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.'"
Re:lol... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Japan doesn't need nuclear power (Score:3, Interesting)
Emergency Safety Measures Work (Score:5, Interesting)
From the article:
A swift evacuation of 200,000 residents within a 20-kilometre radius of the plant helped protect them â" WHO estimated most residents of Fukushima prefecture received doses of 1-10 mSv in the first year.
[...]
About 1000 deaths have been attributed to evacuations. About 90 per cent were people older than 66, who suffered from the trauma of evacuation and living in shelters. Sadly, those of them who left areas where radiation was no greater than in naturally high background areas would have been better off staying.
Philosophical Question: Do those 1000 deaths not count because they were not directly due to radiation poisoning? I mean, they wouldn't have happened if there had been no meltdown...
Re:lol... (Score:5, Interesting)
I was diagnosed with Thyroid cancer a little under 3 months ago, I had surgery within 2 weeks of the diagnosis.It was diagnosed stupidly early because my GP decided to run a full blood panel when I had to go in to be tested for something entirely different (liver function due to a medication I was on, with previous history of liver issues triggered by prescription pharmaceuticals).
I've been told that due to the size of the tumour (about 8.5mm, too small to feel through the skin) and the fact that it presented as a single tumour only which had not metastasised even within the thyroid that survival rates is talked about in terms of 20 years - after which too many other factors can affect your survival that it can no longer be attributed to a 20+ year old cancer. It wasn't even recommended that I do radiation therapy.
In some respects I felt a bit of a fraud as I barely got sick (I was experiencing significant fatigue and feeling the cold a lot), but got all the 'Oh Noes, it's CANCER!!!111!!!' sympathy. The surgeon told me "If you have to get cancer, this is the one you want to get."
Re:12 people have a cancer (Score:2, Interesting)
Of over 4,000 people who developed thyroid cancer from Chernobyl, something like 9 of them died from it with all of the rest cured yielding about a 99.9% success rate of curing people.
IN other words, feel free to quote the full statistics.
50 people dead, 4000 projected to die over 20+ years from after effects, assuming car wrecks or heart disease dont get them first.
Nuclear power has the lowest deaths per terawatts hour of any energy source.
I work in the nuclear industry.. (Score:2, Interesting)
I work in the nuclear industry. While I consider it the safest bulk power generation around, there is potential for things to improve both in and out of nuclear power. Solar and Wind show promise, but are definitely not at the point of being able to compete with nuclear's price. Maybe in 10 years, maybe in 20 years, maybe never. But we should be looking at the right here and now for the "best" choice to generate power.
I, like some other people have said, don't like the fact that this is 2 years later and is not likely to show a significant cancer rate for a few more years. Chernobyl caused some health risks. When were those truely noticable in the general population? 5-10 years later. So this study has the advantage of proving what we already know, that cancer rates 2 years after even a bad accident aren't much higher(aka Go Nuclear Power!) they also allow people to argue against Coal(aka Go Nuclear Power!).
What really needs to be examined is:
1. Cancer rates years from now.. say 5-20 years.
2. Other consequences such as PTSD(potential increases in crime rates), economic losses(cost of lost homes, etc), and marine biology.
3. What would cancer been like if alternatives had been used such as coal? Its fairly well documented that coal plants release relatively massive amounts of radioactive materials into their environment because of radioactive impurities in the coal. One study showed that as many as 10k people a year die in the USA alone from lung cancer that is likely from coal impurities alone.
So how many people will die from cancer from the nuclear accident versus how many would die if there had been coal? I'd bet coal is quite a bit higher.
So how many people will die from the nuclear accident versus how many died from the earthquake? I bet the earthquake is quite a bit higher.
Is the "cost" of life worth what was gained to society as a whole? That's a personal belief.
I think the whole argument should be waiting a few more years before we start concluding what the long term health benefits are. I also think anyone dismissing this report now will dismiss the next report because the numbers will just be "too low" no matter how many zeros are on that number.
The real reality? Many people need to grow up and look at the whole picture. It may or may not favor nuclear power. But you know what I know for sure.. the discussion won't end in my lifetime. No matter how many studies support the economic value of nuclear and no matter how many people may develop cancer many people will dismiss the studies as heavily favoring nuclear power anyway.
Re:Japan doesn't need nuclear power (Score:4, Interesting)
As for safest, it's debatable. Is it really safe if people have to vacate largish areas of land to avoid getting ill and dying??? Because that's what's happened at both Chernobyl and Fukushima; and it was largely luck that that didn't happen like that at 3 mile island.
The claim was "safest", not safe. How safe is hydroelectric when the dam breaks? How often does that happen, compared to the same electric capacity of nuclear plants? Just the first on this list [wikipedia.org] have more deaths than nuclear power has to date, with, apparently, comparable worldwide installed capacity.
I know this post comes off as defensive, especially given the context of the discussion, but I really want to know which is the safest, if that question even makes sense.
Re:bs meter - yellow (Score:4, Interesting)
I guess you don't read the Japan Times [japantimes.co.jp].