Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Radiation Experts Determine 200,000 Cancers Likely from Fukushima

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-02-11 05:56 PM
Original message
Radiation Experts Determine 200,000 Cancers Likely from Fukushima
Source:FaireWinds Associates

The health outcome of the Fukushima catastrophe
Initial analysis from risk model of the
European Committee on Radiation Risk ECRR

Report at link: http://fairewinds.com/content/health-outcome-fukushima-catastrophe-initial-analysis-risk-model-european-committee-radiatio
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
CountAllVotes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-02-11 06:00 PM
Response to Original message
1. nuclear energy
= the kind of cancer you CAN believe in! :argh:

SHUT THE DAMN THINGS DOWN! ALL OF THEM!

:kick:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Teaser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-02-11 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. If we SHUT THE DAMN THINGS DOWN! ALL OF THEM now
you would not be typing on that computer right now.

Weaning society off nuclear, if that is a goal we set for ourselves, will take time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyTiedye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-02-11 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. If We Switch from Incandescents to LEDs, We Could Shut Them All Down and Not Miss Them
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Teaser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-02-11 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. how long do you think "switching" would take?
Edited on Sat Apr-02-11 06:18 PM by Teaser
1) Some people hate LED's and will not use them. My wife refuses to allow them in the house, or even as Christmas lights, as she hates the quality of light they give off. That kind of resistance will have to be overcome. Time scale for overcoming this resistance?

2) Production of LEDs has to be ready to scale up to the level of incandescents. How long will that take?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CountAllVotes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-02-11 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. investing in LED lights is great!!
Edited on Sat Apr-02-11 06:35 PM by CountAllVotes
I've done it and so has my old cousin. She likes them really a lot as she never has to worry about climbing around trying to change light bulbs and risk taking a bad fall.

I like them because they seem to last forever and they save you a lot of $$$ in the long run!

BUY LED LIGHTS & HELP TO SAVE THE PLANET! :D

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheMadMonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-02-11 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. And if wishes were fishes. Only those allergic to seafood would starve.
Most of the Western World has already switched over to CFLBs, and industry said thankyou very much and bought up the slack. So most of the possible gains there have already been made. LEDs might give us a couple of percentage points more at best.

Right now our lovely little domestic energy/carbon saving strategies are doing about zip towards improving the situation for the planet. About all that's happening is that electricity suppliers are not having to build as much new infrastructure to meet increasing industrial demands.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grahamhgreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-02-11 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. That is a lie or you are misinformed. Wind is cheaper than nukes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Teaser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-02-11 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. goddammit, read what I write.
Edited on Sat Apr-02-11 06:55 PM by Teaser
I said nothing about cost did I? I said switching will take time.

Next time answer what I actually write.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyTiedye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-02-11 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. It Takes a Pretty Long Time to Build a Nuke Too
and the alternatives keep improving.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jwirr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-02-11 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #5
17. I think we need to do a triage with our nukes. The oldest and ones in
the most dangerous areas should be shut down now with a time table for future shutdowns. That would also give an added incentive for moving ahead with the alternatives as well as changes in our lifestyles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-02-11 06:03 PM
Response to Original message
2. "FaireWinds Associates" is a company which profits off of anti-nuclear sentiment.
It's run by a man who literally makes his fortune off decommissioning nuclear plants.

Considering that the number of excess deaths from the much larger Chernobyl release was estimated at 4,000 to 8,000, this press release is about as scientific and unbiased as BP's oil spill damage estimates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Modern_Matthew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-02-11 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Good. I hope he makes a fortune off shutting down the entire industry.
Until nuclear fusion is ready, I don't want these deathtraps in commission.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jwirr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-02-11 08:04 PM
Response to Reply #3
18. Why is fusion considered safer? From the mining to the end product
is there now waste, no spent rods, etc?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-02-11 08:14 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Ummm... seriously?
Edited on Sat Apr-02-11 08:18 PM by PavePusher
Are they no longer teaching any physics in school?

Head-DESK.

Edit: O.K. I looked at your profile and determined that it is very possible you have not had an education including nuclear fusion due to date of birth and/or location. I offer my sincere apology for being an utter jerk.

A basic explaination of nuclear fusion can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power

That should get you started.

And again, sorry I'm an ass....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jwirr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-02-11 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. I'm 69 years old they did not even know about fusion when I was in school. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jwirr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-02-11 11:22 PM
Response to Reply #19
23. No problem - and thanks for the link. I get a lot of my education here
on DU from people like you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-02-11 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. No problem, we're here to help each other.
And again, my apology for the knee-jerk-jackass reaction.

I blame weak coffee. Who made that stuff....? What?! No, I didn't....! :think:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jwirr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-02-11 11:41 PM
Response to Reply #19
25. Just finished reading the link - well I did skip the tech parts as they
are way beyond me. That sounds much better than our present nukes. Instead of putting our money in new fission nukes we need to do more R&D into fusion. That does not mean we shouldn't develop as many renewable sources as we can. Thanks again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 08:54 AM
Response to Reply #25
33. Fusion power needs a Manhatten Project-type effort of funding and research and man-power.
Also, it's as close to "renewable" as anything gets, as the hydrogen supply is pretty abundant throughout the universe.

Bootstrap from terrestrial scources (quite plentiful) to extra-planetary sources and the limit is our imagination and will-power.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rdking647 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 08:44 AM
Response to Reply #3
30. to bad
cause they aint going nowhere
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-02-11 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Ah, thanks for the information. I am not familiar with them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-02-11 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #2
15. FaireWinds is Arne Gundersen's company isn't it?
Edited on Sat Apr-02-11 07:39 PM by kristopher
He is a whistle-blower against the nuclear industry and a well respected source of accurate information regarding cost and safety issues affecting nuclear power.
Their website: http://www.fairewinds.com/

Don't you ever have anything to offer but "OMG don't listen to them they are anti-nukes!!!" type of shoot the messenger BS and misleading information on things like Chernobyl?

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
Volume 1181 Issue Chernobyl
Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment, Pages 31 - 220

Chapter II. Consequences of the Chernobyl Catastrophe for Public Health


Alexey B. Nesterenko a , Vassily B. Nesterenko a ,† and Alexey V. Yablokov b
a
Institute of Radiation Safety (BELRAD), Minsk, Belarus b Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
Address for correspondence: Alexey V. Yablokov, Russian Academy of Sciences, Leninsky Prospect 33, Office 319, 119071 Moscow,
Russia. Voice: +7-495-952-80-19; fax: +7-495-952-80-19. Yablokov@ecopolicy.ru
†Deceased


ABSTRACT

Problems complicating a full assessment of the effects from Chernobyl included official secrecy and falsification of medical records by the USSR for the first 3.5 years after the catastrophe and the lack of reliable medical statistics in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia. Official data concerning the thousands of cleanup workers (Chernobyl liquidators) who worked to control the emissions are especially difficult to reconstruct. Using criteria demanded by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) resulted in marked underestimates of the number of fatalities and the extent and degree of sickness among those exposed to radioactive fallout from Chernobyl. Data on exposures were absent or grossly inadequate, while mounting indications of adverse effects became more and more apparent. Using objective information collected by scientists in the affected areas—comparisons of morbidity and mortality in territories characterized by identical physiography, demography, and economy, which differed only in the levels and spectra of radioactive contamination—revealed significant abnormalities associated with irradiation, unrelated to age or sex (e.g., stable chromosomal aberrations), as well as other genetic and nongenetic pathologies.

In all cases when comparing the territories heavily contaminated by Chernobyl's radionuclides with less contaminated areas that are characterized by a similar economy, demography, and environment, there is a marked increase in general morbidity in the former. Increased numbers of sick and weak newborns were found in the heavily contaminated territories in Belarus, Ukraine, and European Russia.

<snip>

This section describes the spectrum and the scale of the nonmalignant diseases that have been found among exposed populations. Adverse effects as a result of Chernobyl irradiation have been found in every group that has been studied. Brain damage has been found in individuals directly exposed—liquidators and those living in the contaminated territories, as well as in their offspring. Premature cataracts; tooth and mouth abnormalities; and blood, lymphatic, heart, lung, gastrointestinal, urologic, bone, and skin diseases afflict and impair people, young and old alike. Endocrine dysfunction, particularly thyroid disease, is far more common than might be expected, with some 1,000 cases of thyroid dysfunction for every case of thyroid cancer, a marked increase after the catastrophe. There are genetic damage and birth defects especially in children of liquidators and in children born in areas with high levels of radioisotope contamination. Immunological abnormalities and increases in viral, bacterial, and parasitic diseases are rife among individuals in the heavily contaminated areas. For more than 20 years, overall morbidity has remained high in those exposed to the irradiation released by Chernobyl. One cannot give credence to the explanation that these numbers are due solely to socioeconomic factors. The negative health consequences of the catastrophe are amply documented in this chapter and concern millions of people.

The most recent forecast by international agencies predicted there would be between 9,000 and 28,000 fatal cancers between 1986 and 2056, obviously underestimating the risk factors and the collective doses. On the basis of I-131 and Cs-137 radioisotope doses to which populations were exposed and a comparison of cancer mortality in the heavily and the less contaminated territories and pre- and post-Chernobyl cancer levels, a more realistic figure is 212,000 to 245,000 deaths in Europe and 19,000 in the rest of the world. High levels of Te-132, Ru-103, Ru-106, and Cs-134 persisted months after the Chernobyl catastrophe and the continuing radiation from Cs-137, Sr-90, Pu, and Am will generate new neoplasms for hundreds of years.

A detailed study reveals that 3.8–4.0% of all deaths in the contaminated territories of Ukraine and Russia from 1990 to 2004 were caused by the Chernobyl catastrophe. The lack of evidence of increased mortality in other affected countries is not proof of the absence of effects from the radioactive fallout. Since 1990, mortality among liquidators has exceeded the mortality rate in corresponding population groups. From 112,000 to 125,000 liquidators died before 2005—that is, some 15% of the 830,000 members of the Chernobyl cleanup teams. The calculations suggest that the Chernobyl catastrophe has already killed several hundred thousand human beings in a population of several hundred million that was unfortunate enough to live in territories affected by the fallout. The number of Chernobyl victims will continue to grow over many future generations.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ELY08 Donating Member (41 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-02-11 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #2
16. FaireWinds Associates was quoting the LLRC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FLPanhandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-02-11 06:07 PM
Response to Original message
6. Skeptical
Edited on Sat Apr-02-11 06:08 PM by FLPanhandle
With the lack of hard data coming out of the company, it's impossible to accurately predict something like 200,000 Cancer cases especially with all the variables involved with how cancers occur.

They may end up being right, but they don't have the information to make such a prediction yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flamingdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-02-11 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #6
22. Brookhaven National Labs, extensive testing predicted 170000 deaths from ONE spent fuel pool fire nt
Edited on Sat Apr-02-11 09:18 PM by flamingdem
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grahamhgreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-02-11 06:29 PM
Response to Original message
11. Add that to the cost of nuke power generation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rdking647 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-02-11 08:16 PM
Response to Original message
20. since they have no actually estimate of radiation
other than their own wild ass guess,their "estimate" of 200k cancer deaths is just a wild guess,by an experts witness firm that specializes in anti nuke testimony..

i can find "so called" experts witnesses to testify to anything..


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 02:19 AM
Response to Reply #20
28. Here are some statistical analyses that suggest emissions are already in the Chernobyl ballpark:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20285-fukushima-radioactive-fallout-nears-chernobyl-levels.html

For the first two days after the accident, the wind blew east from Fukushima towards monitoring stations on the US west coast; on the third day it blew south-west over the Japanese monitoring station at Takasaki, then swung east again. Each day, readings for iodine-131 at Sacramento in California, or at Takasaki, both suggested the same amount of iodine was coming out of Fukushima, says Wotawa: 1.2 to 1.3 × 1017 becquerels per day.

The agreement between the two "makes us confident that this is accurate", he says. So do similar readings at CTBT stations in Alaska, Hawaii and Montreal, Canada – readings at the latter, at least, show that the emissions have continued.

In the 10 days it burned, Chernobyl put out 1.76 × 1018 becquerels of iodine-131, which amounts to only 50 per cent more per day than has been calculated for Fukushima Daiichi. It is not yet clear how long emissions from the Japanese plant will continue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rdking647 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 08:43 AM
Response to Reply #28
29. when data like that appears in a peer reviewed journal ill believe it
until then......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chris_Texas Donating Member (707 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 02:00 AM
Response to Original message
26. Never let a crisis go to waste! I predict as many as twenty billion deaths!!!1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 02:15 AM
Response to Reply #26
27. No, no one is going to die. It's actually going to have many beneficial effects.
Particularly for local wildlife.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karmadillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 08:46 AM
Response to Original message
31. But think how many jobs those cancers will provide for the medical community! Go cancer! Go nukes!
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rdking647 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 08:51 AM
Response to Original message
32. the study was done by the eecr
a group formed out of teh european green party,,not exactly a neutral group on the subject of nukes
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Apr 20th 2024, 01:31 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC