Experts Chime In To Explain Fukushima Thryoid Cancer Concerns (cancernetwork.com) 130
An anonymous reader writes: Experts and the lead author of the Fukushima study findings explain what the data really tells us and the flaws in claims that there is a link between the disaster and cancer rates. From the article: "It is too soon to determine the influence of radiation exposure on thyroid cancer risk among children and adolescents who were exposed to the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant disaster in Japan, according to the lead author of findings presented at the 15th International Thyroid Congress (ITC) and 85th Annual Meeting of the American Thyroid Association (ATA) this week in Lake Buena Vista, Florida."
Re:At last, some common sense! (Score:5, Insightful)
Repeat after me: Correlation does not imply causation, people!
Particularly when you don't even have correlation.
So NOW they say it! (Score:1)
When it was being claimed in the media that there had been NO effects of radiation on non-employees of the nuclear plant, we did not hear these disclaimers. But now that a study shows the possibility of thyroid cancer in children, the "experts" say it's too early to tell. So why did they not say that when the claim was being made that there was no effect?
Re:So NOW they say it! (Score:4, Interesting)
When it was being claimed in the media that there had been NO effects of radiation on non-employees of the nuclear plant, we did not hear these disclaimers. But now that a study shows the possibility of thyroid cancer in children, the "experts" say it's too early to tell. So why did they not say that when the claim was being made that there was no effect?
They have not said there can be no effect. Theoretically there can be but statistically it is shown that there probably won't be. Due to uncertainly of impacts at these low levels (due to the fact that the impacts are so small they are hard to measure with any statistical significance) the conservative approach is assume there may be and do the testing/screening. One could make a case that it is unneeded, but due to the public fear mongers and to ease concerns, the testing makes sense. Also, it can provide us with more useful data on the topic.
So far, it appears they caught some cases of thyroid cancers that existed prior to the accident, and these cases were caught earlier than they normally would have. So those kids are lucky in that sense, as the likelihood of successful treatment for them is now higher.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
When you have no evidence toward a certain conclusion, you say "there's been no evidence found."
When only a sample too small for conclusions has been found, you say "it's too early to tell."
Not hard to understand.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure who this Tsuda chap is, but if you'll let me know his bunk's addy I'll consider clinging to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So NOW they say it! (Score:5, Insightful)
They said it all along, you just weren't listening, or your chosen media outlets didn't find it news-worthy. Here's an article [latimes.com] from March 2012, the year after the disaster;
"Yogi Berra supposedly said, "It's tough making predictions, especially about the future." He was right. However, there is an out for forecasters trying to predict long-term medical consequences of the Fukushima nuclear facility accident: The final reckoning will take about 50 years; they are unlikely to be around to be judged wrong."
50 years, got it? Also
"But there is also good news from Chernobyl. After intensive study of hundreds of thousands of people, there are no convincing data of increased leukemia or other cancers, even among the 500,000 cleanup workers who received the highest doses. It may be too soon for a final call, but so far the situation looks favorable."
Too soon for a final call on Chernobyl, even after all these years, much less Fukushima.
Don't talk about "the media" and "experts" as if they are some sort of homogeneous entities.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They said it all along, you just weren't listening, or your chosen media outlets didn't find it news-worthy. Here's an article [latimes.com] from March 2012, the year after the disaster;
"Yogi Berra supposedly said, "It's tough making predictions, especially about the future." He was right. However, there is an out for forecasters trying to predict long-term medical consequences of the Fukushima nuclear facility accident: The final reckoning will take about 50 years; they are unlikely to be around to be judged wrong."
50 years, got it? Also
"But there is also good news from Chernobyl. After intensive study of hundreds of thousands of people, there are no convincing data of increased leukemia or other cancers, even among the 500,000 cleanup workers who received the highest doses. It may be too soon for a final call, but so far the situation looks favorable."
Too soon for a final call on Chernobyl, even after all these years, much less Fukushima.
Don't talk about "the media" and "experts" as if they are some sort of homogeneous entities.
Good post.
Re: (Score:2)
We don't need to wait 50 years to see that there will be certain health consequences. For example, an increase in thyroid cancer is clearly evidence [wikipedia.org] from Chernobyl.
The author of this study is at best saying it is too early to tell, but that is largely irrelevant. It will always be impossible to tie individual cancers to a particular event, so the only reasonable course of action is to compensate everyone affected.
Re:So NOW they say it! (Score:4, Informative)
Except the clear evidence really isn't that clear, there are differences between men and women in the UK [oxfordjournals.org] of 3 to 1.5 per 100,000 people, and thyroid cancer is up to 15 per 100,000, the peak of your referenced graph, (with an increasing trend) in the US [cancer.gov]. As the US was further away from Chernobyl, does that mean it helped people prevent thyroid cancer?
I'm not sure what the reasonable course of action is, but giving money to everyone isn't it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But now that a study shows the possibility of thyroid cancer in children, the "experts" say it's too early to tell. So why did they not say that when the claim was being made that there was no effect?
Two weeks ago, when this story broke on Slashdot, we fellow Slashdotters told you there were serious problems with the research such as absence of control groups, no actual evidence for a difference in thyroid cancer rates, and no demonstrated correlation with radiation exposure even if we did assume there was a difference in thyroid cancer rates.
Now, the experts are telling you the same thing. When are you going to get the clue?
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't but that's because it is a kinda boring small city in Japan, not because of the radiation. Living in Japan is not for everyone.
It isn't a good tourist place either, however, don't hesitate to go to Matsushima, it is not that far from Fukushima and it is a very nice place.
Too soon (Score:3, Insightful)
It is too soon to determine the influence of radiation exposure on thyroid cancer risk
But they'll keep looking until they find something else that can be misinterpreted.
Re:Too soon (Score:5, Insightful)
The confirmed thyroid cancers identified in post-disaster screening thus far “appear to have already occurred prior to radiation exposure,”
Which is exactly what you would expect when you begin thorough sensitive screening that has not been previously performed. It was the initial screenings where a majority of the cases were discovered, then much less in subsequent screenings.
Unfortunately, this article doesn't get the press that the bullshit study articles did. Our media is in a sad state.
Re: (Score:2)
What they article said is it's TOO EARLY to tell. It DID NOT say radiation exposure will not cause pediatric thyroid cancers.
Re: (Score:3)
Tsuda has no expertise in these matters. I'll believe the cancer docto
Re: (Score:2)
The confirmed thyroid cancers identified in post-disaster screening thus far “appear to have already occurred prior to radiation exposure,”
I can see it clearly now - the Fukushima nuclear accident was caused by increased thyroid cancer rates in the prefecture.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously the cancer rates are going to go up, especially for the workers at the plant. It's biology. Radiation and DNA don't mix well. In a few more years more cases will show up. I am sure the workers all took extra iodine to protect their thyroid gland, but that won't prevent things like leukemia.
Congratulation, you win the aware for the highest concentration of unsubstantiated claims and assumptions in two lines of text.
Re: (Score:2)
I win the aware?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I knew what you meant, I was pointing out how you were not putting lots of thought or effort into your response.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
hahahahahaha - he effortlessly made you look like the shill you are, almost but not quite a professional yet are you.
You CLEARLY have no understanding of the differences between radiation and radionuclides and no understanding of external and internal exposure. You cannot and will not support your claims.
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
Try this one - p.l.u.t.o.n.i.u.m.c.h.l.o.r.i.d.e
Re: (Score:2)
MOD PARENT UP - Re:Too soon (Score:2)
Please someone throw some mod points at this man.
Re:Too soon (Score:5, Insightful)
Only if you subscribe to the linear no-threshold model which we know is wrong. We live on a planet bathed in radiation and our biology has evolved to deal with this. The problem is we don't have a better model to use for policy recommendations but don't confuse that with reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you subscribe to the linear no-threshold model which we know is wrong.
Other in the fairy-tale world of slashdot's nuclear fanboys, we know nothing like that. In fact, we have a lot of confirming evidence
that the LNT holds to very small doses.
We live on a planet bathed in radiation and our biology has evolved to deal with this.
This is a fallacy. That we adapted to radiation doesn't mean that radiation is good for us.
the problem is we don't have a better model to use for policy recommendations but don't confuse that with reality.
The problem is people having opinions about science without being able to read the relevant scientific literature.
Re: (Score:2)
we have a lot of confirming evidence that the LNT holds to very small doses.
No, actually we don't. The one common thread between studies of very low dose exposures is that they all have results which pretty much fall within the uncertainty band of the study itself. There are some high dose CT scan studies that may show a correlation, but they have problems reconciling that CT scan patients are a higher risk group for all diseases to begin with. Then there are some radon exposure studies that show lower cancer rates in high exposure areas. As a whole, the only thing that is certain
Re: (Score:2)
we have a lot of confirming evidence that the LNT holds to very small doses.
No, actually we don't. The one common thread between studies of very low dose exposures is that they all have results which pretty much fall within the uncertainty band of the study itself.
Citation please. Specifically which statistics and which science are you referring to?
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you are claiming there are no studies on low dose exposure, LNT, or that somehow you cannot find them, or that they don't have the uncertainties I discussed. Which are you denying?
Re: (Score:1)
I gave you the starting point to find tons of studies on low level exposure. All good studies discuss uncertainties in the data and conclusions. You can easily find them, google is your friend.
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
we have a lot of confirming evidence that the LNT holds to very small doses.
No, actually we don't. The one common thread between studies of very low dose exposures is that they all have results which pretty much fall within the uncertainty band of the study itself.
Citation please. Specifically which statistics and which science are you referring to?
Unless you are claiming there are no studies on low dose exposure, LNT, or that somehow you cannot find them, or that they don't have the uncertainties I discussed. Which are you denying?
Nice try [slashdot.org] but as usual you have nothing.
You're a horrendous shill or sock puppet, I cannot tell which and the only reason I reply to your comments is to illustrate what a bullshit artist'e you are. My instinct tells me I am not the only one who has noticed and it was very entertaining watching how effortlessly your mindlessness was exposed.
I'm sure I will get
Re: (Score:2)
Chernobyl Cancer Study Harvard 2005: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t... [google.com]
Predicted number of Leukemia cases (above normal) up to 2005 = 940
From 2012 study: http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/12049... [nih.gov]
Actual number of Leukemia cases as of 2012 = 136
Re: (Score:2)
Nice try [slashdot.org] but as usual you have nothing.
You're a horrendous shill or sock puppet, I cannot tell which and the only reason I reply to your comments is to illustrate what a bullshit artist'e you are. My instinct tells me I am not the only one who has noticed and it was very entertaining watching how effortlessly your mindlessness was exposed.
I'm sure I will get modded into oblivion, but I don't care because that absolutely made my week. I want you to know, I am still laughing at you, right now.
Nice ad hominem, dude. You aren't providing any good evidence (cell biology studies from the 70's don't count - methods were exceedingly primitive then, and if you can't cite anything more recent, you don't have much of a leg to stand on) either. This whole "OMG I'm so amused at how bad you are and how much better I am trolololol" thing is just silly. Act like an adult. Be the person Mr. Rodgers would want you to be.
Re: (Score:2)
The first study shows expected additional cases due to radiation, the second shows total cases. The first study also includes a higher population in addition to the workers.
Here is a corrected comparison just using the worker population
Harvard study: Worker Population: Predicted cases of Leukemia up to 2005= 80
UNSCEAR study: Worker Population: Number of cases of Leukemia up to 2012 attributable
Re: (Score:2)
Nice ad hominem, dude.
It would seem you are adept at the ad-hom yourself using it in an attempt to discredit the evidence presented, whilst presenting none yourself.
Unless you have read the history of dealing with this troll you wouldn't really understand how exceptionally patient I've been. He has never provided any links or evidence to support his claims until the most recent posts and ad hom attacks have been his dominant characteristic among a number of other tactics. My patience is limited.
You aren't providing any good evidence (cell biology studies from the 70's don't count - methods were exceedingly primitive then, and if you can't cite anything more recent, you don't have much of a leg to stand on) either.
Yet you haven't shown me where t
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have a dog in this fight; my position is that you're being a jackass. I'm not trying to argue about the effects of radiation here. While Mr D has also not provided evidence, at least he was polite.
For some reason, I typo'd his name: he's Mr. Rogers [wikipedia.org]. Further [cracked.com] reading [cracked.com].
Re: (Score:2)
I am not entirely sure what your point is . The first number seems to be a prediction for a large group of affected people and the second the number of cases in a specific subgroup of people, so it does not contradict the first. In fact, the conclusion from the latter study is "We found a significant linear dose response for all leukemia".
Re:Too soon - Ad homs (Score:2)
Pointing out your use of an ad hominem is not, itself, an ad hominem.
However the way you used it, it was.
ad hominem:
adjective
1.appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2.attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
Had you decided not to include my argument in your statement(2), then it would not be. Since you did, it is.
my position is that you're being a jackass.
Welcome to slashdot Mr Ward. My position is you're coming off as a bit of a smart ass instead of the adult Mr Rogers want's you to be.
Some of use have Karma to
Re:Too soon - Tritium (Score:2)
I don't have a dog in this fight;
Mr D hasn't presented anything to back his claims other than his own diatribe and some quick google searches, so neither does he.
You however have said something very specific:
You aren't providing any good evidence (cell biology studies from the 70's don't count - methods were exceedingly primitive then, and if you can't cite anything more recent, you don't have much of a leg to stand on) either
Ok, help me out then. Are you referring me to more recent works on Tritium?
What are your specific criticisms of these studies, have they been dis-proven?
Are you telling me there is a reason why I should change my mind about the consequences of Tritium in the body, and where it is deposited when it gets there?
Are you suggesting th
Re: (Score:2)
The first study shows expected additional cases due to radiation, the second shows total cases. The first study also includes a higher population in addition to the workers. Harvard study: Worker Population: Predicted cases of Leukemia up to 2005= 80 UNSCEAR study: Worker Population: Number of cases of Leukemia up to 2012 attributable to radiation = 16
So somehow because you come out with a bunch of numbers about Leukemia cases that is supposed to disprove LNT? You're not even making any sense. The studies you linked to both support LNT. The second one goes even further:
We found a significant linear dose response for all leukemia
And further still by *specifically* mentioning low doses:
Exposure to low doses and to low dose-rates of radiation from post-Chornobyl cleanup work was associated with a significant increase in risk of leukemia, which was s
Re: (Score:2)
I am not entirely sure what your point is .
Neither am I, but I read them as well and it destroys his own argument. I have no idea where these fanboys come from however they all seem completely deluded. Arguing with them is like being in some sort of nonsensical alternate reality.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd suggest this paper [oxfordjournals.org], this one [iop.org], and this [iop.org]. Tritium is obviously dangerous, but it does appear that there is a low acceptable dose. DNA can certainly be damaged by radiation emitted from radionuclides, I don't think anybody will contest that. And of course, I agree that it's too early to pin cancer cases on Fukushima. The Japanese government should be handling this better, I fully agree on that point too.
Re: (Score:2)
I think your pseudonym is hilarious and very clever btw, so it's lovely to "meat" you.
Thanks! I've only had one person attack me for being an AC so far, but I still enjoy it.
Mr. Rogers was under-appreciated, I think. No worries - I know people do sockpuppet here, and it can be hard to tell the difference. I quite like that Voltaire quote, I may have to use
Re: (Score:2)
Damn man - you're really cool - thanks for being sane!
It's the joke that produces the reaction that is funny, I'll keep an eye out for the lols!!
All the best Mr Ward!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry it's taken me a while to reply.
No problem. I gisted them and these look like good studies. I will read them over the next couple of days - thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, we have a lot of confirming evidence that the LNT holds to very small doses.
Can you give a link?
Re: (Score:2)
We can statistically detect the effect from very low dose received in CT scans in large scale studies:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/s... [sciencedirect.com]
http://www.bmj.com/content/346... [bmj.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I'll go one step further since you pointed it out in the other discussion. Here is a list of some scientific studies on the effects of tritium, with references, in case there is any doubt regarding Triated water'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 inhaled, ingested, or absorbe
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The LINEAR part is wrong because intracellular coping mechanisms(DNA repair, mopping up reactive oxygen species(which is one of the damage modes of ionizing radiation)) have a range in which they function optimally. Asssuming a fully linear relationship there could no repair or maintenance done at all which is a ridiculous suggestion.
The NO THRESHOLD part doesn't hold up either as there's no detectable cancer rate curve among radiation worker that correlates to their doses inside the allowed intervals.
Re: (Score:2)
The LINEAR part is wrong because intracellular coping mechanisms(DNA repair, mopping up reactive oxygen species(which is one of the damage modes of ionizing radiation)) have a range in which they function optimally. Asssuming a fully linear relationship there could no repair or maintenance done at all which is a ridiculous suggestion.
Why do you think this? A linear relationship at low doses is fully consistent with repair. You are reading the wrong websites.
The NO THRESHOLD part doesn't hold up either as there's no detectable cancer rate curve among radiation worker that correlates to their doses inside the allowed intervals.
Radiation workers receive a very low dose, so obviously the minimal excess risk is hard to detect. But this does not imply it doesn't exist.
But funny: There just appeared a large scale study which claims to show this effect:
http://www.bmj.com/content/351... [bmj.com]
If we compare a radiation worker that only does administrative work and accumulates 1mSv to one that works in a hotlab and accumulates 16mSv we should see a 16 times increase in radiation related cancer according to the LNT, but that's not what we see in the real world.
There is a huge risk to get cancer anyway. What is 16 times bigger is the additional excess risk which is extremely small even i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am OK with the LNT model as long as it is used properly. It is conserva
Re: (Score:2)
The error bars are big enough to cover any conclusion you'd care to make.
Even the summary table shows U.S. workers with more cancer but lass radiation dose than U.K. workers.
Re: (Score:2)
The error bars are big enough to cover any conclusion you'd care to make.
Well, effects are small, but it is another study where the data is an agreement with LNT and provides no evidence for any non-linear effect. We also have large scale studies for exposure from CT with similar conclusions. At higher dose, we have the data from atomic bomb survivors which indicates a linear relationship. Finally, we have good understanding about how ionizing radiation causes cancer and this implies a linear relationship even at low dose, and there is not any convincing explanation or evidence
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, based on tyhe data, it's a study that shows LNT or inverse LNT or random results, depending on how you want to coerce the finding. Any of those and more will fit comfortably within the error bars.
We also have studies showing that people in higher background radiation get less cancer and that radiologists in the UK live longer than other medical professionals.
Since we know our cells have some ability to repair radiation damage but that it is rate limited, LNT would actually be an astonishing result
Re: (Score:2)
Since we know our cells have some ability to repair radiation damage but that it is rate limited, LNT would actually be an astonishing result.
You seem to believe this. As a physicist, I disagree. Even from very basic arguments it is clear that LNT is natural assumption. The effect is either purely statistical (each hit from ionizing radiation carries a very small independent risk that it is not repaired properly and causes cancer) : Then it must be linear. Or there is some kind of feedback mechanism, i.e. bit more radiation stimulates additional repair. Then it is also approximately linear for very small changes in radiation but maybe indeed be n
Re: (Score:2)
You don't get to assume spherical cows in a vacuum on this one.
One interesting study of radiologists showed they actually fared a bit better than people without that small extra dose of radiation. In other words, that small amount of occupational exposure had a NEGATIVE risk. In other words, LNT was OVER-estimating the risk of their exposure.
Meanwhile, a rate limited repair mechanism would imply a threshold point where the harm goes way up once above it, or if you prefer, it goes down on the low side.
Even
Re: (Score:2)
You don't get to assume spherical cows in a vacuum on this one.
One interesting study of radiologists showed they actually fared a bit better than people without that small extra dose of radiation.
You can find "interesting studies" showing that homeopathy work etc... I work with MDs who expose themselves to radiation to help others. I have also worked in a radiotherapy lab in the past. I am not scared of radiation. But I know most of the related literature and the overwhelming consensus is that radiation is harmful at any dose. The idea that LNT is obsolete is a fringe position in the scientific community which almost nobody even takes seriously.
Meanwhile, a rate limited repair mechanism would imply a threshold point where the harm goes way up once above it, or if you prefer, it goes down on the low side.
This is true, but this is a highly contrived scenario.
Re: (Score:2)
"lose dose" -> "low dose" ... estimates dose" -> "LNT ... estimates risk"
"LNT
Re: (Score:2)
This is true, but this is a highly contrived scenario. Why would a repair mechanism be rate-limited at such low doses?
It is an OBSERVED scenario. Evolution is a funny thing and tends to be "lazy". It tends to also concern itself only with conditions that are encountered in nature at the time it evolves. I can guess that the mechanism requires some stimulus to work at all because it costs energy. I can guess that it has a limited capacity due to practicality and the unlikely usefulness at higher exposure.
This is not the simplest model.
Yes, if we agree to toss reality and observation out the window, we can just put a dot at the origin and call it good. It
Re: (Score:2)
Again, that you think that googling for confirmation is a meaningful contribution in a scientific discussion just shows how detached you are from reality.
Re: (Score:1)
The levels released at the plant were way beyond low level, background radiation. You know that background radiation is far lower. It is obvious that more than enough radiation was released to cause cancer in some of the people exposed. Biology has a lot of tricks to repair DNA, but it only can do so much. When the double strand breaks get too numerous, repair becomes impossible. If the damaged cells fail to undergo apoptosis, they may turn cancerous.
Re: (Score:2)
For those interested, there is a vast amount of research you can look into at PubMed, like this article. The folks here at /. who dismiss radiation risks are not being realistic. There is a big difference between background radiation and a nuclear plant core meltdown in terms of isotopes and exposure levels.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... [nih.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
You can make very good arguments to why one should not freak out about radiation even from accidents such as Fukushima. But please, dear nuclear fanboys, don't base it on non-mainstream scientific positions (to put it nicely) such as "LNT is wrong". This only makes you look stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
I think asserting that something as complicated as risk of cancer, which has multiple mechanisms, in the human body, which has multiple defense, from radiation, which has multiple sources and modes of exposure, just so happens to be a linear relationship with a zero crossing makes you look stupid. As I previously wrote the LNT is great for policy on prevention and protection of workers but reality is quite different.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it is the low dose regime, where the effect is believed to be essentially statistical which means that it must be linear (the risk from individual double strand breaks to get cancer accumulates). Of course you can speculate that there is a non-statistical effect because some kind of response mechanism is triggered by radiation which goes beyond simple repair mechanisms which are always active. Such mechanisms exist but there is not much evidence that they play a role at very low doses. It is also obv
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By saying yes it causes cancer, and then dismissing that fact you just said nothing. Do you agree that more than enough radiation was released from the melted cores to cause cancer in the people exposed to enough of it? Do you also admit that people have greatly different levels of ability to repair their DNA based on their genetics? Therefore, some people almost certainly got exposed to enough radiation there, including plant workers trying to handle the crisis, got enough exposure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As for this particular study, they know the tumors found in the first screenings are not due to Fukushima because they know the size and growth rate of tumors, and can us
Re: (Score:2)
Everything you said was correct except for "It is obvious that more than enough radiation was released to cause cancer in some of the people exposed". What I am saying is that the LNT model is fine for setting policies for safety. But it doesn't do a good job of predicting the number of cancers in a situation like this. You would need to know the dose history for each individual.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, but if you have watched any of the videos from the area where people are walking around with dosimeters that are showing substantial radiation levels miles from the plant, then obviously people were exposed, and because many cancers won't show up for 5, 10 or even 20 years, that we can expect more cases.
I was a big fan of nuclear power decades ago when I was a kid. Now as an adult biologist, I am not so much of a fan anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Radiation and DNA don't mix well. In a few more years more cases will show up. I am sure the workers all took extra iodine to protect their thyroid gland, but that won't prevent things like leukemia.
There are some studies ( and more that are needed ) that show that people living in areas with a "high" ( at least higher than normal ) background radiation have a significantly reduced risk of cancer over-all.
Whether that is from the elevated radiation levels destroying mutations faster than they form, or an evolutionary process where people with resistance to genetic mutations that lead to cancer survive to make up the population is what is being looked into.
I personally don't think that it is the evolu
Re: (Score:2)
You may be talking about radiation hormesis, where low doses that are above background levels cause defense and repair mechanisms to kick in. So a test plant or animal might have a response that looks beneficial, even though it is happening because of a biological stressor. However, the studies that I have read on this don't ever talk about humans, they talk about bacteria, plants and insects and things like that. Plus, they are talking several times background radiation, not hundreds of times.
the ATA and the ITC (Score:2)
radiation caused by... (Score:1)
screening (Score:5, Insightful)
If you give everyone an ultrasound then you find lots of nodules and cysts. Repeat the study in other parts of japan unaffected by radiation and you get the same.
http://www.nature.com/articles... [nature.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Oh please no, I can see the headline now:
"Fukushima accident caused high rates of cancer in Kagoshima, BE AFRAID!"
Re:screening (Score:4, Insightful)
That was considered and rejected in the study showing elevated levels of thyroid cancer:
The investigators noted that the approximately 30-fold overall increase in thyroid cancer incidence might be the result of a screening effect, meaning there could be silent thyroid cancer cases among children in the unscreened parts of Japan. They conclude, however, that the magnitude of the IRRs is too large to be explained by such an effect.
They also compared this to the closest analog event in the history of nuclear power. âoeIn Chernobyl, excesses of thyroid cancer became more remarkable 4 or 5 years after the accident in Belarus and Ukraine, so the observed excess alerts us to prepare for more potential cases within a few years,â the authors wrote.
This seems to be directly at odds with some of the claims made by this new study. A 30x increase seems difficult to explain away by better screening - especially when you look at the timing. If it was merely due to screening you would expect the higher levels to have been immediately apparent after the accident, rather than taking years to emerge. The new study also notes that the age of the victims does not align with what would normally be expected, but does not offer an explanation as to why.
Re: (Score:2)
This seems to be directly at odds with some of the claims made by this new study.
The study *assumed* the higher rate was not due to a higher screening rate, but that assumption did not hold up when someone actually looked at real data instead of making an unsubstantiated assumption.
We were surprised to see so many children with thyroid cancer,” said Dr. Nagataki, of Nagasaki University, the Radiation Effects Research Foundation in Hiroshima, and the Radiation Effects Association in Tokyo. But “We did not find regional differences in the prevalence of thyroid cancer within Fukushima Prefecture...The confirmed thyroid cancers identified in post-disaster screening thus far “appear to have already occurred prior to radiation exposure,” Dr. Suzuki argued. ”
Re: (Score:2)
We were surprised to see so many children with thyroid cancer,â said Dr. Nagataki, of Nagasaki University, the Radiation Effects Research Foundation in Hiroshima, and the Radiation Effects Association in Tokyo. But âoeWe did not find regional differences in the prevalence of thyroid cancer within Fukushima Prefecture...The confirmed thyroid cancers identified in post-disaster screening thus far âoeappear to have already occurred prior to radiation exposure,â Dr. Suzuki argued. â
The journalist who wrote this article seems to be really confused here. It's like they chopped together a few unrelated statements that they thought were building towards the same point. Let's break it down:
1. There are a surprising number of children with thyroid cancer. It isn't clear what is surprising - merely the number above the normally detected rate, or the number above the expected rate when you do mass screening.
2. They did not find regional differences within Fukushima prefecture. This contradict
Re: (Score:2)
They are careful, as they should be, to not draw any conclusions as to how many cancers may eventually arise due to Fukushima radiation or any other cause
Cherry Picking (Score:2)
Radiation is dangerous and causes cancer. We know this, and have repeatedly proven that fact. We cover ourselves in lead when getting X-rays, and the operator takes the picture from a different and shielded room because radiation is dangerous. We have evacuated areas contaminated with radiation because decades of testing found radiation to be deadly in numerous ways both long term and short term.
That children near Fukushima may have the same risks as children in a different area for one particular type o
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody disagrees that ionising radiation can cause cancer. But at the small doses that members of the public were exposed to there is valid debate over whether the increase in cancer risk is zero, almost zero or just tiny. Sensational headlines spread fear and stress, which likely is having a worse effect on people than the actual radiation.
The courage of my convictions (Score:2)
I did my own study on the effects of radiation. Here are my findings:
https://youtu.be/6YEarMyIAzs [youtu.be]
What happened to the iodine tablets? (Score:3)
Based on current knowledge, there *shouldn't* be any occurrences of thyroid cancer. Thyroid cancer caused by these circumstances is a known problem with a known solution: giving everyone iodine tabets for a couple weeks. The solution is so simple and solid that this shouldn't have even need to be discussed.
Yet for some reason tablets were not dispensed (http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201108298140), and now 'experts' are being paraded around to downplay real concerns.
People like to claim that Fukushima shows the dangers of nuclear energy. It didn't. It showed the dangers of what happens when you hire idiots to run important infrastructure companies. It shows the dangers of electing scientifically ignorant morons to run a country.
Now Japan is going to blanket the country with coal plants, which is ultimately going to be even worse because of all the radioactive elements that are gonna be spewed into the atmosphere. And that's ignoring the particulate crap and other compounds that will also be spewed from the coal, and the massive consumption of precious land that will now be necessary to hold all these new plants.
Re: (Score:2)
FYI - Just in China about 270000 people die due to coal-plants per year..
I just don't care whether LNT models are right (Score:2)
While the vitriol washes across the page and the duelling citations go to great indent levels, I'd just like to say, I don't care.
Nobody cares about the 24,000 people dying of coal-related causes in the US every year (over 100,000 world wide), they're just dismissed (emotionally speaking, which translates to newspaper column-inches and TV minutes) as "background", life is tough, has some risks, cars hit people, crazy people shoot innocent people...etc.
So you guys go ahead and argue whether the worldwide can
Thyroid cancer? Doubt it. (Score:2)
Hey everybody, it's cool! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would not want to move my children to somewhere that is increasing its fossil fuel use.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That example was so bad it hurts. The position is "this data is not enough to say that these cancers were caused by radiation" that is completely different and much more rational.