Fukushima: A Year Later

Anniversaries are important dates. They mark the return of the Earth to its previous position against the firmament – the completion of a year – they give us the opportunity to reflect on events that were important in our lives, on their significance, and how these events have affected us. March 11 – this Sunday – will mark the first anniversary of the great earthquake and tsunami that devastated northeastern Japan, setting into motion the events that culminated in multiple reactor meltdowns. These events are chiseled into the consciousness of virtually everyone who follows the news and these events have served to engrave even more deeply the fears that so many have of nuclear power.

It is a shame that the world’s focus remains on the reactor plant accidents and the perils of nuclear energy – in spite of the fact that nearly 20,000 were killed or remain missing because the earthquake and tsunami while the radiation from the reactor accidents have yet to claim a life (there have been five fatalities among workers, none of which are radiation-related). From the start the world has focused on the least of the problem facing Japan, leaving the Japanese to find and bury their dead, find homes for those who lost everything, and rebuild tsunami-ravaged cities.

I spent 10 days in Japan last April, part of a small team that visited Sendai and Fukushima (along with Soma, Minimasoma, and Iidate – all of which were also hit hard by the events of March 11; when we landed at the Sendai airport we could see the water damage and we were all moved to tears when we saw how entire neighborhoods had simply vanished. Seeing the damage ourselves, smelling the mud and the decay, visiting the evacuation shelters, and meeting so many people whose lives had been upended – being there in person after having watched the news coverage was like standing on the rim of the Grand Canyon after seeing a photo spread in National Geographic. As a good health physicist I took radiation measurements in addition to wearing my trusty dosimeter (a Mirion Technologies InstaDose badge, for those of you who might be interested) – I picked up more radiation on the flights to and from Japan than I did in our time on the ground in the vicinity of Fukushima and nowhere did I see any radiation doses that were dangerous. Having said this I have to acknowledge that we only visited a few locations, all of which were outside the 20-km radius that was evacuated. But the fact is that radiation from the reactor accident hasn’t killed anyone and is not likely to do so in the future – a fact that is easily overlooked by those of us watching the continuing news coverage.

I am not trying to downplay the severity of the reactor accidents – three reactors melted down and a huge amount of radioactivity was released into the environment. This is the second-worst reactor accident in history – and it has yet to cause a single radiation-related fatality in the year since the accident (the longer-term toll is yet to be determined, although given the relatively low doses to which people have been exposed there are not likely to be many – if any – long-term cancer deaths from the radiation either). Over three hundred thousand people have been evacuated from the contaminated areas, contaminated livestock have been slaughtered, contamination showed up in the Tokyo drinking water – and there hasn’t yet been a single fatality from radiation. This bears repeating: for all the severity of this accident – for all of its impact on Japanese society and on the world’s views of nuclear energy – there has not been a single radiation-related fatality from this accident.

One other thing bears mention – it is likely that the Japanese weathered the reactor accident far better than would have we Americans. The shelters we visited, for example, were still clean and orderly. Items set out to be taken and used on the honor system were taken sparingly and returned after being used. Most of the people being sheltered were (of course) unhappy, but they followed the shelter’s rules and they did their share to keep the shelters running effectively.

So with the perspective of a year’s time, what have we learned – what can we reflect upon – as the first anniversary of this tragedy approaches?

  • One thing we have recognized is that anyone – including governments – can make knee-jerk reactions. Germany and Switzerland both announced early on that they were shutting down their nuclear reactors and Japan announced its determination to add new capacity in the form of alternative energy sources.
  • We have seen that radiation phobia is as potent as ever. In spite of the utter lack of evidence of adverse health effects in Japan there are those claiming the existence of deaths in the United States and awaiting a flurry of deaths among those exposed in nearby cities.
  • It appears as though public knowledge of radiation and its effects leaves much to be desired. Fears in Asia, the United States, Japan, and Europe are all exaggerated compared to the actual threat and there are still many who are worried about what fate might befall them from exposure to this radiation.
  • This fear is largely due to a woeful lack of understanding on the part of the public and this lack of understanding is the fault of governments, who fail to provide their citizens with the knowledge they need to make informed decisions when it comes to radiation. Absent actual knowledge, citizens are going to make decisions based on misinformation, lack of information, and their resulting fears.
  • We have been reminded that “sexy” stories trump all else – otherwise we would be hearing news stories about the recovery from tsunami damage, rebuilding infrastructure destroyed by the natural disasters, energy conservation measures required by the loss of the nuclear reactors, and the like.

The reactor accident warranted global attention, just as the accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl warranted global attention. But this attention was appropriate only in a world experiencing “typical” tragedies – the earthquake and tsunami were utterly devastating and caused far more damage, death, and destruction than the reactor meltdowns. In a just world the reactor accidents would have been recognized as significant accidents that paled in comparison to the natural tragedy that unfolded. In an adequately informed world the world’s attention would have focused on the homeless, the lost, and the dead – not on an accident that placed nobody at risk. And in such a world we would recognize that nuclear energy takes a lower toll on human health and on the environment than does the continuing use of fossil fuels. It is a shame that, because of our lack of understanding and our fears, we have taken our eye off the ball – that we have concentrated on the least deadly part of the tragedies that unfolded on March 11, 2011. Certainly we must be careful with both radiation and nuclear energy – but we must give them only the respect and the attention they are due; to do otherwise is to shortchange those who need our help the most.

One final note: While the earthquake and tsunami affected a huge swath of Japan, Soma City was particularly hit – over 40 children were orphaned, several of them the children of firefighters who lost their lives while helping their fellow citizens reach safety. The word “hero” is often overused but I doubt that anyone can argue that a person who knowingly heads towards danger to save others is a hero. During our visit, Soma City Mayor Hidekiyo Tachiya told us of a fund he has established to help support the children orphaned on March 11, 2011 and to help send them to college when the time comes. I have donated to this fund and I would urge you to support these children if your circumstances permit.

Tags: , , ,

9 Responses to “Fukushima: A Year Later”

  1. Bob Applebaum March 8, 2012 at 9:34 AM #

    “The government spokesman keeps saying there are no IMMEDIATE health effects,” the 48-year-old nursery school worker says. “He’s not talking about 10 years or 20 years later. He must think the people of Fukushima are fools.

    That’s a quote from this article – http://www.newhavenregister.com/articles/2012/03/08/news/doc4f576c4c102fd166295015.txt?viewmode=default

    My point being that when the health risk is cancer, it doesn’t bode well to discuss no fatalities at the one year anniversary. The citizens don’t generally expect cancer after one year.

    How many cancer cases will arise are yet to be seen (or not), but the cancer risk has been minimized by the evacuations. The evacuations are major disruptions to life. No other industrial events trigger such widespread and long term evacuations.

    • Septeus7 March 8, 2012 at 11:52 AM #

      Are you saying that no other industrial activities release as much carcinogens into the environment?

      The question is whether such widespread and long terms evacuations are rational.

      If we applied similar response standards for other industries wouldn’t they also trigger widespread and long term evacuations?

      Well?

      • Bob Applebaum March 9, 2012 at 4:13 PM #

        There aren’t too many other industrial activities that release that many carcinogens at one point in time that mobilize so quickly over the globe, that can cause cancer in so many different organs, that have an external means of inducing cancer, that can be transported by air, water and dust, and that persist in the environment for so long.

        That’s why the long term, wide spread evacuations are necessary for nuclear power accidents and rarely for other mishaps.

        • Septeus7 March 10, 2012 at 10:13 AM #

          So let me understand what you are saying. 11 Kilograms of high level radioactive materials from Fukushima is a greater release of more carcinogens than a million plus barrels of oil from the BP Gulf Oil spill and tens of thousands of tons of Corexit?

          What about the near constant exposure to Styrene, Tetrachloroethylene, and Titanium Dioxide? Hell, Coke and Pepsi put 4-methylimidazole into every soda for years put somehow 11 kilograms from Fukushima is worse? I seriously don’t understand.

          So how does 11 kilograms from a nuclear power accident become worse than 2000 tons Radioactive mine tailings and other untreated radiological waste dumped for a total of 100lbs/MWH at a capacity factor of 15% over an expected 20 year life for every 1.5 MW Wind Turbine?

          What exactly is the the radiological dumping per MWH plus the total carcinogenic waste of other industries per MWH?

          Why do you think that radiological materials are worse than PBDEs with the incorporation into RNA and DNA?

  2. Dr Y March 8, 2012 at 10:04 AM #

    You’ve got a good point and I didn’t spend enough time discussing cancer risks. You are exactly correct that we’re not going to see any cancers in a year. What’s interesting is that around Chernobyl they still haven’t seen many cancers after more than a quarter-century, and the population dose was far greater – partly for the reason you noted (the evacuations)and also because less radioactiity was released and much of that headed out to sea. Thus, I would not expect to see a noticeable rise in cancer incidence around Fukushima over the next few decades, just as we have not see this around Chernobyl.

    I know that reciting risks and statistics is not very comforting to a person concerned about their own health or that of their children. But at this point I just don’t have a better way to discuss this point.

  3. Bob Applebaum March 8, 2012 at 10:23 AM #

    There has been an observable, significant increase in thyroid cancers around Chernobyl, from an NCI study released last year:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/18/health/research/18cancer.html

    This is the first cancer to be readily discernable following a nuclear accident, because of the affinity of I-131 for the small thyroid gland. A quarter of a century sounds like a long time, but it isn’t for the carcinogenesis of other cancers which can originate from more diffuse radionuclides or external whole body exposures.

    That’s why we continue studying the A-bomb survivors…with time we get better statistics.

  4. Craig Smith March 8, 2012 at 4:16 PM #

    That NY Times article is exactly the type of sensationalistic trash that Dr. Y is warning about in this article. It uses poor science and inflammatory language to try to invoke fear in the reader.
    The problem with this study, and the NCI doesn’t do a very good job of dealing with this, is that it assumes that every incidence of thryoid cancer in the region affected by the Chernobyl accident is a direct result of that accident. It ignores the fact that even if the accident had NOT happened, some of those people would have gotten thyroid cancer. According to the NCI webpage:
    “It is estimated that 48,020 men and women (11,470 men and 36,550 women) will be diagnosed with and 1,740 men and women will die of cancer of the thyroid in 2011″ from http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/thyro.html

    This is in the US. Presumably very few of these people were anywhere near Chernobyl in the last 25 years. So saying that 65 people developed thyroid cancer out of 12500 in the study(0.5%) is well within the normal statistical range of incidence.

    A better report on the true impact of Chernobyl, which can be viewed as a preview of what to expect in Japan, comes from the World Health Organization here:
    http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/index.html

  5. Bob Applebaum March 9, 2012 at 2:53 PM #

    I don’t think that Mr. Smith understands how an epidemiological cohort study is conducted. The relative risk is determined ABOVE THE BACKGROUND risk after correcting for other confounders and is based on estimated doses received by the individuals. This allows us to calculate an excess risk per unit of dose.

    The WHO report, which noted 4,000 (they state recent statistics show more likely 5,000) thyroid cancers as of 2002.

    Due to the timing, WHO did not have the benefit of the NCI report.

  6. Roger Helbig March 9, 2012 at 10:35 PM #

    The person from Fukushima is not a fool; he just does not have any real appreciation for the amount of natural radiation in the environment compared with the amount of radiation from the fission products released from Fukushima. He is being constantly bombarded by hype, just as our own news media continue to do that. ABC News had a piece where it dropped in passing that more people are likely to be made ill from stress than from radiation and then showed the high level reporter using some form of radiation detection instrument on the bark of a tree and saying that he pegged the meter and that some Japanese punk rock performer who was also briefly shown had a new piece of music up the finger to Fukushima. ABC also used to put on Michio Kaku who would tell you that the world was about to end and others of the same ilke. None of the TV networks would go to a health physicist, one of the people who really do know what they are talking about and whose job is to protect us from radiation damaging out health. Bob Applebaum, you seem to be a very committed anti-nuclear activist; I would bet you might even think that Christopher Busby or Leuren Moret are experts instead of Dr Y. Busby scammed 750,000 Yen out of the fears of the mothers of Fukushima. I have put the links in a message at the linked DUStory Yahoo Group. Tell me, Robert, do you expect to get cancer if you get 20 Bequerels of radiation? If you do, don’t eat bananas; they have an average of 14 Bequerels per medium banana.

Leave a Reply