Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

wtmusic

(39,166 posts)
Thu Aug 22, 2013, 11:57 PM Aug 2013

Fukushima 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, don’t 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.

10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
 

BlueStreak

(8,377 posts)
4. Come on, that was just bad luck.
Fri Aug 23, 2013, 01:03 AM
Aug 2013

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)
3. I've never had a post hidden
Fri Aug 23, 2013, 12:40 AM
Aug 2013

so I've deleted what I initially wrote. I'll let you use your imagination, though.

 

oldhippie

(3,249 posts)
7. So, you have no content to post? Brilliant.
Fri Aug 23, 2013, 10:12 AM
Aug 2013

Then why bother with your post?

I'll let you use your imagination, though.

I will imagine that you were very much in agreement with the OP, OK?

niyad

(113,275 posts)
5. as far as I can tell, he is a shill for the nei, at the very least.
Fri Aug 23, 2013, 01:59 AM
Aug 2013

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)
6. You're bringing logic to the fukushima cancer discussion
Fri Aug 23, 2013, 02:48 AM
Aug 2013

don't make me laugh,
hell I'll laugh anyway

JohnyCanuck

(9,922 posts)
8. Someone should tell the Japanese nuclear regulators to quit with the hyperbole
Fri Aug 23, 2013, 10:25 AM
Aug 2013

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)
9. Someone should tell gullible antinukes to see if that's what he actually said.
Fri Aug 23, 2013, 10:50 AM
Aug 2013

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.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Fukushima Cancer Fears Ar...