417,000 cancers forecast for Fukushima 200 km contamination zone by 2061

[flamingdem]

http://www.llrc.org/indexpage.htm
LOW LEVEL RADIATION CAMPAIGN

Friday 1st April 2011
417,000 cancers forecast for Fukushima 200 km contamination zone by 2061
Scientific Secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR), Professor Chris Busby, has released calculations of the cancer incidence to be expected in fallout areas of Japan. Using data from the International Atomic Energy Agency and official Japanese web sites he has used two methods to estimate the numbers of cancer cases. He compares these results with estimates derived from ICRP modelling.

The "Tondel" Method is based on a conservative study by Martin Tondel in northern Sweden. This examined cancer incidence during 10 years after Chernobyl. It differentiated the varying levels of land contamination and found that the disease increased by 11% for each 100 kiloBecquerels of fallout per square metre of land surface. Professor Busby has applied this factor to the zone up to 100 km from the reactors, where IAEA has reported, on average, 600kBq per sq.m radioactivity. In the 3.3 million population of this 100 km zone a 66% increase over and above the pre-accident rate is predicted in 10 years. This implies 103,329 extra cancers due to the Fukushima exposures between 2012 and 2021.

Applying the "Tondel" method to the ring between 100 km and 200 km from Fukushima, population 7.8 million but lower concentrations of fallout, 120,894 extra cancers are to be expected by 2021.
Assuming permanent residence and no evacuation the total predicted yield according to the "Tondel" method is 224,223 in ten years.

[RC]

1. How many Japanese died from cancer following WWII?

Sounds like more fear mongering. Besides, isn't Martin Tondel an Anti-nuke whose 'research' has been discredited by his peers?

[flamingdem]

2. I'm sure the nuclear industry spends plenty trying to debunk scientists projections

of course they do. But there is unfortunately prior examples such as Chernobyl so denial is getting harder for them. After all we were told by the NRC and nuclear industry that nuclear energy is safe and to never expect these kind of catastrophes.

Now who is it who lied?

[madokie]

7. It damn sure wasn't us who were against nuclear power that was lying

[PamW]

11. Japanese reactors had the accident, not reactors in the USA.

of course they do. But there is unfortunately prior examples such as Chernobyl so denial is getting harder for them. After all we were told by the NRC and nuclear industry that nuclear energy is safe and to never expect these kind of catastrophes.

Now who is it who lied?
============================================

The person who interprets remarks made about the US nuclear power plants as
lies because of something that happened in Japan.

Japanese reactors had the accident, not reactors in the USA.

PamW

[CRH]

19. Maybe he was talking about the discredited report from your graduate school, ...

You know The Rasumussen Report of 1974 that claimed a person was more likely to die from a meteor strike than nuclear energy. Though it was the newly named NRC that removed endorsement of this expert misrepresentation of the truth, in 1979 just five years after the document was widely acclaimed.

[Wilms]

3. Has Tondel been discredited, or not?

If you could provide your fellow members of this forum with some substantiated info to back your claim, that would provide us with a reason to concern ourselves with the veracity of the claims he presents.

Do you have a link?

[flamingdem]

4. Yes, we are tired of attempts to "sow doubt" in this forum, links please nt

[FBaggins]

16. Can you provide a link to any legitimate organization saying it was credible in the first place?

Why ask someone to debunk something that hasn't been shown to be anything more than just another LLRC game falsifying credibility?

[FBaggins]

15. He hasn't been particularly "credited"... so DIScrediting is premature.

He found no statisticaly significant increase in the types of cancers that would be most common from reactor accidents (particularly thyroid cancer), but thought that he saw an increase in other types of cancer which he CLAIMES must be from Chernobyl.

The problem is that the cancers he was trying to associate with Chernobyl at the types that take 20-40 years to present themselves... and his data was from the first decade after Chernobyl.

The LLRC clowns trying to spin this as a "conservative" method just adds to the humor.

[wtmusic]

18. Tondel is an MD

and radiation experts are dubious about his Chernobyl findings.

"Doubt expressed

'We've tried our best to explain it in other ways, but we can't,' he told the Associated Press. 'So then you have to believe your data.'

'With every statistical method we used to look at it, we see an increase (in cases) across the board. That indicates that it's a Chernobyl effect,' he added.

He acknowledged there was no significant rise in cases of leukaemia or thyroid cancer, normally the most common types among radiation victims.

This would make it 'a little harder to convince the world' of the accuracy of his findings, he admitted.

Leif Moberg, a radiation expert with the Swedish Radiation Protection Authority, questioned the findings' conclusions.

'The radiation dosage that we in Sweden got after the accident was too low to produce this many cancer cases,' he was quoted by the AP as saying.

He also suggested it was a little early to have any definite results, saying: 'Most cancer cases don't develop until 20, 30 or 50 years later.'

His organisation has previously estimated that in 50 years, around 300 people in Sweden would be affected by the Chernobyl fallout."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4028729.stm

[FBaggins]

20. What these guys don't understand is there are thousands upon thousands of MDs

The ones who are experts in the subject are called Health Physicists... and they don't come CLOSE to agreeing with this position. As far as they're concerned it's quack "science' (and I agree).

They just found one who can be used to support their conclusion and dishonestly labeled it as a "conservative" estimate (as if it's somehow close to the middle-of-the-road consensus)

There are, I point out, plenty of PhDs on the "creation science" side of the argument and plenty of climatologists who disagree with AGW. That doesn't make the quack "science" position any more credible.

His organization has previously estimated that in 50 years, around 300 people in Sweden would be affected by the Chernobyl fallout."

That certainly seems around the right order of magnitude.

[in_cog_ni_to]

5. Japan Cancer Society: One in three people die from cancer ...steady increases since WWII...

Cancer in Japan

One in every three people dies of cancer

For several years after World War II, between 50,000 and 60,000 people in Japan died from cancer every year. Since then, the number of cancer deaths has increased steadily and became the top cause of death, surpassing strokes, in 1981.



According to statistics compiled by the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, 336,290 people died of cancer in 2007, accounting for one in every three deaths. Heart diseases, the second biggest killer, accounted for only about half of the number of cancer deaths.



Worldwide, more than 11 million people are diagnosed each year with cancer and about 8 million people die from the disease every year, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). Consequently, JCS must collaborate with global groups engaged in the fight against cancer such as the WHO and the International Union Against Cancer.



Moreover, cancer deaths are on the rise among men in their 40s and older and women in their 30s and older -- both of which groups are said to be at higher risks than younger people -- and the anti-cancer movement is becoming increasingly important.
One in every three people die of cancer<snip>

http://www.jcancer.jp/english/cancerinjapan/



Wiki:
<snip>
According to the U.S. Department of Energy the immediate effects of the blast killed approximately 70,000 people in Hiroshima.<44> Estimates of total deaths by the end of 1945 from burns, radiation and related disease, the effects of which were aggravated by lack of medical resources, range from 90,000 to 166,000.<1><45> Some estimates state up to 200,000 had died by 1950, due to cancer and other long-term effects.<3><6><46> Another study states that from 1950 to 2000, 46% of leukemia deaths and 11% of solid cancer deaths among bomb survivors were due to radiation from the bombs, the statistical excess being estimated to 94 leukemia and 848 solid cancers.<47><snip>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

[madokie]

8. wouldn't you think that would be enough for anyone thinking to be able to see

that radiation is not good for us, it causes cancer. Simple as that

[in_cog_ni_to]

9. One would think so, yes. And to think the EPA is going to raise the USA acceptable radiation

levels to a level where 1 in 4 WILL GET CANCER (as per the American Cancer Society). Something is very, very wrong.

[kestrel91316]

6. .....but those people would be getting sick and dying of something

else if not cancer, so it doesn't matter. Really. Move along now.

:sarcasm:

[OnlinePoker]

10. 1/3 more than normal

This report from WHO from 2006 estimates that of the 626,000 people in the Strictly Controlled Zone surrounding Chernobyl, cancer deaths are or will be 4000 greater than before the accident (3-4%) and 5000 in the primary fallout area of Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine (a population of 5 million). Unfortunately, it doesn't give firm numbers on how many cancers might have been caused by Chernobyl. This is the problem I have with estimating numbers from Japan. Some increase will definitely occur, but pegging a number to it at this stage (with the disaster still unfolding) is guessing and grandstanding.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs303/en/index.html

[FBaggins]

12. Wow... the European Committee on Radiation Risk?

And this guy is the "Scientific Secretary"?

That sounds really impressive.

Which is exactly why he came up with the idea.

[caraher]

13. I remember reading up on ECRR...

and it basically *is* Chris Busby.

[FBaggins]

14. That wouldn't be a surprise.

He can't get published in legitimate journals, so he created his own. No publisher was interested in his first couple books, so he paid to publish them himself.

But none of that matters. As long as he says what they anti-nuke crowd wants him to say, he's "one of the foremost experts in the field".

The very definition of a shill.

[flamingdem]

17. Here is Chris Busby's work online, you can review his reasoning here:

http://www.fairewinds.com/content/health-outcome-fukushima-catastrophe-initial-analysis-risk-model-european-committee-radiatio