national

Mutations, DNA damage seen in Fukushima forests: Greenpeace

36 Comments

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

© 2016 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

36 Comments
Login to comment

In a report, Greenpeace cited “apparent increases in growth mutations of fir trees… heritable mutations in pale blue grass butterfly populations”

Maybe "mothra" of Godzilla movie fame, is coming to life again!

-9 ( +3 / -12 )

"Everything is under control..."

11 ( +14 / -3 )

Another SNAFU situation for Japan government.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

"Deny cancer and/or leukemia" in animals as a result. What about two heads?

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Of course comments will be made concerning the trustworthiness of Greenpeace.

As for me, I believe Greenpeace more than the Japanese government and TEPCO.

16 ( +18 / -2 )

I think the government is FAR more likely to lie that there ISN'T a problem than Greenpeace is to lie that there IS a problem.

(although they both have an agenda)

7 ( +8 / -1 )

"But such selective efforts will confine returnees to a relatively small area of their old hometowns, while the strategy could lead to re-contamination as woodlands will act as a radiation reservoir, with pollutants washed out by rains, Greenpeace warned."

And twenty years down the road with birth defects, increased cancer rates, and those twenty years of, "it cannot be proven it's due to the meltd--errr... PROBLEMS with the NPP!" they'll have to admit it is the result of the meltdown. B-b-b-b-but! It's "regrettable", and none of the people associated with the cover-ups are still in a position to be charged.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

The way Japanese govt has been handling the Fukushima man made disaster is a disgrace for the local population first, and for the world second, from day 1 and follows only 1 guidebook "stay on denial to protect vested interest at all cost".

3 ( +3 / -0 )

The DNA of plants and animals have changed in the area. The people are equally as affected. We eat plants and in some cases animals as sustenance force our survival. If everything we consume has mutated what changes are we to expect in present and future generations from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Meltdowns. The people have the right to live a healthy life, to eat and drink clean nuclear radiation Free food and water. They have the right to clean air, land and sea. No governing body should have the right to take this away as has happened here.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Well, Greenpeace should refrain from stating things like "apparent" mutations oif they want to be reliable. Things are or are not. You need to show data and analysis. There many reasons for mutations.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

I would like to know if the rain is capable of carrying that stuff. I remember right after the news broke that it started raining all over, one Japanese told me that it could be in the rain and to stay indoors.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

This decontamination work being done is haphazard. By Leaving bags of Radioactive Waste in the area that has been decontaminated. This is not decontaminating and area, it is just Moving Radioactive Contamination around a given area. This makes no sense what so ever.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Yeah, well, we know that TEPCO and the J-Gov will do their damnedest to downplay the severity of the after effects of the meltdowns and fallout. We also know that Greenpeace will do their damnedest to eggagerate the severity of the after effects of the meltdowns and fallout. Therefore, if you take both arguments and believe the median you will be close to the the real truth.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

I believe the worst was Chernobyl in Russia,the second was Three Miles Island in the U.S.A and and the last in Fukushima Japan.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

It common sense that after such a incident of this nature that there will be higher health problems. The scientist are correct in saying that they can,t tell weather these effects are prolong at this stage. That common sense again but over generations early data indicate that there will be big problems concerning the health of the population and the environment. The bag will be removed but it will take time to work out a better way of doing so. This has never be done before in the world but only in Japan. How did they clean up Hiroshima. ? and what were the problems associated and what the public were not told. This is far more public today then 70 years age. So you will hear a lot of reterict from Governments for decades.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Mutations, DNA damage seen in Fukushima forests: Greenpeace

Counting down till the report is censored by the secrets act. 3,2,1...

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@ klausdorth

Totally agree with you, green "piece" was taken over years ago, but the J G has always been full of it.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I believe the worst was Chernobyl in Russia,the second was Three Miles Island in the U.S.A and and the last in Fukushima Japan

Hmmm, I believe you are wrong. Yes, Chernobyl did release a lot of radiation over a large area. However, the reactors did not have a containment facility, which meant all the nuclear material was blown out allowing the reactor to be capped and the material to be collected. Three mile island was also very quickly contained. However, due to the design of the Fukushima reactors and TEPCO's failure to upgrade safety procedures this plant is still spewing out tons of radioactive water into the environment five years after the event. There are over a thousand tanks of highly radioactive water stored around the plant, which is growing every day. These tanks were designed to last five years and are already starting to corrode due to being on the coast. Furthermore, there is still no plan as to what to do with this water even though the original tanks are reaching the end of their lifespan. There is still ground water leeching into and through the plant, which makes its way into the ocean. At this point in time, there is still no definite plan as to when or how the Fukushima plant will be environmentally safe and how to deal with the 10's of thousands of tons of highly radioactive water stored around the plant. These combined factors make Fukushima the worst nuclear disaster in history and due to its unstable state it is quite possible the worst is yet to come. If it is hit by another tsunami the whole east coast of Japan could be irradiated.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Utrack

The DNA of plants and animals have changed in the area. The people are equally as affected.

Even by your standards this is astounding.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/10/humans-are-worse-radiation-chernobyl-animals-study-finds

And Disillusioned; still claiming Fukushima was worse than Chernobyl. Still wrong.

5 years on and neither of you have bothered to read up on the subject.

-10 ( +2 / -12 )

Heda Madness, Firstly and this is worrying, the number 3 reactor at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant was operating using MOX fuel. MOX is more Radio-toxic than Uranium fuel and this along with 2 other reactors went into meltdown. Three Reactors whose contaminants are still being poured into water tanks that are exposed to the elements. I suspect criticality is taking place as we speak since radioactive cesium whose half life is 7 days has been detected along with the radioactive cesium whose half life is 30 years or so. Of course plants, animals, people. land, sea and atmosphere are going to be affected by the triple nuclear meltdowns

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Interesting response. Doesn't begin to explain that the DNA of the people have been affected. Sixteen children have thyroid cancer. SIXTEEN of the most tested children in the history of mankind have thyroid cancer and scientists are disputing whether these are because of Fukushima. Yet you claim that the people's DNA has changed. Not some. Not a few. But all.

We know what happened with Chernobyl. We know about the food. We know what the Japanese did. .we know that all testing has proven the Japanese right. We know that there are a gazillion people testing everywhere outside of the exclusion zone and we know we are not seeing spikes. We also know that wildlife in Chernobyl is in a substantially better condition than when man was there. We know this. We've seen the effects over 30 years. And that was when the Russians did everything wrong.

Fukushima is leaking. It's dripping. It didn't not erupt over vast swathes of land. Land thousands of kilometers away has not been effected by it. But it was after Chernobyl. ..drip drip drip...localized

Still. ..you've previously posted that thousands and thousands would die from Fukushima so it's hardly surprising that you're trying to maintain its all doom and gloom.

But you have science against you..and science has said that few people will die. The sixteen thyroid cancer cases proves this.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

First one was "LITTLE BOY" Second was "FAT MAN" and third was "FUKUSHIMA". Its a tragedy Japan suffered from all 3.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

If Greenpeace had it's way, all of Japan would be returned to nature, and only be populated by whales. Wait, now that would be whale mutants. I got it ... lets move some of the wolves living near Chernobyl into the Fukushima area ... it would work out great ... they are already conditioned for radiation living, and so they would eat the contaminated animals and control the run away 'glow in the dark' radiation rabbit syndrome. Oh and this is great, the presence of wolves would keep resettlement to low levels due to 'little red radiation riding hood' fears. It is interesting science about the butterflies. I think the research is useful, and understanding the event is good practice. But you know - GreenPeace is NOT a trustworthy organisation. Sorry.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Nuclear pollution have ALWAYS some consequences on people health, like any other form of pollution, but it's never easy to say how much people were influenced. Indeed, also today we haven't exact data about cancer for Chernobyl. Fukushima isn't under control, of course. But unlike what some people said, also Chernobyl was never really safe. They are building up a new cover for the reactor because the old one is full of holes and cracks, and the risk of a total collapse is high. So, IF it collapsed before the new cover is ready, we would have a new 1986 scenario in Europe. For this reason, it's never right to speak about these problems, trying to say which is the worst based on the "what if" concept. You never know what will happen tomorrow at your "apparent safe" nuclear plant near home. Currently, there's a huge and ongoing radiation leak at tha Indian Point nuclear power plant near New York City. According to this news, it could be worse than Fukushima:

Radiation Leak At New York Nuclear Plant Might Be “Worse Than Fukushima”

http://yournewswire.com/radiation-leak-at-new-york-nuclear-plant-might-be-worse-than-fukushima/

Of course, I don't know what is worse or better. It's not the real point, to me.

But some facts in nuclear industry are always the same: negligence and denial.

“There is no impact to public health or safety,” Entergy spokeswoman Patricia Kakridas told RT.

Really?

Of course, the tritium leak is the ninth in just the past year, four of which were serious enough to shut down the reactors. But the most recent leak, however, according to an assessment by the New York Department of State as part of its Coastal Zone Management Assessment, contains a variety of radioactive elements such as strontium-90, cesium-137, cobalt-60, and nickel-63, and isn’t limited to tritium contamination.

Despite the assurances from Entergy, the area around Indian Point is a “cancer cluster,” with the local rate of thyroid cancer rates registering at 66 percent higher than the national average, according to Joseph Mangano, Executive Director of the Radiation and Public Health Project (RPHP).

Are these data correct? We don't know it for sure. But I'm sure there were consequences for people health. Anyway:

Incredibly, Entergy completely rejects the notion that their plant’s operations have caused an increase in cancer rates.

Total denial, like the nuclear industry always does.

And negligence:

“It’s a disaster waiting to happen and it should be shut down,” Paul Gallay, president of Riverkeeper, a watchdog organization dedicated to protecting the Hudson River, told CBS News.

The nuclear power plant is very very old, indeed.

http://abc7ny.com/news/critics-decry-radioactive-leak-at-indian-point-power-plant/1195679/

New testing has shown that the amount of tritium in the groundwater below the Indian Point power plant in Buchanan, New York, is about 740 times the amount allowed in drinking water, though officials said there was no public health risk from the leak.

See? Denial. Lies. There's never public health, how you can see.

Entergy spokesman Jerry Nappi said the radioactive water probably leaked during a recent operation to prepare for a planned refueling outage, which takes place every two years, but the New Orleans-based company was still investigating to figure out exactly how.

"Probably" Nuclear industry never knows what the hell is happening.

The contaminated groundwater will eventually make its way to the Hudson River, where it will become so diluted it won't be detectable, Nappi said.

Yeah, radiaction got always "diluted" according to nuclear industry. Anyway the contaminatiion is ongoing and they don't know where the problem is.

My final point is: nuclear industry is made of negligence and lies. Fukushima is not under control. Chernobyl isn't under control. Indian Point Power Plant isn't under control. You are only delusional if you think troubles like that can be fixed permanently.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Why should this have an impact on the forest as the nature animals etc. have returned to Chernobyl. The background radiation was higher in the anciant time. The worst natural background radiation today in the world is 350 milliSievert which increase the lung cancer risk with Three percent.

The actual radiation in Fukushima is 120 milliSievert.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

To you pro-nuclear guys: also bird poop can damage a nuclear plant.

A Pooping Bird Shut Down Half The Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant

http://gothamist.com/2016/03/03/indian_point_bird_poop.php

WOW, nuclear plants are so safe!!!!!!!!!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Hey! Hedamadness! The 'official' statistics are calculated on the amount of radiation released in the initial incident. Yes, you are correct in saying that Chernobyl did effect many thousands of kilometers. However, Fukushima is still leeching contaminated water into the Pacific Ocean and traces of radiation have been found as far away as Alaska. Furthermore, there is still an extreme ingerant danger with Fukushima with regards to removal of the fuel cells and the thousands of tons of contaminated water stored around the plant (at 2 meters above sea level). You should not go out if your way to insult people's intelligence. It just makes you look like a fool.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

klausdorthMAR. 05, 2016 - 07:25AM JST Of course comments will be made concerning the trustworthiness of Greenpeace. As for me, I believe Greenpeace more than the Japanese government and TEPCO.

Shouldn't we be trusting facts, rather than on teams? It looks like a lot of JT readers are aligning themselves with team anti-nuclear not because they actually know any facts about Fukushima, but because they are just really, really frightened by nuclear power. Then you have a minority of JT readers who are aligning themselves with team pro-nuclear, without providing any facts that support their side either. What we need is fact-based analysis, not speculation and reflexive fear-mongering or dismissal of concern. As for myself, I see the problem here:

The article wrote: The conservation group said its report relies largely on research published in peer-reviewed international journals....But “most of the findings in it have never been covered outside of the close circles of academia”, report author Kendra Ulrich told AFP.

Now, the "closed circles of academia" bit is utter rubbish. Academics are generally desperate to get anyone to read their research. Published research isn't "closed off",is's just difficult for people who don't understand the subject to get into and unfortunately these days more and more often behind a pay-wall that individuals can't afford to get over. But the greater statement they're making seems likely and is very frightening- the research has been published, it's just not getting reported on.

If only all of these frustrated JT users who want to understand the truth of Fukushima had some common bond, some connection through some kind of media institution that could get over that pay-wall and contact experts in order to explain the facts in a way everyone could understand. In this brave new world, we could have people whose job was to look at scientific journals and convey knowledge over vague and unclear speculation to the public. What would we call this crazy new field? Something like... 'Journal-ers'

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Move along nothing to see here, move along now.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Official? Where on enenews or on the ihatejapan websites? It's not worse according to science. The environmental and health impacts have been significantly less. And it's ludicrous to suggest otherwise.

Alaska. Where there is absolutely no Fukushima related radionuclides in fish samples taken...compare that to Wales where in certain areas lamb was banned for over 20 odd years. Because of Chernobyl.

Insult your intelligence? Hardly. You do that yourself everytime you claim Chernobyl is worse. And what we know from Chernobyl. Is that at the time Greenpeace claimed it would have severe environmental consequences forever. It hasn't

. But again, you've also previously claimed that thousands will die from Fukushima so it's hardly surprising you keep banging this drum.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

What I can't understand is why is this coming form Greenpeace and not the citizens of Japan. Doesn't anyone care? Why don't people stand up and attract media attention? What are the parents afraid of? Stand up and defend your kids!

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

'...Greenpeace should refrain from stating things like "apparent" mutations oif they want to be reliable. Things are or are not.' Roger Jolly

Actually, Roger, that is not how the body of scientific knowledge is acquired. There are no absolutes in science, it's about probabilities.

The purpose of the Greenpeace report; 'Radiation Reloaded: Ecological Impacts of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident 5 years later' ^ was about gathering the science, explaining it and adding to the body of scientific knowledge.

The undeniable issue is there are orders of magnitude of difference in the complexity in ecosystems affected radiation compared to the relative simplicity of the TEPCO/ IAEA/ Japanese Government planned decommissioning of the Fukushima plant and clean up. This magnitude of difference is the 'silent lie' about the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident.

Why is respecting the difference important, particularly with respect to the Fukushima incident?

Because absolutes or as you put it 'Things are or are not' are associated with dogma, religious belief, or circular logic that is not open to acquiring new knowledge.

Above all else the uniqueness of this incident affords an opportunity to learn about the real world effects of radiation, however, the neoliberal bottom line demands absolutes and is getting in the way of the science.

The context of the report is here in its conclusion; '...radionuclides released by the accident, and their incorporation into the materials cycle of ecosystems, the impacts of the disaster will last for decades and centuries. However, the understanding of the full scale of the Fukushima disaster for the natural environment is only it's early phase, highlighting the need for continued and expanded independent research into the multiple ecological effects. ^

^ http://www.greenpeace.org/japan/Global/japan/pdf/GPJ-%20Fukushima-Radiation%20Reloaded%20Report.pdf

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Fukushima five years on. Very good in-depth double-bill on NHK TV on Saturday and Sunday evening. Last night was about tracing the effects of radiation on the wild life that has taken over abandoned towns and villages. Perhaps they will show it again.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Just declare most of the prefecture a sacrifice zone already.

You couldn't pay me enough to work there nor live where governments will eventually give the OK for those displaced to move back to.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I reckon I could I be there and make a major buck before passing on.

No death wish as I am only 48 but even there got a few decades left.

Chernobyl gave me more and still going strong.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

MOX is more Radio-toxic than Uranium fuel

Not really. Maybe when it is initially produced, but ALL uranium fueled reactors produce plutonium during operations. So even a non-MOX fueled reactor will have plutonium as soon as it starts operating.

I suspect criticality is taking place as we speak since radioactive cesium whose half life is 7 days has been detected

I suspect criticality ISN'T taking place because criticality requires precise conditions and belief that melted fuel rods would just happen to end up in those conditions is unreasonable. Add to that the fact that there is NO cesium isotope with a 7 day half-life.

Reactors produce 2 isotopes of cesium, 134 with a 2 year half-life and 137 with a 30 year half-life. Levels of 134 have been exponentially dropping exactly as would be expected if fission had ceased, while if fission hadn't ceased then levels of 134 would not show the same exponential decrease.

Physics and radioactive decay don't care about beliefs. They do what they have been doing for at least the last 13 billions years no matter what anybody believes or wants.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

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