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 Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

FBaggins

(28,705 posts)
8. There's a reason that it "can't be determined"
Thu Aug 22, 2013, 04:30 PM
Aug 2013

Because so far, the rate is no higher than in other Japanese children that were not exposed to the radioiodine from Fukushima.

So if the statistics say that in a given population they should find 15-20 cases of thyroid cancer (absent any nuclear effect) and they find 18... they can't determine whether there are 15 that would have happened anyway and three caused by the accident... or 18 that would have happened anyway and none caused by the accident.

Further complicating things is the fact that everywhere in the world there are far more cases of thyroid cancer than ever get diagnosed. This has been known for many years. The more they look for it (and the finer the instruments they use), the more cases they find. So they can't tell if they're finding more cases because of radiation... or because they're checking so many tens of thoudsands of kids who wouldn't otherwise have been checked. Because nobody was screening for thyroid cancer with high-resolution ultrasound in Japan prior to Fukushima.

It's important to keep in mind that no health physicist expects any identifiable increase in thyroid cancer this early after Fukushima. the studies that are being done now are really just to establish the baseline so that the future impact can be better identified and studied.

When the higher cancer rates hit the West coast

Radiation levels on the West coast from Fukushima are hundreds/thousands of times too low to cause an identifiable increase in cancer rates.

Cesium leaves an accumulative effect for 180 to 300 years

??? What does that mean? In humans, Cesium has a biological half life of about four months. It can't accumulate beyond a certain level absent much higher exposure levels... and 300 years from now essentially all of the Cesium 134 will be long gone and 99.9% of the Cesium 137 will be as well.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Fuck. nt ZombieHorde Aug 2013 #1
The panel says it cannot determine? FUCK it, of course these are related. CaliforniaPeggy Aug 2013 #2
Well, no, it's not obvious Yo_Mama Aug 2013 #9
Not too long ago some nuclear loving DUer upaloopa Aug 2013 #3
That was probably me. wtmusic Aug 2013 #26
. Do you have peer-reviewed evidence of deaths from coal? dixiegrrrrl Aug 2013 #34
Fair enough. wtmusic Aug 2013 #35
you're saying it's not so bad then CreekDog Aug 2013 #36
This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #4
There's a reason that it "can't be determined" FBaggins Aug 2013 #8
The fact that this result, which demonstrates that there's been no impact... phantom power Aug 2013 #10
This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #12
You are comparing a rate to a raw number? kristopher Aug 2013 #15
The 15-20 figure is just an example FBaggins Aug 2013 #17
Which begs the question of *why* you fabricated such a number... kristopher Aug 2013 #18
Because, unlike you, I actually understand the facts. FBaggins Aug 2013 #20
You fabricated numbers that grossly skewed the available data. kristopher Aug 2013 #21
No rational person could read that post as anything but a hypothetical. FBaggins Aug 2013 #29
Seems like many rational people did read your numbers as data-based estimates caraher Aug 2013 #62
You're saying most thyroid cancer goes into remission? cprise Aug 2013 #22
Not as I understand "remission", no. FBaggins Aug 2013 #30
They would have to be *either* remissive or not cancer at all (benign) cprise Aug 2013 #31
Not as the NIH/NCI define it. FBaggins Aug 2013 #32
you're linking to Natural News? CreekDog Aug 2013 #37
For treatment advice? Of course not. FBaggins Aug 2013 #39
Everyone does not interpret the world numerically Yo_Mama Aug 2013 #19
This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #14
Who the hell is Steven Starr wtmusic Aug 2013 #25
This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #41
He's a lab technician. wtmusic Aug 2013 #42
This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #45
No, they didn't win a 1985 Nobel Prize for their work. wtmusic Aug 2013 #46
This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #47
It is not the same organization, and it's not an "arm". wtmusic Aug 2013 #48
This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #49
There is no such thing as an "argument from science without prejudice". wtmusic Aug 2013 #50
This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #51
Funny you mention, nuclear waste can be reused. wtmusic Aug 2013 #53
This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #55
The risk exists only because we're short on money and short on time. wtmusic Aug 2013 #56
This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #57
This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #58
No prob, thanks. wtmusic Aug 2013 #59
Top UK Climate Scientist says Coal with CCS is the ONLY solution to global warming kristopher Aug 2013 #52
This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #54
Actually... it doesn't. FBaggins Aug 2013 #43
This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #44
18 so far ... more will develop it later ... nt bananas Aug 2013 #5
Incoming n/t Hydra Aug 2013 #6
I'm sure the local nuclear apologists will be along in 3...2...1 nt Mnemosyne Aug 2013 #7
errr... phantom power Aug 2013 #11
errrr.... Post #15 might give you food for thought. nt kristopher Aug 2013 #16
Only if he's entirely ignorant re: what "incidence rate" means. nt FBaggins Aug 2013 #33
I said nothing about nasty or mean. There is more to come, tell me that in five, ten years. nt Mnemosyne Aug 2013 #28
I see one of our resident nuke worshippers is already here mocking the very idea that kestrel91316 Aug 2013 #13
It doesn't. wtmusic Aug 2013 #24
in children it does? CreekDog Aug 2013 #38
It always has before FBaggins Aug 2013 #40
The page has been taken down. wtmusic Aug 2013 #23
More likely NHK is censoring it. kristopher Aug 2013 #27
The TV news video is still on youtube bananas Aug 2013 #61
There certainly seems to have been an awful lot of self-deleting on this subject ... Nihil Aug 2013 #60
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»NHK: Thyroid cancer found...»Reply #8