Low-level radiation detected in Fukushima students

[kristopher]

Low-level radiation detected in Fukushima students
By SHIN MATSUURA / Staff Writer

Traces of radioactive cesium have been discovered in schoolchildren in Fukushima Prefecture, according to the Minami-Soma municipal general hospital.

Half of the elementary and junior high school students in Minami-Soma who underwent radiation checks since late September were found with low levels of radioactive cesium-137, the hospital reported...

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ2011102515713

The snip is short because the entire article deserves reading. What is shaping up is a large-scale experiment with human guinea pigs on the effects of low dose internal radiation. In spite of what you might have heard from certain self interested sources, our understanding of that problem is far behind our need to know. Given the previous opportunities for study in the real world, it is it begs the question of why we still lack this information.

[FBaggins]

1. Same answer as the nuts who don't believe in global warming.

Just because you don't like the answer that the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence gives you does not mean that "our understanding of that problem is far behind our need to know"

The impact of low levels of internal radiation is actually quite well understood by science. You and Mr Busby just don't like what the science says.

For those who might actually be interested in the facts, consider: An alpha particle is an alpha particle and a beta particle is a beta particle. The body doesn't have any idea whether the original source was a reactor or not. If the amount involved here is a tiny fraction of the internal radiation that every human being is exposed to every day (and it is), then fear-mongering is irrational. There's a difference in radon levels between your home and the one down the street (or between your home with the windows open and the windows closed). There's a very good chance that those differences are greater than the exposure level that we're talking about here.

You're normally advised to take remediation action for radon in your home above 4 pCi/L (a bit higher in Canada). That works out to a tad over 150 Bq/m3... and you breath in about 15 m3/day.

[kristopher]

2. More nuclear industry spin Baggins? Why don't you tell us again about how it's like eating bananas..

"Much remains unknown as to the effects of low levels of internal radiation exposure on human health. Detailed data on such effects were not available from the 1945 atomic bomb blasts in Hiroshima and Nagasaki or from the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident."

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ2011102515713


As to "the nuts who don't believe in global warming"; that would apply directly to those, like you, who base their entire view of the problem on data supplied by the industry that would be negatively affected by adverse findings.

Climate change deniers believe fossil fuel industry propaganda wholeheartedly.
Nuclear supporters believe nuclear industry propaganda wholeheartedly.

[FBaggins]

3. Nope. No spin at all. Straight facts.

Though I can understand why you run from them.

Much remains unknown as to the effects of low levels of internal radiation exposure on human health. Detailed data on such effects were not available from the 1945 atomic bomb blasts in Hiroshima and Nagasaki or from the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident."

Which, of course, is pure BS. Because Hiroshima wasn't the most recent time that such data is available.

What we don't have lots of data for is when exposure levels are much higher than background, but lower than the cancer/death statistics seen from nuclear blasts. That kind of data is limited to things like Chernobyl (but still exists) and, of course, medical uses (for which there is a very large database).

But the activity levels reported here are not much higher than normal daily doses. In fact, they are a very tiny proportion of those doses. And that data is quite clear.

that would apply directly to those, like you, who base their entire view of the problem on data supplied by the industry that would be negatively affected by adverse finding

Nope. Radon exposure (as one example) has absolutely nothing to do with the nuclear industry. Health physicists are not part of the industry either. They've been studying the impact of radiation entirely unrelated to nuclear bombs or reactors for many decades. It's a well-established science.

Your BS still relies on the presumption that an internally emitted beta particle from a substance that was once in a reactor is somehow different from an internally emitted beta particle from an entirely natural substance. It isn't.

You also exhibit a deep ignorance of exactly how tiny a "Bq" is. To even talk about levels in the double digits is laughable. You could easily be breathing in many times that number every hour just sitting there in your mom's basement posting on the net.

Climate change deniers believe

Sorry. That dog won't hunt. Climate change deniers believe a tiny handful of "scientists" (only a couple of whom have actual scientific backgrounds) who reject the overwhelming body of scientific evidence and opinion currently held by thousands upon thousands of actual scientists specializing in the field.

Creation "scientists" (sic) are the same way.

Anti-nuke paranoia is exactly the same.

[kristopher]

4. "Straight facts" from you? Not a chance.

You keep hyping nuclear industry claims as if they are gospel. It is clear from the article that those coping with this disaster do not agree with you or the nuclear industry.

For a good example of the schism that exists we have the different studies that have looked at Chernobyl. Studies controlled by the nuclear industry's international trade organization the IAEA have found almost no health impact. Yet studies outside the scope of the IAEA's control tell a much different story.

IAEA's version of reality:

4. What are the major health effects for exposed populations?

There have been at least 1800 documented cases of thyroid cancer children who were between 0 and 14 years of age when the accident occurred., which is far higher than normal. The thyroid gland of young children is particularly susceptible to the uptake of radioactive iodine, which can trigger cancers, treatable both by surgery and medication. Health studies of the registered cleanup workers called in (so-called “liquidators”) have failed to show any direct correlation between their radiation exposure and an increase in other forms of cancer or disease. The psychological affects of Chernobyl were and remain widespread and profound, and have resulted for instance in suicides, drinking problems and apathy.

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/features/chernobyl-15/cherno-faq.shtml

Note the blame-the-victims attitude exhibited in the last sentence.

Here is somewhat different conclusion from an independent study by a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences as published in the Proceedings of the New York Academy of Sciences:

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: [phone]; fax: [phone]. [email protected]
†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.

<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.

[SpoonFed]

9. What is laughable is your propaganda...

and arrogance in ignorance.

You also exhibit a deep ignorance of exactly how tiny a "Bq" is. To even talk about levels in the double digits is laughable. You could easily be breathing in many times that number every hour just sitting there in your mom's basement posting on the net.

You erroneously equate a rate (Bq) of activity with a size (tiny), perhaps you mean low. You go on to erroneously imply a comparison of this size with a limit or threshold (level). Perhaps you mean that some quantity of material of a particular activity is laughable? Unfortunately nothing about nuclear power, its arrogant proponents or Fukushima is very funny to me.

There are plenty of well respected scientists that would state that there is no minimum threshold for risk from radiation exposure. Then to top things off, in a very unscientific manner you suggest that you can breath Becquerels in by sitting in the basement when in fact I presume you mean that one may breath in radioactive particles (that exhibit a given rate of activity (Bq) at some specific point in time (an actual measurement) of some ambiguous (but by implication some harmless) amount.

This is your continued unscientific and intellectually-insulting propaganda regarding Fukushima and all things related to the nuclear power industry. When all else fails in your attempt to walk the knowledgeable scientific walk and fail to talk the talk, you resort to heaping on the childish name calling. To point out just a few tidbits from your content-less and useless post above: "BS", "in your mom's basement", "actual scientists" (who you? haha)

The truth is, you are sloppy with the facts, the science, the analysis and your debating style for one obvious and specific aim.

[caraher]

5. The article doesn't provide a basis for panic

For instance,

The Institute of Radiation Safety Belrad, a radiation research organization in Belarus, handled radiation exposure measures after the Chernobyl accident. The institute set hazardous levels for children at 70 becquerels of radioactive cesium per kilogram of their weight and caution levels at 20 becquerels.

They found *detectable* levels of Cs-137 in half the students. Of those, "Radioactive cesium-137 was detected at below 10 becquerels per kilogram of a student's weight in 199 students. The substance was also found at from 10 to less than 20 becquerels in 65 students; 20 to less than 30 becquerels in three students; and 30 to below 35 becquerels in one student."

So just 4 of about 400 students tested in the "caution level" range and none in the "hazardous range." I'm encouraged that only 1% of the students had levels above that admittedly arbitrary "caution" level, given the scale and scope of the releases.

While it's always better to know more than know less, the dangers of inhalation and ingestion of various radionuclides have been studied and assessed. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=argonne%20human%20health%20fact%20sheet%20cesium&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.evs.anl.gov%2Fpub%2Fdoc%2FCesium.pdf&ei=AimnTr2AOMbx0gGImbmjDg&usg=AFQjCNHTl0AVajP34Q7JBFvRcq5DabeEKA&cad=rja">Argonne National Lab's fact sheet on cesium estimates lifetime cancer mortality risks for Cs-137 from inhalation at 8.1 x 10^-12 per picocurie and 2.5 x 10^-11 per picocurie for ingestion. These values are calculated based on the biological and physical half-lives of Cs-137, the energies of the beta and gamma emissions, the resulting absorbed doses adjusted for biological effectiveness, and the estimated risk of cancer given a certain radiation dose. While all these values have uncertainties in them, they are not just some numbers made up by nuclear industry shills.

If we apply these values to the most heavily-exposed student... let's assume a mass of 40 kg for the student (since we have no idea of his or her age or weight). At 35 Bq/kg that's 35*40=1400 Bq inhaled or ingested (we don't know which). Take the worst case and assume ingestion (since that has the larger risk per pCi). We need to convert 1400 Bq to pCi. Since 1 Ci = 3.7 x 10^10 Bq and there are 10^12 picoCuries to the Curie, we get 1400 Bq * (100 pCi/3.7 Bq)=38,000 pCi. Multiply this by the risk factor and we have the odds the most heavily exposed student measured will contract a fatal cancer: 38,000 * 2.5 x 10^-11 = 9.5 x 10-7, which rounds to 1 chance in a million.

Compare that to a lifetime risk of cancer from all other causes of around 1 in 5.

Now what's tricky is a LOT of people are exposed. If everyone in Japan were exposed at this level that's what, 150 million people with an additional one-in-a-million chance of a fatal cancer. That would be 150 deaths. There are factors that work both ways left out here... but this kind of estimate is not likely to be low by a factor of, say, 100, and I've made generally pessimistic assumptions. I may have underestimated dose in a few ways - the students may have had higher levels prior to the screening and cancer risk is surely higher in children than the population average the Argonne fact sheet assumes - but intentionally focused on the highest measured concentration to compensate.

In any event, this particular risk is enormous on the level of one individual. I hope they do follow up on these measurements (if these students are ingesting Cs-137 on an ongoing basis that's more serious than if there were essentially a single intake episode resulting in these readings). But http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort">in terms of comparative risks this is on par with risk of death associated with a car accident occurring while evacuating the student from the region.

[kristopher]

6. No one said it "provided a basis for panic" except nuclear proponents trying to create red herrings

What I said was that the article shows an emerging real world experiment with human guinea pigs that are children of real human beings. We should already have a far better base of knowledge than we do and I lay blame for the existing ambiguity directly at the feet of the soul-less quasi-governmental profit seeking entity that is the global nuclear industry. They've obstructed objective, comprehensive research whenever they felt the results would "scare" people.

It is an industry that needs to be dismantled.

[kristopher]

7. Another point about your use of industry data...

Argonne National Lab's fact sheet on cesium estimates lifetime cancer mortality risks for Cs-137 from inhalation at 8.1 x 10^-12 per picocurie and 2.5 x 10^-11 per picocurie for ingestion. These values are calculated based on the biological and physical half-lives of Cs-137, the energies of the beta and gamma emissions, the resulting absorbed doses adjusted for biological effectiveness, and the estimated risk of cancer given a certain radiation dose. While all these values have uncertainties in them, they are not just some numbers made up by nuclear industry shills.

Unfortunately we do have to consider that they are, in fact, "just some numbers made up by nuclear industry shills".

I used to have a fairly high level of confidence in the work of DOE labs, but the deeper I dig the more distortion and obfuscation I find. It was the frequent obvious misrepresentations of nuclear supporters here that started me looking at the data and methods of analysis behind the arguments. What I found was more than enough corruption of science by the nuclear industry to cast doubt on the validity of all claims related to nuclear energy that emerge from anywhere within the global "nuclear village". If the area of DOE research could negatively impact the financial performance of the nuclear industry, it isn't to be trusted.

Again I point to the findings of Nesterenko, Nesterenko, and Yablokov as evidence that your "one in a million" claim is based on claims with no more validity than those of the petroleum industry and its associated government agencies as they related to potential damages from the Gulf oil spill.

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: [phone]; fax: [phone]. [email protected]
†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.

<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.

[SpoonFed]

10. I think it is reasonable to be very skeptical...

While caraher's mathematical analysis is sound in mechanics, the underlying flaw is to presume that the risk factor as stated by ANL is correct and accurate for the reasons you have stated. Another clear flaw in this methodology is simply relying on such small datasets to begin with and to be trusting the datasets that we are being given by the very institutions and government that has been downplaying this disaster from the start. Independent analysis and verification on both points seems to be necessary.

[kristopher]

8. Panel lowers limit of radiation in food

Panel lowers limit of radiation in food
Experts quiz decision to ignore external exposure
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20111029a1.html