Shocking Yomiuri Editorial: Not eating your veggies equal to 100-200 millisieverts — “Unfounded radiation fears seem to be continuing to spread”

Published: December 4th, 2011 at 3:33 pm ET
By
Email Article Email Article
37 comments


Calmly review radiation risks based on scientific evidence : Editorial, The Yomiuri Shimbun, Dec. 4, 2011:

How does radiation exposure affect the human body? A government panel of experts is scheduled to compile a report in the middle of the month on this question [...]

It is significant that through a series of discussions the experts reconfirmed 100 millisieverts as the yardstick for assessing the health risks of radiation exposure. [...]

Radiation Comparisons

  • During the expert panel’s meetings, members presented studies comparing the health risks of radiation
  • The risk of contracting cancer from smoking is equivalent to that from being exposed to 1,000 millisieverts to 2,000 millisieverts of radiation
  • The risk of cancer due to obesity is equivalent to being exposed to 200 millisieverts to 500 millisieverts of radiation
  • The risk from not eating enough vegetables is equivalent to being exposed to 100 millisieverts to 200 millisieverts
  • People who refrain from eating vegetables due to radiation fears may face greater health risks than if they ate them

Not Appropriate?

  • In the past, such comparisons drew angry responses from the public
  • People said it was not appropriate to compare risks resulting from people’s own choices with risks from radiation, which many people could not avoid
  • The working group’s discussions show the nation is finally ready to calmly discuss and compare the risks of radiation exposure

Government Urged

  • We urge the government to take appropriate action on this matter, such as providing enough information so each citizen can calmly assess the risk of radiation
  • Such information would help people evacuated from areas near the Fukushima power plant to decide whether to return home
  • It would also be useful in alleviating unnecessary radiation
  • Unfounded radiation fears seem to be continuing to spread
  • Government should not leave the problem untouched
Published: December 4th, 2011 at 3:33 pm ET
By
Email Article Email Article
37 comments

Related Posts

  1. Researcher: Japan accepting 20 millisieverts of radiation as safe “could lead to a public health disaster” May 10, 2012
  2. Paper: Japan raising radiation limit to 20 millisieverts/year leads to 160,000 lifetime cancers per million people August 25, 2011
  3. New Scientist: Japan’s radioactive children will be fine, thyroid glands only emitting 35 millisieverts — Anything under 100 millisieverts not dangerous August 16, 2011
  4. Controversy? 500 millisieverts per hour at No. 2 says TEPCO spokesman, 500 microsieverts says Japan nuclear agency — 100 millisieverts beyond 30 km radius says Edano March 23, 2011
  5. Significant rise in cancer risk within 5 years after exposure to ‘low-dose’ radiation — 12% increase after 40 millisieverts November 7, 2011

37 comments to Shocking Yomiuri Editorial: Not eating your veggies equal to 100-200 millisieverts — “Unfounded radiation fears seem to be continuing to spread”

  • What utter hooey. Here’s a quote:

    “It is important for us to calmly assess the health risk even if a radiation dose exceeds 1 millisievert, as that is still far below the criteria of 100 millisieverts.”

    I think that someone forgot the difference between milli- and micro-. Also, the article makes no distinction between internal exposure (eaten or breathed in radioactive particles) and external exposure.

    In a way, this is heartening. It means that T3PC0 and/or the goobermint is having trouble hiring competent help. May it always be so, for they are corrupt imo.


    Report comment

    • Utter hooey baluey ! Agree !


      Report comment

    • Captain Quark Captain Quark

      Hear hear big difference between milli and micro! I have never heard such tripe in my life, pardon the pun but how do they expect us to swallow this pile of radioactive dung?!?!?

      I checked the IAEA official position on Fukushima, their response was was entirely fabricated from information released by Tepco.

      Hans Brix where the hell are you?


      Report comment

  • Ariana

    This is complete and utter bullshit. It wasn’t the 200 milli-sieverts that gave you cancer- you didn’t eat enough CONTAMINATED veggies. God, this pisses me off.


    Report comment

  • arclight arclight

    The risk of contracting cancer from smoking is equivalent to that from being exposed to 1,000 millisieverts to 2,000 millisieverts of radiation
    The risk of cancer due to obesity is equivalent to being exposed to 200 millisieverts to 500 millisieverts of radiation

    and this is relevant to young children and babies??? arc

    The risk from not eating enough vegetables is equivalent to being exposed to 100 millisieverts to 200 millisieverts ?????????? [great stats they must be!! arc]
    People who refrain from eating vegetables due to radiation fears may face greater health risks than if they ate them? [tell that to CRIIRAD arc]
    so its that time again when the monthly cheque (or before the monthly cheque) is sent from big PR adk to the papers.. new scienrist next anyone? :)


    Report comment

  • arclight arclight

    told you end of the month

    ‘Lethal’ radiation doses can be treated with drugs
    03 December 2011
    Magazine issue 2841. Subscribe and save
    MICE can survive a dose of radiation that should have killed them when given a double-drug therapy – even if they get the drug cocktail 24 hours after exposure.

    Radiation damages rapidly dividing cells in the intestine, allowing harmful bacteria to leak into the bloodstream. Eva Guinan at Harvard Medical School found that boosting levels of a protein involved in the immune response against the bacteria – while simultaneously giving an antibiotic – helped 80 per cent of mice survive (Science Translational Medicine, DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3003126).

    The protein and antibiotic are both safe to use in people, and could be stockpiled in case of a nuclear accident, says Guinan.

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228414.900-lethal-radiation-doses-can-be-treated-with-drugs.html


    Report comment

  • …The Chernobyl accident also resulted in widespread radioactive contamination in areas of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine inhabited by several million people. In addition to causing radiation exposure, the accident caused long-term changes in the lives of the people living in the contaminated districts, since the measures intended to limit radiation doses included resettlement, changes in food supplies and restrictions on the activities of individuals and families. Later on, those changes were accompanied by the major economic, social, and political changes that took place when the former Soviet Union broke up. ..
    http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html

    Restrictions on Food Still in Place
    In many countries, restriction orders remain in place on the production, transportation and consumption of food still contaminated by Chernobyl fallout.

    • In the United Kingdom restrictions remain in place on 374 farms covering 750 km2 and 200,000 sheep.

    • In parts of Sweden and Finland, as regards stock animals, including reindeer, in natural and near-natural environments.

    • In certain regions of Germany, Austria, Italy, Sweden, Finland, Lithuania and Poland wild game (including boar and deer), wild mushrooms, berries and carnivore fish from lakes reach levels of several thousand Bq per kg of caesium-137.

    • In Germany, caesium-137 levels in wild boar muscle reached 40,000 Bq/kg. The average level is 6,800 Bq/kg, more than ten times the EU limit of 600 Bq/kg.

    The European Commission does not expect any change soon. It has stated7:
    “The restrictions on certain foodstuffs from certain Member States must therefore continue to be maintained for many years to come.” (emphases added)
    http://www.chernobylreport.org/?p=summary


    Report comment

  • Captain Quark Captain Quark

    Surely this cannot be correct. Someone got the translation wrong or something. This is just too unbelievable.


    Report comment

  • aigeezer aigeezer

    “The risk of contracting cancer from smoking is equivalent to that from being exposed to 1,000 millisieverts to 2,000 millisieverts of radiation”

    … and therefore what, exactly?… Smoke all you want, because it’s just as safe as the radiation we’re throwing at you?

    Are these comparisons purported to be lifetime doses? Hourly?

    Are the cited risks purported to be non-cumulative?

    In any case, don’t smoke banana leaves on a jet plane unless an expert government panel assures you it is safe to do so.


    Report comment

  • jec jec

    Well for those of us who had radiation from Chernobyl–and now have various autoimmune diseases in the family members exposed –plus a teen who developed thyroid cancer in her twentys..tell us again how safe all this radiation is…


    Report comment

  • jackassrig

    Bastards, bastards, bastards.


    Report comment

  • vivvi

    To summarise:
    1. Damned if you do
    2. Damned if you don’t

    Hell of a choice


    Report comment

  • dosdos dosdos

    Each time you lie to the public about how benign radiation can be is equivalent to 150 to 200 millisieverts.


    Report comment

  • Good Evening folks, I just have to comment on this article.
    Veggies. Are we talking contaminated or not? Sure living in a radiation free environment not eating veggies might raise chances of developing cancer. What about living in a veggie producing land with a nuclear “accident”. Should I still be eating my veggies? Really???

    Oh which makes me wonder, did they calculate a ratio of milliseiverts per cancer rate vs cancer rate of non veggie eaters? That short article should be a couple of chapters long to justify what they are saying. Scientifically I mean.
    No mention of children or little children, toddlers or babies or even in Mumma’s tummy babies. This is classic nuclear Bull Dadda
    Bullshit! Not talking about kids I mean.

    If a certain level of radiation exposure is equal to smoking cigarettes what does that mean? What is a smoker? Do you have a smoke casually on a Saturday night at a party or nightclub with your drink or do you smoke a pack a day? And if you already smoke a pack a day and now you are exposed to X factor of radiation doesn’t that double up your death rate? Now you can say I smoked through my finals at College and the smoking relieved my stress and let me attain my diploma. If I die of cancer that was my risk. But now your saying look at us we may dump X factor of radiation into your life but now thats like smoking so what your really saying is here we are foisting smoking death rates on you and your kids. Without the pleasure. To bad its yours now.

    God Bless


    Report comment

  • strAtum5

    “The risk of contracting cancer from smoking is equivalent to that from being exposed to 1,000 millisieverts to 2,000 millisieverts of radiation”

    That’s bollocks ! 1Sv-2Sv when smoking ? Really ? That’s a pretty hefty mighty dose. No-one would be able to smoke for 20+ years if that was true.

    Maybe they were referring to Chernobyl tobacco ? Now that would be more acceptable …


    Report comment

  • karaa karaa

    I don’t want my baby smoke or my child smoke or my pregnant wife smoke.
    I want to have the possibility of living in a “clean” world, as before all this horror started… a few decades before. I did not choose it, I did fight against it since I am a teenager, and still having a tiny hope of a change.
    besides, did you read about tyres from Japan that the Russians refused because irradiated?
    http://www.timeslive.co.za/world/article3199418.ece
    I wonder where they were produced, the humans around them in the fabric, the fabric, the ship…. oh shit… although I don’t want to insult shit because I am a farmer and shit is wonderfull for compost, it brings life.


    Report comment

    • strAtum5

      I hope you haven’t misinterpreted me … I was in no way suggesting smoking is good. On the contrary.

      All I wanted to say was that the figure for smoking was grossly exaggerated so they could make lower radiation doses look harmless.


      Report comment

  • We do… pride ourselves… on our logic.


    Report comment