Hello all, just wondering if moving back to Fukushima with my kids aged,8,6,5,2 and5 months, would be a good move or not?
It is always hard to know what to do with so many conflicting reports out there. I prefer to stay on the safer side of the fence.
I don't know if any of you live in Japan but are you aware of the abuse people from fukushima are putting up with when they travel outside the Prefecture? Mark and Peter would you set your family up in Fukushima? I'M Not trolling, I have to decide what to do soon and what mental strain and stress I would be asking my kids to deal with.
Please find the time to comment.
Thanks
Terry

Mark and Terry are quite right the risk is VERY low. But I disagree with their comments.
The BIER VI report 2005 makes it quite clear ( as do peak medical bodies in this field ) that current evidence suggests that a "linear no threshold" relationship exists between exposure (to ionising radiation) and damamge / ill health.
So while low exposure really does represent low risk - it does not represent "no risk".
There is another disingenguous argument creeping in here, and that is, treating all radiation sources as equal. They are not.
External, low LET ( linear energy transfer ), such as background cosmis radiation, whilst it may cause immediate damage, does not result in ongoing genetic damatinc.
High LET radiation, such as radio-isotopes from nuclear reactions, if ongested or inhaled, result in ongoing and cumulative damage to DNA.
SOme of these isotopes are preferentially taken up in our bodies and bio-concentrated ( such a Iodine in the Thyroid and Strontium in bones ). Similarly Caesium in vegetables.
Alex metions Radon, and this is similar - Radon occurs naturaly and also asa result of Uranium mining. Approx 8% of lung cancer deaths in the USA are attributed to Radon exposure.
So personally - I probably wouldn't take my children to Fukushima, because whilst small, there is a risk.
I dispute the claim by Mark that this is based in "ignorance". I have read most of the medical literature on this subject and am well placed to evaluate it.

George, you shouldn't take your children to any place in Japan, because natural radiation levels are higher there than in most other non=volcanic, non-granitic locales. New Zealand is probably as dangerous.

But the real error you cite is the linear dose-effect relationship. It was disproven at Hiroshima & Nagasaki, at Chernobyl, and was revealed to have come from an intentional lie decades ago...
http://tinyurl.com/4xqwzjc (the lie about no safe rad level)

And many confirmations exist today...
www.monbiot.com/2011/11/22/how-the-greens-were-misled/
www.miller-mccune.com/science/is-radiation-actually-good-for-some-of-us-39703/
http://manhaz.cyf.gov.pl/manhaz/szkola/materials/S3/psi_materials/ENSAD98.pdf
www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-Low_risk_from_major_accident_consequences-0202127.html
www.washingtonpost.com/national/nuclear-power-is-safest-way-to-makeelectricity-
according-to-2007-study/2011/03/22/AFQUbyQC_story.html?hpid=z3 or: http://tinyurl.com/3nwjboz
www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_New_data_on_low_dose_radiation_2112111.html

So, if one doesn't think Ma Nature is stupid, one will be open to the reality that every living cell has self-corrective functions that deal with both radiological damage and chemical damage -- the latter being far more prevalent, serious & lasting.

For example, our bones & flesh necessarily use Potassium. Its natural radioactive isotope, 40Potassium, occurs in many foods, including bananas. For a few billion years, Ma Nature has had to deal with radiation, more so in the past, because radioactivity means some atoms are disappearing into more stable ones. And, after photosynthesis, animals that developed air breathing for its advantages had a far worse, corrosive danger in oxygen. Eat your dark-skinned fruits & veges, gang.

So, each of our cells does a DNA or protein correction every second. We have about 10 trillion cells. Do we really think that Ma Nature can't handle low doses of Oxygen or ionizing radiation without developing cancers, etc? If so, we'd be born cancerous.

Fact is, something like 30 times the yearly allowed dose for individuals is correctable by our natural defenses. That means no detectable cancer induction, etc. from being at Chernobyl for some days now, or having several CT scans a month... http://www.xkcd.com/radiation/

The results of studying both atomic bomb survivors and Chernobyl survivors show that not only is there indeed a threshold for radiation effect well above 0.1 Sievert, there's an increase in longevity for doses below that value. Think about it. We exercise because we need to keep our facilities in good shape, even strengthening them. Our cellular-repair mechanisms are no different -- up to a point (about 1/sec/cell), challenges to them make them stronger.

This is why there are so few radiation-induced cancers/deaths in populations around Chernobyl that they can't be detected above the normal death rates. Same is true for A-bomb victims, studied for decades. Same will likely be true for the Japanese in the 30-year study committed to re Fukushima.

There are many studies to draw upon, and clear books, such as "Radiation and Reason", by W. Allison.

Chemistry is far more dangerous than hundreds of Sieverts (Watt-Seconds) of radiation, because many bad chemicals just never go away.

Watch those bananas & granite counter tops!

If the "low dose radiation exposure" has been "debunked" then perhaps you should inform WHO, who state: "Low doses of radiation can increase the risk of longer term effects such as cancer".
http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/en/

and the United States Environmental Protection Agency which also endorses the LNT model in its 2011 report on radiogenic cancer risk: (p7) Underlying the risk models is a large body of epidemiological and radiobiological data. In general, results from both lines of research are consistent with a linear, no- threshold response on which the risk of inducing a cancer in an irradiated tissue by low doses of IR is proportional to that tissue. http://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/assessment/draft-RGCRMPUSPv1.pdf

So when you say "it has been debunked" and that I am wrong - I take exception, because whilst there may be some doubt, the nature of your assertion is unreasonable and unsubstantiated. And making comments such as "the lie about no safe rad level" sounds a little Moncktonesque to me.

In truth there is some uncertainty as to whether a true threshold exists or not, but that uncertainty does not disprove a LNT model. Personally I am happy to accept the position of the experts on this matter, as I am with climate change.

Yes, I have - the "Junkscience" post by notorious climate denier Steve Millloy refers to claims of lies bt Mueller in 1946. Well that's interesting but hardly conclusive.

I am not sure if you have read the BIER VII phase 2 - but establishing these biological effects is the aim of this extensive study (as the acronym suggests ) and the finding is: "THe committee judged that the linear no-threshold model (LNT) provided the most reasonable description of the relation between low-dose exposure to ionising radiation and the incidence of solid cancers that are induced by radiation". ( Whereas this may not be the case for leukamia which may follow a "linear quadratic" relationship ).

If that is "debunking" then so be it.

This is the conclusion from reviewing"all the evidence" - ( Selecting one study as proof is "cherry picking" as you well know ).

For example, the committee also noted that some studies suggest that lower doses are MORE harmful than estimated by the LNT model. THe studies they site supporting LNT include: Hiroshima / Nagasaki, Oxford Survey of Childhood Cancer and, Risk of radiation induced cancers at low doses and low dose rates for radiation protection purposes ( Cox et al 1995 ) and extensive supporting data in mice, also the "committee has concluded that there is no compelling evidence to indicate a dose threshold below which the risk of tumor induction is zero."

George, there have been various studies around the world, including very long-term ones related to A-bombs and workers esposes to various radiation sources over short & long term.

The bureaucracies won't change safety limits for very political reasons, or until embarrassed, as they already should be by how doctors & radiologists use radiation to kill cancers -- it only works because LNT is false. If LNT were true, no radiation treatments would do anything but kill & scar normal tissue, perhaps kill some cancers, and breed new ones. Radiologists know all about this.

Here are some of the studies you could look up...
Mitchell & Boresham, "Radiation Protection in the World of Modern Radiobiology", IRPA Hiroshima.
"Sources & Effects of Ionizing Radiation", UNSCEAR 1994 report to the UN.
Polycove & Feinendegen, "Low-Dose Radio-Immune Therapy of Cancer", Human Experimental Toxicology.
Darby et al, "Radon in Homes and Risk of Lung Cancer..." and "Residential Radon and Lung Cancer...", British Medical Journal & Scandinavian of Work, environment and Health.
Rowland et al, "Bone Sarcoma in Humans, Induced by Radium", Radioprotection.

For much more insight, "Radiation & Health" is good. Basically, up to 0.1 Sievert, once or periodically, has no effect, or reduces the effect of later exposures (Hormesis). Above 0.1Sv, cancer may begin appearing. But the cellular repair mechanisms blot out effects below that, as common sense would suggest by Ma Nature not being dumb. Thus the 0.0001Sv standard is low by a factor of 1000 and even low by a factor of about 40 compared to natural background radiation. The emotional toll, from scaring people who've been exposed below 0.1Sv, is documented and a disgrace.

PS, if you still believe in the LNT myth, hope to never get a cancer that radiation will best cure.
;]

PPS, I'll be giving a talk on radiation & health here on 31 May, swing by...
www.thoriumenergyalliance.com/

"..... how doctors & radiologists use radiation to kill cancers -- it only works because LNT is false. If LNT were true, no radiation treatments would do anything but kill & scar normal tissue, perhaps kill some cancers, and breed new ones. Radiologists know all about this."

No. I don't think you understand Radiotherapy. Allow me to explain: Radiotherapy exploits the radiosensitivity of cells. Rapidly dividing cells are more sensitive to chemotherapy and radiotherapy as cells that are in the process of cell division and replication are more vulnerable ( ie cancer cells and to a lesser degree gut and skin cells ).

Secondly radiotherapy, DXT, is targeted so that a greater dose is delivered to a specific site. This is achieved using either external beam DXT and focusing it on a specific area or implanting small radioactive seeds. Otherwise the normal tissue is excessively damaged.

Similarly we know from medical studies that there is a greater risk of subsequent malignancy in people who have received ( and survived radiotherapy ). There is an 8 - 10% increased risk of secondary malignancy attributable to DXT and Chemo. "Long-Term Survivors of Childhood Cancer: The Late Effects of Therapy"
(Schwartz) http://theoncologist.alphamedpress.org/content/4/1/45.full

There are literally dozens of papers documenting this in a variety of situations where medical radiation treatment has been used. The good thing (if there is one) about these studies is that the exposure is really well documented, making subsequent analysis and follow up much easier.

The effect has also been observed in people who have had radiation for benign and malignant conditions: the latent interval typically around 15 years. This is complicated by the fact that some people carry genetic predispositions that also increase radio-sensitivity. ( as you would say Ma Nature sometimes gets it wrong ). But it really demonstrates that this effect is relative and not absolute, ie all cells are radio-sensitive - just some more than others.

- Malignant transformation and new primary tumours after therapeutic radiation for benign disease: substantial risks in certain tumour prone syndromes - Evans et al 2006, is a good paper on this subject: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2563223/

[ When you say "Radiologist" I assume you mean "Radiotherapist". Radiologists use Xrays ( and other modalities ) for imaging - Radiotherapists use Xrays to treat cancer].

You should know that so called "Hormesis" is highly contraversial.

I have been going over some of your references: I would suggest limiting yourself to peer reviewed journals. You probably haven't read some of your references either - eg http://www.miller-mccune.com/science/is-radiation-actually-good-for-some-of-us-39703/ ( not a peer reviewed journal ) which discusses differing views of some researchers - suggesting that there ma be a new paradigm ahead, but at the moment we see it through the glass darkly".

You also refer to the 1994 UNSCEAR paper - I would suggest you read the 2010 UNSCEAR paper: http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2010/UNSCEAR_2010_Report_M.pdf

It clearly states: " Radiation can simultaneously damage both strands of the DNA double helix, often resulting in breakage of the DNA molecule with associated complex chemical change." "This type of complex DNA damage is difficult to repair correctly, and even at low doses of radiation is it likely that there is a very small but non-zero chance of the production of DNA mutations that increase the risk of developing cancer. Thus, the current balance of available evidence tends to favour a non-threshold response for mutational component of radiation-associated cancer induction at low doses and low dose rates."

One other thing - I pointed out previoulsy that leukaemia may not follow the exposure same relationship as solid tumours. It is also the case that non-cancer disease may indeed have a threshold of around 100mGy.

I think you would be entirely disingenuous to give a talk based on the information you have detailed here. it is, shall we say, suggestive of ideology in search of evidence, rather than the conclusion of critical thinking.