Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.
Display:
Cancer rates, stillbirths, disabilities at birth will shoot up. I call that uninhabitable.

The Japanese will have the statistics of the consequences of radioactive matter on one hand and their jobs and homes on the other hand. A Geiger counter doesn't help. There are hot spots and there are spots that are cleaner.

Imagine people who have just got a real job, hope for a career, pay a mortgage for a home that they can't sell because more people leave than move into the area. A high cancer rate doesn't mean everyone gets cancer. There will even be healthy children being born, even if there is a high rate of disabilities.  What would you do, move away?

And what will people do who don't live in Japan, but live near a nuke that so far hasn't melted down, but it could? Or people who are told that a new plant is planned in their area?

by Katrin on Mon Apr 2nd, 2012 at 03:59:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Sigh. You dont get it. Radiation is a carciogen, but it is a relatively weak one. heck, it gets used to treat cancers. For results of the kind you anticipate, the average lifetime dose of a citizen of northern Japan would need to be increased by an order of magnitude as a result of the accident. Which just flat out did not happen, and will not happen. Basically, what you are anticipating is roughly equivalent to accusing a smoker of mass murder-by-cancer because he smoked a pack of cigarettes inside city limits.  
by Thomas on Mon Apr 2nd, 2012 at 04:15:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Sigh. You don't get it. I am not talking about radiation, I am talking about radioactive matter which you eat or inhale. Your citing the pack of cigarettes isn't the prelude to citing the inter-continental flight, I hope.
by Katrin on Mon Apr 2nd, 2012 at 04:21:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I guess we'll have statistics on that next year.

How much has the still birth rate in Japan risen so far? That should be showing up by now, and it should be at its peak, surely? The radiation level is dropping all the time, as far as I know.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Apr 2nd, 2012 at 04:29:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Figures for stillbirths would be fine. I don't find any. In Germany after Chernobyl they peaked 9 months after the disaster, should be the same for Japan. And there we had radiation levels that were completely harmless TM too, of course.
by Katrin on Mon Apr 2nd, 2012 at 04:51:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
On births I only found this so far in reliable sources (there is also a Japanese video blog made around the anniversary claiming that stillbirth statistics are being assembled but kept under wraps):

Fukushima, Tokyo log fewer births | The Japan Times Online

The number of births between April and June slumped 25 percent in Fukushima Prefecture and also declined significantly in Tokyo, Chiba and Kanagawa prefectures, but the tally rose in northern and western Japan, a recent survey showed.

The Japan Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which conducted the nationwide survey, believes many pregnant evacuees gave birth in areas they considered to be at less risk of radioactive fallout from the Fukushima nuclear crisis.

I also found this:

573 deaths 'related to nuclear crisis' : National : DAILY YOMIURI ONLINE (The Daily Yomiuri)

A total of 573 deaths have been certified as "disaster-related" by 13 municipalities affected by the crisis at the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, according to a Yomiuri Shimbun survey.

This number could rise because certification for 29 people remains pending while further checks are conducted.

...A disaster-related death certificate is issued when a death is not directly caused by a tragedy, but by fatigue or the aggravation of a chronic disease due to the disaster...

IOW these deaths are (prbably) not related to radiation or pollution, but evacuation conditions.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Mon Apr 2nd, 2012 at 05:33:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Radioactive particles give off radiation. If there was a lot of them floating about, they would set off the counters. In fact, if there was any amount of them about, they would set off the counters. Radiation detection equipent is ridiculusly sensitive.

And again, ingesting or inhaling radioactives is not as carciogenic as you would think. People who had accidents while working in the bomb programmes have gone on to die of heartfailure at age ninety with plutonium in their bodies.

by Thomas on Mon Apr 2nd, 2012 at 04:32:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Funny that anecdotal evidence in favour of nuclear power always is conclusive, while deaths by radioactive matter are only anecdotal evidence.
by Katrin on Mon Apr 2nd, 2012 at 04:56:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
People who had accidents while working in the bomb programmes have gone on to die of heartfailure at age ninety with plutonium in their bodies.

sounds rather like " My grandmother smoked 40 a day and died in her bed at age 90"

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Mon Apr 2nd, 2012 at 06:52:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It is exactly like that. The point is that radioactivity is carciogenic, but it is not a powerful "one exposure and you die" carciogen. There are chemical carciogens where one droplet dooms you to a horrific death, but radioactives are much weaker than that.
Dose, general health, and genetics matter. And we have quite good statistics on exactly how powerful it is, and the likely killcount from this accident is in the single digits.
by Thomas on Tue Apr 3rd, 2012 at 12:32:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
radiation related deaths, that is. The evacuation killed orders of magnitude more. In theory it might have been better to just tell everyone to stay put and eat the exposure, but obviously the authorities couldnt know in advance exactly how much would hit the area near the site.
by Thomas on Tue Apr 3rd, 2012 at 12:37:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Thomas:
It is exactly like that.

In other words duplicitous propaganda by means of anecdote?

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Apr 3rd, 2012 at 04:15:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Then you have all the Manhattan Project scientists who died of cancer.

There are three stories about the euro crisis: the Republican story, the German story, and the truth. -- Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Apr 3rd, 2012 at 04:23:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But a nexus to radioactivity is unproven. Perhaps they had just smoked too much.
by Katrin on Tue Apr 3rd, 2012 at 04:52:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I am obviously being very unclear here. Let me see if I can make a post that is clear. Hmm.

Okay, Radiation is a carciogen. A carciogen very like all other carciogens. If I came across as trying to deny that radiation causes cancer, then I am very sorry, because the science behind the link is based on very large samples both in animal experiments and follow up studies on accidential human exposure and these data have been gone over with an astonishingly fine comb over and over again. Radiation is one of the most well understood carciogens. And one of the things which is very well understood about radiation is exactly how powerful a carciogen it is. If you get so-and-so many extra rems, then publically available statistics will tell you exactly how much this increased your lifetime risk of cancer above the baseline.
Radiation levels are also very easy to measure. - basic Geiger counters good enough to detect even very minor variations in background radiation can be bought for the price of a resturant meal, or built by anyone capable of reading basic blueprints and not soldering their own tumb onto a circut board. Scientific grade radiation measurement equipment is even more ridiculusly sensitive, and ubiquitous because it is so very useful in nearly every branch of science.  
What this means is that the level of additional radiation in northern japan is not in doubt. A conspiracy to lie about it would simply not work - the published numbers have to be correct, because anyone and everyone down to highschool students looking to score extra credits can check them.

Finally, northern japan just did not recive enough rems to do anything to the cancer rate. Which is why I objected so vorciousferly to the "uninhabitable" claim. It is simply wrong. The evacuation zone did recive doses that would statistically matter, but the only people in it at that point in time were the emergency workers.

by Thomas on Tue Apr 3rd, 2012 at 04:54:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not a very practical-minded person, I suspect. You are harping on these Geiger counters!

My daughter used to eat lots of sand when she was a baby. I don't know why, but try to argue with a baby... Do you seriously believe I would have used a Geiger counter to see how much sand she could eat without increasing her risk of cancer in a statistically relevant way?! I wouldn't have taken her to the beach, if I had had reason to suspect radioactivity there and that's that. And then I would have raised hell about nukes (I have always done that anyway).

I could write a terribly long post about the contamination after Chernobyl and compare it to northern Japan, but what for? Fortunately even CEO's of nuclears admit that nuclear power is too expensive to be considered if its dangers can somehow be downplayed. Hey, it's too expensive anyway! We are flogging a dead horse here.

by Katrin on Tue Apr 3rd, 2012 at 05:16:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The point is that if people walk down that beach with a counter and say that there is no unusual radiation there, then you have reason to belive that there is no  radiation risk there - this is a case where you can prove a negative.  And this isnt a matter of trusting the authorities, because it is so very easy to check their work, and people do. I mean, the first time I held a counter, I was.. 12? yes, think it was twelve, and we were being dragged on an excursion.
by Thomas on Tue Apr 3rd, 2012 at 05:26:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The point is that if people walk down that beach with a counter and say that there is no unusual radiation there, then you have reason to belive that there is no  radiation risk there - this is a case where you can prove a negative

Alpha radiation: short range, low energy, easier to miss with a casual screening with the detector, harmless outside the body. Deadly if ingested/inhaled.

There are three stories about the euro crisis: the Republican story, the German story, and the truth. -- Paul Krugman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Apr 3rd, 2012 at 05:29:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But you do have unusual radiation in Japan. It now depends if a baby hits on the contaminated sand or on the clean spot a few inches away. A few grammes of sand might just contain radioactive particles and kill a child. This is not statistically relevant. You can then take out your Geiger counter and calculate how much sand of that beach a child can eat per week. It is done by statistical relevance, nothing else. The fault in your thought is that you believe parents think in the same way, about statistical risk.
by Katrin on Tue Apr 3rd, 2012 at 05:41:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Grown-ups can perhaps minimise their risk by adapting their behaviour. It would mean a loss in the quality of life. Children cannot even do that. "Inhabitable" is a term that must take that into account. "Inhabitable" means that I don't have to use a Geiger counter.
by Katrin on Tue Apr 3rd, 2012 at 05:50:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Katrin also made the point that contamination doesn't just result in an increase of ambient radiation, but also in increased exposure to inhaled or ingested radioactive nuclides. And that is what's deadly. Remember Alexander Litvinenko? Polonium is a very weak alpha emitter so it is harmless as far as background radiation goes, but inhale picograms of it and you'll die a horrible death in threee weeks, and not exactly because of the carcinogenic effects.

There are three stories about the euro crisis: the Republican story, the German story, and the truth. -- Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Apr 3rd, 2012 at 05:19:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Thomas:
Radiation is a carciogen, but it is a relatively weak one. heck, it gets used to treat cancers.
Yeah, because highly localised radiation will kill the tissue. In the case of radiation, what doesn't kill you doesn't make you stronger (contra the Marvel/DC comic superhero universe) but may give you cancer.

Katrin:

I am talking about radioactive matter which you eat or inhale
Thomas:
And again, ingesting or inhaling radioactives is not as carciogenic as you would think.
I am not inhaling any weak alpha emitters, thank you very much.

Look at it this way: alpha emission is short range even in air and won't set off detectors at a distance like beta or gamma will. In addition, it will be stopped by the skin. So alpha in the environment is harmless. But if you ingest it, the beta and gamma will mosly just fly out of your body as if it were transparent but the alpha will be deposited in your body in its entirety. And it won't be stopped by a layer of dead skin cells but the energy will be deposited in live tissue in the respiratory, digestive, or circulatory systems.

There are three stories about the euro crisis: the Republican story, the German story, and the truth. -- Paul Krugman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Apr 3rd, 2012 at 05:28:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Wikipedia: Alpha particle
Because of the short range of absorption, alphas are not, in general, dangerous to life unless the source is ingested or inhaled, in which case they become extremely dangerous. Because of this high mass and strong absorption, if alpha-emitting radionuclides do enter the body (upon being inhaled, ingested, or injected, as with the use of Thorotrast for high-quality X-ray images prior to the 1950s), alpha radiation is the most destructive form of ionizing radiation. It is the most strongly ionizing, and with large enough doses can cause any or all of the symptoms of radiation poisoning. It is estimated that chromosome damage from alpha particles is anywhere from 10 to 1000 times greater than that caused by an equivalent amount of gamma or beta radiation, with the average being set at 20 times. ...


There are three stories about the euro crisis: the Republican story, the German story, and the truth. -- Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Apr 3rd, 2012 at 05:38:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Pentecost steam

by DoDo - May 23
39 comments

A Nomad's Life (A Farewell)

by Nomad - May 10
14 comments

Simple Solar Principles

by gmoke - May 17
2 comments

Rail News Blogging #24

by DoDo - May 12
11 comments

Ferguson hates on Keynes

by Migeru - May 6
100 comments

Occasional Series