Skip to main content

Fukushima Daiichi and Cancer Studies

By Eric McErlain
Yesterday, a pair of researchers from Stanford University released a study that projected 130 people, primarily in Japan, will die from cancer over the next 50 years as the result of the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.Some observers have already started to weigh in on its merits.

This isn't the first study about cancer and Fukushima, and there will certainly be many others. While no one at NEI has had an opportunity to review the study released yesterday in detail, we would point interested parties to an article that was written for the Los Angeles Times by Dr. Robert Peter Gale of Imperial College, London. Dr. Gale has been closely involved in studying the aftermath of the accidents at both Chernobyl and Fukushima:
[E]xposures received by Fukushima workers and the public are quite low, including among the 20,000 or more workers decommissioning the facility and the approximately 100,000 evacuees. This doesn't mean there will be no future radiation-caused cancers, as some claim. But because there may be so few cancers, it is unlikely any epidemiological investigations will detect an increase in Japan or elsewhere that can be directly attributed to Fukushima.
Earlier this year, the Health Physics Society hosted a briefing on the radiological consequences of the Fukushima accident. Dr. Gale was among the participants. You can click here to read a transcript.

At the time, Dr. Gale recorded the following video concerning his opinion of the future health risks to workers at Fukushima Daiichi:



For more information concerning how the American nuclear energy industry is working to ensure the safety of our facilities here at home, please visit our Safety First microsite.
Labels:

Comments

Brian Mays said…
Mark Lynas pretty much called it 100%. He hit the nail on the head.

That fool Jacobson has been publishing nonsense like this for a long time now. That fact that this junk-science trash has been published in Energy & Environmental Science, "the #1 ranking journal in its ISI subject category" (according to its publishers), just shows how intellectually bankrupt the entire field is.

It's Cargo Cult Science at its worst.

Jacobson, along with Paul Ehrlich, are, or rather should be, embarrassments for Stanford University. I guess every school has to have its crackpots.
July 18, 2012 at 7:13 PM
jimwg said…
It’s vital that not only the proof and truth comes out here and the min rad dosage game gets straightened out, but that a very massive dose of perspective is issued to the public about this. There are activists groups sitting on skittish clueless politicians from Diablo Canyon to Indian Point who can’t wait for unofficial signs that a dozen random children from Fukushima will come down with any cancers as the excuse and pretext to shut down and curtail construction of reactors, even through they will blatantly overlook and even tolerate far far higher incidents of respiratory and blood aliments and diseases incurred by oil and coal emissions in addition to pollution, such is the fever of their blind anti-nuclear passions.

James Greenidge
Queens NY
July 19, 2012 at 6:39 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

Wednesday Update

By
From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin...
Post a Comment
Read more

Nuclear Utility Moves Up in Credit Ratings, Bank is "Comfortable with Nuclear Strategy"

By
Some positive signs that nuclear utilities can continue to receive positive ratings even while they finance new nuclear plants for the first time in decades: Wells Fargo upgrades SCANA to Outperform from Market Perform Wells analyst says, "YTD, SCG shares have underperformed the Regulated Electrics (total return +2% vs. +9%). Shares trade at 11.3X our 10E EPS, a modest discount to the peer group median of 11.8X. We view the valuation as attractive given a comparatively constructive regulatory environment and potential for above-average long-term EPS growth prospects ... Comfortable with Nuclear Strategy. SCG plans to participate in the development of two regulated nuclear units at a cost of $6.3B, raising legitimate concerns regarding financing and construction. We have carefully considered the risks and are comfortable with SCG’s strategy based on a highly constructive political & regulatory environment, manageable financing needs stretched out over 10 years, strong partners...
Post a Comment
Read more