national

Future cancers caused by Fukushima radiation may be hidden

64 Comments
By Malcolm Ritter

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

© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

64 Comments
Login to comment

Children are not big milk drinkers. What do u call daily milk intake for lunch at all public schools in j land from the age of 6-15??

2 ( +3 / -1 )

It will be almost impossible to trace back any cancers which show up in 20+ years to radiation unless someone with cancer worked at the power plant after 3/11. Some experts state cancers will be about 1000 case per million so in Fukushima would be about 2,000 cases. Scientists are also winning the cure for cancers and before the next 20 years there could be a cure.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

I don't think the general public will see any increase except where direct and sustained exposure occured. In and around Fukushima could see some increase. As the article suggests, there will be more long term effects from stress than there would be from radiation.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

"traditional diet - pickled plum, miso soup and brown rice," i am unclear about how this is different? it means that traditional japanese foods cannot be affected by the nuclear disaster??????

2 ( +3 / -1 )

If people are allowed to return to live in the exclusion zone will cause more cancers.

Okuma-machi, where part of nuke plant is located, just re-elected the mayor who ran on the platform of "Let's all return to our home town", demanding thorough contamination and rehabilitation of the infrastructure so that people can return as soon as possible.

Okuma-machi's highest air radiation level at 1 meter off the ground exceeds 100 microsieverts/hour. Soil contamination? About 454K becquerels/kg, or 29.5 million becquerels/square meter.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Of course we never find out, but neither do we find out how many cancers are falsely attributed to nuclear power.

Fact is, anybody who lives long enough will eventually get cancer, because cells are damaged all the time and at one point in life, the repair mechanism will fail.

The reason that people in "unspoilt" environments do not have high cancer rates is simply that they do not live long enough!

It is tiring reading all these anti-nuclear activist speculation articles.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

we'll never find out? just compare okinawa and fukushima cancer cases in 20 years , i predict an increase

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Sillygirl:

Well, the traditional Japanese diet, especially the miso soup might be a reason for elevated stomach cancer rates compared to western countries.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Gimme some more of that "cheap, clean, and inexpensive nuclear energy"!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Interesting article, but I think the title should be, "Future Cancers Caused by TEPCO Will Be Ignored".

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Basically the article seems to be suggesting that the nuclear fallout won't significantly increase the chance of cancer because getting cancer is very easy already.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

When I first saw the headline for this article I was really hesitant to read it. Lawyers wrote and prepared this. It's how Corporate Deep Pockets avoid damages in product liability cases.

I once spoke with a very knowledgeable lawyer who had been practicing law in Japan for quite some time. Very similar to this claim that the cause of cancer of would be hidden (euphemism) or actually more difficult to prove in court.

Please indulge me. I aim to tie this in.

Here's how it works. A man gets into a very serious car accident. The result of the accident is whiplash. Over the next 20 years or so he will have pain from the accident. Naturally the man goes to court and asks for compensation and consideration of the constant pain he has endured and will continue to endure for the rest of his life.

Here's the kicker though. Some of you may already know this. There's no proof. You see there is no machine in Japan that can register pain. The common sense in all of us dictates "Of course he has pain" Look at the picture of his Japanese car all busted up. I'm sure he got hurt.

Do you have proof? Asks the corporate lawyer for the insurance company. Does his pain show up on anything? MRI, X-Ray? If you don't have any proof the company will escape any financial responsibility for your condition.

JT Mods - Allow me to tie it in. The same goes for this situation. This article and so called survey is the setup for what the other lawyer is going to say when the radiated victims finally get wheeled into the courtroom sick from cancer trying to claim that it was caused by the radiation from TEPCO Fukushima. Get ready....TEPCO's and Japan's government lawyer will stand up, in front of the judge in a cheap AOKI men's plaza suit and say "Do you have proof?"

There will be tears and immeasurable pain. I truly feel sorry for them, the victims, their children. They will know the truth about their government more than anybody else. The victims will become faceless and forgotten. They will feel amputated by Japan.

The monsters at TEPCO and their lawyers hope that the cancer victims pass away silently in the night. It does not turn their stomach and give them pause to discredit all the victims.

It reminds me of the victims of 9/11 who went in to help. Those that became sick who were not on the government's payroll didn't receive any compensation.

4 ( +11 / -8 )

2020hindsights.

You don't get/catch cancer, we all carry potential cancer cels within our bodies. And they can emerge at anytime, living circumstances/lifestyle can accelerate/promote the process of them becoming dominant.

So in a way there is no way to proof exactly what caused a cancer to emerge as too many risk-factors are involved, but there are certain things that raise the risk(among them are hormone changes, radiation, genetics, etc).

Said that early detection(knowing the risk factors, etc) is the best method to fight cancer and with Fukushima it became a higher priority.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Netninja and all who do not trust TEPCO nor the Japanese government nor the AIEA, well, I ditto the comments. No detectable cancer increases?? Sure! Just because the government, nuclear power companies etc..DO NOT WANT US TO EVER FIND OUT THE TRUTH!!!

0 ( +4 / -4 )

This is a disclaimer for potential liability (class action) suits against TEPCO, but tactiful lawyers can still connect cause to liability.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Just because 40% of the population gets cancer anyway doesn't necessarily mean cancer caused by low-level radiation won't be detectable. If, for example, as stated in the article a kid exposed to 20mSv has a 0.25% increased risk, then the extra numbers produced could easily be statistically significant. Especially if it means the increased cases of cancer start appearing at much younger ages than normal.

One other thing I'd like to mention (and the article does touch on this a little): a lot of the estimates of low doses seem to be made under the assumption that the individual gets this elevated dose once, over the course of a year, and then it's done. So what happens to the kid who is born and gets 20mSv a year (going down year by year, but still high) for the first 18 years of their life? And what about the risks of a plant worker who gets exposed to a lot more than the average, because as has been reported in the news, several people are confirmed to have gotten several 100 millisieverts, and there are also a lot of workers who haven't been tested.

Oh, and as for the part about people looking to a traditional Japanese diet to boost immunity, it reminds me of stories of people in Chernobyl being told vodka helped fight radiation. It's about reverting to comfort foods when in troubling times, and is only a natural reaction.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The unfortunate thing about this article, besides the conclusions it reaches about cancer, is that this is an AP story, which means it will be picked up and run in major newspapers around the world. And when folks in other countries read this, including things like the government aiming to just halve contamination levels in two years, and folks in Tokyo with Geiger counters, the reluctance to visit Japan will only increase. As will the perception that the government does not have this situation fully under control. Unfortunately, the stigma of Fukushima will likely haunt Japan for at least several more years . Which leads me to ask: "How cheap was that electricity now that TEPCO sold everyone on as the justification for nuclear"?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Cancer in Japan is massively high anyway, shouldn't something be done about that?

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Cancers caused by Fukushima radiation might be as high as cancers caused by excessive amount of radiation received in hospitals by too many unnecessary X-ray, CT and MRI examinations, (best business for hospitals) that causes more than 6000 cancerous death in Japan annually.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

The monsters at TEPCO and their lawyers hope that the cancer victims pass away silently in the night.

They will pass away silently the same way from the same cancer caused by the same contamination. This was too big even for them to walk away just like that. They might save their @ss in the courtroom but the radiation reaches them. It's everywhere. No way out for anybody. They will be served the same contaminated food in their luxury restaurants, breath the same air, game over for the rich, for the poor.

As I said before, misery, pain, plagues, disasters, illness, cancer and death cannot be isolated only to the poor and the weak.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

One 40-year old Fukushima worker with no history of illnesses already died of acute leukemia. Tepco denied any causality with his work at the plant. So... he just developed a radiation-related illness while working in a damaged nuclear plant and dropped dead "without any cause". That's Tepco for you.

There seems to be many cases of "cause of death unknown" in Japan Inc. Are there any accredited medical schools in Japan at all?

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Many don’t trust gov’t reassurances and rightly so. Ainu Russia for six months writing letters to the Japanese officials that they would have used our technology treatment of children Fukushima. But officials of Japan, it is not necessary. In the next 16 years, Japanese people will pay billions for the fact that today in 2011 the Japanese government is asleep.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Netnija:

Thanks for your interesting post.

However I like to add that (as was reported in Scientific American some time ago) researcher have found that whiplash can be detected, because there are actually micro-fractures in the bones and tissues, which are related to the pain.

If treatment is very early after the accident, best results can be achieved.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

It"S MENov. 21, 2011 - 09:44AM JST

I must second this, a healthy body produces more than 300 cancerous cells each days and a healthy body is capable of fighting them off. Cancer is not a disease its the natural function of the body, according to scientists' researches, many millions of years ago aging was not a natural process, the body cells were capable to renew themselves unlimited in the same original pure quality. This feature was broken and oppressed in the living bodies, though the key code somewhat remained in the genetic pool and gets activated in every cells in a distorted oppressed uncontrolled way when this code is trying to revive itself. The imperfect revival results in cancerous growth just because it tries to follow the everlasting renewal pattern.

Radiation rather causes genetic modifications and possible mutations.

But also as you have written in your posts radiation and other factors might weaken the immune system or increase the number of cancerous cells beyond a limit where the body might need more help to fight hem off. So as you wrote it's better not to narrow and simplify the question to a hazard/disease level and it's better to find the answer.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Netninja,

There is truth in what you say, but you can understand the impossibility of compensating systematically people that get sick due to something. At the end, you'll find 130 millions of Japanese deaths can be attributed to something. 50 millions of people could sue the Japanese State. Due to the problems caused by pollens, some people died, some persons are totally disabled by it during months, many only lose a few days of work and live weeks of hell. 50 millions of sufferers. That's not even the question of the proof, it's clearly due pollen, and the pollen producing forests were officially planted by Japanese authorities... but the rate of people that could claim compensation is half of the population. Compensation from who ? From the State = from themselves. Idem for Tepco, that would be citizens being compensated by... the tax they pay, At least, that's not the US, and people all get a large part of their medical expenses covered.

"traditional diet - pickled plum, miso soup and brown rice," i am unclear about how this is different? it means that traditional japanese foods cannot be affected by the nuclear disaster??????

If the rice, plums and miso were food stocked from the year before, they were safe... while milk was produced by cows frolicking under the radiations and the leafy green veggies are the most exposed.

One 40-year old Fukushima worker with no history of illnesses already died of acute leukemia.

Which proves what ? I had an acquaintance "with no history of illnesses " that "died of acute leukemia" at the age of 20, a few years before Chernobyl, so many years before Fukushima. Medicine can rarely (if ever) verify the cause of a cancer.

Cancer in Japan is massively high anyway, shouldn't something be done about that?

Yes, reduce life span of a few decades... and cancer rate will be low like in countries where people live till the age of 50 in average. Otherwise, what can be done ? Encouraging a healthy lifestyle and reducing pollutions. That's vague. That's being done.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

If Japanese society really cared about cancer they wouldn't be so in love with cigarettes. Japan Tobacco will kill more people than TEPCO ever will.

0 ( +5 / -4 )

It seems there are many differing opinions and theories within the scientific community. The link below from the European Committee on Radiation Risk, offers some interesting perspectives, based on studies done from Chernobyl: http://euradcom.org/2011/chernhealthrept3.pdf

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Why don't you just call the article "ShoGaNai".

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The point is quite clear.

TEPCO is (will be) responsible for a significant number of cancers and deaths nationwide. By all means, they should be held to account - along with the govt which oversaw them so inadequately.

However, the risk to an individual is pretty minuscule. There's no need for tinfoil hats. Anyone who smokes, for example, is willingly taking a risk which is several orders of magnitude higher than the harm that TEPCO has imposed on them.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Don't be afraid of cancer, if you are afraid of cancer, you are afraid of life itself. Just enjoy and treasure your life every day.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Just the way the government wants it

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The people within these areas have to organise into a cohesive group and work together to collate future health problems.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

It seems the whole argument about the cancer rates is a bit too simplistic. When you take the whole number of cancer cases then it is probably correct that the additional cases will not be detectable. But the probability to develop cancer increases steeply with age (exponentially?). When you only look at younger age people and the time of occurrence, the statistical detection threshold becomes much lower. Furthermore, we will probably see different types of cancer depending on which radioactive elements are absorbed by the body. The article mentions thyroid cancer as one example. By differentiating tumor types, detection thresholds should become even lower.

Last but not least, what does the number of 1:400 for a child exposed to 20mSv/a really mean? Where does this number come from and are conditions really comparable to the situation in Japan now? If the 20mSv/a is external radiation (which I think it is based on the comparison to measured exposure levels), you have to add the internal radiation. How do external (for which we have relatively reliable numbers) and internal radiation levels correlate? How does this probability change when the child is exposed for not only one year, but many consecutive years?

As difficult as it is to get meaningful data, it seems that public entities and their dependents like Yasumura don't even try to improve the estimation base due to the fear that people might later ask for compensation payments.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

After the Chernobyl disaster, some 6,000 children exposed to radioactive fallout later developed thyroid cancer. Experts blame contaminated milk. But the thyroid threat was apparently reduced in Japan, where authorities closely monitored dairy radiation levels, and children are not big milk drinkers anyway.

BS! What a shameless lying government we have here... children not big milk drinkers?? Children are usually pushed to drink milk in this country, whether they like it or not. Only those who are lactose intolerant are exempted from this stupidity.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Don't be afraid of cancer, if you are afraid of cancer, you are afraid of life itself. Just enjoy and treasure your life every day.

Im afraid of my children getting cancer as a direct result of Fukushima, and as I am their main care giver, Im afraid for myself, as they need me. Of course if you are cold heartless Japanese with no love in your heart for others, then cancer is meaningless as is the potential for huge suffering as a direct result of Fukushima radiation in the air, food and water.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

blackbagger "Just because 40% of the population gets cancer anyway doesn't necessarily mean cancer caused by low-level radiation won't be detectable."

It probably does. There are many areas in the world where natural background radiation is far higher than average. But studies of cancer incidence in these areas seem inconclusive. Some studies show higher than average cancer rates, others no change, and some even show lower rates. More interesting perhaps is that some studies show that certain individuals are more at risk than others (for example, women in one study). So we could even hypothesize that some people will be at higher risk while others are at lower risk which would give us a situation where some people could blame their cancer on higher background radiation while others might be healthier for it. Some here appear to blame the government for our general ignorance, which is both understandable and yet irrational, just like people drinking misoshiru to keep the radiation at bay. Until we know more, I think Foxie has the right attitude,

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Its not just about cancer. Its also about birth defects and damaged muscle tissue, such as that in your heart.

I am not going to reach for conspiracy theory so fast, but it does seem like an attempt to make us forget about all the other things that will be more obvious and strike the young people down like they did around Chernobyl.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The reason that people in "unspoilt" environments do not have high cancer rates is simply that they do not live long enough!

Yet WilliB, fewer people in Iceland, Sweden and Thailand are dying from cancer than so many other places, and they live to be pretty old.

You have grossly oversimplified everything to push some politics. Cancer is not so inevitable, and throwing our hands in the air would not be helpful. I do not think we should resign ourselves to the fate that most Americans seem to have resigned themselves to, which is too die younger and more unhealthy than anyone else in other first world nations.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Actually, if you have diseases like cancer that do afflict people at a relatively stable rate, even small fluctuations can be detectable, if you do the math and control for other factors, like smoking, exercise, and so on. Predicting whether a certain person will get cancer or not is impossible, unless they sat and took a nap just outside a vent belching radioactive steam, but predicting rates within a population is more feasible.

Of course, that said my gut tells me the number of people who die of lung cancer because they smoked more than before out of a fear of radiation could easily surpass the cancer victims the plant disaster causes. That doesn't eliminate those deaths, tho.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Minakami_mikeNov. 21, 2011 - 01:28PM JST

It seems there are many differing opinions and theories within the scientific community. The link below from the European Committee on Radiation Risk, offers some interesting perspectives, based on studies done from Chernobyl: http://euradcom.org/2011/chernhealthrept3.pdf

The problem with that stuff is that it's not peer reviewed, and based largely on poor science. Chris Busby, the author, hold some odd views - for example, he believes that radiation is more dangerous at low levels (this can be found on his wikipedia page).

Also, despite the grandiose title, the European Committee on Radiation Risk is not an official European body - it's associated with the European Green Party.

For a better overview, try this editorial from Professor Geraldine Thomas, who runs the Chernobyl Tissue Bank at Imperial College London: http://www.annals.edu.sg/pdf/40VolNo4Apr2011/V40N4p158.pdf

0 ( +0 / -0 )

1 article that throws doubt on the negative aspects of exposure to ( God Loves It) Radiation, and it is now in doubt? Lobby's that are pro-N must be having a party tonight, job well done. The biggest most long going N-Disaster is not a problem at all, in another month it might actually be beneficial? If you believe that buy a house as close as you can and send your kids to a school as close as you can...what's the harm it's safe!

I wish you luck getting heard or shhh (justice) in the future. Milk causes cancer? Smoking too, and watch out for the green tea and the rice...oh use an umbrella.

It has NOTHING to to with Homer power.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

CrickyNov. 22, 2011 - 12:02AM JST

1 article that throws doubt on the negative aspects of exposure to ( God Loves It) Radiation, and it is now in doubt?

In addition to all the scientific papers in journals like Journal of Radiological Protection, mentioned above.

Also, they are not saying there are no negative effects of radiation exposure, just that they are likely so small to be hidden by other factors (smoking, air pollution, industrial carcinogens, etc). Fear and worry, on the other hand, will likely kill many more people.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

One 40-year old Fukushima worker with no history of illnesses already died of acute leukemia.

He had leukemia before working at the power plant and worked there for less than one month.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Some 8 percent of Japan's land area, or more than 30,000 square kilometers, has been contaminated with radioactive cesium from the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant.

Spanning 13 prefectures, the affected area has accumulated more than 10,000 becquerels of cesium 134 and 137 per square meter.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

You get lung cancer and ask, "Was it the Fukushima accident that caused it? No one will ever give you a definitive answer because cancers do not come wrapped in a package labeled "To: You From: Your three-pack-a-day smoking habit". Of course, that won't stop that three-pack-a-day smoker from trying to weasel some money out of TEPCO. "I got cancer. It HAS to be because of the nuclear disaster!" ("But Muriyama-san, you live in Naha. How can that be?")

@GaijinTechie

One 40-year old Fukushima worker with no history of illnesses already died of acute leukemia. Tepco denied any causality with his work at the plant. So... he just developed a radiation-related illness while working in a damaged nuclear plant and dropped dead "without any cause". That's Tepco for you.

Wow. So leukemia is a "radiation-related illness"? All those people who have been suffering and dying from leukemia since before Einstein was even BORN must be gratified in now knowing why they were afflicted.

Here's one "news" site's headline about the death that inadvertantly puts its ridiculousness in sharp highlight:

Fukushima: Healthy worker develops acute Lukemia in one week

Obviously the "healthy" part was wrong as you don't contract THEN DIE from acute leukemia in only a couple of weeks. It takes a bit longer than that. The "healthy" statement is based on the press release saying that he had a medical examination prior to working for TEPCO and had no illnesses. How thorough was that medical exam, I wonder. Did it include blood screening for indications of cancer? Obviously not because this guy had to have had leukemia BEFORE he went to work for TEPCO. He probably knew it too. He figured he was terminal anyways, so why let a healthy person risk their life while he was still able to work?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

is not necessary to be a scientist to understand that the risk of cancer in Japan is much higher for children Chernobyl has taught us much. I hope they find an instant cure for cancer.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the government's nuclear safety commission recommended use of iodine tablets, but residents of the ninth Received Them Just Before or During evacuation, preventive medicine When The Would Have Been Most effective. Some wonder if the study is using Them as human guinea pigs to Examine the impact of radiation on humans. Eisuke Matsui, a lung cancer specialist and a former associate professor at Gifu University School of Medicine, criticized the project. why ??? why they did this to people?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The tone of the headline...

"Future cancers caused by Fukushima radiation may be hidden"

...does not match the tone of the opinions...

"the 2 million residents of Fukushima Prefecture, targeted in the new, 30-year survey, probably got too little radiation to have a noticeable effect on cancer rates"

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Agree with Foxie.

Cancer is not the big evil that many make it out.

Having had 6 family members(7 if you count a loved pet) that had cancer and lost 4, yes, it is serious illness but much progress has been done in the treatment of the disease over the decades. And I am sure it will become treatable disease fairly soon(maybe not cure-able but similar to Diabetes, TB, AIDS, etc).

Longest survivor in my family is my mother and she has been going strong for 30yrs now, granted she had re-occurrences and the treatments are taking their toll as she gets older.

And if I compare the meds, etc that were available 30yrs ago compared to now and the new meds that are being approved. 30yrs ago were the middle ages compared to now.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Silvana Kaji Nov. 22, 2011 - 07:31AM JST

the government's nuclear safety commission recommended use of iodine tablets, but residents of the ninth Received Them Just Before or During evacuation, preventive medicine When The Would Have Been Most effective. Some wonder if the study is using Them as human guinea pigs to Examine the impact of radiation on humans. Eisuke Matsui, a lung cancer specialist and a former associate professor at Gifu University School of Medicine, criticized the project. why ??? why they did this to people?

IAEA seems to think all the children got the potassium iodate tablets they needed to block iodine 131 uptake into the thyroid. Also, who are residents of the 9th?

As for the conspiracy theories - they're laughable. You might also want to consider that a lung cancer specialist does not necessarily have any expertise in how environmental radiation affects people.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The parents of children who will lose their lives due to this, and the babies born with radiation linked deformities might disagree with you It's Me.

Cancer is no big deal? Believe me, if my children died of it, it would be the biggest deal I would ever have to deal with, their lives and mine destroyed in one fell swoop.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

goinggoinggone.

Cancer don't cause deformities unless the tumour grows outside the body and I seen it happen.

Not saying cancer is no big deal as it is, but thousands of people and more face it daily across the globe. Same way they face other diseases/sicknesses that take their loved ones. Stop the panicking.

Look a Lance Armstrong a guy that did all the right things(food, etc) and he got hit and came back stronger. Many more cases like him.

I look at my mother that lived with the disease for 30yrs and it is inspirational/uplifting. Same way I know many other survivors for decades and we can learn a LOT from them.

On same token some loved ones got taken way too soon.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Not easy watching a man having to give up his "jewel" or a loved one giving up a breast and/or being forced into early menopause due to cancer treatment.

Cancer is bad and the family supporting them suffer a lot as it hits a loved one in many ways BUT it is worth it for a loved one.

We talk again once you been there and know the details.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Inspirational cancer survivor is Akiko Wada as she lost her Ovaries due to cancer at an early age. Which of course affected her hormone level and also gave her the distinct voice. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6Rr8kTDqoM

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

I was treated successfully for an early stage cancer at the age of 22.

I also have lost 2 people whom I loved very much indeed to cancer. One of whom was in her early 20s, the other a very old friend who died of lymphoma a year ago.

These cancer cases which are going to be caused directly by Fukushima, are going to cause a lot of suffering. Needless deaths and suffering which are going to hit children hardest can not be spun as something positive, no matter how hard you try.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Let me be sarcastic:

Why oh why do they just fixate on cancer, who cares!! Worst case scenario more people die of cancer, slightly better you chop the kids arm off that is cancerous. But, what about the destruction of the immune system (other countless diseases that will follow), DNA building blocks damaged and most importantly your genome and reproductive organs bombarded with radiation. Sure, you might be able to cure cancer completely in the next 20-30 years, but if your DNA structure is screwed and your passing it down from generation to generation then humanity for Japan is not looking good (unless of course we actually want to experiment with radiation and create some super humans immune to the effects for future space travel). They need to stop trying to link low level radiation to cancer which your not going to be able to see anyway. An extra 10% with cancer in the next 15 years is not going to raise many eyebrows. I want real figures on current birth defects, still born, miscarriages, immune system degradation resulting in prolonged or heavier than normal colds, hay fever, headaches, tiredness, depression, etc. Combined with stress, loss of family members, cold weather, supply chain problems and so on can't be good for you. The last thing you want to worry about is the air you breath, the water you drink and the food you eat. This is the same definition you would expect in times of war and an ongoing long war it is going to be.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

This is why we are moving the debris all over the country, to ensure that there can be no control group for cancer studies and thus no one can sue the government or TEPCO over the issue.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Wow. So leukemia is a "radiation-related illness"?

Fadamor, the internet is your friend. I know you have it. Please use it. For something other than trying to oversimplify or spread misinformation about complicated subjects like leukemia.

Yes, radiation, among other things, can cause leukemia. Why? Because radiation, among other things, can trigger DNA abnormalities. In fact, I think most people are already aware of this even without a net search. From wiki: A number of risk factors for developing AML have been identified, including: other blood disorders, chemical exposures, ionizing radiation, and genetics.

Obviously the "healthy" part was wrong as you don't contract THEN DIE from acute leukemia in only a couple of weeks. It takes a bit longer than that.

Wiki again: Acute myeloid leukemia: As an acute leukemia, AML progresses rapidly and is typically fatal within weeks or months if left untreated.

And don't go throwing odds and typical cases at me if you choose to retort. This case is not typical. Doctors have not exactly had a lot of chances to study samples of people who worked at melted down nuke plants. Even in the typical cases, there are still many unknowns about leukemia. Let me just impress upon you again that the subject is complicated, and will remain complicated even if you do some net searches. Do it anyway.

Nobody can say for sure if it was or wasn't being at the plant. But I got to tell you, if TEPCO hired a guy that already had leukemia and they missed it, that boo boo is already great enough that they should pay because its obvious they are lax about health of employees.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Cancer don't cause deformities unless the tumour grows outside the body and I seen it happen.

Going said nothing about cancer. The exact words were "radiation linked deformaties".

1 ( +1 / -0 )

bookbag.

The topic is about "future cancers caused by fukushima radiation". ;) Read the topic before trying to correct people.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

We experimented irradiating fruit flies at college and then counting the numbers of deformed offspring. Not every fly will be deformed, but numbers rise above the norm.

If you stand in the middle of a battlefield there is no measurement of how likely you are to get hit by a bullet. Some, many will get hit, others will return unscathed.

With radiation it reminds me of a battlefield. Various rays and particles will whizz around and some of them may hit and rupture vital spots in the body's tissue. But there is a randomness about what will get affected and how it will manifest.

If you live in the Fukushima area, it will be like standing on a battlefield. Are you feeling lucky?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

FYI - if they are not big milk drinkers - the water supply they will use is contaminated. water they use to - drink the water, wash the dishes, prepare the food, brushing teeth, use water to boil the rice, make miso soup, boil veggies, and etc. The water they use will give them cancer.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Fukushima atomic power plant continues to release very high levels of radiation. Inside reactor building No2 the level is 1200 millisieverts per hour, and in reactor building No3 1600 millisieverts per hour.

According to nuclear researcher, Fumiya Tanabe stated that he believes the reactor No2 suppression chamber broke during the earthquake which would have grave implications for all the other nuclear reactors in Japan with the same earthquake specifications.

Reactor 2's building exterior is pretty much intact, with only one hole on the side of the building. Yet, the NISA's estimate shows this reactor may have released more radioactive materials than the other reactors (1 and 3). If the Suppression Chamber was broken as soon as the earthquake hit on March 11, that may explain it.

TEPCO still maintains its position that there was no visible damage to the reactors by the earthquake, and the cause of the accident was the loss of power because of tsunami.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Read the topic before trying to correct people.

It's ME, read the post before correcting people is more like it. As has been pointed out numerous times, cancer is far from the only concern and the article is misleading by way of omission.

Going said what going said. Not what you or the article said. And that is a good thing, as both you and the article are erroneous.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

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