Report: Japan kept secret about scary nuclear scenario

[neverforget]

http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/21/10207715-report-japan-kept-secret-about-scary-nuclear-scenario

Report: Japan kept secret about scary nuclear scenario
By msnbc.com staff

The Japanese government kept secret for months a worst-case scenario report predicting a massive release of radioactive materials for a year at the earthquake-crippled Fukushima Daiichi power plant, goverment sources told the Kyodo news agency.

The report, shown first to just a small group of policy makers in late March, said a hydrogen explosion would tear through the No. 1 reactor's containment vessel and force all workers to flee lethal radiation levels. It said residents within 105 miles of the plant would be forced to evacuate. A voluntary evacuation zone would have included Tokyo, about 140 miles away.

There would be no time to carry out needed evacuations, sources said, and officials did not want to spur anxiety, according to the Kyodo article published by the Japan Times.

"The content was so shocking that we decided to treat it as if it didn't exist," a senior government official said.[/div class="excerpt"]

Thank God the worst case didn't happen but what happened was bad enough!

[madokie]

1. We'll never fully know what happened in the Fukushima Daiichi power plant

Its the nature of the nuclear beast to keep us in the dark as much as possible. It seems like the nuclear industry knows that people wouldn't allow them to exist if they knew the actual truth about the dangers they pose.
Shut 'm down and the sooner the better. We can do better.

[wtmusic]

2. That might be to prevent panic

much as flight attendants don't typically run over the worst possible crash scenario for their passengers.

Actually what happened wasn't nearly bad enough for nucleophobescaremongers, who were counting on at least 6,000 fatalities and got...zilch.

Better luck next time.

[waddirum]

3. Are you claiming that there were zero fatalities from radiation at Fukushima?

Are you claiming that there are no increased levels of cancers in Japan and elsewhere as a result of this accident?

Are you claiming that those opposed to nuclear energy are disappointed by the lack of fatalities, and are hoping for more?

[wtmusic]

4. As of this time there are no fatalities which are attributable to radiation from Fukushima

and there may never be.

"The cancer risk may be absent, or just too small to detect, said Dr. Fred Mettler, a radiologist who led an international study of health effects from the 1986 Chernobyl disaster.

That's partly because cancer is one of the top killers of people in industrialized nations. Odds are high that if you live long enough, you will die of cancer. The average lifetime cancer risk is about 40 percent."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/20/fukushima-plant-disaster-long-term-effects_n_1103874.html

Instead of people are getting worked up in a frenzy over media reports, they should quit smoking cigarettes or use more sunscreen - which would have a far greater impact on their risk from cancer. I would be happy to discuss the number of cancers which would have developed had Fukushima's power been generated using coal, but I will warn you that the plant has saved thousands of lives since it opened and prevented tons of poisonous mercury from being dumped into the Pacific Ocean.

Yes, some who are opposed to nuclear energy would like nothing better than to have their irrational fears validated, although of course they won't be. I'm not sure what it takes to change minds these days, but I am sure some people will never accept facts which don't fit their preconceptions.

[dbackjon]

5. Great post

[PamW]

6. Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Research

Latest from Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science:

http://lowdose.energy.gov/

http://www.examiner.com/science-in-south-bend/dna-repair-centers-fix-low...

“Our data show that at lower doses of ionizing radiation, DNA repair mechanisms work much better than at higher doses,” says Mina Bissell, breast cancer researcher with the Life Sciences Division. “This non-linear DNA damage response casts doubt on the general assumption that any amount of ionizing radiation is harmful and additive.”

PamW

[FSSF]

8. Look how easy this is.

"Currently, risk estimates for low doses of IR are based on empirical linear fits of existing human data determined at high doses. This extrapolation model assumes that cells have the capacity to repair IR damage at low doses as they do at high doses. Clearly, the data presented here do not support this assumption and could suggest that a linear extrapolation model significantly underestimates the risk for IR-induced carcinogenesis."

http://www.pnas.org/content/100/9/5057.full.pdf

Unless you're a radiation health expert taking any position other than LNT (the general consensus) is clearly a result of some bias.

[PamW]

13. New data vs old data

The information that you cite is a DECADE OLD. The information that I cited is the LATEST, MOST UP to DATE
research out of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

Actually the National Academy of Science BEIR reports have a general concensus that LNT OVERESTIMATES the risk, and hence it is good to use for lawmakers to use for the purpose of making regulations. However, the NAS long ago repudiated LNT as being what actually happens.

Actually, radiation transport and dose IS my specialty and I follow the scientific literature most closely.

PamW

[FSSF]

17. Lets see.

Keeping with the same publisher.

2010:
"In conclusion, we present evidence that an inducible response is required for efficient repair of DSBs in human fibroblasts. We suggest that this response is initiated after high doses by the radiation itself. After low doses, however, the radiation dose is insufficient to induce this response and DSB repair is inefficient. "

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/32/14205.full.pdf+html

The BEIR VII report says this:
"The committee judged that the linear no-threshold model (LNT) provided the most reasonable description of the relation between low-dose exposure to ionizing radiation and the incidence of solid cancers that are induced by ionizing radiation.
...
At doses less than 40 times the average yearly background exposure (100 mSv), statistical limitations make it difficult to evaluate cancer risk in humans. A comprehensive review of the biology data led the committee to conclude that the risk would continue in a linear fashion at lower doses without a threshold and that the smallest dose has the potential to cause a small increase in risk to humans. This assumption is termed the “linear no-threshold model” "

A recent review in Radiography covers that last part:
"Experimental research on a cellular level provides convincing evidence of a linear no-threshold relationship between dose and induction of significant DNA lesions. There is however a strong suggestion that the manner and success of the response to such damage varies with dose, cell type and individual characteristics. This apparent non-linearity does not prove absence of carcinogenic potential at low dose levels. It is the ‘no-threshold’ component of the LNT model that is of greatest significance in radiography. Regardless of whether the true shape of response is linear or non-linear, the ability of a single radiation track to cause cancer remains theoretically possible, for now. The essence of the LNT model therefore still holds, but a strict interpretation for the purposes of risk assessment and research in radiation protection no longer appears to be appropriate.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1078817411000691

And I guess you're immune to confirmation bias then. My bad.

[FSSF]

7. ...

"The methodological difficulties inherent in low-dose epidemiological studies suggest that it is unlikely that we will be able to directly and precisely quantify cancer risks in human populations at doses much below 10 mSv. Our inability to quantify such risks does not, however, imply that the corresponding societal risks are necessarily negligible; a very small risk, if applied to a large number of individuals, can result in a significant public health problem."

Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: Assessing what we really know

Also comparing voluntary (smoking, sun exposure) and involuntary (nuclear accidents) risks is a good way to lose credibility.

"The classic example of a comparison that violates these distinctions is to tell people at a public meeting that their risk from air toxic X is lower than the risk they took when they drove their cars to the meeting or when they enjoyed a cigarette during a break. Unless there is already a high level of trust between the speaker and the audience, this sort of comparison is almost guaranteed to provoke outrage because it seems to make the following claim:

Since the risk of emissions of air toxic X is less than that of driving or smoking, two conclusions follow: (a) the risk of emissions of air toxic X must logically be more acceptable, and (b) people who drive or smoke have surrendered their right to object to the plant’s emission of air toxic X.

This is a false argument, based on a flawed premise. To seem to be advancing such a claim is to invite resentment from your audience."

Risk Communication, Risk Statistics, and Risk Comparisons: A Manual for Plant Managers

[wtmusic]

10. That's a very nice guide for speaking to a roomful of ignorant people.

Our inability to quantify such risks means they might not exist. Next...

[FSSF]

12. It's a guide on how to not use poor risk comparisons to ruin your credibility with the public,

who aren't as ignorant as an arrogant plant manager might assume. They're also usually rational and responsive to good risk communication.

Maybe you missed the bold bit that applies to your comparisons regardless of who the target audience is. I'll repeat it: "This is a false argument, based on a flawed premise."

Our inability to quantify such risks means they might exist. Next...

[PamW]

15. May / may not - who cares.

Our inability to quantify such risks means they might exist. Next...
=======================================

May / may not - who cares. Also you are carrying forth a mathematical error in computing probabilities.

You can't just take a risk % for an individual and multiply it by the number of people in a population. I know it is commonly done; but it is actually mathematically erroneous to do so.

For example. My probability of getting heads on an honest coin flip is 1/2. So if I flip a coin twice, then my probability of getting at least one head is 100% = 50% probability/flip X 2 flips. But that is just plain WRONG!!!

In fact, I have a 25% chance of getting 2 heads, a 50% chance of getting 1 head, and a 25% chance of no heads, if you do the calculation correctly. So quit playing with stattistics until you learn some remedial high school mathematics.

Whether there is / is not an effect at very low doses, we know one thing, the effect is small and less than the background exposure.

Fukushima, Chernobyl, nuclear power in general, nuclear weapons testing in the '50s are ALL WAY WAY LESS than what Mother Nature exposes us to. Mother Nature is still the number one source of ionizing radiation exposure to the average citizen:

http://www.umich.edu/~radinfo/introduction/radrus.htm

If you assume no cancers at 0 exposure, and then apply LNT to the dose due to Mother Nature; you get a cancer rate that EXCEEDS the actual background cancer rate by a large factor. We've known for some time that the relationship isn't linear.

PamW

[FSSF]

18. I have no idea what the first bit is even referring to.

So I'll Ignore it.

As far as you second point I've never stipulated otherwise, of course this is irrelevant. It varies significantly from location to location and from person to person, and has no bearing on whether a slight increase in exposure to radiation over a large population would cause increased mortality, no matter the source (medical, background, nuclear accident etc).

That comes down to no-threshold vs threshold. The lack of a threshold is the health standard and generally agreed upon - it's the one with the most evidence.

[wtmusic]

16. You want to base policy on risk you have no evidence of

but might exist?

That's the flawed argument. You can repeat it as many times as you like, put it in bold, even ALL CAPS - but that won't make it any more sound, will it?

[FSSF]

19. That was the point.

Using the same flawed argument as you to show that yours is flawed. I'm glad we agree.

[PamW]

14. Depends on the metric

This is a false argument, based on a flawed premise. To seem to be advancing such a claim is to invite resentment from your audience."
===============================

Depends on your metric. If one uses logic, then "X" clearly is more acceptable than smoking and / or driving.

However, that is not your metric. Your metric is whether people are going to resent it or not.

People resent a lot of things when they are not being logical.

So what!! Do we make policy on the basis of people's "feelings" and "resentments". ( The "warm fuzzy" crowd at play here )

Or do we use logic and science? My vote is for the latter.

PamW

[FSSF]

20. Missing the point.

They're different types of risk.

A person can accept one type of risk while at the same time refusing another all the while being perfectly rational. Not all risk is the same, logically.

This has nothing to do with "feelings" vs logic.

[Kolesar]

9. Flame bait...eom

[wtmusic]

11. Has Fukushima's core hit the water table yet?

Keep us posted.