4 ms·

Echoing mpweiher's comment ("the most significant damage is not from radiation, but from fear of radiation"), keep in mind that no one died from radiation durin

Echoing mpweiher's comment ("the most significant damage is not from radiation, but from fear of radiation"), keep in mind that no one died from radiation during or in the immediate aftermath of the accident: > Though there have been no fatalities linked to radiation due to the accident, the eventual number of cancer deaths, according to the Linear no-threshold theory of radiation safety, that will be caused by the accident is expected to be around 130-640 people in the years and decades ahead.[12][13][14] The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation[15] and World Health Organization report that there will be no increase in miscarriages, stillbirths or physical and mental disorders in babies born after the accident. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_T%C5%8Dhoku_earthquake_and_tsunami https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_T%C5%8Dhoku_earthquake_an... The expected statistical increase in cancer deaths (~hundreds) can be compared to the 15,000 people killed in the rest of Japan due to the Tsunami.

berntb 10y ago
That is also assuming that cancer treatments won't get better with time, right? Also, "Linear no-threshold theory of radiation safety" sounds strange? For e.g. gamma radiation, cancer risk is very far from linearly correlated. Edit: Iirc from course literature a long time ago, a DNA break from gamma radiation is repairable. So for a permanent mutation to happen, there had to be two hits of radiation close together before the first damage could be repaired. (Also, as links were given in comments, the self repair functions seem to be healthy. So when radiation forces a start of the helpful self repair mechanism, the end result for low radiation levels might be better for health if the repair mechanism adds more to health than the radiation harms.)
- maxerickson 10y ago
  It isn't strange, it's widely discussed. It is more conservative than other proposed models in the sense that it ascribes the more danger to low dose exposures. A common approach when considering safety is to look at the result of the most conservative information available.
- jessriedel 10y ago
  Well, the linear assumption is only applied in the limit of low doses. The problem is that for many large-population radiation exposures, the total release is dominated by very small dosages to very large numbers of people, and we're not able to extract the dosage-response curve from data for arbitrarily small dosages. (If I get one extra gamma ray, does my risk of cancer rise by 10^-10? Hard to check...) There are alternative theories that small amounts of radiation are neutral or even positive since they are within the natural radiation background and the body has various mutation repair machinery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis However, these theories tend to be emphasized by nuclear-power proponents, and of course the data doesn't say. In any case, I believe the linear no-threshold model is consistent with the data and is generally considered conservative (i.e., an upper limit on the number of ill-effects).
- OscarCunningham 10y ago
  For high doses in a short time the risk is non-linear. But in Fukishima's case the dose is low and over a long period of time, and this is suspected to be linear. The competing theories are that lower doses of radiation have sub-linear risk, so if the linear model is wrong then people affected by the disaster are likely to be better off.
- Iv 10y ago
  > That is also assuming that cancer treatments won't get better with time, right? At one point I tried to research what number we had about the real impact of Chernobyl (living a bit close to Fukushima, I was interested personally). A "funny" thing about it is that in several places, this was a time when early cancer detection was improving a lot, and thyroid cancer (the most common one caused by radiations) prognosis benefits a lot from early detection (curable with 99% of chance if caught early on). In the region I was interested in (France and Italy), the improvement in cancer treatment was really great and much higher than the negative impact from the radioactive cloud. It would be hard to tell the difference between a small delay in updating medical practices locally compared to national level and an increased risk due to radiation. Some people even hypothesize that radiation scare may have make more people do early cancer detection test and that it could have actually lowered the number of cancer death. Which would be pretty ironic.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
bigbugbag 10y ago
Counting dead people is terrible indicator of the extent of a catastrophe. Because one didn't die soon after the release of radiation doesn't mean that one wasn't hardly impacted and has to suffer health issues. In the aftermath of Chernobyl, we were told official bullshit "don't worry we're safe, we're too far from Chernobyl". Turns out there was a radioactive cloud that know nothing about geopolitical borders and do not care about political stances. My uncle is a farmer, he worked shirtless in the fields at the very time that cloud was said to never have hit us, a bit later he developed an uncommon red blood cell disease which he had to take medication and live with his entire life. Medical advice says it is probable that exposure to radioactive dust caused or played a part in him getting this disease. It is impossible to prove any link, because the official version still is that the radioactive cloud didn't reach us so you can't get sick from a cloud that wasn't there. There's much more than just counting how many people died and giving ourselves a pat on the back because there was no reported death.
- nzjrs 10y ago
  The dispassionate use of objective statistical measures is literally the only way to assess such disasters. Unfortunately your anecdote does not become more valid because it happened to your uncle.
  - triplesec 10y ago
    Enogh of these anecdotes and you have data. THe problem with the oficial statistics is the colletion methods, tainted by political expediency. Don't automatically discount stories: they are also data. Instead, investigate further. This is how you improve your data.
Iv 10y ago
During the earthquake, a dam collapsed. Actually directly killing at least tens of people (possibly hundreds). Yet, hydro power, that directly killed, provably, more people was never under criticism. Hydro-power had much higher casualties rate than nuclear power. The Banqio dam failure killes 117 000 people, far more than Chernobyl. France, one of the most nuclear state, has a dam collapse as its most lethal power-plant accident (400 killed, at Malpasset). The accident inquiries result? "Nothing was done wrong, it was as secure as we know how to make them." Yet, it it the nuclear energy that is criticized as dangerous. There is something strange about nuclear fear. It is more fear of the unknown and complicated, fear of the invisible, than a reasonable, rational fear.

berntb 10y ago

That is also assuming that cancer treatments won't get better with time, right? Also, "Linear no-threshold theory of radiation safety" sounds strange? For e.g. gamma radiation, cancer risk is very far from linearly correlated. Edit: Iirc from course literature a long time ago, a DNA break from gamma radiation is repairable. So for a permanent mutation to happen, there had to be two hits of radiation close together before the first damage could be repaired. (Also, as links were given in comments, the self repair functions seem to be healthy. So when radiation forces a start of the helpful self repair mechanism, the end result for low radiation levels might be better for health if the repair mechanism adds more to health than the radiation harms.)

maxerickson 10y ago
It isn't strange, it's widely discussed. It is more conservative than other proposed models in the sense that it ascribes the more danger to low dose exposures. A common approach when considering safety is to look at the result of the most conservative information available.
jessriedel 10y ago
Well, the linear assumption is only applied in the limit of low doses. The problem is that for many large-population radiation exposures, the total release is dominated by very small dosages to very large numbers of people, and we're not able to extract the dosage-response curve from data for arbitrarily small dosages. (If I get one extra gamma ray, does my risk of cancer rise by 10^-10? Hard to check...) There are alternative theories that small amounts of radiation are neutral or even positive since they are within the natural radiation background and the body has various mutation repair machinery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis However, these theories tend to be emphasized by nuclear-power proponents, and of course the data doesn't say. In any case, I believe the linear no-threshold model is consistent with the data and is generally considered conservative (i.e., an upper limit on the number of ill-effects).
OscarCunningham 10y ago
For high doses in a short time the risk is non-linear. But in Fukishima's case the dose is low and over a long period of time, and this is suspected to be linear. The competing theories are that lower doses of radiation have sub-linear risk, so if the linear model is wrong then people affected by the disaster are likely to be better off.
Iv 10y ago
> That is also assuming that cancer treatments won't get better with time, right? At one point I tried to research what number we had about the real impact of Chernobyl (living a bit close to Fukushima, I was interested personally). A "funny" thing about it is that in several places, this was a time when early cancer detection was improving a lot, and thyroid cancer (the most common one caused by radiations) prognosis benefits a lot from early detection (curable with 99% of chance if caught early on). In the region I was interested in (France and Italy), the improvement in cancer treatment was really great and much higher than the negative impact from the radioactive cloud. It would be hard to tell the difference between a small delay in updating medical practices locally compared to national level and an increased risk due to radiation. Some people even hypothesize that radiation scare may have make more people do early cancer detection test and that it could have actually lowered the number of cancer death. Which would be pretty ironic.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

bigbugbag 10y ago

Counting dead people is terrible indicator of the extent of a catastrophe. Because one didn't die soon after the release of radiation doesn't mean that one wasn't hardly impacted and has to suffer health issues. In the aftermath of Chernobyl, we were told official bullshit "don't worry we're safe, we're too far from Chernobyl". Turns out there was a radioactive cloud that know nothing about geopolitical borders and do not care about political stances. My uncle is a farmer, he worked shirtless in the fields at the very time that cloud was said to never have hit us, a bit later he developed an uncommon red blood cell disease which he had to take medication and live with his entire life. Medical advice says it is probable that exposure to radioactive dust caused or played a part in him getting this disease. It is impossible to prove any link, because the official version still is that the radioactive cloud didn't reach us so you can't get sick from a cloud that wasn't there. There's much more than just counting how many people died and giving ourselves a pat on the back because there was no reported death.

nzjrs 10y ago
The dispassionate use of objective statistical measures is literally the only way to assess such disasters. Unfortunately your anecdote does not become more valid because it happened to your uncle.
- triplesec 10y ago
  Enogh of these anecdotes and you have data. THe problem with the oficial statistics is the colletion methods, tainted by political expediency. Don't automatically discount stories: they are also data. Instead, investigate further. This is how you improve your data.

Iv 10y ago

During the earthquake, a dam collapsed. Actually directly killing at least tens of people (possibly hundreds). Yet, hydro power, that directly killed, provably, more people was never under criticism. Hydro-power had much higher casualties rate than nuclear power. The Banqio dam failure killes 117 000 people, far more than Chernobyl. France, one of the most nuclear state, has a dam collapse as its most lethal power-plant accident (400 killed, at Malpasset). The accident inquiries result? "Nothing was done wrong, it was as secure as we know how to make them." Yet, it it the nuclear energy that is criticized as dangerous. There is something strange about nuclear fear. It is more fear of the unknown and complicated, fear of the invisible, than a reasonable, rational fear.