Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Radiation discovered in Fukushima residents

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
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-27-11 08:55 AM
Original message
Radiation discovered in Fukushima residents
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/06/27/japan.radia... /

By Nicolas Ito, CNN
June 27, 2011 9:11 a.m. EDT

(CNN) -- Japanese researchers have found radiation in all 15 people tested last month from the area near the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.

Cesium was found in the participants, ranging from 4 to 77 years old, through two rounds of testing conducted by Nanao Kamada at the Research Institute for Radiation Biology and Medicine of Hiroshima University.

Kamada insisted that the cesium numbers are minute and do not represent a health threat.

The people tested lived in the towns of Iitate and Kawamata, located about 25 miles (40 kilometers) from the nuclear plant.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Botany Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-27-11 09:08 AM
Response to Original message
1. The # of deaths from the accident @ the Fukushima ....
.... Daiichi power plants might very well be in the hundreds of thousands and go on on for years
and years. God only knows how many acres of land the were contaminated by the radioactive
toxins will have to be taken out of production for food crops too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-27-11 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Don't we need to get to 100 before we talk about "hundreds of thousands"?
Or heck... get to one from radiation?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Botany Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-27-11 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. the damage and deaths will take time to show up
but not unless they have changed the physical and mutagenic nature of the
radionuclides released from the Fukushima Daiichi power plant the outcome
for many living things will not be good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-27-11 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Does "show up" include "in your imagination"?
Edited on Mon Jun-27-11 12:46 PM by FBaggins
People have to actually receive a significant dose first.

Only a very small handful have even received the level at which there is any identifiable correlation with increased cancer rates... and that handful isn't even large enough to expect to identify a single case apart from perhaps some thyroid cancer.

Predicting hundreds of thousands of deaths is irresponsible fear mongering without ANY basis in science. But those who have played that game in the past have shown no fear of imagining deaths that nobody else seems to be able to see.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Electric Monk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-27-11 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. Remember Chernobyl? Fukushima is worse than Chernobyl.
Or would you like to argue that as well?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-27-11 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. There isn't any need to "argue"... the statement is flat wrong.
Fukushima is nowhere NEAR as bad as Chernobyl.

Somwhere between a tenth and a fifth as much total radioactive material... and that which was released had a much shorter half-life (most of it now gone, while a much higher percentage of Chernobyl's release is still around decades later)... AND a very high percentage of the release went into the sea rather than into populated areas.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Electric Monk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-27-11 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. The IAEA says you're full of shit
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-27-11 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. You might try actually reading what you link to.
If anyone is told that they're "full of it" by the IAEA, it's you.

Sorry.

What they IAEA actually says about the two is that they aren't comparable. Chernobyl was far worse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Electric Monk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-27-11 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. "Similar analyses will be conducted for Units 2 and 3 when radiation levels allow calibration..."
Nothing to worry about, you're right, I feel much safer now, thanks for posting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-27-11 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. You might want to try reading something that actually relates to what you want to prove?
Try googling Chernobyl Fukushima IAEA. You'll find a number of links to their actual statement on the subject going back a number of weeks.

Then, of course, you'll start spinning that the source you wanted to use as proof of your claim is actually not reliable. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Electric Monk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-27-11 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #19
23. You're the one claiming ""Fukushima is nowhere NEAR as bad as Chernobyl."
They're both rated level 7.

Or would you like to argue that as well?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-27-11 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. If Fukushima gets 100 times worse, it will STILL be a "level 7"
Will you claim that nothing has changed?

You're the one claiming ""Fukushima is nowhere NEAR as bad as Chernobyl."

And you're the one claiming that the IAEA says that I'm wrong.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Electric Monk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-27-11 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. Thanks for repeatedly kicking this thread.
I'm gradually learning, there's no point arguing with industry shills.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-27-11 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. There's also no point
in arguing with people who understand what they're talking about... when you don't.

Nor in calling them names when you can't win on the facts.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
caraher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-27-11 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #11
17. I just went to your page and searched the text for "Chernobyl"
I found two instances of "Chernobyl" on that page, which said substantially the same thing (one of which follows):

"NISA estimates that the amount of radioactive material released to the atmosphere is approximately 10% of the 1986 Chernobyl accident, which is the only other nuclear accident to have been rated a Level 7 event."

How exactly does this equate to "The IAEA says you're full of shit?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Electric Monk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-27-11 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. "Fukushima is nowhere NEAR as bad as Chernobyl." is a shit statement.
They are very much comparable. Chernobyl may have released more radioactive material into the air, but Fukushima has released, and continues to release for who knows how long, far more into the ocean.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-27-11 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #20
25. People don't live in the oceans.
And the oceans are already radioactive.

In the end, Fukushima won't make even a rounding error to the overall radiation in the Pacific.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snoutport Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-27-11 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. How do you know? Or, do you think you have current correct information EVEN though
much of the information on Chernobyl was hidden and leaked out over years. We are seeing the same thing happening in Japan.

We don't know the truth about either accident.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-27-11 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. Because what we DO know about Chernobyl is far worse
than the worst-case of what we've seen so far.

Keep in mind that by this point post-Chernobyl, there were MANY dead and dying from radiation exposure. There were MANY people who had been exposed to FAR more radiation than the worst measurement to date.

We don't know ALL of "the truth" in either case, but what we DO know makes the comparison pretty clear. We can't guess whether Chernobyl was 50 times worse or only 20 times... but we know that there isn't any change that it was LESS disasterous unless something worse than what has happened so far occurs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-27-11 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #13
18. So we see the reversion to the conspiracy theory defense.
When the many, many scientific studies of a situation don't back you up, assert that the "real" data is being suppressed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CJvR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-27-11 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #8
36. Oh not this tired bit of sillyness again.
Fukushima is no way near Chernobyl and unless they pipe the contaminated water inside the reactors straight into the Tokyo drinking water supply it will never be. I know this is dissappointing to many who are hoping for millions of casualties to aid in their anti-nuke crusade. Hell Fukushima is hardly even on the level Chelabyinsk blast (Kyshtym disaster) despite rating a 7.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Botany Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-27-11 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #5
12. FYI
I have a degree in ecology / biological sciences and spent 2 + years looking into
the biological costs of nuclear power .....

biological magnification still works
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-27-11 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #12
22. Then you should have no trouble accessing papers from health physicists.
You'll find a great deal more relevant material there than coursework in ecology/biology is likely to give you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Botany Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-27-11 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #22
30. Glad to know you that you know all the course work ..
... and studies I did in college such as using a spectrophotometer, working with and for a professor in tracking
radionuclides in the environment, and work in physics and quantitative analysis of toxins that could become
problems because of biological magnification.


BTW how many acres of Japanese farm land will be off limits for crop production because of the Fukushima Daiichi
power plant accident?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-27-11 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #30
34. Did I say "all" somewhere?
Of course not. But it would be pretty ridiculous to compare that pretty limited experience to that of a health physicist. Surely you agree?

and quantitative analysis of toxins that could become problems because of biological magnification.

Um.... in all those classes they didn't cover the fact that radionuclides are not considered toxins?

Maybe you were sick that semester? :)

BTW how many acres of Japanese farm land will be off limits for crop production because of the Fukushima Daiichi power plant accident?

For how long? And can you compare that figure to the number of acres lost to the tsunami and/or the impact of the earthquake?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Botany Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-27-11 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #34
38. Please
<radionuclides are not considered toxins>

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/565271

Radionuclide toxicity in cultured mammalian cells: elucidation of the primary site of radiation damage.

http://www.safety.vanderbilt.edu/resources/radmanual/ra...

Vanderbilt University Online Radiation Safety Policies & Procedures Manual Section B. 2


********************

BTW how many acres of Japanese farm land will be off limits for crop production because of the Fukushima Daiichi power plant accident?

For how long? And can you compare that figure to the number of acres lost to the tsunami and/or the impact of the earthquake?

Way to not answer the question FBaggins and nice try to change the subject too

**************

BTW if you look @ my first post I never said that the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi plant will cause 100s of thousands of deaths
but what I wrote was .... The # of deaths from the accident @ the Fukushima Daiichi power plants might very well be in the hundreds
of thousands and go on on for years and years.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-28-11 04:58 AM
Response to Reply #38
39. Please?
Edited on Tue Jun-28-11 04:58 AM by FBaggins
I guess you also missed the day they covered the difference between "toxin" and "toxicity"?

They aren't the same thing.

BTW if you look @ my first post I never said that the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi plant will cause 100s of thousands of deaths
but what I wrote was .... The # of deaths from the accident @ the Fukushima Daiichi power plants might very well be in the hundreds
of thousands and go on on for years and years.


Less ridiculously wrong, but still ridiculously wrong.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-27-11 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #5
31. OFFS
Which nuke plant/company/org do you work for? That's the only reason I can think of for anyone to take such a ridiculous stance.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-27-11 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #31
35. That's the ONLY reason you can think of?
You wouldn't, for instance, consider the fact that it's the truth?

That would certainly count as a reason to most of us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-27-11 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. What flavor of sauce would you like with your crow?
I'm making sure orders are filled in advance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyTiedye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-27-11 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Fukushima Will Cause a Cancer Epidemic in 10 Years
Not just in Japan. Here too. TPTB know this already.
That is why the rush to gut Medicare and Medicaid and repeal "Obamacare".

They don't want a bunch of poor people clogging up "their" hospitals,
and they surely don't want to pay all those hospital bills.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-27-11 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. Repeal and gut came first
To keep the facts straight. It is part of a WORLDWIDE effort to destroy social safety nets.

Highly recommenda book... Ill fares the land.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-27-11 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #3
21. No. There's simply no scientific basis for any of that.
It's like saying that because the sun exists, everyone is going to get skin cancer. It's a nonsense statement. You're welcome to go out yourself and try to measure the levels of radiation reaching the US--you won't be able to, because after one tiny blip, they've dropped back so low that they can't be tracked or distinguished from the background level. To claim that that's going to cause a "cancer epidemic" is just the worst kind of unsupported assertion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-27-11 12:46 PM
Response to Original message
6. Well we were told this was absolutely impossible
:sarcasm:

Why be a ... Well you know.

(For the record didn't we say this was coming?)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-27-11 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. Please link to where you were "told this was absolutely impossible"
Or did the aliens succeed in wiping all traces of it except in the minds of those who wisely used double-layers of tinfoil? :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
caraher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-27-11 01:22 PM
Response to Original message
27. Maddening reporting
I wish the media understood units and would explain what they measured:

"The urine samples from a 77-year-old man in the first round of tests indicated radioactivity as high as 3.2 millisieverts."

That's just not a unit of radioactivity. Do they mean that, based on the measured level of radioactive iodine, they estimate he received a dose of 3.2 mSv from internal exposure? Or will receive a dose of that level?

This is much clearer in an Friday NHK story which begins, "A group of doctors has found that the estimated level of accumulated internal radiation exposure for people living in Fukushima Prefecture has exceeded 3 millisieverts." It also notes, "Three millisieverts is 3 times higher than the long-term annual limit for ordinary people recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-27-11 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. Exactly right.
They constantly report activity and/or exposure in units that imply an adjusted whole-body absorbed dose.

OTOH, even with that "simplification" most people don't understand what they're reading. Who knows how bad it would get if they reported these things correctly?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-27-11 03:36 PM
Response to Original message
32. Are people surprised at this finding?
The really sad thing is that the people who built the plant/designed it are probably dead or pretty old now, and the people running it now & making decisions about it will be dead before the coming "die off" years down the line.. Crafty/devious people enrich themselves via bad ideas that eventually kill innocent people after the perpetrators are long gone... Look at how many people are still dying from land mines laid decades before :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CJvR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-27-11 03:42 PM
Response to Original message
33. Given the huge amounts...
...of radiation released I would have been very surprised if they hadn't found anything.
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 Fri Apr 18th 2014, 07:24 PM
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