Japan's Radiation Disaster Toll: None Dead, None Sick 319
An anonymous reader writes "This article discusses a recently-released U.N. Scientific Committee report which examined the health effects of the accident at the Fukushima nuclear plant. Their conclusion: 'Radiation exposure following the nuclear accident at Fukushima-Daiichi did not cause any immediate health effects. It is unlikely to be able to attribute any health effects in the future among the general public and the vast majority of workers. ... No radiation-related deaths or acute effects have been observed among nearly 25,000 workers involved at the accident site. Given the small number of highly exposed workers, it is unlikely that excess cases of thyroid cancer due to radiation exposure would be detectable.' The article even sums up the exposure levels for the workers who were closest to the reactor: 'Of 167 exposed to more than the industry's recommended five-year limit of 100 mSv (a CT scan exposes patients to up to 10 mSv), 23 recorded 150-200 mSv, three 200-250 mSv and six up to 678 mSv, still short of the 1000 mSv single dosage that causes radiation sickness, or the accumulated exposure estimated to cause a fatal cancer years later in 5 per cent of people.' The report also highlights the minute effect it's had on the environment: 'The exposures on both marine and terrestrial non-human biota were too low for observable acute effects.'"
Japan doesn't need nuclear power (Score:4, Informative)
They have more than enough power projected to meet summer demand despite having only 2 of 50 nuclear power plants online:
http://japandailypress.com/no-electricity-austerity-measures-for-japan-this-summer-0926652 [japandailypress.com]
Anyone know how they made up the slack besides conservation? More coal? The article mentions "electric power companies have been looking to thermal power generation for their supplies", but it's not clear what that means - geothermal?
Re:12 people have a cancer (Score:4, Informative)
This story is not true.
12 people have a cancer by radiation.
If you look at enough people anywhere, you'll find cancer cases, but not necessarily from radiation:
Thyroid cancer found in 12 minors in Fukushima [japantimes.co.jp]
FUKUSHIMA – An ongoing study on the impact of radiation on Fukushima residents from the crippled atomic power plant has found 12 minors with confirmed thyroid cancer diagnoses, up from three in a report in February, with 15 other suspected cases, up from seven, researchers announced Wednesday.
The figures were taken from about 174,000 people aged 18 or younger whose initial thyroid screening results have been confirmed.
Researchers at Fukushima Medical University, which has been taking the leading role in the study, have said they do not believe the most recent cases are related to the nuclear crisis.
Re:Japan doesn't need nuclear power (Score:5, Informative)
No, thermal usually means coal [wikipedia.org].
Re:Stepped in a pool of radioactive water (Score:4, Informative)
Re:lol... (Score:3, Informative)
And JFK was killed to prevent alien contact disclosure and the free energy is being oppressed by the Highlanders than run energy companies.
Oil and nuclear are separate markets (Score:5, Informative)
There's almost no oil consumption for electricity generation, and until we get a large fleet of electric cars nuclear electricity will displace very little oil burning.
What nuclear power does is displace coal, thus saving thousands of lives every year.
Re:Japan doesn't need nuclear power (Score:5, Informative)
Anyone know how they made up the slack besides conservation?
Yes.
Japan takes on more Iranian crude oil [upi.com]
Japan’s energy costs spiral higher [ft.com]
Trade Deficit in Japan Hits Record [nytimes.com]
Japan's energy imports may outweigh stimulus gain [chicagotribune.com]
Skyrocketing energy imports increase Japanese trade deficit [dailymotion.com]
Re:12 people have a cancer (Score:5, Informative)
Perhaps OP should have included the next sentence in the article in question:
They point out that thyroid cancer cases were not found among children hit by the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident until four to five years later.
IN other words, check back in a few years, but until then, chill....
Coal ash is highly radioactive (Score:5, Informative)
Fukushima radiation disaster no injuries? (Score:2, Informative)
Apr 2011: "On March 24, three workers at the Fukushima nuclear power plant were exposed accidentally to high localised radiation while standing in contaminated water". link [thelancet.com]
Jul 2011: "A newly released document says the Japanese government estimated in April that some 1600 workers will be exposed to high levels of radiation in the course of handling the reactor meltdowns at the stricken Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant". link [time.com]
Dec 2011: "Masao Yoshida, who led the fight to bring Japanâ(TM)s crippled Fukushima nuclear station under control, steps down tomorrow for medical treatment after almost nine months directing the disaster response from inside the plant". link [businessweek.com]
Dec 2012: "Dozens of workers received potentially cancerous doses of radiation to their thyroid glands during recovery work at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, according to data submitted to the World Health Organization. link [asahi.com]
July 2012: "An executive at construction firm Build-Up in December told about 10 of its workers to cover their dosimeters, used to measure cumulative radiation exposure, with lead casings when working in areas with high radiation, the Asahi Shimbun newspaper and other media said." link [fairwhistleblower.ca]
July 2012: "Japanese officials are investigating whether workers cleaning up in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster were pushed to shield their radiation meters so they could keep working for longer on the contaminated plant". link [latimes.com]
It has only been 2 years... (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1356259/ [nih.gov]
Re:Japan doesn't need nuclear power (Score:4, Informative)
Anyone know how they made up the slack besides conservation? More coal?
Yes coal. In fact they've been buying long-term contracts, or outright buying mines in Western Canada to supply their energy needs, though the fact that we are dripping in coal up here is of no consequence. One of the mines(Grande Cache Coal) where my sister lives(Grande Cache, AB) was bought out simply for that. And GC coal is now on the road to open a 2nd and 3rd strip mine, I believe that the agreements are complete, though I may be wrong. Oh and all this stuff is shipped by train, to the west coast.
I did find it funny there, there's so much oil, coal, and tar sands around there that you can watch it either ooze up from the ground, or right into the river. Oh and I can't forget natural gas, there's a reason the entire area from there to Grande Prairie is known as sour gas alley.
Re:Japan doesn't need nuclear power (Score:5, Informative)
A new nuclear plant costs billions of dollars, and the only way they ever get built at all is if the government guarantees to backstop disaster liability with taxpayer dollars. Otherwise private investors would never touch them.
That doesn't sound particularly cheap to me. And in fact it isn't [ucsusa.org].
Re:Oil and nuclear are separate markets (Score:5, Informative)
Actually Japan increased consumption of oil for power generation by over 105k barrels per day post-quake: Japan’s fossil-fueled generation remains high because of continuing nuclear plant outages - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) [eia.gov]. Prior to the quake they consumed ca. 100k barrels per day on average. Like the rest of the OECD they purged most of their burning of petroleum products for power 30 years ago in the wake of the oil price spike that occurred at the end of the 70s, but hung on to its use in limited and ever-diminishing quantities.
The US still burns a small amount of oil in Hawaii for power. "Small" in this instance means "only" around 300k barrels per day, last time I checked. It's a pittance when you consider we consume ca. 18 million barrels per day total.
Re:Fukushima radiation disaster no injuries? (Score:5, Informative)
And yet, no one seriously injured. Even the 3 people that were standing in highly radioactive water, they only had some redness that went away after a few days. They are just fine now.
Mar 2011: "Tokyo Electric, the owners of the plant, said five workers had been killed at the site, two were missing and 21 had been injured."
When a fucking crane collapsed on them because of the earthquake and tsunami! Some others drowned or were swept away. Yes sir, the tsunami was because of nuclear power! Maybe you should blame the 20,000 people that died on nuclear power too???
Now, get back to burning more coal! Burn baby burn!
For those that say Japan doesn't need nuclear power, you people don't know about economics. Japan is basically in a trade deficit because they have to import coal, oil and gas. Nuclear power saves Japan $50B (not yen, dollars) a year. Not only that, the money spent on nuclear power is spent on local employment using local currency. Coal, oil, and gas have to imported from outside Japan using up foreign reserves. They also create jobs outside Japan, while increasing local unemployment and poverty.
Japan has a choice. It will remain nuclear powered, or it will be taken down a few notches on standard of living scale.
Potassium iodide prevents thyroid cancer (Score:5, Informative)
Given the small number of highly exposed workers, it is unlikely that excess cases of thyroid cancer due to radiation exposure would be detectable.
If plant management had any competency at all, the workers were given potassium iodide doses, which proved highly effective at preventing thyroid cancer in people exposed to Chernobyl's radiation.
687 vs. 2.500.000 dead (Score:4, Informative)
As far as I remember in the whole history of civil nuclear power there were roughly 687 fatalities recorded by civil nuclear power, even if one includes cases of long term neglected diseases.
On the other hand, in the same time around 2.500.000 people died of hydropower with 250.000 alone in one major dam bust 40 years ago in china.
As nuclear power produced roughly 10 times as much energy in the same time based on "deaths per watt" hydropower is 35.000 times more lethal than nuclear power.
Tell this to the believers of the anti nuclear church and they will nail you to a cross... always look on the bright side of life...
Re:bs meter - yellow (Score:4, Informative)
I live in Japan. I have been here for eleven years, and I've been through the earthquake/tsunami and all the aftermath.
I call your post bullshit. Cite your references/sources if you want to be taken seriously.
Re:lol... (Score:5, Informative)
Are you seriously citing a website about oil as a reliable source for the dangers of nuclear energy? If so, then you're a fucking retard. And can't even spell "Fukushima", but that's a different issue.
How could any "fallout" from the Fukushima plant affect you 10.000km from here? And how the hell could it kill 14.000 children there? How do you estimate that? Don't you realize that the article you cited doesn't make any fucking sense?
Looks like you're another of the Americans who love to live in fear and ignorance.
Re:Natural gas is pretty cheap (Score:2, Informative)
Cheap in the US, not so much in EU, definitely not in JP, CN, KO. "Japan power utilities to raise Jun electricity rates on higher fuel costs" (http://www.platts.com/RSSFeedDetailedNews/RSSFeed/ElectricPower/8242469) to ~30c/kWh. That's 3x what I pay in Oregon.
There's a scramble to build LNG processing trains and tankers to meet Asian demand, but that takes time. NW Australia would have been a big help, but due to their strong currency that may not pan out. US exports (Cheniere) are years away. Ditto PNG, West Africa, and certainly Alaska. That leaves Qatar.
Re:Japan doesn't need nuclear power (Score:4, Informative)
Additionally Hydrelectric potential is limited and most of it is already being used to its limit in countries that have rivers with both fall and volume to make it usable.
Eolic potential isn't sufficient to provide any significant percentage of the required energy in most countries.
Re: Gov't "Added value" vs. Real Cost? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Oil and nuclear are separate markets (Score:5, Informative)
Hydro: probably going down over the coming decades as we decide that the damage to fish populations outweighs the other positive impacts (at least for smaller dams)
Wind: hardly free of environmental impacts (steel and rare earth mining and refining) and until we get an economically viable storage mechanism it won't supply base load and so is almost worthless. Interestingly with a smart grid and a large fleet of electric vehicles you can get a fairly significant amount of distributed storage but at this point electric cars are too expensive.
Solar: Why 90% of the power in the desert SW doesn't come from stored solar I have no clue, they're already paying some of the highest rates in the country, to the point where unsubsidized pv solar makes sense if you're in the top two tiers of consumption so stored thermal solar has to make sense since it's so much more efficient.
Re:Stepped in a pool of radioactive water (Score:3, Informative)
Fukishima was a minor venting of material to prevent an explosion within the pressure vessel.
Chernobyl was a steam explosion that ruptured the containment vessel and blasted radioactive graphite and fuel rods from the reactor into the atmosphere and onto the surrounding land, and to a lesser extent, the globe.
Fukishima was a bad day.
Chernobyl was a disaster.
They are on such different scales that its not even a little bit close.
Re:bs meter - yellow (Score:5, Informative)
12 Thyroid Cancer Cases Confirmed in Fukushima Children: Preliminary Results of FY2011/FY2012 Fukushima Thyroid Examination
The Eleventh Planning Committee of the Prefecture Health Management Survey met on June 5, 2013. The preliminary data for the thyroid ultrasound examination was released to the press at the meeting.
Overall, a higher percentage of Fukushima children, tested in the Fiscal Year Heisei 24 (FY2012), are showing thyroid ultrasound abnormalities than the Fiscal Year Heisei 23 (FY2011) in all assessment categories. In addition, the average diameter of the tumor increased.
Higher percentages of children have nodules larger than 5.1 mm or cysts larger than 20.1 mm, which put them in the assessment B category, qualifying for the secondary examination consisting of thyroid blood tests, a more detailed thyroid ultrasound examination, and a fine-needle aspiration biopsy if warranted.
The press is reporting that there are 28 cases suspected of thyroid cancer out of 174,000 children tested and that 12 of the 28 have been confirmed to have papillary thyroid cancer. This is a bit misleading, as not all the children in the B assessment category in the Fiscal Year 2012 have finished or even begun the process of secondary examination. In other words, there could be more cases of thyroid cancer diagnosed in these 174,000 children.
There were 205, of 40,302 examined, qualifying for the secondary examination in FY2011, and 7 of the 12 suspected cases were confirmed to have papillary thyroid cancer. In FY2012, 16 were suspected of having thyroid cancer, and 5 of them were confirmed to have papillary thyroid cancer. However, 16 is not by any means the final count for the FY2012 group, as only 27.3% of the eligible 935 children have begun the process of the secondary examination.
Notable is the fact that 442 of 935 eligible for the secondary examination are from Koriyama, where the appeal for a group evacuation was denied recently. To date, only 1.1% or 5 of the 442 Koriyama children underwent secondary examination, yet 2 are already suspected of having thyroid cancer.
http://fukushimavoice-eng2.blogspot.com/2013/06/12-thyroid-cancer-cases-confirmed-in.html [blogspot.com]
Re:12 people have a cancer (Score:4, Informative)
If Fukushima is a success story, then so is Chernobyl (they managed to build a containment dome, which Japan has failed to do), and I don't want to see what you would consider a disaster.
You're comparing a minor loss of containment (Fukushima), to a complete and total loss of the containing vessel and a radioactive fire to help turn a fixed radiating source into an airborne radiation containment that spread over half of Europe (Chernobyl).
If you think these events are remotely comparable in scale you must be devoid of all capabilities for rational thought.
Let me google that for you (Score:4, Informative)
Re:bs meter - yellow (Score:4, Informative)
And I guess you choose to ignore those paragraphs that conflict with your confirmation bias. From the article you quoted:
Researchers at Fukushima Medical University, which has been taking the leading role in the study, have said they do not believe the most recent cases are related to the nuclear crisis.
Last month, U.N. scientists assessing the health impact of the Fukushima nuclear crisis said the radiation dose for residents in the region was much lower than Chernobyl and that they do not expect to see any increase in cancer in the future.
Re:Japan doesn't need nuclear power (Score:2, Informative)
i call BS, err, Citation Please regarding hydroelectric.
there's a huge difference between being a catalyst to promote decomposition of biomass that is IN THE CARBON CYCLE, versus burning oils that were not part of the carbon cycle (underground oil).