Fukushima - Unit 4 spent fuel removal >99% complete

[FBaggins]

20. Not sure why you thought that was relevant to the thread...

Last edited Wed Oct 22, 2014, 01:06 PM - Edit history (1)

... but you should educate yourself on the facts in that case. It was debunked over two years ago (on the very site that enenews links to) by a molecular radiation biologist who is a professor in the health physics department at Georgetown. The"reserchers" who were apparently having trouble getting their "research" funded when they were looking at the impact of temperature on butterflies apparently decided to switch over to pretending that the impact was from Fukushima. They must have assumed that this woud bring in the governmnt funding... but alas, it was not to be.

EX-SKF's (a Japanese blogger acceptable to anti-nuclear posters on DU since 3/11) summary pretty much covers it:

http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2013/06/university-of-ryukus-paper-on-butterfly.html

A major finding of the study is that forewing size was inversely correlated with distance from Fukushima, resulting in the conclusion that radiation from Fukushima had stunted forewing development. However, the more distant butterfly sampling sites were all progressively further south of Fukushima, so that latitude was also changing with the distance. This is a problem because it is well established that the forewing size of a number of insect species is dependent upon the latitude of their microhabitat. This has been extensively studied both in fruit flies (Drosophila subobscura) and butterflies (Pararge aeberia), and the magnitude of the forewing changes found in this study is comparable to these known latitudinal determinants on forewing anatomy (1, 2). The potential latitudinal influences on forewing size were completely ignored in this study. Had the data been adjusted for sampling site latitude, it is likely there would have been no significant forewing findings to report.

The second major problem is that the decreased butterfly survival rates reported to be associated with proximity to Fukushima are claimed to be reproducible in the laboratory with external beam irradiation. This claim stretches credulity since it has long been established that insects, including butterflies (Order: Lepidoptera), are resistant to radiation effects. It takes an average dose of 10,000 mSv to kill a Lepidoptera cell (3), and it requires an average dose of 1,300 mSv to Lepidoptera eggs to reduce their hatch rate by 50% (4). Larval, pupal, and adult forms of Lepidoptera are even more radioresistant (5). The concept that the low environmental radiation exposures (<15 mSv per year) that are being attributed to the Fukushima accident could be killing off butterflies, or any other insect species, is simply not credible. It should further be noted the external radiation doses that were used to reproduce the results from field-collected individuals were 100 times higher (coprrection and emphasis mine FB) than any radiation doses in the field that could possibly be attributed to Fukushima. Thus, it can even be seen from the investigators' own laboratory experimental data that no measurable killing would be expected at the radiation doses that were encountered in the field.

The third major problem regards the time to eclosion (emergence of an adult insect from a pupa). Eclosion times were claimed to be associated with proximity to Fukushima. Yet irradiation has been employed as a pest control measure for a number of insect species for decades (6), and the effects of radiation on various insect biological endpoints have already been well characterized. It typically takes as much as 30,000 mSv of Lepidoptera egg irradiation to extend eclosion times by the 4 to 5 days reported in this study, and similarly high doses are required when irradiation is done in the larval stage (5). It is, therefore, astounding that effects on eclosion of a similar magnitude can be seen at radiation doses that are just a few fold above natural background doses. So the claim that eclosion times were extended due to these environmental radiation exposures is also incredible when compared to the literature. Perhaps it is more plausible that eclosion time of the pale grass blue butterfly, like forewing size, might also be related to microhabitat latitude or temperature. [Average daily temperatures differ by as much as 9 degrees Celsius between Fukushima and Tokyo during April (hatching season).]

There are other inferences from this study's findings that counter established radiation biology tenets,..

...snip...

In conclusion, the results reported in this study should be considered highly suspect due to both their internal inconsistencies and their incompatibility with earlier and more comprehensive radiation biology research on insects. The study's central assertion is that 'artificial radionuclides from the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant caused physiological and genetic damage to [the pale grass blue butterfly]'. This statement is incredulous and goes well beyond anything that the study data can actually substantiate....

Particularly useful in the comments was the comparison of their relative qualifications

Dr. Jorgensen is a radiation biologist, cancer epidemiologist, and public health professional. He has formal training in radiation health sciences and radiation biology (Ph.D., Johns Hopkins); cancer molecular biology (postdoctoral fellowship; Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School); risk assessment (graduate certificate; Center for Risk Science and Public Policy, Johns Hopkins); and epidemiology (MPH, Johns Hopkins). He is board certified in Public Health (CPH), and a Member of Council on the National Council for Radiation Protection. He is Chairman of the Radiation Safety Committee at Georgetown University. He teach graduate courses in radiation biology, radiation protection, and radiation risk assessment in the Health Physics Program, and he trains radiation oncology residents at Georgetown University Hospital. In addition to his regular appointment in the Department of Radiation Medicine at Georgetown, he also holds an adjunct faculty appointment in the Department of Epidemiology at the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins. Dr. Jorgensen's research interests include the genetic factors that determine cellular radioresistance, and genetic variants that may modify the risk of radiation-induced cancer.

Joji Otaki, the original paper's corresponding author, is a marine biologist. Hardly an expert in radiation and in butterflies.