General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThyroid Cancer Confirmed on 30 Children in Fukushima
The March 2011 meltdowns at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, caused by cultural and human mistakes, brought extensive human suffering: evacuations, emotional trauma and premature deaths, disrupted jobs and schooling. Now it seems that it also brought radiation-related illness among the general public, something that few expected.
The reactors spewed just a tenth of the radiation emitted by the Chernobyl disaster, winds blew much of that out to sea, and evacuations were swift. Yet one wave of illness has been linked to the disaster, cancer.
In a survey that began in April 2014 to check the impact of the 2011 Fukushima nuclear crisis, 30 children have so far been diagnosed with thyroid cancer and 27 are suspected of having the disease, a prefectural government panel said Monday.
Most of them were thought to be problem free when their thyroid glands were checked during the first round of the survey conducted over a three-year period through March 2014.
The first survey covered about 300,000 children who were under the age of 18 and living in the northeastern Japan prefecture when the nuclear plant disaster was triggered by a huge earthquake and subsequent tsunami in March 2011.
https://mikadoshimbun.com/News/2016/51-Thyroid-Cancer-Confirmed-Children-Fukushima.html
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Tragic, also, considering the "scientists" were telling us there's nothing to worry about.
http://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com/fukushima-child-thyroid-issue.html
Thank you for the heads-up, yuiyoshida!
malaise
(269,157 posts)Bought and sold by corporations
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Keep tabs via SourceWatch:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/SourceWatch
and Little Sister - the antidote to Big Brother:
http://littlesis.org/
Otherwise, War Inc will keep on living and the planet and People are free to keep dying.
malaise
(269,157 posts)there were folks here attacking other DUers who saw this coming - it was all so safe
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)May even show up in this thread to tell us all how it would be statistically totally expected that this many kids would get thyroid cancer (within one or two standard deviations), and that rushing to blame poor put-upon TEPCO is just woo.
Or maybe they won't show up after all. Which wouldn't break my heart.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Are there other areas in Japan, not exposed to the fallout from Fukushima, where the children are all universally scanned for thyroid cancer? What are the rates in those areas?
No one on either "side" can really take much from this without knowing what it compares to. I don't know - can you inform me?
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,034 posts)Bernardo de La Paz
(49,034 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)Apples to apples is always a good comparison, right? Most children elsewhere wouldn't be diagnosed unless they were symptomatic. Children near Fukushima have been universally screened.
It's good to understand statistics, I think. Helps prevent fear and confusion and misinformation.
phazed0
(745 posts)10 fold increases at Chernobyl... pretty much indisputable within reason.
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,034 posts)Nobody here is denying a link between radiation and cancer. There is background radiation that causes lung cancer in non-smokers, and other cancers.
The question posed, is the observed rate appreciably higher than what would be expected. I guess it is, but some comparisons would help us understand just how much higher.
From the article:
However, the primary problem is that it is not often scientifically possible to directly connect an individual cancer case to radiation exposure, while increased screening such as in the Fukushima region often leads to earlier-than-normal detection and inflated figures.
Need some good science to tease out the reality.
phazed0
(745 posts)already went through all of this for almost 40 years now... I feel I don't need another nuclear disaster to prove what was already proven.
'We', the media, us, in general keep talking about it as if there is some statistical fact that makes it all better. There isn't.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)But that's not what I asked.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)I'm not sure how understandable this is to those without a background; the analysis suggests that cancer diagnosis rates in the pre-screening (the first three years) were 22 to 30 times higher than expected. Because the initial screening could not have been picking up radiation-associated cancers, the researchers suspect "overdiagnosis".
Here is additional data:
http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f1271/rr
Note that suggestions about forming a control group were rejected for ethical reasons - being in the control group was not considered harmless to the participants because of the high risk over overdiagnosis and injury through unnecessary treatment.