Yes, but it's not implicit to the public just yet.

Your information seems to be semievolved. Nobody is buying your reduced cancer from low dose exposure nonsense. As someone who lives near Fukushima I don't know of any more real needs and do not consider this a nonproblem.

Please read my response to mhyder below. I certainly don't mean to understate the severity of the Fukushima situation. My heart goes out to all affected by this tragedy. But, on the issue of radiation-induced cancer, for those who were exposed in the mrem levels, THERE WILL BE NO INCREASE IN CANCER INCIDENCE!. I do not know what levels of exposures were received over there. My understanding was that evacuations ensured that no member of the general public (not including the workers involved, of course) was exposed at more than a rem. Is this true? If so, I stand by my statements and agree with others here who believe that other affects are those that are real reason for concern.

The Fukushima situation is not really analogous to Chernobyl mainly because of the incredible amount of radionuclides that were deposited in the area around Cernobyl and continue to irradiate flora and fauna there. The doses around Chernobyl were enough to kill humans from acute radiation sickness for quite a while. That was not the case anywhere with members of the public around Fukushima, to my understanding (which I am prepared to have you correct since you are closer to the area and may know more).

If you'd like to discuss the dangers of radiation - real or hyped, please feel free to contact me off-line so we don't sideline this site dharry@q.com

Please read my response to mhyder below. I certainly don't mean to understate the severity of the Fukushima situation. My heart goes out to all affected by this tragedy. But, on the issue of radiation-induced cancer, for those who were exposed in the mrem levels, THERE WILL BE NO INCREASE IN CANCER INCIDENCE!. I do not know what levels of exposures were received over there. My understanding was that evacuations ensured that no member of the general public (not including the workers involved, of course) was exposed at more than a rem. Is this true? If so, I stand by my statements and agree with others here who believe that other affects are those that are real reason for concern.

The Fukushima situation is not really analogous to Chernobyl mainly because of the incredible amount of radionuclides that were deposited in the area around Cernobyl and continue to irradiate flora and fauna there. The doses around Chernobyl were enough to kill humans from acute radiation sickness for quite a while. That was not the case anywhere with members of the public around Fukushima, to my understanding (which I am prepared to have you correct since you are closer to the area and may know more).

If you'd like to discuss the dangers of radiation - real or hyped, please feel free to contact me off-line so we don't sideline this site dharry@q.com

I'm really not sure why everyone discounts thyroid cancer as being an easily treatable disease and thus of little consequence.

I assume it must be treated in the same way other cancers are, creating complete havoc in one's internal systems, etc as well as the monetary costs of treatment you need to fall within that 2% mortality rate.

I assure you, it would be of little comfort to me to hear that I had thyroid cancer (even at a 2% mortality rate) while knowing it would've been completely preventable if I hadn't been exposed to radiation from some stupid and preventable nuclear accident.

You know, I had a brother that died while riding his moped. He was hit by a guy in a truck.

It is of little comfort to me to hear that he died while knowing it would have been completely preventable if he hadn't been exposed to a truck from some stupid and preventable truck accident.

That is part of LIVING. We have discovered a way to generate loads of electricity (which everyone typing their opinion on a computer uses) that is mostly safe.

Radiation is an entirely different matter. Radiation can decimate a population by a leak from a reactor, by getting into the atmosphere, water and soil. Once there, it can't be cleaned up. Exposure can affect people within minutes, that's why the workers at Fukushima, have to work in short shifts to minimize their exposure. It's much more than it seems - ask any radiation expert.

So enlighten me on radiation? What types are there and what dangers exist with each type of radiation. Also, what protections do you need for each different type of radiation.

I agree with you Stage, Radiation can be dangerous, however, with the proper precautions, nuclear energy can be safe.

Since you say that radiation can decimate a population by a leak from a reactor, why are there people living 20km (12 miles) away the reactor? There is a potential for a lot of bad with nuclear energy, but there is a potential for a lot of good as well. Businesses decided that it was worth the risk to build a powerplant. The plant was fine. The problems started when their backup generators broke down (due to being flooded out by the tsunami). If they hadn't broken down, the plant would still be running and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Well, and then there's this to remember as well (about the survey project):

Eisuke Matsui, a lung cancer specialist and a former associate professor at Gifu University School of Medicine, criticized the project. He said it appears to largely ignore potential radiation-induced health risks like diabetes, cataracts and heart problems that have been hinted at by some studies of Chernobyl.

"If thyroid cancer is virtually the only abnormality on which they are focusing, I must say there is a big question mark over the reliability of this survey," he said.

this is a good write-up and describes well some salient aspects of radiation effects. the missing piece is the cell reparation mechanisms and these are likely the reason that small doses of radiation (or other carcinogens for that matter, this is referred to as hormesis) have been shown to lower cancer risk. it is the bodies way of adapting to its environment and, as you point out, we live and have evolved within a radiation field. the take home message isn't that if we live long enough we'll all die of cancer from our radiation exposures though. cancer is caused by many many things and singling out radiation is simplistic and myopic. there are too many clear examples that contradict the linear no-threshold hypothesis of radiation-induced cancer incidence. we should be trying to figure out physiologically exactly why radiation hormesis exists so that we could potentially reapply our efforts in more productive ways.

there may well be an increase in cancer incidence as a result of fukushima but it will be among the unlucky members of the population who received doses greater than 10 rem, not those who received doses in the mrem range.

If that were the case, why did Japan build nuclear reactors (and so many) when large earthquakes occur quite frequently, along with the possibility for tsunami. This seems like pure foolishness - almost like Russian roulette.

At least Germany closed their nuclear plants, hopefully more nations will follow including the US. If cancer already occurs at a 40 percent rate, imagine how much that rate could increase if people are further exposed to radiation regardless of the level, especially if the exposure is constant.

nuclear reactors are one of the safest forms of power there is. true, accidents happen, but FAR more oil refineries explosions and oil spills happen that are far more damaging than and nuclear accident. there have been basically 3 nuclear incidents since the technology was invented. One of them (3 mile island) did nothing,like literally nothing. there was almost no measurable release of radiation. only chernobyl and fukushima will be listed as the ones with deaths and of those, really only chernobyl caused any really deadly long term effects. if it was up to me, i would do away with coal and oil and replace our power generation with nuclear. its safe and reliable and the fuel can be recycled hundreds of times before its useless. as it sits right now, all of the world truly useless nuclear waste (which is low activity) would fill a football field 10 feet thick. compared to all the damage that oil and coal does each year, i would say thats not a bad prospect.

The nuclear power industry has a stainless record of 0 moralities. ZERO! I'd like to hear that from the coal and oil industries but...unfortunately their records are far from stainless.

And on the topic of Germany, they may ATTEMPT to take down their nuclear industry but they will find themselves in a tough bind once their base load power starts to vanish and they're having to buy power from France (which is heavily Nuclear powered anyway and not even running to capacity at that) at which point I believe Germany will reevaluate its decision regarding Nuclear power.

Nuclear accidents are one of the most covered up incidents known to man kind. How can you call this form of energy one of the safest when accidents like 3 mile chernobyl, and fukushima have occured. Millions have died, and millions more will die. nuclear fision is still occuring. You comment about 10ft in a football field is completely false. I hate when people act like they know something when they really don't. Your info is a good as this fake news story. Fukushima released more than that in it's spill pools into the Pacific since the accident. This is the most dangerous form of energy!

Dave G Hawaii23: If they're "covered up," how are they "known to [mankind]"?

How do you know "millions have died"? Do you have any sources? I inquire because, as so far zero people have died (or even been injured) in the Fukushima incident.

Dave G Hawaii23 I think you need to lay off the conspiracy juice. I would really love to see the sources that contradicts common knowledge, credible sourced material, and the voice of my nuclear engineering professor who has served more than 40 years in the nuclear industry.

Raz Blaze states;

"The nuclear power industry has a stainless record of 0 moralities."

Couldn't agree more. No morality whatsoever.

Mortality...stupid 'T' key. But having experienced the industry myself I have to say there's 10 times more morality in their policies and safety than coal, oil, and natural gas combined.

Actuallly, the Japanese government reported that one or two of the first responders who worked trying to contain the radiation leak did, in fact, die from radioactive poisoning.

Remember the reports and pictures of the men being helped from the building who had radiation burns on their feet because radioactive water leaked over the tops of their boots?

And it is well documented that many people died from radiation poisoning after the Chernobyl radiation leak.

As a result, it's inacurrate to say that "there have been zero fatalities in the nuclear industry".

RICK-331120: When and where did the "Japanese government [report] that one or two of the first responders who worked trying to contain the radiation leak did, in fact, die from radioactive poisoning"? I have never seen or heard a single word in either English-language or Japanese-language media on this. Neither have I ever heard so much as a rumor of any deaths. Can you cite even a single source for your claim?

The guys who had "radiation burns" were hospitalized, treated (not for "radiation burns") and released the following day. They did not test for high radiation exposure.

RICK-331120: I would like to see these sources as well considering my followups on this topic reveal no deaths in either of your incident. In fact, if it's well documented with Chernobyl, I'm sure you will have no troubles coming up with several sources to back up THAT claim! It seems many people don't understand that radiation is statistical in nature, being in the presence of radiation doesn't automatically mean you're going to end up suffering from cancer or poisoning. And due to the shortcuts taken by the Soviets in their plant regarding containment, I would hardly consider them model for the rest of the industry in the west and in Japan.

it is true that health effects from radiation exposure are statistical but if your dose is large enough (greater than a few hundred rem), your probabillity of death from acute radiation sickness is 100%. i am not aware of anybody's being exposed to greater than 600 rem and living more than a few days, even with medical heroics, are you?

i agree with you that the soviets nuke plants in terms of engineering and safety should not even be discussed in the same sentence as japanese plants. but, the failures at the japanese plants point to clear and fundamental problem of the design process - if you engineer for a design-basis accidents (DBA) with a probability of occurrence of less than one in one million (which is the typical DBA) and nature throws something much larger at you, your systems will fail. that appears to be what happened here.

it just becomes a matter of how much money you can throw at building something and how incredible (low probability) a scenario you are willing to design to. those are tough questions but you can be sure they are being rethought in light of the fukushima outcome.

MSNBStupid: You're right. The story, though it reports something that's obvious to anyone who knows about cancer rates, how they're affected by exposure to radiation, and the size of the possibly affected population, does, I guess serve some purpose, which is to say we're not going to see a spike in cancer cases somewhere in the future.

Having some idea of what the evacuated area is like (having been to similar places often and having been in Fukushima over the summer. albeit not in the exclusion zone), my guess is that smoking rates and simple age in the population in question (rurual areas in Japan having high mean ages) will be associated with so many cases of cancer that even a study of every last member of the population will not be able to show any cancer-rate increase caused by radiation: the incidence will be high anyway, and errors will be so large that any (hypothetically) radiation-induced cancers will vanish into the statistical noise.

Whence,

my guess is that smoking rates and simple age in the population in question (rurual areas in Japan having high mean ages) will be associated with so many cases of cancer that even a study of every last member of the population will not be able to show any cancer-rate increase caused by radiation: the incidence will be high anyway, and errors will be so large that any (hypothetically) radiation-induced cancers will vanish into the statistical noise.

Yes, I suppose that's a possibiltiy if you look at them all together as one piece.

But if statistics are broken out and you start looking at incidence rates in young (or children )-vs.-old, or smoker-vs.-nonsmoker, separately, I would think you'd get a clearer picture of what's really happening, if anything, from Fukushima. Is that not so?

shakalac (in #9.2): "if statistics are broken out and you start looking at incidence rates in young (or children )-vs.-old, or smoker-vs.-nonsmoker, separately, I would think you'd get a clearer picture of what's really happening, if anything, from Fukushima. Is that not so?"

No, that's not so. The point of the article is just the opposite, that even "statistics broken out" will show no effects.

Okay.

Why?

You comment on the aging, smoking population of the Fukushima countryside. But surely not all of the population is elderly or smokers. Wouldn't it behoove researchers to study the demographic factors as they exist?

shakalac: The study would involve a relatively small number of subjects and would test for changes in the incidence of cancers that are not common (48,020 cases of thyroid cancer in the US estimated for 2011, for example [cf. http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/types/thyroid]) even in those exposed to heightened radiation levels. Even if rates of, say, thyroid cancer quintupled, they still would likely not be detectable statistically because the "experimental" group would be so small.

We could imagine (in the simplest crudest analysis) ANCOVA or ANCOVR being used for analyses. Go ahead and run some simulations and see just how much the cancer rates would have to change before you saw a statistically detectable difference in cancer incidences.

Musing aloud....

Why can't these studies target particular groups and measure and compare rates?

I.E. Surely a demographic (children 0-18 right now, within the Fukushima area) can be studied. You can measure the cancer rates (if there are any) over the next 10 years, 30 years, whatever, and compare those to the cancer rates of children (0-18) in that area for 10 years or so pre-Fukushima. Then you can extrapolate on what's happening to THAT DEMOGRAPHIC and come close to something resembling a conclusion about the relationship of low-dose radiation and cancer, at least for THAT GROUP, instead of lumping all low-dose recipients in the whole country, or Fukushima, together and trying to come up with a single conclusion (low-dose radiation= increased cancer rates, yes or no).

shakalac (re #9.6): If it can be done it likely will be done, but measurement error will likely be too large to show any differences even if they exist. That's the point of the article, or rather it's the phenomenon that prompted the article's being written.

shakalac, you're making some great points and what you propose is exactly the kind of study that you'd need to tease out whether radiation does or does not raise cancer incidence. but, as WOW states, the numbers of cancers are likely too small to draw meaningful conclusions. there are several problems; one is that solid tumors like bone cancers which can certainly be caused by radiation don't show up for a very long time (typically 30 years) after exposure. so, these studies take a very long time to complete. and, in that time, people have many other exposures to carcinogens. what you are talking about is a stratified study, where the population is analyzed and separated to try to eliminate other potential causes for cancer. for example, you'd want to put smokers in their own group, you might want to differentiate on the basis of income, living location (because natural background radiation varies widely). after you make those distinctions, the individual population groups are much smaller and it is difficult to find a comparative group to compare cancer rates and the number of cancers within the group are usually too small to represent a meaningful sample for comparison.

the best studies are the ones that were done inadvertently (and disastrously!) on very large populations. i am referring to the hiroshima/nagasaki survivors. you plot the distance from the explosion on the X axis so doses decrease as you move out on that axis and you plot excess deaths on the vertical axis. you'd expect the deaths to fall as you move out on the x axis and become asymptotic along the x-axis as you get far enough out that no radiation effect is seen. instead, the excess cancer deaths actually become negative (i.e. fewer deaths than you would expect in a population of that size assuming no exposure) and then eventually come back up to the axis. in other words, for certain, low doses (typically in the range from 1-7 rem), the dose actually appears to reduce the cancer incidence by up to 30%. it is counter-intuitive and people will always scoff at this finding but it is extremely well documented and deserves careful consideration.

Those who live here know that there have been cover-ups by the industry for a long time. We only hope for change but do not expect it. Ishiatama sama.

RICK-331120: Please post some sort of reference for your contention that "the Japanese government has been lying since day one about Fukushima." Even an example would help.

JAPAN LYING Re FUKUSHIMA RADIATION

http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2011/03/16/japan-lying-decipher-nuclear-radiation-fallout-reports-8737/

JAPANESE LYING RE FUKUSHIMA RADIATION RELEASES;

http://www.abloggmeration.com/2011/03/japans-radiation-levels-are-safe-theyre.html

lokay5 (re #17.2 ): This link, which eventually gets us to http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-03-17-japanradiate17_ST_N.htm, a news article from 17 March 2011, provides no evidence or indication that the Japanese government was lying. It doesn't even hint at it. That article states that a report provided 5 or 6 days after the earthquake and tsunami and 4 or 5 days after the first explosion at the Fukushima plant does not contain radiation readings from Fukushima or Ibaraki/Ibaragi Prefectures. (The latter prefecture's name is rendered into Roman characters in different ways by different people; I've provided both renderings.)

lokay5: (a) You post a summary of an article (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1367684/Japan-earthquake-tsunami-Fukushima-nulear-plant-radiation-leak-kill-people.html) from 19 March in which the journalist (David Derbeyshire) provides no evidence of lying (though he claims lies) and of which the focus is TEPCO, not the Japanese government. This is à propos what? Was it comment #17? If so, try again.

(b) I like semicolons, too.

lokay5: Done. Here's a typical example of what you'll find: http://www.japanprobe.com/2011/10/14/setagaya-radiation-hot-spot-not-from-fukushima/.

Google "Japanese lying about Fukushima radiation," and you'll get about 18 million hits. Google "Government lying about moon landing," and you'll get about 1.8 million hits. Google "Government lying about King assassination," and you'll get about 60 million hits. Google "One plus one equals three," and you'll get about 4 million hits. Google "William Shakespeare was Francis Bacon," and you'll get about 1 million hits. Google "Mikey died of Pop Rocks," and you'll get 1.4 million hits. Google "Bush stole election," and you'll get about 6.7 million hits. Google "Obama stole election," and you'll get about 6.1 million hits. Google "Millard Fillmore stole election," and you'll get about 380,000 hits. Google "Lyndon Johnson stole election," and you'll get about 3.9 million hits.

This last was thoroughly, reasonably, and believably documented by Robert Caro in "Means of Ascent" (1990; ISBN 978-0679733713). I looked at about a dozen of the things that popped up when I searched for "Japanese lying about Fukushima radiation" and found nothing thoroughly, reasonably, and believably documented.

To "Whence": if you believe so strongly about the safety of nuclear reactors (especially in an earthquake zone) why don't live near one and find out. You can prove your statistics by becoming a statistic. I think the rest of us would rather be more cautious.

StageOne: Nothing I have written here implies I "believe...strongly about the safety of nuclear reactors (especially in an earthquake zone)"; I have written only about what reliable information is or is not (i.e., on practical epistemology): you can check that by simply rereading what I have written.

As for living near a nuclear reactor, I already do (though it depends on what you define as "near"): I live about 150 km from the Fukushima Dai Ichi reactors (and about 125 km from the Fukushima Dai Ni reactors).