4 ms·

> The source argues that the act of evacuating "just in case" caused deaths and that had people remained in place no such deaths would have occurred. We'll nev

> The source argues that the act of evacuating "just in case" caused deaths and that had people remained in place no such deaths would have occurred. We'll never know. Doing history fiction, a more probable outcome would be a lot of people dying by "natural causes" in the next months. We talk about places that were mostly ghost cities for a decade, for some reason. This common discourse of "but nobody died ever by the direct impact in the left eye, of a radioactive atom called John, on a Thursday", seems a little ridiculous frankly. If we have a pool of people that died, and we dismiss all this people one by one with different tricks and shades of "can't prove, not my fault", yes, of course, "nobody" died. And Santa Cancer doesn't exist, is the parents. They know that is false, we also know that is false, and they know that we know it, so what's the point of keeping saying that?

defrost 2y ago
There is a pool of people who definitely died. That's not in dispute. What is questionable, as you point out, is the application of different tricks and shades of "can't prove, must be nuclear" to claim all deaths in the pool as a direct result of nuclear. As others have pointed out there are similar yearly figures for tenuous "coal deaths" as there are here for seven years of post disaster "evacuation deaths".
- pvaldes 2y ago
  Invasive cancer statistics in Japan were compiled for the Fukushima Cancer Registry database and published by the National Cancer Center Japan. If we review average annual percent change on Thyroid cancer incidence, there was a more or less stable value between 2008 and 2011. Then in 2012 there is a sudden increase of 10,8% on Fukushima, versus a 3,7% for the whole Japan in the same year [1]. Some increase is normal in a population that is growing and aging but a jump, not so much. We even have a control population: The Tochigi prefecture (at the South of Fukushima and bordering it). This landlocked prefecture has a big industrial complex, including a strong sector of X-ray machines makers. Tochigi has the lower increase on Thyroid cancer of the three between 2011 and 2012 (3,2% increase). [1] The death ratio didn't changed, but people that is diagnosed with cancer does not die immediately, so just looking for mortality increase that year is a deceptive measure. So, something happened in 2012 that increased Thyroid cancer on Fukushima more than in the rest of Japan. Lets assume that we forget all about the elephant in the room, and past experiences where radioactivity accidents typically increased thyroid cancers. How would you explain that? Any alternative hypothesis? ----------------- [1] Shibata A, Saji S, Kamiya K, Yasumura S. Trend in Cancer Incidence and Mortality in Fukushima From 2008 Through 2015. J Epidemiol. 2021 Dec 5;31(12):653-659 (The article covers only up to 2015 to remove artifacts from 2016 when the way to report cancer changed, causing another increase on the registers).
  - defrost 2y ago
    > So, something happened in 2012 that increased Thyroid cancer on Fukushima .. How would you explain that? The obvious answer would be that radioactive iodine-131 entered the food chain and that strontium-90 also was being ingested by dairy cattle and was being concentrated (biologically magnified) in cow’s milk. As demonstrated in Australia by Hedley Marston. This seems unrelated to what was being discussed .. the direct attribution of deaths amoung the excavated cohort to nuclear causes.
  - natmaka 2y ago
    Most radiation-induced solid cancers develop after 10+ years, therefore studying the 2008-2015 period isn't very pertinent. Compiling statistics about a population is more difficult than doing so for a well-specified group of workers, and given the treatment of workers... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/special-report-help-wanted-in-fukushima-crime/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/special-report-he...

defrost 2y ago

There is a pool of people who definitely died. That's not in dispute. What is questionable, as you point out, is the application of different tricks and shades of "can't prove, must be nuclear" to claim all deaths in the pool as a direct result of nuclear. As others have pointed out there are similar yearly figures for tenuous "coal deaths" as there are here for seven years of post disaster "evacuation deaths".

pvaldes 2y ago
Invasive cancer statistics in Japan were compiled for the Fukushima Cancer Registry database and published by the National Cancer Center Japan. If we review average annual percent change on Thyroid cancer incidence, there was a more or less stable value between 2008 and 2011. Then in 2012 there is a sudden increase of 10,8% on Fukushima, versus a 3,7% for the whole Japan in the same year [1]. Some increase is normal in a population that is growing and aging but a jump, not so much. We even have a control population: The Tochigi prefecture (at the South of Fukushima and bordering it). This landlocked prefecture has a big industrial complex, including a strong sector of X-ray machines makers. Tochigi has the lower increase on Thyroid cancer of the three between 2011 and 2012 (3,2% increase). [1] The death ratio didn't changed, but people that is diagnosed with cancer does not die immediately, so just looking for mortality increase that year is a deceptive measure. So, something happened in 2012 that increased Thyroid cancer on Fukushima more than in the rest of Japan. Lets assume that we forget all about the elephant in the room, and past experiences where radioactivity accidents typically increased thyroid cancers. How would you explain that? Any alternative hypothesis? ----------------- [1] Shibata A, Saji S, Kamiya K, Yasumura S. Trend in Cancer Incidence and Mortality in Fukushima From 2008 Through 2015. J Epidemiol. 2021 Dec 5;31(12):653-659 (The article covers only up to 2015 to remove artifacts from 2016 when the way to report cancer changed, causing another increase on the registers).
- defrost 2y ago
  > So, something happened in 2012 that increased Thyroid cancer on Fukushima .. How would you explain that? The obvious answer would be that radioactive iodine-131 entered the food chain and that strontium-90 also was being ingested by dairy cattle and was being concentrated (biologically magnified) in cow’s milk. As demonstrated in Australia by Hedley Marston. This seems unrelated to what was being discussed .. the direct attribution of deaths amoung the excavated cohort to nuclear causes.
- natmaka 2y ago
  Most radiation-induced solid cancers develop after 10+ years, therefore studying the 2008-2015 period isn't very pertinent. Compiling statistics about a population is more difficult than doing so for a well-specified group of workers, and given the treatment of workers... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/special-report-help-wanted-in-fukushima-crime/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/special-report-he...