Meltdown: Despite the Fear, the Health Risks from the Fukushima Accident are Minimal

[FBaggins]

Far be it from me to say the WHO, or any international scientific organization, is above reproach. But the WHO’s modeling here seems if anything conservative, overstating the potential risk. And when environmental groups pick holes in scientific consensus on something like Fukushima, they sound very much like the politically conservative climate skeptics who are constantly harping on the supposedly international scientific conspiracy over climate science.

Fukushima, for all the attention, was ultimately small potatoes compared to the disaster at Chernobyl. Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) reported that the Fukushima plant may have released about 900,000 terabecquerels of radiation into the air at the height of the disaster, while the 5.2 million terabecquerels of radiation were released during the Chernobyl accident, which also covered a much bigger territory. It’s just a reminder that’s what true about natural disasters is true about man-made ones: the public response or lack of one can matter as much or more than the disaster itself.

But it’s also pretty important that the human health effects of one of the biggest nuclear disasters seem to be virtually nil. That’s worth remembering as nations turn away from nuclear power on the grounds that it is simply too dangerous. In the wake of the Fukushima accident, Germany decided to begin shuttering its nuclear power plants years before they were do to close. The result, as Bloomberg reported yesterday, has been more coal, more pollutants and more carbon. New coal plants with about 5.3 GW of power capacity will begin operating in Germany this year, far more than the 1 GW of coal that is likely to come offline. Greenhouse gas emissions rose 1.6% in Germany last year. The increase in coal—due in part to the reduction in carbon-free nuclear power—has more than outweighed the vast increase in renewable power created by Germany’s progressive energy policy.

The challenging economics of building new nuclear plants are another question, especially in developed countries. But it’s very difficult to see the logic of voluntarily shutting down the biggest source of carbon-free electricity when it turns out the dangers of nuclear power seem to be overstated. (Tokyo seems to agree—Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe announced that the country would begin restarting idled nuclear plants once new safety guidelines are in place later this year.) And it’s not just carbon—if existing nuclear is replaced by coal or even natural gas, we’ll also see an increase in other pollutants which pose clear and present health dangers that exceed the risks of atomic power. Nuclear power is scary—scarier than climate change for most people—but the facts don’t back up that fear.

http://science.time.com/2013/03/01/meltdown-despite-the-fear-the-health-risks-from-the-fukushima-accident-are-minimal/

Emphasis mine.

[wtmusic]

1. "the human health effects of one of the biggest nuclear disasters seem to be virtually nil"

[FBaggins]

2. And that's really not fair.

Better to say that the health effects caused by the radiation from the disaster is expected to be too small to identify a health impact beyond normal statistical variation in the population.

That's not at all the same thing as saying that there will be no health impact from the radiation... and it's most certainly not the same thing as saying no health effects at all. Obviously many people have been impacted just from the fear and the challenges dealing with the evacuation (etc).

And the dose to the plant workers has often been much higher. That smaller population makes the statistical variation a challenge as well, but some of them are well into the range where cancer risk is known to increase.

[wtmusic]

3. If five people die in a car accident it's a tragedy.

If five people die when a 1,300-passenger cruise ship sinks, it's a miracle.

Though "virtually nil" can mean a lot of things - given the number of people whose lives have been saved because a 760MW reactor has displaced coal and oil generation for 35 years, it's appropriate.

[JohnyCanuck]

4. To anyone believing this is an honest and unbiased report,

ask yourself this, "If I were offered a fantastic job, at a way above the normal salary range for such a position, to take a job requiring me to live for 10 years in Fukushima (assuming no language barrier, eg I just happen to be fluent in Japanese), would I move there, and more importantly, would I take my juvenile children to live there with me for 10 years?

WHO or no WHO report, I would NEVER voluntarily and unnecessarily commit my children to live for 10 years in Fukushima, regardless of how much someone paid me to do so. When evaluating WHO reports on matters concerning radiation hazards, it's good to remember to a certain extent they are lackeys of the IAEA (see below). It's spelled C-O-N-F-L-C-T O-F I-N-T-E-R-E-S-T.

Despite Warning for Women, WHO Report on Fukushima Slammed as 'PR Spin'
Greenpeace says report 'shockingly downplays' increased cancer risk for thousands of Japanese
- Jon Queally, staff writer

snip


Specifically focused on the threat to girls and women, Reuters reports on the WHO findings by explaining:

In the most contaminated area, the WHO estimated that there was a 70% higher risk of females exposed as infants developing thyroid cancer over their lifetime. The thyroid is the most exposed organ as radioactive iodine concentrates there and children are deemed especially vulnerable.

Overall, however, it was the WHO's conclusion that "predicted risks" of cancer for Japanese generally "are low and no observable increases in cancer rates above baseline rates are anticipated," that Greenpeace aggressively pushed back against.

Pointing out that the WHO only releases its radiation assessments only with the approval of the International Atomic Energy Agency—often criticized as an advocate for, not a regulator of, the global nuclear industry (my emphasis /JC)—Greenpeace says the entire report should be looked on suspiciously as more "public relations spin" than good science.

According to Greenpeace scientists, the WHO "shockingly downplays" the cancer impacts on the population by emphasizing small percentages increases in cancers, but fails to adequately describe how those seemingly small numbers translate into the risks posed ot (sic) many thousands of people.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/02/28-0

[FBaggins]

5. Phobia over facts, eh?

"I'm still scared, therefore it's not a factual report" is not evidence of anything.

Nor is an anti-nuclear group's grasping at straws evidence of anything but that they can't come up with a valid rebuttal.

[JohnyCanuck]

6. I notice you didn't say - yes.....

i would take such a job and take my young children with me to live for 10 years in Fukushima.

[FBaggins]

7. Of course I would

We all take far larger risks every day without even thinking about it.

[Frosty1]

8. Facts No

Phobia over bullshit!

[wtmusic]

9. Their supposed "radiation expert" has only had one job

and that's with Greenpeace. No CV, no bio. No publications. No school.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if the "Dr." bit is bullshit. That's what nucleophobes are stooping to these days.

[kristopher]

10. WHO downplayed health effects of nuclear crisis on Fukushima residents : German physician

WHO downplayed health effects of nuclear crisis on Fukushima residents : German physician

Source: Japan Times

A German doctor and member of a Nobel Peace Prize-winning physicians' group has criticized a World Health Organization report on the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe for underestimating its impact on human health.

<snip>

Rosen, a member of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, called for an independent assessment based on solid scientific methodology that would examine the health impacts from radioactive fallout released after the Fukushima No. 1 complex suffered three core meltdowns in March 2011.

<snip>

Rosen noted that the WHO's estimate on the amount of radioactive fallout emitted from the plant's destroyed reactors was significantly lower than projections provided by research institutes in many other countries.

<snip>

"It is unclear why a report written mainly by the IAEA and collaborating nuclear institutions would need to be published in the name of the WHO, if not to provide an unsuspicious cover" for the true radiation levels Fukushima residents were exposed to, Rosen argued.

<snip>

Read more:
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2012/12/16/national/who-downplayed-health-effects-of-nuclear-crisis-on-fukushima-residents-german-physician/#.US-O9Y4yHdk

you'll need to scroll down to it

[wtmusic]

11. An antinuke pediatrician?

You Must. Be. Kidding.

Let me show you who "Dr. Rosen" is up against (contributors to the WHO report):

Dr Makoto Akashi
National Institute of
Radiological Sciences, Japan

Dr Alexander Akleyev
Urals Research Center for
Radiation Medicine, Russian
Federation

Dr Billy Amzal
LA SER Europe, France

Dr Lynn Anspaugh
University of Utah, United
States of America

D. Anssi Auvinen
University of Tampere,
Finnish Radiation and
Nuclear Safety Authority,
Finland

Dr Michael Boyd
United States Environmental
Protections Agency, United
States of America

Dr Nick Gent
Health Protection Agency,
United Kingdom

Dr Peter Jacob
Helmholtz Zentrum
München, Germany

Dr Charles Land
Retired from National Cancer
Institute, United States of
America

Dr Dominique Laurier
Institut de Radioprotection et
de Sûreté Nucléaire, France

Dr Charles Miller
Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, United
States of America

Dr Ohtsura Niwa
Retired from the University
of Kyoto, Japan

Dr John Parrish-Sprowl
Indiana University, United
States of America

Dr Christoph Reiners
University of Würzburg,
Germany

Dr Roy Shore
Radiation Effects Research
Foundation, Japan

Dr Nelson Valverde
Retired from the Ministry of
Health at the State University
of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Dr Richard Wakeford
University of Manchester,
United Kingdom

Dr Linda Walsh
Federal Office of Radiation
Protection, Germany

Dr Hajo Zeeb
University of Bremen,
Germany

Dr Werner Zeller
Federal Office of Public
Health, Switzerland

Dr Wei Zhang
Health Protection Agency,
United Kingdom

Wanna take it all back?

[kristopher]

12. Toxic link: the WHO and the IAEA

Toxic link: the WHO and the IAEA
A 50-year-old agreement with the IAEA has effectively gagged the WHO from telling the truth about the health risks of radiation

Oliver Tickell
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 28 May 2009 03.00 EDT
Jump to comments (…)
Fifty years ago, on 28 May 1959, the World Health Organisation's assembly voted into force an obscure but important agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency – the United Nations "Atoms for Peace" organisation, founded just two years before in 1957. The effect of this agreement has been to give the IAEA an effective veto on any actions by the WHO that relate in any way to nuclear power – and so prevent the WHO from playing its proper role in investigating and warning of the dangers of nuclear radiation on human health.

The WHO's objective is to promote "the attainment by all peoples of the highest possible level of health", while the IAEA's mission is to "accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world". Although best known for its work to restrict nuclear proliferation, the IAEA's main role has been to promote the interests of the nuclear power industry worldwide, and it has used the agreement to suppress the growing body of scientific information on the real health risks of nuclear radiation.

Under the agreement, whenever either organisation wants to do anything in which the other may have an interest, it "shall consult the other with a view to adjusting the matter by mutual agreement". The two agencies must "keep each other fully informed concerning all projected activities and all programs of work which may be of interest to both parties". And in the realm of statistics – a key area in the epidemiology of nuclear risk – the two undertake "to consult with each other on the most efficient use of information, resources, and technical personnel in the field of statistics and in regard to all statistical projects dealing with matters of common interest".

The language appears to be evenhanded, but the effect has been one-sided. For example, investigations into the health impacts of the Chernobyl nuclear accident in Ukraine on 26 April 1986 have been effectively taken over by IAEA and dissenting information has been suppressed. The health effects of the accident were the subject of two major conferences, in Geneva in 1995, and in Kiev in 2001. But the full proceedings of those conferences remain unpublished – despite claims to the contrary by a senior WHO spokesman reported in Le Monde Diplomatique.

Meanwhile...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/28/who-nuclear-power-chernobyl

It's funny to see you play attack the messenger so avidly given you are the person dedicated to citing known false information from nuclear bloggers whenever it suits you. Then you say "I don't remember doing that".

You are getting to be as much of a hoot as Nnadir.