First Cancer Case Confirmed From Fukushima Cleanup (nhk.or.jp) 138
AmiMoJo writes: Japan's labor ministry has confirmed the first cancer case related to work at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. Following on from reports of elevated levels of child cancer and 1,600 civilians deaths from the evacuation, this is the first time that one of the 44,000 people involved in the clean up operation has been diagnosed with cancer resulting directly from the accident. The worker was involved in recovery and cleanup efforts at the plant after it suffered a meltdown in March, 2011. He was in his late 30s at the time, and has been diagnosed with leukemia. The ministry has approved workers' compensation. Radiation exposure has been linked to the onset of leukemia.
Criteria from TFA (Score:2, Informative)
It is important to know their criteria for the decision, not just the decision itself.
From TFA:
"Ministry experts determined that he was likely to have contracted leukemia following cleanup work at Fukushima Daiichi. They found he had been exposed to a total of 19.8 millisieverts of radiation from his work at various plants. He was exposed to 15.7 millisieverts at the Fukushima plant.
Compensation is granted if a nuclear power plant worker has been exposed to annual radiation of 5 milliseverts and has develop
Re: (Score:3)
if a nuclear power plant worker has been exposed to annual radiation of 5 milliseverts and has developed cancer more than a year afterward."
A pretty good deal for the worker considering natural background exposure can be over 10 times that, and airline crews get twice that per year.
Re:Criteria from TFA (Score:5, Insightful)
Background exposure is rather different to the type of exposure the workers got at the plant. Most background exposure can't even penetrate the outer layer of the skin. It's also worth pointing out that where background levels are high, much of it is often due to radiation from the sun, and that is actually quite dangerous if you get too much exposure, especially if you have white skin.
The exposure that the workers got involved material like caesium, which got inside the bodies and can't easily be removed. When treated for cancer it was possible to examine blood or tumours that were removed and see these particles in them, indicating the source of the DNA damage that lead to cancer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Background exposure is rather different to the type of exposure the workers got at the plant. Most background exposure can't even penetrate the outer layer of the skin.
In which case it's not exposure, and not counted. Background exposure can come from inhaled alpha emitters (e.g. radon), beta emitters in food, external gamma from rocks etc. It's not qualitatively different from what the workers were exposed to in terms of effects.
It's also worth pointing out that where background levels are high, much of it is often due to radiation from the sun, and that is actually quite dangerous if you get too much exposure, especially if you have white skin.
It's dangerous because of UV, which doesn't count as ionizing radiation in this context and isn't included in the "background radiation" measurements.
The exposure that the workers got involved material like caesium, which got inside the bodies and can't easily be removed. When treated for cancer it was possible to examine blood or tumours that were removed and see these particles in them, indicating the source of the DNA damage that lead to cancer.
No, all it shows is that these substances were present, not that it was the cause of the cancer.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty pro-nuke, as is evidenced from my past posts on the subject. However, there's a big difference between an x-ray and particulates that accumulate and continue to release radiation. I'm not sure if that's what this is, in this case. I am sure that the two aren't comparable, however.
Meaningless (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Some stats (Score:2)
The actual rates in the general population... (Score:3)
But 1 case per 44,000 (2.3 per 100,000) is pretty close to what you would expect from the general population.
The actual rates in the general population are much higher.
You are quoting based on numbers of deaths vs. number of people contracting Leukemia.
The actual numbers a 13.0 per 100,000 people, for 2014, per the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society:
https://www.lls.org/sites/defa... [lls.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Link - http://ganjoho.jp/en/professio... [ganjoho.jp] goes through cancer diagnosis rates in Japan. For ages 30-34 Leukemia diagnosis rates at between 2.5 & 3 per 100,000. For all age range males it is between 4.5 & 10.6 per 100,000.
Re: (Score:2)
Condolences (Score:3, Insightful)
I know there's a lot of speculation and argument as to why but I think we're losing focus.
The fact is that a person who is sick because of this disaster and helped lessen it's influence is ill.
God speed to them and my best wishes.
You did great for your country and your people, and you have my respect from thousands of miles away.
Re: (Score:2)
Atty the Atom says... (Score:2)
"Clean, safe, and too cheap to meter"
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well it is, as long as you can be allowed to upgrade/replace aging reactors and not blocked by environmentalists and anti-nuke protesters from building a safer replacement.
Re: (Score:2)
Well it is, as long as you can be allowed to upgrade/replace aging reactors and not blocked by environmentalists and anti-nuke protesters from building a safer replacement.
In the US then 2005 energy act prevents those people and local councils from interfering with the placement of nuclear facilities.
Re: (Score:2)
Luckily that's the US and not Japan huh? The Abe government in Japan pass something similar with the restart of nuclear plants there due to that problem.
Re: (Score:2)
We never build safer replacements - don't delude yourself, we build them because we need more. Replacement suggests that the old one is decommissioned at some point but those reactors aren't cheap to build and have multi-decade payback horizons.
Here in Canada we decommission and replace reactors about every 30 years, unless there is a particular reason. Such as the medical breeder reactors that supply a large portion of the worlds medical isotopes. Those are safer replacements for aging technology, if that's not happening in your country then there's something else going on.
Wait, they never ruled out HTLV! (Score:3)
In the US, they've entertained the idea to stop testing donor's blood for HTLV-1/2 because it's so rare in North America, but in Japan, the virus is epidemic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H... [wikipedia.org]
Based on the criteria for compensation described in the article, it looks like the HTLV status of this worker has never been taken into any consideration, so just because his claim was valid and was accepted, doesn't at all mean that there's a correlation between the events.
Bio-accumulation (Score:2)
It is the radio-isotopes ejected from the exploding reactors that are the threat to people, as opposed to the radiation. Radioactive *isotopes* analogue other elements when presented to a metabolism in the food chain. Take plutonium for example, it analogues iron when presented to a human metabolism, is a high energy alpha emitter and is extremely toxic.
Oppenheimer's work found that 1 millionth of a gram of plutonium is a carcinogenic dose in the human body and Leukemia is a consequence of absorbing plut
Re: (Score:2)
That these cases are happening in 2015 suggests that the people working at the reactor suffered much more exposure than we were led to believe by TEPCO.
Literally every public statement by TEPCO during the early stages of the disaster (To quote Holly from Red Dwarf, "It's an emergency, and it's still going on") was a lie. They lied about every milestone and they lied about the amount of material released every single time, over a half a dozen times in a row in fact. TEPCO has proven that you cannot trust any of their claims.
Re: (Score:2)
TEPCO has proven that you cannot trust any of their claims.
Indeed, it would seem to be the one reliable thing that have done.
Likely != Confirmed (Score:2)
Ministry experts determined that he was likely to have contracted leukemia following cleanup work at Fukushima Daiichi.
The Ministry confirmed nothing.
Compensation is granted if a nuclear power plant worker has been exposed to annual radiation of 5 milliseverts and has developed cancer more than a year afterward.
The claimant does not have to even show that the cancer is related to the work. It may or may not be but based on the chance they get compensated.
I know it is strange for some countries but some governments compensate based on likely causes and not absolute proof.
Elevated levels of child cancer (Score:2)
Elevated by increased screening, not by radiation. http://thebreakthrough.org/ind... [thebreakthrough.org]
Re: (Score:2)
No, it finds many tiny (often harmless) tumours, nodules and cysts, that would go unnoticed normally.
Re:Related? (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately out of thousands of people, there are going to be cancer cases (1.5% leukimia rate in the US), and so of the thousands of workers (over 45,000 according to reports) that have been at Fukushima, there are going to be some people with cancers, and some with leukemia. But one thing is for certain, every single case will come with the "cannot be ruled out" disclaimer, and get misleading headlines.
An accurate headline should read, "one person out of 45,000 that have worked on Fukushima recovery has developed cancer". In the US , approximately 1.5% of people will be diagnosed with leukemia, and it is more common in men than women. Did this guy smoke cigarettes? The risk is higher if he did. The news reports ignore important stuff like this. In a given group of 45,000 people, we should expect to see over 10 cases of Leukemia per year, but we've only seen one in 3-4 years. Why is that?
According to established radiation science and statistics, it is highly unlikely that this cancer is from exposure at Fukushima. He might be lucky that he and his family will receive significant compensation, unlike the many Leukemia sufferers who never worked at Fukushima.
Lets all hope he can get top notch treatment and beat it, and same for the many other Leukemia sufferers that don't get the headlines or the compensation.
Re: (Score:2)
The only link this cancer has to Fukushima is that "it can't be ruled out".
Well, at least the Fukushima workers now have ironclad anti-cancer insurance. Any condition any of them develop will be automatically assumed to have come from Fukushima, and Tepco will be on the hook.....
Also, hopefully, they were all given some sort of short-term compensation and much extra hazard pay for all the perceived hazards they endured.
Re: (Score:2)
An accurate headline should read, "one person out of 45,000 that have worked on Fukushima recovery has developed cancer". In the US , approximately 1.5% of people will be diagnosed with leukemia, and it is more common in men than women. Did this guy smoke cigarettes? The risk is higher if he did. The news reports ignore important stuff like this. In a given group of 45,000 people, we should expect to see over 10 cases of Leukemia per year, but we've only seen one in 3-4 years. Why is that?
That's a very good
Re:Related? (Score:5, Interesting)
According to here - http://ganjoho.jp/en/professio... [ganjoho.jp] the highest incidence rate recorded in Japan for Leukemia was 10.6 cases per 100,000 which occurred in men in 2010. Over the prior 25 years it ranged from 4.5 to the peak of 10.6 but interestingly all the lower counts are early in the records. So either instances of Leukemia have doubled or instances of diagnosis have double (or combination of course).
So realistically we would expect to see between 2 and around 5 cases of Leukemia in the given population. Once you get above 5-6 per year you would definitely argue that there had been an impact.
Re: (Score:3)
*Unless I have made a mistake in my statistics, which is really likely. To get a conservative estimate, I used the binomial distribution with 45000 trials and a change of success in each at 0.0001, and then checked at what number of successes the cumulative probability of getting more success
Re: (Score:2)
Only against the maximum rate that has ever been seen in the population. Your maths is correct but if you base your assumption on the mid point of the range, ie 7.5 you will find that 5-6 cases becomes statistically significant. However like all statistics the conclusions drawn can always be shifted around based on chosen start points.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's really hard to say, I think - the radiation exposure it possibly a risk factor. But how long does it take from exposure to detection of cancer is a detail I'm not sure about.
If you consider, for example, the connection between having sex and having a baby (and for the sake of example, ignore all the signs in between), and you took a sample of women who had babies three months after having sex, you could perhaps conclude that there is no relationships between having sex and having a baby.
Is 4 1/2 years
Re: (Score:2)
It's really hard to say, I think - the radiation exposure it possibly a risk factor.
It's not radiation exposure so much as the absorption of radionuclides from the reactors. From the amount of seawater used to cool the plant plutonium chloride is extremely likely to have been created.
But how long does it take from exposure to detection of cancer is a detail I'm not sure about.
Is 4 1/2 years enough time after the radiation exposure for cancer to develop and be detected?
From what I've learned about Chernobyl, I was expecting six years. I really hope it is unrelated because for it to be this early it is concerning about how much and how energetic the elements released were. Only TEPCO can tell us.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www-pub.iaea.org/books/... [iaea.org]
Re: (Score:2)
You need look no further than the Japanese governments own inquiry for that opinion [nirs.org]:
The TEPCO Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant accident was the result of collusion between the government, the regulators and TEPCO, and the lack of governance by said parties. They effectively b
Re: (Score:2)
The IAEA is
Re: (Score:2)
Bottom line is, we have very good and very detailed exposure and contamination information.
Produce it. The exact pages in the report I should read. Show me the data, show me the evidence.
You can take the moral superiority tact, but you undermine it with an inability to produce evidence that highlights you are bullshitting. I just call it like I see it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://jmsc.hku.hk/sites/healt... [jmsc.hku.hk]
Re: (Score:2)
Here is something to help you better gauge the risks. The exposure received by this worker is closer to the zero mark than the next mark above it (250). http://jmsc.hku.hk/sites/healt... [jmsc.hku.hk]
You CLEARLY have no understanding of the differences between radiation and radionuclides and no understanding of external and internal exposure.
Repeat after me R.A.D.I.O.N.U.C.L.I.D.E..A.B.S.O.R.P.T.I.O.N
Citation please. Specifically which statistics and which science are you referring to?
Re: (Score:2)
I can say it too. Sounds scary. Do you really think you are on to some big thing that these doctors don't fully understand?
Contamination & internal exposure is easily monitored. It is fully considered, I assure you. You can find plenty of reference in the IAEA reports.
Re: (Score:2)
OK. "Radionuclide Absorption"
I can say it too. Sounds scary. Do you really think you are on to some big thing that these doctors don't fully understand?
No, just something you don't understand. You CLEARLY have no understanding of the differences between radiation and radionuclides and no understanding of external and internal exposure.
Repeat after me R.A.D.I.O.N.U.C.L.I.D.E..A.B.S.O.R.P.T.I.O.N
Contamination & internal exposure is easily monitored. It is fully considered, I assure you. You can find plenty of reference in the IAEA reports.
Produce the evidence, the exact pages in the IAEA report.
Citation please. Specifically which statistics and which science are you referring to?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Show me your research, I've shown you mine.
Contamination & internal exposure is easily monitored. It is fully considered, I assure you. You can find plenty of reference in the IAEA reports.
Produce the evidence, the exact pages in the IAEA report.
I'll let you into a little secret: I've already done it. [slashdot.org] That's how I KNOW you are a bullshit artist'e. Now I'm quite tired of your word twisting, mouth mangling bullshit for now, so I'm going to go and stop wasting time on you for a while I do something more interesting.
Repeat after me R.A.D.I.O.N.U.C.L.I.D.E..A.B.S.O.R.P.T.I.O.N
MrDfrom63's research: "quickly google: low+dose+radiation"
ahahahahahah [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm... [nih.gov]
Different population. (Score:3)
(1.5% leukimia rate in the US {..} In the US, approximately 1.5% of people will be diagnosed with leukemia, {...} we should expect to see over 10 cases of Leukemia per year, but we've only seen one in 3-4 years. Why is that?
Why is that? That's because the number you have are for the US, and this happens in Japan.
Numbers might differ (e.g.: Among cardiovascular Japan has lower rates of heart stroke, and more brain stroke) for a whole range of reasons.
(Different environment, different habits lifestyles, some slight genetic difference, specially given Japan high tendency to remain isolated/insular across history, etc.)
Re:Related? (Score:5, Insightful)
The causal link can never be proven, but the worker in question was exposed to a dose over the legal limit during the clean-up operation. The deal was always that in exchange for taking on this risk, if workers developed cancer later they would be looked after and compensated.
The news report states this clearly:
Ministry experts determined that he was likely to have contracted leukemia following cleanup work at Fukushima Daiichi. They found he had been exposed to a total of 19.8 millisieverts of radiation from his work at various plants. He was exposed to 15.7 millisieverts at the Fukushima plant.
Compensation is granted if a nuclear power plant worker has been exposed to annual radiation of 5 milliseverts and has developed cancer more than a year afterward.
They are applying the agreed rules, and in any case determined that there likely is a causal link. Keep in mind that it's not just the dose, it's the type of exposure. Workers at the plant likely ended up with material inside their bodies, where it is much more likely to cause cancer than with external exposure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Sadly, they won't. I've noticed their posts since they decided I was their foe. She simply refuses to look at, confirm, or accept any contrary evidence and will repeat the same thing in another thread - even when given proof that the opposite is true. They appear to be an otherwise thinking person but some subjects make them immune to facts. It's kind of pathetic when you can't admit you're wrong and continue to spout the same drivel over and over again as if it's factual. To pat myself on the back, I'm wro
Re: (Score:2)
It is very frustrating.
Re: (Score:2)
Citation please. Specifically which statistics and which science are you referring to?
Re: (Score:2)
I'll help you get started, but the hell if I'll do your work for you.
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Citation please. Specifically which statistics and which science are you referring to?
Re: (Score:2)
Citation please. Specifically which statistics and which science are you referring to?
Really. You're suggesting a man working at a site containing three exploded Nuclear Reactors in some form of melt down is *unlikely* to have contracted cancer from being exposed to the variety of radionuclides absorbed there. That is truly a breathtaking leap of faith considering you don't know w
Re: (Score:3)
Some Wikipedia "facts."
Radiation can cause cancer in most parts of the body, in all animals, and at any age, although radiation-induced solid tumors usually take 10–15 years, and can take up to 40 years, to become clinically manifest, and radiation-induced leukemias typically require 2–10 years to appear.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
I, umm, didn't even read the summary completely so I don't have a point or anything. I'm just including this so that we have some actual facts that can be cited. Hell, I'm not even sure who the facts support. However, now we have some because I was, for once, not lazy. You're welcome. I don't know if they're the correct facts or even the information needed but, damn it, we've got data!
Now back to your regularly scheduled poop flinging and scree
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, they aren't your claims to support, but thanks for trying. MrDfrom63 has to be able to prove the statements he made aren't "bullshit", the onus of proof is on him.
You however are missing the difference between radiation and radionuclides, in particular which ones and their quantity. I suspect plutonium chloride s
Re: (Score:2)
The guy got more hard radiation than is desirable, but if we're going to talk about possible ingestion of radioactive materials we need to know about the protective gear. Was the guy in a waterproof suit? Did he bring his own air? Were there any failures in his suit? If he was properly suited up at all times, his exposure should be minimal.
Re: (Score:2)
Citation please. Specifically which statistics and which science are you referring to?
Re: (Score:2)
“It is a solid, unusually large study of individuals exposed to very low doses of ionizing radiation,” says epidemiologist Jørgen Olsen, director of the Danish Cancer Society Research Center in Copenhagen. The finding implies that some cases of leukaemia will even be caused by a high level of natural background radiation, he adds, “though the increased risk for an individual is going to be vanishingly small”.
http://www.nature.com/news/res... [nature.com]
And here is a picture, since you don't seem to do any research on your own of the many published and easy to find studies;
http://hamaoka.chuden.jp/engli... [chuden.jp]
Re: (Score:2)
One of the main reasons that more people are discovered with cancers after such events is quite simply that medics are actively looking for such things vs "ordinary" circumstances, which is a shame as most cancers triggers are chemical, not radiological (even lung cancers related to polonium are more likely to be from the polonium breakdown products than the alpha radiation)
Along the same lines, the main reason why more people are discovered with cancer these days is simply that more people are living long
Re: (Score:2)
Whether he deserves the payout is a different issue from how the media should cover it.
Re: (Score:3)
That's 675 people that would have leukemia whether they were part of the cleanup or not.
Re: (Score:2)
You are off by a factor of 100. 43000 people in USA are diagnosed with leukemia. Out of over 300 million.
It's about 0.013% Not 1.5%
No,
Approximately 1.5 percent of men and women will be diagnosed with leukemia at some point during their lifetime
http://seer.cancer.gov/statfac... [cancer.gov] Of course, leukemia kills many of its victims rather quickly, so at any given time there is not 1.5 percent of the population with leukemia.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
that depends certainly upon the irradiation level... and some of the Fuk workers received a pretty high irradiation dose.
No, none of them got high doses.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
According to TEPCO, seven TEPCO workers were exposed to radiation over the limit of 100 millisievert by the morning of 20 March
And it's "According to Tepco" ....
Re: (Score:3)
The worker mentioned in the story had a total dose of about 20 millisieverts, and included his work at another plant plus the Fukushima dose. Some reports made it seem higher, but they were adding the 15.7 mSv in twice.
One worker, who was exposed to 670 mSv, has about a seven percent higher chance of developing cancer sometime in his life. The rest had smaller doses.
On the other hand, two workers died from heart attacks brought on by heat exhaustion caused by the radiation suits.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
And you conclude that because the exposure was higher than the allowed limit it must have been "high"?
3500-4500 millisievert (sources vary) is "high". That is the LD50 for near term lethality with no medical intervention.
2000 is "high". That is LD10 and causes haemmorhage.
1000 is borderline. Practically nobody dies. Mild sickness.
200 is not high. Temporary reduction in white cell count is about it.
100? No detectable gross effect
Re:Related? (Score:5, Informative)
That is a gross oversimplification. Receiving a dose of 200uSv via exposure to something like x-rays is very different to being exposed to 200uSv that includes particulate matter that will accumulate inside the body. The former is a one time "hit", the latter is much more likely to lead to cancer because the material can sit inside the body slowly damaging DNA.
Sadly that XKCD chart and nonsense like the "banana equivalent dose" have spread a lot of misinformation about this. Not all types of radiation exposure are equal.
Re: (Score:3)
That is a gross oversimplification. Receiving a dose of 200uSv via exposure to something like x-rays is very different to being exposed to 200uSv that includes particulate matter that will accumulate inside the body. The former is a one time "hit", the latter is much more likely to lead to cancer because the material can sit inside the body slowly damaging DNA.
If you believe in the linear no-threshold model then it makes no difference whether the dose is received in a single hit or an extended time period.
Those who doubt LNT usually suspect a dose-response curve that goes in the opposite direction to what you are suggesting.
Particulate exposure could conceivably be worse for you due to the exposure being localised to one part of the body, but that has nothing to do with the timescale over which the dose is spread.
Sadly that XKCD chart and nonsense like the "banana equivalent dose" have spread a lot of misinformation about this.
The main issue with the concept of a "banana equiv
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No need, my numbers are accurate, so long as most of the cleaners weren't retired, called up for a cleaning.
Re:Related? (Score:4, Insightful)
The form of radiation that causes the most cancers, year after year, remains sunlight.
That's a good point.
I also suggest, if we're going to report this sort of thing, that we start reporting every time someone dies from disease due to a coal plant.
Re: (Score:3)
That's a good point
Really? w [wikipedia.org]
In the aftermath of the accident, 237 people suffered from acute radiation sickness (ARS), of whom 31 died within the first three months (...) over 6000 cases of thyroid cancer have been reported
Stop waiting.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why you're on my 'friends' list. It's funny to see the people who double down on their mistakes. They'll insist their right. They're almost as bad as the ones who don't reply - you know, damned well, they got automatic reply notifications.
It's a lot easier, and honest, to just admit you're wrong and learn something. This is not a bad thing. It's a good thing to learn something - and even to change your opinions or course of action based on new information. Yet, somehow, this is seen as a bad thing.
Re: (Score:2)
It sucks to be wrong, but it sucks more to remain wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The form of radiation that causes the most cancers, year after year, remains sunlight.
That's a good point
Really? w
In the aftermath of the accident, 237 people suffered from acute radiation sickness (ARS), of whom 31 died within the first three months (...) over 6000 cases of thyroid cancer have been reported
So, 6000 cases of cancer over 30 years, which is around 200 per year. Are you saying that there are less then 200 cases of skin cancer per year worldwide? Even if all of those 6000 cases where in the same year, the number of skin cancer cases, most of which are caused by the sun, would dwarf that number.
Re: (Score:2)
It's impossible to assign a single cancer death to any diffuse cause such as pollution or radiation. Three people were "confirmed" dead at Fukushima: two drowned when the tsunami came over the seawall, and one was in a high crane on the property that tipped over during the earthquake.
Re:No such confirmation had been made (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No such confirmation had been made (Score:5, Insightful)
No one, including myself who submitted the story, claimed that those deaths were from radiation. They are a result of the nuclear accident though. People has to be evacuated (there was no realistic choice at the time) and lost their homes and communities. 1600 died before they might otherwise have been expected to as a result. That's pretty clear and straight forward.
Why do the pro-nuke crowd always have to attempt a straw man argument in every debate? Why not address the actual points being raised and defend your pet technology? You could argue that 1600 deaths is worth it for nuclear power, a perfectly rational, if somewhat utilitarian point. You could argue that in Japan the alternatives are worse, something we could debate at length. But no, you went for the straw man, trying to paint people who object to nuclear power as dishonest.
Maybe you should examine your own actions before making that claim.
Re: (Score:2)
No one, including myself who submitted the story, claimed that those deaths were from radiation.
No, you don't get off that easy. If you didn't intend to imply it, you would not have written this tagline:
First Cancer Case Confirmed From Fukushima Cleanup
You aren't going to get it both ways. Either you intended to imply a link, or you're particularly shitty at English, your second language. Choose one.
Re: (Score:3)
To clarify I didn't intend to claim that the 1600 deaths among evacuees were from radiation induced cancer. The worker didn't die, he is merely seriously ill and it is thought more than likely as a result of exposure during the clean-up operation.
The GP was talking about the 1600 deaths, that's what I was addressing. The statement that this cancer was most likely caused by exposure to radioactive material from Fukushima is backed up by TFA and by the judgement of the government ministry staff, who base thei
Re: (Score:2)
Even so, I still think the tagline was misleading, and likely deliberately so.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you'd meant "Someone from the Fukushima cleanup got cancer and a payout because that was in the contract" then there's a way of saying that.
Can you work out what it is? Hint: it bears fuck all resemblance to what you wrote.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
> They are a result of the nuclear accident though.
A neat trick, given that they were caused by unnecessary panic over this... It's also neat how you do not have to justify the deaths from coal power, our main alternative to nukes.
Well, there is one other option, I suppose--you could go without electricity entirely, but then you wouldn't be posting here....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No. Cancer takes more time to develop, we're only 4 years after the disaster. The announcement is to soothe the local and international disgruntled commenters about Tepco actions and consequences. You see, the disaster had people develop cancer - but there's only one person affected.
Soothe? You think politicians and Tepco are so stupid to think admitting this as a disaster related victime will soothe anything? It revives the public interest that was slowly dwindeling and could cost Tipco a big amount of money. NOT something either of them would do voluntarly.
If they admitted this as a disaster related victim I'm sure they felt they had no choice...
Re: (Score:2)
Almost 16,000 people are known dead with another 1200 missing after the tsunami. We have no idea how many got sick or injured. One case of cancer that hopefully will not be fatal makes the news.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A part of me, probably a larger part than is healthy, is still hoping for Godzilla.