Back in Tokyo after visiting disaster area

[Ivan Kovax]

SOS message from the mayor of Minami Soma city:

http://www.city.minamisoma.lg.jp/

Any idea how we could help?

Oliver,

I am currently organizing a trip up north, both to film and for supplies. There are a few groups who have offered to team up. Fukushima was not in the plans, for obvious reasons, we were going much further north, but let's see what the crew says once I show them this video. Thanks for posting.

Ivan

 

[Anthony Gratl]

I find this thread sickening with propaganda to be honest. From both sides.
Both sides of this are using a catastrophe that has killed tens of thousands of people to further your own goals, you should be ashamed.

Catastrophes are what causes discussion. Welcome to the human condition.

We're all in this together now dude. Might as well get used to it.

I really fail to understand why you think it's improper to debate the potential threat of a technology if
it imperils people. Makes no sense, and frankly, the "you should be ashamed" bit is some heavy handed
judgement crap.

 

[Oliver Skibbe]

The world is irradiated. We have quite a bit of data on the dangers of ionizing radiation what with our medical applications and nuclear employees over the years. Your average radiologist would be a dysfunctional mess if the rates of cancer/poor health were as high as they would have to be to reach your 900,000 person figures.

Gavin, please, I know you are not stupid. I'm sure you know there is a huge difference between exposition to radiation (from external sources) and incorporation (ingestion) of radioactive material.

Our bodies are prepared to cope with radiation coming from the outside. Outer skin layers may die from radiation burns, but alpha or beta radiation will not go very deep. Skin cells are replaced every day, so the skin recovers.
Incorporation of radioactive material is a totally different story. Especially those substances, that would otherwise seem harmless (low radiation, little penetration) have severe effects as soon as they enter our bodies. Radio isotopes like Strontium-90, Iodine-129 or Caesium-137 will destroy cells and tissues over a long period of time (low radiation means slow decline and long life time). This causes a very broad spectrum of diseases: immune deficiency, cardiovascular problems, or even cancer. Children and unborn are particularly affected.

 

[Brian Ferguson]

Hi all,

What I've drawn most from being up there are a few things I wanted to note:

1. The Japanese are the most calm, orderly and stoic people I have ever had the pleasure to be among. No looting, no riots, no complaining.... just a determination to get on with fixing the devastation and rebuilding their lives. It's an honour to live here and be a part of that.

2. The Japanese government has been ridiculously slow and inefficient at getting mobilised and getting aid to those who need it up north. We were allowed onto the freeway heading south back to Tokyo as we were a media car, and I was angered to see NO TRUCKS or other aid vehicles heading in the opposite direction, FIVE DAYS AFTER the tsunami had hit. The highway was literally empty. Were I in charge, I'd have seconded 30% of all trucks and buses nationwide to immediately ferry supplies up north from Tokyo to Fukushima and Miyagi prefectures. Many locals have complained about the same thing. It's disgusting and unfortunately shows up one of the downsides here - that of endless bureaucracy hampering emergency operations. You see the same thing with ambulances.... slow as molasses driving and the filling out of paperwork before taking the injured to hospital etc.... lives are lost every day because of this sort of ineptitude. If there's a lesson from this disaster to be learned by the authorities, it is to DROP THE PAPERWORK when an emergency situation happens!


Cheers from Tokyo,

Paul

I have done 3 shoots in Japan for a couple of Corporate clients. The parts I quoted of your post are very true. In a way they are similar. Japanese are the most orderly, polite people on Earth I believe, and part of that is a very rule oriented bureaucracy.

They turned away Doctors without Borders after the quake because they were not licensed in Japan. They love stamping papers there. But they are the nicest cohesive society on the planet. Their strengths become their weakness sometimes.

Japan is my favorite nation that I have visited in the world. I love Japan, and the people, they have been so kind to me and my crews every time I have been there. From Hokkaido to Fukuoka. I felt so much pain for their suffering from the recent quake.

That such a great country has had so much tragedy. They have treated me so well each time I visited. I knew that was the national spirit. The japanese people are so hospitable, how can you not return the karma that they have given you. I have been to so many unbelievable Japanese locations that to see any of them in disarray gives me heartache.

One of my most memorable experiences was at Hiroshima and the A-Bomb Museum it was very sobering. When I left the exhibit I was in the mall and a young maybe 8 year old Japanese kid with his elementary school group, wanted to practice his English with me. Here was this little boy who had no fear, came up to me when I was totally bummed out about what I had seen,about what happened during the war. Hello mister! Hello, Hello!

All I could think of was my Christian roots was, suffer the little children - that we all should have hearts such as these. It really cheered me up that young hearts are pure. When you are so negative a young person could make you smile.

This is not a country that treats nuclear energy lightly in my view.

I have great hopes for Japan and believe in their future.

 

[Oliver Skibbe]

Here's an interesting paper titled "The health outcome of the Fukushima catastrophe Initial analysis from risk model of the European Committee on Radiation Risk ECRR"

Excerpt:
"The ECRR risk model has been applied to the 3 million people living in the 100km radius of the Fukushima catastrophe. Assuming these people remain living there for one year the number of excess cancers predicted by the method is approximately 200,000 in the next 50 years with 100,000 being diagnosed in the next 10 years. If they are evacuated immediately, the number will fall by asignificant amount. For those 7 million living between 100km and 200km from the site, the predicted number of cancers is slightly greater with 220,000 extracancers in the next 50 years and about 100,000 being expressed in the next ten years. These predictions are based on the ECRR risk model and also the findings of cancer risk on Sweden after the Chernobyl accident.
[...]
It is recommended that populations living within the 100km zone to the North West of the site are immediately evacuated and the zone is made an exclusion zone.
[...]
Investigation and legal sanctions should be brought against those minimising the health effects of this event in the media."

 

[Oliver Skibbe]

Oh, and here's one more link for Gavin:

C.C.Busby and A.V Yablokov (Eds.): Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident - European Committee on Radiation Risk
(251 pages, 4 MB, free download)

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

You're just publishing multiple papers by the same person who I already pointed out is grossly overinflating values in one study. If he's grossly overinflating results in one study then he's also doing it in the rest of them.

Yes I understand the difference between ingesting radioactive substances and being exposed. But perhaps you've forgotten that we've detonated hundreds of nuclear warheads and exposed thousands of people to aerosolized radioactive compounds. So it's not like again we don't have pretty good control subjects from around the world on the health effects of radiation both ingested and through exposure.

 

[Oliver Skibbe]

You're just publishing multiple papers by the same person who I already pointed out is grossly overinflating values in one study. If he's grossly overinflating results in one study then he's also doing it in the rest of them.

Now this is really getting silly. I gave you several links. Here is another publication. Please read the preface:
"The scientific literature on the consequences of the catastrophe now includes more than 30,000 publications, mainly in Slavic languages. [...] The list of the literature incorporated into the present volume includes about 1,000 titles and reflects more than 5,000 printed and Internet publications, primarily in Slavic languages. However, the authors apologize in advance to those colleagues whose papers addressing the consequences of the Chernobyl catastrophe are not mentioned in this review—to list all papers is physically impossible."

So you want more papers, more authors? OK.

Bandazhevsky, Yu. I., Lelevich, V. V., Strelko, V. V., Shylo, V. V., Zhabinsky, V. N., et al. (1995). Clinical and Experimental Aspects of the Effect of Incorporated Radionuclides Upon the Organism (Gomel Medical Institute, Gomel): 128 pp. (in Russian).

D Almond, L Edlund, M Palme - Chernobyl’s legacy: Prenatal exposure to radioactive fallout and school outcomes in Sweden; NBER Working Paper (2007)

Donets, N. P. (2005). Influence of radiation factor on the morbidity level of population in Chernygiv Region. Hygien. Epidemiol. Herald 9(1): 67–71 (in Ukrainian)

YE Demidchik, VLA. Saenko, S Yamashita - Childhood Thyroid Cancer in Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine after Chernobyl and at Present; Arq Bras Endocrinol Metab 2007;51/5

Ericson, A. & Kallen, B. (1994). Pregnancy outcomes in Sweden after Chernobyl. Environ. Res. 67: 149–159.

Grodzinsky, D. M. (1999). General situation of the radiological consequences of the Chernobyl accident in Ukraine. In: Imanaka, T., Ed., Recent Research Activities about the Chernobyl NPP Accident in Belarus, Ukraine and Russia. KURRI-KR-7 (Kyoto University): pp. 18–28.

Stepanova, E., Kondrashova, V., Galitchanskaya, T. & Vdovenko, V. (1998). Immune deficiency status in prenatally irradiated children. Brit. J. Haemat. 10:25.

At least the IAEA admits that a "consequence of the Chernobyl accident is thyroid cancer in children, some of whom were not yet born at the time of the accident." The thyroid cancer rate for females increased by about a factor of 4, the rate for children increased by a factor of 30-40. Even the TASS newsagency titled in 1989: "After the Chernobyl accident Ukrainian children’s morbidity increased 6 times"!

Up to now you just quoted one study contracted by the WHO, which is known to be an extremely biased institution. In 1959 they concluded an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency to help them "accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world." Do I need to say more?

Yes I understand the difference between ingesting radioactive substances and being exposed. But perhaps you've forgotten that we've detonated hundreds of nuclear warheads and exposed thousands of people to aerosolized radioactive compounds. So it's not like again we don't have pretty good control subjects from around the world on the health effects of radiation both ingested and through exposure.

Absolutely. There is solid evidence.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Now this is really getting silly. I gave you several links. Here is another publication. Please read the preface:

Haha, yes it is silly, that's the EXACT SAME REPORT as the NYAS report from above.. and above that. Again.. that's just re-re-re-posting the same study by the same authors, with slightly or exactly the same wording (Busby & Yablokov).

At least the IAEA admits that a "consequence of the Chernobyl accident is thyroid cancer in children, some of whom were not yet born at the time of the accident." The thyroid cancer rate for females increased by about a factor of 4, the rate for children increased by a factor of 30-40. Even the TASS newsagency titled in 1989: "After the Chernobyl accident Ukrainian children’s morbidity increased 6 times"!
.

Interesting paper. But it doesn't really disagree with the WHO report. It has big scary numbers but we're talking about large relative changes to very small numbers.

The thyroid cancer incidence rate in the period 1986-2001 for the birth cohort 1968-85 is in 31 of the 35 oblasts/cities in the range of 4 to 50 cases per 10^6 person years (Fig. 3).

Taking the high estimate of 50 cases per 10^6 person years and the life expectancy of the Ukraine of 70 years you end up with an expected fatality rate of:
10^6/70/50 = 285.

In other words if that analysis is correct you would expect 0.35% of additional thyroid cancer cases. If you applied 0.35% to those who were in contaminated regions (5,000,000) you get 17,500 cases of Thyroid cancer. I could buy that number. I don't buy 985,000. And even that 17,500 has to be kept in perspective. 95% of all thyroid cancers are successfully treated with minimal health impacts. That means of that 17,500 people additionally diagnosed with cancer about 877 would be expected to die. If they want to really make an impact on their health they should forget Chernobyl and stop smoking.

But another thing to keep in mind is that we're seeing a general increase in thyroid cancer in general. Although the paper above doesn't believe that it is a significant cause.
e.g. (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/health/healthguide/esn-thyroid-cancer-ess.html)

How many people in the same region have died from car accidents since 1986? I imagine it's a far higher number of those 5,000,000 than 877 but we aren't banning cars.

 

[Oliver Skibbe]

Again.. that's just re-re-re-posting the same study by the same authors, with slightly or exactly the same wording (Busby & Yablokov).
[snip]
Taking the high estimate of 50 cases per 10^6 person years and the life expectancy of the Ukraine of 70 years you end up with an expected fatality rate of:
10^6/70/50 = 285. In other words if that analysis is correct you would expect 0.35% of additional thyroid cancer cases. If you applied 0.35% to those who were in contaminated regions (5,000,000) you get 17,500 cases of Thyroid cancer. I could buy that number. I don't buy 985,000. And even that 17,500 has to be kept in perspective.
[snip]
But another thing to keep in mind is that we're seeing a general increase in thyroid cancer in general. Although the paper above doesn't believe that it is a significant cause.
[snip]
How many people in the same region have died from car accidents since 1986? I imagine it's a far higher number of those 5,000,000 than 877 but we aren't banning cars.

Gavin, this is annoying. Did you even bother to look at some of my links? Sorry if I posted a source twice. I compiled this information for you at 1 AM.
The number crunching for the thyroid cancer cases has been done extensively. If you do not want to read the papers, just have a look at the diagrams (page 28ff of that pdf). If you think the numbers of deaths are neglectable, then have a look at some children that were "lucky" enough to survive -> (WARNING: graphic images)

Again: we are not just talking about thyroid cancer. That is just one small part of the big picture. All the medical findings have been gathered over 20+ years and mathematical models have been established. Based on the recommendations of the European Committee on Radiation Risk (not the simplified model of the International Commissionon Radiological Protection ICRP that only takes into account external radiation!) recommendations and predictions for the situation in Fukushima have been published. And no, this publication has not been peer-reviewed yet. This takes time. But people in Japan do not have this time, they need to make the right decisions now.

How many people in the same region have died from car accidents since 1986? I imagine it's a far higher number of those 5,000,000 than 877 but we aren't banning cars.

If this is the last argument you can present, then I think you have shot your bolt.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Looking at page 18.... I am no statistician but this trend line screams bullshit to me:

Apparently 2 years before Chernobyl there was a sudden increase in birth defects... leading up to Chernobyl. The horrible horrible effects of Chernobyl were so bad... they went back in time 2 year.

Oh and before someone thinks that "The European Committee On Radiation Risk" is some official organization... from wikipedia:

The European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR) is an informal committee formed in 1997 following a meeting by the European Green Party at the European Parliament to review the Council of Europe's directive 96/29Euratom, issued in May of the previous year.

It's a group mostly consisting of Busby and Yablokov. It should really be named "The Yablokov and Busby Committee to make our huge volume of junk science sound legitimate even though we get drummed out of every major scientific journal. (due to teh conspiracyz!)"

 

[Oliver Skibbe]

Looking at page 18.... I am no statistician but this trend line screams bullshit to me[/IMG]

How long did it take you to pick this diagram? I know it is not looking very convincing but you deliberately selected one image from a larger dataset. And this is not even from Ukraine or Belorus. These are data from Bavaria (Germany). Do you want to lead a serious discussion or do you just want to prick me?

EDIT: You just did it again and even altered the second image without indicating that fact! Sorry, but I can not accept that. You are starting to twist data to prove your view of the world. Do you even know that you can not just draw lines into a set of data?

It's a group mostly consisting of Busby and Yablokov. It should really be named "The Yablokov and Busby Committee to make our huge volume of junk science sound legitimate even though we get drummed out of every major scientific journal. (due to teh conspiracyz!)"

You are childish.

EDIT #2:

Oh and before someone thinks that "The European Committee On Radiation Risk" is some official organization... from wikipedia:

Wow, you are editing your post so fast, I just can't follow.
Firstly I never claimed that "The European Committee On Radiation Risk" is an official organization.
Secondly the presentation you just browsed was not published by the ECRR. It's from the GSF-Forschungszentrum fuer Umwelt und Gesundheit, Institut fuer Biomathematik und Biometrie (IBB), a very reputable scientific institution.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

How long did it take you to pick this diagram? I know it is not looking very convincing but you deliberately selected one image from a larger dataset. And this is not even from Ukraine or Belorus. These are data from Bavaria (Germany). Do you want to lead a serious discussion or do you just want to prick me?

Dear Lord, you said "look at page 18". I can't read German. I looked at page 18. There are only 4 graphics on page 18. There was a 25% chance I would pick that one. And they're all equally dubious at face value. Maybe they're solid but I'm not sure why you told me to look at seemingly random data trends (from evidently Germany).

And yes. I photoshopped a snarky graphic. And put it next to the official graphic. I don't think anyone is going to mistake "Secret Nuclear Accident!?" for the original data. That's not manipulating that's commenting.

 

[Oliver Skibbe]

Dear Lord, you said "look at page 18". I can't read German. I looked at page 18. There are only 4 graphics on page 18. There was a 25% chance I would pick that one. And they're all equally dubious at face value. Maybe they're solid but I'm not sure why you told me to look at seemingly random data trends (from evidently Germany).

And yes. I photoshopped a snarky graphic. And put it next to the official graphic. I don't think anyone is going to mistake "Secret Nuclear Accident!?" for the original data. That's not manipulating that's commenting.

Sorry, my fault. I really thought you had some science background. Postings can be misleading sometimes.

Please let me clarify: I didn't attack you for challenging the validity of the data. Scepticism is a valuable mindset in science. I attacked you for deliberately picking data out of the context.

Here is the diagramm I was referring to (x-axis is year, y-axis is number, kinder=infants, Jugendliche=adolescents). I should have rechecked the page numbers. I apologize for that confusion.

EDIT: I just rechecked the page numbers. In post #110 I told you that that the diagramm is on page 28ff. That was correct! Are you trying to kid me?

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Sorry, my fault. I really thought you had some science background. Postings can be misleading sometimes.

Look I've been very very very very respectful to you. If you're going to keep tossing out personal insults I'm just going to start ignoring you. Can we keep this civil? Attack the data not the man.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

re: Page 28

So in other words before Chernobyl there was no Childhood Thyroid cancer in a population of 10,000,000 and after there was an incidence rate of: 1 per 100,000.

You really really wanted me to look at a chart that effectively says (and I'm extrapolating on the very very highest estimates according to this chart) 1600 children and 'young persons' (babelfish) in Belarus (one of the most contaminated regions in every study) over 25 years got thyroid cancer (the most common form of disease from radiation) .

Using the powers of survivability 1600 children * 0.05 = 80 people died from Thyroid cancer in a country of 10,000,000.

So yes. That chart very damningly puts your chances of chernobyl killing your children in a highly contaminated region as... 0.0008%

Glad we got that cleared up.

EDIT: By the way just to keep hammering away at this point. .000008 * 6.7B (World's population) = 53,600 people would be killed if the whole world was as contaminated as Belarus. Really makes you question that 960k killed statistic doesn't it?

 

[Oliver Skibbe]

Gavin, this is surreal... I don't know what to say.

 

[Peter Moretti]

I really think the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone sounds like a lovely place to settle down and raise a family. The real crime is that it's illegal to live there.

 

[Oliver Skibbe]

I really think the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone sounds like a lovely place to settle down and raise a family. The real crime is that it's illegal to live there.

I'm not sure anymore: are you being sarcastic or do you really mean what you say?

 

[Peter Moretti]

Re: my post :sarcasm: