Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumFukushima Cancer Fears Are Absurd
"One thing is very obvious from Fukushima. The evacuations have killed more people than the radiation ever will. Recent scary articles notwithstanding, the number of cancers that will result from Fukushima-emitted radiation will be so few that they will not be detectable. That has not stopped some people from using computer models to predict radiation deaths half-way around the world and 50 years into the future.
The latest fear-mongering to surface around Fukushima was cited in Bloomberg on Tuesday (Study finds 1,300 cancer deaths), a Stanford study that stated the most likely number of cancer deaths is 130 over the next 50 years, but ranged from 15 to 1,300 because of uncertainties in models, assumptions and emissions.
This is all about statistics. They use a statistical model of radiation effects, a statistical model of atmospheric effects, and a statistical model of dispersion to show that there is a statistically insignificant effect. Of course, the authors, Hoeve and Jacobson, dont put it that way. They state that this number is non-trivial. But the number of cancers that would occur in the present 127 million Japanese population over their lives in the absence of Fukushima radiation is about (BEIR VII):"
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/07/20/fukushima-cancer-fears-are-absurd/
I'm posting this article from July 2012 to bring some logic to the Fukushima cancer discussion. If you'd like to comment on the statistical interpretations James Conca makes here, or have a criticism of his methodology, I'd love to hear it. Other posts will be ignored.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)defacto7
(13,485 posts)BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)And I hear that some researchers (commissioned by the coal industry) have learned that people with naturally black lungs are genetically more pre-disposed to seek coal mining jobs.
You aren't disputing science now, are you?
Control-Z
(15,682 posts)so I've deleted what I initially wrote. I'll let you use your imagination, though.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)Then why bother with your post?
I will imagine that you were very much in agreement with the OP, OK?
niyad
(113,275 posts)James ConcaHe is also the co-author, with Judith Wright, of The Geopolitics of Energy: Achieving a Just and Sustainable Energy Distribution by 2040. The book advocates a national energy policy that allows the United States to get one-third of its electricity from fossil fuels, *******one-third from nuclear energy***** and one-third from renewable energy by 2040.
ignore it if you will, but this told me everything I needed to know about him, and his champions.
madokie
(51,076 posts)don't make me laugh,
hell I'll laugh anyway
JohnyCanuck
(9,922 posts)A "house of horrors" indeed.
CNN reporter says the Japanese nuclear regulatory authority calls the Fukushima plant a "house of horrors." (At the 1:30 mark)
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)NRA Chairman Shunichi Tanaka likened the stricken nuclear plant to a house of horrors at an amusement park. "I don't know if describing it this way is appropriate, but it's like a haunted house and, as I've said, mishaps keep happening one after the other," he told reporters. "We have to look into how we can reduce the risks and how to prevent it from becoming a fatal or serious incident."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/21/us-japan-fukushima-severity-idUSBRE97K02B20130821
Of course "haunted house" doesn't get as many people to watch CNN. Or click on hysterical DU links.