No ill health effects seen in residents near Fukushima plant yet: researcher

"A Japanese government-backed researcher"

Any independent researchers, anyone???

Hmmm...ok?? So we are supposed to BELIEVE this??

It's not yet been two years. Research from Chernobyl suggests that it will take four or five years to see an increase in the number of thyroid cancers, if there is to be an increase, which I obviously hope there will not.

http://www.ratical.org/radiation/inetSeries/ChernyThyrd.html

Of course not! Unless a person was near Hiroshima, there is no health problems for the 94 year old individual. It is the second or third generation that will have the problems. The 65 year olds today are starting to see the health problems and 40 year olds need to be aware.

Sorry, but I do not believe a word of this. I have personally met children and teachers in Fukushima, near the afflicted area, who told me that seval of the children were suffering from varying degrees of radiation sickness. Anything that comes from "a government backed researcher" shoild be treated with the utmost skepticism.

"Japanese government-backed researcher" says volumes.

All of you criticize the fact it's a Japanese government researcher but you haven't bothered to see if any one else agrees or disagrees. There's lots of data on the internet. All backing precisely what this researcher has said.

Ambrosia, ignoring the fact that Thyroid cancer is highly treatable if caught early but you do realise that there is a MASSIVE difference between what happened in chernobyl and fukushima don't you?

If you don't then google milk because the reasons for the increasing numbers was that people in the area ingested milk and milk products that were highly contaminated in radiation for a relatively long period of time. This didn't happen in Japan and as such you're comparing apples and oranges.

heda-madness: Please provide some links. As you can see, I have provided links attesting to the fact that the rate of thyroid cancer in children in or near Chernobyl didn't increase until four or more years after the incident, which is why I think the government report is optimistically jumping the gun. Additionally, the way the government silenced its own researchers whose research results it didn't agree with suggests that the government is not exactly to be trusted and if any other research was done with information provided by the Japanese government, that is not to be trusted either. So, again please provide some links of independently arrived at information. Thanks.

When Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hit by the atomic bombs, Japanese people rumoured no trees and grasses would grow there for decades. What happened were different. The trees and grasses grew and people continued to live there and the populations of the two cities increased greatly until today. During the course of time, I don't hear influences of radioactivities among them very much excepting those who were hit directly by the bombs or those who visited the cities immediately after the bombings. Is there any statistics that cancer happens more often in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? If so, I don't want to live there.

I did suggest you google it but as you didn't:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/18/health/research/18cancer.html?_r=0

Nearly 25 years after the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine, children and teenagers who drank contaminated milk or ate affected cheese in the days and weeks after the explosion still suffer from an increased risk of thyroid cancer, according to a study released Thursday by the National Cancer Institute.

This is well known by anyone who has studied the effects of Chernobyl. The Soviet governments refusal to evacuate the area and to continue to allow the public to eat and drink milk products from the effected area.

Yes, I do realize that thyroid cancer is highly treatable but don't understand what that's got to do with anything. It's still a problem if the rate of cancer is increasing due to a nuclear accident, regardless of whether or not that cancer is treatable. The treatment of thyroid cancer itself can cause a myriad of long term health problems such as hypothyroidism, weight gain, cold intolerance and benign and malignant thyroid tumors and not something you'd want to get regardless of its treatability.

If the main difference was the amount of contaminated milk drunk and your assertion is that the people in and around Fukushima didn't drink contaminated milk then why is the government even bothering to do a study? According to what you're saying, they shouldn't have to be checking for an increase in thyroid cancers at all because they just wouldn't be an expected problem.

And yes, I do understand that there were differences between Fukushima and Chernobyl but thanks for the condescension. Again, any links to independently arrived at studies would be appreciated, without the snark.

What diseases have already occurred or might occur in the future?

Residents who ate food contaminated with radioactive iodine in the days immediately after the accident received relatively high doses to the thyroid gland. This was especially true of children who drank milk from cows who had eaten contaminated grass. Since iodine concentrates in the thyroid gland, this was a major cause of the high incidence of thyroid cancer in children.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/index1.html

Some children in the contaminated areas were exposed to high radiation doses of up to 50 gray (Gy), mostly due to an intake of radioactive iodine-131 (a relatively short-lived isotope with a half-life of 8 days) from contaminated milk

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster_effects

Young children and fetuses, who have developing and fast-growing thyroid glands, are the most susceptible to exposure to radioactive iodine, and the effects of exposure also tend to show up more quickly in children compared to adults. Children also are the main consumers of milk, and when cows eat radioactive iodine-contaminated grass, the iodine concentrates heavily in milk, making milk consumption another key pathway for exposure to radioactive iodine.

From the thyroid health perspective, we also have a better idea of what to expect -– thyroid cancer rates rose in those who were unprotected by potassium iodide and also in those who drank milk contaminated by fallout.

http://thyroid.about.com/od/radiationnuclearexposure/a/Chernobyl-History-Nuclear-Disaster.htm

There are thousands of similar reports. They haven't changed in the 20 years since I studied Chernobyl. It's always been known that exposure to milk, milk products have caused an increase in thyroid cancer. This DIDN'T happen in Japan. Is that enough links for you?

If you understand the differences between Fukushima and Chernobyl why did you dismiss my initial post, without links, out of hand. If you did understand what happened in Chernobyl then you wouldn't have. You can't compare the two so by using data from Chernobyl you are trying to compare them.

Why is the government doing study?

Possibly to try and reduce the fear spread by people who know nothing about the subject. Lots of bloggers have been talking crap. Lots of fear has been spread.

There are still people who claim that more people will die from the nuclear incident than the tsunami. There are others who say that more people that died in the evacuation than will die from radiation.

Few people will develop cancer as a consequence of being exposed to the radioactive material that spewed from Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant last year — and those who do will never know for sure what caused their disease. These conclusions are based on two comprehensive, independent assessments of the radiation doses received by Japanese citizens, as well as by the thousands of workers who battled to bring the shattered nuclear reactors under control.

Nature Magazine, 2012

One can provide links to support any side of this issue. However, having a researcher who is being paid for the government of Japan (who does have a definite bias/agenda) is not considered to be a reliable source.

I read an article in another Japanese English newspaper, stating that already 3 kids have been diagnosed with thyroid cancer...

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/02/14/national/fukushima-disaster-panel-so-far-reports-three-young-people-have-thyroid-cancer/#.USAW3hwz-Kk

So all that soil scraping and power hose washing was just a waste of time then?

While nearby residents' health problems may not be easily linkable to the disaster, are you not curious what sort of health problems they have? Are we supposed to just believe they are all healthy as mules, oh, except for the effects of stress?

Besides, its the people downwind of the plant who I am most concerned for, the people who were exposed to contaminated particles for long periods and actually absorbed them, and not just those exposed to a bit of radiation itself. And in the future it will be those who ingested contaminated particles I will be concerned about. Just pointing to those living near the plant is rather meaningless.

"Throw a stone among wolves"...

We had Chernobil fallout in my country. My two aunts are dead from Leukemia and thyroid cancer. 3 another are diagnosed with thyroid and brust cancer. We had no cancer history in family. This is what might happening in Japan 20 years after Fukushima. There will be nobody to blame. This article is meaningless at the moment. But thank you for letting us express our opinion JT.

Heda_Madness: "I was posting in response to this, to explain that in Chernobyl one of the major reasons for an increase in cancer was because of drinking contaminated milk. Anyone who knows anything about Chernobyl would understand that"

So hang on a second here... you say: "You can't compare the two so by using data from Chernobyl you are trying to compare them" and yet EVERY post of yours on here, save retorts to FightingViking (who is right about the pro-nuke thing), has you comparing with Chernobyl and trying to give stats.

I would not be surprised if the J-government and Fukushima in particular, even with three cases of thyroid cancer since the incident (in people under 18 -- who knows how many over 18!), will use this as 'proof' that it's safe to live there and push a campaign for it, when we all know it can take time for illnesses like cancer to develop. How many cases of thyroid cancer developing in people in the area BEFORE the disasters?

Aristoman: "There will be nobody to blame."

Exactly, and that's often what J-politicians and other politicians want exactly -- to maximize their profit while in office and be gone before the crap from their time in office eventually hits the fan. Then the government at that time can spout the usual, "We had no way of knowing", "It is regrettable", "This is not the fault of the current government but the policies of such and such", etc.

Smith in Japan. Thank you.

Smith,

firstly my posts were in response to ambrosia. He asked for.links and data, I provoded them.

Secondly the quote from nature, two independent reports, was about Fukushima

Thirdly, I am pro-nuclear - so what? But unlike the anti-nuclear brigade I try and back my posts up with facts, quotes and corrobrating evidence.

Well, it's pretty clear from their track history that the Japanese government cannot be trusted on the issue of nuclear power/safety.

That said, it is a great leap of logic to conclude that merely because it is a gov't-backed researcher who is doing the research, it is false, flawed or deliberately lying. This researcher could be a very upstanding individual doing his/her best...but obviously we can't tell.

And to attack someone as "pro-nuke" is pretty pathetic as a means of furthering discussion.

Heda_Madness: "But unlike the anti-nuclear brigade I try and back my posts up with facts, quotes and corrobrating evidence."

And then tell them they cannot use the same type of evidence (ie. Chernobyl) for comparison, hence the contradiction. And the "anti-nuclear brigade" (nice way of undermining your comments!) gives plenty of stats and proof on the actual topic -- not some off-topic comparisons to twist current realities to their favour, or use syllogism as 'proof'. I mean, listen to this:

“To put it the other way round, we can’t say risk of cancer will rise if you are exposed to radiation lower than 100 millisieverts,”

That's like saying, "We haven't found in all smokers that they died of cancers related to smoking and therefore it's bad for you. To put it the other way around, we can't say that, based on how many people smoke and don't die of cancer, that it isn't good for you" -- it's just SLIGHTLY less obvious.

This is NOT Chernobyl, and the realities are different, for better or worse. But what you can't do is run into an affected area then bolt out two minutes later, point out that you didn't get sick in that brief time, and therefore deem the area 'safe'. Likewise you can't force people to eat produce from the fallout zones and say that if they don't die the next day the food is safe for consumption. It's going to take time, and anyone who doubts there won't be a spike in cancer rates in the future among people who were in and especially still ARE in the affected areas since the disaster is a fool. Like I said, though, 10 to 20 years down the road the government will play dumb, say they had no way of knowing, no one warned them, etc. etc.

sourpuss: "And to attack someone as "pro-nuke" is pretty pathetic as a means of furthering discussion."

Without spelling out that the pro-nuke posters on here often tow the party line and lies of the government, perhaps -- but that should be pretty obvious. It's as you said yourself, there's a pretty bad track record for spreading disinformation and lies, for covering up, and later claiming they had no idea when there's definitive proof they did.

I am finding all the discussions here - from both sides - very interesting reading since the day it happened. JT has been a lifeline in that regard - there are heated opinions here, both from experts and the not-quite-so-expert but I appreciate them all because it really helps to get information and perspectives on things that until two years ago I had never heard of, like microsieverts, and that now, to quote Charlie Brooker "I find twice as scary as Darth Vader glued to a shark"!

Firstly - to Aristoman - I am so sorry to read about your family`s health problems. If I may - can I ask what country that is? Or if you would rather not say, then rough distance from Chernobyl? I know it sounds off-topic but I am curious to compare (very roughly I know) to the distance from Fukushima under the direction the plume roughly took. It seems like an awful coincidence that you had so much cancer in your family if Chernobyl had nothing to do with it. Before anyone jumps on me that it is apples and oranges - I KNOW - but it at least gives some kind of loose comparison.

We can go backwards and forwards for years over how much of an impact the fallout will have directly on health - only time will tell. I`ll be amazed if there are no ill effects at all. They are happening right now, as people like realist can attest. Meanwhile in the here and now I find this bit really interesting:

“Since the accident in Fukushima, no health effects from radiation have been observed, although we have heard reports some people fell ill due to stress from living as evacuees and due to worries and fears about radiation,” Sakai said.

I have seen wide scale evidence of this here in Tokyo, both personally and through some interviews I did with Japanese doctors and pharmacies for a work project. We have had a number of evacuee families in our area as there is an empty government condo nearby they were being housed in. Their kids went to my kids schools. It was awful. One poor woman was separated from her husband who was a firefighter up there and so had to stay. She was so worried about him. Another guy ran a bar/restaurant in an evacuated town and so lost everything. He can go back but there are no customers left. They have 4 young children. One woman stood up to give a little speech in our class and broke down in tears as she said she was terrified of bringing the children here and telling us she was from Fukushima for fear of bullying, so she had told us she was from Tochigi, and when everyone was so kind anyway she felt terrible and wanted to apologise to us all for lying - she was in a terrible state and did that awful thing where she prostrated herself on the floor in front of us. My heart was breaking for her.

ENT doctors have told me they saw a huge increase in balance-related problems after the quake, firstly brought on by the constant aftershocks, and later they believe specfic medical conditions brought on by stress - BPPV, sudden sensorineural loss and so on. Naika guys have told me they are prescribing a far higher number of antidepressant and antianxiety medication than they were just 3 years ago - mostly to mothers of young children who are stressed out about food safety and playground safety, and Japanese men in their 30s and 40s who cant leave. The pharmacists all back this up, and tell me friends are constantly bombarding them with questions about soaking up iodine, how to avoid contamination, does seaweed REALLY work? etc etc. This by the way is in Tokyo - a long way away from the actual site itself. God only knows what the poor people are going through up there. I personally know 3 families who have separated as a direct result of the disaster, and have read about many more where one parent refuses to or cant leave, and the other insists for the welfare of the children.

They say that stress is an unquantifiable but nonetheless believably large factor in developing long term health conditions. I think many many peoples lives have been affected by this in ways that cant be easily measured. There is nothing that can be done about that, but I find the governments constant playing-down of the impact of this, in reports such as this and in the way everyone was getting the impression they can return "in a few years", the contracts given to the companies that - lets be honest here - have the most connections within goverment and not the best technology, the Environment Minister who freely said "the soil here is different to overseas" and "we cant have a bunch of foreigners running around up there, scaring the grandpas and grandmas" - all this is a slap in the face to every single person whose lives have been affected by this.

Did anyone see the clip on youtube of the meeting between Fukushima residents and goverment officials? The officials eventually walked out when the questions got too hard, only to be chased down the corridor by residents grasping urine samples from their kids and begging them to take them away and test them as they had promised they would. One guy spread his arms across the elevator doors and begged them not to "run away" but they just all got into a different elevator and one guy was heard to say as someone implored him to help "that`s not our department".

I don`t know whether or not the effects from this will result in cancers and other serious disorders over the long term. The only thing I know for certain is that the governments handling of this from day 1 has been atrocious and I would love to know what the basis for this report is, given that anyone, such as realist, can take a trip to Fukushima and anecdotally see the evidence for themselves.

“Since the accident in Fukushima, no health effects from radiation have been observed, although we have heard reports some people fell ill due to stress from living as evacuees and due to worries and fears about radiation,” Sakai said.

Sums up all you need to know about the value of this report. They have "heard reports" of people falling ill due to stress, but they don't count. Since the desired outcome of this report was determined well in advance, they can just be dismissed so lightly. What is incredible here is the complete arrogance of the government. They make the tax payer foot the bill for the clean-up and the white wash. Japan, unfortunately, has learned nothing from this disaster, as was hoped in some circles. The bureaucrats will circle the wagons with the other members of Japan Inc. forever.

Radiation leads to long term issues, not next year or two issues in most cases. I wouldn't expect to see any major issues for decades.

Smith, I would never say

But what you can't do is run into an affected area then bolt out two minutes later, point out that you didn't get sick in that brief time, and therefore deem the area 'safe'.

What I do say is what international experts and what the international media are saying. And if you don't agree then fair enough but my opinion was formed during my university studies and nothing that has happened at Fukushima has begun to change tgat. And ALL recent infotmation, that JT refuses to cover, is postive.

@chibachick - I think you hit the nail on the head with your post, although not directly. The biggest issue is the fear of radiation, not the radiation itself. It has been driving people crazy since the buildings exploded, all because we just don't know enough about it. Our governments terrified us during the cold war with apocalyptic scenarios of a post nuclear war world. That damage has never been undone, and now we just assume the worst because we don't know any better. I recall the drama when Tokyo Firemen were sent to try to put water into the buildings to cool the reactors - absolutely terrifying to watch, and the brigade leader was in tears at the TV conference. Yes, the governments need to educate better, and yes, a better job could have been done during and since this disaster began, and yes, we MUST treat nuclear power with much more respect so that this never happens again.

Added radioactive exposure over and above what the body can repair leads to deleterious health effects. Japanese law has sought to make increased limits 'legal' yet there are parts of Japan like Tochigi,Chiba,Saitama and Yokohama not to mention Tokyo Bay with contamination on a par with anything to be found in Fukushima. These areas have massive populations. Children are most vulnerable. There might be a news blackout concerning the effects but I happened to visit a children's hospital recently and was shocked to find all the beds taken!

Links to this blog give measurements in Japan .....

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/12/tokyo-almost-as-irradiated-as-fukushima.html

@kurisupisu - this info is way out of date. It has a note on a story in Setagaya with reported high levels - "In Tokyo, a sidewalk in Setagaya ward, in the western part of the city, recorded radiation levels of 2.707 microsieverts per hour, about 50 times higher than another location in Setagaya where the ward regularly monitors radiation levels…." Not sure if you recall, but his was actually due to luminous paint stored inside a house. Frankly, if this is the stuff being blacked out then I'm happy! We need truth and detailed information, not rumours or half baked stories.

tkoind2Feb. 17, 2013 - 10:55AM JST

Radiation leads to long term issues, not next year or two issues in most cases.

Not with thyroid cancer, that's usually seen as a significant increase in then first half decade. Hard cancer cases will be impossible to determine though, since 40% of people get cancer before they die anyway, and an extra 0.01% getting cancer will be impossible to distinguish from noise.

Heda_MadnessFeb. 17, 2013 - 11:01AM JST

What I do say is what international experts and what the international media are saying. And if you don't agree then fair enough but my opinion was formed during my university studies and nothing that has happened at Fukushima has begun to change tgat. And ALL recent infotmation, that JT refuses to cover, is postive.

There's actually one glaring discrepancy that no news media will cover despite turning those three cancer cases into a joke at best.

From article:

His comments came as the Fukushima prefectural government panel said this week three people who were 18 or younger when the nuclear crisis erupted in March 2011 have been diagnosed with thyroid cancer.

Now, lets take some time to analyze this based on cancer trends before fukushima. Within a population of children, each is expected to have a 0.0015% or so chance of getting thyroid cancer naturally (taken from USA statistics on pediatric cancer divided by the number of children under 19), from genetic and non-fukushima factors. The population of fukushima prefecture is about 2 million, and lets assume just 20% of the population is children (a bit of an underestimation considering some "children" have "graduated" from that status). That gives us 6 cases of thyroid cancer expected.... per year.

The children of fukushima actually have a quarter of the cancer rate as their peers, so perhaps they are actually being cured by fukushima rather than harmed by it (using the same incorrect logic as most posts)

This is fantastic news, a Disaster on a scale seldom seen results in.....nothing. People are living in school gyms for nothing. Being bullied because your from the area it's nothing. Have a large growth of puss don't worry the government have said...it's nothing. Actually the whole thing was faked to draw attention to a vibrant tourist spot, and nothing at all happened that could be directly related to the industry that has done nothing but provide clean safe power. The government will do nothing why should it, nothing happened here.

I think that time will tell. I personally know a lot of people in Fukushima who suffered from symptoms of radiation exposure (continuous nosebleeds etc.). This cannot be good. Who knows what future health effects will occur? Some of the effects from Chernobyl are just being realized now. I also personally know of two otherwise healthy people in their 30s and 40s who suddenly died of heart attacks shortly after the meltdowns. There are plenty of studies to support both sides of the argument. Question is, do you live in the radiated area? Would you (honestly) let your kids live in that area?

kurisupisuFeb. 17, 2013 - 11:26AM JST

Added radioactive exposure over and above what the body can repair leads to deleterious health effects.

That would be against the linear-no-threshold models that people are using to state it is dangerous, the model you are stating actually contends it is not dangerous at the levels seen in Fukushima

CrickyFeb. 17, 2013 - 12:06PM JST

People are living in school gyms for nothing.

Many people have refused to go back to their homes, and others had their homes washed away from the tsunami but not rebuilt. Actual number of refugees in in the hundreds according to the last reports on it, most of which don't want to move away rather than stay where they are.

Being bullied because your from the area it's nothing.

That has nothing to do with radiation, rather irrational fear extended by yellow journalism.

Have a large growth of puss don't worry the government have said...it's nothing.

Links please? Cancer usually doesn't result in puss, though bacterial infections brought on by stress related scratching could be a culprit. You would have to check with an oncologist to be certain, but odds are it's completely unrelated to cancer.

how do these scum sleep at night? ah on a money mattress, thats right...

move the political capital to fukushima and see clean up work speed up...

Thank you basroil you calming words have ceased all feeligs of compassion for those displaced from an event that is just a media beat up. Without the voice of reason who knows people might panic about a nuclear accident! It's just a glitch and nothing to worry about.

In an environment of consistent denial, rhetoric, manipulation, and "deep and profound racism" I trust living very near the US embassy, and if they say go...I go...and if they email about radiation level problems I belive them highly over any j-representive in any matters concerning Japan. I think all foreigners should go to the US embassy website for such information regarding eartquakes, tidal waves, radiation, and other pending or impending problems.

ref: "deep and profound" racism excerpt from UN Report (Diene, 2005)

@no miso

It is amazing to see that radiation in Japan has been explained away by 'radioactive 'bottles' It is perhaps more amazing that people have actually fallen for these lies. Radioactive contamination has been found in Yokohama on apartment roofs,in parks,by roadsides etc None of this has ever been explained.

Why would you be looking for up to date links?

Radioactive material keeps on giving for millions of years-2 years makes very little difference....

@Basroil

Although previous models and collected data might lead to certain agreed on premises, I would propose that Fukushima differs when compared with existing models

The meltdowns that occurred at Fukushima are a unique case never before experienced.In scope and levels of contaminant output, the world has never seen similar. Levels of contamination are still high and have not yet been capped.

The data on the levels of contamination (as you know) has never been released and what data has been released, has been tampered with.

The vectors for contamination do not fit with any known models linear or otherwise,as this situation (Fukushima) is a completely new model.

What is dangerous,lethal or non lethal etc is a moot point and must be addressed on an individual,case by case basis for obvious reasons

Radioactive emitters make holes in our bodies that is the danger, and that is well known!

@kurisupisu

It is amazing to see that radiation in Japan has been explained away by 'radioactive 'bottles' It is perhaps more amazing that people have actually fallen for these lies. Radioactive contamination has been found in Yokohama on apartment roofs,in parks,by roadsides etc None of this has ever been explained. Why would you be looking for up to date links?

What is probably more worrying, is people feel so incredibly vulnerable that they can't believe plain and simple facts. As I pointed out earlier, the world has been terrorised by governments over nuclear holocausts. That legacy lives on, and no one seems to be changing that.

As for up to date links, none of the ones I looked at were of the least bit relevant. Apart from the paint bottles in Setagaya (not sure why you don't believe that one), the Yokohama discovery was definitely related to Fukushima, but since the discovery was in an area where rainwater that falls on a large surface area congregates into a small channel, if there hadn't been elevated levels I would have been suspicious. Same for the park in Chiba, and also for my kids school. Large surface area + small channel = elevated levels. That's not difficult to understand.

Such a statement, so soon, is simply ammoral. Over the long term the acceptability of radioactively contaminated food products and soil has to be based on an estimate of lifetime health risk and the number of persons likely exposed, rather than a safe/not safe concentration threshold. The latter implies that there is a concentration below which there is no concern for future risk from exposure, regardless of the number of people involved. The excess lifetime risk from exposure to ionizing radiation is known to vary considerably with the dose, age at time of exposure, and gender. I believe that informed decisions would be more appropriately based on a discussion of the health risks from potential exposure to radiation rather than a simple comparison to a regulatory concentration threshold. This 'study', by the government, is a lie.

YongYangFeb. 17, 2013 - 01:42PM JST

Over the long term the acceptability of radioactively contaminated food products and soil has to be based on an estimate of lifetime health risk

What do you think the international guidelines are based off? Hopes and unicorn farts? No, they are based on the application of the linear-no-threshold model over a 75 year span. Food radiation rates have assumptions of 550kg of food consumed and no more than 1mSv (1 in a million increased risk of death using LNT) per year for food (food and water both in Japan's case). Relocation risks are based on second year exposure of 20mSv, which comes out to under 1Sv lifetime exposure (which is also considered 1 in a million). Soil is actually based on the maximum intake of Cs in Cs absorbing crops such that they fall under the acceptable food radiation rates. WHO has some very good materials on the calculation of risks, though you'll need at least high school math and science skills to read through it.

Any other day hundreds of thousands of bequerels of contaminated pollen would make headline news but not now....

http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/press/kenho/pdf/130208_2-01.pdf

Once contamination of Japan stops then accurate models can be predicted but that is still a long way off

The government and Nuclea regulators have from day 1 expressed there noncholonce and confidence that, although Yes a Nuclea crisis beyond all imagination happened. It has resulted in a manner that is non statistacly verifiable, and the imputes are non statistically choaherant resulting in a plethora of deaths that are either a result of smoking, bad diet, or some form of deviancy but have nothing at all to do with the exploding radiation spewing reactors up the road, in fact they appear to have had a positive benefit. I believe the scientific term is "yatta"

Amazing to see how nonchalant a few writers are about a some children getting thyroid cancer, and dismissing it as easily treatable. No children should be getting it, and being subject to surgery, radiotherapy or even chemotherapy for resistant cancers or those which have spread throughout the body. Having your thyroid gland and/ or lymph nodes removed, and then having to take thyroid hormone for the rest of your life is not something to lightly dismiss.

Dude it's not about safety, it's not about a long term goal, it's about saving "face" thousands , millions can die but they die for the greater good. That must make it better... Like a cherry blossom. It's about being...momentarily useful .

wanderlustFeb. 17, 2013 - 02:56PM JST

Amazing to see how nonchalant a few writers are about a some children getting thyroid cancer, and dismissing it as easily treatable.

Amazing to see people forget that only a quarter of the normal rate is seen, and people dismissing it as nuclear caused (without realizing they are saying radiation cured 8 out of 12 children expected to have cancer from natural causes)

@chibachick - I think you hit the nail on the head with your post, although not directly. The biggest issue is the fear of radiation, not the radiation itself. It has been driving people crazy since the buildings exploded, all because we just don't know enough about it

@no miso - yeah, sorry! I tap tap tapped, hit submit, and went Gah! Bit long! Will try to be more direct!

But yes, being driven crazy is a conservative statement. Had we been given transparent, reliable data from the outset, we could have made educated decisions. Instead we are told to trust the data given to us by people with a vested interest in downplaying (or in some cases overstating) the situation.

After two years people still seem to be getting on with things as best they can. I know I have got less panicky and more lax over where my food is coming from in recent months. But it must still be there under the surface, because when my husband came home and told me he has been offered a job overseas two weeks ago, I burst into tears and the first thing that popped into my head was being able to relax about my children (with regard to this issue anyway!) So the stress is clearly still there. We have all just learned to live with it I guess.

kurisupisuFeb. 17, 2013 - 01:06PM JST

Radioactive material keeps on giving for millions of years-2 years makes very little difference....

99% of the radiation currently out there is from Cs, and it takes just 200 years for that to be 1% of the original (and absolutely every place would be below the legal limit 50 years before that), not 2 million.

kurisupisuFeb. 17, 2013 - 01:25PM JST

Although previous models and collected data might lead to certain agreed on premises, I would propose that Fukushima differs when compared with existing models

No studies have been or likely ever will be published outside the two standard models.

The meltdowns that occurred at Fukushima are a unique case never before experienced.In scope and levels of contaminant output, the world has never seen similar.

Sellafield released about one fukushima ever 2-3 years for two decades (yet was never classified above level 4), and Kyshtym site had seen 250 times the radiation release of all radiation sources from fukushima. Chernobyl also was far more devastating, not only releasing 7 times more radiation, but releasing practically all of that on land (as opposed to 80%+ directly into the sea in fukushima). To say that there's nothing similar would be incorrect, and in fact it's quite small compared to other incidents, especially covered up russian ones.

The data on the levels of contamination (as you know) has never been released and what data has been released, has been tampered with.

Safecast.org has a good collection of privately collected and maintained data. They don't have scintillator data unfortunately, but you can use the assumption of 99% radiation above 0.17microSv/hr (lowest background rate) is due to Cs137 if you wish (likely far lower, especially after snow/rain due to radon).

@chibachick

But it must still be there under the surface, because when my husband came home and told me he has been offered a job overseas two weeks ago, I burst into tears and the first thing that popped into my head was being able to relax about my children (with regard to this issue anyway!) So the stress is clearly still there. We have all just learned to live with it I guess.

So sorry to hear it caused that much stress. I found it incredibly difficult to be rational in the weeks after the explosions, I listened to the scientists who were, on the whole independent, and everything made sense. Then I watched TV reports and newspapers and the sensationalisation of the event undid all the common sense. In this sense I think the media are as much to blame as the government for confusing the situation - all in the name of ratings I would guess, and it still goes on!

Over the long term the acceptability of radioactively contaminated food products and soil has to be based on an estimate of lifetime health risk and the number of persons likely exposed, rather than a safe/not safe concentration threshold. The latter implies that there is a concentration below which there is no concern for future risk from exposure, regardless of the number of people involved. The excess lifetime risk from exposure to ionizing radiation is known to vary considerably with the dose, age at time of exposure, and gender. I believe that informed decisions would be more appropriately based on a discussion of the health risks from potential exposure to radiation rather than a simple comparison to a regulatory concentration threshold. This 'study', is a ruse, a deception, a straw man.

If i was the gvt-paid researcher, i would plead with my faithful donors (government) not to issue any statement for now......OR, i would work with a credible independent research firm, which would release results on my behalf...

YongYangFeb. 17, 2013 - 06:05PM JST

Over the long term the acceptability of radioactively contaminated food products and soil has to be based on an estimate of lifetime health risk and the number of persons likely exposed, rather than a safe/not safe concentration threshold.

Apparently you didn't read all the posts above, all those are based on the assumption that you are more likely to die from accidents than from radiation caused cancer by standing next to the reactors at fukushima. There is no such thing as a safe threshold (for anything, even brushing your teeth), rather a threshold of acceptable risk. http://www.icrp.org/consultation_viewitem.asp?guid={6D8775CC-1B19-49FE-A137-A56C7567F082} has good information (especially the link to ICRP's report) on the subject of lifetime risk.

The latter implies that there is a concentration below which there is no concern for future risk from exposure, regardless of the number of people involved.

Average risk is irrespective of the number of people because it is an average. You can calculate the expected number of cases by multiplying risk by the number of people, much in the way I used to calculate that four times as many people were expected to have cancer than actually got it.

The excess lifetime risk from exposure to ionizing radiation is known to vary considerably with the dose, age at time of exposure, and gender.

Define considerably. Single exposure cases don't vary much between male, female, young and old, and continuous exposure is likewise a function of exposure time rather than other factors.

I believe that informed decisions would be more appropriately based on a discussion of the health risks from potential exposure to radiation rather than a simple comparison to a regulatory concentration threshold. This 'study', is a ruse, a deception, a straw man.

The regulatory threshold is based in (at a low level) the one excess per million risk. By doing a simple comparison to that you can easily calculate the risk with minimal math skills. However, people cannot make informed decisions without understanding what that risk means, in this case 1mSv (government limit) is about the same as spending your nomihodai time at a regular izakaya or karaoke bar. If people were really concerned for their safety, they would limit going to bars, but due to false information out there, they wrongfully believe many things are less dangerous than they actually are.

I am just wondering about the scope of this study as anyway they state it is too early for cancers to be declared as a consequence of Fukushima. In other words they knew the conclusion of this study before making it. Except for propaganda, this is a waste of resources.

Actually, what king of illnesses were they seeking?

Basroil,

You're wasting your time. They don't like facts or evidence, certainly nothing produced by governments or independent scientists. So don't bother, whatever you say people will disagree with it. None of them are capable to counter it. We've now reached the point where people say that you won't notice any effects of Fukushima for years to come because that will mean they can whinge about it for years to come.

This is despite what scientists around the world have said, despite what the independent reports have said and despite what this Japanese researcher has said. Though personally, I'd always believe the independent researchers it's just in this case they seem to say exactly what this Japanese one is saying.

Open MindedFeb. 17, 2013 - 07:15PM JST

I am just wondering about the scope of this study as anyway they state it is too early for cancers to be declared as a consequence of Fukushima

By this time in the Chernobyl case, the rate had already doubled, and a similar increase (perhaps not double), but instead they had a 75% drop in cases. That in itself is an anomaly, but not the one they expected. Thyroid cancer cases typically peak around 4-5 years after initial exposure, so you can rest assured that they will again do tests next year and the year after that.

Heda_MadnessFeb. 17, 2013 - 07:17PM JST

Giving them information is "like sending sheep to the slaughter"

Though personally, I'd always believe the independent researchers it's just in this case they seem to say exactly what this Japanese one is saying.

I normally stand by the Stanford University reports, they tend to not give a damn about political correctness and just state the facts (for scientific articles at least)

Of course there are negligible health effects due to radiation around Fukushima. All experts have known this right from the outset. Moderate doses of radiation really aren't very dangerous. But there's a huge industry built around scaremongering and paranoia.

A Japanese government-backed researcher

I think we can stop reading at that point. His job is to report that everything is peachy.

Stanford? You mean like the report that said around 150 people will die from cancer linked to Fukushima?

Well that's not going to be a popular opinion on this board especially once someone works out how many people die from the effects of other fuels annually in Japan.

So sorry to hear it caused that much stress. I found it incredibly difficult to be rational in the weeks after the explosions, I listened to the scientists who were, on the whole independent, and everything made sense. Then I watched TV reports and newspapers and the sensationalisation of the event undid all the common sense. In this sense I think the media are as much to blame as the government for confusing the situation - all in the name of ratings I would guess, and it still goes on!

I know what you mean. It WAS very dificult to be rational with everything going on around us at the time, and I know people with small children (like me) were especially worried. There were some great people on here at the time who really knew what they were talking about - a guy called Johannes Weber was a nuclear scientist. Don`t know if he is still around, but he was great at giving out correct info in laymans terms. I agree the media stirred everything up too. Charlie Brooker (the guy I mentioned earlier) was laughing about that at the time - find him on youtube - something like "Charlie Brooker Japan tsunami disaster" - its about 4 minutes long and VERY funny!

It was just SO difficult to get reliable info. Still is really, and everyone has an opinion. As you say, the beat goes on. I just find it so hard to trust a government who time and again has been caught out in lies and corruption and general bad behaviour.

And I got sick of people saying anyone worried about it was paranoid, ignorant, uninformed, etc etc etc. Most of those people werent even living through it. I had women in Tokyo at the kindergarten right in front of me nod knowingly when a child had a nose bleed and say to each other "yappari houshasen ne!" (of course, radiation!) As a foreigner it makes you wonder - what do they know as Japanese that we dont because we cant read so well? And if that kid in the same class as mine has a radiation-related nosebleed, what the hell is going on with MY child?" Yes, absolutely, with hindsight, I can see that was a total exaggeration. But I had no idea at the time. And day after day that worry weighs on you. Of course it does, it would anyone who wants to be the best parent they can be. Then you get people saying "if you really cared about your children you would have left"! My God, no wonder the thought of being able to throw whatever into my cart and not worry about it for a change made me cry!

In the end I found the balanced, scientific view of things a lifeline. It stopped the panic and I will be forever grateful to the people who took their free time to post here and on other blogs with factual non-emotional info. I will really miss Japan when we go, but I have noticed a difference in me since I found out we are going. I had got so used to just living with the worry I barely noticed it anymore!

Bagheer ScheidtFeb. 17, 2013 - 08:15PM JST

A Japanese government-backed researcher

I think we can stop reading at that point. His job is to report that everything is peachy.

http://www.rrjournal.org/action/doSearch?action=searchAuthor&type=simple&action=search&nh=10&displaySummary=false&result=true&type=simple&author=Sakai,%20Kazuo&checkboxNum=2&dbname=Radiation%20Research

This guy spends all his time researching the effects of low level radiation, and has published more peer-reviewed articles on it than you or a dozen other people here combined. Hell, he's published more journal articles than all of greenpeace combined. Unless you can find articles that contradict his statements (from reputable sources, anyone can make stuff up on the internet) or find reports attacking his research findings, his report should be taken as an scientifically accurate piece of information. It's disgusting to insult the guy just for doing his job, and even lower to attack him for things he isn't doing.

Heda_Madness and Basroil, you both seem up to date on this. Just wondering if either of you have any information of the pre-3/11 average incidence of thyroid cysts/nodules greater than 3mm in children living in Fukushima (or Nagasaki/Hiroshima), and what it was post 3/11, and currently is based on the total number ultrasound examinations. Just looking for facts so we can all be informed.

I think many are missing the forest for the trees here. To me Greenpeace's response was much less harsh than I expected. In other words, Greenpeace, while critical of the overall attitude and position of the Government, didn't dismiss or challenge the report's factual findings (yet). So I actually take some comfort in Greenpeace (whom I, all in all, respect) not challenging the facts of this (or any environmental) report. That doesn't make me trust the GOJ, but I won't out of hand dismiss the report's findings, either.

Even greenpeace can't pretend there are ill effects when there aren't actually any ill people. At least, not for ever.

Basroil: I do not want to argue about potential cancer/death incidence, the studies are too controversial and we will never come to an agreement. My point is: what is the objective of this GOJ report?

@chibachick

. I will really miss Japan when we go

I think Japan will miss you more!! Around the time of the disaster I was working around Akasaka, next to parliament. I was seeing key politicians every day so I knew it was safe because if there really was any sniff of danger, I'm pretty sure there would be multiple excuses for the need to go to the "regions" (like Okinawa) to study "expansion" programs or something other than being in Tokyo!

Wherever you are going and whatever you do - don't forget us!! ;)

dontbelievethehypeFeb. 17, 2013 - 08:54PM JST

Just wondering if either of you have any information of the pre-3/11 average incidence of thyroid cysts/nodules greater than 3mm in children living in Fukushima (or Nagasaki/Hiroshima), and what it was post 3/11, and currently is based on the total number ultrasound examinations. Just looking for facts so we can all be informed.

As with Chernobyl, nobody cares enough before hand to make those studies. And since ultrasound analysis of nodules is fairly new, nobody wanted to cut out thyroids of "perfectly healthy" children just for that information. Even in more modern times, there hasn't been much research into it because nodules are incredibly common.

The causes of nodules is unknown, and they are only actually potentially dangerous if they are larger than 1cm (http://radiology.rsna.org/content/237/3/794.full), so as long as they are under that there really isn't much to worry about.

Open MindedFeb. 17, 2013 - 10:04PM JST

My point is: what is the objective of this GOJ report?

Why does there have to be one? Why can't it just be a report done because people were clamoring for it? Just because the results aren't what you want doesn't mean people weren't asking for the report.

Basroil: because the effects of radiations will come - as stipulated in the report - in 2-3 years (will it be 50 or 10,000? I and you do not know!). Thus in the meantime everyone has the right of proper protection against contamination.

I think Japan will miss you more!! Around the time of the disaster I was working around Akasaka, next to parliament. I was seeing key politicians every day so I knew it was safe because if there really was any sniff of danger, I'm pretty sure there would be multiple excuses for the need to go to the "regions" (like Okinawa) to study "expansion" programs or something other than being in Tokyo!

Ah, Akasaka! In that case my best friend probably walked right past you. She was working there too, and had a 5 hour walk back to our daycare building. She had no way to contact them (as you know the phones were impossible) and no way of knowing that I had already seen her two little boys as I was working just next door and could confirm they were safe. I couldn`t get hold of her. Im sure that experience has traumatised her. She has had a really hard time adjusting and has a stress related disorder now.

I agree - I watched the government. Everyone else seemed to be watching the French! When the French came back, we knew it was safe! :)

I wont forget anyone and I will still be lurking with intent around here. May have to change my login to California Girl tho ;) ! Not sure I can pull that off at 40 but hey, got to have goals in life!

"TOKYO — A Japanese government-backed researcher " <--- The point where I stopped reading.

This guy spends all his time researching the effects of low level radiation, and has published more peer-reviewed articles on it than you or a dozen other people here combined. Hell, he's published more journal articles than all of greenpeace combined. Unless you can find articles that contradict his statements (from reputable sources, anyone can make stuff up on the internet) or find reports attacking his research findings, his report should be taken as an scientifically accurate piece of information. It's disgusting to insult the guy just for doing his job, and even lower to attack him for things he isn't doing.

I don`t think Bagheer is questioning his credentials, just his objectivity. Given that Dr Sakai was on the payroll of the Central Research Institute for the Electric Power Industry from 1999 to 2006, and is now partially financed by the government at NIRS, it doesnt appear to be an unreasonable question.

Did anyone see the clip on youtube of the meeting between Fukushima residents and goverment officials? The officials eventually walked out when the questions got too hard, only to be chased down the corridor by residents grasping urine samples from their kids and begging them to take them away and test them as they had promised they would. One guy spread his arms across the elevator doors and begged them not to "run away" but they just all got into a different elevator and one guy was heard to say as someone implored him to help "that`s not our department".

Chibachick - yes, I saw that clip. It was utterly despicable.

And that, and the countless number of times we have been lied to and fobbed off by governmental officials, together with the lemming-like stampede by the LDP to get more of these reactors back online in the name of the almighty yen, is why I have absolutely no faith whatsoever in anything that comes out of a government mouthpiece.

I don't care what this man's credentials were before he took the shilling and started spouting precisely what officials have wanted us to believe since they reluctantly admitted it wasn't just a bit of steam blowing off on March 11th. (And, Basroil, I think you should aim for a higher standard of expertise than knowing more than I do about nuclear physics before you assume all is clear).

Anything backed by the Japanese government when it comes to nuclear safety is to be taken with a large dose of salt. Preferably iodised.

Yes Chibachick. I can not say that cancers from my family are related to Tchernobil. Also 20 years after Fukushima nobody can say that cancers in Japan are related to Fukushima. Who knows. Im sure that you guessing too as all those great scientist who build safe NPP. I also suppose that we've met once in Ginza. Didn't we?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-20707753 (Fukushima 50 remain unknown)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jan/11/fukushima-50-kamikaze-pilots-sacrifice

It seems bizarre that they are claiming no ill health effects while they try to hide the workers (heroes that tried to save Tepco)

I heard from people who went to a part of Fukushima just last week. Kindergarden children were ordered not to play outside. As little as possible. The sand in the playground was contaminated and was changed due to a private donor.

No ill radoation effects yet???? Is it too early to say that? We all know how cancer caused by radiation progress.

Here is research that gives people hope!

http://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com/radiation-the-no-safe-level-myth.html

It appears our bodies are actually healthiest when exposed to background radiation levels sufficiently high to activate our protective immune systems, and exposure levels at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima are within those protective limits. As for cancer levels, I have friends and family dying of cancer and with thyroid conditions, and I am nowhere near a nuclear industry disaster. Greenpeace is working for the fossil fuel industry in opposing nuclear power!

Thanks Basroil, much appreciated. It seems your quite good at doing basic academic research. Let me assist you with some of your comments, I don't mean to be rude, but either your ignoring my questions or not up to date with modern research. Please excuse my lack of experience in quoting and referencing material here, as I am new.

You replied:

basroil Feb. 17, 2013 - 10:33PM JST As with Chernobyl, nobody cares enough before hand to make those studies. And since ultrasound analysis of nodules is fairly new, nobody wanted to cut out thyroids of "perfectly healthy" children just for that information. Even in more modern times, there hasn't been much research into it because nodules are incredibly common.

Are you actually saying that thyroid research is new? Nobody cares?? There is an extremely well developed area of academic and medical research in this area, to deny this is illogical. Radiological research and treatment of cancer is deeply concerned with the thyroid and lymphatic systems, as you know of course... Do you understand how long we have been using ultrasound for thyroid research? Ultrasound is the most accepted method of early identification of nodules, and cysts... Modern times... Like over 1300 published peer reviewed articles into ultrasound and thyroid research http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-0-387-77634-7_1?LI=true ??

These guys would disagree with you in relation to the "incredibly common" nodules http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18806721. "The incidence of thyroid nodules in children is estimated to be 1 to 1.5% based on clinical examination. Children with thyroid nodules, compared to adults with thyroid nodules, have a fourfold greater risk of developing malignant thyroid disease. Pediatr Endocrinol Rev. 2008 Sep;6(1):14-23. Thyroid nodules and cancers in children. Josefson J, Zimmerman D.

The esteemed Japanese researcher into the after effect of cesium in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki areas, who also was the head of Thyroid Association, Mr. Shunishi Yamashita of Japan, co-authored this beauty https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B68f83tqq7QuNTVkOVdrNzlRWUk/edit?pli=1, which when you read states that children in Nagasaki, which had a higher background count of cesium than Fukushima, is at 0.0% nodules (incredible common??) and 0.8% cysts. That is less than 1% of the population of children in those areas, statistically insignificant if you want to bring maths into the sheep herding (sheeple!).

Based on Mr. Yamashita's work, who is the current dean and professor at the Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences at Nagasaki University, and was the head of the Japan Thyroid association, we can assume that the average incidence of thyroid nodules and cysts is less than 1% of the population in Children in Nagasaki, and therefore Fukushima, prior to 3/11. How is that incredibly common my friend?

I will ask you again, what is the average incidence rate of thyroid cysts, and nodules, prior to 3/11, and after, in children under the age of 18, in the Fukushima prefecture of Japan?

The information and answer to my question is public and available, and to anyone who knows anything about this area, is frightening. Hopefully your research skills can find it and share it with us lay people (sheeple).

I eagerly await your humble reply.

TLDR Disclaimer: For people who are in the TLDR (Too long Didn't Read) boat, I am asking what was the average % of children under the age of 18, in Fukushima prefecture, who had thyroid problems, before, and after 3/11, as sampled by the Radiation Medical Science Center of Fukushima Medical University. By problem a mean a cyst, or nodule, both of which are INCREDIBLY UNCOMMON in children under 18, and usually (statistically) lead to a type of cancer and/or removal of the thyroid organ.

Interesting article from another independent source, highlighting what this Japanese researcher has said (or at least this researcher is supporting what the UN has said)

http://commonhealth.wbur.org/2013/02/fukushima-depression-obesity

No one has died from radiation and in fact no radiation health effects have yet been observed among the public or workers, according to a December, 2012 statement from a United Nations expert committee.

But if Fukushima is teaching us that our fears of radiation may be exaggerated, it also provides another lesson: That we should take seriously the more mundane, but potentially more lethal, aftereffects of disasters such as anxiety, depression, alcoholism and physical inactivity

I am not surprised at all. One of these researchers said "Increased radiation may be even good for their health". After all the stories of the cover-ups including finding of Plutonium and neutron particles around the power plant, and while the radiation release has not been controlled yet, this is just outrageous. If you want to make that area safe and show it is safe, do the following: 1- Cover the nuclear reactors releasing radioactivity with a thick structure as Russians did; people cannot wait decades for your cleanup work while earthquakes keep coming. 2- Open a cancer registry just like a few other cancer registries that exist in some of the Japanese cities and allow independent researchers follow the cancer data for the next 10-20 years. 3- Otherwise, stop denial and deception.

dontbelievethehypeFeb. 18, 2013 - 02:03AM JST

Are you actually saying that thyroid research is new?

I think you missed the point entirely. I said research into the statistics of those thyroid nodules was practically non-existent because it has no correlation with cancer. There's plenty of research on the thyroid itself, plenty on larger (>5mm) nodules, cysts, goiter, etc. But nobody cares about a pretty much useless statistic like small nodules.

The esteemed Japanese researcher into the after effect of cesium in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki areas, who also was the head of Thyroid Association, Mr. Shunishi Yamashita of Japan, co-authored this beauty https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B68f83tqq7QuNTVkOVdrNzlRWUk/edit?pli=1, which when you read states that children in Nagasaki, which had a higher background count of cesium than Fukushima, is at 0.0% nodules (incredible common??) and 0.8% cysts. That is less than 1% of the population of children in those areas, statistically insignificant if you want to bring maths into the sheep herding (sheeple!).

I think you (and the conspiracy theorists at ENENEWS and greenpeace) completely misunderstood that old and completely irrelevant report.

1) That research group was investigating Belarus through Nagasaki, there's no mention of data from hiroshima, nor do they ever say that they picked Nagasaki for any specific reason other than diet. The children of Nagasaki now were not exposed to radio-iodine at all, and were highly unlikely to have been in contact with anything but trace levels (measurable, but not significant) of Cs137.

2) They only included nodules over 5mm in the initial report back in 2001, all others were disregarded. The Fukushima data shows just 0.5% of cases with nodules over 5mm, not the ridiculous 30% everyone complains about. That's a whole 60x smaller result.

3) For the 0.0% they found in the 2001 report, they have a +-1.2% confidence interval at the p=0.05 level, meaning the Fukushima report was well within the margin of error. The confidence interval on the Fukushima one on the other hand, had a confidence interval of 0.1%, meaning the percentage of cases isn't expected to differ from their results.

People always like to take numbers out of context, and when they fail to actually read and understand the information actually present, they end up spewing false information in a relatively violent tone.

nedinjapanFeb. 18, 2013 - 08:43AM JST

neutron particles around the power plant,

You don't just find neutrons sitting on the ground. They come from certain nuclear reactions, but they also come from the ground (through natural uranium) and space (cosmic rays and their interactions).

It has only been two years. Cancers have a varied latency period. There are a number of locals that were exposed that have cited various medical problems they cite as being from radiation exposure. There is no formal study underway to document or verify these. That doesn't mean they are not happening. The health survey has botched a number of the methodologies used in the estimates for exposure. So now various experts have complained that the health survey declaration of "no harm" may be wildly inaccurate. Meanwhile the GoJ and WHO have declared the entire thing a non issue. The reality is the only official surveys are an unreliable mess and it is pretty sure based on what various experts have put forth as actual evidence that exposures differ from the govt. numbers. Exposures seem to vary widely in who got how much of what based on many factors. Of course the powers that be want to make all of this a non-issue so they can restart reactors and get back to business as usual. Leading up to the 2nd anniversary this has kicked into high gear with various shills in the US and Japan suddenly declaring everything is peachy.

Basroil wrote this: "2) They only included nodules over 5mm in the initial report back in 2001, all others were disregarded. The Fukushima data shows just 0.5% of cases with nodules over 5mm, not the ridiculous 30% everyone complains about. That's a whole 60x smaller result."

You fail at reading both the actual testing results and every media outlet that has reported on it. The thyroid nodule rates are up into the 40% range.. unless you area accusing all of the newspapers in Japan to be spreading rumors...

@badsey

It seems bizarre that they are claiming no ill health effects while they try to hide the workers (heroes that tried to save Tepco)

Currently there is a huge backlash against Tepco workers, with people shunning them, and even as far as not allowing them to rent property. On top of that, some parents at schools where displaced children have gone to have banned their children from talking to or interacting with the kids from Fukushima in case they catch something. Basically attitudes that belong back in the Victorian era. The Fukushima 50 will probably have exceeded their lifetime radiation exposure and hence will need to find other jobs. Can you imagine though, that if they rejoin society at large, that they would be able to enjoy a trouble free, prejudice free existence? If I was one of them I would be fiercely holding on to anonymity. So it isn't really bizarre, and moreover. it wasn't Tepco they saved, they helped avoid an even bigger disaster. Tepco was already finished the moment the disaster began.

Nancy FoustFeb. 18, 2013 - 01:27PM JST

You fail at reading both the actual testing results and every media outlet that has reported on it. The thyroid nodule rates are up into the 40% range.. unless you area accusing all of the newspapers in Japan to be spreading rumors...

Yes, I am accusing the media of being incompetent (at best) when it comes to analysis of scientific research. The actual study says nothing of a 40% range of 5mm or larger nodules discussed in the 2001 paper, rather 0.57%. The comparisons made in media outlets and by uneducated people are like comparing height in inches or centimeters, has no actual meaning because they are completely different units.

If you want to see the results yourself, you can at:

http://www.pref.fukushima.jp/imu/kenkoukanri/250213siryou2.pdf

The only info that matters is that labeled as "5.1㎜以上", since that's what the "baseline" used.

American navy who flew humanitarian missions right after now get cancer. What of Fukushima 50? Second and future generation will have birth defects . Some who make money... does not want panic and want to keep up economy from selling milk, beef foods, even seafoods, nori, fish Hookaido to Chiba. People forget or choose to ignore lessons from Hiroshima Nagasaki. shame on you who sacrifice others so you survive or even get richer. Stand up for you rights your health your life. also people in Sendai should relocate if possible. Spa resort Hawaiians. Radiation does not go away.

Over the long term the acceptability of radioactively contaminated food products and soil has to be HAS TO BE based on an estimate of lifetime health risk and the number of persons likely exposed, rather than a safe/not safe concentration threshold. The latter implies that there is a concentration below which there is no concern for future risk from exposure, regardless of the number of people involved. The excess lifetime risk from exposure to ionizing radiation is known to vary considerably with the dose, age at time of exposure, and gender. I believe that informed decisions would be more appropriately based on a discussion of the health risks from potential exposure to radiation rather than a simple comparison to a regulatory concentration threshold. This 'study', is a ruse, a deception, a straw man.