Fukushima's Fallout of Fear 124
gbrumfiel writes "Experts believe that the many thousands who fled from the Fukushima nuclear disaster received very low doses of radiation. But that doesn't mean there won't be health consequences. Nature magazine traveled to Fukushima prefecture and found evidence of an enormous mental strain from the accident. Levels of anxiety and PTSD-like symptoms are high among evacuees. Researchers fear that, in the long run, the mental problems could lead to depression and substance abuse among those who lost their homes. In other words, even if no one develops cancer as a direct result of radiation, the health effects could still be very real."
This is about information policy (Score:5, Insightful)
If officials would reliably issue accurate statements there would be much less reason to stress out.
Re: (Score:3)
That said "among those who lost their homes" would seem to include the many thousands of tsunami victims rather than just the ones displaced due to the nuclear issues.
Attributing that to Fukushima isn't a fair metric (and I'm one to widely denounce nuclear power...)
Re:This is about information policy (Score:5, Informative)
Or even more reason to be afraid...IIRC part of the problem was they weren't telling people how bad it really was wasn't it?
That was the problem. By lying, officials were indirectly telling people that the nuclear disaster was so bad that they had to lie. Plus, not knowing how bad it is adds another layer of stress.
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately, a lie is usually more effective than, "We don't know."
The more you learn about sociology, the more depressing it gets. Ethical panic control isn't easy.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Article title does JUST that. Summary talks specifically about the PTSD for people who lost homes. Which happened significantly outside Fukushima Prefecture (as well as in it)
Further from the summary:
traveled to Fukushima prefecture and found evidence of an enormous mental strain from the accident
Note 'ACCIDENT', not disaster, accident; i.e. the NUCLEAR PLANT.
Re:This is about information policy (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah well even the summary still doesn't attribute all lost homes to the nuclear accident as you claim.
The Summary says that the effects from the 'accident' (the reactor) include PTSD for people who lost their homes. That's quite clearly attributing tsunami issues since far more people 'lost' homes to the tsunami than to the reactor failure...which isn't a fair metric.
I will happily take the RTFA blame as I didn't, but the summary is still quite clearly 'bad'.
Re: (Score:3)
Or even more reason to be afraid...IIRC part of the problem was they weren't telling people how bad it really was wasn't it?
That said "among those who lost their homes" would seem to include the many thousands of tsunami victims rather than just the ones displaced due to the nuclear issues.
Attributing that to Fukushima isn't a fair metric (and I'm one to widely denounce nuclear power...)
Sigh...This is Slashdot, where no one actually RTFA, right?
The article specifically mentions "But uncertainty, isolation and fears about radioactivity’s invisible threat are jeopardizing the mental health of the 210,000 residents who fled from the nuclear disaster."
This is about the people who were forced out of their homes because of the nuclear disaster, NOT people whose homes were destroyed by the tsunami.
Re: (Score:2)
Those whose homes were destroyed in the tsunami, but are outside the exclusion area can rebuild and find some closure. Those who cannot return to their homes due to the accident, and are still getting conflicting stories from officials must be under extreme mental strain. So there is very good reason to look specifically into these people's
Re: (Score:2)
That said "among those who lost their homes" would seem to include the many thousands of tsunami victims rather than just the ones displaced due to the nuclear issues.
TFA makes it clear that the problems of those displaced by the nuclear disaster are quite different to those displaced by the tsunami. They lost their jobs, businesses, homes and communities just the same, but are reliant on TEPCO for compensation, and TEPCO is constantly looking for excuses to reduce it. It's not like they can re-build their communities in the foreseeable future because the timetable for clean-up is uncertain and Fukushima itself is projected to take at least 30 years to deal with.
Radiatio
Re:This is about information policy (Score:5, Interesting)
Does this lead to suggesting that the government downplay risks since the fear causes more injuries that the actual risk? Should we avoid technologies that scare people even if there is not data to support that fear?
I think the study is probably valid, but I think people need to be very careful on how this information is incorporated into policy.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Quite the opposite. There's nothing causing more fear than the government found downplaying the danger. As soon as the government is found downplaying, all claims by the government that there's no or only little danger completely lose any credibility they may have had, and people assume the worst.
Yes. Yes they did. (Score:1)
They stated that it was damaged but unbroken.
Then damaged but not leaking.
Then leaking but not melting down.
Then only one meltdown.
Then two, but no fallout was leaking out of the containment pool.
Then it was.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
As an exercise, why don't you try finding official statements that back up your opinion?
As an exercise, why don't you try paying attention next time something like this happens? Those of us who were don't need a citation, because we saw it happen. Japan actually shut down blogs that were telling the truth about the incident "in the national interest". Not that this is special. How much are you hearing about the NJ residents locked up in prison right now for the crime of being in the way of a natural disaster?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure all of us have engaged in the exercise of seeking citations. That's why many of us now scrapbook (or use some other citation tool) every reference we think we might need later. Odds are, it will get buried or deleted if it's any good.
Re: (Score:2)
No, most of us just know that 90% of the FUD was from bad reporting trying to be the first to tell us how it was rather than actual data.
Re: (Score:2)
No, most of us just know that 90% of the FUD was from bad reporting trying to be the first to tell us how it was rather than actual data.
They might get credit for the F but the U and D came from the Japanese government continually lying about the situation. They admitted they lied (downplayed the severity) over, and over, and over again. Pretty much everything they ever told us about the extent of the issue was a lie.
Re: (Score:2)
No. It suggests that government and media accurately state and report on the risks.
LOL; It's hard to write this with a straight face :^)
Re:This is about information policy (Score:4, Interesting)
If officials would reliably issue accurate statements there would be much less reason to stress out.
They did. Even prior to the hydrogen explosions, I was following the IAEA and NISA reports on exactly what was going on, complete with regularly updated radiation levels for various sampling stations.
However, if all you're getting in media reports is fearmongering over THIS NUMBER IS 100 TIMES BIGGER THAN THIS OTHER NUMBER! (and neglecting to mention the units, let alone a helpful comparison to commonly encountered levels of radiation) you'd be forgiven for thinking that the people who know what's going on aren't telling anyone. They are, it's simply that nobody is bothering to listen (and think).
Re: (Score:2)
They did.
Rubbish. They released some meaningless sampling figures, that's all.
They're still not making enough raw data available for independent assessment.
Re: (Score:2)
How often did we hear "There was no core melt"?
Re: (Score:2)
How does this compare to the far higher number of people who lost their homes from the tsunami?
It does show that by far and away the biggest danger in a nuclear accident is people panicking because of the over reaction of the authorities, press, blog-o-sphere and twitterverse.
Re: (Score:2)
If officials would reliably issue accurate statements there would be much less reason to stress out.
If they told the truth, the opposite might happen. When the ocean around Japan finally dies for good, then the real fear begins.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
That's about right.
Re:So let me get this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So let me get this? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder if pollution wafting over from China is one of them!
It's interesting that when mostly coal-induced smog chokes a city of 20 million people, it's minor news for a day, whereas Fukushima made global headlines for weeks. I don't want to downplay the seriousness of Fukushima, but imagine how many hundreds of thousands more people will develop cancer from the smog.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure about the laws in Japan but in similar situations in the US wouldn't certain media organizations be liable for "yelling fire in a crowded theater"? Not that I'm in favor of any restriction on free speech but given that we have an established standard where an individual can be held liable for causing panic where people get hurt, shouldn't a news organizations be liable for exaggerated sensationalistic reporting that causes panic and stress related deaths nationwide?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure they can even have that.
I run screaming from a TV when I see just the Fox logo.
I'd like that! (Score:2)
"I run screaming from a TV when I see just the Fox logo."
I wish some of my coworkers were like that. Just hold up an LCD screen with that on it and they leave immediately.
Kind of like a glyph or warding.
Re: (Score:1)
So if I yell, "SOMEONE'S YELLING FIRE IN THE OTHER THEATER" and know the first person is just an idiot, it is ok?
PS: I think yelling FIRE is ok, but if you don't, then the two are not distinguishable.
Re: (Score:1)
Sounds like Radiation can lead to mass killings in schools. What special interest will win that battle of blame? Anti-nuclear or anti-guns?
And not being allowed to return home (Score:2)
In many parts of the evacuated zone, the "contamination" is so small and insignificant that health experts have stated that people could safely return home. However, the government of Japan, instead of trying to educate people about the true risks (or lack thereof) decided they were going to keep the area empty until it could all be "cleaned up" at enormous expense.
So, the public is left with the impression that the government must know it's too dangerous to return, so it must be, right? So, they are depres
So what you're saying is... (Score:1)
Because people have been told "You must freak out! Think of the health risks!", and promptly did freak out... they are now likely to have negative impacts on their health because they freaked out.
Got it.
Re: (Score:2)
Got it.
Actually I don't. I really don't get these kind of posts. First I can't see anyone telling them what to do (other than evacuate), second I have found people rarely do what they are told without question.
Do people have all sorts of absurd opinions about major events? - Sure, but yours is just one of them.
Re: (Score:1)
Who was "telling people to freak out" and what level of "fear" do you think is appropriate for a nuclear meltdown?
I believe around 15 kiloHitchcocks is the accepted level of fear for a nuclear meltdown. To clarify, I think that's equivalent to 674.722 on the Voorhees scale, or approximately 9433.00284 Ringu, a measurement which isn't used all that often.
Re: (Score:2)
Who was "telling people to freak out" and what level of "fear" do you think is appropriate for a nuclear meltdown?
I believe around 15 kiloHitchcocks is the accepted level of fear for a nuclear meltdown. To clarify, I think that's equivalent to 674.722 on the Voorhees scale, or approximately 9433.00284 Ringu, a measurement which isn't used all that often.
Surely you mean 9433 milliringu? Last I checked, one metric Ringu equals 1.6 kiloHitchcocks and around 70 Voorhees.
Re: (Score:2)
kiloHitchcocks
Love it!
What about drowning? (Score:5, Interesting)
Experts believe that the many thousands who fled from the Fukushima nuclear disaster received very low doses of radiation. But that doesn't mean there won't be health consequences.
Yeah I think having your friends, family, and coworkers drown might stress them a wee bit, even if americans think nothing happened there but a minor nuclear power incident.
Re: (Score:3)
We do have data. Natural radiation levels vary considerably with location. It is of course difficult to separate effects since lots of other things also vary with location, but there is so much data available that studies should be pretty good
Re: (Score:1)
There is no evidence that low doses of radiation are linked to any type of cancer. None. Period. Not only is there no evidence, but it would be mathematically impossible to prove if it were the case. Why? Because 1/3 people die of some type of cancer regardless. There is no way to separate people that die of cancer caused by any number of possible environmental or genetic factors to people exposed to tiny amounts of radiation from man-made sources.
Re:very low doses????? (Score:5, Insightful)
Please do me a favor. Don't go to the Grand Central Station with a geiger counter. Also stay away from Capitol Hill i D.C. and any other granite or marble building.
Also bananas could be scary to look at, and flying to the east coast would also be a no-go.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interact/facts.html [pbs.org]
I wouldn't have you ramp up that nuclear fear too high, or you might be a part of statistics.
Radiation is all around us, and the scientist are not even sure it is a bad thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Apples and oranges. The radiation you mention isn't much of a threat because it doesn't accumulate in your body and sit there for decades slowly cooking your DNA.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you really implying that low-grade radiation from bananas is the same as inhaling hot particles from a power station that blew up?
That is EXACTLY what gordona (121157) stated (not implied, but out right stated as fact)
BlackThorne_DK pointed out there is a difference between bananas and a nuclear plant.
Then here you are, calling BlackThorne_DK a moron for stating that fact.
I have to call into question why you are on one hand claiming those levels of radiation are different, while at the same time calling someone else a moron for stating the same thing, implying those levels of radiation are the same.
What exactly are you trying to imply
Re: (Score:1)
BlackThorne_DK said that bananas are scary, clearly trying to imply that gordona was hyping up the fear. Gordona was correct in saying that continued exposure to low-dose radiation is a bad thing, which is what BlackThorne_DK was moronically mocking.
My question is, what are YOU playing here? You appear to have missed the point of both of the parent posts above mine. You weird sicko.
Re: (Score:2)
Great, another person who thinks bananas will radiate you to death. Try going back to high school, you missed some science classes.
Re: (Score:1)
You idiot, I never said that. I was merely mocking somebody who glibly equates bananas to hot particles or sustained exposure to low grade radiation.
In any event, it's clear that your version of science knowledge is limited to partially digesting nuclear industry propaganda and Japanese government "all clear" reports.
Remember, if you smile, the radiation can't affect you.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you really implying that low-grade radiation from bananas is the same as inhaling hot particles from a power station that blew up?
Obviously not, since you aren't inhaling the banana!
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think there is a low dose minimum. Sure we have background radiation. So this plus whatever folks received from the leakage from the Fukushima plants is considered low? What BS. [...] But looking at the basic physics and the effects of radioactive molecules on nearby cells, we can with a certain amount of certainty say that radiation in any amount will have not so good effects on the human body.
If you follow that line of reasoning then you are left with a choice between declaring large parts of the world uninhabitable due to background radiation (and banning air travel), or treating natural and artificial exposure differently even when both are elective.
Japan, as it happens, has a relatively low natural background level under normal circumstances. Doubling it sounds pretty bad but is actually no worse than the average for the USA. Cornwall in England is about five times higher: should we evacuate
Re: (Score:2)
1) Acute radiation sickness is something that is very well understood in terms of necessary doses.
2) No-one disputes that ionizing radiation is harmful and increases the risk of developing cancer.
3) Background radiation is a perfectly reasonable comparison and there is certainly no reason to believe in some kind of crazy non-linear relation. It doesn't mean we're completely ignorant, just that it's impossible to separate statistical differences from background noise and fluctuations.
BTW I looked up Helen Ca
Here's what we know about radiation at low-levels (Score:1)
We do have some idea of low-dose radiation effect based on empirical study. One of the best sources is the BEIR series (BEIR VII). The problem is even at medium levels of exposure, such as first-gen radiation workers and various accidents in the nuclear industry, the background cancer incidence rate is very noisy, and the statistical error bars are enormous for the data we have, even with studies involing tens of thousands of people, and estimates range more than +/-(100%) in the 90% confidence interval.
T
Re: (Score:2)
Leukemia effects are better understood. It does not seem to follow a linear model, but if it did its effects are roughly a factor of 2 per Sievert. That is, if you are exposed to a one time dose of 1 Sv, your risk of developing Leukemia would triple.
Can you explain this maths for those of us who didn't learn in college that 2=3?
A home is a terrible thing to lose (Score:5, Interesting)
Losing your home, let alone all your possessions, is a horrific thing to go through, no matter what the process of loss is: nuclear accident, hurricane, bankruptcy. I believe it is a more devastating loss than the one you have when you reach a certain age and the truth of your own mortality comes into full focus. Losing everything the day your own light goes out forever, there is a sense of loss in the anticipation, but there is no "you" to miss anything afterwards. Losing all your "stuff" on the other hand is the hurt that just keeps hurting.
Low-dose radiation isn't a big deal (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/01/11/like-weve-been-saying-radiation-is-not-a-big-deal/ [forbes.com]
"A very big report came out last month with very little fanfare. It concluded what we in nuclear science have been saying for decades – radiation doses less than about 10 rem (0.1 Sv) are no big deal. The linear no-threshold dose hypothesis (LNT) does not apply to doses less than 10 rem (0.1 Sv), which is the region encompassing background levels around the world, and is the region of most importance to nuclear energy, most medical procedures and most areas affected by accidents like Fukushima."
Re: (Score:2)
(0.1 Sv)
HOLY SHIT. That is massively higher than most of the threshold theories (that I've read) posited. You'd have to chow down on an exorbitant amount of Fukishima grown produce (or fish caught nearby the runoff areas) to even come close to approaching 100mSv.
Re:Low-dose radiation isn't a big deal (Score:5, Informative)
I'm going to undo a bunch of mod points with this post, but I wanted to point out that the blog post you cite is flat out wrong.
I'd like to say that I'm for building more nuclear plants of 4th or later generation design and that even with the LNT model, the maximum number of deaths from Fukushima might be on the level of a single bus accident. That said, the blogpost is incredibly misleading. It took me a while to track down the original source that the post claims to cite from UNSCEAR and it's this paragraph:
What they are saying in short is that the statistical uncertainty is strong enough at low levels of radiation doses WRT cancer risk is that it's not possible to tell whether the LNT model is true or not and THEREFOR it shouldn't be used to say "this many people will die from this much low level radiation". They aren't saying that LNT is wrong. They aren't saying that LNT is right. They are saying we don't know.
The quote from the report is from here [unscear.org]. It's from the latest report to the general assembly, page 16.
Re:Low-dose radiation - The Actual Science (Score:2)
Well the science actually differs from the article. Here is a list of some scientific studies on the effects of low energy emitters, particularly Triated water, with references, in case there is any doubt regarding low dose radiation's effect on living beings.
Tritium is biologically mutagenic *because* it's a low energy emitter. This characteristic makes readily absorbed by surrounding cells. The available evidence from studies conducted journal a list of effects. From those works;
Tritium can be inhal
Re: (Score:2)
"...the health effects could still be very real." (Score:2)
Effects not of nuclear power, but of panicky "abundance of caution" overreactions by authorities and news media to _any_ perceived threat.
Would a multibillion $ industry lie? (Score:1, Insightful)
FFS enough with the nuclear-accidents-are-cool-and-safe propaganda on slashdot.
On the one hand we are expected to believe there are nuclear terrorists with a few grams of cesium-137 pose a deadly threat to our largest cities [dailymail.co.uk]
On the other hand we are expected to believe a nuclear accident where 180TONS of nuclear fuel in three reactors completely melted down, releasing over 5-30kg (15-85TBq) of cesium-137 directly into the atmosphere, 10 times as much other volatile isotopes, (in addition to even greater ongo
just throwing this out there (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Make people think we might die from a lack of radioactivity. Then they can say: "Thanks to Fukushima, we are safe now." :-)
Obligatory... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm an xkcd fan, but this chart is just really, really bad science and abysmal health physics. It pervasively confuses the crucial difference between one-time external exposure ("radiation"), and ongoing internal exposure from ingestion of bioaccumulating radioactive isotopes (such as iodine-131, strontium-90, cesium-137). They're completely different exposure mechanisms and you simply can't compare them directly - except to say that eating or breathing in a radioactive particle is orders of magnitude worse
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
First off, you sound like and arrogant know-it-all prick.
Well even if he does he is right, the radionuclides he mentions analogue calcium and iodine and are absorbed into the body as micro-nutrients subject to bio-accumulation. One of my previous posts can refer you to some science [slashdot.org] if you are curious.
Cause vs Effect? (Score:2)
It seems to me that one explanation that many thousands received a low doses of radiation is BECAUSE they fled, not in spite of it which is what the summary seems to imply. And being told there is nothing to see here while a nuclear plant is actually going through a meltdown, then suddely told you must evacuate, well that seems like a category for stress. It's not like they could see i
Right, thanks! (Score:2)
I was about to post something similar, seeing noone seemed to notice the inconsistency...
It's somewhat like claiming to fear fire or to flee from fire was stupid because those who fled weren't burnt much after all...
what the fuck? (Score:1)
Seriously? You're going to start blaming Nuclear power for depression? REALLY? Sorry, but as if the anti-nuclear groups weren't already ridiculous, I think they've finally gone full retard.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously? You're going to start blaming Nuclear power for depression? REALLY? Sorry, but as if the anti-nuclear groups weren't already ridiculous, I think they've finally gone full retard.
Well perhaps you should take it up with The New York Academy of Sciences, they are but one of many organisations who have performed studies [nyas.org] on the after effects of Chernobyl and found depression is a big one when you get displace from your entire life.
So why evacuate? (Score:2)
Implications (Score:4, Insightful)
Given that, I wonder how the total financial meltdown courtesy of Golden Sacks and co. complete with people losing their homes, income, and healthcare compares to every reactor in the U.S. suffering a Fukushima style meltdown all at once.
This happened at Chernobyl too. (Score:3)
From the IEEE spectrum's article Chernobyl's Stressful After-Effects [ieee.org]
Also see the book Toxic Turmoil (one review here) [bookwormhole.net]for more discussion of the role of stress in disasters.
We should note the Chernobyl's radiation release was an order of magnitude greater than Fukashima's .
The Radiation is Irrelavant (Score:3)
These are extremely real problems (Score:2)
First, there is not enough information about long term low level radiation exposure to know the long term risks. The one other similar example, Chernobyl, is not a
imagine that (Score:2)
But you know that's just the obvious answer. Really, they are waiting for Godzilla to show up and level Tokyo.
Re: (Score:1)
Japanese were too busy trying to rescue people amidst entire cities swept by the tsunami, to really care about Fukushima anywhere as much as foreign newspapers did. And the most stridently panicky people in the streets of Tokyo were consistently foreigners or people getting their news from foreign media.
Now that the mo
Poor summary is biased (Score:2)
In other words, even if no one develops cancer as a direct result of radiation, the health effects could still be very real
ACTUALLY the article is arguing that the health-effects could be all in peoples mind.
Actually comparitively sane (Score:2, Insightful)
I was in Japan shortly after the Tsunami, and most people seemed to understand that the radiation would have no impact on their lives for anyone in Tokyo or south of Tokyo, compared to the mild panic say on the west coast of North America. The authorities seemed to have communicated somewhat effectively the risks, at least for those not in the immediate area, and people were far more focused on getting support to tsunami victims than concerned about radiation. As such, the damage due to panic was relative
Yay for self-fulfilling prophecies... (Score:1)
Step 2: Be somewhere else when scientific findings pour in, showing that the risk on the general population, save for some very specific cases (such as workers at the plant who heroically risked their health trying to fix things), pales by comparison with absolutely every other aspect of the catastrophe (starting with thousands of deaths, injuries and destroyed houses, for en
Substance abuse? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The nocebo tort (Score:2)
Is it possible in the USA to sue for damages due to the nocebo effect (I.e. the flip side of the placebo effect)? The harmful effects are very real.
If yes, then victims could sue sensational journalists. Lawyers who told women they must be sick because of breast implants could be sued by those women who actually suffered because of the nocebo effect. Purveyors of end of the world scenarios and global warming fear mongers could become defendants.
On the other hand, does the first amendment protect all speech