Fukushima Cover-Up: Extraordinary amount of kids have thyroid cancer — Officials say NOT caused by Fukushima since Chernobyl’s cancers took 4-5 yrs to appear — Yet data shows it started soon after ’86 meltdown… number of cases still rising 25 years later

Published: September 29th, 2013 at 8:43 pm ET
By

146 comments


No cancers found until 4-5 years after nuclear disaster?

Kyodo, June 5, 2013: Researchers at Fukushima Medical University [...] said they do not believe that the most recent cases are related to the nuclear crisis. They point out that thyroid cancer cases were not found among children hit by the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident until four to five years later. [...]

Wikipedia: As of August 2013, there have been more than 40 children newly diagnosed with thyroid cancer and other cancers in Fukushima prefecture as a whole, but these cancers are not attributed to radiation from Fukushima [...] if Chernobyl is anything to go by the increase in thyroid cancer rates won’t begin until approximately 4–5 years after the accident.

Actual data shows cancers “occurred almost immediately within 1 year”

Hiroshima to Fukushima – Data on Fukushima, Eiichiro Ochiai (2014): “12 out of 174.000 children” [...] is much higher than that seen in the Chernobyl incident [...] If 15 more likely cases were taken account of, the thyroid cancer incident rate among Fukushima children would be about 7.8/100.000/year, extraordinarily a high rate. (Note: this number is still an underestimate. This number would he 21/100,0110/y if the data is more properly analyzed). The authority denies that they were caused by the radiation released from the TEPCo NPP on the basis that thyroid cancer would emerge only 4-5 years after such an incident. However, the data on the Chernobyl incident show that thyroid cancer did show up even just one year later (see Fig. 14.4) [...]

Hiroshima to Fukushima – Data on Chernobyl, Eiichiro Ochiai (2014): [...] a few cases of thyroid cancer seem to have occurred almost immediately within 1 year. In children, the incidence [...] has kept increasing, even after 25 years. A similar trend has been observed for the groups aged 15 years or more (Ukraine report 2011). This continuous rise suggests that radiation sources other than the short-lived I-131, such as I-129 and Cs-137 may also be involved. In a highly contaminated area. Gomel of Belams, the annual incidence of thyroid cancers among children 2-18 years of age in 1998 was 58 times higher than that in 1973 [...]

See also: Japan Professor: Fukushima crisis is leading to surge in thyroid cancers... First signs of health catastrophe -- NHK: Trend seen in new cancer tests is 'suspicious' (VIDEO)

Published: September 29th, 2013 at 8:43 pm ET
By

146 comments

Related Posts

  1. ABC Radio: “Cancer cases in Fukushima emerging faster than expected” — Japan Surgeon: I’m very angry, it’s very strange officials won’t release basic data (AUDIO) November 4, 2013
  2. UPI: ‘Skyrocketing’ cancer cases in Fukushima — AP: ‘Alarming’ cancer rates after nuclear disaster — Times: Child cancers up 5,000% — Radiation doses may be “considerably higher” than estimated — Expert: Cancer outbreak shows officials must now prepare for onset of leukemia, other diseases (VIDEO) October 8, 2015
  3. 50% jump in cancer in Fukushima children’s thyroids since last report 3 months ago — Now 90 cases suspected or confirmed — Gov’t Experts: “Difficult to determine” if cancers caused by nuclear disaster May 20, 2014
  4. Asahi: “Unexpectedly high” number of thyroid cancers in Fukushima children — Experts: Premature to say nuclear disaster played no role June 6, 2013
  5. Report: Mortality rising in contaminated regions of East Japan — “Very likely the number of cases of disease and death increased associated with radiation” July 9, 2012

146 comments to Fukushima Cover-Up: Extraordinary amount of kids have thyroid cancer — Officials say NOT caused by Fukushima since Chernobyl’s cancers took 4-5 yrs to appear — Yet data shows it started soon after ’86 meltdown… number of cases still rising 25 years later

  • bo bo

    Just because the thyroid cancer showing up earlier than it did in Chernobyl – they conclude, just for that reason, these cancer incidences weren't caused by Fukushima. ..?

    Don't the numbers simply show how much worse Fukushima is, and will be ? I'm no medical expert…but seems clear to me that would be the natural conclusion.
    Am I missing something?


    Report comment

    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar anne

      Fukushima is already 17.5 times worse than Chernobyl. Also much more plutonium, etc. I think you are right. It is just so much worse than Chernobyl. And that's the reason the thyroid cancers are showing up earlier.


      Report comment

      • mairs mairs

        According to the above, thyroid cancer did show up one year after Chernobyl. That would figure.


        Report comment

        • MoonlightEmpire MoonlightEmpire

          It did, but an important thing to realize is that the World Health Organisation was absent on Chernobyl for the first five years. In one of the better documentaries on Youtube, you will see that the video even begins with the researcher discussing his discontent for the WHO because they denied there was any problem/health issue at all worth investigating until 5 years after the beginning of the incident. As a result, all of the "official" WHO data doesn't take into account any deaths or abnormalities occuring in those five years. Highlys supsect…

          Further, most–if not all–of the standardiztion for risk assessment involving radiation and its nuclides is derived from the "research" done on the A-bomb survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That "research" wasn't even started until 10 or 13 years after the incident. As a result, all persons that died or were afflicted within that time-span were not included….

          My guess is that the short-term effects can be very ugly when high doses are involved, especially depending on the nuclide. I also bet they give "scientific proof" of statistically-significant correlations between various exposures and health effects. Waiting until these cohorts are either dead or un-locatable will prune the results of your study so that you can actually say at the end that there was not "statistically significant correlation" between radiation exposure and health problems.

          This isn't the full picture, but it's important…


          Report comment

      • We Not They Finally

        Yeah, more radiation, earlier thyroid cancer. What is the big duh" that they say that they cannot comprehend?


        Report comment

    • Anthony Anthony

      Totally agree – and FUKU is by UNTOLD UNDISCLOSED MAGNITUDE higher and different in poisonous composition than to contrast it with the other.

      I have cancer now!

      No you don't and if you do its not MY problem.

      Beyond being ignorant people!


      Report comment

    • SnorkY2K

      You are correct. Chernobyl appears to be very small (Fresher fuel, only one core, quickly contained by killing people to get necessary materials to core) compared to Fukushima (Denied problems, avoided addressing issues, undertallied almost any measurement that could be made) A small increase in exposure could lead to a far larger incidence of issues, especially in younger children who are growing.


      Report comment

  • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar anne

    Chernobyl, 26 April 1986. It's been more than 27 years since then.


    Report comment

  • weeman

    Chernobyl did not have mox fuel for one and every accident is different and with no credible data for comparison this is a presumption on their part.


    Report comment

    • razzz razzz

      MOX fuel has added plutonium into the uranium mix.

      All spent uranium fuel rods in the world everywhere contains a small percentage of plutonium as a by-product of fissioning uranium.

      Aside: Once MOX fuel is spent (fissioned), it is very difficult to recover anymore plutonium for reuse, besides the wasted plutonium.

      "…The content of un-burnt plutonium in spent MOX fuel from thermal reactors is significant – greater than 50% of the initial plutonium loading. However, during the burning of MOX the ratio of fissile (odd numbered) isotopes to non-fissile (even) drops from around 65% to 20%, depending on burn up. This makes any attempt to recover the fissile isotopes difficult and any bulk Pu recovered would require such a high fraction of Pu in any second generation MOX that it would be impractical. This means that such a spent fuel would be difficult to reprocess for further reuse (burning) of plutonium. Regular reprocessing of biphasic spent MOX is difficult because of the low solubility of PuO2 in nitric acid.[1]…"
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOX_fuel

      So, you can't believe reprocessing spent fuels is the answer to dealing with plutonium.


      Report comment

      • The amount of plutonium in fuel that has been irradiated for awhile (6 months or more) is actually pretty high. Up to a third of the fission going on is the fissioning of plutonium-239 created from uranium-238 by neutron capture. ~90% of brand new reactor fuel [non-MOX] is uranium-238.

        The technology enshrined in all the operating reactors in the world today is centered around the production of plutonium. Which has long been the element of choice in the production and stockpiling of nuclear WMDs. MOX fuel has been developed to begin to dent the gross overstock of plutonium that has piled up since the production of nuclear WMDs became less popular.

        We don't reprocess spent fuel anymore, as Jimmy Carter shut that down as a proliferation threat (and less obviously because of the public health threat). What they're burning as MOX are old weapons.


        Report comment