Japan Today
national

Study shows low levels of radioactivity in people living near Fukushima plant

94 Comments

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

© Copyright 2012 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

94 Comments
Login to comment

When was the study done? Will they continue to check these people? Any comments about babies - if butterflies are mutating, I assume humans will also suffer.

-2 ( +9 / -11 )

“Right now our estimates are based on very, very rough calculations.”

You are fore warned. If therefore, you are thinking of going back to settle in Fukushima, you bank on these findings at your own peril......

1 ( +10 / -9 )

Taps fingers, there is no such thing as a lack of radiation. These stories are written to sell papers and air time. They are designed to spread panic and promote causes.

-3 ( +10 / -13 )

Not to worry, that study won´t get much airtime and attention. Not as sexy as the mutated butterflies, and of course it does not fit the polically correct script.

-2 ( +8 / -10 )

http://news.sky.com/story/972383/mutant-butterflies-at-fukushima-nuclear-plant

Dr. Hooper used to study dragonflies in Tsukuba, before becoming a full-time science writer. Some may remember him from his JapanTimes column.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

tmarie

Any comments about babies - if butterflies are mutating, I assume humans will also suffer.

Bad assumption. The butterflies don't obey the exclusion zone.

Farmboy

Also, why has Prussian blue, which removes cesium, not been made available, at least to the children?

Because, as you can see by this report, it's totally unnecessary.

Taps fingers, there is no such thing as a lack of radiation. These stories are written to sell papers and air time. They are designed to spread panic and promote causes.

So true.

It's good to see that there are no lasting ill effects from this disaster.

-1 ( +8 / -9 )

It's good to see that there are no lasting ill effects from this disaster.

Erm, this is hardly the conclusion. There are more reports that are yet to come, we'll need to keep ever more vigil, unfortunately, for the next few decades, just like the Chernobyl disaster.

-6 ( +9 / -15 )

Duh... And what kills me is how on the train you can see these ads talking about Fukushima produce. The catch line is something like, "Fukushima ha genki desu." or "Genki Fukushima"... Seriously? That place can become the next big video game hit I'm reckoning like Fallout 3. How many Japanese actually buy this nonsense?

-1 ( +7 / -8 )

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1346169

Is the article for anyone interested, but you will need to pay for access.

0 ( +8 / -8 )

FarmboyAug. 17, 2012 - 07:58AM JST

Also, why has Prussian blue, which removes cesium, not been made available, at least to the children?

Two main reasons:

1) It reduces the biological halflife from 70 days to a few weeks, and it's effectiveness now is practically negligible. Even the people with 50Bq/kg have at most 0.8 nanograms of it in their entire body, a small enough number that prussian blue has no effect.

2) It is made from cyanide, so I doubt people would step out of the frying pan and into the oven. Like the current levels of radiation according to the research, there is nothing to worry about, but that doesn't stop people from hearing poison and assuming they will die.

-4 ( +9 / -13 )

tmarieAug. 17, 2012 - 07:36AM JST

When was the study done? Will they continue to check these people? Any comments about babies - if butterflies are mutating, I assume humans will also suffer.

Comparing humans to butterflies is like comparing apple to orange mushrooms. Technically we share a lot of DNA, but there are so many differences that even the researchers there said that the small level of mutation would likely not hold true for people.

-2 ( +12 / -14 )

WilliBAug. 17, 2012 - 08:44AM JST

Not to worry, that study won´t get much airtime and attention. Not as sexy as the mutated butterflies, and of course it does not fit the polically correct script.

Yes, exactly true. A flawed study like the butterflies (they never said what the rate was before fukushima, which was very high due to cold shock, and therefore the confounding factor is almost larger than the results) gets more press than a study saying everyone received far less radiation than anticipated. Interestingly, the result of 7.2 Bq/kg is just 1/10th the naturally occurring radiation in a child's body due to Potassium, which like Cs-137/134 is a beta decay with gamma (though K-40 has a much stronger and prevalent gamma). At that rate, it's less harmful than second hand smoking in terms of radiation alone.

-2 ( +11 / -13 )

20/20 perhaps you'd like to think of the workers in the zone?! Or do not allow them to have kids?

Basroil, when one species has a problem in most cases do do others.

-6 ( +6 / -12 )

tmarieAug. 17, 2012 - 10:56AM JST

when one species has a problem in most cases do do others.

That's about the most unscientific thing ever said, not is it true. Not unless of course, you know many humans that undergo metamorphosis. Notice how the study on humans focuses on both adults and children, but the butterfly one is ONLY adults. The number one cause of defects in butterflies is during the change between larva and adult forms, which humans don't have (and even dropping the temperature 5C will cause those same errors). This study is far more worthy for talking about issues that may occur rather than something about the most fragile species.

-2 ( +12 / -14 )

FarmboyAug. 17, 2012 - 11:34AM JST

Assuming the study is finished, which it isn't, and assuming that the exposure has stopped, which it hasn't.

No, simple math states that now a year after the accident, almost all the radiation they will receive from already ingested Cs137 has already been received. The researchers state the upper range is 1mSv over that time, so it is well under the 2mSv "safe" limit for intake. http://www.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1287146529825 It isn't even recommended for doses lower than 30mSv, and has pretty much no effect now since it's well under 2mSv.

-3 ( +11 / -14 )

This study seems to back up the other studies that have been published recently. Nice of JT to finally publish one.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

At least it was released by someone other than TEPCO or the Japanese government.

But it doesn't say we are all going to die, so it must be part of the global conspiracy.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

I've looked through the report (great thing about library access) and found some interesting things not mentioned in this clearly biased article.

1) There were about 9500 people evaluated, ALL of whom returned by August 2011 to Minamisoma when the study started. Of those, just 35% had detectable levels of radiation (250Bq over a 2 minute test, whole body)

2) Just a single person had radiation level over 1mSv assumed absolutely negligible, but at 1.07mSv. Children would have received less than 0.2mSv if a linear model is assumed. The averages for both however, would be in the 0.05mSv range if the radiation dose model is linear with exposure.

3) The study make NO mention of the rate decrease over time: "The research shows contamination decreased over time," is a false statement. The actual statement is entirely different:

Differences between children and adults may reflect differences in cesium metabolism5 or greater attention to food and water consumption or changes in outdoor activity in children. Because this screening program started 6 months after the nuclear power plant disaster, higher exposure levels might have been detected earlier;

4) The "rough" calculations the author stated is in response to the assumptions used (mainly volunteers rather than random sample, though the subjects had no knowledge of their state and are more or less random anyway), as well as the fact they used p<0.05 Chi-squared rather than a more robust point. It is a fairly well done survey and the final results will not vary much.

5) The average dose for people there is six times lower now than Chernobyl victims were a decade after that accident ( and considering the decay of Cesium, not assuming an biological half life, i.e. best case scenario for them, ten times less than Chernobyl victims a year after the accident).

6) The study does not attempt to distinguish between initial exposure and continued exposure. i.e. the rates here are the highest possible rates for continued exposure, meaning the area is well within the legal limit of 1mSv for the population.

-2 ( +10 / -12 )

FarmboyAug. 17, 2012 - 07:55AM JST

Then how can they determine that a particular level is safe. I read that for internal radiation there is no safe level, and that children are edpecially vulnerable, as cesium tends to lodge in bones, and once it's there, continues to affect the DNA.

I've also read that the earth draws a circle around the sun.

The linear-no-threshold model you speak of has been dismissed time and time again by research when discussing low doses and low dose rates. It works fairly well for high rates, but falls apart below 150mSv, and is completely irrelevant in the 1mSv and under level the study found. The only reason for it is that it supplies an upper bound for radiation related illness, and is used to provide an extra buffer zone above what actually may happen.

Cesium stays in bones no more than calcium, and has a biological half life of 70-110 days (depending on study, 110 days used for analysis as it provides an upper bound). The bone itself actually has almost no cells or DNA to speak of, and if embedded the beta particles can only go through about 3mm of bone. Even if it does "affect DNA", it cannot affect all the DNA in the same way, and you have a one in a billion chance of a damaged cell becoming cancerous, but a zero percent chance that your entire genetic code will change. The issue with bones is usually associated with leukemia, but modern treatments are fairly good at treating the disease and should not result in deaths from it. That is, of course, if the radiation rates were high enough to cause cancer compared to the radiation in the body, which it is not.

The study stated that the average subject had a bit over 7Bq/kg of Cs, but it didn't mention that naturally occurring potassium provides over 70Bq/kg of HIGHER energy radiation (~25% more energy in beta particles, Cs itself releases no gamma but a decay product can release up to 50% of K-40 levels).

-2 ( +9 / -11 )

Any comments about babies - if butterflies are mutating, I assume humans will also suffer.

Where do you think there are hiding the mutant babies ?

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

Readers, please refrain from posting nonsense like this.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Not surprising to see such politically correct results, like the strawberries & seafoods from the TOHOKU region. Suggest to have a more convincing approach -- Tokyo ( especially senior ) officials to take respective turns & work & live near Fukushima one month per year.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

This study is not political, just scientific, no asking of opinions, just measuring data.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

basroil

The linear-no-threshold model you speak of has been dismissed time and time again by research when discussing low doses and low dose rates.

[Citation needed] It has not been dismissed, it's just incredibly difficult if not impossible to determine whether the cancer was caused by radiation or some other natural causes since the process is the same.

It works fairly well for high rates, but falls apart below 150mSv, and is completely irrelevant in the 1mSv and under level the study found.

The current scientific opinion is that 1 mSv is enough energy to go through a single cell and cause a double-strand damage to the DNA. THAT HAS BEEN SCIENTIFICALLY PROVED! It's proven so saying that 1 mSv is irrelevant is not scientific.

-10 ( +2 / -12 )

So I believe, the current opinion is that 1 extra mSv above natural background radiation level will approximately cause cancer 1 in 10,000 people. Saying that low level radiation is not harmful is just deceptive and unscientific.

-9 ( +2 / -11 )

And of course, that is 1 mSv per year...

-9 ( +2 / -11 )

Basrol

Do agree the study's intent, from a superficial point of view, was very likely be scientific. The outcome however, once publicized, is opened to all for critics from all ( needless to ask for opinion ). The data, despite all precautions the author put at the last paragragh ( "our estimates are based on very very rough calculations.". ) , appeared to be 'politiaclly correct' in line with what the J govt would like to hear. what is more disturbing was the data implied 'comforting' level of radioactivity in human -- suspected to be serving some purpose. Anyway & above all, the above merely represented my personal observations and all are welcome to bring in theirs. sincerly hope this can help clarify my point -- it was indeed not an offence

0 ( +1 / -1 )

So I believe, the current opinion is that 1 extra mSv above natural background radiation level will approximately cause cancer 1 in 10,000 people. Saying that low level radiation is not harmful is just deceptive and unscientific.

Interesting. This survey is not talking about above background levels, but you are. This survey, like numerous others, is suggesting that the fear has been massively overplayed. To suggest otherwise could be argued as being deceptive and unscientific.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Uh... that was in reply to the basroil's claim.

-10 ( +1 / -11 )

Thomas AndersonAug. 17, 2012 - 07:09PM JST

The current scientific opinion is that 1 mSv is enough energy to go through a single cell and cause a double-strand damage to the DNA. THAT HAS BEEN SCIENTIFICALLY PROVED! It's proven so saying that 1 mSv is irrelevant is not scientific.

This is entirely irrelevant to the current article. On top of that, it is an absolutely ridiculous statement as you are using absorbed dose to describe particle energy, which is like using mpg to describe a chainsaw engine's power. Your posts are getting to be ridiculous and off-topic now, please keep them relevant to the article at hand.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

So anyway, the point is that there is no such thing as radiation that is NOT harmful, since again, it has been proven that 1 mSv is enough energy to cause a double-strand damage to the DNA.

And this is why I believe the government has the obligation to keep the radiation level below 1 mSv/year, which is what they have always done in the past.

And yes it is on-topic, no matter how cleverly basroil attempts to evade from his position:

The paper, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, measured cesium levels in 8,066 adults and 1,432 children and found average doses of less than 1 millisievert, which are considered safe.

However doses below 1 mSv are probably safe or negligible.

-11 ( +1 / -12 )

back when tsjernobyl went disaster circumstances there would have been considered to be much worse, probably the first time something like that happened on a scale that big and people were evacuated much slower. Now, so many years after cancer is not the problem. Most people who have still problems suffer from depression and anxiety mostly, with all the physical consequences that come with it, alcoholism, psychosomatic pains and generally giving up on life because they lost everything or had to leave it all behind. There was an increase of cases of thyroid cancer among very young children but those who got treated had a higher survival rate than normal. If that's anything to compare to Fukushima should (hopefully) turn out less bad in the long run. But i'm sure a lot of people won't see it that way since they lost everything

1 ( +1 / -0 )

basroil

This is entirely irrelevant to the current article. On top of that, it is an absolutely ridiculous statement as you are using absorbed dose to describe particle energy, which is like using mpg to describe a chainsaw engine's power. Your posts are getting to be ridiculous and off-topic now, please keep them relevant to the article at hand.

What? You yourself have stated that "The linear-no-threshold model you speak of has been dismissed time and time again" - and I am only responding to your misguided claim.

And anyway it is on topic, since this topic is about "Study shows low levels of radioactivity in people living near Fukushima plant". Low levels of radioactivity.

-9 ( +2 / -11 )

as opposed to the thumbling down of the anti nuclear crowed. accurate or not

lots of us have been saying the same since day 1, but that's because we haven't been relying on anonymous bloggers etc

the facts are what are backed up by the scientists and always have been.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Thomas Anderson

Any mentions of DNA damage are entirely off topic as this is about radiation doses, not effects.

And this is why I believe the government has the obligation to keep the radiation level below 1 mSv/year, which is what they have always done in the past.

This is nonsense, as the 1mSv/year is in relation to IAEA recommended levels in order to follow as-low-as-possible conditions. Many off the shelf devices are not accurate enough below that level, and even assuming LNT the risks are so small at that level that they would be indistinguishable from noise.

That said:

There is no direct evidence of radiation-induced genetic effects in humans, even at high doses.

http://web.princeton.edu/sites/ehs/osradtraining/biologicaleffects/page.htm I don't know about you, but Princeton is generally well regarded in medicine and nuclear physics.

this topic is about "Study shows low levels of radioactivity in people living near Fukushima plant"

Yes, it is about a study that shows that people who moved back have low levels of cesium in their bodies. The study does not say anything about what the level means other than it is under the legal limit AND far lower than Chernobyl after 7-10 years. If you would like to state otherwise, please read the study first, as you clearly have not, and as stated above this article has several mistakes.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

the facts are what are backed up by the scientists and always have been.

And what I'm saying is also backed by radiologists. Are you a radiologist? Basroil?

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

no, I'm not but then again many of the scientists who have been studying this are and their findings are very different to yours.

I'm presuming that you're also not a scientist? I'm also guessing that you'd not studied nuclear disasters prior to March 11.

which may explain why we have a different opinion.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

no, I'm not but then again many of the scientists who have been studying this are and their findings are very different to yours.

Who? Cite them.

which may explain why we have a different opinion.

But you're not disproving my claims, just giving thumb downs.

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

I've been posting them for months and the mods seem to delete them. WHO and UNSCEAR posted findings a couple of months ago, this report is also backing up those findings.

And dispute what? That you have a myopic view on the subject based on research? .

2 ( +4 / -2 )

basroil

Any mentions of DNA damage are entirely off topic as this is about radiation doses, not effects.

? I'm not sure why would you think that they need to be separate. They're basically the same thing. I'm pretty sure, that the radiation doses, 1 mSv or above, cause damage to the DNA.

This is nonsense, as the 1mSv/year is in relation to IAEA recommended levels in order to follow as-low-as-possible conditions.

It's not nonsense, it's what Japan has always been doing before Fukushima.

Farmboy is right in saying that there is no such thing as harmless radiation levels.

Anyway, what we can at least agree on, is that levels below 1 mSv is probably harmless. However, I'm not sure about cesium, though. That could be a different matter.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

Farmboy is right in saying that there is no such thing as harmless radiation levels

And now you're quoting someone from Japantoday as you're 'source'.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

And dispute what? That you have a myopic view on the subject based on research? .

What exactly do you have a problem with? I'm not really sure what you're talking about to be honest.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

And now you're quoting someone from Japantoday as you're 'source'.

... I didn't say that he was the source, I merely agreed with him...

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

Thomas AndersonAug. 17, 2012 - 09:22PM JST

I'm not sure why would you think that they need to be separate. They're basically the same thing. I'm pretty sure, that the radiation doses, 1 mSv or above, cause damage to the DNA.

Please stop stating nonsense. You seem to be mistaking effective absorbed dose for decay amounts. http://www.ohio.edu/people/piccard/radnotes/dose.html Please read this to better understand why you should be "pretty sure" you are mistaken.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

Readers, please keep the discussion civil.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No bickering please.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

basroil

Please stop stating nonsense. You seem to be mistaking effective absorbed dose for decay amounts. http://www.ohio.edu/people/piccard/radnotes/dose.html Please read this to better understand why you should be "pretty sure" you are mistaken.

basroil, please tell me where does it state that 1 mSv of radiation does not harm the DNA, because I can't find it.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

Heda_Madness

I've been posting them for months and the mods seem to delete them. WHO and UNSCEAR posted findings a couple of months ago, this report is also backing up those findings.

UNSCEAR rejects the radiation hormesis hypothesis, which is the claim that low-level radiation is "good for you", which is nonsense.

Consensus reports by the United States National Research Council and the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) argue that there is no evidence for hormesis in humans and in the case of the National Research Council, that hormesis is outright rejected as a possibility.

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

And anyway, the linear no-threshold model (LNT) still continues to be used, despite the claim made by basroil that it is not.

Therefore, the Linear no-threshold model (LNT) continues to be the model generally used by regulatory agencies for human radiation exposure.

Yes, but it's also true that the findings are not final and it is still much up for a debate. But it's still better to be safe than be sorry.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

USNRC, NCRPM, UNSCEAR, and USEPA have all supported the LNT model.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model

It appears that those who are against it, are mostly those who are in radiation related fields... such as radiation therapy or nuclear... It appears that it is a sort of an "inconvenient truth" for them... They don't want radiation to be associated with something that is "bad" and "harmful", which is understandable, but also doubtlessly immoral.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

It is just ridiculous and completely unscientific to assume that the situation is now over and we should be able to see the effects (or lack, thereof) already. Saying that anything definite has already come up is purely political nonsense with a purpose to obfuscate reality.

There are no scientists who can say what is a safe level of exposure, because science does not know such a thing. Politicians decide "acceptable casualty levels" based on perceived impact on their ideology.

Since Japanese academia is more schooled than it is educated, it is completely acceptable to question their methodologies, such as criteria of who gets to be a sample. Should they be up to international standards, great, their results will be just one paper for the huge pile of research that has already been made over the decades. Nothing will be based on just one research paper. Ever.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Zichi. I cannot believe you are falling for the stress is worse than the radiation theory. Why didn`t my grandparents and their six children die of stress during WW2??? They were regularly bombed and had very little to eat. There were no reports of their neighbours dying or any of the other townsfolk dying(other than at the hands of the Nazis). Apparently the stress from worrying about radiation is more deadly than the stress from worrying about death from other sources. This is the most ludicrous argument ever. Please check out the following. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywKv0dj3UuY

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

@ basroil

2) It is made from cyanide, so I doubt people would step out of the frying pan and into the oven. Like the current levels of radiation according to the research, there is nothing to worry about, but that doesn't stop people from hearing poison and assuming they will die.

Prussian Blue is made with Ferrocyanide it is a salt containing the negative tetravalent radical Fe(CN)6, used in making blue pigments, blueprint paper, and ferricyanide. Prussian blue is used to treat people who have been contaminated with radioactive cesium or thallium, or non-radioactive thallium So stop the scare mongering seriously.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Utrack Aug. 18, 2012 - 05:27AM JST

Prussian Blue is made with Ferrocyanide it is a salt containing the negative tetravalent radical Fe(CN)6, used in making blue pigments, blueprint paper, and ferricyanide. Prussian blue is used to treat people who have been contaminated with radioactive cesium or thallium, or non-radioactive thallium So stop the scare mongering seriously.

From the Prussian Blue Material Safety Data Sheet:

Potential Acute Health Effects: Very hazardous in case of ingestion. Hazardous in case of eye contact (irritant), of inhalation. Slightly hazardous in case of skin contact (irritant).

Reference: http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9927241

2 ( +3 / -1 )

zichiAug. 17, 2012 - 10:50PM JST

Those involved in the study were, Masaharu Tsubokura, MD; Stuart Gilmour, MPH; Kyohei Takahashi, MD; Tomoyoshi Oikawa, MD, PhD; Yukio Kanazawa, MD, PhD.

And most of these researchers work and live in Fukushima.

This report contradicts some of the findings by Dr. Shuntaro Hida who has been fighting against an invisible enemy for much of his life. And at 95 years old, he's still fighting.

Speaking scientifically, a peer-reviewed report from a group of scientists is likely to be more informative than findings from a single researcher - moreso when it seems like Dr. Hida has never published a major scientific paper in his life (Google Scholar shows no scientific work from him).

Why was it published in an American journal but not a Japanese one?

Publishing in an American or European journal will guarantee a worldwide release of information, publishing in a Japanese one will limit the information to Japan.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

zichiAug. 17, 2012 - 10:50PM JST

There's as much details missing from the report as what it gives. Who carried out the testing? Japanese or foreign doctors. Foreign doctors are not allowed to work in Japan, which is always a problem in times of national disasters.

160,000 people were evacuated from the no go zone and the special no go zone, the measured figures are less than 10% of the total. The post does not state where the people were living at the time of the nuclear disaster.

Please read my posts, as I have addressed your concerns already. It seems I am the only person here who has actually read the report, and while only two pages, it does properly state everything.

The doctors are Japanese, and study was under the supervision of Institute of Medical Science at the University of Tokyo. The device used to measure Cesium was a Fastscan Model 2250, which seems to be a large scale scintillator, as they can measure Cs134, Cs137, and distinguish it from background levels (lower detection limit is about 250Bq whole body during a 2 minute scan, or about 4Bq/kg for adults and 6-8 for children).

This study is ONLY for residents of Minamisoma that lived there before the accident and have since returned before August (stated above). Of those residents, 24% had joined the study. Total effective dose was calculated as a one time exposure that has since been decaying by both radioactive decay and biological decay since the accident, and is therefore an upper bound. As stated within the study, there is a chance that it is continued exposure or a mixture of the two, where it would be a much lower exposure than the 1.07mSv maximum exposure found in a single individual. 38% of adults showed measurable levels, almost all below 40Bq/kg and most under 15Bq/kg. Just 16% of children showed detectable levels, with all but one under 40Bq/kg and the highest being 58Bq/kg. The remaining population would have dose levels linear with these findings as a maximum, assuming one time exposure within this study as was stated.

Those involved in the study were, Masaharu Tsubokura, MD; Stuart Gilmour, MPH; Kyohei Takahashi, MD; Tomoyoshi Oikawa, MD, PhD; Yukio Kanazawa, MD, PhD.

That is incorrect. Those are the authors, the people involved are quite a few more:

Kenji Shibuya, MD, PhD, Shuhei Nomura, BA, Amina Sugimoto, BA (Graduate School of Medicine, University of Tokyo), Masahiro Kami, MD, PhD, Morihito Takita, MD, PhD, Tomohiro Morita, MD (The Institute of Medical Science, University of Tokyo), and Shigeaki Kato, PhD (Soma Central Hospital), provided assistance with the design and analysis of the study; and Ryugo Hayano, PhD (Department of Physics, University of Tokyo), provided the radiation physics review.

That's quite a few extra people involved.

They would only know that if they measured the same people over a long period of time?

As I have mentioned before, I have already addressed your question by stating that THIS ARTICLE IS WRONG on that issue. They made up something because it sounded cool, not because it was in the study.

http://tv.globalresearch.ca/2012/08/hiroshima-fukushima-fighting-dangers-radiation

The things he describes are also symptoms of stress, especially if they are now developing the symptoms rather than immediately after the incident. Pretty much the entire medical community has said as such, with too many sources both paid and free to even bother linking, since you can just as easily google the effects of stress and findings of stress in evacuees.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

UtrackAug. 18, 2012 - 05:27AM JST

Prussian Blue is made with Ferrocyanide it is a salt containing the negative tetravalent radical Fe(CN)6, used in making blue pigments, blueprint paper, and ferricyanide. Prussian blue is used to treat people who have been contaminated with radioactive cesium or thallium, or non-radioactive thallium So stop the scare mongering seriously.

Please re-read the statement. I merely stated that people would have as much an irrational fear to ferrocyanide as they would to radiation, simply because it has the word cyanide inside it (though it is considered "non-toxic" up to a few grams ingested)

0 ( +5 / -5 )

All readers back on topic please. Please focus your comments on what is in the story.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Thomas AndersonAug. 17, 2012 - 10:53PM JST

USNRC, NCRPM, UNSCEAR, and USEPA have all supported the LNT model

Not entirely factual, but it is expected to assume that if you don't know how to actually analyze statements. The first three of that list have all stated they support the use of LNT for risk assessment, but that not enough is known about low exposure dose and rates to make assesments as to the actual risks. They instead assume the LNT as an upper bound for risk, which I have stated before.

You should also not ignore Académie des Sciences, Académie nationale de Médecine, Health Physics Society, and ANS, all of which have stated that supporting LNT for low doses is unwarranted, except as a risk assessment tool for doses above 10mSv (the two French sources).

0 ( +5 / -5 )

The research shows contamination decreased over time, particularly among children, in part because more precautions were taken with their food, water and outdoor activity.

Talking about what's in the story, can we have a correction issued? The quoted section is nowhere to be found in the study, and the study specifically states that time based decreases are not addressed. In fact, the study specifically states:

Differences between children and adults may reflect differences in cesium metabolism5 or greater attention to food and water consumption or changes in outdoor activity in children.

So that statement is story statement is false in it's entirety. This seems to be a non-minor issue as it has been brought up more than twice.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

basroil

Not entirely factual,

It is entirely factual basroil, you just don't want to admit it.

The first three of that list have all stated they support the use of LNT for risk assessment, but that not enough is known about low exposure dose and rates to make assesments as to the actual risks.

I've never said that they've completely understood the risks, which is why I've mentioned it. Anyway the point is that the LNT model runs on the basis that anything above 1 mSv is potentially harmful and carcinogenic.

You should also not ignore Académie des Sciences, Académie nationale de Médecine, Health Physics Society, and ANS, all of which have stated that supporting LNT for low doses is unwarranted, except as a risk assessment tool for doses above 10mSv (the two French sources).

Hahaha, all mostly French academies? Sure... France does NOT have a vested interest in making radiation seem less harmful... After all, they have the 100% government-controlled nuclear power company monopoly at stake.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

All those sources that basroil has mentioned have vested interests and a bias towards making radiation seem less "bad":

Official statement by Health Physics Society:

For many years, ionizing radiation has been beneficial to human beings for medical diagnosis and therapy, scientific research, and generating electrical power.

ANS = American NUCLEAR Society? Seriously?

French sources? With their government-run nuclear monopoly and a nuclear village probably much worse than even Japan? Enough said...

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

zichiAug. 18, 2012 - 12:21PM JST

I would imagine that Dr Hida, an atomic bomb survivor who has spent decades treating people with radiation exposure knows something about the subject even if he didn't publish any scientific papers?

I would imagine he is a good general physician, but with no research, we cannot take his word over that of people who have had their research reviewed by others. If you would need to consider any doctor that treats any type of illness for any extended period of time to be an expert in all fields associated with it regardless of how far those fields may be. It would be akin to saying a car mechanic knows as much about engines as the engineers who have developed them and studied just engines for decades. I hardly consider Hida to be on the same league as the researchers for this study regardless of his past contributions.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

zichiAug. 18, 2012 - 12:29PM JST

Only measuring the internal radiation of people from Minamisoma does not prove anything for the 160,000 evacuated people?

If you assume a linear model, as many insist, you can find the upper bound for internal radiation based on the fallout map in relation to the levels at Minamisoma. This study also paves way for a much more in-depth study of the entire evacuated population. The study is fairly clear on stating this is simply a stepping stone to a more insdepth study (which they will likely receive funding for now, they can't do much with a single machine, as it took them half a year to do 10k people)

0 ( +6 / -6 )

@ Star Viking

Utrack Aug. 18, 2012 - 05:27AM JST

Prussian Blue is made with Ferrocyanide it is a salt containing the negative tetravalent radical Fe(CN)6, used in making blue pigments, blueprint paper, and ferricyanide. Prussian blue is used to treat people who have been contaminated with radioactive cesium or thallium, or non-radioactive thallium So stop the scare mongering seriously.

From the Prussian Blue Material Safety Data Sheet:

Potential Acute Health Effects: Very hazardous in case of ingestion. Hazardous in case of eye contact (irritant), of inhalation. Slightly hazardous in case of skin contact (irritant).

Reference: http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9927241

I hope you don't think it's funny to post misleading information. Your post is NOT about the Prussian Blue Pill used for medical reasons. For all you know someone who has received internal radiation is reading your post. basroil too. It's not funny when peoples lives are one the line. If you value life just think before you post.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

This study was done using 2 minutes per person (Aug. 18, 2012 - 09:52AM JST), 30 per hour at most. People teleporting into and out of the machine perfectly in sync would require 533.33 hours for ten machines and 160000 people.

Assuming the speed is the same speed as the the current study, conducted every day for 8 hours a day (6.5 people per hour per machine), 160000 people would require 24600 machine hours to complete. This results in more than 100 days for ten machines.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Zichi, not everyone is so immediately available. The people of Minamisoma still have jobs and grocery shopping. Kids to take to school and pick up again. Imagine how efficiently could your run your neighborhood through a piece of medical equipment? Even just coordinating the schedules of all the people in your office can be a challenge.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

tajAug. 23, 2012 - 02:54PM JST

not everyone is so immediately available. The people of Minamisoma still have jobs and grocery shopping. Kids to take to school and pick up again. Imagine how efficiently could your run your neighborhood through a piece of medical equipment? Even just coordinating the schedules of all the people in your office can be a challenge.

Electrical engineers are not known for their work in time domain, rather just frequency domain.

Statistically though, 24600 machine hours would suffice as it is based on a fairly high sample. However, translating that to days is difficult because training isn't readily available and even a small difference in use can vastly change results, as was experienced at one of the KEPCO (Korea Electrical Power Company) plants where they used one of these machines. Just standing the wrong way can double or halve the result even if properly calibrated.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites