Why is Fukushima nuclear crisis so threatening?

[Dmytry]

Plus there's those people who go on how a bit of radiation is good for you (the same way how it was till early 1970s). The attitude that already killed many thousands - not by nuclear accidents, but by things such as nosal irradiation (and this death toll is not estimated from large doses. This death toll was directly measured)

It is just like climate change denial indeed. I didn't really want to make this analogy myself but the parallel is obvious.
Majority of scientists agree with anthropogenic global warming, which goes against interests of fossil fuel industry, minority (openly funded by fossil fuel industry) disagrees, the topic is declared 'controversial' and the idea is that there's not enough proof.
Same for LNT. Majority of scientists agree with LNT which goes against interests of nuclear power industry, minority disagrees, the topic is then declared 'controversial'.
One to one parallel really. Science vs industry clash in both cases, and science takes a while to prevail.

 

[jlduh]

As i just quickly read the animated discussion earlier on this thread about effects of radiations and nuclear industries on life, i would like to post this study that i found, which is screening the effects on children of living near a nuclear plant in the US (14 nuclear plants/24 reactors taken into account in this study).

From: Archives of Environmental Health
Date: 2/1/2003
Author: Chang, Carolyn; Dave, Amie; Feinberg, Elyssa; Frimer, Marina; Mangano, Joseph J.; Sherman,

http://www.c-10.org/pdf/Elevated%20childhood%20cancer%20incidence%20proximate%20to%20U.pdf

I just extract some of the main results:

Results

Incidence of all cancers. Incidence for total cancers for children < 5 yr during 1988 to
1997 was higher than the SEER rate near all 14 nuclear plants in our study (Table 4).
The rate for all 49 counties combined was 22.51 per 100,000, or 11.4% greater than the
SEER rate (p < 0.0002). The smallest excess was near the Salem/Hope Creek complex
(+0.7%); the largest occurred near both the Turkey Point and St. Lucie facilities in
Florida (+29.1%).

Cancer incidence in children 5-9 yr for 1988 to 1997 exceeded the SEER rate for 13 of
the 14 areas. The rate for the study counties was 12.15 per 100,000--12.5% higher than
the SEER rate of 10.80 (p < 0.002). The smallest excess was found near the Millstone
reactors in Connecticut (+2.2%), and the largest occurred near St. Lucie (+73.6%).
Incidence near the Crystal River facility in Florida was 6.5% below the SEER rate.

Combining the age groups yields an incidence rate of 17.42 per 100,000--12.4% above
the SEER rate (p < 0.00001). The excess incidence near 3 of the plants (Oyster Creek,
St. Lucie, and Turkey Point) was statistically significant; near the Indian Point and
Brookhaven facilities it reached borderline significance (p < 0.08 and p < 0.07,
respectively). Although county-specific totals are not shown, considerable variation in
rates exists, in part because of the relatively small numbers of cases involved. Still, the
incidence rate for those 0-9 yr of age exceeded the U.S. rate in 38 of the 49 study
counties.

Childhood cancer incidence < 30 mi (48 km) from nuclear reactors was compared with
rates for the remaining counties in the states in which reactors are located. Several
adjoining, less-populated states (New Jersey and Delaware, Connecticut and Rhode
Island, Massachusetts and New Hampshire) were combined to ensure adequate
statistical power. For each of 6 states and combinations of states, cancer incidence for
those 0-9 yr in the counties near reactors was higher than in other counties in the state
(Table 5). The total excess incidence derived from comparing the counties near reactors
with those in the rest of the state, or state combinations, was 5.0% (p < 0.04).
Elevated rates for the New York and Pennsylvania nuclear counties are of borderline significance
(p < 0.055 and p < 0.07, respectively).

Total cancer incidence by race. U.S. black and Hispanic children < 20 yr of age have
cancer incidence rates 23% and 10% below that for whites, respectively. (44) To assess
the effect of race on childhood cancer incidence near nuclear plants, incidence data from
Pennsylvania counties near nuclear plants were studied (the Pennsylvania registry
makes county statistics for whites and blacks more readily available than do registries in
other states). Using SEER data, the 1988 to 1997 U.S. cancer incidence rates for white
and black children 0-9 yr were calculated at 15.88 and 13.28 per 100,000, respectively.
For the 23 Pennsylvania counties located close to reactors, childhood cancer rates
exceeded U.S. rates for both whites and blacks (Table 6).

Incidence of leukemia. We examined the incidence of childhood leukemia in the 23
counties near 5 nuclear plants in Pennsylvania (Table 7). These regions account for
slightly more than half the state's population. Leukemia incidence in the state's nuclear
counties exceeded the U.S. rate by 10.8%; the rate for the remainder of the state was
11.5% below the U.S. rate (p < 0.01). For all other cancers, virtually no difference was
seen between nuclear and non-nuclear counties, even though both exceeded the
national rate (by 2.6% and 3.2%, respectively).

[...]

This study found a consistent pattern of increased childhood cancer incidence in all
study areas < 30 mi (48 km) from nuclear plants in the eastern United States. Our
findings support the biologically plausible concept that susceptibility to carcinogens, such
as radioactivity, is greatest in utero and in early childhood. They also support numerous
analyses documenting elevated childhood cancer rates near nuclear facilities in the
United States and other nations. The finding that cancer incidence for children < 10 yr is
12.4% greater in the study counties than the U.S. as a whole suggests that emissions
from nuclear power plants may be linked with 1 of 9 local cases of childhood cancer.
These descriptive epidemiological findings suggest a relationship between radioactive
nuclides and childhood cancer and should be taken seriously in future research.

 

[andybwell]

"I think you mean, increased thyroid cancers in people exposed to radiation as children still show increased thyroid cancers. At least, that's what the article says. "

The Fukushima nuclear crisis is so threatening, especially to children, because they are more susceptible to cancer from the increased radiation levels around the "troubled" plant. However, the Japanese Govt. have not acted on this. Indeed, they have instead increased the allowed radiation level for children so that children can remain in schools near the "troubled" plant!

 

[andybwell]

The International Commission on Radiological Protection recommends that all radiation exposure be kept as low as achievable, and for the public, on top of background radiation and any medical procedures, should not exceed 1 mSv per year.

For nuclear industry workers, they recommend a maximum permissible annual dose of 20 mSv averaged over five years, with no more than 50 mSv in anyone year.

In Japan the maximum allowed annual dose for workers, 100 mSv, was already higher than international standards. This has been increased in response to the Fukushima disaster to 250 mSv.

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences BEIR VII report estimates that each 1 mSv of radiation is associated with an increased risk of solid cancer (cancers other than leukemia) of about 1 in 10,000; an increased risk of leukemia of about 1 in 100,000; and a 1 in 17,500 increased risk of dying from cancer.

But a critical factor is that not everyone faces the same level of risk. For infants (under 1 year of age) the radiation-related cancer risk is 3 to 4 times higher than for adults; and female infants are twice as susceptible as male infants.

Females’ overall risk of cancer related to radiation exposure is 40 percent greater than for males. Fetuses in the womb are the most radiation-sensitive of all.

In Germany, a recent study of 25 years of the national childhood cancer register showed that even the normal operation of nuclear power plants is associated with a more than doubling of the risk of leukemia for children under 5 years old living within 5 kilometers of a nuclear plant.

Increased risk was seen to more than 50 km away. This was much higher than expected, and highlights the particular vulnerability to radiation of children in and outside the womb.

In addition to exposure measured by typical external radiation counters, the children of Fukushima will also receive internal radiation from particles inhaled and lodged in their lungs, and taken in through contaminated food and water.

A number of radioactive substances are concentrated up the food chain and in people. As a parent, the decision to allow the children of Fukushima to be exposed to such injurious levels of radiation is an unacceptable abrogation of the responsibility of care and custodianship for our children and future generations.

 

[andybwell]

Sorry, I forgot the links.
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/3564
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents#cite_note-NewScie2-11

 

[Drakkith]

"I think you mean, increased thyroid cancers in people exposed to radiation as children still show increased thyroid cancers. At least, that's what the article says. "

The Fukushima nuclear crisis is so threatening, especially to children, because they are more susceptible to cancer from the increased radiation levels around the "troubled" plant. However, the Japanese Govt. have not acted on this. Indeed, they have instead increased the allowed radiation level for children so that children can remain in schools near the "troubled" plant!

I wasn't disagreeing with anything you said, I was simply pointing out that your post didn't make sense with what was said in the link.

Twenty years after Chernobyl, increased thyroid cancers in children are still prevalent.

This is incorrect. Thats all.

 

[andybwell]

"Twenty years after Chernobyl, increased thyroid cancers in children are still prevalent."

"I think you mean, increased thyroid cancers in people exposed to radiation as children still show increased thyroid cancers. At least, that's what the article says. "

"In childhood, once exposed even to low doses of ionizing radiation, either externally or internally, the cancer-prone cell damage within the thyroid gland can be preserved for a long time. Today, special attention should be paid to a high risk group of individuals who have been exposed to radioactive iodines just after the Chernobyl accident and who are now 20 to 30 year-old. Elucidation of the molecular mechanisms of radiation-induced thyroid cancer is expected to contribute to the disease prevention and treatment in the coming future. "

Yes, and this must now include the children in schools near the Fukushima "troubled" reactors.

 

[andybwell]

A different opinon:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=improving-nuclear-safety

 

[andybwell]

Thyroid cancer was the first solid tumor reported to be increased in frequency among atomic bomb survivors. 1 Subsequent surveys found a significant excess of papillary thyroid cancer. A straight line adequately describes the relationship between radiation dose and thyroid cancer incidence, relative risks are similar in males and females, and age at exposure substantively influences risk. Risk is highest for children exposed when younger than 10 year but the risk per unit dose following exposure in childhood is higher than for any other radiation-induced malignancy.

 

[andybwell]

JAPAN WITHHELD INFORMATION TO AVOID PANIChttp://enenews.com/official-japanese-govt-withheld-radiation-forecasts-prevent-causing-panic

 

[andybwell]

A different opinion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_L._Orbach

 

[jlduh]

To Andybwell: just a reminder about the form (and not the subjects or ideas) so the thread can be easily readable:

- it would be better if you separate what you write yourself from extracts copied from an article that you link: just use the quote function of the forum to put the copied extracts in between. Your messages will be much easier to read for others
example: your message #74 is a copied extract of this article (that i read previously): http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/3595 so it's better to source it with link and put this into quotes.

- if possible group different elements in one message if the subjects are similar to avoid multiple successive posting for one matter.

- your last message is not clear as the wikipedia article on "Orbach" doesn't explain why it is a "different opinion" (different from what?)

Please don't be offensed by these remarks which just have the aim to make your arguments more easily readable (in my opinion!).

 

[gmax137]

... Mangano, Joseph ...

http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2005/08/joseph-mangano-and-art-of-deception.html

 

[JaredJames]

http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2005/08/joseph-mangano-and-art-of-deception.html

Let's keep blogs out of it shall we.

 

[gmax137]

Let's keep blogs out of it shall we.

Well, read it, and read the comments. Follow the links and draw your own conclusions. PF used to be a pretty good place to find roadmaps to real science, not opinions. I see that (sadly) slipping away lately. To be blunt, it seems the crackpots have found PF.

 

[JaredJames]

Well, read it, and read the comments. Follow the links and draw your own conclusions. PF used to be a pretty good place to find roadmaps to real science, not opinions. I see that (sadly) slipping away lately. To be blunt, it seems the crackpots have found PF.

A blog is not a valid source on PF. A blog is an opinion.

 

[gmax137]

From: Archives of Environmental Health
Date: 2/1/2003
Author: Chang, Carolyn; Dave, Amie; Feinberg, Elyssa; Frimer, Marina; Mangano, Joseph J.; Sherman,

http://www.c-10.org/pdf/Elevated%20childhood%20cancer%20incidence%20proximate%20to%20U.pdf

I just extract some of the main results:

A blog is not a valid source on PF. A blog is an opinion.

Is the www.c-10.org[/url] website a "valid" source? Is it somehow different to the [url]www.nei.org[/URL] site?

I linked the nei blog because it is a convenient starting point for interested readers who might want some background on the 'paper' cited in the post by jlduh. I didn't think it would be appropriate to just state [i]my opinion[/i] ("Manganero is a well known charlatan and publicity seeker who benefits from donations by well-meaning but ill-informed celebrities like Christie Brinkley and Alec Baldwin.")

 

[Dmytry]

There's the prevailing scientific opinion - LNT, supported by theoretical understanding of the cancer.
And there's 2 fringe groups, one claiming much weaker negative effects than LNT (or even positive effects in small doses, ala homoeopathy), and other group claiming much stronger negative effects than per LNT. It is only fair that when hormesis is brought up, the opposite side of spectrum is also brought up (as long as it aint blogs lol).
Both hormesis and superdanger proponents rely on deception by statistics in the same way. The LNT predicted effects for small exposures drown in the noise; 10 times smaller dose requires 100 times larger population for the study; so far there simply hasn't been nuclear accident severe enough.

Speaking of the LNT.
The cancer rate in a population of size n and cancer probability p (approximately 0.4 lifetime) will have standard deviation of sqrt(n*p*(1-p))/n = sqrt(p*(1-p)/n). The difference of cancer rate in two two equal sized populations will have standard deviation of sqrt(2)*sqrt(p*(1-p)/n). Two standard deviations is 95% confidence interval, that is
+-2*sqrt(2*p*(1-p)/n) is the range that we can expect with 95% confidence.
For the dose of 0.01 Sievert, the change in cancer rate is 0.001 and solving above for n , the population size is about 4 million (the samples and controls) . That is the population size when fluctuations have less than 5% probability of resulting in the difference in cancer rate that is equivalent to 0.01 sievert. In practice, you will need to study substantially larger population (ten, twenty millions) to demonstrate the LNT-predicted effect to any degree of accuracy beyond 'there is likely some bad effect at low doses'.

For other doses, the rule is quadratic - 10x smaller dose, 100x larger population required.

With all the other complications (such as controlling for smoking, race, age, etc, as well as unknown doses) - there is a definite threshold for direct statistical detection of low dose effects. HOWEVER, the threshold of detection does not mean there is threshold in effect. There is no theoretical reason to believe in threshold in effect; handwaving about natural defences does not count any more than climate change denialist's handwaving about complexity of the earth. There's plenty of theoretical reasons to assume linear effect from small doses, just as approximation of a tiny piece of a curve with a line. The radiation level may be varying by many orders of magnitude at 'small doses', but the actual amounts of reactive chemicals - that's through what radiation damages the DNA - is varying only a tiny bit, and so does the cancer rate.

Just because nobody figured out quantum gravity we don't assume that two 1-gram masses don't attract each-other at distance of 2 meters even if it is presently below threshold of direct detection.

edit: clarification of the figures, the base group and control group.

 

[gmax137]

Criticism of Manganero is not necessarily a criticism of LNT.

 

[andybwell]

Lets get back to Fukushima and the latest meltdown in reactor 1 and, in all likilihood, 2 & 3 as well. What is a nuclear meltdown and what are the ramifications.

This appears to be the best explanation that I can find on the internet.

http://www.cavendishscience.org/bks/nuc/quests.htm

 

[andybwell]

Is this the stage of Fukushima reactor 1?

" If the normal pumping of coolant through the reactor has failed, only minimal amounts of heat can be removed from the molten mass of uranium and fission products, except by the concrete and ultimately the ground. Once the reactor vessel bottom has been breached (melted), or if the accident began with a rupture of the reactor vessel, it is not possible to use the coolant circulation system even if the pumping could be restored. So, although 10 hours, or 3½ days or 15 days may seem like a long time, there is virtually nothing that anyone can do to affect the steady accumulation of heat energy or to cool or remove or scatter the uranium mix."

If so, we are in BIG trouble.

 

[JaredJames]

Perhaps you should check up what's currently happening before plastering that sort of thing and making wild statements about being in trouble. It serves no purpose than fear mongering.

 

[clancy688]

Is this the stage of Fukushima reactor 1?

" If the normal pumping of coolant through the reactor has failed, only minimal amounts of heat can be removed from the molten mass of uranium and fission products, except by the concrete and ultimately the ground. Once the reactor vessel bottom has been breached (melted), or if the accident began with a rupture of the reactor vessel, it is not possible to use the coolant circulation system even if the pumping could be restored. So, although 10 hours, or 3½ days or 15 days may seem like a long time, there is virtually nothing that anyone can do to affect the steady accumulation of heat energy or to cool or remove or scatter the uranium mix."

If so, we are in BIG trouble.

The fuel in reactor 1 probably melted and is now in the lower part of the reactor pressure vessel. Although the vessel was breached and amounts of nuclear fuel probably leaked into the containment, most of the molten fuel is, according to TEPCO, still in the reactor pressure vessel and cooled by the remaining water.
There are leaks in that RPV, and there are thousands of tons of water unaccounted for (they are probably somewhere in the basement of Unit 1), but apparently the fuel can still be cooled. They are not using a circulation system, but rather pouring water in the RPV which escapes then through the leaks.

Positive: There's still cooling capability
Negative: They're creating more and more liquid radioactive waste - and they don't know where parts of this waste go to. It's better than a full scale melt through, though.

 

[pcr01]

If we shut every nuclear plant in the world today, we will lose 20% of the power generation in the US. You will still be exposed to low level radiation. There will still be cancer deaths. In the hot California summer there will be more brownouts and rotating blackouts. Power shortages cost lives more certainly than your lack of proof of harm from nuclear plants. If I recall the great Northeastern Blackout a few years ago had 6 deaths blamed on the blackout. Remember the people in Chicago that died of heatstroke after the steam explosion in the utility tunnels cut off their power? Even a traffic light out of service can be deadly. It is time for you to start justifying those kinds of threats before we start shutting anything down. Economic disaster and increased death rates are a common sense approach?

The same God that gave me a soul gave me a brain - my dreamworld, your reality. Okay I'll choose my dreamworld where I will try to make things better. You can have your reality where we all should be huddled in a corner waiting to die. You have seen many people die from radiation exposure. Really? Were they first responders at Chernobyl? No? Then, Sir, show your proof.

"Nearly one million people around the world died from exposure to radiation released by the 1986 nuclear disaster at the Chernobyl reactor, finds a new book from the New York Academy of Sciences published today on the 24th anniversary of the meltdown at the Soviet facility.

The book, "Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment," was compiled by authors Alexey Yablokov of the Center for Russian Environmental Policy in Moscow, and Vassily Nesterenko and Alexey Nesterenko of the Institute of Radiation Safety, in Minsk, Belarus."

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2010/2010-04-26-01.html


Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences)

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1573317578/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[pcr01]

The only way to decide anything is to look at statistical data and make an educated guess.

Statistics are only as good as the person who records them.

 

[Drakkith]

"Nearly one million people around the world died from exposure to radiation released by the 1986 nuclear disaster at the Chernobyl reactor, finds a new book from the New York Academy of Sciences published today on the 24th anniversary of the meltdown at the Soviet facility.

The book, "Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment," was compiled by authors Alexey Yablokov of the Center for Russian Environmental Policy in Moscow, and Vassily Nesterenko and Alexey Nesterenko of the Institute of Radiation Safety, in Minsk, Belarus."

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2010/2010-04-26-01.html


Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences)

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1573317578/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Hrmm. If this is true, then wow...

 

[Astronuc]

"Nearly one million people around the world died from exposure to radiation released by the 1986 nuclear disaster at the Chernobyl reactor, finds a new book from the New York Academy of Sciences published today on the 24th anniversary of the meltdown at the Soviet facility.

The book, "Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment," was compiled by authors Alexey Yablokov of the Center for Russian Environmental Policy in Moscow, and Vassily Nesterenko and Alexey Nesterenko of the Institute of Radiation Safety, in Minsk, Belarus."

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2010/2010-04-26-01.html


Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences)

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1573317578/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Comment by the New York Academy of Science.
http://www.nyas.org/publications/annals/Detail.aspx?cid=f3f3bd16-51ba-4d7b-a086-753f44b3bfc1

 

[corrina]

Do you have data to support this statement?

Note that according to forum rules such data must be published in a peer reviewed magazine.

In December 2010, the International Journal of Health Services published findings of the study, i.e. that “Boomers” born 1959-1961 who died of cancer had Sr-90 levels in their teeth more than twice (+122%) greater than those the same age who are alive and healthy.

http://wakeupfromyourslumber.com/blog/aletho-news/seeking-new-clues-cancer-risks-atom-bomb-tests

 

[Dmytry]

Hrmm. If this is true, then wow...

I still think it's closer to 50k..100k . The studies that estimate it at 50k...100k are based on standard, accepted constants.

But I also think how do I know that the LNT 's constant, derived from huge doses, is correct at low doses? What if there is a repair function, that has activation threshold, and the high doses which we can do statistics at, are above the threshold, while the population doses from e.g. Chernobyl are largely below threshold. (The biological defence responses often have thresholds just like that - inflammation, vomiting if poisoned, immune system works like this, etc. Vomiting is also the defence response for the radiation, even though it does not help any)
Then there's that problem... small fraction of population is much more radio-sensitive. Acute effects at 0.3 Sieverts. What if the effects in some sub population already start to saturate at the high doses? That would also mean that the coefficient is under-estimate.

The LNT the way it is used, is certainly not the most conservative model... as far as policy goes it is actually very permissive.
And if we look back at the history, the dangers are typically under-estimated, slowly converging towards reality, from below.

Also, btw. I personally am more concerned about chemical stuff. There's so many novel chemicals that we are getting exposed to, vast majority of them harmless - but some are bound to be carcinogenic. Radiation is easier to test for, that makes it safer.

 

[andybwell]

An interview with Akira Tokuhiro in the Huffington Post. Akira Tokuhiro is professor of mechanical and nuclear engineering for the University of Idaho, was born in Tokyo, Japan, but now works in the Center for Advanced Energy Studies in Idaho Falls. Akira has more than 20 years of experience in nuclear engineering and has been closely monitoring the situation in Japan following that country’s devastating earthquake and tsunami.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vivian-norris-de-montaigu/interview-with-akira-toku_b_863297.html

 

[andybwell]

New close up video of the Fukushima "nuclear waste dump".
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/18/new-video-of-japanese-nuclear-plant/?partner=rss&emc=rss

 

[andybwell]

Kyoto U. nuclear professor: "Much more serious than I envisioned — We’re in uncharted territory for first time ever since humans started using nuclear power "

http://enenews.com/kyoto-nuclear-professor-serious-situation-envisioned-uncharted-

 

[andybwell]

Nearly 5,000 nuke plant workers suffering internal radiation exposure after ‘visiting’ Fukushima — Local gov’t to consider testing residents

http://enenews.com/5000-nuke-plant-workers-suffering-internal-radiation-exposure-after-visiting-fukushima-local-govt-consider-testing-residents

 

[andybwell]

U.S. Sees Array of New Threats at Japan’s Nuclear Plant

United States government engineers sent to help with the crisis in Japan are warning that the troubled nuclear plant there is facing a wide array of fresh threats that could persist indefinitely, and that in some cases are expected to increase as a result of the very measures being taken to keep the plant stable, according to a confidential assessment prepared by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/06/world/asia/06nuclear.html?_r=2&hp

 

[Borek]

U.S. Sees Array of New Threats at Japan’s Nuclear Plant

United States government engineers sent to help with the crisis in Japan are warning that the troubled nuclear plant there is facing a wide array of fresh threats that could persist indefinitely, and that in some cases are expected to increase as a result of the very measures being taken to keep the plant stable, according to a confidential assessment prepared by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/06/world/asia/06nuclear.html?_r=2&hp

This is from the beginning of April, mostly irrelevant as of today.