Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Stanford University Researchers: "#Fukushima Radiation May Cause 1,300 Cancer Deaths Around the World"


"The best estimates of cancer cases resulting from the Fukushima disaster is 180, and range from 24 to 2,500", according to the Bloomberg News article below.

(180 cases?)

Further, the article says:

The most likely number of cancer deaths is 130 and estimated to range from 15 to 1,300, the authors said, adding that the ranges reflect uncertainties about emissions and the methods the researchers used to calculate their impact.


(130 deaths?? Worldwide?)

The paper by the Stanford researchers further says 2 to 12 cases of cancer may happen among the plant workers.

From Bloomberg News (7/17/2012; part, emphasis is mine):

Fukushima Radiation May Cause 1,300 Cancer Deaths, Study Finds

By Jason Gale - Jul 17, 2012 3:15 PM PT

Radiation from the Fukushima nuclear plant may cause as many as 1,300 cancer deaths globally, according to a study that showed fallout from Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s (9501) crippled reactors may be deadlier than predicted.

The March 2011 nuclear disaster may cause as many as 2,500 cases of cancer, mostly in Japan, Stanford University scientists said. They incorporated emission estimates into 3-D global atmospheric modeling to predict the effects of radiation exposure, which was detected as far away as the U.S. and Europe.

Cancer cases may have been at least 10 times greater if the radiation hadn’t mostly fallen in the sea, said Mark Z. Jacobson, co-author of the first detailed analysis of the event’s global health effects. Identical emissions from a hypothetical accident at California’s Diablo Canyon Power Plant would be 25 percent deadlier because of differing weather patterns, according to the study published yesterday in the journal Energy & Environmental Science.

“There was a lot of luck involved,” said Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford, in a telephone interview. “The effects vary significantly with the meteorological conditions and the only reason this wasn’t a lot worse was because 81 percent of all the emissions were deposited over the ocean.”

The failure of backup power at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi plant, located 135 miles (220 kilometers) north of Tokyo, caused the worst atomic accident since Chernobyl in 1986.

Radiation fallout forced the evacuation of about 160,000 people surrounding the plant. It also left about 132 square kilometers as a no-go zone, some of it uninhabitable for decades. Prolonged exposure to radiation in the air, ground and food can damage DNA, causing leukemia and other cancers.

The best estimates of cancer cases resulting from the Fukushima disaster is 180, and range from 24 to 2,500, yesterday’s study said.

The most likely number of cancer deaths is 130 and estimated to range from 15 to 1,300, the authors said, adding that the ranges reflect uncertainties about emissions and the methods the researchers used to calculate their impact.

“They have demonstrated there are no significant public health effects” from radiation exposure, said Evan Douple, associate chief of research at the Hiroshima Radiation Effects Research Foundation. “Their best estimate of 130 cancer deaths in Japan would be lost in the background wash of the hundreds of thousands of cancer deaths that would be occurring in the million or so people in the population exposed.”

The biggest health effects were psychological, said Douple, whose team is studying the impact from Fukushima. Stress from the earthquake, tsunami and meltdown may cause a range of health effects, including cancer, he said.

(Full article at the link.)


Excellent. Bloomberg even quotes in the last two paragraphs above the researcher at the institution whose antecedent is the infamous Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission.

Only 130 deaths worldwide (though mostly from Japan) from 3 core melts and 900,000 terabecquerels of radioactive materials (iodine equivalent).

The abstract from Energy & Environmental Science also says that radiation exposure to workers at the plant may result in 2 to 12 cases of cancer:

This study quantifies worldwide health effects of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident on 11 March 2011. Effects are quantified with a 3-D global atmospheric model driven by emission estimates and evaluated against daily worldwide Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) measurements and observed deposition rates. Inhalation exposure, ground-level external exposure, and atmospheric external exposure pathways of radioactive iodine-131, cesium-137, and cesium-134 released from Fukushima are accounted for using a linear no-threshold (LNT) model of human exposure. Exposure due to ingestion of contaminated food and water is estimated by extrapolation. We estimate an additional 130 (15–1100) cancer-related mortalities and 180 (24–1800) cancer-related morbidities incorporating uncertainties associated with the exposure–dose and dose–response models used in the study. We also discuss the LNT model's uncertainty at low doses. Sensitivities to emission rates, gas to particulate I-131 partitioning, and the mandatory evacuation radius around the plant are also explored, and may increase upper bound mortalities and morbidities in the ranges above to 1300 and 2500, respectively. Radiation exposure to workers at the plant is projected to result in 2 to 12 morbidities. An additional [similar]600 mortalities have been reported due to non-radiological causes such as mandatory evacuations. Lastly, a hypothetical accident at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant in California, USA with identical emissions to Fukushima was studied to analyze the influence of location and seasonality on the impact of a nuclear accident. This hypothetical accident may cause [similar]25% more mortalities than Fukushima despite California having one fourth the local population density due to differing meteorological conditions.


*Definition of "morbidity": The rate of incidence of a disease.

One of the researchers, Dr. Mark Z. Jacobson, is a Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford University, California. I can see that he may be good at radioactive materials dispersion modeling. But at putting the numbers on cancer cases and deaths?


17 comments:

Anonymous said...

Excellent work ExSKF to debunk this bit of mainstream media propaganda.
Although Mark Jacobson is a "greenie" he may also be being used as a "limited hangout" (his greenie creds give him gravitas) and the Jewish Owned and Controlled Media likes to work with their own. This Mark chap looks like he is a bout 12 years old, and he is now being quoted by Synagogue going Michael Bloomberg as the source on how many deaths will occur? I much prefer the strongly anti Zionist book by Martin Cohen (Cohen means Rabbi) which takes Israel to task quite a bit but also shows how nuclear energy is a scam from every possible angle. There is a great chapter in the book showing how Wall Street and the City of London and other financeers use nuclear power as a money scam, a shell game to get tax subsidies and then just steal the money. Sound familiar? Read the book by Martin Cohen and Andrew McKillop, The Doomsday Machine (2012), absolutely must read book for all anti nuke activists and citizens of this WORLD.

Steveo said...

In the first weeks I estimated 1 to 5 million, I hold my estimate... however this was before it was known about the massive amounts of Pu aerosolized.

http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/p/uranium-aerosolized-into-atmosphere.html

Anonymous said...

Shows what utter rubbish the MSM is pumping out to the masses. Yet, they wanted to prove it with science and statistics both of which are bunk, cooked and manipulated to carry their intended message rather than the truth.

It is like the official stats of Chernobyl stated 47 death. After 20 years the actual count is in the 1-2 million is counted from real official death records. And another 3-4 M of related to radiation fall-out. The actuals are hard to come by since no one is allowed to do the actual counting .... lies and more lies is what we tend to see.

Anonymous said...

If any of this was true, could'nt we deal a hundred people waiting in the death rows to take their cancer risk against a few months of high life ( guess what I mean ) and clean all of the F. mess ?
That even could be some kind of moral salvation, or is it too "moral hazard" ?
What does Stanford stands for, BTW?
@ steveo
I don't hold any estimates, as the real casualties are still blured ( H. N. and Tch.) and probably no-one will ever know - a succes for the nuke mafia. But I know a bit of the state of things here in Europe, 26 years after the blow, and yes it is not pretty.

Anonymous said...

@ laprimavera
or arevamirpal
mordidity, as I understand it, is the ability to cause death, not only disease.
By, keep on,
B.

Chibaguy said...

I hope someone saves this link and sues Bloomberg to hell. This article is fraudulent at best. One more reason the MSM and so-called "scientists" should not be believed. How can they fast track all of this when no other study addresses what Japan will go through other than that of Belarus? Maybe a higher education is a privilege but not the ability to think. This article reads like three meltdowns and multiple explosions is just fine and dandy to today's standards. Thanks for the find Exskf!

Anonymous said...

Cancer cases may be as few as 24 or as many as 2,500, i.e., 10,000+% more. What better way to say, "We have no f-ing clue"?

And while they are being so incredibly scientific, let's all turn scientists and throw some numbers around:
If 81% of the emissions were deposited over the ocean, does that mean otherwise the number of cancer cases could be about 5 times higher (assuming a linear relationship between radiation and cancer)? So without the wind having blown towards the ocean, there might be 120 to 12,500 cases? And if there were officially ~3,600 cancer cases after Chernobyl, would this then mean the Fukushima was at least 3 times as bad as Chernobyl?

I'm just waiting for another researcher of the "radiation is good for you" category to come up with numbers how many cancer cases either accident has actually prevented and how lucky we all are that we have the occasional NPP blow up.
(sarcasm off)

@anon at 4:19: You are correct about morbidity.
*mscharisma*

Anonymous said...

I haven't been commenting much because every day, everywhere I go, the indescribably corrupt, arrogant and utterly insane hubris of humanity flaunts itself before me. Quite frankly, I'm more than tired of the constant barrage of colossal stupidity. I'm sure many of the people here feel the same way.

Mere words, face-palms and banging-head-against-wall all prove vastly inadequate for expressing even a fraction of my disgust, frustration and disappointment with humans in general.

When I hear of news such as this Stanford University... dare I say - "research", or even try to converse with most other people, I am often reminded of a random science fiction flick I glimpsed on television when I was very young. In it, aliens had brainwashed the majority of the human population, leaving the free-thinking protagonist alone and surrounded by mindless puppets who were incapable of logical thought and completely oblivious to their lobotomy.

Yesterday, I tried to tell my brother a few simple facts of life, and he disregarded my concerns with an exclamation that everything everywhere is propaganda, so he doesn't listen to anything at all. That's my brother though, and he is hardly a paragon of intelligence. Sadly, I can't expect much more from the rest of my family.

Anyway, please forgive my brief attempt at catharsis. There is little else I can do in the face of all this wirespread denial, incompetence, profiteering and outright pure lunacy that permeates nearly every inch of human society.

Anonymous said...

The credibility of Stanford University research just got infamously damaged with these researchers, who are not an expert in nuclear medicine or biology or oncology but ignoramusly and arbitrarily put the Fukushima related cancer death numbers to be "from 15 to 1,300" and "24 to 2,500" worldwide (I agree, they have no clue whatsoever).

It will do tremendous good to the humanity if Jason Gale and Mark Z. Jacobson were among those precious numbers.

Anonymous said...

These are the same kind of people who site nuclear power plants on active fault-lines with their bullshit statistics and "educated" guesses. These are the same morons that want to convince us radiation will respect the arbitrary containment circles they draw around a shatter plant. We've had three major reactor accidents and in each instance the fallout plume was determined by the weather. None of these accidents created neat circles of contamination around the plant. We have known from the first days of nuclear weapons testing that fallout plumes move in a relatively straight line sometimes for great distances. We also knew that fallout is concentrated in rain that might fall tens if not thousands of miles away depending on the weather. In fact the old AEC knew fallout from a damaged reactor made a cigar shaped contamination pattern but since accidents were "impossible" they ignored it because it would have threaten their then new civilian reactor program. With all this knowledge why would "experts" support the ridiculous little circles the nuclear industry draws?

The reason is $$$!!! scientist and experts are regularly paid to look the other way in order to allow dangerous industries to operate. The fact is if all the experts were to point out the obvious flaws in the nuclear industry it couldn't operate (and the nuclear experts would be unemployed). The 10 mile evacuation circle for NPP's in the US wasn't derived from scientific debate they arrived at that number because it was the only economical answer. As far as the industry is concerned their reactors can't release a fallout plume because it is a "beyond design parameters" event and as we can see from Fukushima they don't plan for those events. Properly evacuating a realistic fallout plume in a timely manner would be way too expensive to even contemplate. Not to mention the PR nightmare it would cause for the industry. It's a lot cheaper to pay some experts to say everything is OK. it also doesn't hurt to fund uselessly vague studies at prestigious universities either.

Remember After Chernobyl the industry claimed it could never happen in a well designed Western styled reactor because of all the containment and back up systems. None of those experts were right either.

Anonymous said...

Lo and behold, the educational system is something the central bankers and globalists have under tight control, since that's the easiest way for them to control the thinking of the 'educated' people.

Stanford, and all other so-called 'prestigious' institutions of higher education, should be suspect, because the majority of their funding comes from globalists and globalist corporations.

Anonymous said...

Jacobson has done some great work debunking the myth that the world needs baseload big power plants like nuclear. His team has modeled alternative power and smart grid. I still think Jacobson is part of the SOLUTION to ending the nuclear madness.

While the estimate of deaths seems low to me, it is still mass murder, and the TEPCO, Hakuhodo and Japan government people responsible for these murders should be brought to justice.

I have not found a copy of Jacobson's full study anywhere yet (requires login on the magazine's site). However the abstract says they DID consider internal exposure from ingested food. I'm very interested in seeing their assumptions there.

As smart as the world's scientists are, they do make mistakes. Publishing their studies allows other experts to critique them. Let's see where this goes.

For now, however, Jacobson should get the benefit of the doubt.

Anonymous said...

"It is particularly revealing that in recent years, six of Wall Street's then-largest investment banks--Citigrope, Credit Suisse, Goldbags Sucks, Lehman Jewish Brothers, Merrill Lynchmob, and Morgan Stanley (no Ollie)-- informed the US Dept of Energy that they were unwilling to extend loans for new nuclear power plants unless taxpayers shouldered 100 percent of the risks." And they got their wish: The Doomsday Machine, pg. 200

Anonymous said...

That this "report" was quoted favorably by RERF just shows this was a soft ball tossed up for the nuclear apologists gang to hit a home run with.

http://glasstone.blogspot.jp/2009/04/radiation-effects-research-foundation.html

and more on nuke apologist liars:

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.jp/2011_04_01_archive.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/03/28/deconstructing-nuclear-experts/

Anonymous said...

Jacobson has done good work, thus his Greenie street creds. The perfect double agent to play both sides (my speculation). Maybe he is sincere but he is definitely being used for political purposes, and he must know this.

Anonymous said...

If a copy of the actual journal article in Energy & Environmental Science gets posted somewhere on the internet where it can be downloaded without login, please post a link in comments. I would love to read this.

I'm sure Arine, Helen, Busby, Marco et al will be all over it as well. We'll see some discussion - and it will be discussion about how many cancers and how many deaths, not a discussion about whether there will be deaths or not. It's progress.

Anonymous said...

.thanks for sharing

Post a Comment