5 ms·

Has there been a proper study done on how dangerous it is to live in areas around the plant, or how safe it is to eat produce grown from Fukushima and all the f

Has there been a proper study done on how dangerous it is to live in areas around the plant, or how safe it is to eat produce grown from Fukushima and all the fish caught in the area? There's been so much rumor and fake news around this topic that I don't know what to think.

acidburnNSA 8y ago
Absolutely yes. The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) does reports every year or so on the status. Here's the 2017 one [1]. [1] http://www.unscear.org/docs/publications/2017/UNSCEAR_WP_2017.pdf http://www.unscear.org/docs/publications/2017/UNSCEAR_WP_201...
- simmanian 8y ago
  Thanks. I think page 20 has a lot of information I'd been looking for.
  - acidburnNSA 8y ago
    Yes. And I recommend having https://xkcd.com/radiation/ https://xkcd.com/radiation/ handy as you read through those numbers. The units are consistent.
- jessriedel 8y ago
  From the executive summary (for others): > ...its assessment of the exposures and effects due to the nuclear accident after the 2011 great east Japan earthquake and tsunami... It had concluded in that report that, in general, doses were low and that therefore associated risks were also expected to be low. A discernible increase in cancer incidence in the adult population of Fukushima Prefecture that could be attributed to radiation exposure from the accident was not expected. Nevertheless, the report noted a possibility that an increased risk of thyroid cancer among those children most exposed to radiation could be theoretically inferred, although the occurrence of a large number of radiation-induced thyroid cancers in Fukushima Prefecture—such as occurred after the Chernobyl accident—could be discounted because absorbed doses to the thyroid after the accident at Fukushima were substantially lower. It had also concluded that no discernible changes in birth defects and hereditary diseases were expected and that any increased incidence of cancer among workers due to their exposure was expected to be indiscernible because of the difficulty of confirming a small increase against the normal statistical fluctuations in cancer incidence. The effects on terrestrial and marine ecosystems were expected to have been transient and localized.
  - hrktb 8y ago
    I’m a bit frustrated by some of these arguments. In particular there is all this “expected” part about low level of radiation that _should_ lead to low effects. That all fine, until we get the numbers of actual cases, which are higher than expected. But then we have something looking like backpedaling, a lot of “yeah it’s higher, but it’s not what you think. Because it should be low”, wich I’d take as a partly circular argument. An extract from this study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5770131/#!po=41.4286 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5770131/#!po=41... > According to the studies reported until now, it is difficult at this point to attribute thyroid cancers in Fukushima to the direct effects of radiation exposure. The reasons are as follows. Exposure doses in Fukushima are significantly lower than those in Chernobyl (65). There are other arguments details further down these lines, but the lower exposure shouldn’t be used to argue the effects of radiation when the whole point of the studies are to mesure these effects. It taints the whole conclusion in a veil of “we don’t want to disown or past predictions”
    - mikekchar 8y ago
      That paper has some wording that is hard to understand, so I think this might be what's causing you trouble. The quote you make from the paper is not the only reason. They give 5 reasons. - The exposure rates are significantly lower that Chernobyl (earlier in the paper they explain that in previous studies there is a correlation between exposure and cancer rates -- because the thyroid problem rates here are high while exposure rates were low, it is possible that the high rates are caused by something else) - There is no apparent difference in rates corresponding to proximity to the disaster. Similar to the above, our models would predict that as you get closer to the disaster thyroid problem rates would increase. Because this is not happening, it seems likely that the high rate is due to something else. - The high rate of thyroid problems was detected mostly in older, not younger children. If the thyroid problems were caused by exposure to radiation, our models predict that younger children would be more susceptible. Because we have the opposite, it is likely that the cause is something else (this, to me, seems one of the more convincing arguments). However, they note that it may just be a case that by chance the younger children may not have developed problems yet and so further study is required. - Thyroid problem rates in other prefectures are also high (and, in fact higher than in Fukushima). Again earlier in the paper, they discuss this in much more detail. It was interesting to me that even as far south as Yamanashi, there were very high rates. - The gene mutation and rearrangement rates are different than that of Chernobyl. From those pieces of evidence, they conclude that the high rates of thyroid problems are likely due to some other cause (many possibilities of which they describe in the paper). Like I said, I found the wording in this paper to be difficult to understand. It appears to have been written by non-native English speakers (mostly Japanese), so that's probably why. If you read it again, hopefully it will make more sense.

acidburnNSA 8y ago

Absolutely yes. The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) does reports every year or so on the status. Here's the 2017 one [1]. [1] http://www.unscear.org/docs/publications/2017/UNSCEAR_WP_2017.pdf http://www.unscear.org/docs/publications/2017/UNSCEAR_WP_201...

simmanian 8y ago
Thanks. I think page 20 has a lot of information I'd been looking for.
- acidburnNSA 8y ago
  Yes. And I recommend having https://xkcd.com/radiation/ https://xkcd.com/radiation/ handy as you read through those numbers. The units are consistent.
jessriedel 8y ago
From the executive summary (for others): > ...its assessment of the exposures and effects due to the nuclear accident after the 2011 great east Japan earthquake and tsunami... It had concluded in that report that, in general, doses were low and that therefore associated risks were also expected to be low. A discernible increase in cancer incidence in the adult population of Fukushima Prefecture that could be attributed to radiation exposure from the accident was not expected. Nevertheless, the report noted a possibility that an increased risk of thyroid cancer among those children most exposed to radiation could be theoretically inferred, although the occurrence of a large number of radiation-induced thyroid cancers in Fukushima Prefecture—such as occurred after the Chernobyl accident—could be discounted because absorbed doses to the thyroid after the accident at Fukushima were substantially lower. It had also concluded that no discernible changes in birth defects and hereditary diseases were expected and that any increased incidence of cancer among workers due to their exposure was expected to be indiscernible because of the difficulty of confirming a small increase against the normal statistical fluctuations in cancer incidence. The effects on terrestrial and marine ecosystems were expected to have been transient and localized.
- hrktb 8y ago
  I’m a bit frustrated by some of these arguments. In particular there is all this “expected” part about low level of radiation that _should_ lead to low effects. That all fine, until we get the numbers of actual cases, which are higher than expected. But then we have something looking like backpedaling, a lot of “yeah it’s higher, but it’s not what you think. Because it should be low”, wich I’d take as a partly circular argument. An extract from this study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5770131/#!po=41.4286 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5770131/#!po=41... > According to the studies reported until now, it is difficult at this point to attribute thyroid cancers in Fukushima to the direct effects of radiation exposure. The reasons are as follows. Exposure doses in Fukushima are significantly lower than those in Chernobyl (65). There are other arguments details further down these lines, but the lower exposure shouldn’t be used to argue the effects of radiation when the whole point of the studies are to mesure these effects. It taints the whole conclusion in a veil of “we don’t want to disown or past predictions”
  - mikekchar 8y ago
    That paper has some wording that is hard to understand, so I think this might be what's causing you trouble. The quote you make from the paper is not the only reason. They give 5 reasons. - The exposure rates are significantly lower that Chernobyl (earlier in the paper they explain that in previous studies there is a correlation between exposure and cancer rates -- because the thyroid problem rates here are high while exposure rates were low, it is possible that the high rates are caused by something else) - There is no apparent difference in rates corresponding to proximity to the disaster. Similar to the above, our models would predict that as you get closer to the disaster thyroid problem rates would increase. Because this is not happening, it seems likely that the high rate is due to something else. - The high rate of thyroid problems was detected mostly in older, not younger children. If the thyroid problems were caused by exposure to radiation, our models predict that younger children would be more susceptible. Because we have the opposite, it is likely that the cause is something else (this, to me, seems one of the more convincing arguments). However, they note that it may just be a case that by chance the younger children may not have developed problems yet and so further study is required. - Thyroid problem rates in other prefectures are also high (and, in fact higher than in Fukushima). Again earlier in the paper, they discuss this in much more detail. It was interesting to me that even as far south as Yamanashi, there were very high rates. - The gene mutation and rearrangement rates are different than that of Chernobyl. From those pieces of evidence, they conclude that the high rates of thyroid problems are likely due to some other cause (many possibilities of which they describe in the paper). Like I said, I found the wording in this paper to be difficult to understand. It appears to have been written by non-native English speakers (mostly Japanese), so that's probably why. If you read it again, hopefully it will make more sense.