushima actually showed a slightly higher rate of such abnormalities.

[Octafish]

42. TEPCO lied before March 11, 2011. They also lied on March 11, 2011. And after March 11, 2011.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=583707

The TEPCO chairman even lied about his whereabouts on March 11, 2011.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php/http:/www.democraticunderground.com/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4866286

[FBaggins]

45. That's nice. Got anything relevant?

TEPCO wasn't involved in either study.

[Octafish]

47. TEPCO has yet to release their data on how much of whatever was released on March 11, 2011...

...and subsequently through explosions, venting to the air, and leakages to the sea. Lack of forthrightness, let alone a record of dishonesty, means TEPCO leadership lacks integrity. TEPCO's truthfullness matters totally, as no one can make an educated guess, let alone make a valid argument, on what the health effects will be without accurate information.

Why do I have to spell it out for you?

[FBaggins]

48. So?

Did you think there was a mile-wide dome over the plant with a guage on top measuing everything and they just haven't "released" it yet?

TEPCO isn't the sole source for current estimates of the release. The government, japanese universities, and global groups have all fone their own work and correlated those estimates to actual radiation readings.

You can claim that TEPCO is lying until you're blue in the face... but it won't matter because we aren't relying on what they said. Nor is it relevant to this thread.

It's obvious that you're desperatly trying to spin away from your error... but the simple fact is that there haven't been any thyroid issues associated with Fukushima (nor would you expect there to be any this soon). What was done was a baseline survey so that future studies (when you could see an increase in thyroid issues from the exposure) could compare their results to that baseline. When the results were released and a bunch of nuts decided that they were seeing something significant (IOW, that there were already thousands of cases of thyroid damage from radiation), the government/universities expanded the baseline by doing an analysis of kids who had not been exposed. The results were essentially the same (adjusted for somewhat different demographics).

[Octafish]

57. Just because the facts don't matter to you, they do to me.

TEPCO has the source documentation. Why they haven't provided is becoming clearer by the day.

Keep calling people interested in learning the answers "nuts." It helps show who's really sick.

[FBaggins]

59. You're really not interested in facts

You're interested in the conspiracy theories. You've been almost entirely immune to facts. Let's look at a recent example:

TEPCO has the source documentation. Why they haven't provided is becoming clearer by the day.

So the answer to my questions was "Yes. I think they have a magic dome through which everything was released and on which there is a radiation meter measuring everything". Thanks.

If you were actually interested in facts, you would have long ago learned that this isn't the case. They have no "source documentation" relevant to this issue that hasn't been released. They don't know any better than the prefectures, federal govt, and international radiation protection organizations exactly how much was released. Nor are they the "source" for the vast majority of readings that add up to those dose estimates.

Keep calling people interested in learning the answers "nuts."

Heavens... I would never want to do such a thing. I limit the use of the term to just the nuts. You're not one of them are you?

Let's return to the facts.

This thyroid survey is exactly what they're supposed to be doing. It's what international physicians organizations and researchers called for from the beginning. Based on prior experience (Chernobyl, etc), we know that kids' thyroids are the impact that can most easily be spotted. The problem is that the more you look for a thing, the more you find it. Lots of people go their whole lives with thyroid cancer and never know it - so when we look harder, we find more of it.

We know that there were thousands of additional cases of thyroid cancer (and even some deaths) because of I131 exposure after Chernobyl. We also know that SOME of those cases would have occurred anyway, but were only picked up as they started testing the kids much later. How do we determine how many additional cases were caused by radiation and how many were caused by the more careful diagnostic work? Well... you do what they didn't do after Chernobyl. You go in and establish a baseline. Thyroid cancer takes years to develop - so you go in and test hundreds of thousands of kids to see what their thyroids look like before anything can develop... and you track those hundreds of thousands for decades (testing every few years).

Some people (like you) misunderstood the baseline and assumed that they were finding actual results from Fukushima (even though the experts knew this wasn't possible)... so the right thing to do was to also test a large group of kids who were not exposed and compare the results. As expected, those tests proved that the baseline is just what it should be.

The nuts are the ones that can't bring themselves to accept this and even go so far as to claim (as at least one prominent anti-nuke has done) that the Japanese government intentionally released additional I131 throughout the rest of Japan so that when the comparative control group was tested... they too would have higher rates of thyroid abnormalities. That they're killing their own kids to hide the truth.

I will continue to call those people nuts... because that's exactly what they are - and the facts do matter to me.

[Octafish]

60. Defending the indefensible.

Takes a special kind of person to do that.

[FBaggins]

61. But changing the subject when cornered...

apparently doesn't.

[Octafish]

62. Cornered by what? TEPCO lies and you're OK with it?

That's indefensible.

[FBaggins]

63. Once again - Tepco wasn't involved in either study.

So it's pretty hard to focus on whether or not they lied in those studies... let alone how pointing that error on your part out to you is defending them.

[DeSwiss]

41. WHO gets its money.....

...from the poisoners. Corruption tends to spread......



http://enenews.com/rates-of-thyroid-problems-in-children-near-fukushima-nuclear-plant-are-high-expert-parents-have-reason-to-worry-govt-accused-of-cover-up

http://enenews.com/tv-interview-with-fukushima-resident-coughing-blood-stinging-sensation-on-skin-after-explosions-very-peculiar-smell-video

http://enenews.com/absurd-intentionally-dumping-fukushima-nuclear-material-ocean-land-considered-dumping-allowed-international-law

http://enenews.com/prison-sentences-after-exposing-people-to-radiation-many-deaths-serious-health-problems-prosecutor-they-desired-to-hide-the-truth-from-victims-and-to-disguise-their-mistakes

[Octafish]

43. Cheaper to pay for people to look the other way than it is to protect the People.

TEPCO was warned and took the cheapskate's way out.



Here's a bit to add to the atomic pile:

Masanobu Shishikura: The Man Who Predicted the Tsunami in 2009.

British scientist 'predicted nuclear power station problem'

Toshiaki Sakai: Utility Engineer Warned of Tsunami Threat at Japanese Nuclear Plant in 2007

So, TEPCO does nothing, hopes for the best, and prays for our continued good fortune.

[flamingdem]

58. ^^ this

thyroid cancers will show up soon

[olddad56]

44. I find this very hard to believe. I guess time will tell.

[RobertEarl]

52. 150,000+ people are still removed from their homes

Anyone who goes near the place now has to wear protective clothing and masks. It will be a dangerous place for many decades.

If people stayed there would be many more deaths. The deaths that have occurred have been covered up.

Think of a reactor as a pressure cooker. A giant pressure cooker with explosive material inside. Three of the reactors blew up. Luckily for the people of Japan, 80% of the air pollution went over the Pacific. Only 20% on land.

But still, today, 2 years later, the radiation is being spewed from the remains. Not even robots can operate near the ruined reactors the radiation is so intense. And particles are still going airborne and leaking into the ground carrying radiation far and wide.

Even the EPA admits to air deposition of cesium across the US. Traces have been found in the Atlantic.

Claims have been made that Tokyo will be so radiated within a few years that it too will be unlivable. Already 150,000 plus people have been removed and will never be able to return to their farms and cities.

[FBaggins]

54. Poor public policy is not the same thing as health risk

In fact... in this case it worked exactly backwards. Far more people were harmed by the evacuation and continued restriction from their homes... then were ever damaged by the radiation.

Think of a reactor as a pressure cooker. A giant pressure cooker with explosive material inside.

Why would anyone want to do that... when it simply isn't true?

The deaths that have occurred have been covered up.

Riiight.

Claims have been made that Tokyo will be so radiated within a few years that it too will be unlivable.

Only "Claims" by people who have gone well round the bend.

[RobertEarl]

55. Heh

The government of Japan did not merely make a policy decision and force those people from their homes. Gawd damn, man, what kind of bullshit will you invent next to protect nuclear power?

I knew you'd like the nuclear reactors are giant pressure cookers. That is exactly the way to view them. And when they blow, like Fukushima did, they really blow big.

Of course, the idea that a trillion dollar in losses of structures and reactors and cleanup is nothing to nuke lovers. Too cheap to meter was always the nuke meme, showing their realities were always different from the rest of us just plain folk.

[proverbialwisdom]

56. Kyodo News: Fukushima survey lists 12 confirmed, 15 suspected thyroid cancer cases

http://enenews.com/kyodo-27-fukushima-minors-with-confirmed-or-suspected-thyroid-cancer-almost-tripled-since-last-report-in-february

Title: Fukushima survey lists 12 confirmed, 15 suspected thyroid cancer cases
Source: Kyodo News http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2013/06/228639.html
Date: June 5, 2013

An ongoing study on the impact of radiation on Fukushima residents from the crippled atomic power plant has found 12 minors with confirmed thyroid cancer diagnoses, up from three in a report in February, with 15 others suspected to have cancer, up from seven, sources familiar with the matter said Tuesday. [...]

Researchers at Fukushima Medical University, which has been taking the leading role in the study, have so far said they do not believe that the most recent cases are related to the nuclear crisis. They point out that thyroid cancer cases were not found among children hit by the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident until four to five years later. [...]

[AngryOldDem]

64. They would know this soon?

I call bullshit.

Move along folks; nothing to see here.

Most likely we won't know until decades from now.

[FBaggins]

65. Yes. They would know this soon.

Because what they said is that they don't expect rates to rise. Or rather - that they expect a tiny increase that won't be identifiable because it's smaller than the existing statistical variation.

They've done whole-body counts on tens of thousands of people and have millions of data-points for radiation readings throughout the area. These add up to very comprehensive dose estimates for the population.

Health physics tells us pretty clearly that at the dose levels involved, we shouldn't expect to see an increase in cancer rates from radiation.

Now... it's possible that they could be wrong. There could be a hole in decades of science, or maybe they missed something big in the dose estimates and somehow the people who were exposed miraculously missed all of the whole-body counting. That's why they need to continue to watch the population very carefully (meaning ongoing research)... But it's not too soon to say what is expected... since it IS what the science says to expect.