national

TEPCO spots possible nuclear fuel debris beneath Fukushima reactor

58 Comments

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

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2017.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

58 Comments
Login to comment

The "fuel debris" at Chernobyl is a solid slug of previously molten uranium, which if you look directly at it will kill you.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

@sensei258 My thought exactly. I wonder what they'll name it.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

This is like a bad science fiction horror movie that you can't turn off. Are these old men thinking about whats right to do with the spent fuel, or looking to keep their own paychecks coming.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Finding the highly radioactive melted uranium rods may pave the way for TEPCO to develop methods to remove the melted fuel.

Good job guys. Only took you 5 years...

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Aly, and it will take them another x-amount of years to finally come up with the truth (if they ever will, which I doubt) and another XXX-amount of years to finally solve this disaster! Keep the money flowing for the "big ones"! It's "only" our tax money.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

It took TEPCO about two months to admit the reactors had melted down, confirming what experts had been saying for weeks.

And, let's not forget, these were mostly foreign experts who were roundly condemned as alarmist by TEPCO, the nuclear establishment and the local media.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Possible fuel debris under a nuclear reactor and at Fukushima of all places!!!!! That is unbelievable!!!!! :-/

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Aly, and it will take them another x-amount of years to finally come up with the truth (if they ever will, which I doubt) and another XXX-amount of years to finally solve this disaster! Keep the money flowing for the "big ones"! It's "only" our tax money.

Of course.

And, let's not forget, these were mostly foreign experts who were roundly condemned as alarmist by TEPCO, the nuclear establishment and the local media.

Not to mention the nationalism they invoked as to how the foreign media was tarnishing the image of Japan, while they were lying to their own people. Disgusting.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

But as soon as the robots get close to the reactors, the radiation destroys their wiring and renders them useless.

The company will analyse the data to decide whether it could send a robot into the reactor for further investigation, he said.

Japanese TEPCO definition of situation under control, robot cannot go there and no idea where is the corium for 3 reactors, triple meltdown...but as long as the money is flowing...

0 ( +2 / -2 )

But as soon as the robots get close to the reactors, the radiation destroys their wiring and renders them useless.

I've never known 'debris' to be such a Problem.......

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

“This is a big step forward as we have got some precious data for the decommissioning process, including removing the fuel debris,” the official said.

Translation removing spin: We are in deeper doo-doo than we thought.

It might be a stupid question but this "nuclear fuel debris" is presumably fissile material that has escaped its core so how much of it do we need to drip through for it to go critical? Is there a chance of this? And what if the cooling water stops flowing through this mess? I noticed NHK news at 7:00 were very careful to keep calling it debris without really explaining what it was.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

The inside of the reactor looks very very old and unstable, and they still want to use this plant? Accident waiting to happen.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

They have known this from the beginning

0 ( +1 / -1 )

With every announcement like this you have to ask what is not being told and what spin is being put on it. I am not a scientist, but you can bet this is just a cover so that in future the Government will be able to say that the public was informed. In this case the only story that matters here is that we have melted nuclear cores exposed to the environment that Tepco has no idea how to control. Great. Thanks Tepco, we feel better now!!

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Why is whining about what should've been done the usual response to News like this? The past is unchangeable(unless you're a Liberal revisionist) , so should not the discussion be about what we should do from this day forward?

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

years of delays, missteps and leaks of radioactive water.

Welcome to Japan were we are too proud to ask for assistance.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

It took TEPCO about two months to admit the reactors had melted down, confirming what experts had been saying for weeks.

I distinctly remember the circumstances of this. The TEPCO leader ordered all staff out of the plant, but ex-PM Kan ordered them back in. I also remember Kan screaming at the TEPCO boss to give him some answers as to what actually happened. This amounts to nothing more than criminal negligence, but no charges were laid. And now, after finding melted fuel rods below the containment vessel it seems they narrowly averted a China Syndrome. It's truly criminal what TEOCO have gotten away with.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

TEPCO and the Japanese government have been lying through their teeth for so long it's almost impossible to know what is true anymore. And that's obviously how they want to keep the situation.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Maybe they should look up the word gravity and then look at schematics of the reactors. I think they can then make a really good guess as to where the melted fuel went to.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

"The "fuel debris" at Chernobyl is a solid slug of previously molten uranium, which if you look directly at it will kill you."

It is called the "elephant's foot", and yes while this was once true, it is no longer, the radiation levels have dropped enough that they have sent in people for direct measurements and study, albeit seconds at a time.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Why is whining about what should've been done the usual response to News like this? ,

The past is unchangeable(unless you're a Liberal revisionist)

Or a Japanese ultra rightwing nationalist

so should not the discussion be about what we should do from this day forward?

sure. Let's go talk to the PM about how we are going to decommission the reactors- oh wait he wants to turn them back on.

I distinctly remember the circumstances of this. The TEPCO leader ordered all staff out of the plant, but ex-PM Kan ordered them back in.

That's why I respect PM Kan very much. If it had been either our current idiot at the helm or the jackass before him, I'm willing to bet we would have lost Tokyo.

And now, after finding melted fuel rods below the containment vessel it seems they narrowly averted a China Syndrome.

Thanks to PM Kan. He saved Tokyo. Anyone who wants to understand more about what happened I recommend going to Youtube and searching for Michio Kaku or Helen Caldicott and Fukushima. Kaku actually gives an incredible account in layman terms in detail as to what happened, and it will really raise the hair on the back of your head. The idea that tepco is still allowed to exist is unbelieveable.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Anyone who wants to understand more about what happened I recommend going to Youtube and searching for Michio Kaku or Helen Caldicott and Fukushima. Kaku actually gives an incredible account in layman terms in detail as to what happened,

Or alternatively read up on what actually happened. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/09/fukushima_disaster_new_information_about_worst_case_scenarios.html

Kaku, incidentally, during the height of the crisis said that no textbook told you to pump seawater on a reactor. Funny, because 20 years ago when I studied mine did. So I don't know what he's read. But then again, I don't think even he would claim to be a nuclear expert.

I'm willing to bet we would have lost Tokyo.

After days of high-intensity analysis and numerous computer runs, the scientists concluded that radiation in Tokyo would come nowhere close to levels requiring an evacuation, even in the event that Fukushima Dai-ichi underwent the worst plausible meltdown combined with extremely unfavorable wind and weather patterns.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Or alternatively read up on what actually happened.

a site which doesn't exist.

Kaku, incidentally, during the height of the crisis said that no textbook told you to pump seawater on a reactor. Funny, because 20 years ago when I studied mine did.

so what? what does that prove? That he didn't read your textbook?

So I don't know what he's read.

Then why even mention him?

But then again, I don't think even he would claim to be a nuclear expert.

I'll still take the word of a famous physicist over an anonymous JT poster thanks a lot.

After days of high-intensity analysis and numerous computer runs, the scientists concluded that radiation in Tokyo would come nowhere close to levels requiring an evacuation, even in the event that Fukushima Dai-ichi underwent the worst plausible meltdown combined with extremely unfavorable wind and weather patterns.

They also said there was no meltdown.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

The link is here

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/09/fukushima_disaster_new_information_about_worst_case_scenarios.html

What does it prove? That he was making statements that were woefully untrue. That you used him as an expert and that's why I mentioned him. In response to you.

Those scientists were the American Scientists who President Obama asked to investigate. It was American research that determined that Tokyo would come nowhere close to evacuation. Something that was backed by the Chief British Scientist at the time. In fact he went on record as saying the French advice to evacuate Tokyo was not based on Science.

But then there are many who are still determined to come to conclusions that are not based on science.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Please note that "under the reactor" means that the debris is still within the containment vessel. This does not mean that it has not leaked into the environment.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

The link is here

STILL not working.

That he was making statements that were woefully untrue. That you used him as an expert and that's why I mentioned him. In response to you.

He is an expert. And like I said, he's a physics professor whose word is worth more than a JT poster whose real name I don't even know.

Those scientists were the American Scientists who President Obama asked to investigate. It was American research that determined that Tokyo would come nowhere close to evacuation.

We now know that we came VERY close to a tokyo evacuation, so all those scientists you quoted have no credibility.

But then there are many who are still determined to come to conclusions that are not based on science.

Yes. Its those who still advocate nuclear power and say its both safe and cheap.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

@ Aly Rustom ... excellent comments!

3 ( +4 / -1 )

No, he's an expert in astrophysics.

And yes the link's still not pasting but hey, it doesn't take an astrophysicist to be able to search slate fukushima new information...

We now know that we came VERY close to a tokyo evacuation, so all those scientists you quoted have no credibility.

And let me quote that final sentence from the article you can't find.

Whatever conclusions people draw about the implications of the accident, the following should be borne in mind: The claim that an evacuation of Tokyo could have been necessary is based on flimsy, easily rebuttable evidence. Furthermore, the falsity of that claim is indicative of the distortions in much of the Fukushima news coverage. That coverage has given rise to baseless fears about Fukushima that have heavily influenced public opinion.

So no, it didn't come very close to evacuation. It didn't even come remotely close to one. Science. It really does have the answers.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

No, he's an expert in astrophysics.

Wow. The word of an astrophysicist vs a JT poster... hhmmm... tough call.... nah I'm gonna go with the astrophysicist. Sorry heda.

So no, it didn't come very close to evacuation. It didn't even come remotely close to one.

Yes it did. Take a look. And MY links work.

http://alexanderhiggins.com/fukushima-china-syndrome-the-worst-case-scenario-is-happening/

Science. It really does have the answers.

Yes, and so it would be nice if all you pro nukes people started to accept it.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Heda-

"After days of high-intensity analysis and numerous computer runs, the scientists concluded that radiation in Tokyo would come nowhere close to levels requiring an evacuation, even in the event that Fukushima Dai-ichi underwent the worst plausible meltdown combined with extremely unfavorable wind and weather patterns."

I find this highly improbable.

In the case of a worst scenario meltdown - worst you said - where the amount of released radiation would have far, far exceeded the 2011 release and combined with gale force N.N.W winds (not uncommon in March), the resultant radiation concentrations over Greater Tokyo(Only 200+kms) surely would have led to evacuations. No doubt. If the experts were sitting in Tokyo under such conditions - soaking it all up - I'm sure their "don't need to worry" scientific data would somehow lack credibility in hindsight.

As tragic as the current circumstances were and still are, after the Quake & Tsunami, only luck saved much more populated areas from irradiation due to the prevailing weather patterns.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

I don't give a flying monkeys whether you believe an inaccurate astrophysicist or not. Plenty of scientists in the article I mentioned the one that concludes that The claim that an evacuation of Tokyo could have been necessary is based on flimsy, easily rebuttable evidence.

The claim you constantly make.

And if you think that pro nuclear supporters (not to be confused with nukes, which is a form of weapon) are the ones who disagree with science. Then you may need to actually spend more time speaking to scientists and not reading websites with claims that Tokyo came VERY close to an evacuation.

But just to follow on... it's science that has been showing that the effects of Fukushima have been well and truly overblown.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Plenty of scientists in the article I mentioned the one that concludes that The claim that an evacuation of Tokyo could have been necessary is based on flimsy, easily rebuttable evidence.

And plenty others would refute your nuclear apologist scientists.

Then you may need to actually spend more time speaking to scientists and not reading websites with claims that Tokyo came VERY close to an evacuation.

Which scientists have YOU been speaking to? Give me their names. And tell me in what capacity YOU have spoken to them.

But just to follow on... it's science that has been showing that the effects of Fukushima have been well and truly overblown.

Science funded by the nuclear industry. Here's some more stuff for you to read.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/why-the-fukushima-disaster-is-worse-than-chernobyl-2345542.html

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Heda -

And in the case of your quoted "worst plausible meltdown & extremely unfavourable weather", I'd like to see some scientific data showing "no probs" for Tokyo and also your own comments re such.

Thanking in advance.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Yeah, make no mistake, Tokyo and eastern Japan were exposed to a lot of radiation from the nitrogen explosion. The government was very quick to hush all the radioactive hot-spots that were found, some as far west as Shinagawa. There were several found around kashiwa and Matsudo. One of my friends lived in Tonegawa, just across the Chiba/Ibaraki boarder. He found alarming amounts of radiation in the roof and road gutters at his house. It's a huge coverup! However, the great leader Abe stated to the Olympic committee, "Its all under control!" - Yeah, under media control, that is.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

The government was very quick to hush all the radioactive hot-spots that were found, some as far west as Shinagawa. There were several found around kashiwa and Matsudo.

Just to let you know, Misato in Saitama was found to have a hot spot as high as the EXCLUSION ZONE.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Browny1... just read the link posted where the US scientific advisers to president Obama came to that conclusion.

Ally - how many have died in Fukushima? How many in Chernobyl How much environmental damage from Fukushima and how many from Chernobyl.

Chernobyl was the worst nuclear disaster. And yet now we know that man is more damaging to the environment than radiatokn

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Ally - how many have died in Fukushima? How many in Chernobyl How much environmental damage from Fukushima and how many from Chernobyl.

Heda, you NEVER read links, do you?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/why-the-fukushima-disaster-is-worse-than-chernobyl-2345542.html

Chernobyl was the worst nuclear disaster.

well, I've just provided a link that says that's not true.

And yet now we know that man is more damaging to the environment than radiatokn

So we should kill mankind with radiation to save the enviornment??

Then you may need to actually spend more time speaking to scientists and not reading websites with claims that Tokyo came VERY close to an evacuation.

Again Heda, Which scientists have YOU been speaking to? Give me their names. And tell me in what capacity YOU have spoken to them. And tell me how to get in contact with them. Waiting.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

I'm sorry, you're using an article from March 2011 to prove your argument? Wow.

Nobody's died from Fukushima. Few will. Science.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

I'm sorry, you're using an article from March 2011 to prove your argument? Wow.

At least I provide links that work. So by your answer, I'm assuming you have NO scientists which you have talked to back up your claims.

Nobody's died from Fukushima. Few will.

Never heard of the Fukushima fifty?

Science.

That's not science Heda. Just baseless claims. None of your claims have been backed up by facts.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@browny1 There are hundreds of videos on the net of Geiger counters showing radioactive contamination around Kanto - where must it all be from?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Heda - Thank you - I read those links before.

I'm a great believer in objectivity re matters of science and esp the nuclear world.

Below is an extract from the worst case scenario link you provided.

"By the last three days of March, the computer modeling produced results that settled the debate: A plume delivering radiation doses exceeding U.S. standards would come no closer to Tokyo than 75 miles, so Americans should stay put. In an April 1, 2011, email to Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Holdren spelled out details. "Our optimism, such as it is ... comes not from any assumption that the situation at Fukushima is under control but rather from modeling that shows the worst-plausible releases from one or more reactors at Fukushima would not cross [the U.S. guidelines] in Tokyo even in the event of adverse weather," Holdren wrote. "Only with big releases from the spent-fuel pools, combined with even more perverse weather than [the scientists deemed realistic], could the [guidelines] be crossed in Tokyo, and even then, according to the modeling to date, not by much," so "even in these extreme circumstances, sheltering in place might be all you'd want to do."

Problematic. First - modelling is just that - modelling - a good indication but far from definitive.

In the first instance they said plumes would come no closer than 75 miles (wordst case) and then iterate a worse than worse case scenario, ".... could the guidelines be crossed ....and not by much...." Well which is it?

And, " .."even in these extreme circumstances, sheltering in place might be all you'd want to do." Love the science.

But bigger than all that (and that is just the tip) is all of this science was done "How long after the event?" Days? Weeks? So let's just reflect back to those chaotic first few days. A veritable bounty of unknown factors being slewn around, with time being of the urgency, calculated necessary decisions need to be made. The wonder of weeks later hindsight doesn't cut it at all in the moment of despair.

And back to my projected worst case scenario (because that's what we're on about - right) of exposed radioactive matter accompanied by gale force NNWesterlies ie direct hit in a short time on Tokyo, then any official who didn't strongly consider an evacuation as an option would have been direlict in duty. Err on the side of caution. Simple Wisdom.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

General Electric of the USA should be looking into this. They designed and made the reactor reactor 1. It is a Mark I GE nuclear reactor. Reactor 2 to 4 were made by Toshiba and Hitachi following their plans. General Electric rejected their suggestion to move the emergency power from below ground to above ground at a distance. For "safety reasons".

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

gokai_wo_maneku - Please note that "under the reactor" means that the debris is still within the containment vessel. This does not mean that it has not leaked into the environment.

Can you support this TEPCO friendly statement with facts? The containment vessel is shattered. That is where all the highly radioactive water has been leaking into the groundwater from. The containment vessel is not built to withstand the heat of melted fuel rods and they would have melted through very quickly once the cooling system failed. This 'blob' of melted fuel creates a whole new set of problems for removal for which the technology does not exist. Removing the thousands of unbroken fuel rods is relatively straight forward and only hampered by the debris from the explosion and the lethal doses of radiation being emitted. However, removing a randomly shaped blob of melted fuel rods is a whole different ballgame. Yes, this is a nuclear nightmare and, it was created by TEPCO's lack of upgrading and falsified safety inspection reports. All the tsunami did was, uncover the truth about the nuclear power farce in Japan. Now, we are all paying for it while the bosses responsible are sitting back enjoying their pensions, except for the ex-CEO, of course. He escaped accountability by dying.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Neither the amount of killed humans nor the costs have nothing to do with the nuclear accident. They wanted to build a 11 metre high wall but was prohibited.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Never heard of the Fukushima fifty?

I have. They were a group of workers, well in excess of fifty, who worked in shifts during the height of the crisis. Not dead though.

Nobody's died from Fukushima. Few will. Science. None of your claims have been backed up by facts.

UNSCEAR, WHO all stated the above. Proven by science.

But obviously you don't believe in facts. You don't believe in science. Your links go back to 2011 - nothing recent. Because it's all been disproven by science.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Firstly the technology does not exist to handle highly radioactive molten uranium. So what is the point in looking for it. Why pretend that this is not a deadly and dangerous accident?? Entomb the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Meltdowns. TEPCO is contaminating the land, sea and air as we speak, in the so called name of science. Finding Corium should not have been hard, there was a triple meltdown after all.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

I have. They were a group of workers, well in excess of fifty, who worked in shifts during the height of the crisis. Not dead though.

some have died

Nobody's died from Fukushima. Few will. Science

another completely false statement.

New evidence from Fukushima shows that as many as 2,000 people have died from necessary evacuations, writes Ian Fairlie, while another 5,000 will die from cancer. Future assessments of fatalities from nuclear disasters must include deaths from displacement-induced ill-heath and suicide in addition to those from direct radiation impacts.

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2984986/fukushima_thousands_have_died_thousands_more_will_die.html

But obviously you don't believe in facts. You don't believe in science. Your links go back to 2011 - nothing recent. Because it's all been disproven by science.

What facts Heda? All you have given are baseless claims. I asked you to name the scientists I should talk to that YOU have and you couldn't name one. I provide links to my claims with EVERY post. You provide none. You have offered NO evidence at all to back up your claims. NONE. Your claims are baseless and so is the so called science you preach.

And this newest link is from 2015 so you should be happy.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The link you posted from 2015 was a copy of an article from 2011. Click the author's name. It points to the original article.

Some have died

This is a false statement

On the other hand: http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/a_e/fukushima/faqs-fukushima/en/

There were no acute radiation injuries or deaths among the workers or the public due to exposure to radiation resulting from the FDNPS accident.

Considering the level of estimated doses, the lifetime radiation-induced cancer risks other than thyroid are small and much smaller than the lifetime baseline cancer risks. Regarding the risk of thyroid cancer in exposed infants and children, the level of risk is uncertain since it is difficult to verify thyroid dose estimates by direct measurements of radiation exposure.

For the twelve workers who were estimated to have received the highest absorbed radiation doses to the thyroid, an increased risk of developing thyroid cancer and other thyroid disorders was estimated. About 160 additional workers who received whole body effective doses estimated to be over 100 mSv, an increased risk of cancer could be expected in the future although it will not be detectable by epidemiological studies because of the difficulty of confirming a small incidence against the normal statistical fluctuations in cancer incidence.

From a global health perspective, the health risks directly related to radiation exposure are low in Japan and extremely low in neighbouring countries and the rest of the world.

“It is unlikely to be able to attribute any health effects in the future among the general public and the vast majority of workers from exposure to radiation following the leaks and explosions at the earthquake-damaged power plant in March of 2011.” UNSCEAR

World Health Organization said, "the predicted risks are low and no observable increases in cancer rates above baseline rates are anticipated"

And yes people did die in the evacuation. An unnecessary evacuation.

http://m.huffpost.com/jp/entry/10537440

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

This is a false statement

PROVE IT.

On the other hand: http://www.who.int/ionizingradiation/ae/fukushima/faqs-fukushima/en/

AGAIN your link DOESN'T work. Page doesn't exist. Just like the facts you present.

There were no acute radiation injuries or deaths among the workers or the public due to exposure to radiation resulting from the FDNPS accident.

Yes there were. Some of the fukushima 50 are now dead.

Considering the level of estimated doses, the lifetime radiation-induced cancer risks other than thyroid are small and much smaller than the lifetime baseline cancer risks. Regarding the risk of thyroid cancer in exposed infants and children, the level of risk is uncertain since it is difficult to verify thyroid dose estimates by direct measurements of radiation exposure.

A RIDICULOUS comment. There have been dozens of thyroid cancer related illnesses in BOTH TEPCO workers AND children as WELL as general evacuees from the affected areas. NHK covered it. You don't need access to the internet. Just TV will do. OF COURSE TEPCO's stupid line is we can't prove that the sudden spike in thyroid cancer has something to do with it, but any rational person knows that's the case.

And yes people did die in the evacuation. An unnecessary evacuation.

An unnecessary evacutation? Statements like THAT are EXACTLY why we shouldn't have Nuclear Energy. Because those who support it are completely irresponsible.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Again may I suggest you read this. http://m.huffpost.com/jp/entry/10537440

That RIDICULOUS comment came from the WHO website with the FAQs on Fukushima.

I don't think there's any point in discussing further when you are so blinkered as to avoid science

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

That RIDICULOUS comment came from the WHO website with the FAQs on Fukushima.

Funny. My dad worked for WHO, and during the disaster it was his office in Alexandria Egypt which told him to advise us to evacuate.

I don't think there's any point in discussing further when you are so blinkered as to avoid science

Again, Heda, you have not offered ANY science. Just TEPCO propaganda.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well clearly your father didn't write FAQs: Fukushima Five Years On, taken from the WHO website and let me repeat the quotes again:

There were no acute radiation injuries or deaths among the workers or the public due to exposure to radiation resulting from the FDNPS accident. - source WHO

Considering the level of estimated doses, the lifetime radiation-induced cancer risks other than thyroid are small and much smaller than the lifetime baseline cancer risks. Regarding the risk of thyroid cancer in exposed infants and children, the level of risk is uncertain since it is difficult to verify thyroid dose estimates by direct measurements of radiation exposure. - source WHO

goo.gl/yrjZHQ

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Aly,

On the other hand: http://www.who.int/ionizingradiation/ae/fukushima/faqs-fukushima/en/

AGAIN your link DOESN'T work. Page doesn't exist. Just like the facts you present.

In less than 5 seconds I found the page. Corrected URL is:

http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/a_e/fukushima/faqs-fukushima/en/

There were no acute radiation injuries or deaths among the workers or the public due to exposure to radiation resulting from the FDNPS accident.

Yes there were. Some of the fukushima 50 are now dead.

Take any group of 50 middle-aged men. Chances are that after 5 years some will have died.

OF COURSE TEPCO's stupid line is we can't prove that the sudden spike in thyroid cancer has something to do with it, but any rational person knows that's the case.

WHO says:

There have been recent reports about thyroid cancer cases being diagnosed among children exposed to low doses of radioactive iodine as a result of the Fukushima accident. These reports should be interpreted with caution.... the highly-sensitive thyroid screening of those under 18 years old at the time of the accident is expected to detect a large number of thyroid cysts and solid nodules, including a number of thyroid cancers that would not have been detected without such intensive screening. Similar or even slightly higher rates of cysts and nodules were found in prefectures not affected by the nuclear accident.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

HEDA

Well clearly your father didn't write FAQs: Fukushima Five Years On, taken from the WHO website and let me repeat the quotes again:

But his sources are far more sound than yours, no offense.

Considering the level of estimated doses, the lifetime radiation-induced cancer risks other than thyroid are small and much smaller than the lifetime baseline cancer risks.

So they are admitting that there are risks with regard to thyroid cancer. The gov has also admitted that. NHK has also reported that. You alone are in denial. SECOND, you are conveniently forgetting that ALOT of radiation sickness is not ONLY CANCER based. Have you EVER heard of sickle cell anemia or Lukemia?? These are diseases that come about as well from radiation exposure? Premature births, birth defects....the list goes on. Why did you leave them out of your report? Its not just cancer we have to worry about. There are a whole lot of different illnesses that come out of radiation exposure. but even if we stick to cancer, NHK and the gov have acknowledged the spike in that form of cancer from evacuees whether YOU do or not.

STAR VIKING

In less than 5 seconds I found the page. Corrected URL is:

Thank you viking. your link worked. Now allow me to answer, and sorry for the late reply. I was busy.

Take any group of 50 middle-aged men. Chances are that after 5 years some will have died

I would say very slim chances of that, unless something caused it. Middle age is not a time to die here in Japan where people live to 90 and past without SOME external factor causing it.

There have been recent reports about thyroid cancer cases being diagnosed among children exposed to low doses of radioactive iodine as a result of the Fukushima accident. These reports should be interpreted with caution...

Well of course they should be interpreted with caution. After all, this is the WHO and they cannot put out a statement saying anything until a proper investigation comes out. However, NHK itself has acknowledged that there is a spike in the amount of thyroid radiation in evacuees. Logic does dictate that this due to the disaster. But the WHO cannot put out a definite report as they have not investigated this particular case. That's all.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hi Aly,

Japan's death rates can be found on the website of the Statistics Japan website. Most data is given by excel spreadsheet, and the latest for death rates is: http://www.stat.go.jp/data/nenkan/65nenkan/zuhyou/y650226000.xls

That gives the death rate per 1000 for 50-54 year-olds as 3.5, so you're correct that it is not a massive chance, but it's not unexpected either.

The only one of the Fukushima Fifty who I recall dying was Plant Manager Masao Yoshida, who was a heavy smoker. He died from throat cancer, a common disease of smokers.

However, NHK itself has acknowledged that there is a spike in the amount of thyroid radiation in evacuees. Logic does dictate that this due to the disaster.

NHK is not a reliable scientific source. Here's some letters from researchers to the journal Epidemiology, in response to a poorly undertaken study by Toshihide Tsuda.

We recently conducted thyroid ultrasound screening, using the same procedures as the Fukushima Health Management Survey, in 4,365 children aged 3–18 years from three Japanese prefectures, and confirmed one patient with papillary thyroid cancer (prevalence, 230 per million).2 Furthermore, we recently reviewed findings of thyroid ultrasound screening conducted in Japan.3 In one survey, 9,988 students underwent thyroid screening and four students (including one foreign student) were subsequently diagnosed with thyroid cancer (prevalence, 300 per million). In another study at Okayama University that examined 2,307 students, three patients with thyroid cancer were found (prevalence, 1,300 per million), while at Keio High School, of 2,868 female students examined, one was found to have thyroid cancer (prevalence, 350 per million). These results show that the prevalence of thyroid cancer detected by advanced ultrasound techniques in other areas of Japan does not differ meaningfully from that in Fukushima Prefecture.

http://journals.lww.com/epidem/Fulltext/2016/05000/Re___Thyroid_Cancer_Among_Young_People_in.31.aspx

I must, therefore, concur with Dr. Davis that “these findings do not add anything new regarding radiation-induced thyroid cancer.” But I would further add that publishing studies that use ecologic study designs without acknowledging the issue of ecologic fallacy is a disservice to the people of Fukushima, who have already suffered greatly and do not need the added burden of groundless worry about their risk of thyroid cancer—a risk level that most epidemiologists would consider very small, notwithstanding the Tsuda study.

http://journals.lww.com/epidem/Fulltext/2016/05000/Re___Thyroid_Cancer_Among_Young_People_in.30.aspx

Tsuda et al.1 evaluated the prevalence of thyroid cancer among children and adolescents after the Fukushima accident in zones of different level of radiation contamination. Based on the numbers in their Table 1, I calculated the means of thyroid cancer prevalence in three zones of radiation contamination (low, middle, high); the least contaminated area (Northeastern, Western, Southeastern, Iwaki City), the combined four districts with intermediate contamination (North middle, Central middle, Koriyama City, South middle), and the nearest area to the crippled reactor (Fig.). The error bars in the Figure indicate 95% confidence intervals. It is hard to see any association of thyroid cancer prevalence with radiation contamination. This makes it difficult to accept that radiation has caused an increase of thyroid cancer among children and adolescents in Fukushima Prefecture during 2011–2014.

http://journals.lww.com/epidem/Fulltext/2016/05000/Re___Thyroid_Cancer_Among_Young_People_in.32.aspx

All these quotes are from scientific researchers, some anti-nuclear, commenting on claims of a thyroid cancer epedemic in Fukushima. More comments can be found in the letters section at: http://journals.lww.com/epidem/toc/2016/05000

I hope you find them helpful.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Star viking,

Thank you so much for the massive amount of info. I always appreciate it when posters actually take time out to provide links to their claims. It must have taken you a long time to compile this, and I do promise to get around to reading this as a sign of respect and gratitude.

However, please allow me to repeat 1 point in my last post:

Cancer is a disease that may take a few years to develope and how much Fukushima will contribute will remain to be seen. But a lot of radiation sickness is not only cancer based. Sickle cell anemia and Lukemia also are diseases that come about as well from radiation exposure Premature births, birth defects....the list goes on. That's another important factor that I think we need to consider.

Again, I promise I will read your links. You gave me a lot to go through. Thanks again.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

If some charge leaders with lying, even scientific data may seem able to be skewed to their interests. Yet it is clear that the government leaders did not leave Tokyo or even send away their families en mass. Does this verifiable fact not prove that the science that clears Tokyo of real danger from the accident is not lying?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

STAR VIKING

First of all, sorry my reply was so late. Had to wait for another poster to post so I could comment. Again, my apologies.

Japan's death rates can be found on the website of the Statistics Japan website. Most data is given by excel spreadsheet, and the latest for death rates is:

Sorry I couldn't open the spreadsheet but no matter.

NHK is not a reliable scientific source.

Preaching to the choir on this one. BUT seeing how the LDP is set on turning the nukes back on and how NHK is a mouthpiece for the LDP, it would make sense that they wouldn't do stories on the throat cancer victims. The very fact that they did in my opinion proves that the problem is a lot bigger than we anticipated.

Here's some letters from researchers to the journal Epidemiology, in response to a poorly undertaken study by Toshihide Tsuda

I read them. The letter concludes that

Based on the experiences in Chernobyl and other nuclear disasters, we need to continue our efforts at appropriate, scientific evaluation of the health conditions in Fukushima.

which neither the J gov nor Tepco is doing and funding. This tells me they have something to hide.

Timothy J. Jorgensen's link does make a good point, but reading his discourse, I felt that he simply criticized the report without offering any concrete evidence to the contrary. Interested in hearing your opinion on the subject.

With regards to Alfred Körblein, his final words were In Fukushima, therefore, an increase of thyroid cancers is likely not expected to occur before 2015. I look at this as the study was mistaken, but also as an admission that Fukushima will be responsible for thyroid cancer in the future.

More comments can be found in the letters section at: http://journals.lww.com/epidem/toc/2016/05000

For some reason the comments section was blocked by my computer but no matter.

I hope you find them helpful.

Not only that, but an excellent read. I do however detract from the idea that Fukushima has not caused deaths or that nuclear energy is either safe or clean. I do not espouse a return to fossil fuels, but champion the use of renewables, particularly solar.

I await your reply, but if you have moved on, I hope to meet up with you on another thread.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

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

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites