Skip to main content

What Did and Did Not Happen in Fukushima

James Conca writes this in Forbes:

But the real health and environmental impacts from the Fukushima reactors are nothing compared to the tsunami. Contrary to all the hype and fear, Fukushima is basically a large Superfund site. No one will die from Fukushima radiation, there will be no increased cancer rates, the food supply is not contaminated, the ocean nearby is not contaminated, most of the people can move back into their homes, and most of the other nuclear plants in Japan can start up just fine.

It’s definitely true that the earthquake and tsunami, which killed 22,000 people, was a tremendous human disaster. But is Conca overstating the case on the nuclear accident?

This would seem to suggest so:

Unfortunately, a new monitoring system for thyroid cancer seemed to reveal an immediate and drastic effect. Hundreds of thousands of children in Fukushima prefecture underwent sensitive ultrasound scans after the accident. The results showed that 44 percent of them had thyroid cysts or nodules, which are possible warning signs of cancer.

This could have been caused by the radioactive iodine released by the facility – it’s a little tricky because Japan did a good job of sheltering people and giving out potassium iodide, which floods the thyroid and keeps radioactive iodine out.

It’s impossible to truly know whether the accident caused these thyroid abnormalities if there is no baseline, which is a very uncomfortable argument to make – unless you create a baseline. And the Japanese did create one:

That baseline study found that the frequency of thyroid nodules and cysts in that uncontaminated population was about 57 percent — somewhat higher than among Fukushima kids. The spike in Fukushima thyroid anomalies isn’t caused by fallout — because there is no spike.

Actually, that’s a little more than somewhat. It also makes an important if oblique point: thyroid abnormalities are actually quite common and do not lead invariably to cancer.

None of this is to downplay the seriousness of the Fukushima Daiichi accident and the fear it engendered. Still, what people most fear from such an accident is radiation exposure and the development of cancers. If you consider the sheer wreckage and suffering the area endured after the tsunami, that shouldn’t be an extra burden. And, thankfully, it’s not.

Comments

jimwg said…
Good article, still, I just don't understand why nuclear advocates don't whip out their ace card from their butt pocket! Sure, one doesn't have to "downplay the seriousness" of what happened at Fukushima -- but then don't not hawk the fact that _THREE meltdowns in a row_ occurred with zit causalities while anti-nukers have long been spewing that just ONE is Doomsday. How much safer bucking the odds can you get?? How about citing how many were killed by gas and oil incidents in the same breath as Fukushima? The public loves comprehending comparison games!

James Greenidge
Queens NY
Jose A. said…
Also take a look at this:

http://www.fukushimaminponews.com/news.html?id=435

"According to the report, 23 of the 103 cases confirmed as thyroid cancer were subjected to genetic analysis. Most gene mutations found in cells of these confirmed cases were of the type that is commonly seen in thyroid cancer among adults in Japan and that was not found among children with thyroid cancer developed after the Chernobyl accident. Furthermore, the type of gene variations commonly found among the Chernobyl cases was not detected among any of the 23 Fukushima cases."

Popular posts from this blog

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…