3 ms·

Zero deaths directly from radiation so far. This isn't too surprising, given that everyone working at the plant knew that it was melting down, and were taking

by ohyes 15y ago

Zero deaths directly from radiation so far. This isn't too surprising, given that everyone working at the plant knew that it was melting down, and were taking precautions. You can expect elevated cancer rates in the surrounding population, and from the people who stayed at the plant trying to stop the disaster.

ChuckMcM 15y ago
This is a concern but it has not been borne out by previous events. One of the challenges (and its a 'good' challenge) is that we don't have a lot of data about what happens when people are exposed to environmental contamination. Primary sources are the post Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings, testing data from populations in Utah and Nevada who were down wind of the test site. And folks who were exposed in the Bikini islands during testing there. One of the effects of the low number of data points was that latent radiation enhanced cancer deaths which were predicted for folks around Chernobyl didn't actually materialize according to the UN report. Basically the theory is still being developed and their predictions were off (by quite a bit as it turned out). The situation is compounded by the fact that humans have evolved in a 'radiation rich' environment (relatively speaking) with UV skin damage, Radon gas sources, natural radioactivity in the earth, etc. So our bodies have a number of mechanisms which automatically deal with being exposed to radiation. If they did not, getting an x-ray would be a very dangerous thing indeed. So we know you can be killed by an over exposure, and we know pretty accurately what those exposure rates are and yes nobody at Fukushima has had anywhere close to that level of exposure. (not to say someone couldn't walk buck naked into one of the reactor buildings and off themselves, but that is a different issue entirely) And yes, there are radioisotopes in the environment around the plant that have raised the level of radioactive exposure folks living in those zones get. But it is entirely unclear whether or not that will lead to any significant increase in cancer (which is to say distinguishable from other causes). So folks will be watching for elevated cancer rates of course, but if Chernobyl was any indication of what happens post accident they won't find any. Understand that the quantity and distribution of material from the Chernobyl accident still eclipses what non-TEPCO sources (notably the US DoE and the IAEA) have documented from this one by a large amount. Given the Chernobyl results and the relative amounts of radioactive material released, I would be very surprised if there were was a higher elevation in cancer rates in Japan. Lots of economic impact, farmers can't sell food that has become contaminated, but I think the health risks are much lower than the more outspoken coverage would lead you to believe.

by ohyes 15y ago

ChuckMcM 15y ago

This is a concern but it has not been borne out by previous events. One of the challenges (and its a 'good' challenge) is that we don't have a lot of data about what happens when people are exposed to environmental contamination. Primary sources are the post Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings, testing data from populations in Utah and Nevada who were down wind of the test site. And folks who were exposed in the Bikini islands during testing there. One of the effects of the low number of data points was that latent radiation enhanced cancer deaths which were predicted for folks around Chernobyl didn't actually materialize according to the UN report. Basically the theory is still being developed and their predictions were off (by quite a bit as it turned out). The situation is compounded by the fact that humans have evolved in a 'radiation rich' environment (relatively speaking) with UV skin damage, Radon gas sources, natural radioactivity in the earth, etc. So our bodies have a number of mechanisms which automatically deal with being exposed to radiation. If they did not, getting an x-ray would be a very dangerous thing indeed. So we know you can be killed by an over exposure, and we know pretty accurately what those exposure rates are and yes nobody at Fukushima has had anywhere close to that level of exposure. (not to say someone couldn't walk buck naked into one of the reactor buildings and off themselves, but that is a different issue entirely) And yes, there are radioisotopes in the environment around the plant that have raised the level of radioactive exposure folks living in those zones get. But it is entirely unclear whether or not that will lead to any significant increase in cancer (which is to say distinguishable from other causes). So folks will be watching for elevated cancer rates of course, but if Chernobyl was any indication of what happens post accident they won't find any. Understand that the quantity and distribution of material from the Chernobyl accident still eclipses what non-TEPCO sources (notably the US DoE and the IAEA) have documented from this one by a large amount. Given the Chernobyl results and the relative amounts of radioactive material released, I would be very surprised if there were was a higher elevation in cancer rates in Japan. Lots of economic impact, farmers can't sell food that has become contaminated, but I think the health risks are much lower than the more outspoken coverage would lead you to believe.