Japan riled by WHO's Fukushima cancer warning

Ha japan doesn't know what "reality" is. Their complete cover up is beginning to fray at the edges.

I like the Japanese government, but I am with the WHO on this one. I am pretty sure it is Japan that is underestimating the threat just to avoid public outrage.

Things are getting a little more transparent. Can't cover this up forever. Thank tou WHO.

WHO does not publicly comment on this issue if it has no strong evidence to support its comments. The mentality of the Japanese government is to see no evil and hear no evil will eventually puts its citizens at risk.

Their calculations were made based on the assumption that people continued living inside the evacuation zone and ate banned food

If that is the case the minister is correct and it does not reflect reality.

Ah who to believe? A group that has lied since day one or an independent UN group? No brainier really only a fool would believe the j government

But, going from this very site's report a couple of days ago:

an international team of experts said Thursday that residents of areas hit by the highest doses of radiation face an increased cancer risk so small it probably won’t be detectable

http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/who-small-cancer-risk-after-fukushima-accident#sthash.gMWnSlDh.dpuf

So let me get this right...the Japanese government - who told us that no meltdowns had occurred - is unwilling to accept the remarkably mild scientific findings?

Perhaps only WHO findings which said "As always, everything in Japan is perfect and beyond any shadow of reproach" would have been acceptable to those with a vested interest in the nuclear restart.

The truth is BOLD when told, Japan.Inc --like all our lovely industries-- cares only about the bottom line, not YOU. The TRUTH in 20 to 30 years will be appalling.

The figures of the WHO are still careful, those three reactors are still spewing radiation. Lets not forget the J Gov didn't tell its people there was a meltdown in the first place.

"Their calculations were made based on the assumption that people continued living inside the evacuation zone and ate banned food. But there are no such people,” a ministry official said.

No such people ? I thought that there was no such thing as 'banned food' ...... just food that has been relabled .

OK - first of all who has a vested interest in their data here?

Secondly - overblown??! A risk climbing from .75% to 1.25% over a lifetime is hardly "overblown".

“It can increase peoples’ fears as they just see the findings,” Makoto Akashi, an official of Japan’s National Institute of Radiological Sciences, told the Yomiuri Shimbun.

What? As opposed to saying nothing at all or lying and letting everyones imaginations run wild? Idiots.

If you don't trust Japanese sources, here's an American monitoring site.

http://radiationnetwork.com/index.htm

Cabadje: You kindly responded to my post, with great gusto and bravado. You didn't seem to reply to my accusations that TEPCO is, and was, a corrupt entity that can not be trusted further than their share certificates can be thrown. You didn't respond to my post that, YES, national news networks have reported that there is a cover-up in regards to radiation monitoring and reporting. You did cherry pick the points that are easily debated in an online, anonymous discussion.

I hope that you have taken the time to read the WHO report, if you have I would like you to point out which references they cite that pertain to current thyroid research in Fukushima, and what date the references were published. Look at the dates of the publications they cite, they are summarizing and making inferences on research that is barely 1 year old, and published buy organizations such as TEPCO that we can legally and logically argue are corrupt, and they do not look at the independent research and peer reviewed research of Chernobyl, unless that research has met IAEA approval.

For the non-academic people out there, which is most of us, I'm asking why did the WHO only make assumptions using IAEA approved publications of radiation research, and not independent and peer reviewed research that exists.

Keep beating the drum, just because you want Fox News, CNN, ABC and all those American and European news outlets who kept up the 'We're all gonna die and grow two heads!' ;-P cry up for months to be right! Calculating people eating contaminated food and living in the evacuation zone is misleading, no matter how you look at it. Too many swallow what western media says hook, line, and sinker (complete with mushroom cloud graphics and references to Hiroshima) and now look as if they are grasping at straws to save face.

Guess what! You can't hide radiation! You can hide bribery and a whole lot of other things, but radiation in the air is something you just can't cover up....I'm not doing the leg work for you, go look up current radiation levels in Tokyo and Fukushima. There are any number of citizen radiation monitor blogs.

“The purpose of this report is to give an indication of the magnitude of the risk,

So it has no purpose. What matters is what should be done ? I mean from now for people still living there and in case another plant accident occurs.

A risk climbing from .75% to 1.25% over a lifetime is hardly "overblown".

That has no interest to know. If your doctor tells you that you have 3% chances to have diabetes some day, 10% cancer, 15 % cardiovascular,,, that helps you in what ?

there have already been three Fukushima children diagnosed with thyroid cancer

There were even more diagnosed before 9/11. The delay is still too short to see the cancers caused by Fukushima in residents. In plant workers that potentially got higher doses, maybe they already have cases.

Basrol this news story is from afp... Nothing to do with how Japanese press report.

Steve, thanks for the unnecessary dose of sarcasm. Please post a more reliable source, and do tell me how you arrived at the conclusion that it's all 'retirees in tinfoil hats'. It reported the elevated levels quite well after 3/11 thank you very much.

sengoku38MAR. 02, 2013 - 09:33AM JST Unfortunately, I think people in Fukushima will have much higher cancer rates. It won't be caused by cellular damage from radiation, though, it will be caused by stress. The link between stress and cancer is well known.

I certainly don't want to downplay the radiation risk, but I do agree the sociological problems and damage will be far worse. Just consider the case of any evacuated farmer, who daily active routine will have been replaced by sitting around with nothing to do but worry. Some may find another way to fulfill their lives, others will just become immobilized, decay, and die young. That's what "Norio Kanno, mayor of Iitate," is thinking about, I suppose.

Moreover, it expect that during some more frugal period over the next few hundred years, there will be people moving back into and farming inside the 20 kilometer radius, just because they have to make a living.

@joserock, that's for one-year-old girls who stayed on the extended evacuation zones for 4 months, eating exclusively fuskuhima food the whole time including those products that were banned at the time. I agree with the WHO that we have to "err in the side of caution," but I don't see the point of calculating risks for population groups that don't exist.

I really wish there was a Japanese Wikileaks.

Then maybe we could find out what really is going on.

The media is just too one-sided here.

I don't understand why Japan can't help its own people rather than lawyer up and obfuscate

Who do you trust? WHO or J-Gov? Somehow the history of J-Gov in this matter is highly suspect. Remember they had an "expert" tell them that there was "no chance" of a hydrogen explosion. Hmmm, didn't 3 of Fukushima do just that?

Of course Japan is going to down play anything that will put them in a bad light, whether it's correct or otherwise.

The naysayers here have commented numerous times that the people will be safe, yet it is satisfying to hear a group not associated nor beholden to Japan make comments like this.

Better safe than sorry.

@Nancy (again, sorry) -

actually read the report. They didn't include readings from inside the 20km zone.

You may need to read it again. I think the assumption that people from the affected zone were included in the report but it is ASSUMED that they lived outside the zone for four months is realistic, as the area was sealed of and guarded by police.

. In particular, some assumptions regarding the implementation of protective measures are conservative (e.g. the assumption that people in the most affected areas outside the 20-kilometre radius continued to live there for four months after the accident) and some possible dose overestimation may have occurred. All efforts were made to avoid any underestimation of doses

This is on page 7 fyi.

@KLT

he WHO's estimates of the potential health risks of the accident is based on the Linear No Threshold (LNT) hypothesis which assumes that the risk is proportional to dose down to zero.

Whereas I didn't see that specifically in the report (but I haven't finished it yet!), I would agree that although it isn't an ideal method to measure, it is actually a more cautious approach and hence for anti-nuclear campaigners, it makes things sound worse than they may be. all through the report WHO go to lengths to state that they are not underestimating exposures.

While both sides are not entirely impartial, I believe the WHO over Japan who has clearly been living in denial over this problem. I saw the WHO feedback in other articles and it was clearly a rational finding.

I'm with the World Health Organisation. The Japanese Government, whether we like it or not is wrong. WHO won't post these data without scrutinizing every single detail of what their doing. The one's who ultimately will suffer for the governments mishaps are the people of Fukushima.

With regard to the NHK documentary it showed health professionals refusing to return (2012) -obviously they don't feel safe.

The turnover of doctors in cities in Japan is low, nurses relatively high at 10-20% .

In the countryside areas of Japan it is much lower since jobs are scarcer.

I have both friends and close relations in in the Chugoku and Kansai areas in hospitals.

There is a dearth of nurses in Japan at the moment especially in outlying areas.

To leave ones job in those areas is not an easy decision I would imagine.

In the future will health professionals return to contaminated area?

Only time will tell.....

@steve mcgrew

Get your children as far from this mess as you possibly can,as soon as you can.. the longer the Time/duration of exposure your children receive the larger the chance they may suffer ill effects.

You could also choose to stick your head in the sand and pretend that the scientists reports don't exist. Specifically, you mention time/duration as key factors, but not rate or volume. If you have been to NY, you will have been exposed to a higher dosage than the highest levels received in Tokyo after March 11 2011. Doesn't stop people going there because there aren't a group of people saying "radiation there is dangerous". Same if you live or visit South West England, the radon levels there are incredibly high, but again, since it isn't nuclear, no one thinks it is particularly dangerous.

@bruifan

Interesting article on...

That blog has been setup to spread more mistruth than you can possibly believe. It has an agenda, and probably best that you look at the pictures section, where they try to connect EVERY ailment that everyone in Tohoku has with the Fukushima event.

No Miso:

I would like to know how you came to the decision that The Radiation Medical Science Center of Fukushima Medical University has an agenda.

Not trying to be rude, but the blog is offering a translation of the findings of The Radiation Medical Science Center of Fukushima Medical University and their ongoing assessment of children, so I am wondering what agenda Fukushima Medical University has?

And for the record, I do not agree with Steve Mcgrew.

@dbth There have been many links to this site in the past, and each time I get presented with over-biased reviews and stories. There are some useful items as you suggest, but is any good there is on the site is being harmed by the junk. Hence I STRONGLY believe it has an agenda. I don't recall seeing any story on there where there is positive news about Fukushima, or if there was, there may be a sideline comment claiming it to be untrue or not factual. I just pulled up 4-5 random posts from the blog and none of them were from FMU, anyone I don't consider your post to be rude btw (hopefully you can feel the same about mine!).

The WHO's estimates of the potential health risks of the accident is based on the Linear No Threshold (LNT) hypothesis which assumes that the risk is proportional to dose down to zero. The LNT hypothesis is no more considered as gospel truth. The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) is likely to come out with a statement to this effect. Calculating the health consequences of doses below 100mSv is being challenged by many specialists. The LNT hypothesis was a simple and practical way to enforce radiation protection.

Admittedly, it will take a while for public to change its perception. The most important fact is that while we consider the estimates based on LNT, we cannot rule out zero risk as well.

**With Japan being such a small place compaired with other areas and had nuclear weapons used on them plus the added problems now faced from this disarster one wonders what will make people wake up a problem does exist and will for a very long time. No use denying it it happened

@Nancy - WHO is independant. IAEA is there to promote the safe use of Nuclear energy and avoid it being used for weapons. If IAEA didn't exist, I'd be worried, as no one else is trying to prevent misuse of atomic energy.

Biggest health risk will be stress based on previous nuclear disasters and what the experts also said two years ago. Understandable that the Japanese govt doesnt want the health affected of its population by inaccurate reports or dare I say more shoddy international news reporting by foreign news agiencies just try to twist and use "fukishima" to sell news.

Yeah... the "reality" of it all is probably much much worse. I have ZERO faith and trust in the Japanese government when it comes to Fukushima and the nuclear industry.

"“Experts are still divided over ways to calculate the impact of limited levels of radioactive exposure over a long period,” the official said. “It is incorrect to think that residents will develop cancer in these ratios.”

See more at: http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/japan-riled-by-whos-fukushima-cancer-warning#sthash.E8Y0tAGt.dpuf"

Ridiculous! Common Sense will tell you that if you are not sure if there's impact or not, shouldn't stay there at all! Human being have the tendency to choose the status quo because that's how our brains work. If they think there are possible dangers there, they should keep people away especially kids there! It's all about money and not wanting to spend money because doing the right thing is more expensive, that's the reason they don't want the findings by the UN.

Edojin - I think you are mistaken on a few counts. 1) Abe wasn't PM at the time of the crisis, defending it would make him seen to be complicit and politically he is not going to do that, but use the event to keep the opposition on the back foot whilst being "seen" to be doing nice things for people in the region. 2) The government really doesn't want to downplay this news, as it is not nearly as bad as most people suspect. It does highlight an increase in risk though, and is worthy of all our attention. 3) This report will have no bearing on whether reactors are restarted or not. It is not a technical assessment of safety.

If I were living near this area I would move ASAP. The Japanese government ha a vested interest in not finding any negative health factors as it will cost trillions to compensate and relocate all those living in areas affected by radiation.. The one question everyone in Japan should be asking themselves is can you trust them to be honest about the danger. After all how truthful has the political powers and their partners been so far when it comes to revealing negative news about this disaster?? Get your children as far from this mess as you possibly can,as soon as you can.. the longer the Time/duration of exposure your children receive the larger the chance they may suffer ill effects.

You could also choose to stick your head in the sand and pretend that the scientists reports don't exist.

Unfortunately that's precisely what many have done.

It's about time this happened. It's only been two years!

I actually read the report. They didn't include readings from inside the 20km zone. They eliminated them from the calculations. This is directly out of the report on exposures used to create the cancer prediction models: "Doses within a 20-km radius around Fukushima Daiichi NPP were not assessed in the WHO preliminary dose estimation and therefore this geographical area is not included in this HRA. "

The WHO exposure doses are totally generic. They used environmental readings and general food testing data from the government to create these generic exposures. The WHO work does not reflect what happened to real people.

So one person might get a slight over estimation, then the one who actually did end up exposed gets an unrealistically low estimation. the fact that the 20km zone is removed from all of this makes it worthless.

Knowing WHO, I tend to think they underestimate rather than over estimate. Would it not be amazing if the japanese government started caring about ordinary citizens. But then few citizens can provide old politicians with cushy jobs at high pay later one.

There is another cost for the victims, the social cost. Remember the problems the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had finding marriageable people for their sons and daughters. I suspect something similar this time as well. But only time will tell if that happens again. Most of the survivors are not going to get back their economic and social status either. In a class conscious country that is going to hurt. How many of the formerly collage bound students, won't be able to go now. Those are costs that are going to cost for a lifetime.

But meanwhile todays politicians will have nice jobs in the nuclear industry so what do they care.

People will argue about this till the zombies come home.

I do trust the WHO's data and projections - they seem quite conservative and reasonable, and the large relative increase in thyroid cancer amounts to only a small additional mortality risk. People slander the WHO out of ignorance.

I also trust Japanese scientists, who have done the largest cohort studies of the effects of radiation. I do not believe that academic researchers at, say, Nagasaki School of Public Health, are likely to be influenced by anyone in government.

And -- Francis Urquhart -- welcome back, Chief Whip! It's been too long. Let's have a drink at my club sometime.

One reason this report cannot be based on actual exposure is that as local authorities were monitoring radioactive iodine emissions during the peak of the crisis, the Ministry of Education telephoned and ordered them to stop.

"and the large relative increase in thyroid cancer amounts to only a small additional mortality risk."

Do you have any young children there, Steve Fabricant? It's easy to slight people's fears when you have no skin in the game, as it were.

"I also trust Japanese scientists, who have done the largest cohort studies of the effects of radiation. I do not believe that academic researchers at, say, Nagasaki School of Public Health, are likely to be influenced by anyone in government."

Do you live in Japan and speak and read Japanese, Steve Fabricant? Japanese scientists get nearly all their funding from the government. The small amounts of research money that come from outside are from industries with vested interests in the results and from think tanks stocked with former government bureaucrats and national uni scientists. Japanese scientists don't so much as break wind without the government's permission. To publish findings in opposition to government policy would ruin their careers.

They are talking about 'risk', but there have already been three Fukushima children diagnosed with thyroid cancer, it was all over the news last month: http://sankei.jp.msn.com/life/news/130213/bdy13021312510005-n1.htm (Japanese)

We have heard this sort of denial from the Japanese government and various "experts" in the pay of the nuclear industry right from the beginning of the disaster. First, we were told that there was nothing to worry about and that the foreign media was generating hysteria. When the lid literally blew off the disaster, we still kept hearing denials with regard to the seriousness of this nuclear accident. When the foreign media exposed the fact that poor workers were being shipped into Fukushima to do dangerous cleanups that was denied too. Now WHO has come out with a modest warning about the possible elevated risk of cancer the LDP regime has gone ballistic, repeating the time-worn cliches and excuses that you can read above.

When is this stupid denial going to end?

And I can only fear what Abe and his crew will say and do should another nuclear disaster hit japan.

The Japanese government's response is not surprising at all. They have been downplaying the severity of events from Fukushima since ten minutes after the meltdown. The J-Gov are famous for downplaying and/or ignoring damning reports, especially from foreign agencies. However, you only have to remember their complete denial of mercury poisoning at Minamata all those years ago to understand the J-Gov is lying through their butts to control the flow of 'reality' from the Fukushima meltdown.

The Japanese government, which is now headed by Abe and the Liberal Democratic Party/Komeito, surely doesn't want that report played up too much. Abe and his crew want to restart the nuclear power reactors all over Japan ... and such information from WHO could complicate matters. So ... naturally ... the government wants to downplay the WHO findings.

Mike Critchley

Yes, absolutely. WHO must be wrong. Let's continue to trust the Japanese government's risk assessments and safety limits. Yeah, right.

The two assessments are in line with each other.

Seems like the Japanese government got riled about the wrong thing. Once you soil your pants, you don't really have standing to get riled when folks complain about the smell.

You should look what Isaid at the time of the original incident if my main computer was still in my position I could have included it.

posession

@ Ron Barnes - If you posted it here it will be in the history, whether you have your original PC or not. What name did you post it under?

@HedaMadness Yes, it would seem to be the case would it not? For those of us outside the prefecture, we are most certainly not able to receive clear details of the impact. However, a very early look at the number of health professionals leaving Fukushima shows a different picture.

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T111003004497.htm

NHK aired a documentary in the winter of 2012 showing that a year on nurses were still leaving. Wards of hospitals in areas nearest to the plant in Minamisoma ,Koriyama etc were actually closing or had been closed. Part of that documentary showed the nurses refusing to return due to the spread of radiation.

In 2012, 4 pediatricians at the same Red Cross hospital in Fukushima resigned. No reason was given.

Hospital personnel are in the frontline and are the first to see the health of the population in a given area. Mass resignations and refusals to return despite government assurances that all is well seems to me to be an indicator of the actual situation of the nuclear accident in parts of Japan.

Interesting article on thyroid abnormalities of children in Fukushima: http://fukushimavoice-eng.blogspot.ca/2013/02/fukushima-thyroid-examination-part-4.html

Well,

Thanks for the nice example of erratic, unreliable information. It looks like the sources are retirees with tinfoil hats and Walmart geiger counters.

Came across as far more than skepticism. No problem.

No Miso:

Thanks for the frank reply, I agree with you that the blog does have an agenda, but what I am concerned with is the results of the survey. It is ongoing of course but, the results are deeply alarming to me as they are to anyone who has knowledge of thyroid medicine.

What concerns me is that the number of children who have been tested and have abnormalities, and the speed at which people are willing to discount the qualified researchers, even though that particular blog may have an agenda. It seems to me that there are posters here that will find a way to discount this research or use basic statistics to say there is nothing to be worried about, and I have to ask myself, why?

If you are concerned with the blog, then look at who is conducting the research and their professional qualifications, and how they are doing the research. The research is sound, they are qualified and they are doing it in a way that can not be hijacked by either pro or anti nuke actors, and they are trying to be impartial even when they are studying their friends and colleagues children, and in some cases their own. Take it for what its worth, but Fukushima University is doing their best while being under a lot of pressure and scrutiny from many sides. Also remember they are monitoring their own friends and family in many cases, I know from doing research myself that this is extremely painful and hard to do it without bias.

The blog is irrelevant if you look at the data of the report, in my free online opinion.

Arggggggggggggggh, have been reading the above blogs and as what I consider to be an average foreigner in Japan, I made the decision to stay with my wife and two kids. I have only one question- what is the expected effect on the human Body over the next 30 years, the build up of caesium etc.

@Urqinchina

Where are you based?

why would WHO calcuate based on peope with high radiation exposure and conclude on majority?

“Their calculations were made based on the assumption that people continued living inside the evacuation zone and ate banned food. But there are no such people,” a ministry official said.

i was at the hospital during Fukushima Power Plant crisis, the nurses there assured me that there is no fear of explosion bcoz the govt will evacuate the people if there's any danger.it's the tsunami they dread about:(

I have someone very close to me that had breast cancer and FRZ helped her to fight and win the disease. The chemotherapy and radiotherapy sessions where easy to support due to FRZ that has strengthening the immune system.



Today I am grateful for life to the FRZ and focused on helping other cancer patients to have a better life and fight the disease with this miraculous natural product.



Feel free to consult their webpage and decide for your self. In case of doubt, I would say, give it a try a fell the difference in your welfare.



http://www.curanatura.com/epages/2119-100616.sf/en_GB/?ViewObjectID=4216809



I recomend :



Read carefully for the scientific researches and medical opinions.

 Consult the history of Priest Romano Zago. He is the base of all research for the cure of cancer through Aloe Arborescens.
Priest Romano Zago wrote "The Aloe is not remedy ... but cure!" and "Cancer is curable"

This is all and I wish good health for all.


For me, wihout any doubt:

FRZ - THE NATURAL FORMULA TO WIN OVER CANCER.

It’s all for now, I wish good health to all Miguel

“It can increase peoples’ fears as they just see the findings,”

Judging by the amount of negative posts here and on yesterdays man article I'd agree that people are going to be concerned by the findings. Ever since day one, the government have been trying to say what is safe and what is not safe, but it has been drowned out in a wave of fear, panic and hype. Lets remember that the media need to get you to read or watch their "product" as those all important statistics govern how much revenue they will get from sponsors. This whole story has been very unbalanced, and will continue that way. It really should not have happened, and I feel so sorry for the victims as they have lost their homes and in many cases livelihoods.

I don't think Japan is riled by this. I believe it is the lawyers who don't want you to listen to this.

This helps the plaintiffs and not big nuclear which is still hard at work on damage control. The fallout from this accident results in a major financial payout.

Sorry to use the word fallout but its true.

And you ask why we don't trust the government.

Any claim that your health may have been affected will be deemed "overblown"

Yes, absolutely. WHO must be wrong. Let's continue to trust the Japanese government's risk assessments and safety limits. Yeah, right.

Common Sense will tell you that if you are not sure if there's impact or not, shouldn't stay there at all!

Does common sense tell you how you are going to be able to afford to restart a new life somewhere else?

@Cos

So it has no purpose. What matters is what should be done ? I mean from now for people still living there and in case another plant accident occurs.

Don't you find something somewhat reckless about prioritizing what should be done over the data that would actually tell you if something needs to be done at all, and what level it would need to be done at if so?

That has no interest to know. If your doctor tells you that you have 3% chances to have diabetes some day, 10% cancer, 15 % cardiovascular,,, that helps you in what ?

It helps you to not panic anytime anyone mentions the word "diabetes".

There were even more diagnosed before 9/11. The delay is still too short to see the cancers caused by Fukushima in residents. In plant workers that potentially got higher doses, maybe they already have cases.

Agreed. I have asked for a source for that thyroid report that people keep bringing up, but it doesn't seem to materialize.

Fantastic a N disaster with no statistical negative outcomes every country should have one. It's like fiber we all need it.

After the WHO report came out, Kenji was relieved and started to think about moving back to Fukushima, but then the Japanese governemt response came out and he changed his mind.

No MisoMar. 03, 2013 - 01:54PM JST

That blog has been setup to spread more mistruth than you can possibly believe. It has an agenda, and probably best that you look at the pictures section, where they try to connect EVERY ailment that everyone in Tohoku has with the Fukushima event.

The fukushima prefectural data, which is currently the only source for the information, is well done, but the analysis by propaganda sites like that blog is beyond crazy. The actual data, which is linked to in the site (and others), specifically states 0.57% for nodules, 0.0006% for cysts, which is within the margin of error from previous studies (from https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B68f83tqq7QuNTVkOVdrNzlRWUk/edit ).

People simply don't know how to read scientific article, and therefore skip the very important part that says that only nodules greater than 5mm were counted for the 2001 article. It's like saying that ice is flammable because they saw a methane-hydrate crystal burning and someone said it was "like" ice, completely pointless results and simply insulting to the people who wrote the articles.

UrqinchinaMar. 03, 2013 - 07:47PM JST

Arggggggggggggggh, have been reading the above blogs and as what I consider to be an average foreigner in Japan, I made the decision to stay with my wife and two kids. I have only one question- what is the expected effect on the human Body over the next 30 years, the build up of caesium etc.

There is no significant buildup unless you regularly eat hundreds of pounds of dirt a year. Caesium has two biological halflives, the latter of which is about 70-90 days, so some does remain in your system a year or two after ingestion, but in order to reach the levels discussed in this report, you would have to eat only contaminated food and water. Considering most processed foods are from outside the prefecture (and therefore not contaminated), and people tend to eat much less local food than just 20 years ago, there are no serious side-effects.

Even according to the WHO report normal people have nothing to worry about, and you will save more days of life span not worrying about it, since stress related illness is far more dangerous. And of course, once the food you eat is less contaminated (thanks to nuclear experiments by the russians, ALL japanese food is contaminated at some easily detectable level), the amount in the body starts getting pissed out (literally) at a fairly rapid rate, so 3 years from now you won't have any levels distinguishable from peers around the world (and likely less since the Japanese laws are the strictest, and even 5 times the legal limit would be perfectly acceptable anywhere else)

Interesting article on thyroid abnormalities of children in Fukushima: http://fukushimavoice-eng.blogspot.ca/2013/02/fukushima-thyroid-examination-part-4.html

The problem is that these articles have no reference point, as the Fukushima investigations are being undertaken by ultrasound, rather than the traditional palpitation (a doctor physically feeling the thryoid nodule/cyst). A recent study in Germany found that the use of ultrasound increased the abnormality detection in adults by between 500 and 1500%, depending on how accurate the ultrasound scanner was.

The take-away from this - the results on the Fukushima kids could be completely normal.

I the effected area is bigger than Tohoku, since the winds during the events also blew toward Tokyo. It also amazed me that for a technological country like Japan, they don't have a network of constant radiation monitoring across the country especially with 54 reactor across 22 sites. And if you think about Chernobyl, that accident effected an area equal almost half the size of Japan to this day. Even today there are issues related to related to radiation levels of wild games even in places as far from the site as Germany. Since the radiation enters the ecology, don't see cleanup really cleaning up everything that needs to be cleaned up. And there were no network of radiation detection, I don't think there are true models of the actual spread pattern. Not to mention there were no isolation of farm animal and vegetation from even the worst areas.

chocoglideMar. 05, 2013 - 09:59AM JST

why would WHO calcuate based on peope with high radiation exposure and conclude on majority?

“Their calculations were made based on the assumption that people continued living inside the evacuation zone and ate banned food. But there are no such people,” a ministry official said.

They did not conclude on a majority. They concluded on the maximum possible effect and stated it was impossible to even reach that. That's how the "pro nuclear" WHO works, they look out for the safety of the people by checking the maximum possible danger that is somewhat realistically possible. You have pointed out the biggest error with some detractors statements, the fact that nobody will ever reach those levels of exposure even with no protections in place!

i was at the hospital during Fukushima Power Plant crisis, the nurses there assured me that there is no fear of explosion

A BWR cannot "explode" in the way Chernobyl or Kyshtym did. The event that happened was no different than what you would see at a natural gas facility during an earthquake.

**Why would anyone trust a foreign entity like the World Health Organization, when Japan's government is perfectly capable and honest toward it's citizens regarding the impact of the Fukushima meltdown?

http://empireofthecitycom.blogspot.com/2011/06/world-health-organisation-un-lies-lies.html

http://www.secretsofthefed.com/un-lies-world-health-organization-claims-that-fukushima-meltdown-will-not-increase-cancer-cases/ **

The fact is, whether the JGovt or WHO is correct, the paranoid scaremongers have always been completely wrong.

Unfortunately, I think people in Fukushima will have much higher cancer rates. It won't be caused by cellular damage from radiation, though, it will be caused by stress. The link between stress and cancer is well known.

@himajin.... sorry, skepticism often comes out as sarcasm. As a public health person I want to see real evidence before recommending massive social action.

@dontbelievethehype

Cabadje: You kindly responded to my post, with great gusto and bravado.

I did?

I...think this is your first post in this thread.

You didn't seem to reply to my accusations that TEPCO is, and was, a corrupt entity that can not be trusted further than their share certificates can be thrown.

That sounds like something I would do. Doesn't really interest me.

You didn't respond to my post that, YES, national news networks have reported that there is a cover-up in regards to radiation monitoring and reporting.

What was this in regards to? If this was in another thread, please tell me which one, as I generally don't go back to threads that fall out of my 2 day attention span.

You did cherry pick the points that are easily debated in an online, anonymous discussion.

Well...yes, of course. What would be the point of debating something that could not be easily debated on an online news article comment section? Although I do have to say that most of my cherry picking falls under my personal interest of either process or habit, as opposed to opinion and speculation.

I hope that you have taken the time to read the WHO report, if you have I would like you to point out which references they cite that pertain to current thyroid research in Fukushima, and what date the references were published. Look at the dates of the publications they cite, they are summarizing and making inferences on research that is barely 1 year old, and published buy organizations such as TEPCO that we can legally and logically argue are corrupt, and they do not look at the independent research and peer reviewed research of Chernobyl, unless that research has met IAEA approval.

Haven't finished it yet. I will keep the above point in mind though.

For the non-academic people out there, which is most of us, I'm asking why did the WHO only make assumptions using IAEA approved publications of radiation research, and not independent and peer reviewed research that exists.

That would indeed be a pertinent question. Once verified that this is what happened, of course.

I think you'll find that they were leaving because of the FEAR of radiation as opposed to the actual spread of radiation. Lots and lots and lots and lots of information out there that doesn't support the view that there has been a massive spread of radiation.

Hospitals closing would suggest it was for financial reasons. Lot's of people have moved away from the area and there's possibly that there's not just enough business.

And on average how many doctors resign from Japanese hospitals? I have no idea.

And that article was from October 2011. Relatively early in the situation and certainly at a point where there was fear and misinformation. And certainly well before any likely health effects would be shown.

But you're info is based on fear...2011... winter of 2012. Now there have been numerous independent reports, ALL of which show positive news. It's moved on. Science is finally proving that the dangers have been overplayed. That the fears are unjustified.

I would not put much stock in the WHO being impartial or honest either. They are beholden to the IAEA by UN mandate. So the guys who promote nuclear power on an international level have the ability to edit what WHO says and does.

@warnerbro - yes, I have "skin in the game", although most of the skin lives in Okinawa, but I have quite a few contacts at universities. They have integrity, likee most scientists regardless of where their funding comes from, and have mostly refrained from publishing data either supporting the government or opposing it. They understand the importance of not publishing the sort of crap "news" that claimed thousands of birth defects and miscarriages in the first months after the disaster that you apparently believed.

bruinfanMar. 03, 2013 - 09:27AM JST

Interesting article on thyroid abnormalities of children in Fukushima: http://fukushimavoice-eng.blogspot.ca/2013/02/fukushima-thyroid-examination-part-4.html

Read the actual report, not just some propaganda blog. The actual report states a much smaller number of thyroid issues, less than 1%. The earlier resport that had nothing to do with fukushima that propaganda pieces use actually has a margin of error much larger than the new report for the baseline, and the new results are well within that margin of error. Just because the original one only listed large abnormalities people who never bother to read the articles confuse the new results as stating there are abnormalities, when in reality they aren't abnormal results at all.

Himajin. Thanks for the nice example of erratic, unreliable information. It looks like the sources are retirees with tinfoil hats and Walmart geiger counters. At least the site has the sense to protect itself with a disclaimer: Disclaimer: Mineralab, LLC, the operator of this web site, can not independently verify that the Radiation Levels, or any Radiation Alerts, that are displayed on this Radiation Map are correct and valid. Among other possibilities, Geiger counter malfunctions or proximity of the counters to certain medical procedures or to radioactive items can cause high readings at a Monitoring Station.

if they are riled by WHOs warning, then Im sure they wont mind moving down there to live for a few years just to prove WHO wrong?

dontbelievethehypeMar. 03, 2013 - 12:30AM JST

For the non-academic people out there, which is most of us, I'm asking why did the WHO only make assumptions using IAEA approved publications of radiation research, and not independent and peer reviewed research that exists.

Simple, the peer reviewed research all states either LNT works above 100mSv or that there's no proof below 100mSv. Most experts are divided on either absolutely zero increase (or at least less than linear relationship) in cancer or a linear increase with increasing dose. WHO simply took the worst case possible from those reviewed research findings, and wrote everything based on the worst case scenario, which is LNT.

Most non-academics fail to see that all of these papers are based on worst case scenarios that have never been proven true, and in fact many experts believe is uselessly overestimating the dangers (in terms of use of medical xrays and treatments).

To further Basroi's point

UNSCEAR “does not recommend multiplying low doses by large numbers of individuals to estimate numbers of radiation-induced health effects within a population exposed to incremental doses at levels equivalent to or below natural background levels.” (UNDOC/V1255385)

I find it incredible that the anti-nuclear/anti-Japanese government are trying to use this story as an example to prove their point.

But it’s also pretty important that the human health effects of one of the biggest nuclear disasters seem to be virtually nil. (Time 2013)

Why is it that all Japanese media love propaganda? This article says absolutely nothing the last one says, and is far more sensationalistic. The fact of the matter is that the report states a maximum possible result, and states that they don't expect the numbers they said.

There's a fascinating report on Time magazine about this. It won't please the majority of posters on this board because it's very positive.

basroil Why is it that all Japanese media love propaganda? This article says absolutely nothing the last one says, and is far more sensationalistic. The fact of the matter is that the report states a maximum possible result, and states that they don't expect the numbers they said.

Finally a sensible comment. You are 100% right basroil!

crateMar. 02, 2013 - 11:36AM JST

They are talking about 'risk', but there have already been three Fukushima children diagnosed with thyroid cancer, it was all over the news last month: http://sankei.jp.msn.com/life/news/130213/bdy13021312510005-n1.htm (Japanese)

There have bee three since fukushima... but did you know that the average rate means we should have expected 12 cases? Yes, there have been less cases of cancer after fukushima than before it!

MagnetMar. 02, 2013 - 12:51PM JST

Yeah... the "reality" of it all is probably much much worse. I have ZERO faith and trust in the Japanese government when it comes to Fukushima and the nuclear industry.

Then trust the thousands of experts not affiliated with them that are actually saying the Japanese government is blowing things out of proportion and it's actually not as bad as the government says.

The J-Gov are famous for downplaying and/or ignoring damning reports, especially from foreign agencies

I think it's fair to say that it's not just the Japanese government that ignore reports that hold a counter view. For example

the J-Gov is lying through their butts to control the flow of 'reality' from the Fukushima meltdown.

cabadajeMar. 02, 2013 - 05:47PM JST

Agreed. I have asked for a source for that thyroid report that people keep bringing up, but it doesn't seem to materialize.

I posted a link to the report (and the earlier one people use to say that now it's increased despite the fact it was actually well within the margin of error) a while back. Not sure if it's still up or if omnipotent "experts" decided it wasn't good enough...

The event that happened was no different than what you would see at a natural gas facility during an earthquake.

Is that so?

Please, do explain the similarities between the "event" that happened at Fukushima Daiichi with that of an "event" at a natural gas facility.

This is what happens when the non-scientists forget that they don't know as much as the actual experts do. You end up with a country that reacts in a panic to a danger that doesn't really exist the way they imagine it does. And they end up making self-fulfilling justifications for it.

I trust Japan over WHO anyday.

http://empireofthecitycom.blogspot.com/2011/06/world-health-organisation-un-lies-lies.html

http://www.secretsofthefed.com/un-lies-world-health-organization-claims-that-fukushima-meltdown-will-not-increase-cancer-cases/