Published: July 17th, 2012 at 11:46 am ET
|
Title: Fukushima Radiation May Cause 1,300 Cancer Deaths, Study Finds
Source: Bloomberg
Author: Jason Gale
Date: Jul 17, 2012 6:00 AM ET
Radiation from the Fukushima nuclear plant may cause as many as 1,300 cancer deaths globally, according to a study that showed fallout from [Tepco's] crippled reactors may be deadlier than predicted.
The March 2011 nuclear disaster may cause as many as 2,500 cases of cancer, mostly in Japan, Stanford University scientists said.
[...]
Cancer cases may have been at least 10 times greater if the radiation hadn’t mostly fallen in the sea, said Mark Z. Jacobson, co-author of the first detailed analysis of the event’s global health effects.
[...]
Title: Global health impacts of the Fukushima nuclear disaster calculated
Source: Physorg
Date: July 17, 2012
[...]
“There are groups of people who have said there would be no effects,” said Jacobson.
A month after the disaster, the head of the United Nations Science Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, for example, predicted that there would be no serious public health consequences resulting from the radiation.
[...]
Jacobson stressed, however, that none of the calculations expressed the full scope of a nuclear disaster.
“There’s a lot more to the issue than what we examined, which were the cancer-related health effects,” he said. “Fukushima was just such a large disaster in terms of soil and water contamination, displacement of lives, confidence in government oversight, cost and anguish.”
Some noteworthy statements in the Stanford study:
- “Mortalities from Fukushima may be less than Chernobyl by much more than an order of magnitude due to a lower total emission of radioactivity, lower radioactivity deposition rates over land, and more precautionary measures taken immediately following the Fukushima accident“
- “A total cold shutdown of the plant was achieved in December 2011″
- “Overall, radioactive emissions from Fukushima were roughly an order of magnitude lower than from Chernobyl”
For estimates using health model developed after Three Mile Island, see:
- Gundersen in Japan: 1,000,000 additional cancers from Fukushima over next 20 years -- Based on university studies after Three Mile Island (1.5 HOUR VIDEO)
- Fairewinds: US news outlets said there's "no threat to health" from Fukushima... The opposite of what all the studies say about radiation and cancer (VIDEO)
Published: July 17th, 2012 at 11:46 am ET
|
The...
sending...
I find it remarkable how some scientists behave as if "fallout coming down over the sea" was an equivalent of "it was eaten by a black hole and warped to another universe".
Report Comment
Yep. Just like they did with the BP Deep Water Horizon disaster.
Meanwhile we continue turn the world's oceans into a toxic waste dump.
Report Comment
Hi B&B, reminds me of the diagram Centaur posted on 6/27/12 in response to the article on consequences of seal damage to #4 SFP. Posted a comment at today's article where expert states it will be an "arduous" task to remove fuel rods at #4.
Centaur stated once the reactor melts down into the black hole in the earth "it's not our problem any more." Reminds me, too, of the lawsuit early on where property owners tried to hold Tepco accountable for nuclear contamination, and Tepco basically said "you own it now since it's a part of your property." (Not a direct quote but you get the gist of it ….)
Report Comment
Am encouraged to see citizens of Japan protesting en masse. Am glad it is beginning there (since we're having problems overcoming inertia in the rest of the Northern Hemisphere).
Meanwhile, I'm in San Francisco Bay Area, California, and am hearing more and more reports of physicians whose patients are reporting illnesses related to radiation exposure. I'm "plugged in" to the integrative & holistic medical community here so there are most likely many more reports of radiation-related illness and exposure than most allopathic physicians are making.
School administrators, etc., also beginning to report many adult students are suffering from serious fatigue. Have the feeling this is the beginning of a tidal wave of illnesses here on the West Coast. If this follows the trend in Japan, we may see people taking to the streets, here, too.
Chieko (last name?),anti-nuclear activist from Japan, spoke at the Bohemian Grove Occupy protest last weekend (Sonoma County, California). 'Didn't go personally, but talked to someone who did, yesterday. Prediction for U.S.: the groundswell is coming to a city near you. It's only a matter of time. Hoping we can mobilize and do something to protect innocent people here in U.S. before we are too sick to do so.
As posted here before: some California physicians have been finding Cesium in patients' urine since last August. Awareness of this problem is growing in the California medical community.
Report Comment
BTW, a friend and Enenewser has posted information on Chieko Shina's upcoming presentations in Sonoma County this week at Forum area (upcoming gatherings).
Here it is, in Japanese and English, for California event dates, thanks to demo's post:
http://nonukesaction.wordpress.com/2012/06/30/california-anti-nuke-tour-of-chieko-shiina-a-fukushima-mother-and-farmer/
Hoping I can make it to at least one of these events so I can find out "up close and personal" what's happening on the ground in Japan. Somehow it's more visceral and real when you can meet or listen to a human being from Japan.
Report Comment
Human being = real person, someone real, who breathes, is warm, and has a heartbeat, just like you.
Report Comment
Ho Taters…I missed all of these except today's in Oakland, but there is no time listed. Could call, but it'w ay down on International Blvd. So, I think I'll miss and hope for another chance.
Report Comment
The West Coast is not more than a year behind the medical problems in Japan.
Once it really starts to pick up, it'll come in broad waves of sickness, and there will be too many similar cases to cover it all up.
Report Comment
Ms. Chieko's talk can be heard here: http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/82404 about 20 minutes in?
Report Comment
@B+B hahahahahahahahahaha it's in HyperSpace !!!!!
Report Comment
+++ many XXXs
Report Comment
"The U.S. would have 0 to 12 cancer deaths and 0 to 30 cases, the researchers said…
“These worldwide values are relatively low,” study co- author John Ten Hoeve said in a statement, adding that they should “serve to manage the fear in other countries that the disaster had an extensive global reach.”
<<<<<
They always talk about the "the fear.' What about the INJUSTICE? These are 24 to 2,500 people (at least) who would not have gotten and/or died of cancer were it not for the negligence of TEPCO and the Japanese government, the defective design of GE, and the nuclear industry's decision to ignore those design flaws.
To these statisticians, these are just numbers, so they seem "low" enough not to matter. But if you or a loved one happen to be one of them, the cost is inestimable.
It's the injustice, not just the fear, that should make people reject nuclear power.
Report Comment
That's what really gets me too. Science has clearly stated and the evidence is that radiation is harmful to life and yet the nuclear apologists, those who coincidentally make their living from the stuff, gleefully insist that, except in extremely high doses, there is NO harmful effect from radiation whatsoever, and in fact extra radiation from accidents and intentional release is actually BENEFICIAL to health! It's as if they live in another universe, one where facts mean nothing.
It's clear that nukers care nothing for the value of life or the environment, it's all about their bank accounts. If we only had their collective blasé attitude to go by it would be all the reason we need to suspect nuclear.
Report Comment
Iam,
I share your feelings. This research treats the general population as an inconvience to the inherent risks to nuclear. Downplay, mimamize, and marginalized. I'm sure their findings would be more significant should they factor in their family. But seeing that their ability to divorce their reality from their paycheck, we'll continue to see paid researchers dismiss the personal effects in favor of corporate gains.
Again I say:
Leaders of our world appear to favor risking humanity in favor of personal and corporate financial gain.
Iamfishead… Psychopaths.
Report Comment
Don't we wish it were that simple? Out of site, out of mind. Oh, it is that simple. Stanford study in 1970's also proved that Marijauna kills cancer cells. A friends father got acute lumkemia and went to Stanford for treatment. His insurance wasn't enough to cover the entire life saving treatment, so they took his families farm, 20 acres, for payment. He and his wife can live on the property until they die, then it's turned over to the Universty.
Soon, Stanford will be making trades for your life too. What if you have no property to take?
Sorry for being off topic.
Report Comment
This report is a joke and severely flawed! Even though they state "it may be deadlier than predicted," the numbers are way too low. A correct qualitative analysis on the effects of Fukushima are impossible at this stage. There will likely be 100,000s of deaths. The problem is linking the deaths to the disaster.
The BEIR VII concludes that there IS a direct relationship between multiple small radiation exposures and one large radiation exposure, since the effects of radiation are cumulative . . . quote " there is a linear, no-threshold dose-response relationship between exposure to ionizing radiation and the development of cancer in humans. . . . .this means that the sum of several very small exposures to radiation has the same effect as one large exposure, since the effects of radiation are cumulative. (aka LNT relationship) Simply put, Many small doses = 1 large dose = increased cancer risk . . . it is that simple.
Everyone in the Northern Hemisphere will continue to get a NEW continual (above background) LOW DOSE of radioactivity due to Fukushima. The LNT applies here . . . The Stanford report only uses data from the initial release .. ignoring Ocean contamination, burning of radioactive debris, wind affect, run-off, etc? So you have to ask, how can anyone say the "Global health impacts of the Fukushima nuclear disaster" have been calculated?
Simple, they want you to think the disaster is over, when it is only just beginning …
Report Comment
There have already been hundreds of thousands of infant mortalities. The rad sickness is working its' way up the age scale, and will run into the billions – if they don't die of something else.
It's entirely possible that a lab-created disease will be released that kills a large part of the population quicker, to prevent the long term effects of rad sickness. This sounds 'conspiritorial', but we have already seen that our governments care absolutely nothing about the lives of billions of people already. They have already exceeded the worst we can think of them. There is nothing these people won't do to keep their power. Nothing.
Report Comment
woah, TIS, I sure hope you're wrong on that idea. But you know what, it's plausible. I generally trust that people are not really that evil. Nukers maybe evangilistic for their cause but still hold some degree of humanity.
Report Comment
I have seen firsthand, massive large-scale corporate murder, at least a decades worth, and the US government cover the whole thing up – in Federal Court – for nothing more than campaign funding.
An attempted murder on a key witness, death threats against a lawyer for the plaintiff, threats of Federal criminal charges for mentioning names. And all this is insignificant to some of the cover-ups that are well documented.
They truly don't care if billions die. Not one shred of interest. Only the preservation of themselves and their masters.
Fukushima, and the resulting ELE, will be no different.
Report Comment
Right on nonuke…
Just another pro-nuke shill university like MIT sucking on the teat of the nuclear industry/government cabal. BTW, us taxpaying folks…it’s our money being effectively used against us.
The so called “study” uses a wind flow model (jet stream) and projects wind patterns, and in turn, the resulting coverage over the US. It concludes, there is no need for alarm as the radionuclides of Cesium are so low as to be hardly detectable. It assumes that most of the Fukushima Daiichi radioactive releases pushed into the atmosphere, later falls back into the ocean. After the fallout is in the ocean, I guess it’s inert, because there are no further atmospheric assumptions added into Stanford’s/Jacobson’s program model. The study is modeled in a vacuum. It’s a pay for play job, pure and simple.
The study ignores all other associated factors like radioactive rain from Pacific Ocean evaporation, millions of a gallons of highly radioactive water discharged by TEPCO, radionuclide bioaccumulation in the food chain, thousands of published and peer reviewed disease (cancers, heart disease, birth defects) and morbidity studies from Chernobyl, etc., and bases its conclusions on 20 days of radioactive releases into the atmosphere, and the resulting fallout. The study stops there…WTF, treating the March 11 explosion and releases as ending/stopping on/at April 1, 2011.
continued…
Report Comment
continued…
There’s no discussion about human cancer, heart disease, birth defects, etc. and the thousands of studies that were conducted on Chernobyl. Based on their preposterous assumptions and their resulting projections, I’ll bet they didn’t even go there. If they had, they might have had to scrap their study, but the sponsor/s of the research paid for a study that was designed for political reasons versus real science.
Stanford, MIT, and list goes on, are just paid shills doing the devil’s work…anything for a buck. Hey, you need to prove, 2+2 really equals 5, no problem! Anything for a buck, sickening.
Now, the story is being picked up by the MSM and appearing in all the right places, serving to keep the real story buried.
Is this a great country, or what!
Report Comment
"Fukushima fallout may be deadlier than predicted" because it may cause 1300 cases of cancer globally? What was the prediction before that? Zero case?!!
And whose prediction was it in the first place? The nuclear village? Yes we know that, thank you.Coming from Bloomberg it's no surprise they will happily relay the story.
Considering over 30% of children in Fukushima have nodules in their Thyroid, it seems like those 100,000s of kids are already screwed as far as their thyroid goes.. Even if they don't develop cancer in the next 10 years, malfunctioning thyroids are the cause of all sorts of horrible life long health issues.
Report Comment
"Radiation from the Fukushima nuclear plant may cause as many as 1,300 cancer deaths globally, according to a study that showed fallout from [Tepco's] crippled reactors may be deadlier than predicted."
"The March 2011 nuclear disaster may cause as many as 2,500 cases of cancer, mostly in Japan, Stanford University scientists said."
Doesn't cancer lead to death? So which is it, 1,300 or 2,500? If you have 1,300 cases globally how do you also get 2,500 cases "mostly in Japan"? Sounds like they're pulling numbers out of their, er, hat.
Report Comment
I believe at least 2,500 deaths this month in Japan are related to health conditions caused directly by the so-called "low dose" particles. Have a nice day.
Report Comment
how about all those children with the nodules that won't recieve treatment…there are lot more than 2500 of them.
If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it….
Then lots of people can die of cancer if no one acknowledges it and the figure can always stay at 1300.
It all fits together very well for the pro-nukers.
We need to invent justice for these people.
Report Comment
Throughout history there has never been justice in matters involving this insidious weapon. Good used it against evil. Evil used it against good. Both think they are God. It is in the roots of superstition, the dirty deed doers magic, the mysteries of the dark ages, the final story of ele on this beautiful planet we call earth.
Report Comment
The author of this study was at another California university two years ago when he was savaged by pro-nukes for this article: Nuclear Power is Too Risky
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-02-22/opinion/jacobson.nuclear.power.con_1_nuclear-plants-nuclear-proponents-nuclear-power?_s=PM:OPINION
So now two years later he suddenly comes up with the biggest lowball health estimates since Madame Curie insisted radiation had nothing to do with her declining health?
I think our good readers need only examine the relationship Stanford has established over the years with the feds. Sometimes they even got spanked like a little child by Uncle Sam:
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1994-11-20/news/1994324051_1_stanford-incidental-expenses-auditors
Yes, it's always nice to provide lots of taxpayer money to purchase the finest opinions from researchers. Certainly they would never lie on behalf of their benefactor? Or try to protect California interests? Of course not.
Report Comment
Good catch SP! Perhaps you can send those with a polite, informative letter to the editor of the article above suggesting that they do better background on their "experts". I saw a link where they are taking feedback.
Report Comment
Obviously these people's brain matter has been compromised by the high levels of radiation, they encountered in Japan.
How can you predict this, nobody can tell you divinitivly what a safe level of radiation is, they can not tell you how much radiation even escaped from FNP, never mind the effect all these isotopes has on marine life, that a large percent of the population of the world feed on and will accumulate inside them.
No more atom smashers.
If you want the nuclear age to end, we will have to come up with new strategize, withhold your land taxes untill they close the nuclear plants down, as a collective we will win
Report Comment
weeman, you have a very, very good point. Can i take it a little further? Cancer rates are higher at nuclear power plants, right? That has been established. But, in order to keep doing the research they love, and they really are in love with what they can do, i know some of these people, they must recharacterize these higher rates as something else, some other cause, bad luck, what-have-you. So, the denial begins right there with their own co-workers and their own health. As well, if they personally don't get cancer then it must mean, in their minds, that radiation is safe. Only the weak or unlucky get cancer while the world is propelled forward into a future of endless energy with nuclear power, blah, blah, blah. But, the point is, the denial starts right there amongst themselves.
Report Comment
why do you even give credibility to this bogus report ? no comment is necessary because they are making up ridiculously low numbers. more propaganda. Not much to see here. go back to sleep.
Report Comment
agreed ROTHSCHILD. We're supposed to jump at some MSM-featured report that's riddled with spin? Why? Because they're – now – paying attention to the potential 'effects' of this catastrophe? I think not.
And those numbers?! As we're well aware of the harsh reality that's down the road, I have to refrain from laughing at their cancer death projections. Ten thousand more will die each year around the world from choking on candy bars, than what they're projecting. Truly vile report.
But don't worry…radiation only went out to sea…here's another bite at that juicy lobster…
Report Comment
only 1,300 cancer deaths globally
nothing should we worry about folks, please move along
Report Comment
"Ten times deadlier…"
Ten times deadlier like poison?
Dead, deadlier, the deadliest…
And the winner is:
the most dead person in the world, 1st price is a coffin.
h.
Report Comment
He meant to say 2500 per week, but that was "off message" from the governments' propaganda Gestapo. Chernobyl Children, the movies on YouTube shows Japan's real future.
I like the lies about "cold shutdown", which is hilarious. They have no ideas where three 68-ton cores melted down to, much less what their radiostatus is. Even the dumbest among us won't swallow that!
Report Comment
Fred, i really like how you said this and summed it all up. Send it to Jon Stewart, especially since his station is running pronuke ads. The material is perfect for his style of humor. Maybe he'll want to redeem himself.
Report Comment
"…Fukushima fallout may be deadlier than predicted, says Stanford study…"
No shit Sherlock. Plenty of time to revise those estimates, centuries of time.
Report Comment
I did like the fact that the Stanford researches kept hedging their bets saying that their predictions were only as good as the numbers they fed it and those were not particularly trustworthy, but, technically the official ones coming from Japan's IAEA in the early days. That the span of cancer deaths could range from 150 to 2500 does suggest that the model is a bit in need to fine tuning. The model, itself, is questionable as a predictive tool given the wide gap, but, they used the lowest possible values without actually checking for updates. But, in their defense, very little testing of the radiation fallout was been conducted in the early days. This should have been mentioned more clearly in their report, though they did somewhat. The other issue is the compartmentalization of sciences – very, very few scientists know anything about the oceans, so when something falls into it, it is an easy, and wrongheaded assumption that it has disappeared. For me, these are all examples of the fact that people are not taught to think, they are taught to perform.
Report Comment
The scale of the propaganda is in direct proportion to the scale of the disaster.
Fukushima is worse than Chernobyl by far given the number of reactors and spent fuel pools and the length of time of emissions.
Never before have I witnessed so much propaganda being produced by academic scholars.
Money and power has almost totally corrupted science.
Orwell would be impressed.
http://majiasblog.blogspot.com/2012/07/science-corrupted-by-private-funding.html
Report Comment
"have"
Report Comment
+100 majia! Good thing is, when you seen such a concerted effort, it's an indicator of what's really happening behind the scenes. They're obviously shitting their pants…
Report Comment
My forecast….In five years yes there will be 1,300 radiation illness deaths…every day in Japan. Double that daily figure world-wide. This is just at current leakage levels and no additional explosions or collapses of spent fuel pond. Each additional year of current leakage add 20% to my estimates.
The Japan death rate from radiation illness in 2017 may be represented by Nippon Airlines crashing five fully loaded Boeing 787 Dreamliners every day. Add five more loaded airliners to represent the deaths from radiation in Korea, China, Southeast Asia, Canada, and the United States. Barring spent fuel pond collapses or unusual corium activity, Europe will see low death rates, but longterm particles in the stratosphere will produce the opportunity for scattered hotspots anywhere in the Northern Hemisphere. Untimely rains in England (like the last two months) presents a conduit for high atmospheric nuclear fallout from Fukushima to migrate down to ground level.
So there's my lowball radiation-death forecast for 2017 and beyond…one million radiation deaths per year in the Northern hemisphere. I hope that is all we incur… Just normal releases from the other 450 nuclear plants worldwide already kill that amount each year. Hopefully one day medical research will be able to prove the cause of death for radioactive fallout and we will have firm figures, not estimates. We may be fifty years away from that and even more for government transparency.
Report Comment
This report not only minimizes the numbers of people affected, misleads the reader into thinking that all the radioactive pollutants fell into the ocean (which is not desirable either), but refers to the Fukushima disaster in the past tense…..like it's over. What horseshit!
Report Comment
Minimize is correct. A favorite trick is the cut short the time frame for estimated cancers but cleverly never suggest that the time frame is artificially short.
For instance, Gofman and Tamplin pointed out the error in the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission which studied the late deaths related to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Commission omitted several radiation related diseases in their report. The Commission started counting deaths in 1950. "Gofman had not been charitable in his assessment of the mistake, saying 'if you're on a rising curve, you're dishonest to just count how many you have at the bottom of the curve. You should say that when fully mature, this effect or number will be two or three times as big.'" From Under the Cloud, pf 372.
So they have the same old trick, different hat.
Report Comment
"He currently sits on the Energy Efficiency and Renewables advisory committee to the U.S. Secretary of Energy.
He is a Chu man.
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/.
What more is there to say?
Report Comment
+311 Rose….good research.
Report Comment
And Chu is an Obama man. Vote 3rd Party. Vote Green: Dr. Jill Stein and Cheri Honkala — they're anti-nuke and on the correct side of evolution. We'll never get rid of nukes or fossils with either the Pragnocrats or the Rethuglicans.
Report Comment
I did a study, very scientific. I used only the latest and most up to date techniques. I used chicken bones and tea leaves and according to MY caculations, not only were there no deaths from Fukushima, people that had been dead for up to 10 years started to come back to life. Of course these people were all VERY HAPPY when they died…..
Report Comment
Excellent
Report Comment
Have you thought about working at MIT or Stanford? There are several positions available for you. You are a natural.
Please leave your morals and ethics at the door when picking up your paycheck. Thank you.
Report Comment
Post Comments at the Bloomberg site.
One important way to combat the lies is to post comments on the mainstream news accounts of this crap
Report Comment
Here is a good citation to use:
http://enenews.com/gundersen-ive-heard-numbers-high-2-million-die-cancer-because-fukushima-video
Report Comment
my comment is awaiting moderation
Report Comment
majia… Let us know when/if it is printed.
Report Comment
The people that need to know this information are well aware of the situation. The truly ignorant don't read any news anywhere.
The work here at Enenews is well amplified.
Report Comment
I was looking at the eruption of Mt Pinatubo (June 1991) and the spread of fallout from the ash cloud. It is more proof for me that the spread of fallout around the world not just the northern hemisphere but the entire planet from Fukushima happened very fast.
The data from this eruption says the aerosol cloud spread to the southern hemisphere within days,around the earth in two weeks and covered the entire planet in less than a year.
IMO the southern hemisphere was contaminated within a week of the explosions at Fukushima
Report Comment
@Toadmac – I think Mt Pinatubo threw out a far greater mass much further up into the upper atmosphere then fukukuku did.
Demo may also have a point about the 20 degrees location.
There is some sheilding between the two hemispheres.
Hey, don't get me wrong, I'm not pulling this idea down, I just think the scale is a little different and worth considering.
All being said, i do believe I had some traces of fuku rads down here in Sydney within about a month of the event. I do think I had a metal taste in my month around April 2011. But that's my subjective opinion – and it led me to buying a dosimeter. Nowadays I'm prepared for objective measurements.
Report Comment
Look at how much flu is around this year(the worst in decades)? It also seems the further north you are the worse it is! Coincidence? Small or large mass, IMO the fallout would still spread the same?
I hope I'm wrong…….
Report Comment
With all the reports and data from the worlds monitoring systems and governments (not), for all we know Australia could have been the worst hit country in the world??
I doubt this would be the case but…… who would tell us if it were??
Report Comment
No one will tell us Toad, that's why I carry a dosimeter. It's the only answer if you want to know what's happening. It can be expensive, so a community purchase is encouraged.
Never trust the mob.media.corp.guv to consider anyone but their palm greased and greedy cohorts.
Stop Nukes, Stop uranium mining. Kickstart renewables. All simultaneously.
And, of course, stop fukukuku.
Report Comment
Do you have any high readings from rain samples?
Some of mine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enrLGH-dmvE
Report Comment
What kind of dosimeter do you have? Where did you get it?
Report Comment
Pripyat PKC 20.03(Russian) I got it from a military surplus store. Its old (1993) but was still in the wrapper when I purchased it and it gives a accurate reading.
Report Comment
Hi lam335, I got my Ekotect dosimeter on ebay. for about $400.
here's a pic of it in action …
http://enenews.com/forum-post-radiation-monitoring-data-april-30-2012-present/comment-page-10#comment-271549
Report Comment
This is important info, Tm. Could it be because the volcano is less than 20 degrees north of the equator?
Report Comment
Not sure? It does show us that our atmosphere is constantly mixing north to south, east to west.
Scientists tracking Fukushima release question why radiation spread so quickly to the Southern Hemisphere
http://enenews.com/scientists-tracking-fukushima-release-question-why-radiation-spread-so-quickly-to-the-southern-hemisphere
"Why did the radiation spread so quickly to the Southern Hemisphere?"
I think its all about down playing the true global extent of this disaster? "Northern hemisphere is contaminated but the southern hemisphere has that shield thingy so no need to worry"
Report Comment
The data does show the northern hemisphere to have received a little more contamination in general but, all up the difference over a year was minimal.
The east west, north south thing is just more down playing created to keep the mass's sleeping.
THERE IS NO MAGIC SHIELD AT THE EQUATOR!
Peace.
Report Comment
WAIT A MINUTE! How can anyone look at those "Global" figures of 1500 and 2500 and no come away very dismayed. To officially say that such small numbers of people will get sick from Fukushima radiation is completely ridiculous. I believe whole heartedly that you can up those figures up by 10, 50 or maybe even a hundred times. The spin people have a way of making you think every thing is okay. Every situation that was critical or deadly before, is now apparently not so critical. See, everything takes care of itself, if you just let it. The nuclear fuel will dissipate. Just give it a little time. I swear, people a so inpatient. And, in the mean time, if you get a cancer, you can donate your body to science and make something of yourself.
Report Comment
Same thing I thought, stellarblue – what an absurdly low-ball estimate of cancer deaths from Fuku.
Report Comment
http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=LVbfYAHI1ZM
Hank at Scishow seems to believe this study. I posted a comment on the video to the effect that this study is probably a major underestimate of the truth. Hank isn't a nuke industry shill, and in fact commented in the video to the effect that this was a near miss and we should think hard about how we obtain our energy.
Science is often captive to politics, and this study shows us a little LED light of alarm when probably bright garish klaxon sirens should be going off. People at Stanford doing a study have an interest in not ticking off the captains of government and industry. We will probably see more studies, with gradually increasing estimates of doom.
Report Comment