Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Fukushima’s doses tallied
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.
...snip...
The UNSCEAR committee’s analyses show that 167 workers at the plant received radiation doses that slightly raise their risk of developing cancer. The general public was largely protected by being promptly evacuated, although the WHO report does find that some civilians’ exposure exceeded the government’s guidelines. “If there’s a health risk, it’s with the highly exposed workers,” says Wolfgang Weiss, the chair of UNSCEAR. Even for these workers, future cancers may never be directly tied to the accident, owing to the small number of people involved and the high background rates of cancer in developed countries such as Japan.
Scientists involved in producing the UNSCEAR report hope that their independent summary of the best available data could help to dispel some of the fear about fallout that has grown over the past year (see Nature 483, 138–140; 2012). As well as providing a preliminary assessment of workers’ exposure, the UNSCEAR report concludes that the Japanese government’s estimate of the radiation released was correct to within a factor of ten, and that further study is needed to fully understand the impacts of the accident on plants, animals and marine life near the power station. When a final version of the report is approved by the full UNSCEAR committee next year, it should provide a useful baseline for future studies.
...snip...
Experts agree that there is unlikely to be a detectable rise in thyroid cancer or leukaemia, the two cancers most likely to result from the accident. “There may be some increase in cancer risk that may not be detectable statistically,” says Kiyohiko Mabuchi, who heads Chernobyl studies at the National Cancer Institute in Rockville, Maryland. In Chernobyl, where clean-up workers were exposed to much higher doses, 0.1% of the 110,000 workers surveyed have so far developed leukaemia, although not all of those cases resulted from the accident.
http://www.nature.com/news/fukushima-s-doses-tallied-1.10686
...snip...
The UNSCEAR committee’s analyses show that 167 workers at the plant received radiation doses that slightly raise their risk of developing cancer. The general public was largely protected by being promptly evacuated, although the WHO report does find that some civilians’ exposure exceeded the government’s guidelines. “If there’s a health risk, it’s with the highly exposed workers,” says Wolfgang Weiss, the chair of UNSCEAR. Even for these workers, future cancers may never be directly tied to the accident, owing to the small number of people involved and the high background rates of cancer in developed countries such as Japan.
Scientists involved in producing the UNSCEAR report hope that their independent summary of the best available data could help to dispel some of the fear about fallout that has grown over the past year (see Nature 483, 138–140; 2012). As well as providing a preliminary assessment of workers’ exposure, the UNSCEAR report concludes that the Japanese government’s estimate of the radiation released was correct to within a factor of ten, and that further study is needed to fully understand the impacts of the accident on plants, animals and marine life near the power station. When a final version of the report is approved by the full UNSCEAR committee next year, it should provide a useful baseline for future studies.
...snip...
Experts agree that there is unlikely to be a detectable rise in thyroid cancer or leukaemia, the two cancers most likely to result from the accident. “There may be some increase in cancer risk that may not be detectable statistically,” says Kiyohiko Mabuchi, who heads Chernobyl studies at the National Cancer Institute in Rockville, Maryland. In Chernobyl, where clean-up workers were exposed to much higher doses, 0.1% of the 110,000 workers surveyed have so far developed leukaemia, although not all of those cases resulted from the accident.
http://www.nature.com/news/fukushima-s-doses-tallied-1.10686
29 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
I know that tears can be involved in both cases, but I assure you this is pure 
(And no... that's laughing at your ongoing attempts at spin... not at the people of Japan).
More direct evidence for you.
From their presser:
The work so far has been focussed on collecting and reviewing the material published in the scientific
literature, defining the assessment methodologies and working arrangements, and defining processes
for quality assurance of the data and analysis. There are many sources of data for the Committee’s
evaluation; the most important of which are:
- Data from Japan from official government agencies; many are available on websites, though not
in machine-readable formats; most, but not all of the information, is available in English. The
Government of Japan has been requested to supply the data in electronic formats, together
with supplementary information, so that the experts can more readily use the data;
- Measurements made by other United Nations Member States are being compiled and reviewed;
- Compiled and checked datasets are being made available by other United Nations organizations,
including the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty
Organization (CTBTO), the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the World Health Organization (WHO) and the
World Meteorological Organization (WMO); and
- Information and independent analyses published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
http://www.unis.unvienna.org/pdf/2012/UNSCEAR_Backgrounder.pdf
literature, defining the assessment methodologies and working arrangements, and defining processes
for quality assurance of the data and analysis. There are many sources of data for the Committee’s
evaluation; the most important of which are:
- Data from Japan from official government agencies; many are available on websites, though not
in machine-readable formats; most, but not all of the information, is available in English. The
Government of Japan has been requested to supply the data in electronic formats, together
with supplementary information, so that the experts can more readily use the data;
- Measurements made by other United Nations Member States are being compiled and reviewed;
- Compiled and checked datasets are being made available by other United Nations organizations,
including the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty
Organization (CTBTO), the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the World Health Organization (WHO) and the
World Meteorological Organization (WMO); and
- Information and independent analyses published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
http://www.unis.unvienna.org/pdf/2012/UNSCEAR_Backgrounder.pdf
In other words, none of that they have used so far relies on the government estimates of total release. None of the data they've been using has changed, so there isn't a need to start over with this imaginary "new" data.
They go on in the following section to talk about those total releases and say only that they will do their own estimates and their look at the total release estimate says that they are "plausible as initial estimates".
So once again, you're entirely innaccurate to pretend that either the WHO or UNSCEAR dose estimates need to be tossed out in light of revisions on figures that they explicitly say at initial estimates and don't say that they fed their own work.
So true and yet you appear to be oblivious to it.
