national

57 Fukushima children suffering from thyroid cancer

47 Comments

Researchers studying the short- and long-term effects of radiation in the wake of the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant incident have examined the thyroid glands of approximately 296,000 children living in the prefecture.

Test results showed that of the children tested, 104 were suspected of having thyroid cancer, and of that group, 57 were tested further and officially diagnosed with thyroid cancer, TBS reported Monday.

The tests, conducted by Fukushima Medical University, isolated the effects of radiation on they thyroid gland, and specifically targeted children who were under the age of 18 at the time of the nuclear accident on March 11, 2011. A committee comprised of experts publicly announced their findings on Sunday, TBS reported.

According to Fukushima prefectural health officials, the frequency of thyroid patients was not too different between areas directly around the Fukushima plant evacuation zone, and areas further away, TBS reported. Researchers said they cannot conclusively say that the latest thyroid cancer cases are related to the events at the Fukushima power plant.

In order to examine the effects of radiation exposure, tests will continue to be conducted for the next two years until the test subjects turn 20 years old. After that, follow-up tests will be conducted five years from that point in order to gauge longer-term effects of radiation.

© Japan Today

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

47 Comments
Login to comment

Send all medical expenses to TEPCO.

13 ( +17 / -4 )

Who are these "researchers" doing the studies? Who is this "committee comprised of experts"? Who are these experts? Who are these "Fukushima prefectural officials"? Come on JT, please dig into the details and provide them, rather than being ambiguous. You are watering down your own credibility with this vagueness. Of course prefectural officials and the researchers assigned by them are going to say they cannot conclusively say the cancer is related to the accident. But I have also seen other scientific studies (not commissioned by the prefectural officials) that statistically show an almost incontrovertible link between the accident and cancer rates. There are many studies. Why not a review of them all?

0 ( +7 / -7 )

Brought to you by TEPCO.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

the frequency of thyroid patients was not too different between areas directly around the Fukushima plant evacuation zone, and areas further away

"Not too different?" What exactly does that mean? This whole article reads like a defensive and non-conclusive pile of rubbish! How does the thyroid cancer rate in children compare with the rate in say, Okinawa? Thyroid cancer is not a common ailment in children! Unless, they come from areas near the Fukushima plant, of course!

10 ( +18 / -8 )

Dear Nightshade

JT is an information provider site. It does not have the resources or mandate to "dig into details".

It gives us readers a site to share information ideas and opinions.

Which makes it a fun and informative place.

If you come across any research or information that statistically show(s) an almost incontrovertible link between the accident and cancer rates. Please post here as it would be of interest to all.

Please do not quote Caldicott!

All the best Gary

5 ( +10 / -5 )

Shhhh!

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

So what is causing the thyroid cancer in children? What is causing insect mutations? What is causing mass sea life die offs in the Pacific? What is causing countries around the world to ban Japanese goods?

Any researchers dare to make a link?

0 ( +11 / -11 )

Disgusting Japan, hang your head in shame.

-9 ( +9 / -18 )

Dear Kurisupisu

Just came back for my daughter's wedding in Iwaki city, Fukushima. Iwaki is 40 Kilo south of the nuclear plant.

After wedding went to an izakaya for a quiet drink.

In the area where we went (near ther station) most of the little bars are run by evacuees. Actually they have enlivened a once dead precinct.

We sat down and were greeted with, "Are you here to work on the plant?" Spent the next 2 hours drinking (for FREE), talking to and listening to a group of 8 locals. Surfer, photographer, barkeep, fishers, farmer. truck driver etc. GREAT PEOPLE and Not tsupid.

According to the fisher, now, there is 3 times the amount of fish and sea life in the area around the plant now than before the disaster!!

So my question is where did you get this gem?

What is causing mass sea life die offs in the Pacific?

All the best

gary

9 ( +16 / -7 )

@Gary Malmgren I know Iwaki very well. So well that when Pico Iyer wrote a piece for Vanity Fair about Fukushima I could quickly see what he got wrong about Iwaki (much, much). Not sure what you mean about the "once dead precinct." Iwaki Station is in Taira and that area was never dead ...

There well could be 3 times the amount of sea life in the area and I surmise that is because the area is no longer over-fished.

11 ( +12 / -1 )

The precinct around Chernobyl was also "flourishing" with flora and fauna in the years after that awful meltdown. Watching some documentaries of the time, some locals even pointed to this "new life " - caused by the absence of human interference - as proof that all was OK. The evidence, however, is that dangerous mutations were, and still are, being found in the biology of said flora and fauna.

Whatever the source of cancer of these precious little kids, I hope and pray for their complete recovery. I can't even imagine the emotions their mums and dads are feeling.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

@Garymalmgren

Please put 'mass die offs in pacific sea life' into whatever browser you choose and take a look at the links

It is also important to take note of the sea currents and wind direction To understand why we see this type of news.

All the best to you too

0 ( +2 / -2 )

"Not too different"? Really? Can we please get an honest-to-goodness measure of statistical significance here? We have science for a reason.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

The amount of fish off the coast of Fukushima is unrelated to the thyroid cancers of the children in the post.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

@GaryMalmgren OK, so you went to your daughters wedding in Iwaki and spoke to a few locals. They were smiling and drinking with you. Are you trying to say because things look normal there that everything is normal there? I have to say I would not be happy if my daughter was living so close to where a nuclear meltdown has occurred. Your 'feelings' can't negate the fact that 57 children in Fukushima have thyroid cancer!

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Not good to be sure...but I would like to hear more details on this. The increase in animals around Fukushima is a good thing, but it indicates little or nothing about the health of these children (different issue). I found this one:

http://enenews.com/former-official-fukushima-radiation-killing-children-heart-problems-asthma-leukemia-terrible-going-authorities-hiding-truth-world-need-admit-many-people-dying-video

Any others ? (more sources welcome)...

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The university medical departments at Hiroshima and Nagasaki have got to be the best in the country when it comes to research on the long term effects of radiations.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Okay, this article is badly written, so I'll do my best here:

have examined the thyroid glands of approximately 296,000 children living in the prefecture. Test results showed that of the children tested, 104 were suspected of having thyroid cancer, and of that group, 57 were tested further and officially diagnosed with thyroid cancer,

I'm unclear on one point here. It says that 104 children were suspected of having thyroid cancer, by that only 57 were given further testing and diagnosed. In the spirit of caution I'm going to assume that the remaining 47 were tested and found not to have thyroid cancer, although I'm not sure because of the poor wording of the article.

That puts the prevalence of thyroid cancer at 57 in 296 000 children, or 19.66 per 100 000 (prevalences of diseases are normally expressed per 100 000 people).

The normal lifetime prevalence of thyroid cancer is 12.9 per 100 000, although this includes adults and the prevalence is far higher in adults. Cases people under 20 only constitute 1.8% of all cases. The rate for children should be about 0.54 cases per 100 000 population, although the rate varies for boys and girls, so it might be as high as 0.89 if the sample was mostly female children. (http://www.thyroid.org/wp-content/uploads/publications/clinthy/volume21/issue10/clinthy_v2110_10_12.pdf) (http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jtr/2011/845362/)

Therefore the child thyroid cancer rate in the Fukushima area is about 22 to 36 times higher than it should be.

I hope this puts this article into context. Despite the positive tone of the article the situation is actually quite horrendous.

9 ( +16 / -7 )

Why NOT they make the REPORT Public ? Just publish the DATA in public and let everyone know about it, instead of covering and manipulating under the Govt. pressure.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Dear all

I'm sorry if I have caused a bit of confusion by throwing in the bit about fishes.

I was simply responing to Kurisupisu san's line about What is causing mass sea life die offs in the Pacific? By saying that the fishers in Iwaki haven't seen such a phenomena. Quite the contrary they have seen an increase in the number of fish. This would obviously be due to the reduction in fishing in the area. As Ash Edwards san pointed out.

This no way deminshes my horror at children in the affected areas developing cancers as a result of exposure to fallout and thank Fungy for supplying the science that highlights this disaster. As I mentioned this exchange of information and ideas is why I come here

Thank you all.

Gary

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Therefore the child thyroid cancer rate in the Fukushima area is about 22 to 36 times higher than it should be.

I hope this puts this article into context. Despite the positive tone of the article the situation is actually quite horrendous.

The problem is the mismatch in data sets you are trying to compare. The Fukushima testing is screening at a level that detects cysts that under previous screenings would not be deemed of clinical significance. It's giving us cases of thyroid cancer that would not be recorded as such before. The real difficultly is that we have no dataset comparison for this age group using the same testing method to compare it with. We should be gathering evidence from completely unaffected areas under the same conditions. But as of yet we don't have that data.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Why does this article not publish the average rate of thyroid cancer among children??? XX per 100,000. For all we know 56 among 300,000 is way below average. Maybe it's ten times normal. Some sort of comparison would be nice.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@frungy

your data is all over the place, and you seem to be trying to fill in the gaps of knowledge with guesses and not facts.

another possible reason for the higher incidence rate is that all kids are being tested, which is unprecendented. the sampe size you quote from is the average popluation with only a few thousand people being tested. furthermore, testing equipment is hyper sensitive and is detecting the tiniest of lesions. Experts have warned that this could be a reason for the higher incedence rate: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/09/fukushima-children-debate-thyroid-cancer-japan-disaster-nuclear-radiation

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

In another media article they stated there were 104 children with thyroid cancers? The Wall St Journal states

"found 57 minors in the prefecture have been diagnosed with thyroid cancer so far and another 46 are showing symptoms that suggest they may also have the disease."

Still unclear if 104 have cancer or just the 46, and their number adds up to 101?

The WSJ also states

"The research found there was no regional difference between areas close to the nuclear power plant and those farther away. The percentage of those found to have thyroid cancer in the town of Okuma near the plant and the town of Inawashiro, located approximately 100 kilometres to the west, was 0.05% in each case."

The level of thyroid investigations of all the 296,000 children within Fukushima is far higher than when children in other prefectures are also investigated. This would increase the number of cases. If 296,000 children were investigated in Hokkaido, what would the figure be?

I think the figures are high whether its 57 or 104 children. In Japan, the normal incidence rate of this disease among children is one or two for every million.

I believe the number of children in the prefecture is 360,000? 296,000 were screened.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Just the beginning. The residents continue to be treated disgracefully and i bet the medical fallout of this will also be dealt with in an underhand and wholly inadequate way by TEPCO and the government

2 ( +3 / -1 )

zorkenAug. 26, 2014 - 11:33AM JST The problem is the mismatch in data sets you are trying to compare. The Fukushima testing is screening at a level that detects cysts that under previous screenings would not be deemed of clinical significance. It's giving us cases of thyroid cancer that would not be recorded as such before. The real difficultly is that we have no dataset comparison for this age group using the same testing method to compare it with. We should be gathering evidence from completely unaffected areas under the same conditions. But as of yet we don't have that data.

So what are you saying here Zorken, that these results have no clinical significance? When I was at med school advanced detection techniques didn't render cancer statistics irrelevant. Cancer does not tend to just go away on its own, it grows, and what these statistics show is that these kids have thyroid cancer now, even if it will only be detectable as thyroid cancer using normal screening techniques in a decade or so.

The cancer rate in Fukushima still exceeds the lift-time prevalence, therefore the statistics I cited are relevant.

rickyveeAug. 26, 2014 - 11:44AM JST your data is all over the place, and you seem to be trying to fill in the gaps of knowledge with guesses and not facts.

Here's a hint, you could try being polite for once? The statistics I have are putting those statistics in the article in context.

another possible reason for the higher incidence rate is that all kids are being tested, which is unprecendented. the sampe size you quote from is the average popluation with only a few thousand people being tested. furthermore, testing equipment is hyper sensitive and is detecting the tiniest of lesions. Experts have warned that this could be a reason for the higher incedence rate: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/09/fukushima-children-debate-thyroid-cancer-japan-disaster-nuclear-radiation

That is why I included the life-time prevalence for adults too, because cancer does not tend to go away naturally. Even by the life-time standard (i.e. in a decade or more when these children's cancers would be detectable using current techniques) the rate is still too high.. WAY too high.

With all due respect, your argument is also flawed. The screening techniques that Japan has access to are the same as those employed in other first world countries, which is why I compared the Japanese statistics with international first-world statistics. Japan does not have a monopoly on sensitive cancer screening technology.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Yeah, no... No link to Fukushima at all, I'm sure. Just pure koinky-dink.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

So what are you saying here Zorken, that these results have no clinical significance? When I was at med school advanced detection techniques didn't render cancer statistics irrelevant.

No, the opposite. I think these do have clinical significance - it's the largest screening of preadolescent thyroid cancer I've read seen. I sort of understand what you are saying with the statistics - but I don't think that you're making a distinction between this (a specific screening program) and general worldwide statistics. If Fukushima's thyroid cancer is "way too high" then why do the Nagasaki, Aomori and Yamanashi screening all reveal similar results? The clinical significance of these results could be that undiagnosed thyroid cancer is more prevalent than we currently think.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Boo!!!!

Well, I'm back again. If I confused you with the fishes, this should REALLY muddy the waters.

It has me stumped. (source: Wiki )

the overwhelming majority of thyroid cancers are overdiagnosed (that is, will never cause any symptoms, illness, or death for the patient, even if nothing is ever done about the cancer). Including these overdiagnosed cases skews the statistics by lumping clinically significant cases in with apparently harmless cancers.[24] Thyroid cancer is incredibly common, with autopsy studies of people dying from other causes showing that more than one third of older adults technically has thyroid cancer, which is causing them no harm.

Over and OUT

Gary

0 ( +1 / -1 )

zorkenAug. 26, 2014 - 02:29PM JST No, the opposite. I think these do have clinical significance - it's the largest screening of preadolescent thyroid cancer I've read seen. I sort of understand what you are saying with the statistics - but I don't think that you're making a distinction between this (a specific screening program) and general worldwide statistics. If Fukushima's thyroid cancer is "way too high" then why do the Nagasaki, Aomori and Yamanashi screening all reveal similar results? The clinical significance of these results could be that undiagnosed thyroid cancer is more prevalent than we currently think.

... 22 times higher than previously found in VERY large samples (like the two studies I cited)? ... Or higher than the meta-analyses that compared literally MILLIONS of people around the world as recently as 2011?

Just because it is a larger screening than you've read doesn't mean that it is the largest screening on record. Nor has the technology advanced hugely in the last 3 years.

You know where we HAVE seen similar results? In surrounding countries after Chernobyl. That's the answer here, not some mysterious statistical error to the tune of 2200% by every single clinical study before this date, the answer is the radiation.

Occam's razor mate. Your explanation requires every single study on thyroid cancer for the last decade (and there are literally hundreds) to be incorrect, and not just a little incorrect, but incorrect by 2200%. My explanation requires the Japanese government to have under-reported the size of the contamination and how wide-spread it was... which we already have plenty of evidence that they did, not once but multiple times.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

57 out of 296,000 children in the prefecture have thyroid cancer. That sounds like a lot to me, but I would like to know what the rate of thyroid cancer is in other prefectures, for comparison.

After googling, I found out that in the U.S., one in 1,000 to 2,000 children below the age of 20 are diagnosed with thyroid cancer each year. To put that statistic in perspective, if 296,000 children were tested for thyroid cancer in the U.S., we should expect to find between 296 and 148 thyroid carcinomas, which is far more than the number of cases found near Fukushima.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Researchers said they cannot conclusively say that the latest thyroid cancer cases are related to the events at the Fukushima power plant.

Of course they can never be 100% sure, but what is the statistical likelihood? They have no difficulty attributing the causes of illnesses in people who were in Hiroshima or Nagasaki 69 years ago to the atomic bombings. If the same methodology was used for the Fukushima victims what would the figures be?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

" According to Fukushima prefectural health officials, the frequency of thyroid patients was not too different between areas directly around the Fukushima plant evacuation zone, and areas further away, "

...so they found no correlation. They did NOT find what they set out to find. Nix, zilch, zero. No Tepco to blame.

So how does the article writer manage to make the article sound as if they found something? This misinformation campaign is really getting ridiculous.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

According to "Cancer Research UK" the UK rate for thyroid cancer from ages 0 - 19 inclusive is 3 in 100,000.

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/cancerstats/types/thyroid/incidence/uk-thyroid-cancer-incidence-statistics#By2

This is the rate for thyroid cancers, not thyroid nodules. Thyroid nodules are more common but not necessarily cancerous. However, thyroid nodules are still very dangerous in children and need to be examined and watched carefully.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

WilliBAug. 26, 2014 - 05:49PM JST

" According to Fukushima prefectural health officials, the frequency of thyroid patients was not too different between areas directly around the Fukushima plant evacuation zone, and areas further away, "

...so they found no correlation. They did NOT find what they set out to find. Nix, zilch, zero. No Tepco to blame.

Umm... no. You're leaping to the conclusion that the radiation was as isolated as the government claims. The effects of Chernobyl were seen in elevated cancer rates as far as 1 000 kilometers away. That the surrounding prefectures are also effected should come as zero surprise to anyone.

The correct measure is to identify if the cancer rate is above the international norm, which it is by a LOT (22 times higher). Now we can't be SURE that the radiation caused it, but there's nothing else that links all those areas apart from their proximity to Fukushima.

So how does the article writer manage to make the article sound as if they found something? This misinformation campaign is really getting ridiculous.

... because they did find something, which the writer completely misrepresented, and presented to the public without contextualising the statistics.

The article would read very differently if it was headlined, "Thyroid Cancer Rates 22 Times Higher Amongst Children in Fukushima and Surrounding Prefectures!"

0 ( +3 / -3 )

According to the American Cancer Society, there will be an estimated 62,980 new cases of thyroid cancer in 2014, and of those 2% will be children and teens, which is 1,240 cases. According to US Census Burea, 0-19 age population in 2013 is about 82,000,000. That works out to be 1.5 cases per 100.000 population.

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/thyroidcancer/detailedguide/thyroid-cancer-key-statistics

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Please put 'mass die offs in pacific sea life' into whatever browser you choose

I can put 'bigfoot' into whatever browser I choose and find a lot of links too. Both actions are pointless.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I hope that TEPCO steps up and takes responsibility and make sure these victims and all future victims are covered.

Children and the Elderly must always be taken care of.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

TEPCO doesn't want any of the blame they should pay the cost of all medical expenses and treatment for these kids. If there is a law suit the only thingTEPCO will say is “We will study the verdict and respond in a sincere way,”

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Test results showed that of the children tested, 104 were suspected of having thyroid cancer, and of that group, 57 were tested further and officially diagnosed with thyroid cancer, TBS reported Monday.

It is likely that 104 were first diagnosed with sufficiently large thyroid nodes, of those further tests revealed 57 of those cases were examined further and diagnosed as thyroid cancer. A quote from MedcineNet.com explains as follows:

As in adults, a thyroid nodule (localized lump or mass) is a common symptom of thyroid cancer. Thyroid nodules that develop in children and adolescents are even more likely to be cancerous than thyroid masses in adults. In adults with thyroid nodules, only about 5% turn out to be cancer. In children and teens, that percentage increases to over 26%. All children or teens who develop a lump in the thyroid or neck should be evaluated by a physician in order to ensure early diagnosis and treatment if cancer is indeed present. The prognosis is usually excellent for children who have cancer that has not spread outside of the thyroid gland.

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=12510

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Let's get some of the facts for estimates in USA people which should not be too far off from any other race, but what do I know--this is a start.

The American Cancer Society’s estimates for thyroid cancer in the United States for 2014 are: About 62,980 new cases of thyroid cancer (47,790 in women, and 15,190 in men) About 1,890 deaths from thyroid cancer (1,060 women and 830 men)

Let's say the USA has about 300M people so 60,000/300,000,000 100% = 1/50,000 100% = 0.0002% (i didnt use calculator so i think this is right).

Now use this fact:

About 2% of thyroid cancers occur in children and teens.

2% of 0.0002% is 0.000004% (also im doing this in my head so anyone can double check.)

Now take 4x10E-6 and times by Fukushima area children's population and you will get your answer on how many kids should have thyroid cancer.

Fukushima prefecture has a population of 2,030,463, of which 385,940 persons are under 20 years of age.1

Now I do not have population for let's say children under 10 so let's guestimate that half of 385k would be this approx number: 192.5k = 200k. We use simple numbers. So 200k children in Fushima area.

4x10E-6 * 2(10E5) = 8x10E-1 = 0.8 children!

Now the article says 57 and my approx number is 1. We are closing in on what is normal but I suggest someone now use the exact figures since by error it is possible I am off by 10X. If I would have came out to a number that is 100X different then I would have concluded that these thyroid cases are because of the nuclear issue in Fukushima. If this difference of about 57 times between theoretical levels and actual then the Fukushima radiation levels are definitely the cause.

Why can't the media make this clear as it is so simple and yet I had to do this.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@Mike O'Brien

Why is that? Oh right,Bigfoot has never been shown to be an actual recordable phenomena whereas the release of over a quadrillion bequerels at Fukushima has (according to NHK news) The correlation between the incidents of cancer and radiation has been proven many times. Cancer, in many cases results in death

Maybe you don't look at the results of the studies Mike?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@Gem Ofa Person ... Let's say the USA has about 300M people so ...

Your emotions are valid but your logic is faulty. Since you quoted my post I'll just point out that mathematically you must divide (#cases in age bracket) / (population of age bracket), which is how I obtained the expected 1.5 per 100,000 figure from the ACS's page and US census data, for which I gave the links. It is mathematically incorrect to apply the percentage 2% to the overall rate, as you have done.

Cancer research UK gave a rate of 3 cases per 100,000 (see my first post). Frungy earlier gave a rate from thyroid.org of 0.58 cases per 100,000 "for children"( it's not clear to me if that includes teenagers or not, the figure should rise if teenagers were not originally included in the 0.58 figure). That is 3 references from respectable and knowledgeable primary sources.

1glenn provided a figure of 150 per 100,000 or greater, but omitted a reference, so the figure should be ignored.

As Frungy informatively pointed out in an earlier post, the examinations yielded a rate of 20 per 100,00 (jamong those examined). It is significantly higher than any of the validated estimates for US and UK.

@garymalmgren ... the overwhelming majority of thyroid cancers are overdiagnosed

The cases of children/teenagers and the elderly are vastly different. Cancers will grow more quickly in a young and healthy person, one they get a good foothold. Also, young people have a lot more to lose, and they can better get over an operation.

I would venture that there is gray area about growths which are on the borderline between "thyroid nodules" and "thyroid cancer". If you look at my previous post you will see there is 5% chance of a nodule become cancerous in an adult, but a 26% chance in 0-19 year old. Now if we take a hypothetical elderly person who may be suffering health problems already, and find they have a 5% chance of thyroid cancer, AND a %5 chance of breast/testicular cancer, AND a %5 percent chance of stomach cancer, etc., it may be worse to perform all those operations because it will probably kill them or at least make their lives miserable. But if a 15 year old kid has a 26% chance of dying from thyroid cancer, and a 99% percent chance of leading a full healthy life after an operation, an operation needs to be seriously considered (assuming health care coverage exists).

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The costs of monitoring the health of all the 2 million Fukushima citizens for the next 30 years, which includes monitoring children for thyroid cancer will be paid by the prefecture government who will request the funds from the central government. Nothing will be paid by TEPCO unless the prefecture government decides to make a claim against TEPCO. All the monitoring programs, including the children are voluntary ones.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Thanks for the information, Zichi. It is difficult for me to trust those people who get a major "benefit" from turning on the NPPs due to their conflict of interest. They may even be right in some things, but they have a strong incentive to suppress the truth.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nothing will be paid by TEPCO

Well except as someone has pointed out time and again the majority owner of TEPCO is the government. So the government paying and TEPCO paying are mostly the same thing.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Well except as someone has pointed out time and again the majority owner of TEPCO is the government. So the government paying and TEPCO paying are mostly the same thing.

Except the government only owns 51% of the worthless stock but is paying 100% of the costs of the nuclear disaster?

A review of the nuclear liability law is needed because the sum of |120 billion for a nuclear accident is way too low when eventually the cost of the nuclear disaster will exceed ¥50 trillion.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites