The radioactive plume from Japan wafting from west to east across the U.S. is absolutely nothing to worry about, writes William J. Broad in a New York Times report today (“Radiation Over U.S. Is Harmless, Officials Say,” 3/22/11) about the radiation threats posed by the Japanese nuclear plant disaster. Broad writes:
Health experts said that the plume’s radiation had been diluted enormously in its journey of thousands of miles and that–at least for now, with concentrations so low–its presence will have no health consequences in the United States. In a similar way, faint radiation from the Chernobyl disaster spread around the globe and reached the West Coast in 10 days, its levels detectable but minuscule.
There are two things wrong with Broad’s report:
One, he doesn’t quote or even name any health experts in the piece. When he later elaborates on the claim that radiation from Fukushima will have no health consequences in the United States, he cites the Department of Energy–better known for its promotion of nuclear power than for its health expertise.
Two, in saying that small amounts of radiation are safe, Broad seems to be embracing the industry-favored threshold model of radiation risks. That view holds that below a certain level of radiation exposure, no health danger is posed.
But this is at odds with the National Academy of Sciences and several other science associations that hold there is no such threshold, and that any exposure poses some additional risk of cancer: the greater the exposure, the greater the risk. The linear, no threshold model isn’t universally embraced,but is the prevailing view in scientific circles.
At the very least, if Broad is going to cite an industry-favored way of viewing radiation dangers, one that downplays the threat, isn’t he obliged to explain that that is what it is, and that it is contradicted by much of the scientific establishment?
My favorite reassurance is that “There is no immediate health risk,” which seems to be on a tape loop at every television network and radio station. Other than radiation poisoning, which requires high levels of radiation, the wider risks are are of cancers from low-level radiation, which is much more widespread and diffuse but doesn’t manifest for a decade or more, hence “no immediate health risk.”
And our “Lying Eyes”, which can read the (so far) up to 406 CPM readings by EPA of radioactive iodine, cesium, tellurium and X fallout particles across the continental US (and X in Hawaii), and as far east as Iceland (100 CPMs – ALARM; 40 – “background”, for reference).
There is no know “safe” theashold of ionized radiation. Still dangerous just less so.
This is pretty unfair. The quote you start with makes it very clear that the author is relying on dilution over thousands of miles to reach his conclusion: ‘the plume’s radiation had been diluted enormously in its journey of thousands of miles and that–at least for now, with concentrations so low–its presence will have no health consequences in the United States.”
Now you’re absolutely correct that the best-accepted theory says that there is no safe dose, from which you conclude that the article is misleading (or working from a different theory). But as you go on to acknowledge, the linear non-threshold theory ALSO says, your words, “the greater the exposure, the greater the risk,” which is also to say: the lower the exposure, the lower the risk.
Suppose, them, that the radiation dose received in the US calculates out to less than 1 additional cancer in the US (and my guess is that will be the case,– but that’s just the guess of someone with no claim to expertise, based solely on the inevitable amount of dilution which would occur over thousands of miles of ocean). If that’s the case, wouldn’t it be fair to say, in a newspaper (as opposed to a scientific journal), “no health consequences?”
In sum, I think you’re nitpicking here, at a time when statements which blatantly contradict the linear non-threshold theory are all over the press in relation to doses in Japan, which are likely to be thousands (or millions) of times higher than those received in the US. The Japanese government, for example, has REGULARLY distorted the linear, non-threshold theory throughout this crisis, and its claims have been duly reported throughout the media.
I should have added that I have been an anti-nuclear activist for over 25 years now!
Well, can’t we just duct tape us some plastic?
If nothing else can be said about the corporate motives of our dirty fracking lying government, it’s that they do allow disaster to make some people extra profitable while the public safety is being analyzed for potential health risks (NOT!). In this case it is the pharmaceutical manufacturers. Or the chemical industry. Potassium iodide tablets are probably seeing sales like car flag dealers during the first few weeks following the World Trade Center bombings. Oh, yeah, and I guess like the duct tape and plastic people too…
We saw spikes in infant mortality in several states that went beyond what most states were seeing from the radioactive iodine and cesium releases from Chernobyl. Connecticut began to see the spike two years before Chernobyl, along with low birth weight babies, failure to thrive, and retardation.
I learned that Conncticut along with two other states had a special deal with a baby formula company to distribute infant formula through their WIC programs. This forumla was produced from milk in the Hersey milkshed surrounding Three Mile Island. The milk contaminated from the accident was not destroyed but some continued to be made into baby formula, and canned and powdered milk. The reasoning behind it was the radioactive Iodine would decay before it was sold.
Most of the milk immediately after the accident was diverted from the Pennsylvania milk pool to the NY milk pool in order to dilute the radiation and move it away from PA. THis way any adverse health effects would show up in the New York population as well as in the Hershey, PA area. so statistically Three Mile Island could not be singled out as the cause when NY people has similar problems. The problems seen from the baby formula were probably from the cesium which takes years to decay compared to less than two weeks for the radioactive iodine.
Now we know we should have destroyed the milk. Hindsight is always 20/20.
I so admire the Japanese for taking swift action on their food supply. I wish they had not been so opimistic though, and evacuated more people further, used ships and planes to evacuate people after bringing in supplies. I just read that the Fukushima workers are running out of food! Thisfeels like the submarine accident that we all hoped would end with a rescue that didnt come. I am very concerned that adding water to these reactors now that the fuel is damaged and possibly has formed a critical mass, that the water will support a sustained nuclear reaction. I had hoped, realizing the possibility of a site wide meltdown within the first four days, that they would not have waited for freefall to encapsulate the site. I know that encapsulation is weeks away now with equipment just shipping out yesterday for Japan from the Savannah River MOX reprocessing plant. they said it is to pump water, but it really is for pouring cement! I can only hope for a miricle that no more poeple will die and the people will be saved from further exposure.
I can understand at first the desire to salvage the reactors, and save the reputation of the industry by keeping the Fukushima reactors from further damage. But when they started to have hydrogen explosions it was time for encapsulation and massive evacuation. Also I understand that Japan holds loans on nuclear reactors in the USA. It would make sense to try to slavage the reputation of the industry to avoid a worse financial crisis if the nuclear industry as a whole should collapse! But Japan should not have been expected by the G-7 to salvage the nuclear industry reputation by continuing to try to rescue Fukushima reactors.
The japenese have already suffered at Hiroshima and Nagaski from US nuclear bombs, and now from this over-hyped US technology at Fukushima and surrounding towns. Not that other countries build safer plants, they don’t. But the US has been in this from the start, taking the lead, and bringing the world again to the brink. And what did our president say..something like were going to continue to make nukes. And what did he do? He went to war on Libya. Nice response, dude. I wonder if he too has a better place lined up? Maybe its time to dismantle the space station. Or send all these war mongers up there, and dont resupply. I know GE and others in the industry are running scared, and so should Holtec and other minor players in their game of deceit, deception and co-option.. the US NRC and DOE have given their unquestioning support to the military ruse of Atoms for Peace, while their review of safety issues has consistently failed to look at worst case accident scenarios that cause releases beyond what they feel the public is willing to accept. US Spent Fuel Pools are licensed based on a worst case scenario that does not expose the fuel to air and whatever the accident is caused by it miraculously leaves 2″ of water above the fully submerged fuel! It is the magic two inches Northeaast Utilities came close to loosing on the forth of July, 1992. Yet the NRC still refused a public hearing on safety issues surrounding spent fuel pools. These regulating agencies and the industries that control them never can think of an accident actually happening that uncovers the fuel! Optimists? No, just being practical and keeping their jobs and the facade of a safe clean energy system!
I personally believe that the people going into thoe plants in Japan should be those that reaped billions from their existance. Since corportions make decisions at the board level then the board of GE should have been at ground zero. I dont even know their nakes and they haven paid take in the US in recent history. Maybe they dont exist? Or maybe they have already evacuated to space!
A lot of we shouldnt continue scenarios, but also a lot of lets do one. It is now best to be a poor people with no resources or minerals or oil so that you might escapse being destroyed by a cancerous growth spreading over the planet. And best not to be a strategic site for a base!
What does that leave? Not much.