You could always read the report that I linked to Luke.

"Much was learned from the Chernobyl accident about low dose radiation exposure, including the risk of thyroid cancer among children. Although the positive effects of administering stable iodine and the proper timing were fully known, the government’s nuclear emergency response headquarters and the prefectural government failed to give proper instructions to the public."

Perhaps the main advice from the report was to not let your country's nuclear policy be taken over by nuclear industry.

"From TEPCO’s perspective, new regulations would have interfered with plant operations and weakened their stance in potential lawsuits. That was enough motivation for TEPCO to aggressively oppose new safety regulations and draw out negotiations with regulators via the Federation of Electric Power Companies (FEPC). The regulators should have taken a strong position on behalf of the public, but failed to do so. As they had firmly committed themselves to the idea that nuclear power plants were safe, they were reluctant to actively
create new regulations."

Let us repeat that for emphasis

"firmly committed themselves to the idea that nuclear power plants were safe"

Read the comments on this thread from the nuclear cultists and you get a good idea of the hubris (and on this thread, denial of nuclear risk bordering on bizarre) that The National Diet of Japan, Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission was railing against.

geoff, you seen recent deformed births in fallujah? Like the idea of twoheads?
lungs outside the body?,??Your grandchildren?
seen anyone missing a digit? sawmiller, or child of irradiated heritage?
talking cancers, Ever realise that maralinga,....had a dust cloud,....which blew all over australias food bowl,..? that maralinga itself still has hot spots?..

statistics anyone?or prefer white noise!

try second generation studies!
radiation external, and radiation internal are different.the first a one off, the second,ingested,is a continuing,... like asbestos, continuing antagonist...repeated malevolence... you know the demeanour??

"Somebody has just made up this story about it being due to depleted uranium and people who don't bother to check anything at all just lap it up."

You are quite the radiation crank Geoff. You need to read beyond the nuclear cult sites.

"In aggregate the human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects in offspring of persons exposed to DU."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16124873

"This brings us to the point where we are currently at, where the potential for DU exposure is increasing but our knowledge of potential health outcomes from exposure falls short. Animal studies suggest that DU can have a negative impact on the brain, kidney, and bones of mature animals. The data also suggests that the developing animal may be at risk and that there may be a greater risk of radiation induced cancers that originally thought. But, all of this data is only suggestive until it can be tied to meaningful human research. We do not even have a reasonable idea of the typical DU intake of people living in regions where DU munitions have been used. This lack of fundamental information makes extrapolation from animal data to humans a strictly academic exercise. The few human studies that are out there are limited to military service personnel who have different exposure profile than we would expect for civilians, or the studies are limited in usefulness by their design and sample type [2]."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2819790/

"More than 40 sites across Iraq are contaminated with high levels or radiation and dioxins, with three decades of war and neglect having left environmental ruin in large parts of the country, an official Iraqi study has found.

Areas in and near Iraq's largest towns and cities, including Najaf, Basra and ­Falluja, account for around 25% of the contaminated sites, which appear to coincide with communities that have seen increased rates of cancer and birth defects over the past five years. The joint study by the environment, health and science ministries found that scrap metal yards in and around Baghdad and Basra contain high levels of ionising radiation, which is thought to be a legacy of depleted uranium used in munitions during the first Gulf war and since the 2003 invasion."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/22/iraq-nuclear-contaminated-sites

"The risk of veterans reporting birth defects among their children was significantly associated with veteran's military service in the Gulf War. "
http://www.annalsofepidemiology.org/article/PIIS1047279701002459/abstract

"Chromosome aberrations and sister chromatid exchanges (SCEs) were determined in standard peripheral lymphocyte metaphase preparations of 13 British Gulf War veterans, two veterans of the recent war in the Balkans and one veteran of both wars. All 16 volunteers suspect exposures to depleted uranium (DU) while deployed at the two different theatres of war in 1990 and later on."
http://www.cerrie.org/committee_papers/INFO_9-H.pdf

What any of this has to do with Indian nuclear power is beyond me. It's all rather like suggesting a ban on swimming pools because they use chemicals found in mustard gas.

But, lets continue anyway. The original suggestion seemed to be that the normal thyroid lumps are somehow relevant to Indians building nuclear power because of birth defects in Fallujah. Yes? And the whole can of worms tumbles out.

Mike, the studies you cite are all excellent reasons why I'd be extremely certain that the birth defects in Fallujah have nothing to do with radiation or depleted uranium. They are talking about effects in a quite different ballpark.

E.g, the data on Basra in your first study show a spike in birth defects 10 years after the 1990 war but before the 2003 invasion and that spike is 20 per 1000 ... compared to normal rates of 1 or 2 or 3. Fallujah has been hit by 100 to 200. Whatever was happening in Basra is very different and very clearly nothing to do with radiation, there simply aren't enough Sieverts anywhere. So the cause is most likely chemical. Now I wonder if there are any other chemicals in the war torn areas besides DU? I wonder if DU has been used elsewhere without a massive and unmissable spike in birth defects?

Good epidemiology is mainly about controlling for confounders ... other possible causes of a problem. If you only have one suspect then its not hard to cherry pick enough data to find them guilty.

There you go, plus'd it up for you.

I agree that it is not directly related to the topic at hand. I was responding to your claim "Somebody has just made up this story about it being due to depleted uranium and people who don't bother to check anything at all just lap it up."

Well clearly that is bull shite. It was not made up. You can disagree with the studies but you cannot claim that they do not exist.

"In aggregate the human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects in offspring of persons exposed to DU."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16124873

Your attitude to DU is the same as your attitude to radiation risk - you take uncertainty about the risk to mean that there is no risk.

But never mind Geoff - with the right sort of marketing, you could become the pro-nuke's Chris Busby. Your claim that the evacuation of Fukushima was only due to scaremongering is the sort of comment that you should be spread far and wide - who needs anti-nuclear activists when people like you are on the job.

Mike, the report is a relevant link, thanks (saved it for future reference)

Some relevant findings, absolutely.

But the stubborn lack of fatality from acute radiation, the extraordinarily low dose exposures to the public, and the measured findings that most of the exclusion zone would be perfectly safe to live in, do serve to rebalance things. There is a difference between bad practices that should not have occurred and contributed to the event happening, and the subsequent consequences.

In that regard comparisons with Chernobyl really should be very limited indeed. The reactor design of Chernobyl had no containment. The incident trigger was entirely the result of operators, which then had to combine with an extraordinarily unsafe design to give the resulting catastrophe. A reactor core exploded and burnt entirely, spreading the material far and wide. This is all completely different to Fukushima, as the death toll shows.

So I have to disagree with the report in part.

Firstly they say unambiguously that this was a "man-made disaster". Recalling the events of the day, I think that is taking things entirely too far.

Secondly they say "There is no foreseeable end to the decontamination and restoration activities
that are essential for rebuilding communities. The Commission concludes that the government and the regulators are not fully committed to protecting public health and safety; that they have not acted to protect the health of the residents and to restore their welfare." Then they say, in the same section "It is estimated that as much as 1,800 square kilometers of land in Fukushima Prefecture has now been contaminated by a cumulative radiation dose of 5 millisieverts or higher per year."

5 millisieverts per year is utterly insignificant. Australia has about 2 MS per year. Kerala has about 30. The average for the USA is a little over 6 MS. Norway has 10, Ramsar has a hotspot of around 260. "Contaminated by a cumulative radiation dose of 5"??? People may feel aggrieved, justifiably, but from a health POV this is simply irrelevant.

They say "The international consensus, however, is that the risk does increase in proportion to the dose." but then don't bother to calculate the increased risk using that highly precautionary approach. That's really not good enough. I'll save everyone the time, the increased risk is microscopic.

It's a good useful report from the point of view of de-constructing the operational and regulatory errors, but certainty not beyond criticism. Using it to conclude great danger from nuclear power is quite clearly a flawed approach. As Luke Weston said, the comparison with Chernobyl is well over the top, and as Geoff Russell said, without a body count the suggestion of grave danger is wanting badly for evidence.

Mike,

You know something that really sh!ts me in places like this? It's when people cherry pick a sentence from an abstract of a paper to support their POV. This is what happened in that Fukushima thyroid nonsense. Think I might cherry pick a few myself...
"Animal studies firmly support the possibility that DU is a teratogen."
Ok. We know what happens to animals in animal studies. Massive doses.

"While the detailed pathways by which environmental DU can be internalized and reach reproductive cells are not yet fully elucidated, again, the evidence supports plausibility." Right. That's sounding rather less confident already...

"The two most significant challenges to establishing a causal pathway between (human) parental DU exposure and the birth of offspring with defects are: i) distinguishing the role of DU from that of exposure to other potential teratogens; ii) documentation on the individual level of extent of parental DU exposure. Studies that use biomarkers, none yet reported, can help address the latter challenge. Thoughtful triangulation of the results of multiple studies (epidemiological and other) of DU teratogenicity contributes to disentangling the roles of various potentially teratogenic parental exposures. This paper is just such an endeavor."

Well, golly gosh, it's almost exactly as Geoff has described; a confusing mess of potential causative factors, where there is certainty in neither the dose received from DU, nor the other potential causes. Shall I remind you that these statements are from the same abstract you linked? Did you read it? Or just the bit that made your eyes light up before posting a comment?

Ben. As well as keeping the report, you like Luke should try reading it. Note also that this is the "Executive summary". Read the quote re Chernobyl in my reply to Luke. They are not comparing reactors but the reaction after the accident. Here it is again

"Much was learned from the Chernobyl accident about low dose radiation exposure, including the risk of hyroid cancer among children. Although the positive effects of administering stable iodine and the proper timing were fully known, the government’s nuclear emergency response headquarters and the prefectural government failed to give proper instructions to the public."

There are 2 more references along the same lines and then some quotes from participants.

You say "In that regard comparisons with Chernobyl really should be very limited indeed. The reactor design of Chernobyl had no containment"

Where in the report do they compare the Fukushima reactor to Chernobyl? Answer - nowhere!

Read the report, please and then discuss it.

Here is the point they are making
"The regulators should have taken a strong position on behalf of the public, but failed to do so. As they had firmly committed themselves to the idea that nuclear power plants were safe, they were reluctant to actively
create new regulations."

"The operator (TEPCO), the regulatory bodies (NISA and NSC) and the government body promoting the nuclear power industry (METI), all failed to correctly develop the most basic safety requirements—such as assessing the probability of damage, preparing for containing collateral damage from such a disaster, and developing
evacuation plans for the public in the case of a serious radiation release."

Do you think the situation is likely to be any better in India?

I work in a building that has regular fire drills. I live near a petrochemical complex that has a evacuation plan coordinated with the emergency services. I need a fire plan for a house I have up the bush.

Are you seriously suggesting that this is not an issue for nuclear plants?

You make much of the fact the evacuation was a shambles - but it all flows from the same hubris that you lot are displaying with your "banana" theory of radiation or the notion that unless there are bodies, there was no harm done.

I must admit that I normally spend little time worrying about the nuclear industry - I think its supporters are some of the best "anti-nuclear" activists going.

If I thought that nuclear was a economically viable solution to climate change, my strategy would be to ensure the public that their concerns were being taken seriously - not try and belittle them or dismiss any scientific studies on radiation that does not fit the plan.

BTW here is a quote from a Mark Lynas article

"This is not to suggest that the levels of radiation now being measured in the exclusion zone, and some heavily-contaminated areas beyond, are inconsequential. In fact, the latest (August 7) radiation readings released by the Japanese ministry of science[iv] reveal that substantial radioactivity persists even outside the exclusion zone. At Iitate village, for example, which has some of the highest readings on the survey, a measurement of 133 millisieverts per year (mSv/yr) was taken. In general, most of the several dozen readings come in at the 1 to 10 mSv/yr range, though with the highest of all (at Namie town, 24km north-west of the stricken reactors) at 289 mSv/yr."

He then of course falls back to the bullshite Ramsar, Iran get out of jail example. As you note, the high figure relates to hot-spots not the whole village. In any event
" An Iranian study has shown that people in the area have a significantly higher expression of CD69 gene and also a higher incidence of stable and unstable chromosomal aberrations.[12] Chromosomal aberrations have been found in other studies[13] and a possible elevation of female infertility has been reported"

"unless there are bodies, there is no harm done" ... nobody believes this Mike, but we know the consequences of panic and hurried mass evacuations; people die, frequently the elderly and infirm die before their time. And animals were left to starve. You support killing people to avoid 133 mSv per year?

In a single dose, 100 mSv is regarded as detectable using normal epidemiology, but 133 mSv over a year? Find me an epidemiologist who thinks this will kick up cancer rates by an amount even close to the death and trauma rate of the evacuation.

Did I read it. Look at what I linked above!

"This lack of fundamental information makes extrapolation from animal data to humans a strictly academic exercise. The few human studies that are out there are limited to military service personnel who have different exposure profile than we would expect for civilians, or the studies are limited in usefulness by their design and sample type "

Your point is?

My point is that Geoff claimed "Somebody has just made up this story about it being due to depleted uranium and people who don't bother to check anything at all just lap it up."

Well someone did not make it up. There have been studies that indicate reason for concern. The fact that there is conflicting and some inconclusive research is not the same as claiming it was made up. For obvious reasons epidemiological studies in Iraq are problematic. For Geoff to dismiss it out of hand is consistent with his dismissal of risks from nuclear radiation.

October 16, 2012

http://thewatchers.adorraeli.com/2012/10/16/ground-fukushima-unit-4-sinking-structure-verge-complete-collapse/

Anyone concerned about the consequences of this?

I suppose this will be completely safe, with only minor exposure?

No need for further evacuation hey?

Are you worried about the reactor vessel or the spent fuel rods?

If the pool with the rods collapsed, then there's a bunch of rods on the ground containing fuel pellets. Annoying and expensive ... but dangerous? No more than a fire ... just stay away unless you have the right gear. I guess if you were to turn up with a mortar and pestle and remove all the pellets and grind them up and then put a bomb under it, then that would be a problem. But that's like imagining all the fuel tanks in Australia magically just blowing up. Why aren't you worried about that? It's just as likely.

I did read it. You know, those quotes and stuff? Plus I acknowledged where it is strong and where I make no argument with their conclusions. I fundamentally disagree with how you are choosing to apply it to the suitability of nuclear power at large, along with your inability to acknowledge the very clear weaknesses, biases, lack of completion and misunderstanding of radiological harm that the report also contains in a couple of important issues.

But everything else you describe in the report remains, in my opinion, highly relevant criticism. I hope it will be better in India, but it may not be. But what strikes me is that despite
• Aged reactor design
• Poor preparedness as described in this report
• A mammoth natural disaster that did not just disable the plant, but wiped out every bit of infrastructure including roads in the whole area
...he radiological harm remains essentially zero, leaving nuclear power where it was before: the safest major power source in the world.

"I must admit that I normally spend little time worrying about the nuclear industry - I think its supporters are some of the best "anti-nuclear" activists going."

Well Mike, I’ll assume you consider me in distinct danger of changing someone’s mind, since you have stuck with it this time.

"If I thought that nuclear was a economically viable solution to climate change, my strategy would be to ensure the public that their concerns were being taken seriously - not try and belittle them or dismiss any scientific studies on radiation that does not fit the plan."

I do not belittle concerns. I am prepared to be firm with people, like you it would appear, who actually seem to prefer ignorance and fear about radiation to the alternative of asking a question, raising a point, and comparing quality evidence, as opposed to cherry picking. Which brings me to your dismantling of Mark Lynas’s work:

"He then of course falls back to the bullshite Ramsar, Iran get out of jail example. As you note, the high figure relates to hot-spots not the whole village. In any event " An Iranian study has shown that people in the area have a significantly higher expression of CD69 gene and also a higher incidence of stable and unstable chromosomal aberrations.[12] Chromosomal aberrations have been found in other studies[13] and a possible elevation of female infertility has been reported"

Mike, how curious that you like to quote the bit that works for you from this author, but the rest is “bullshite”; just a small village, the hotspot is just a spring. That’s called cherry picking.

Then however, you quote research suggestions that there is something fishy going on in Ramsar.

Which is it mate? Is it a statistically significant sample of people in an area of elevated background radiation? Or is it a tiny village with some “hot” hot springs that are otherwise radiologically unremarkable? According to you, it is whatever makes me look incorrect. I find it positively quaint that, once again in your own reference, you managed to omit this rather more detailed bit that was immediately before the bit you quoted:

“This high level of radiation does not seem to have caused ill effects on the residents of the area and even possibly has made them slightly more radioresistant, which is puzzling and has been called "radiation paradox". Moreover some studies showed fewer chromosome aberrations in Ramsar's inhabitants when Lymphocytes are exposed to high gamma radiations. This indicate that inhabitants of Ramsar are more radioresistant compared to residents in other areas.[6] Prof Mortazavi supposes that genetic modifications have occurred in the time span of a lot of generations to induce the radioresistance.[7]
It has also been claimed that residents have healthier and longer lives.[8] On the basis of this and other evidences including the fact that life had originated in a much more irradiated environment, some scientists have questioned the validity of linear no-threshold model, on which all radiation regulations currently depend.[5] Others point out that some level of radiation might actually be good for health and have a positive effect on population based on radiation hormesis model, by jump starting DNA repair mechanisms inside the cell.[9][10] Due to consumption of radioactive water around Ramsar, the agricultural products as well as other living matter and humans are also slightly radioactive.[5]

So let me be firm and clear in closing this out. As a working climate change professional as well as lecturer in climate change and sustainability, I find your feigned concern for climate change as an issue to be offensive. In this dialogue you have cherry picked data so blatantly it would make a hardened climate denier blush. I would be positively embarrassed to abuse references the way you do. But that’s fine Mike. There are plenty of people like me out there now, Geoff Russell and Mark Lynas just being two, genuinely concerned people who have actually looked hard enough at this to take it up to the likes of you.

Which means, by the way, that when you provide a link? I will check it to see what it actually says.

Yes, well said Ben.

Mike, bluffing with citations that don't support your claims works quite well in the anti-nuclear movement, and I have to confess, that I spent plenty of years just accepting references without actually checking. But climate change forced me to spend time checking my biases on issues like nuclear power that I had taken for granted for decades. It took me months of digging to realise the whole Caldicott charade is just built on sand. So now I'm angry. Mainly at myself for being so damned gullible.

I've also got a mother in a nursing home so the evacuation issue is pretty raw. The idea of putting her through such a trauma over 133 mSv/yr (or probably less) is totally unconscionable, but that's the state of unjustified panic that the anti-nuclear movement has produced.

OK. According to the Secretary of former Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan “If Unit 4 collapses, the worse case scenario will be a meltdown, and a resultant fire in the atmosphere. That will be the most unprecedented crisis that man has ever experienced. Nobody will be able to approach the plants … as all will have melted down and caused a big fire,” said Murata during the interview. “Many scientists say if Unit 4 collapses, not only will Japan lie in ruin, but the entire world will also face serious damages.”

But Geoff assures us that it's all good; best worry about imaginary fuel tank explosions then.

Apologies, I quoted the wrong guy should have read Mitsuhei Murata, the former Japanese Ambassador to both Switzerland and Senegal.

"You support killing people to avoid 133 mSv per year?"

What a truly pathetic argument. You really have been wacked with the nuclear magic wizzle stick. Are there any depths below which you will not sink?

This is from the NAIIC report. "The operator (TEPCO), the regulatory bodies (NISA and NSC) and the government body promoting the nuclear power industry (METI), all failed to correctly develop the most basic safety requirements—such as assessing the probability of damage, preparing for containing collateral damage from such a disaster, and developing evacuation plans for the public in the case of a serious radiation release."

"Insufficient evacuation planning led to many residents receiving unnecessary radiation exposure. Others were forced to move multiple times, resulting in increased stress and health risks—including deaths among seriously ill patients"

Why did they not develop effective evacuation plans? Because
"The regulators should have taken a strong position on behalf of the public, but failed to do so. As they had firmly committed themselves to the idea that nuclear power plants were safe, they were reluctant to actively create new regulations."

The NAIIC are not confused about who bears responsibility.

As to whether it was wise to evacuate, here is an International Atomic Energy Agency briefing

"Two IAEA teams are currently monitoring radiation levels and radioactivity in the environment in Japan"

"Based on measurements of I-131 and Cs-137 in soil, sampled from 18 to 26 March in 9 municipalities at distances of 25 to 58 km from the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant, the total deposition of iodine-131 and cesium-137 has been calculated. The results indicate a pronounced spatial variability of the total deposition of iodine-131 and cesium-137. The average total deposition determined at these locations for iodine-131 range from 0.2 to 25 Megabecquerel per square metre and for cesium-137 from 0.02-3.7 Megabecquerel per square metre. The highest values were found in a relatively small area in the Northwest from the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant. First assessment indicates that one of the IAEA operational criteria for evacuation is exceeded in Iitate village."

No not environmentalists or anti-nuclear activists - the International Atomic Energy Agency.

"First assessment indicates that one of the IAEA operational criteria for evacuation is exceeded in Iitate village"

http://www.slideshare.net/iaea/iaea-briefing-on-fukushima-nuclear-accident-30-march-20111430-utc

As early as June in 2011, there were indications that some of the people
responsible for standards were beginning to realise that various of the
official standards are doing more harm than good:

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/12/06/let-the-people-of-fukushima-go

There have been too many decades of pandering to a politically powerful anti-nuclear movement and Fukushima demonstrates that this needs to change. Lives shouldn't be put at risk to avoid a dose of 133 mSv/yr.

If the anti-nuclear movement hadn't stalled the nuclear rollout of the 1970s, our climate change problem would be much smaller. France has been generating ~6.4 tonnes CO2/cap/yr (not total GHG, just CO2) for decades while the countries who abandoned their nuclear roll outs rose ... Germany ~10 tonnes CO2/cap/yr. The anti-nuclear movement has cost us decades and their legacy to the planet may end up being 6 degrees.

Caldicott's legacy to the planet may end up being 6 degrees.

P.S. I noticed Mike that you didn't answer the question. It's clear that the IAEA has standards which result in deaths to avoid small levels of radiation. But I asked you what you think. Should people be killed to avoid 133 mSv/yr? Do you support these lethal IAEA standards or not? ... that's the bottom line because that's what actually happened. People and animals suffered enormously to avoid tiny risks. That's just plain cruel.

Yes. I support the IAEA standards. As does the Japanese Government. The idea that the Japanese could dispense with IAEA advice and not evacuate because a crank in Australia thinks the standards are wrong is your fantasy - I am sure it gives you great solace.

When safety standards increase suffering, then they need to be changed. It's been clear to a variety of experts with far greater knowledge than me, since at least June 2011 (see e.g., http://bit.ly/skjiuZ ) that the evacuation has done far more harm than leaving people where they were. I would hope that there is activity behind the scenes to learn from this and fix evacuation guidelines to that they do good instead of harm.

Geoff - could you give me a source for those stee and concrete figures? they do seem quite alarming when you consider the skin required for a nuclear plant compared to the skin for a solar thermal plant

And similar figures for nuclear

I understand that Dr Barry Brook, one of the proponents of the site you led me to above, once claimed - before the event - that a meltdown at Fukushima was impossible.

Should his figures be believed?

And where are the figures for steel and concrete to build a nuclear site?