Nuclear plant workers developed cancer despite lower radiation exposure than legal limit

[kristopher]

Nuclear plant workers developed cancer despite lower radiation exposure than legal limit

Of 10 nuclear power plant workers who have developed cancer and received workers' compensation in the past, nine had been exposed to less than 100 millisieverts of radiation, it has been learned.

The revelation comes amid reports that a number of workers battling the crisis at the Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant were found to have been exposed to more than the emergency limit of 250 millisieverts, which was raised from the previous limit of 100 millisieverts in March.

According to Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry statistics, of the 10 nuclear power plant workers, six had leukemia, two multiple myeloma and another two lymphatic malignancy. Only one had been exposed to 129.8 millisieverts but the remaining nine were less than 100 millisieverts, including one who had been exposed to about 5 millisieverts.

Nobuyuki Shimahashi, a worker at the Hamaoka Nuclear Power Plant, where operations were recently suspended by Chubu Electric Power Co., died of leukemia in 1991 at age 29. His 74-year-old mother Michiko remembers her son dropping from 80 kilograms to 50 kilograms and his gums bleeding.

Shimahashi was in ...

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110727p2a00m0na010000c.html

[gateley]

1. The legal limit is there for the plant owners, to appear as though

they're caring about the safety of the workers.

[backwoodsbob]

2. kind of a useless article

10 workers out of how many over how many years?

If it is only ten workers total out of all workers at all plants over their entire operating history...

[kristopher]

3. 1,600 workers projected over radiation limit

1,600 workers projected over radiation limit
Kyodo

About 1,600 workers at the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant were expected to be exposed to radiation exceeding 50 millisieverts during the course of the crisis, according to an estimate Tokyo Electric Power Co. made in the spring that was revealed by an industrial accident prevention body.

Tepco was told to make the projection by the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, which then passed on the information to the Health, Welfare and Labor Ministry. The health ministry then compiled a note for its officials.

The projection was revealed Tuesday by the nonprofit organization Tokyo Occupational Safety and Health Center, which requested disclosure of the note, dated April 25, via a freedom of information request.

For workers engaged in work that would expose them to radiation, the maximum annual level is normally 50 millisieverts, and up to 100 millisieverts in five years. But due to the urgency of the nuclear crisis, that limit was raised to 250 millisieverts for workers at the Fukushima No. 1 plant.

According to the disclosed document...

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20110727x3.html

I understand your 'concern' about the sample size, but I suspect the informaiton fits into the larger public discussion that is ongoing; a discussion where the OP data is fit into a better context to determine its validity.

[backwoodsbob]

4. that answer completely ignored the question

without numbers the entire article is just propaganda

[kristopher]

6. That might be the perspective of a nuclear apologist...

But in the country that is doomed to live with the generational effects of multiple reactor meltdowns it is considered an important part of understanding what they are going through. Whether you like it or not, it is relevant to the discussion about the decision to raise exposure limits for Fukushima workers to know that the prior limits were not significant in determining risk for those plant workers that have already developed cancer.

Pretending there is no disagreement on the Health Effects of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation and therefore that any discussion aimed at exploring that realm is "propaganda" serves no legitimate purpose in the discussion.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309039959

[FBaggins]

7. Begs the question. Fail.

You want to demonstrate that the data is relevant by making an entirely unrelated point and then defend that point by claiming that the original (still unsupported) claim is true and thus proves the second point's relevance.

Pretending there is no disagreement on the Health Effects of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation

There is disagreement on the subject in exactly the same way that there's disagreement on climate change. A tiny handful of people who claim to be scientists disagrees with the vast majority of actual scientists in the field.

But hey... if it's a religious belief, science can't sway you.

The original question remains (but cannot get past your "correlation is causation" ignorance). People who don't work at nuclear plants also get cancer. Is there any scientific reason to believe that any of these workers contracted cancer because of below-safety-level doses?

[kristopher]

8. Thank you for sharing the view of the nuclear industry.

It is so often missing from the discussion on this forum...

:sarcasm:

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[backwoodsbob]

13. let us try to make this simpler for you

ten people who worked at Japanese Nuclear plants got cancer.Is this ten total out of all people who worked there in history and if so how many people is that?
Also what % of people working at plants who got cancer would that be vs the % of Japanese people at large who have gotten cancer?

Pretty simple questions :shrug:

[XemaSab]

5. Is that an English Shepherd?

:shrug:

[backwoodsbob]

11. not quite :)

he is half German shep...half St. Bernard

[bananas]

9. Another study concluded low-level radiation risks are underestimated by several orders of magnitude

From May this year:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x296591

Study: Radiation affects birth sex ratio (atomic weapons tests and nuclear power plants)

<snip>

Among the conclusions in the paper:

5 Conclusions and outlook

Our observations add evidence to findings in the field of
radiation epidemiology indicating considerably underestimated
health risks of the so-called low-level (< 100 mSv)
ionizing radiation ...
This means that the internationally established radiation
risk concept based on average absorbed dose is in error at
three to four orders of magnitude or, more likely, it is
conceptually wrong.

<snip>

[kristopher]

12. The mayor of Nagasaki City will for the first time call for a shift away from nuclear energy

Nagasaki mayor: shift from nuclear power needed

The mayor of Nagasaki City will for the first time call for a shift away from nuclear energy in his annual peace declaration on August 9th, amid the ongoing nuclear crisis in Fukushima. Mayor Tomihisa Taue told reporters on Thursday that the people of his city do not want to see more "Hibakusha," as the victims of the 1945 atomic bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima are known.

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/28_35.html



Originally posted by NNN0LHI at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1597712#1597712