Category: BABYSCAN

  • Reassessing Fukushima: A Disaster of Perception, Not Technology

    Let’s recap one of the greatest industrial PR flops of all time: the Fukushima incident. Remarkably, no one died from the full meltdown of Unit 1, nor from the partial meltdowns of Units 2 and 3. Unit 4 was already offline for cleaning at the time, and Units 5 and 6 remained undamaged, continuing to produce electricity for three more years until public fear and pressure forced TEPCO to shut them down as well. While two unfortunate workers did die, it was due to an explosion, not radiation exposure.

    In stark contrast, over 2,300 people directly died from the panicked evacuation of areas where no discernible or dangerous increase in radiation levels was found. Even today, visitors to the area are required to dress more cautiously than they would for the imaginary COVID virus. It’s also worth noting that three other nuclear power stations in the region were affected by the same tsunami that hit Fukushima, yet all successfully shut down automatically when the earthquake struck and can restart without issue.

    Reports indicate that “the primary contamination spread northwest from the plant, with soil samples showing levels of caesium-137 exceeding 3 MBq/m² in some areas up to 35 km away from the reactor.” This contamination led to evacuations of approximately 15,000 residents in affected areas—scary stuff indeed.

    But what does this really mean? Let’s consider bananas and Iran.

    The caesium levels mentioned correspond to an exposure of only about 0.3 mSv per year. In comparison, Fukushima has a natural background radiation level of 5 mSv per year. For context, places like Ramsar in Iran experience natural background levels of 260 mSv per year. To put it another way, the “dangerous release” from Fukushima is akin to consuming ten bananas per day. A banana contains high levels of radioactive potassium, which accumulates in your muscles similarly to caesium.

    This also means that the death rate from evacuations was over 15%. You had a 1-in-6 chance of being killed by being moved “for your safety,” while facing a zero percent chance of harm from radiation concerns.

    Almost 20,000 people died due to the tsunami itself—a tragic natural disaster. More than 10% of those fatalities were attributed to forced, unnecessary evacuations around Fukushima.

    The real issue arises when humans become involved. It’s tragic that nuclear energy has suffered such a public relations disaster that people are terrified by news reports while slicing up a radioactive banana for breakfast. Presently, about 1 trillion yen (approximately USD 7.3 billion) is being spent on cleaning up Units 1, 2, and 3—not a small sum. But why so much? All in the name of “safety.”

    Lake Barrett—renowned for his role in the Three Mile Island disaster cleanup and currently employed for PR purposes by TEPCO—famously stated during an interview with Mike O’Brien on August 16, 2023: “Now, it depends on how low is low [radiation in water released from the plant]. To be drinkable, it’s going to be many decades—100 years or so. But that’s not really plausible at this stage.” The World Health Organisation’s limit for radiation in drinking water is set at 10,000 Bq per litre; TEPCO’s discharge limit is only 299 Bq/litre. Even Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida and other officials have publicly consumed this water. Why did Lake misrepresent this? Was it for his own PR benefit? His income from TEPCO ranges from USD 300k to USD 600k per year; if there’s no radiation problem, there’s no income—and therein lies part of the issue: individuals within the nuclear safety industry often amplify fear and misconceptions to maintain their livelihoods.

    The Fukushima incident starkly illustrates how decades of fear-mongering against nuclear energy culminated in a human disaster rather than a technical one. This was not an unprecedented failure of technology but rather a “normal” industrial accident—one among many that occur in humanity’s relentless pursuit of knowledge and progress. The real tragedy lies not in exaggerated radiation levels but in panic-driven decisions that resulted in over 2,300 deaths from evacuation—deaths that were entirely preventable.

    As we reflect on Fukushima, it is crucial to recognize that misinformation and fear often pose greater dangers than the technologies themselves. Moving forward, we must foster a more rational and informed dialogue about nuclear energy—acknowledging its potential while addressing genuine safety concerns. Only by doing so can we ensure that lessons learned from Fukushima lead us toward a more balanced understanding of risk and safety in our quest for energy solutions.

    Post Piece: Strategies to Avoid Fukushima-Type Response Failures

    • Adopt a decentralized emergency response approach that empowers local authorities and allows for tailored, quick reactions to local conditions.
    • Establish reliable communication systems that provide real-time data on plant conditions and environmental monitoring to help decision-makers assess risks accurately.
    • Conduct frequent joint training exercises involving all stakeholders—nuclear plant operators, local emergency services, and government officials—to ensure coordinated responses.
    • Create flexible evacuation plans that can be adjusted based on real-time data about radiation levels and wind directions, with pre-determined safe zones that can be activated quickly.
    • Invest in resilient infrastructure capable of withstanding natural disasters, including backup power systems for nuclear plants that remain operational even during extensive outages.
    • Implement educational programs to inform the public about nuclear safety, radiation risks, and emergency procedures to reduce fear and misinformation.
    • Convene independent review committees after any significant incident to analyze response effectiveness and identify areas for improvement—fostering continuous learning.

    By incorporating these strategies into emergency response planning, nuclear facilities—and indeed any industrial facility—can enhance their preparedness and minimise potential Fukushima-type response failures in the future. These recommendations emphasise decentralisation, communication, training, flexibility, infrastructure resilience, public education, and continuous improvement—all crucial elements in developing a comprehensive and effective emergency response framework.

    References:
    [1] https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR857.html
    [2] https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-daiichi-accident
    [3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5707945/
    [4] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7843374/
    [5] https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/13/7896
    [6] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211467X23001189
    [7] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421512006453
    [8] https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1313825110

    ➖ @TheThoriumNetwork ➖

    See more of such information on our LinkTree: Linktr.ee/TheThoriumNetwork

    Subscribe to our newsletter Newsletter Sign up and stay updated with our activities.

    #LiquidFission #GotThorium #Fission4All #RadiationIsGood4U

  • Episode 11 – Looking for Radiation – Unintended Consequences – Chapter 5 Part 1

    The Consequences of Overreaction

    ALARA = As Low As Reasonably Achievable

    LNT [Linear No Threshold Theory] was pushed through the U.N. by Russia and China in the 1950’s to stop America’s above-ground weapons testing. It worked, but it also caused a worldwide fear of radiation below levels that are dangerous.. The radiation safety people liked it because it seemed so… conservative. But it has become an ideology “ruled by hysteria and fuelled by ignorance.” Dr. Kathy Reichs, Society for the Advancement of Education.

    Cancer And Death by Radiation? Not From Fukushima, James Conca, Forbes 2014

    IAEA would recommend evacuation of the areas in RED [>166 mSv/yr]

    Japanese Government
    – Resettlement allowed < 20 mSv per year
    – Remediation Goal 1 mSv per year
    More Confusion

    The Linear No-Threshold Relationship Is Inconsistent with Radiation Biologic and Experimental Data, Tubiana, Feinendegen, Yang, Kaminski, Radiology, April 2009

    Dr. Tim Maloney: “Anyone living permanently in the green zone would only receive a dose rate equal to twice the rate in Colorado, where the cancer rate is less than the US average. The dose rate in the dark red regions is 1/3 of the safety threshold set by the International Commission on System of Radiological Protection in 1934. Even by today’s extreme standards, this level of exposure carries no known cancer risk.

    “Anxious to impress, officials and reporters donned white suits and masks, which made good TV but did nothing for the child who saw the school playground being dug up by workers who were afraid of an unseen evil called radiation. Unfortunately, most people see their fears confirmed as fact when workers and officials dress this way. An open-necked shirt with rolled-up sleeves, a firm hand shake and a cup of tea would be a better way to reassure.”

    A man uses a roller near a Geiger counter, measuring a radiation level of 0.207 microsieverts per hour, during nuclear radiation decontamination work at a park in Koriyama. Photograph: Toru Hanai/Reuters

    Imagine the anxiety created by clueless officials who provided useless information, as when a school official warned parents that the radiation intensity was 0.14 micro Sieverts per hour, which was meaningless because the normal radiation level in some Japanese cities can be five times that high.

    Officials in protective gear check for signs of radiation on children who are from the evacuation area near the Fukushima nuclear plant on March 13, 2011, two days after the accident began. Photo: Kim Kyung-Hoon/Reuters

    Fukushima Fear of Radiation Killed People

    In 2012, UNSCEAR stated, “…no clinically observable effects have been reported and there is no evidence of acute radiation injury in any of the 20,115 workers who participated in Tepco’s efforts to mitigate the accident at the plant.”

    A year later, UNSCEAR added: “Radiation exposure following the accident at Fukushima Daiichi did not cause any immediate health effects. It is unlikely [that there will be] any health effects among the general public and the vast majority of workers.”

    And in an April, 2014 follow-up, UNSCEAR reported that, “Overall, people in Fukushima are expected on average to receive less than 10 mSv due to the accident over their whole lifetime, compared with the 170 mSv lifetime dose from natural background radiation that most people in Japan typically receive.”

    Finally, in October, 2015, UNSCEAR confirmed that none of the new information accumulated after the 2013 report “materially affected the main findings in, or challenged the major assumptions of, the 2013 report.” However, despite these positive reports, as of November, 2016, most of the 150,000 people who were forced to evacuate still lived in temporary housing.

    Dr. Jane Orient, who practices internal medicine agreed: “The number of radiation casualties from the meltdown of the Fukushima nuclear reactors stands at zero. In Fukushima Prefecture, the casualties from radiation terror number more than 1,600… The U.S. is vulnerable to the same radiation terror as occurred in Japan because of using the wrong dose-response model, which is based on the linear no- threshold hypothesis (LNT), for assessing radiation health risks.”

    The number of radiation casualties from the meltdown of the Fukushima nuclear reactors stands at zero.

    Dr. Jane Orient

    The following is an excerpt from Whole-body Counter Surveys of over 2700 babies and small children in and around Fukushima Prefecture from 33 to 49 months after the Fukushima Daiichi NPP accident:

    BABYSCAN – Peekaboo – Looking for Radiation

    “The BABYSCAN, a whole-body counter (WBC) for small children, was developed in 2013, and units have been installed at three hospitals in Fukushima Prefecture. Between December, 2013 and March, 2015, 2702 children between the ages of 0 and 11 have been scanned, and none had a detectable level of cesium-137.” (The anti-nuclear crowd had been obsessing about exposure to cesium-137.)

    Extensive radiation study finds no internal cesium exposure in Fukushima children

    Positive reports like this rarely appear in our American press, which frustrates professionals like Leslie Corrice, a former nuclear power plant operator, environmental monitoring technician, health physics design engineer, public education coordinator and emergency planner who writes the informative and highly respected blog, The Hiroshima Syndrome.

    In Radiation: The No-Safe-Level Myth, Corrice writes,

    “As long as the LNT theory is maintained, our fear of radiation will continue to damage the psyche of all humanity, restrict the therapeutic and healing effects of non-lethal doses of radiation, limit the growth of green nuclear energy, and needlessly prolong the burning of fossil fuels to produce electricity.

    “In 1987, when I was frustrated because it seemed like the major news outlets bent over backwards to broadcast negative nuclear reports while seemingly ignoring anything positive, a former Press manager with a major news outlet in Cleveland took me aside and gave me the facts of life.

    He first explained that the Press is a moneymaking venture. The ratings determine advertising income; the lifeblood of the business – and the surefire money-makers were war, presidential elections, natural disasters and airline crashes.

    the surefire money-makers were war, presidential elections, natural disasters and airline crashes.

    Cleveland press manager

    “Turning to Three Mile Island, he said the ratings sky-rocketed and stayed that way for the better part of two weeks. In the years that followed, the media found that negative reports caused an increase in ratings, and positive stuff didn’t. This trend slowly dwindled, but Chernobyl re-ignited the ratings impact of nuclear accident reporting and proved that broadcasting the negative was better for business

    “He added that the media might someday entirely ignore the positive and only report the negative in regard to nuclear energy, and he speculated that all it would take was one more accident. Unfortunately, he was right. Fukushima has pushed the world’s Press into the journalistic dark side. My Fukushima Updates blog has lashed the Japanese Press and the world’s news media outside Japan severely for primarily reporting the negative…. A recent example concerns the child care thyroid study in Fukushima Prefecture during the past four years.

    “On October 5, 2015, four PhDs in Japan alleged in the Tsuda Report that the Fukushima accident had spawned a thyroid cancer epidemic among the prefecture’s children, which contradicted the Fukushima Univ. Medical School, Japanese Research Center for Cancer Prevention and Screening, and National Cancer Center, which all found that the detected child thyroid precancerous anomalies in Fukushima Prefecture cannot be realistically linked to the accident. Regardless, the Tsuda Report’s claim made major headlines in Japan, then spread to mainstream outlets outside Japan, including UPI and AP.

    “Here’s the problem. In December 2013, a scientific report was published on a comparison of the rate of child thyroid, pre-cancerous anomalies in Fukushima Prefecture with the rates in three prefectures hundreds of kilometers distant: Aomori, Yamanashi and Nagasaki.

    “The Fukushima University medical team studying the issue had discovered that there was no prior data on child thyroid cancer rates in Japan, so there was nothing to compare the 2012 results to.

    “Because of the furor caused by the original release of their findings in 2012, the team decided to take matters into their own hands and offer free testing to volunteer families in the distant prefectures. Nearly 5,000 parents took advantage of the opportunity and had their children screened.

    “What was found was completely unexpected. The abnormality rates in Aomori, Yamanashi and Nagasaki Prefectures were actually higher than that discovered in Fukushima Prefecture, which conclusively indicated that the radiation from the Fukushima accident had no negative impact on the health of the thyroid glands in Fukushima’s children. Just one Japanese Press outlet mentioned the 2013 discovery at the very end of an article about a few more children being found to have the anomalies in Fukushima….

    no negative impact on the health of the thyroid glands in Fukushima’s children.

    Fukushima University

    “On the other hand, when a maverick team of four Japanese with PhDs publish a highly questionable report – full of so many holes that it should be tossed into the trash – alleging a severe cancer problem caused by the Fukushima accident, it gets major coverage inside Japan and significant coverage by the world’s mainstream press!

    “It is important to emphasize that the Tsuda Report fails to acknowledge the fact that Prefectures unaffected by the Fukushima accident had the higher anomaly rates. (Which is why the Tsuda Report is worthy of the trash heap.)

    “The media might not make money off sharing the good news about Fukushima, but they are committing a moral crime against humanity by not doing it.”

    Fukushima’s Children Aren’t Dying, New American, October 20, 2014

    Tritiated Water From Fukushima To Be Discharged Into Pacific, Andrew Karam, Ph.D., CHP, April 23, 2021

    Fukushima’s Children Aren’t Dying

    Coming up next week, Episode 12 – The Dismay of Radiophobia


    Links and References

    1. Next Episode – Episode 12 – The Dismay of Radiophobia
    2. Previous Episode – Episode 10 – Hormesis: How Radiation is Good for You
    3. Launching the Unintended Consequences Series
    4. Dr. George Erickson’s Website, Tundracub.com
    5. The full pdf version of Unintended Consequences
    6. https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/glossary/alara.html
    7. https://www.thefreelibrary.com/LNT+Has+Been+TNT+to+Humanity.-a0677253825
    8. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/05/04/cancer-and-death-by-radiation-not-from-fukushima/
    9. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2663584/
    10. https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Contamination_dropping_in_evacuation_zone_0706131.html
    11. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/gallery/2014/mar/10/fukushima-children-play-indoors-earthquake-tsunami-nuclear-in-pictures
    12. https://www.ibtimes.com/new-fukushima-radiation-study-looks-ahead-future-cancer-risks-1557613
    13. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-daiichi-accident.aspx
    14. https://www.drjaneorient.com/
    15. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26460321/
    16. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/10/09/national/science-health/extensive-radiation-study-finds-no-internal-cesium-exposure-fukushima-children/
    17. https://www.linkedin.com/in/leslie-corrice-49a8b230/
    18. https://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com/
    19. https://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com/radiation-the-no-safe-level-myth.html
    20. https://thenewamerican.com/fukushima-s-children-aren-t-dying/
    21. https://www.acsh.org/news/2021/04/23/tritiated-water-fukushima%C2%A0-be-discharged-pacific-15496

    #GeorgeErickson #UnintendedConsequences #Fukushima #ALARA #BABYSCAN