national

Fukushima meltdown unlikely to cause many cancers: U.N. scientists

64 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2014.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

64 Comments
Login to comment

I feel so relived now. Not a care in the world.

10 ( +14 / -4 )

Well jeez, only a FEW cancers then! Phew!!

9 ( +16 / -7 )

This doesn't mean you now have to love TEPCO or nuclear power, but at least accept it for what it is: genuinely good news.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

The report also said,

"While risk models by inference suggest increased cancer risk, cancers induced by radiation are indistinguishable at present from other cancers," the committee said.

The estimated dose for 1-year-old infants in the thyroid -- an organ particularly susceptible to radiation -- was estimated to be up to 80 millisieverts in the first year in the affected districts after the accident, it said. In contrast, for adults, the dose remained mostly below the critical threshold of 50 mSv.

The results presented in the latest report differ from those in a report published by the World Health Organization in February 2013 that warned of higher cancer risks for residents around the nuclear power plant and plant workers.

Some cancers can take many years to develop. The monitoring of children and adults in the prefecture will go on for at least 30 years with enormous costs involved.

UNSCLEAR also stated there was still insufficient DATA to be 100% conclusive, and the topic will need a revisit in several years time.

12 ( +19 / -7 )

I wonder who will be first to accuse TEPCO of bribing the UN, lol

-2 ( +8 / -10 )

ls Fukushima Daiichi contained?? Did l miss something??? Exposed melted Reactors pose no threat to health... Deja Vu

3 ( +7 / -4 )

The results presented in the latest report differ from those in a report published by the World Health Organization in February 2013 that warned of slightly higher cancer risks for residents around the nuclear power plant and plant workers.

I corrected that for you.

-5 ( +7 / -12 )

Unlikely, did not expect “significant changes”. “we are not sure that this is going to be something that will be captured in the thyroid cancer statistics in future”...a tad vague and ambiguous. Report has been published in undue haste, quite unconvincing, lacking in clarity so unfit for propose.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

It don't matter much to those living thousands of miles away from Fukushima? There will still be the stress of living in Fukushima not knowing if cancers will develop or not and quite frankly, the nuclear disaster is far from over or even under control which will take many decades and well into the next century but still leaving the problem of what to do with all the highly irradiated nuclear waste from the nuclear disaster site and the decommissioning of the fleet of 48 reactors?

4 ( +12 / -8 )

Wonder how much they have been bribed to say that and indirectly support Shinzo Abe's plans to re-start all the nuclear reactors. Perhaps a few more devastating earthquakes, tsunamis and destruction of nuclear reactors would be more convincing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I do not consider the risk low, if there are 1,000 children in the "expected to be increased" category. How about the young adults that are not so different from children compared to the elderly of maybe 70 years or older? How about their risks?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

We'll, it isn't under control, contained nor looking to be that way for a decade or more. Not factoring in another major quake either. So, I think I will wait and see.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

This is assuming that the numbers of 'ill effects' from Chernobyl are credible. Some researchers put the numbers much, much higher. My boss here in Japan grew up in Poland at the time. She has first hand knowledge of very high cancer rates among family in friends who have lived in Poland since the accident. I think there is still a need for a lot of concern here in Japan.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

It's interesting when Zichi posts something which is exaggerated he receives praise, this is what the report said:

Japan's 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster will put people living nearest to the nuclear power plant at a slightly elevated risk of cancer in the coming years. However, the disaster will have no ‘observable' impact in the rest of Japan or other parts of the world, according to a health risk assessment by the Geneva-based World Health Organization (WHO).

There's a good article on the BBC talking about the fear of radiation being the killer, people spreading gross exaggerations doesn't help.

Incidentally there have been suggestions of around 2500 extra deaths per year due to Japan's change in power supplies - around 7500 so far. Compare that to the few cancers.

The news coming from the international organisations has been constant. Sadly so have the exaggerations on here

-9 ( +6 / -15 )

Heda_Madness. So it is only the fear of radiation that kills as opposed to other fears? Pseudo-science at best!

4 ( +8 / -4 )

Heda_Madness: "There's a good article on the BBC talking about the fear of radiation being the killer, people spreading gross exaggerations doesn't help."

So they should just ignore the potential dangers, is what you are saying.

"Incidentally there have been suggestions of around 2500 extra deaths per year due to Japan's change in power supplies - around 7500 so far. Compare that to the few cancers."

I don't even know where to begin with that kind of comment.

"The news coming from the international organisations has been constant. Sadly so have the exaggerations on here"

Sadder still to see all the bias from certain posters; that cancer is A-Okay and the risks ought to be ignored because pointing them out is 'hysteria'.

8 ( +14 / -6 )

Ok... so this is the same organization that concluded in the 2008 report of Chernobyl,

The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) produced a report [81] drastically different to many appreciations of the effects previously produced.

The total deaths reliably attributable to the radiation produced by the accident therefore stands at 62 by the estimate of UNSCEAR.

The report concludes that 'the vast majority of the population need not live in fear of serious health consequences from the Chernobyl accident'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_Chernobyl_disaster#2008_UNSCEAR_report

I'd say... very reliable, that UNSCEAR... Isn't UNSCEAR related to IAEA?

4 ( +10 / -6 )

Yes, Smith that's what I'm saying (sarcasm off)

No, since day one science has been telling us one thing. The UN, WHO, have consistently said the same. Medical professionals all say that it's been overblown and the risks are no where near the way that some people have claimed. Finally the mainstream media is starting to see that perhaps it's not as bad as they've reported

"Incidentally there have been suggestions of around 2500 extra deaths per year due to Japan's change in power supplies - around 7500 so far. Compare that to the few cancers."

I don't even know where to begin with that kind of comment.

Well, may I suggest you start with science. Failing that try google and look up the number of deaths from fossil fuels each year. That should certainly help you.

And no, I don't think a few cancers are a-okay. However I certainly don't think that thousands of deaths instead are okay either. Seems you do.

-8 ( +6 / -14 )

Heda_Madness: "Well, may I suggest you start with science."

Sure! That SOME cancers will increase, which in my books is not okay in the least, especially when dealing with children. It's sad you find that acceptable.

"However I certainly don't think that thousands of deaths instead are okay either. Seems you do."

Where's your proof of either statement? Give us the link to these thousands of deaths you speak of that were caused by the NPPs being off and how much worse it is than, "just a wee bit of cancers!". I do NOT think the deaths of thousands are okay at all, hence I insist the government use it's money wisely and to help the people who otherwise commit suicide, in the thousands, because they have been living in shelters while companies like TEPCO and Hokkaido's power company ask for and get bailouts.

1 ( +9 / -8 )

I wouldn't put to much stock in what U.N. scientist say myself or any governmental body for that matter..I'm sure there will be and probably already has been a great many cancers in and around Fukushima be it from radiation or the fear of it .. Does it really matter which?! The handling of the situation there is sickening but as is always the case in Japan whatever truths are out there will just get swept under the rug..Business as usual!!

6 ( +8 / -2 )

UNSCEAR falsified estimations of medical effects of Fukushima radiation:

Medical experts criticize UNSCEAR report for playing down consequences of Fukushima nuclear accident

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGsx3CYTYAs

2 ( +8 / -6 )

Unlikely? Is that like, perhaps or maybe? Why didn't they just state their study was inconclusive? Three years is no where long enough to make any sort of conclusion on the after effects of the Fukushima radiation exposure. I saw a report a few weeks ago that stated there was a marked increase in thyroid cancer of children in Fukushima. Who is telling porky pies? It could take decades for the full effects of this exposure to come out. Regardless of this report, the fact is, many children were exposed to high levels of radiation and this greatly increases their chances of developing cancer later in life.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

The pro nuclear energy supporter can always be relied on to try and move any topic or discussion away from the nuclear disaster, its effects and always remind us all how safe, cheap and clean it is compared to fossil fuels which kills millions or hydro which kills hundreds of thousands. In fact, let's discuss anything provided its not related to the post?

Its true that people in Fukushima are no longer living in shelters, they went just one step up and moved into what is called temporary shelter with a legal life of 5 years when they are required to be demolished. The clock is ticking!

They were quickly and poorly constructed which makes them very small, hot in summer, very cold in winter and more than one third of them have major repair issues.

Of course, if TEPCO/gov't paid out the compensation to the nuclear disaster victims then I suppose they could move out and into descent accommodation. The temporary day workers at the nuclear disaster site could move in instead of being over charged by hotels or the contractors they are working for. A kind of win-win?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

There are 3, three reactor cores that are MIA, missing. They don't know where they are. Tepco has a good idea where they are but they haven't been seen or retrieved. Wonder why there have been no restarts? Because to allow a country, hence an industry, to possibly endanger more people when they haven't even begun to make headway on the cores is ludicrous. Bring on the coal.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

It's interesting when Zichi posts something which is exaggerated he receives praise, this is what the report said:

I didn't exaggerate anything, just someone never agrees with my comments?

The results presented in the latest report differ from those in a report published by the World Health Organization in February 2013 that warned of higher cancer risks for residents around the nuclear power plant and plant workers. http://mainichi.jp/english/english/newsselect/news/20140403p2g00m0dm067000c.html

Wolfgang Weiss, chairperson of the UNSCEAR Fukushima Assessment, said the risk of those infants developing thyroid cancer is low but they should consult a doctor who can help them through continuous diagnosis.

Weiss also cited the importance of conducting the Fukushima health survey over the long term. "This should continue to just see if something is showing up in the long term which we haven't seen. We can only judge what we have seen and assessed on the basis of what we know."

6 ( +9 / -3 )

Available studies estimated the number of fatalities amongst infants as a result of Chernobyl to be about 5000. But IAEA came to the conclusion that there were between 100,000 and 200,000 abortions in Western Europe because of the Chernobyl catastrophe.

Genetic and teratogenic damage (malformations) have also risen significantly not only in the three directly affected countries but also in many European countries. In Bavaria alone, between 1000 and 3000 additional birth deformities have been found since Chernobyl. We fear that in Europe more than 10,000 severe abnormalities could have been radiation induced. The estimated figure of unreported cases is high, given that even the IAEA came to the conclusion that there were between 100,000 and 200,000 abortions in Western Europe because of the Chernobyl catastrophe.

http://www.ratical.org/radiation/Chernobyl/HEofC25yrsAC.html

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Utrack: "But IAEA came to the conclusion that there were between 100,000 and 200,000 abortions in Western Europe because of the Chernobyl catastrophe."

Not good news for a country in desperate need of children being born. Don't tell Heda, though! He'll claim your science is fiction while his desired image is science.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

Zichi,

This is what your link says: U.N. panel sees no discernible increase in Fukushima cancer rates

And this what the article says: Fukushima meltdown unlikely to cause many cancers: U.N. scientists

Care to explain how you think that the two reports differ and how one of them is showing an increase in cancers? They both say there will be a small increase in cancers. The latest one just reinforces the first one.

-10 ( +1 / -11 )

Care to explain how you think that the two reports differ

I made a quote and provided a link to that quote? But which in case you missed it, here it is again?

The results presented in the latest report differ from those in a report published by the World Health Organization in February 2013 that warned of higher cancer risks for residents around the nuclear power plant and plant workers.

http://mainichi.jp/english/english/newsselect/news/20140403p2g00m0dm067000c.html

So contrary to your comment I have nothing to explain. You can accept or dismiss the quote?

7 ( +9 / -2 )

Well, according to Abe-sans Olympic speech there won't be any cancer cases relating to Fukushima and he has the state secrets act to back him up on that now.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

This is completely in line with the U.N.'s Agenda 21.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Now they say: "not many Cancer", after 3/11 they said: "no Cancer", the so called reality will be: "some Cancer"!

Energy is not coming for free like we 21 Century People believe(d), everyone need to realize the Price for the comfort we experience today, the price is War, Pollution, Death, Corruption, Pain and Tears!

0 ( +3 / -3 )

The UN is an increasinfly irrelevant orgwnisation. It should be disbanded. I especially do not beleive anything that UN "scientists" have to say, about any subject. Fukushima has and will continue to cause cancers. I wonder what these pple were paid to say this? Disgraceful. Untrue.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

they said this from the very beginning. no new news here.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Bribes are starting to get out of hand when TEPCO and the Japanese government can get an A-OK from the UN now for rampant radiation contamination across the world.

If a Nuclear Weapon had caused this there would be plenty of hell to pay for it yet when a private corporation does it they get a sdlap on the back and a job well done.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Fukushima meltdown unlikely to cause many cancers: U.N. scientists

I think it is unlikely a lot of people are going to believe this.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

In contrast, UNSCEAR’s Fukushima report said it expected a low impact on cancer rates of the population and that this was largely due to “prompt protective actions” by Japanese authorities following the accident.

学校給食食材の放射能検査体制について予算委員会で質問 http://www.miyamoto-net.net/column2/diary/1328155865.html

Japan Lawmaker: 180,000 students may have eaten radioactive beef — 1,300 Bq/kg served for lunch in Miyagi

Source: Website of Miyamoto Takeshi, member of Japan’s House of Representatives Date: Feb 2, 2012

There is no such guarantee but anywhere. Out of the meals that may be beef suspected of August last year, has been contaminated with radioactive cesium from rice straw has been used as a food school lunch has become clear, radioactive cesium has entered in the current December 1: schools was 26 kindergarten, 433 municipal schools, 46 cities, 18 prefectures. Number of children that may have to eat is up to 180,000

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Heda-Madness....careful, having an opinion that contradicts doom, gloom and irrational fears is not acceptable in the world of JT posters :-))

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

Melt THROUGHS, not downs, the containment vessels are holed, not whole, are breached, leak and are not containing the melted down rods and assemblies, AS THEY are on the concrete mats of theri respective Unit as a corium mass. Melt through. Get it? Real easy, 1+1=2. Cancers. Take. Time. Daily intake. Daily. Over days, weeks, months, years. 'It can not be attributed to us', easy to let slide out of the darkness 3 decades down the timeline. What a web of deciet, what an utter cowardly way to express a derelection of duty. Amoral. Sickening. Beyond belief.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

"Some cancers can take many years to develop. The monitoring of children and adults in the prefecture will go on for at least 30 years with enormous costs involved."

And yet some nuclear plants will be restarted.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

The serious health risks are plain to see, there is nothing to inspire trust or confidence, a yes means maybe, a maybe means never, there could be, might be if confidence is high, and the risk is low, but discernible changes could be clear if the significant changes are rare, would you bet your families future risk of cancer on this nonsense? Not on your chinny chin chin.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Folks smoking at home and in restaurants will cause cancer! Lots of it! Start there! Something the everyday person can do something about! Fukushima will be what it will be and whatever affect it has has already been set in motion! We will have to wait decades for the verdict! The verdict is already in on smoking!

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

These folk think it is over!

It has yet to start.

Most folk do not know how serious it is, and do not want to know.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

David Juteau I disagree . First off , if one smokes , he/she is ruining their own health ( of course shouldnt be confused with passive smoking ) but when you have radioactive isotopes polluting the environment it s killing everything and everyone. If you want to compare it with smoking it would be a better to compare it with children being poisoned by smoking parents because of passive smoking . They did not choose for it and they are victims of it . That is a more realistic comparison . Second , radioactive pollution is forever . Many of those radioisotopes have half lives in thousands or even millions of years , so radioactive isotopes keep poisonoing for thousands / millions of years Third there is no way of turning it off. One can choose to stop smoking but you can never choose to remove the isotopes from the environment , cause they spread in everything . fourth it is not about us , but more about the future generations . We are poisoning the world for our kids , and we dont have the right to do it , and it is a criminal act . People allowing families / children living in radioactively contaminated areas are criminals and need to be prosecuted . Main stream media down playing the fukushima catastrophe are just as guilty of murdering those kids and should be prosecuted . Unfortunately , we are NOT living in a fair world and the only value left seems to be the money and the profits of big corporations MAny will die because of fukushima , just like they did because of chernobyl , but they will die a silent death , nobody will know about them . Statistics will be manipulated , media will keep creating a positive image and truth seekers will be silented . Just like this message probably which i dont think will stay here for a long time Welcome to the new world.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

There will still be the stress of living in Fukushima not knowing if cancers will develop

I live in Kanto with stress of not knowing if cancers will develop. 1 in 3 get cancer in their lifetime, mate. Much higher rate than that in my family, BTW (brother died of cancer as a child, mother had a lengthy battle).

Don't forget the increases in respiratory illness (including fatalities) due to all the fossil fuels we're burning now. Going to be a whole lot more sick and dying people in the long run from that. I don't know why so many gloss over that fact.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

I really don't think the UN has enough data to be sure of what they are saying. Also, we all know that radioactive releases from Fukushima happen all the time, so this isn't over yet. 20 years after the tsunami we'll still be dealing with radioactivity.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Pandabelle: "Don't forget the increases in respiratory illness (including fatalities) due to all the fossil fuels we're burning now. Going to be a whole lot more sick and dying people in the long run from that. I don't know why so many gloss over that fact."

Because you take that "fact", like Heda does, without proof, and use it to justify the cancers that will be caused -- oh wait, not THAT many cancers... just a few -- by this crisis. It is YOU who is glossing over the situation.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Bribes are starting to get out of hand when TEPCO and the Japanese government can get an A-OK from the UN now for rampant radiation contamination across the world.

Tell'em Bear27840

lf a Nuclear Weapon had caused this there would be plenty of hell to pay for it yet when a private corporation does it they get a slap on the back and a job well done.

Preach

1 ( +3 / -2 )

I suggest all the UN scientist go live there.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

At its sixtieth session the Committee considered the effects of radiation exposure of children and reached the following conclusions:(a) For a given radiation dose, children are generally at more risk of tumour induction than are adults. Cancers potentially induced by exposure to ionizing radiation at young ages may occur within a few years, but also decades later.

Useful information on thyroid cancer has been gained from the studies of children exposed as a consequence of the Chernobyl accident, but even with 25 years of follow-up, the long-term nature of the risk of thyroid cancer as a result of the Chernobyl accident is not known.

http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2013/UNSCEAR2013Report_AnnexB_Children_13-87320_Ebook_web.pdf

http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2013/13-85418_Report_2013_Annex_A.pdf

UNSCEAR chair Carl-Magnus Larsson told a news conference on April 2 that cases of thyroid cancer may increase among infants who were 1 year old and lived within 30 kilometers of the nuclear plant at the time of the triple meltdown. http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201404030060

2 ( +5 / -3 )

According to zichi The report also said,

While risk models by inference suggest increased cancer risk, cancers induced by radiation are indistinguishable at present from other cancers,"

I believe that's known as "Already hard at work creating an escape clause", just in case at some point in the near future there is a mysterious rise in Japan's cancer rates.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

In terms of impact on the health of Fukushima Prefecture residents, UNSCEAR chair Carl-Magnus Larsson told a news conference on April 2 that cases of thyroid cancer may increase among infants who were 1 year old and lived within 30 kilometers of the nuclear plant at the time of the triple meltdown.

He added, however, that the committee is not sure if that will be reflected in thyroid cancer statistics in the future.

Not sure why you felt the need to miss off that comment.

And as the WHO report said last year, there would be a 0.5% increase in risk in females, from 0.75 to 1.25% for thyroid. That's an increase in risk.

Yesterday's report just confirms what the WHO said last year.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Here's the summary from the WHO news release on the report that Zichi and Heda keep going round and round on. Rather than relying on Mainichi to accurately report things, it's usually best to go directly to the source.

A comprehensive assessment by international experts on the health risks associated with the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant (NPP) disaster in Japan has concluded that, for the general population inside and outside of Japan, the predicted risks are low and no observable increases in cancer rates above baseline rates are anticipated.

The WHO report ‘Health Risk Assessment from the nuclear accident after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami based on preliminary dose estimation’ noted, however, that the estimated risk for specific cancers in certain subsets of the population in Fukushima Prefecture has increased and, as such, it calls for long term continued monitoring and health screening for those people.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2013/fukushima_report_20130228/en/

You can also read the actual 200-page WHO report and make your own informed decision about whether it contradicts the UN report:

http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/fukushima_risk_assessment_2013/en/

5 ( +5 / -0 )

The nuclear fanboy lives 5500 miles south of Fukushima in a country without a single nuclear reactor but wants this country to restart its fleet of reactors even though most likely, 30 out of the current 48 won't pass the IRA muster?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Well, or course it will not cause caner in Japan. Prevailing winds carry the radiation north across the Atlantic to the US, maker of the Fukushima nuclear reactors. You should be looking there.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

smith

Because you take that "fact", like Heda does, without proof

No, smith, there's TONS of literature on the topic. There's hundreds of links out there detailing the relationship between increased pollution from these old fossil fuel power plants and the deleterious effects on public health. This is not some guess, it's a well established link.

justify the cancers that will be caused -- oh wait, not THAT many cancers... just a few -- by this crisis

You do not understand the science, apparently. All the research to this point shows that there is no expectation of a significant increase in cancer incidence as a result of the Fukushima accident. That's a STATISTICAL significance. That literally means "We will not be able to tell outside of natural variation if cancer rates are higher or not." It does NOT mean cancer rates will or will not be higher, it means it will not be possible to statistically demonstrate that they are. And it most definitely does NOT mean that "There will be more cancers, but not enough that we care about."

Really, if you are going to criticize what is said, you might try to take a stab at understanding it.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

The IAEA have been conducting Studies since Chernobyl

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/archive.html

Scientists to create controlled nuclear meltdown in Ibaraki facility this month

http://nihongodaisuki.com/whatsnew/scientists-create-controlled-nuclear-meltdown-ibaraki-facility/

2 ( +3 / -1 )

"Weiss said his message to the families would be: “The risk is low. Continue life. Don’t be scared. But if you have the feeling that you need support, consult a physician who is specialised on this type of question.”

Well, this is the mentality behind turning cleaned up nuclear weapons plants grounds into wildlife parks and building suburban homes adjacent to land that is contaminated. This is happening all over. The children who grew up breathing contaminated air have grown up and I don't believe they are getting tested because as it says, they only test those who have grown up after Chernobyl, not the many who grew up during the testing and manufacturing or transporting of nuclear weapons during the Cold War near residential areas. Interesting to ask where our friends with thyroid issues grew up.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

There is MUCH information & articles that can slant the findings, (one way or another) Just realize that ALL clean up workers (at Fukushima power plant) can only work for short periods of time before they are forced to leave. There is a reason for the large "off limits" area and it's not just because of damage caused by The earthquake or tsunami! I have my own opinions, for me it's not worth arguing my point. I have yet to see any poster change there opinion because of what someone say in these columns. Though I appreciate the added information many have to offer.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The report also claims the radiation exposure of the nuclear gypsies working at the disaster site is at least twice the levels stated by TEPCO.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

The main difference between Chernobyl and Fukushima regarding radioactive iodine:

Chernobyl: Iodine, which is absorbed by the thyroid glands, is not in the Western diet. That's why most salt sold in the west is IODIZED salt, in order to supplement this deficiency in the diet. When children in Chernobyl, who had no iodine in their diet were exposed to radioactive iodine, their thyroid glands absorbed the radioactive iodine like drops of water in desert sand. I believe this was the cause for the alarming cancer rates among children there who were exposed to the contaminated milk, etc.

Fukushima: Iodine is deeply rooted in the Japanese diet; mainly in seaweeds such as Konbu and Nori. If the thyroid glands have absorbed non-radioactive iodine, there is nowhere for the radioactive iodine to be absorbed. This is why they pass out iodide pills (even as far as the West Coast); to fill the thyroids will iodine so the radioactive iodine would not be absorbed. What we need to consider here is that the seaweed may now be contaminated with the radiation flushed into the ocean, but nowhere near the contamination levels as milk in Chernobyl and surrounding areas.

Don't get me wrong; I hope that this sort of disaster never happens ever again. I also hope that we as a human race wake up and realize that nuclear weapons, as well as nuclear energy, are just a bad idea. Cost effective? If it costs us our environment and safety for future generations, then this is definitely not worth it. However, it is important to get an accurate understanding regarding cancer caused by radioactive iodine, and to understand that other changes in lifestyle caused by fear of radiation (such as not exercising outdoors and evacuating to a whole new location and way of life) may actually be more harmful to the health of victims.

Source: 放射線医が語る被ばくと発がんの真実 (I translated this book into English, but English version has not been published yet.)

1 ( +2 / -1 )

What we need to consider here is that the seaweed may now be contaminated with the radiation flushed into the ocean, but nowhere near the contamination levels as milk in Chernobyl and surrounding areas.

I'm unclear on what you're concerned about here. If it's radioactive iodine contamination, you should know that out of all the radioactive elements released at Daiichi, Iodine-131 has the shortest half-life at only just over 8 days. 8 days after the meltdown most of the iodine radiation was fading away. Unless the coreum is still undergoing fission there should not be any new Iodine-131 generated.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Alex daninja I dont think the amount of idoine in ones diet would have a profound effect on cancer risk after a nuclear accident . We are only talking about risk factors here. In the end even the population with the highest iodine in their diet will eventuallyy get thyroid cancers , maybe a bit less than a population with less iodine in their diet but nevertheless these will be negligible factors during a nuclear acident . Even idoine pills with high concentration of iosdine to saturate the thyroid are not 100 % effective . Besides concentrating only on iodine is missing the point . With iodine there are many more isotopes created during a nuclear accident , iodine is just one of them .

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

With iodine there are many more isotopes created during a nuclear accident , iodine is just one of them .

johndpugh Exactly

-1 ( +1 / -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