WHO releases mixed Fukushima radiation report

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

  • -14

    Thomas Anderson

    Not sure if serious... The current radiation level in Fukushima is 36 mSv/hour, which is over 500 times higher than normal... That's 36 mSv per hour, not year. If you stayed at that spot for a year then you'd receive 315360 mSv or 315 sV... which is enough to kill a person 100 times over.

    http://new.atmc.jp

  • 5

    Super7

    The comment above is not just wrong, but wrong 1,000 times over.

    The current radiation level in Fukushima is 36 MICRO-Sv/hour. If you stayed at that spot for a year then you'd receive 315 MILLI-Sv or 0.315 sV... which is less than a third of the level that the WHO would begin to get concerned about.

    Scaremongering is more dangerous than radiation in Fukushima-shi.

  • -1

    Thomas Anderson

    Hmm you're right I did a miscalculation, but the point still stands. 315 milliSv or 0.315 sV is still incredibly high and it's at a very dangerous level (I don't believe even the nuclear plant workers can receive that much radiation within a year). 500 times higher than normal is hardly "scaremongering", but it's a fact.

  • 0

    OMGhontoni

    I dont really get much from this report. For exposure of under 100mSv, results have been inconclusive. The largest group by far were exposed to under this limit, so basically they cant tell us any more than what we already know - that they dont actually know what the likely long term effect will be.

    They cant tell us the effects on people who were living within the exclusion zone or on emergency workers - not even a rough estimate. And they also say that they were "evacuated quickly", but what is the difference in outcome between acute and chronic exposure?

    The only thing this report DOES seem to be able to tell us is that Namie and Iitate were badly affected. Beyond that, especially given the paragraph on comparative doses (flight to NY, pyramids, etc) it just seems lke thinly disguised propaganda, or that the "good bits" of the report have been extracted and put into the article. Do they really think people are stupid enough not to be able to understand the difference between the cosmic rays you receive on a flight, or the radon gas in the ground, and particles of strontium raining down on you? BIG difference.

  • -3

    Thomas Anderson

    If you stayed at that spot for a year then you'd receive 315 MILLI-Sv or 0.315 sV... which is less than a third of the level that the WHO would begin to get concerned about.

    Uh no, 300 millisV is incredibly high:

    Populations exposed to radiation typically stand a greater chance of contracting cancers of all kinds after receiving doses above 100 mSv, according to the United Nations agency. The threshold for acute radiation syndrome is about 1 Sv (1000 mSv).

  • -1

    Thomas Anderson

    Soo, people who still have not evacuated from Fukushima will have "a greater chance of contracting cancers of all kinds"... WTF?

  • 6

    tmarie

    Scaremongering is more dangerous than radiation in Fukushima-shi.

    Disagree.

    Will also add, if the government had been honest from the start, people wouldn't be "scaremongering"...

  • -2

    Thomas Anderson

    Having a "greater chance of contracting cancers of all kinds" is mere scaremongering? That's new, that's nice. I'm so sorry for being concerned that people may contract cancers of all kinds, that's obviously much worse than saving "face" for Japan and the nuclear industry. And please lay off the ad-hominem, that's clearly "unscientific".

    Receiving a chest X-ray is around 0.05 milliSv, so 315 milliSv is the equivalent of receiving 6307 X-rays. You think you'd survive after receiving 6307 X-rays? Please... stick to science.

  • 0

    Onniyama

    As the WHO gets its information and makes its policy directives in conjuction with the IAEA, don't put too much faith in what they have to say. Business as usual people. They will tell you that about 30 people died from the Chernobyl accident. This report is pure propoganda.

  • -2

    Onniyama

    Can people please stop using the term scaremongering.

  • 3

    papigiulio

    “Six workers have died since the accident but none of the deaths were linked to irradiation,”

    Sure and if you believe that I am Santa Clause.

  • 2

    Disillusioned

    I don't think it is scaremongering at all. If anything I think they are downplaying the seriousness of this disaster by comparing it to Chernobyl. The biggest problem for me and something not mentioned in this article is the extra exposure to other parts of Japan from mislabeled foodstuffs and irradiated building supplies.

  • -1

    Neko_Nebula

    People obviously aren't informed on radiation and this leads to fear. I kind of wish the government would teach everybody about radiation and it's effects and everything, but we just let the ignorant people be ignorant, and it's kind of not their fault.

  • 0

    Robert Dykes

    "Not sure if serious... The current radiation level in Fukushima is 36 mSv/hour," in the reactor core. in an entire 100km radius. in the entire prefecture, in the evac zone? in the place where no one is living? before you post a comment that if you stand still for an entire year you will die 100 times over maybe your should be a little less vauge with your doom and gloom comments.

  • 2

    Robert Dykes

    "Scaremongering is more dangerous than radiation in Fukushima-shi.

    Disagree."

    I 100% disagree with your disagree.

  • 2

    nandakandamanda

    This article is downplaying the situation by taking out the worst section and deferring that to a later report.

    Today's report makes the Fukushima situation sound mild and generally harmless. What's the opposite of "scaremongering"?

  • -1

    TSRnow

    In a preliminary report, independent experts said that people in two locations in Fukushima Prefecture may have received a radiation dose of 10-50 millisieverts (mSv) in the year after the accident at the power station operated by TEPCO.

    Uh... do they have anything that we don't know? After all, it's a 124 page report, they must have something more in depth than the above that we have been told numerous times on the news.

  • 2

    1or2whiskeysodas

    This is why I'm not sticking around in Japan. Everyone can argue about what's "a fact" or not, but the only "real fact" is that no one can be sure.

    Granted the situation is probably worse than were being lead to believe, it's only normal that people should take on the mentality of "better safe than sorry."

  • 3

    Cricky

    It's a press release, that's all. Happy happy any cancers are not connected at all. N energy is safe and cheep, that's the story. Please ignore the ongoing cost and tax rise because you can turn on a light...happy happy.

  • 0

    yokatta

    WHO needs to put more boots on the ground here in Japan. They will tell you (inside) we don't have enough manpower and financial resources to do a thorough job.. They probably just take a lot of what the Japanese gov't and TEPCO tell them.

  • 1

    Heda_Madness

    I don't think it is scaremongering at all. If anything I think they are downplaying the seriousness of this disaster by comparing it to Chernobyl. The biggest problem for me and something not mentioned in this article is the extra exposure to other parts of Japan from mislabeled foodstuffs and irradiated building supplies.

    I find it ironic that you are now saying that by comparing it to Chernobyl it is being downplayed. Last year many posters on here were saying it was comparable to Chernobyl and many more seemed to believe them. Wasn't that scaremongering?

  • 4

    caffeinebuzz

    I'm in Fukushima, and it's currently a horrifying .056 microsieverts at ground-level. My skin glows a freaky shade of green at night and I'm getting pretty good at telekinesis, but if any of you nice scare-mongers out there want to feed my izakaya habits, I'm happy to take personal donations!

  • 1

    Disillusioned

    Heda -San,

    What I mean by downplaying is, the two disasters, Fukushima and Chernobyl, were completely different and they should not be compared. The levels of radiation from Fukushima vary greatly from area to area (and report to report).

  • 1

    Heda_Madness

    http://www.japantoday.com/category/poll/view/do-you-think-the-fukushima-nuclear-disaster-is-worse-than-chernobyl

    32% voted worse, 12% voted the same.

    A lot of people have spent the last 14 months scaremongering. I even remember one poster who claimed that it was exceptionally high in Osaka. And that admitted that a) he didn't know what the previous readings were and b) his area had a lot of background radiation.

    Many people took the doom and gloom point of view from day one and we're now 14 months after the event and no-one has died. Doesn't mean we should play down the effects as it is still very bad for Fukushima and I still believe that ALL children in Japan should have regular health checks for thyroid cancer. But it's not as bad as many people on here have tried to portray and continue to portray.

  • 0

    japan_cynic

    “Below 100 mSv, the studies have not been conclusive.”

    This is potentially a bit misleading. Below 100mSv, it is clear that the effects, if any, are incredibly small. So small, that you had far better worry about the fat in your burger (or choking on your ozoni) than the microscopic amount of caesium it may contain.

    I wonder what the WHO thinks of the "Radium Onsens" in Japan and elsewhere, which are promoted (laughably) for their cancer-CURING properties?

  • 2

    warispeace

    This is from the same organization that ceeded responsibility for nuclear safety issues to the pro-nuclear IAEA. Also, there appears to be no mention of internal exposure, in which case the report lacks credibility. We should also question the data used, if it was provided by Japanese authorities that have consistently tried to wish this crisis away.

  • 0

    horrified

    Robert Dykes -

    [Scaremongering is more dangerous than radiation in Fukushima-shi. -- Disagree.] I 100% disagree with your disagree.

    I 100% disagree with your disagree of the the previous disagree.

  • -1

    Utrack

    In the rest of the world, doses were below 0.01 mSv or less, including neighboring Indonesia, the Philippines, South Korea, far eastern parts of Russia, and southeast Asia.

    But what about the ocean taking 100,000 ton of radioactive water from the reactor leaks and spills?? okay, contaminated foodstuff is bad.

  • 3

    Onniyama

    Heda_Madness. Sorry to burst your bubble but I personally know two people who died in Fukushima in the past year. One 34 years old and the other mid-40s. I am sure there are more if I know of two.

  • -1

    JaneM

    What many people prefer not to notice when comenting on the inconclusive results of the above report is that it is not only radiation that causes helath problems, the scariest of them being cancer. People have been poluting their environment with every possible chemical starting with the chemical industry, continuing with burning fossil fuels and finishing with the cosmetic industry which offers an incredible number of products full of artificially created chemicals in addition to the natural ones, of course... We drive our cars and create thousands of tons of exhaust gases which undoubtedly cause health problems, too. So with all this in the air, soil and water, how can WHO and the like say that cancers are caused only by radiation?

    But since this way of thinking is out of line with the current bashing, I believe people will continue to blame only the nuclear energy for all their health problems and claim that anybody who talks different is just a nuclear energy supporter. They will probably continue to vote for the safer energy from fossil fuels until we get reliable technology for producing energy from renuable sources.

  • 4

    Onniyama

    There are hot spots all over the place. Alongside my in-laws garage had a reading of 1.6 micro/hour when I was last there in April. The children should not have regular tests. They should be moved out.

  • 1

    Heda_Madness

    What did they die of? Where were they from? Etc.

    Saying two people died in Fukushima proves absolutely nothing without any other information.

  • 0

    Onniyama

    http://enenews.com/exposed-world-health-organization-beholden-nuclear-interests-videos

  • 0

    Onniyama

    They both died of heart failure. Live in Shirakawa City in the southern part of Fukushima (my wife's hometown)

  • 0

    Onniyama

    lived in Shirakawa City

  • 1

    Heda_Madness

    So what were the radiation levels in that area. How was their health history etc?

    I'm not saying that they didn't die because of the nuclear incident but given the supposed anti-nuclear movement in Japan now I would have thought that this would have made the news if it could be linked to Dai Ichi. And as you suppose there are more then it's even more surprising that no-one has reported it.

  • 0

    Thomas Anderson

    in the reactor core. in an entire 100km radius. in the entire prefecture, in the evac zone? in the place where no one is living? before you post a comment that if you stand still for an entire year you will die 100 times over maybe your should be a little less vauge with your doom and gloom comments.

    Well why don't you actually look at the link that I've provided with my post...

  • 0

    Onniyama

    As I said, there are hotspots all over the place. Current levels in that area are about 0.4 -0.6 micro/hour. Those 2 people had no prior health issues that anyone knew of. It is certainly news in the Shirakawa area. I am sure the doctors blamed it on stress as they have been instructed to do. Who knows? Maybe there are right. But the data compiled by the ECRR (see site above) sure points the radiation as the leading suspect.

  • 0

    Thomas Anderson

    I'm in Fukushima, and it's currently a horrifying .056 microsieverts at ground-level. My skin glows a freaky shade of green at night and I'm getting pretty good at telekinesis, but if any of you nice scare-mongers out there want to feed my izakaya habits, I'm happy to take personal donations!

    Lol, attempting to laugh about it won't make you (or any other person) any more or less safe. Some people are just trying to report facts, is that so bad?

    They're like the kind of people that say "Oh I've been smoking for decades and I'm as healthy as ever! It's all just a bunch of scaremongering!" Well, sure, but the fact is that smoking can cause all sorts of problems. Just because you haven't had any problems don't mean that statistically, other people won't either.

  • 2

    Dan Medina

    ...or equal to a dose received during a one-hour visit to one of Egypt’s pyramids.

    why is that?

  • -1

    Heda_Madness

    Your link mentions Chris Busby. Which says far more than the conclusion that you've come to.

  • 2

    Thomas Anderson

    Many people took the doom and gloom point of view from day one and we're now 14 months after the event and no-one has died.

    I don't think that people are going to die or develop cancer in just 14 months.

  • -1

    Heda_Madness

    Really..? but they did aftter Chernobyl.

  • 0

    Onniyama

    Chris Busby is not the only member of the ECRR. There are also thousands of studies that have been done in Russia. And as far as I am concerned Busby is a radiation expert.

  • 1

    Onniyama

    Do you think Busby is the sole member of the ECRR or what?

  • 1

    Thomas Anderson

    Really..? but they did aftter Chernobyl.

    Well that's because those workers were exposed to very high amount of radiation without any protection within a very short period.

  • 0

    Onniyama

    In fact, the horrors are just emerging in the Chernobyl area, as those who were children during the accident are starting to have children of their own.

  • 1

    Heda_Madness

    Having Chris Busby on any panel on radiation is like asking the late Linda McCartney to discuss the benefits of eating beef.

    And yes, the workers were but if you watch any documentary on Chernobyl you will know that a lot of local residents suffered serious health effects within a very short period of time.

  • 1

    basroil

    Thomas, most of the radiation released from fukushima is beta- related, which means a sheet of aluminum will stop it (or a few cm of water, or a bit more than that in concrete).

    The second part is that those readings are on site, and radiation intensity follows the inverse square law, so by 1km away you are pretty much never going to measure a difference. Most readings within the exclusion zone are under 20mSv/yr.

    Third part is that total radiation related deaths were 30 from Chernobyl, and a few hundred cases of thyroid cancer that may have been related (amount of Iodine released was several times more and in a densely populated region). Thyroid cancer, when found early, is non-life threatening and can be easily removed and has low recurrence rate.

    Fourth part is that WHO sets a limit of 100mSv/yr, but all research shows no correlation between radiation and cancer for values less than 200mSv/yr. Additionally, several peer reviewed research articles show that the human body is able to recover from continuous low level radiation and instantaneous mid-level radiation with no statistically significant increase in cancer.

    Fifth part is that 0.6 microSv/hour is lower than the amount you would get from living in a Paris apartment (the old stone type) or even from just working in your basement (due to radon).

    I wish that people would stop using fear as an excuse to do stupid things, the stress induced by fear will do much more than radiation ever could. Also, if Tokyo experiences a heat wave (35C + for a week), more people will die due to a lack of electricity than from the radiation released from all fukushima over the course of a hundred years.

  • 0

    Thomas Anderson

    @basroil, uhh, I'm pretty sure that you need to study radiology, not nuclear engineering. Not even the nuclear engineers are experts on radiation. But nice try trying to acclaim a position of "authority".

    I don't claim to be an expert, but I am getting my info from radiologists.

  • 0

    Thomas Anderson

    @basroil

    The second part is that those readings are on site, and radiation intensity follows the inverse square law, so by 1km away you are pretty much never going to measure a difference. Most readings within the exclusion zone are under 20mSv/yr.

    This is true, but it doesn't mean much since radiation can be carried around via dust particles and such.

    Third part is that total radiation related deaths were 30 from Chernobyl, and a few hundred cases of thyroid cancer that may have been related (amount of Iodine released was several times more and in a densely populated region). Thyroid cancer, when found early, is non-life threatening and can be easily removed and has low recurrence rate.

    This is obviously subject to much debate. Some higher estimates of cancers caused by radiation are in the millions.

    Fourth part is that WHO sets a limit of 100mSv/yr, but all research shows no correlation between radiation and cancer for values less than 200mSv/yr. Additionally, several peer reviewed research articles show that the human body is able to recover from continuous low level radiation and instantaneous mid-level radiation with no statistically significant increase in cancer.

    100 mSv is equivalent to getting chest X-rays 2000 times. No doctor in the world is going to say that getting chest X-rays 2000 times is going to be safe.

    And are you ignoring this from the article?:

    Populations exposed to radiation typically stand a greater chance of contracting cancers of all kinds after receiving doses above 100 mSv, according to the United Nations agency. The threshold for acute radiation syndrome is about 1 Sv (1000 mSv).

    Studies shown by BEIR VII - Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiations show that even very low levels of radiation can still be harmful:

    http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=030909156X

    Fifth part is that 0.6 microSv/hour is lower than the amount you would get from living in a Paris apartment (the old stone type) or even from just working in your basement (due to radon).

    8.76 milliSv/year is still 8 times higher than the LEGAL limit put on by the Japanese government as well by the international standards (which is 2.4 milliSv/year, in Japan it's 1 milliSv/year, but Japan seems to be messing around with that a lot these days).

  • -1

    Thomas Anderson

    @basroil

    Most of the radiation released from fukushima is beta- related, which means a sheet of aluminum will stop it (or a few cm of water, or a bit more than that in concrete).

    I meant to use that quote on my first reply. Again yes that is true, but are you just going to be locked inside, sealed up with no ventilation? You will still need to go out side eventually.

  • 0

    buggerlugs

    Shouldn't this headline read "cockroaches will not be bothered in the future of Fukushima"? Scaremongering is good sometimes cause it'll make people question. I wonder how much this report cost to put together?

  • 1

    Thomas Anderson

    From BEIR VII:

    At dose levels of about 100 to 4000 mSv (about 40 to 1600 times the average yearly background exposure), excess cancers have been observed in Japanese atomic bomb survivors. Excess cancers represent the number of cancers above the levels expected in the population.In the case of in utero exposure (exposure of the fetus during pregnancy), excess cancers can be detected at doses as low as 10 mSv. For the radiation doses at which excess cancers occur in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki studies, solid cancers16 show an increasing rate with increasing dose that is consistent with a linear association. In other words, as the level of exposure to radiation increased, so did the occurrence of solid cancers.

    So pregnant women and children are especially vulnerable to 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”

    So it doesn't mean that doses below 100 mSv/year are HARMLESS, it just means that the effects on them are difficult to conclude, since we don't know if the cancers are caused by radiation or by natural causes and other factors.

    On average, assuming a sex and age distribution similar to that of the entire U.S. population, the BEIR VII lifetime risk model predicts that approximately 1 person in 100 would be expected to develop cancer (solid cancer or leukemia) from a dose of 0.1 Sv above background, while approximately 42 of the 100 individuals would be expected to develop solid cancer or leukemia from other causes. Lower doses would produce proportionally lower risks. For example, the committee predicts that approximately one individual per thousand would develop cancer from an exposure to 0.01 Sv. As another example, approximately one individual per hundred would be expected to develop cancer from a lifetime (70-year) exposure to low-LET, natural background radiation (excluding radon and other high-LET radiation). Because of limitations in the data used to develop risk models, risk estimates are uncertain, and estimates that are a factor of two or three larger or smaller cannot be excluded.

    The model predicts that 1 person in 100 will develop cancer if they're exposed to 1 milliSv above background radiation. So if 1 million people are exposed to over 1 milliSv, then 1000 of them will develop cancers.

  • 0

    Thunderbird2

    Would people have been happier with the report if it had said the people will explode due to the high levels of radiation and the ground will be barren for a million years?

    It almost looks as if some people want their theories proven correct so they can stick two fingers up at those who disagree with them.

    You don't believe what the IEAE say, you don't believe WHO or the UN... would you believe some beardie in sandals and a Greenpeace T-shirt?

    Headline should really read: "WHO releases mixed Fukushima radiation report... but sceptics and conspiracy theorists reject it."

  • 4

    caffeinebuzz

    To paraphrase Japanese politicians- My attempt at humor was* regrettable*! I hope you'll forgive me if I use a bit of light-hearted joking around. You know, it helps distract from what myself and colleagues/friends/neighbours went through and the tangible dangers at the time...Not to mention the thought of it all happening again. Jokes aside, I'm sick of over-reactive people tarring this prefecture with the same brush and making the whole place sound like a nuclear wasteland. There are "facts" and then there are facts. I also know people who have died in Fukushima in the last year, and those deaths sure as hell had nothing to do with the TEPCO. While thorough research needs to be ongoing to monitor the effects of this disaster- conspiracy quacks are helping no-one with what I can only assume is inadvertent trollery. I personally think that the area around the plants is a colossal environmental/health risk, and I don't have my head in the sand about it all heading to hell in a handbasket if something unforseen happens again. Kids should not be anywhere in that area, not should they be eating local produce. I'm sure the bulk of it is within safe levels, but there are precedents for unscrupulous farmers trying to pass off stuff they shouldn't be- and at the very least people absolutely have the right to know what they're eating and where it is from.

  • 2

    sodesuka

    I think the external sources of radiation we all can survive. It is the food that concerns me. But for those living in Japan - What can you do but enjoy it: 'Readers vent over 'Bread and becquerels'... http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/fl20120515hs.html'....As for me, each time I open the refrigerator I am happy I do not have to think of eating my dose of daily radiation. I certainly would make some jokes about it. Would make sure I stop at the 7/11 to help out those Fukushima farmers. Smile, the Earthquakes may get you before the radiation.

    But for the children. No jokes. Get them to safe playgrounds, eating clean food and studying well, straight away. Do not use our choices that may destroy their futures. Do not experiment with them nor women who become pregnant. Get them to a clean environment for future generations.

    Build factories in Fukushima and bury the crap with concrete. Raise families and grow food in a different clean place. Get the displaced farmers to help. A new community will form where they can open their refrigerators not worrying about it. Truly sad when one has children and you might be poisoning them. Maybe we all should start banging pots and pans together to save the children. Children from conception should not be in contaminated areas.

  • 2

    sodesuka

    Children from conception should not be in contaminated areas eating contaminated food. Move them. Even have conception centers of Love hotels in clean environments. Bike paths, no cars, magnificent learning centers, clean air and water, playgrounds with everything...

  • 3

    caffeinebuzz

    The problem is that too many people are taking scientists' readings and projections out of proportion and applying them to vast swaths of Fukushima and Tohoku as a whole- which does no one favors and is really deserving of ridicule. Maybe the sky-is-falling brigade can come up to Fukushima with some Geiger counters, measure various areas for themselves and then tell myself and other people here that we're all going to die- really, we love hearing and reading it in these comment sections- just give us some forewarning so we can stock up on butterfly nets and straight-jackets before you get here. Mods, I hope you leave this comment, but it seems that all the best data isn't going to stop the fear-spreaders- maybe a healthy dose of sarcasm can help.

  • 1

    Thunderbird2

    but it seems that all the best data isn't going to stop the fear-spreaders- maybe a healthy dose of sarcasm can help.

    My thoughts exactly caffeinebuzz... some people seem to want, need the negative reports, as if they thrive on them.

  • -1

    SquidBert

    I guess I'll be voted down as a conspiracy theorist nut case, but for those interested about the connection between IAEA and WHO, have a look here.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization#IAEA_.E2.80.93_Agreement_WHA_12.E2.80.9340

    and

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkaafpOM2_k

    I actually had not have a chance to listen to the sound track on this one, but the captions seems to be consistent with what I have read and heard earlier on the issue. I guess it is not exactly to be considered objective reporting, but that the connection is there that is for sure and that has been well known for a long time.

    If this connection has had any effect on the report mentioned in this article, I do not know, but I would suspect it had to some degree.

  • 0

    otaku2012

    Be that as it may, it should not deter any future immigration or tourism to Japan.

  • 2

    JaneM

    Caffeinebuzz

    Many people who live out of Fukushima are also sick with the hysteria painting the whole prefecture in the same color and making it sound like the whole prefecture and Tohoku, too, are uninhabitable due to the nuclear fallout.

    Yes, there was heavy fallout in some parts of the prefecture and that fallout means that research and medical checks should be done consistently during the next decades. Yes, children have to be taken care of. Nobody argues that.

    But the bigger part of the area is not so contaminated as to endanger the adult people living there (meaning that children’s health still needs to be monitored.)

    Yet, the people who speak the loudest on this forum most likely will never go to Tohoku. They will probably never check for themselves the radiation levels there. However, they will continue to spread the “facts” and believe whatever they want. It seems that all the INTERNATIONAL organizations are in on fooling them, no?

  • 0

    Thunderbird2

    How many people who post here are working in the Nuclear Power industry, or are qualified boffins?

    I admit I know nothing other than what I read, but I just mentally filter out those who keep using doomsday scenarios to get their point across... and using emotive language.

    So, who here is actually qualified to say the boffins at WHO are wrong?

    Forget your anti-UN/WHO and anti-Nuclear sentiments. Cold hard rationale... who here is qualified to counter their report?

  • 0

    showmethemoney

    Thunderbird2, who here is qualified to counter Women in Europe for a Common Future?

    Here is what they say about the agreement made between WHO and IAEA, Agreement WHA 12–40:

    The nature of this statement has led some pressure groups and activists (including Women in Europe for a Common Future) to believe that the WHO is restricted in its ability to investigate the effects on human health of radiation caused by the use of nuclear power and the continuing effects of nuclear disasters in Chernobyl and Fukushima. They believe WHO must regain what they see as "independence".

    I may not be as qualified as Satan on Biblical matters. That does mean I should trust him, does it?

  • 0

    Thunderbird2

    showmethemoney... they are an environmental group. Hardly impartial are they?

  • 1

    showmethemoney

    they are an environmental group. Hardly impartial are they?

    1. Nobody is impartial, not WHO nor the IAEA, and certainly not in tandem, joined at the hip as they are.

    2. They are not the only ones pointing this out. I sure did not need them to think WTF. I said WTF as soon as I read that WHO and IAEA had that agreement. No way I can just trust WHO based on their expertise anymore.

  • 1

    Thomas Anderson

    I really don't see why people are so upset for trying to report some objective facts. Saying "fearmongering" does not change the facts. Saying "Fearmongering" is just another way to silence their opponents. If radiation was truly harmless, then what is there to worry? Just go to Fukushima and breathe in and inhale all the radiation that you can! Don't worry, be happy!

    How many people who post here are working in the Nuclear Power industry, or are qualified boffins?

    Er, what does working in the nuclear industry has to do with it? Like I said nuclear engineers probably know some basic things about radiation, but they're probably not experts in radiology. In fact wouldn't they be biased against the dangers of radiation, since their interests are at stake?

  • 1

    Thomas Anderson

    Ok, so that's just irresponsible. People need to recognize that yes, there are some true, objective dangers to radiation, no matter how you cut it. Saying that radiation is completely harmless and there's nothing to worry about and people should just shut up is just as irresponsible as "fearmongering". Being cautious is better than being reckless. Better safe than sorry.

  • 1

    pointofview

    I doubt they would say something that would cause mayhem. Scaremongering? Thatll be the last of your worries of reactor 4 topples over. Why isnt this in the main news?

  • 0

    pointofview

    caffeinbuzz,

    Its only the best data if its true.

  • 3

    Thunderbird2

    No-one is saying 'completely harmless'... it's just that some posters on here wouldn't believe anything said by anyone who disagrees with them. As a result they present reports by pressure groups and activists as the unassailable truth.
    I know caution is better than shouting 'SAFE!' from the hills, but to chuck out a report because it doesn't agree with your own theory is just silly.

    So what if WHO and the IEAE agree on something... doesn't mean there's anything untoward going on. What would the WHO gain by falsifying data?

    Okay so Nuclear Engineers aren't the people to talk to for impartial information. Let's hear from radiation experts, then. Independent ones, not activists, not IEAE... a cold rational scientist.

    I'm neither for or against nuclear power, I'm just not a conspiracy believer.

  • 0

    pointofview

    Thunderbird2,

    The conspiracies may very well be the mainstream news not telling the full story.

  • 0

    Thomas Anderson

    Well I think that BEIR report is pretty impartial.

  • 1

    Heinz48

    What is wrong with (most of) you people? There is a report from a respectable organisation, the WHO. One can assume that the people responsible for that report are experts in their field, no self-appointed experts, but real ones. One can also assume, or better, deduct from reading some of the comments, that most commentators here only have a vague, often biased knowlegde of the field.

    So, the WHO report confirmes what has already become obvious in the past months: No one died from the Fukushima nuclear acciden, and no one will die from it in the future. What is this? This is, plain and simple, good news, **GOOD NEWS **! Everybody should be happy about it and happy for the people of Fukushima-ken instead of keeping on whining and lamenting.

  • 0

    pointofview

    Heinz48,

    Don`t be so gullible.

  • 2

    Thunderbird2

    pointofview... what would it take for you, and the other disbelievers here to accept findings which go against what you believe to be true?

  • 2

    zichi

    Spikes in radiation caused by the Fukushima nuclear disaster were below cancer-causing levels in almost all of Japan.

    Following the meltdowns, melt-throughs and the explosions, over several months, TEPCO initially stated 750,000 terabecquerels were released into the atmosphere and the environment. Later, TEPCO reduced the figure to 350,000 terabecquerels. Total from Chernobyl is about 5 million terabecquerels. Recently, TEPCO have stated the total radiation released since 3/11 was about 900,000 terabecquerels. 

    The people and the country was spared a worse radiation disaster because high percentage was blown out to sea, and unlike Chernobyl, other countries didn't get a large dose.

    The quick action of the government in evacuating people greatly reduced the possibility of higher levels of contamination, although there were serious errors in the way the evacuation was carried out. People being sent into radiation instead of away. Some older people died because of the moving from hospitals. While to date, no one has died from radiation, people have died because of the nuclear disaster.

    In a preliminary report, independent experts said that people in two locations in Fukushima Prefecture may have received a radiation dose of 10-50 millisieverts (mSv) in the year after the accident at the power station operated by TEPCO.

    I have not seen nor read the report, so we can only comment on the post about the report. Two locations is not enough to consider a full assessment. Last year, according to the Ministry of Science, the released radiation contaminated 10,000 sq km with large area contaminated above 20 millisieverts per year. The law in Japan is to allow 1 millisieverts per year, which in Fukushima Prefecture was increased to 20 millisieverts per year.

    Numerous hot spots were created with radiation levels up to 10 microsieverts per hour. That does not include the nuclear power plant which has radiation levels outside of the reactors buildings were are very dangerously high. No agency seems to know how many hotspots remain but the government stated that the area around the nuclear plant will be off limits forever.

    Separately on Wednesday, a U.N. scientific body said that several TEPCO-related workers were “irradiated after contamination of their skin,” but that no clinically observable health effects had been reported.

    Does the report mention the long term health of the TEPCO workers and the nuclear gypsies, or day laborers working at the plant. Most will only be able to work for 3-5 years before receiving a life time dose of radiation.

    The 9.0 magnitude earthquake and tsunami on March 11, 2011 wrecked the plant, triggering nuclear meltdowns that contaminated food and water and forced mass evacuations.

    It would be more accurate to state that the radiation has contaminated a large area of land used for growing foodstuffs. Contaminated foodstuffs, including baby formula has reached the market. The government is spending ¥billions to try and decontaminate land, including areas inside the no-go zone but the level of radiation isn't being greatly reduced.

    The areas estimated to have received the highest doses of radiation were Namie town in Futaba and Iitate in Soma, northwest of the stricken plant, the report said.

    If that is correct, I would have serious questions about that. Having read all the major reports and studied the various radiation maps, especially one from professor Hayakawa in Gunma, I would believe many more areas received the highest levels of radiation. But I can't say if that means people received high levels of radiation.

    I don't know the levels of radiation people received but there should be more concern about internal contamination but there are not enough machines to measure a very large number of people.

    The report did not deal with radiation exposure suffered by emergency workers or people closest to the disaster site.

    This is a serious omission by the investigation since this will be the group with the highest possibility of developing cancer from radiation exposure. It will take many decades to try and resolve the disaster at the atomic power plant which over its course will involve tens of thousands of workers who will be limited to the number of years they can work there.

    The experts did not examine the short- and long-term health risks for the emergency response workers who worked on the site - that will be part of a wider WHO report due from a separate group of experts in July. That report will also assess the prospect for long-term increases in cancer cases.

    We will have to wait for the second report to some of the answers to the more serious questions.

    I have always found it impossible to accept the wild claims of the likes of Helen Caldicott, who stated following the disaster, "millions of people in Japan will die from radiation cancers, and hundreds of thousands across the Northern Atmosphere too. That the radiation will spread across the world. Thousands of birth deformities would happen in Japan. So far none of that will happen.

    I have never thought that tens or hundreds of thousands will develop radiation cancers but the figure could still be in the thousands. I'm happy to see this report and hope it will reassure those who have been exposed to various levels of radiation. I thought Fukushima made the right decision to monitor people for 30 years.

  • 2

    kurisupisu

    What is a cancer causing amount of radiation received from nuclear fallout?

    The answer is nobody knows!

    We are all unique and predisposed to various diseases by virtue of our genetic heritage and our environment.

    Children and fetuses are more sensitive to radiation than adults.

    Radiation once released into the environment accumulates until higher and higher levels are reached-certain radioactive substances have the capacity to continue irradiating for millions of years.

    Never, in our history have such levels of radiation been released into a marine environment. - the consequences of these releases are unknown.

    Nuclear fallout from the plant has been and is being dispersed away from the plant 24/7, while emissions below ground cannot even be monitored only estimated.

    Cancers may take years to develop so any concrete conclusions that are reached by this WHO report now have very little meaning.

  • 1

    sodesuka

    I would not risk the children. At least guarantee clean food. Perhaps clean food for everyone because that will help with peoples immune system. Let people live where they will but ensure clean food. Mixing contaminated rice seems to me to be a crime. All for money. "Eat and Support" effort is short sighted. How about stop growing food in contaminated soil and produce other industry for work? Internal contamination is the real issue now. We all know that the closer a radioactive atom is to our cells the more it messes with us, exponentially. Clean food is possible via imports and government support. The poor farmers can help in checking the imported food stuffs, thus having a job, giving clean food to their families (immune system) and they could live where they are. I love Japan and the people. Give them clean food please.

    BTW. In researching radiation I found this in the USA, especially at Hanford WA. 'A long-deferred cleanup is now under way at 114 of the nation's nuclear facilities, which encompass an acreage equivalent to Rhode Island and Delaware combined.' Japan is not alone with this nuclear nightmare. http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/earth/inside-the-earth/nuclear-waste/

  • 2

    Fadamor

    Will also add, if the government had been honest from the start, people wouldn't be "scaremongering"...

    Disagree. There will ALWAYS be ignorant scaremongering whether your government is honest or not.

    This report addresses the majority of Japan, excluding the area immediately around Daichi because that area warrants deeper research. The posters here seem to find the report insufficient or "meaningless" because it doesn't declare the entire country of Japan to be a radioactive cesspool of death. "How DARE the WHO contradict my personal declaration that we are ALL going to die early due to radiation-related cancers!" It seems to me the poster's reaction to this report is more embarassment at being exposed as scaremongers than an accurate evaluation of the report's worth.

  • -2

    TheBigPicture

    Not just Fukushima. The whole northern hemisphere is continually being exposed to radiation that spews from the Daiichi nuclear power plant. This happens when it rains, or when the wind blows. The nuclear experts of the world (are there any?) need to figure a way to cap this thing. And pronto.

  • 2

    zichi

    TheBigPicture

    Not just Fukushima. The whole northern hemisphere is continually being exposed to radiation that spews from the Daiichi nuclear power plant. This happens when it rains, or when the wind blows. The nuclear experts of the world (are there any?) need to figure a way to cap this thing. And pronto.

    I think you are not correct on that unless you have some evidence I've not seen?

  • -1

    as_the_crow_flies

    More weasel words and selective presentation of data of questionable reliability, followed by misleading comparisons here.

    In the rest of Fukushima Prefecture, the effective dose was estimated to be within that band of 1-10 mSv, while effective doses in most of Japan were put at just 0.1-1 mSv. ... A dose of 0.01 mSv is equivalent to one tenth of the radiation received on a one-stop flight from New York to Tokyo, half the dose received during a chest X-ray, or equal to a dose received during a one-hour visit to one of Egypt’s pyramids.

    Which is supposed to sound benign and harmless. In fact it's anything but. Medical X-rays have long been studied as a cause of death from cancer, and the overuse of medical imaging in Japan is probably one factor in its high rate of estimated medical-X-ray caused cancer deaths. A recent study published in the New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4621-medical-xrays-cause-thousands-of-cancers.html)

    "found substantial world-wide variations in the numbers of cancers attributable to X-rays. The UK had the lowest, with 0.6 per cent of all cancers attributable to medical X-rays. About 0.9 per cent of all cancers in the US are caused by X-rays. But in Japan, the corresponding figure was 3.2 per cent. (Overall, Berrington and Darby estimate that) X-ray-based medical imaging causes an extra 18,500 cases of cancer each year across the 15 countries studied."

    So what that says to me, is that based on present scientific knowledge of radiation induced cancer risk, basing it on the radiation dose figures they have come up with, they could also give us all a figure of projected radiation-induced cancer deaths per year. Now that would be interesting...

  • 1

    pointofview

    Thunderbird2,

    They only ever use corporate or government connected sources. Independent studies or research seems to always be ignored. There are reports out saying everythings ok and everything isnt ok. Which is it? The minute you go against what the big boys are reporting you are labeled a wacko. So lets see...I dont believe NHK, CNN and other controlled media so Im wrong? A few days ago the top news was the price of Brad Pitts sunglasses. Thats the kind of news that distracts. Thunderbird2, You cant deny government or associated groups being corrupt. And yes the UN falls into this group. No more cover ups would be a good start.

  • 0

    Thunderbird2

    Well maybe I'm just naive.

  • 1

    warnerbro

    The 100 mSv level is nothing but an ephemeral line in the sand, mates. The largest study on radiation exposure to date says: "...a formal dose-threshold analysis indicated no threshold; i.e., zero dose was the best estimate of the threshold." http://www.rrjournal.org/doi/pdf/10.1667/RR2629.1

    100 mSv is simply a political tool. There's always some risk, the only question is how much we would have people take.

  • 0

    warnerbro

    zichi, the problem with Fukushima Prefecture's monitoring is that Dr. Damashita and friends are only looking at thyroid exposure because that's where they "believe" the problem lies.

  • 2

    zichi

    The government has angrily taken issue with the report by the World Health Organization on overall levels of radiation exposure in Japan, accusing it of overestimating the problem.

    http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201205240083

  • -2

    Thomas Anderson

    Haha! And the WHO's report is fairly conservative to begin with... Why is the J-gov so obsessed with hiding 'dirt'?

  • 0

    Thomas Anderson

    "The WHO estimates deviate considerably from reality," said one anxious Japanese government source. "If those figures are taken at face value, that may spread disquiet and confusion among the Japanese public."

    This is quite ridiculous... the argument is basically "If we tell people the truth, then it will cause panic and confusion, therefore, we must maintain that the reality is wrong..."

    Awesome. Logic.

    "If they are released, that will not only arouse unnecessary anxiety among the Japanese public but also serve as negative publicity."

    All of their complaints basically boil down to: It will cause anxiety, it will cause anxiety. Well no kidding, but if you don't tell people the truth then it will cause even more anxiety.

  • -3

    Christopher Cheung

    Super7,

    The current radiation level in Fukushima is 36 MICRO-Sv/hour. If you stayed at that spot for a year then you'd receive 315 MILLI-Sv or 0.315 sV... which is less than a third of the level that the WHO would begin to get concerned about.

    To be specific, you will be laying dead on that spot in a few weeks.

    Proof:

    10,000 mSV single dose - Fatal within a few weeks. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf05.html

    10,000 mSV / 315 mSV/hr = 31.65 hrs

    In 31.65 hrs, you will already accumulate 10,000mSV to kill you within a few weeks.

    ...which is less than a third of the level that the WHO would begin to get concerned about.

    What level that the WHO would begin to concerned about? Please provide me the name/classification of the level. (i.e. Allowable short-term dose for emergency workers)

    So according to your third of that level, the number would be 1000mSV/hr?

    Is that when the WHO will begin to concern? I'm afraid it will be too late to concern already.

  • -3

    Christopher Cheung

    Thomas Andersen,

    Well said, but it's important to note that the 36uSV/hour hotspot is only found inside the exclusion zone.

    Not sure if serious... The current radiation level in Fukushima is 36 mSv/hour, which is over 500 times higher

    Proof:

    a) 36uSV/hr X 24hr = 864uSV/day

    b) 864uSV/day X 365day = 315,360uSV/yr

    c) 315,360uSV/yr = 315.36mSV/yr

    2.4mSV/yr - Typical background radiation experienced by everyone (average 1.5 mSv in Australia, 3 mSv in North America). http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf05.html

    315.36mSV/yr / 2.4mSV/yr = 131.4 times higher than normal

    315.36mSV/yr / 1.5mSV/yr = 210.24 (at max) times higher than normal in Australia

    Although not 500 times higher than normal, over 100 times normal is still ridiculously high. Once again it is enough to give you 10,000 mSV in 31.65 hrs to kill you with in a few weeks.

    What's wrong with these people who gave you thumbs down?

  • -3

    nigelboy

    To be specific, you will be laying dead on that spot in a few weeks.

    10,000 mSV / 315 mSV/hr = 31.65 hrs

    Don't know if Super7 calculation is correct

    10,000 mSV/ 315 mSV/year=31.7 years.

    That's assuming that individual stays on the hot spot 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days.....blah blah

  • -3

    Thomas Anderson

    Meh, I did do a miscalculation...

    Anyway, 500 times higher than normal is correct, since the normal reading on that site is 0.071 microSv/hour. The average background radiation for Fukushima is just 0.62 milliSv/year. In Japan the background radiation is slightly lower than average.

  • -3

    Christopher Cheung

    nigelboy,

    Don't know if Super7 calculation is correct

    10,000 mSV/ 315 mSV/year=31.7 years.

    I don't see Super7 having a calculation similar to one you stated above. Do you instead mean that you don't know if my calculation is correct? If that's what you meant then you got a few units mixed up which completely changes the interpretation of the calculation.

    My calculation was: 10,000 mSV / 315 mSV/hr = 31.65 hrs

    Yes, it is pretty much correct (I just mistyped a 6 instead of a 7 but it's not significant in this scenario).

    Let me break it down for you:

    1.) 10,000 mSV (divide by) 1 hour (over) 315 mSV

    2.) 10,000 mSV X 1 hour = 10,000 (mSV)(hour)

    3.) 10,000 (mSV)(hour) / 315 mSV = 31.75 (mSV)(hour)/mSV

    4.) The mSV's cancels out on the numerator and denominator , thus, the final answer is 31.75 hrs.

    Whether it's 31.65 hrs or 31.75 hrs, both hours will still get you extremely close to 10,000 mSV at the rate of 315mSV/hr. Once again, the error that we're talk about here is insignificant.

    That's assuming that individual stays on the hot spot 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days.....blah blah

    Yes we both already stated the IF situation before we started our calculation and then conclusion.

    Super7: "If you stayed at that spot for a year then..."

    Me: "you will be laying dead on that spot in a few weeks" (which pretty much implied that I'm playing his situation and not moving away from that spot)

  • 1

    zichi

    One government official said,  “If they [the WHO estimates] are released, that will not only arouse unnecessary anxiety among the Japanese public but also serve as negative publicity”.

    The  WHO report gives Tokyo another political black eye. But, the hit may well be self-inflicted. The figures used by the WHO are the same government figures from last Sept.

    Naoto Kan shot himself in the foot several times after 3/11/. Now, the Yoshihiko Noda government may have followed suit.

    Another official said,  “If those figures are taken at face value, that may spread disquiet and confusion among the Japanese public”.

    The public has literally lost faith in the government because of its handling of the nuclear disaster and like ex PM Naoto Kan’s censorship of information, the government once again tries to stop the public from knowing the truth. 

    Its a government error to attack the findings of one of the most prestigious scientific organizations in the world, and concurrently denigrates their own official data. 

    I suspect, the government is less concerned by the mental health of the people and more fearful the WHO report will increase the opposition to restarting any of the atomic reactors.

    As part of UNSCEAR’s preliminary summary findings on Fukushima accident health effects, the greatest risk to the public from Fukushima might be psychological stress. According to Evelyn Bromet, a psychiatric epidemiologist at the State University of New York, after Chernobyl evacuees were more likely to experience post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) than the population as a whole. The risk may be even greater at Fukushima. “I’ve never seen PTSD questionnaires like this,” she says of a survey being conducted by Fukushima Medical University. People are “utterly fearful and deeply angry. There’s nobody that they trust any more for information.” While the mandated evacuations kept public exposures below the threshold for biological health effects, it has not been enough to rebuild trust between the government and local residents. Mental harm has taken its toll. 

    http://www.nature.com/news/fukushima-s-doses-tallied-1.10686

    The United Nations Scientific Committee on the effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) expects to have preliminary findings by May of next year. The following article gives the UNSCEAR Summary Report on Effects of Low Doses of Radiation. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120523170536.htm

  • -4

    Christopher Cheung

    Thomas Anderson,

    All of their complaints basically boil down to: It will cause anxiety, it will cause anxiety. Well no kidding, but if you don't tell people the truth then it will cause even more anxiety.

    If they tell people the truth then it will cause mass panic which is what they are trying to avoid.

  • -2

    nigelboy

    Christopher

    Sorry. I meant to say your calculation was incorrect.

    36 micro sieverts/hr x 24 hrs/days x 365 days/year=315,360 micro sievers/year or 315.369 milli sieverts/year

    10'000 milli sieverts / 315.369 milli sieverts/year=31.708 years.

  • -3

    Christopher Cheung

    nigelboy and Super7,

    Christopher

    Sorry. I meant to say your calculation was incorrect.

    36 micro sieverts/hr x 24 hrs/days x 365 days/year=315,360 micro sievers/year or 315.369 milli sieverts/year

    10'000 milli sieverts / 315.369 milli sieverts/year=31.708 years.

    Sorry, you're right. I simply took 315mSv and assumed that it was hr. Instead like you said should be 315mSV/yr. Thus it will take 31.7 years to kill that person standing on the same spot. Nonetheless, 36uSV/hr is still a ridiculously high level. As it will pretty much guarantee that person won't live more than 32 years after the continuous exposure. Possibly even shorter due to cancer. Fortunately, 36uSV/hr is only discovered inside the exclusion zone.

    nigelboy, thanks for pointing out my mistake.

  • 0

    Blair Herron

    The current radiation level in Fukushima is 36 MICRO-Sv/hour

    Where in Fukushima? Not the whole prefecture I believe.

    “Suzuki Construction” Okuma town, Fukushima: 38microSV/hr

    “Ashinomaki Onsen” Aizuwakamatsu city, Fukushima: 0.07microSV/hr (5.22.2012)

    http://www.nnistar.com/gmap/fukushima.html

    http://www.city.aizuwakamatsu.fukushima.jp/ja/joho/kankyo/radial/radial_original.htm

    FYI, “Mizumoto Koen” Katsushika-ku, Tokyo: 0.2~0.5 microSV/hr (12.7.2011)

    http://www.city.katsushika.lg.jp/dbps_data/_material_/_files/000/000/012/613/chuou-a.pdf

Login to leave a comment

OR

More in National

View all

View all