Reply #81: The drumbeat message from the media has been thus, regardless: [View All]

[robdogbucky]

I have read a lot of DU posters that have shilled for the industry and with no factual backup have claimed that the radiation risks are negligible. You have read those posts, no? They are merely mimicking the message from the industry and governments to give reassurances when they don't really have any clue as to how dangerous this disaster will eventually prove to be. Remember the people that drove Nadinbrzinski off the board? Those people, and I cannot "call them out," but they have considered the risks negligible. So did these news items:

ABC disseminated the Japanese government’s reassurances, such as they were, on March 14:

Several hours after the explosion and fire, elevated levels of radiation were detected in Tokyo, 175 miles away, though government officials said there was no health risk there…

…"There is no longer chain reaction of nuclear material," said IAEA director general Yukiya Amano, according to The Associated Press. "Reactor vessels and primary containment vessels ... stay intact. The release of radioactivity is limited."

http://abcnews.go.com/International/japan-earthquake-radiation-leaking-fukushima-nuclear-plant-explodes/story?id=13131123


On March 16, Science News Magazine gave this reassurance:

Fukushima Radiation Update
by Dennis Normile on 16 March 2011

TOKYO—At a press briefing today Keiichi Nakagawa, a radiologist at University of Tokyo Hospital, predicted that the radiation emanating from the damaged Fukushima nuclear power plant will have a negligible effect on public health. But those working to contain the radiation leaks and quench the fires face an increased risk of cancer, particularly since the government raised the allowable exposure limit yesterday.

Nakagawa said that normally nuclear power plant workers in Japan are limited to accumulated radiation doses of 100 millisieverts. But as an emergency measure, the ministry of health on Tuesday raised that to an accumulated 250 millisieverts. Nakagawa says that at that higher level of exposure, the workers will likely face a 1% or more increased risk of cancer. "It's only a risk, but they are now carrying a heavier risk of cancer," he said.

Radiation levels of 400 millisieverts per hour were recorded within the site on Tuesday. But workers are wearing protective clothing, working in brief shifts and being occasionally pulled off the site to limit accumulated exposure.
Nakagawa explained that the situation in the local community is significantly different…

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/



On March 18, the WSJ gave this reassurance:

MARCH 18, 2011, 9:05 A.M. ET

UPDATE: Tokyo Radiation Tad Higher Than Normal, Still Negligible
By Hiroyuki Kachi
OF DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

TOKYO (Dow Jones)--Radiation levels in the Tokyo area were around typical background levels on Friday afternoon, while in areas close to the quake-damaged Fukushima nuclear power plant they remained high but still below levels that would pose a threat to human health, officials said.

The Tokyo Metropolitan Government said Friday on its website that radiation levels in downtown Tokyo stood at 0.047 microsievert an hour around 1000 GMT. That compares with the 0.035 microsievert an hour a person would typically be exposed to in Shinjuku district of downtown Tokyo due to background radiation.

Levels remained higher in Fukushima Prefecture, closer to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, which has become a matter of international concern after a massive earthquake on March 11 knocked out the cooling systems of several of the reactors there. Authorities Friday continued to pour water onto the troubled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear-power complex using fire trucks.

Japanese authorities were evacuating people within a 20-kilometer radius and telling those within an 30-kilometer radius of the complex to stay inside…

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110318-706457.html



Forbes’ Mathew Herper gave these reassurances on March 20:

Fear Of Japan’s Radiation Is Overdone
Mar. 20 2011 - 9:37 am

How dangerous is the radiation emerging from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant Japan? From a public health perspective, less risky than you might expect, experts say. Other problems — like lack of medical care, shelter, and water — could pose a more immediate threat to human life and health.

“For the population of Japan, there are a lot of other issues that are going to determine life and death in the short term,” says Kenneth W. Kizer, director of the Institute for Population Health Improvement at UC-Davis and a former director of California’s Department of Health.

“While yes, we have to think about the radiation and do everything we can in that regard, which frankly isn’t very much from a medical perspective, the real issue is food and water and basic hygiene and basic health care. ”

You’d be forgiven for thinking the toll on human life and health from the reactor could be immense. Up-to-the minute news reports give the impression that the situation could worsen any minute and is exceedingly dangerous. Workers trying to control the situation at the plant certainly are in danger. The news that radioactive elements are present in small amounts in some food seems ominous. But while these are warning signs, it is not clear that the harm in absolute numbers will be great even if the worst should happen and significant amounts of radioactive waste are spewed into the air or the ground.

http://blogs.forbes.com/matthewherper/2011/03/20/fear-of-japans-radiation-is-overdone/


Also on March 20, this reassurance was published by http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2011/03/fukushima_crisis_latest_maps_o_2.html:

Fukushima Crisis update: Latest maps of spread of radiation plumes in Asia-Pacific - March 20, 2011

Austria's weather service, the Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics in Vienna, has posted an update today of its dispersion modelling of radiation from the troubled Fukushima nuclear power. The plume, having been blown West to the ocean yesterday, has turned inwards to the mainland today Sunday, as it will tomorrow and Tuesday, while transport across the ocean is stopping. Rain and snow will wash out radioactivity to the ground.

The centre explains the colour coding used in it's maps as: "The colour scale shows a total of 5 colours. The area marked "E" shows an area with estimated current equivalent dose rate of 10 mSv/h (in a 25x25 km2 square). The violet colour on the outer edge of contaminated areas (Area A) represents 0,3 μSv/h, which corresponds to the amount of the natural background radiation dose..."

…It also provides other fresh data from the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) (see the long article I published last week on CTBTO data for more details on its data).

It says radiation levels at the Takasaki station in Japan fell after peaking midweek, due to atmospheric transport condition. Iodine-131 levels at Milli-Bq/m3 at the Petropavlovsk station in Russia on 15/16 March. Unreviewed data suggest similar levels at the CTBT station in Sacramento, California on 17 March. Radiation in both Russia and California was four orders of magnitude lower than in the Takasak station in Japan, it says, adding that "there is no health risk whatsoever."

http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2011/03/fukushima_crisis_latest_maps_o_2.html


And on March 30, good ol’ ABC News gave this reassurance:

Fukushima radiation traces spread across Asia
By North Asia correspondent Mark Willacy
Posted Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:20am AEDT

Governments in Asia are urging their citizens to stay calm after small traces of radioactivity from Japan's crippled nuclear plant were detected across the region…

…Traces have even drifted all the way to the United States, with rainwater in Ohio found to have been contaminated.

But each government says the levels are so miniscule the radiation presents no risk to human health. The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) says there is no need to test passengers from Japan for radiation.

The agency says the risk of contamination is negligible.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/30/3177379.htm



Who can you trust?