Skip to main content

View Diary: The Childrens Health Crisis In Fukushima (18 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Yes, that's true - but unrelated (0+ / 0-)

    to the nuclear power plant meltdown:

    The first round of thyroid tests for about 80,000 children in Fukushima Prefecture found no direct effects from last year's accident at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant.

    Although one child was found to have thyroid cancer, specialists said there was likely no link to the nuclear accident since thyroid cancer only develops four to five years after exposure to radiation.


    Which makes sense because according to the actual scientific literature, dose at Fukushima were MUCH lower than at Chernobyl:

    The median thyroid equivalent dose was estimated to be 4.2 mSv and 3.5 mSv for children and adults, respectively, much smaller than the mean thyroid dose in the Chernobyl accident (490 mSv in evacuees)
    •  Right... you still believe GOVT readings? Not. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
    •  Ah, so. (0+ / 0-)

      "...since thyroid cancer only develops four to five years after exposure to radiation."

      "Much less than at Chernobyl."

      You know that's total horsehockey, why on earth would you parrot this crap here? Nobody paying the least bit of attention believes half a meltdown and one atmospheric explosion is somehow magically "worse" than three full meltdowns and four major atmospheric explosions. Not even in Japan - where nobody who isn't a government flunky believes TEPCO or the government on this subject. It's all about compensation - money. It has always been thus.

      Health effects are directly related to exposure levels. The finding of so much thyroid abnormality in children of the most exposed population within a year's time says something very specific about what the actual exposure levels were - spotlighting the Lie. Preventing the parents of those children from seeking second opinion and/or treatment is just plain outrageous. A crime. Why, NRC documents obtained via FOIA as well as cumulatives on the EPA RadNet system for the short time it was allowed to report publicly show that people in swaths of North America got more than ~4 mSv of iodine exposure from Fukushima in the first weeks (not counting nobles or cesiums). We're supposed to believe people stuck for weeks and months in the immediate plume fared better?

      It's just an instant replay of a methodology invented way, way back in early Cold War/Bomb Testing days and perfected through several commercial meltdowns through the years. Come up with a fantasy figure for release of one fission product isotope and make it 'official' so that all future epidemiological studies must confirm the fantasy figure. Voila! TEPCO and NISA say the max thyroid exposure over 6 months is ~4 mSv. If 45% of the children present with thyroid nodules/cysts at 6-9 months (control group 'normal' is 1-2%), it must be from some other cause, because ~4 mSv can't account for it.

      Per cancer development, the 4-5 years is also tied to the insulting fantasy ~4 mSv. Only a statistically insignificant number of cancers could be 'expected' from that dose, and they wouldn't show up for years (up to 30 years). Even if at this time next year there were hundreds of kids presenting with thyroid cancers in Fukushima Province, the 'officials' in charge of the Lie would swear that the meltdowns didn't cause it because a mere ~4 mSv couldn't cause it. And they're absolutely right about that.

      What they're criminally wrong about is the ~4 mSv figure.

      This kind of elaborate fantasy thinking never changes what's real on the ground, which is and will continue to be obvious at some critical point. Republicans learned that about their fantasy world just last week. The Japanese have been learning it over the past year and a half too. You haven't learned that yet?

      •  Medical science is medical science (0+ / 0-)

        and fantasy is fantasy.

        Don't really know what else to say  - I choose to accept the former and you opt to believe in the latter.

        That's all well and good, but it is puzzling to me why some pseudoscience nuttery is rejected from this site (e.g., anti-vaxxer BS and creationism) while some is welcomed to wide acclaim.

        •  Please prove it (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          One study does not make it fact. There are plenty of crappy biased studies on Chernobyl that make whatever they want to out of it. Some are agenda based, others because everyone and their cousin has written a paper on Chernobyl.

          There was considerable cover up in the early years of Chernobyl. When people did begin testing kids for thyroid damage they found cancers and some that had already spread to other organs at that 4 year mark. This explains well the information gap for those early years after Chernobyl

          •  It's not one study, it's the consensus (0+ / 0-)

            of many hundreds of studies archived at the Pubmed search engine (yes, anyone can use it - but for some reason the anti-nuke nutcases opt not to . . . ).

            In contrast to the Chernobyl reactor accident, the Fukushima reactor accident has to date resulted in no deterministic effects and no worker deaths. Estimates to date of population doses suggest very low uptakes of radioactive iodine which was a major determinant of the epidemic of thyroid cancer following childhood exposures around Chernobyl. The estimates to date of population doses are also much lower (and the distribution much narrower) than the doses for which cancer excesses have been detected among atomic bomb survivors after 60 years of follow-up. Studies of populations exposed to low doses are also limited in their ability to account for important lifestyle factors, such as cigarette smoking and medical x-ray exposures, which could distort findings. Studies of the Fukushima population should be and are being considered for reassurance and health care reasons. Apart from as regards the extreme psychological stress caused by the horrific loss of life following the tsunami and the large-scale evacuation from homes and villages, such studies have limited to no chance of providing information on possible health risks following low dose exposures received gradually over time--the estimated doses (to date) are just too small.

            The pity is, if eventually health effects do emerge, no one's really going to pay that much attention because of all the current "boy crying wolf" goings on.

            •  Wow. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Jim P
              ...Apart from as regards the extreme psychological stress caused by the horrific loss of life following the tsunami and the large-scale evacuation from homes and villages, such studies have limited to no chance of providing information on possible health risks following low dose exposures received gradually over time--the estimated doses (to date) are just too small.
              Way to illustrate my point for me, RG. Thanks. Once the 'official' Lie is on record, all subsequent studies must comport with that 'official' Lie. Happened after Chernobyl, and TMI too. Standard Operating Procedure.

              Besides, it's not YOUR children, so why should you care? Why would anybody question when told it's long-ago settled medical science that "psychological stress" about radiation exposure causes acute radiation sickness, thyroid nodules, cysts and cancers, leukemias, lymphomas, organ and bone cancers, etc. that LOOK exactly like the well-documented effects of radiation exposure, but aren't. Because somebody who owned (or was owned by) a nuclear plant that melted and exploded in that neighborhood said radiation enough to account for the observed health effects was not released.

              Why, even little children who know nothing about things nuclear will present with overt symptoms of serious radiation exposure after not being exposed to radiation from their melted and exploded neighborhood nuke that didn't release any radiation. Amazing how that works, isn't it?

              We've heard it all before. Sleep well.

              •  It's not the "official" lie (0+ / 0-)

                it's science.

                You can't just make shit up and put it on the internet - well actually you clearly can do that much - but not expect any pushback.

                For the life of me I don't know why some conspiracy theories are banned at this site why others are allowed to fester away to relative acclaim.

                •  No, it's NOT science, (0+ / 0-)

                  either medical or nuclear. It's CYA bullshit on the part of corporation and government who want to keep their liability low for the serious health effects of the worst nuclear disaster this world has ever seen.

                  By the way, "medical science" knows that thyroid nodules and cysts are symptomatic of pre-cancerous states of the human thyroid gland. "Medical science" knows from actual surveys that the 'normal' occurrence of nodules/cysts in children is 1-2% at the top end (with entire regions having NO such issues in children). And "medical science" knows that a 45% rate of thyroid nodules/cysts in children in the immediate region of major fission product dumping due to major nuclear oopses (or on purposes) means that those children were exposed to very significant exposures of the thyroid-concentrating isotope iodine-131. There is a reason that it's the most limiting isotope in nuclear practice.

                  It is nuclear science - specifically health physics - that has correlated from the aftermath of nuclear oopses and on purposes through the past 60+ years the range of exposures to iodine-131 that cause thyroid nodules/cysts and cancers, the time factor per dose levels in children and adults, etc.

                  "Medical science" has used iodine-131 to treat naturally occurring thyroid issues since it became aware of how this isotope concentrates in thyroid glands and gets used by the gland in place of stable elemental iodine for producing metabolic hormones. They learned all those decades ago that the therapeutic doses they were using caused thyroid cancer in the patient some years down the line. Thyroid cancer is treated by removal of the gland, requiring the patient to take supplemental metabolic hormones for the rest of their lives.

                  Neither "medical science" nor "nuclear science" /health physics made the spurious assertion that no one in the immediate vicinity of Fukushima Daiichi got more than 4.2 mSv dose to the thyroid from released iodine-131. That was a political decision, not a medical observation or a health physics determination. The medical observation is that nearly half of Fukushima children developed thyroid nodules/cysts less than a year after the disaster. That figure will keep increasing, which is why the politicians feel they must stop Fukushima parents from having their children tested or treated.

                  The presentation of a 45% childhood thyroid damage rate less than a year after the disaster clearly indicates that the doses were far, far higher than ~4 mSv. That's science, RG. The political decision has been demonstrated wrong.

    •  Low doses, maybe not (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Joieau, Jim P

      There has been extensive criticism of both the declaration that everyone had low doses and the methods used by the Fukushima Health Survey, the entity that declared people had low doses.

      Exposure in people around the Fukushima region varies widely. Some were lucky and had low doses, others not so lucky and have high doses. BTW some of the
      "scientific" literature on Chernobyl is pretty biased so it would be wise to not take any one study blindly as gospel.

      Some of the evacuees have high exposure rates.

      The reality is that the nodule rates are sky high compared to "normal" groups.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site