The worker's cancer was highly unlikely to have come from Fukushima because, once again, the level of radiation workers received was far lower than the ones received by the Hiroshima/Nagasaki cohort that saw (modestly) higher cancer rates.

Cancer is scary. And, because we know so little about it, we tend to want to blame whoever or whatever is convenient -- say Monsanto or the nearby nuclear plant..

The Japanese are not the only ones riding this guilt-trip jury award merry-go-round. The Round-Up verdict was a travesty, but now any ambulance-chasing attorney is free to round up (no pun intended) a bunch of suburban gardeners and initiate a lawsuit for millions because the first jury couldn't understand that the cancer-ridden mice in their case were given doses far beyond what their school maintenance plaintiff could possibly have experienced and that a jug of Round-Up in the garage, used to spot-kill weeds at a suburban house, was highly unlikely to give the user cancer.

But Monsanto is evil, right? Eeeeeeevil.

Good news! Germany is shutting down its coal plants.

Conan, I think it's even worse than that... my understanding is that several attempts to reproduce that study have failed to replicate the results, and there are now serious questions about the original study's methodology. I'll see if I can dig up a link.

Nicole, that would indeed be good news if Germany wasn't also shutting down its nuclear plants. What will happen is that Germany will wind up dependent on (1) coal-burning plants in Eastern Europe, and (2) Putin's oil.

After Fukushima there was a political panic that shut down most of the nuclear reactors in Japan. But the reaction to the higher prices in a country that also had recently instituted an astronomical sales tax increase was such that most of the reactors were quietly restarted again, and brought back on line.

There is no real pollution problem in Japan regardless. What little they have is drifting over from China where air pollution is life threatening.

Europe has a history or making grand environmental pronouncements and then walking them back on the QT when they find out they are going to get hammered at the next election because of the costs of these idiotic policies.

Germany is shutting down its coal plants.

And replacing them with what? I'm pretty sure they're also in the process of phasing out their nuclear plants. Wind? solar? hydro? natural gas?

Or are they going to go the PG&E route with rolling blackouts?

Maps of carbon monoxide (CO):

https://www.windy.com/-CO-concentration-cosc?cosc,27.897,105.535,4

China will likely bring on line in 1 year all the coal fired plants Germany is shutting off in the next 5.

Kids these days and their molten salt reactors.

I like the Waste Annihilating Molten Salt Reactor that runs on - wait for it - nuclear waste.

Transatomic power to the people!

I remain concerned that for some folks short term thinking and acute impact are the only metrics of merit.

Longer term thinking and the externalities of various energy generation strategies need to be accounted for to make valid rational decisions.

Nuclear power is wonderful under the right set of conditions. Under other sets of conditions it is not the best choice.

There is no one stop solution for energy generation given the risks and externalities involved. The right solution is a proper energy mix.

As for Japan, the issue at hand will always be that they reside on the ring of fire.

To properly handle the risks with nuclear energy generation in such a location requires engineering with proper safety margins. That will always but heads with the economics of constructing the plants in the first place.

When you have safety engineers on one side butting heads with bean counters on the other you will almost always end up with safety factors that aren't quite wide enough.

This is where things like laws and regulations help to mandate certain safety margins... but then you get certain folks complaining about regulations.

The issue is that when systems fail, the same folks who complained about regulations suddenly disappear as if they were mere apparitions.

One cannot even solve the issue with fines after the fact because the folks responsible either pass on the costs to the consumers... or they declare bankruptcy and are not held accountable for poor decisions they made.

This is a mess that does not admit simple solutions, nor can we trust business to self-regulate safety when the risks are substantial and long term.

Filthiest energy I've ever seen was running on Dolemite.

While you all are arguing over how many carbon credits can dance on on a pinhead, please remember that the real tragedy at Fukushima was the roughly twenty thousand people killed in five minutes by the tsunami.

But I guess you didn’t know any of them, so that makes this topic comfortably academic and suitable for “lecturing your betters” about the remote dangers of nuclear power.

"But I guess you didn’t know any of them"

Not in the biblical sense, no.

Conan, I think it's even worse than that... my understanding is that several attempts to reproduce that study have failed to replicate the results, and there are now serious questions about the original study's methodology. ~ Cousin Dave at November 1, 2019 6:58 AM

But, CD, the studies cited in the IARC report were peer-reviewed.

But, CD, the studies cited in the IARC report were peer-reviewed.

Conan the Grammarian at November 1, 2019 6:58 PM

Of course they were....

My favorite part of this discussion is how we suddenly went from unsubstantiated speculation about the replication of some unreferenced study... to questioning the foundations of the scientific enterprise.

Isab Says:

"While you all are arguing over how many carbon credits can dance on on a pinhead, please remember that the real tragedy at Fukushima was the roughly twenty thousand people killed in five minutes by the tsunami."

Some of us are capable of holding more than one thought in our head at the same time.

The deaths associated with the tsunami are indeed a tragedy.

It is *also* a tragedy that immediately following the reactor failure 156,000 people were displaced from their home because of the 30km exclusion zone surrounding the reactors.

It is *also* a tragedy that the populations living in the most impacted regions are now at a 70% increased risk for developing thyroid cancer, a 7% increased risk for leukemia for exposed infant boys, and 6% higher risk of breast cancer for exposed infant girls.

All of these items cannot simply be ignored because you prefer to focus on the impact of the tsunami alone.

Also... when you say "roughly 20 thousand", the actual number is 15 thousand. Why exactly did you feel it necessary to enhance the death toll of the tsunami by 33%?

Group home, right?

Crid,

As I've alluded to before, you always seem to get extra cranky this time of year when the holidays are coming up. It is a distinct pattern I have noticed that seems fairly consistent.

I am honestly sorry that you don't have much to look forward to for thanksgiving, Christmas, and new years.

It really isn't too late for you, just get out there and be genuine... people tend to respond positively to authenticity.

> As I've alluded to

You're not allusive. It's what happens on this blog sometimes… The goofy personalities are more interesting (if tawdry) than the beliefs they struggle so mightily to affirm. You're not misunderstood: You're summoning precisely the response you intend to conjure.

Residential care?

...to questioning the foundations of the scientific enterprise. ~ Artemis at November 2, 2019 7:04 AM

No one's questioning the "foundations of the scientific enterprise." We're well-dialed into those, warts and all.

What we're mocking is your insistence that you alone understand those foundations - and must explain them to the rest of us with pretentious statements like "that's why [peer review] is the standard" after we've pointed out the problems extant in peer review.

Of course they were.... ~ Isab at November 1, 2019 8:43 PM

That was me mocking Artemis/Orion's self-righteous pronouncement to CD on another thread that peer review is "the standard" of scientific research and cannot be properly understood by the scientifically-illiterate ignorati that populate this blog.

Some of us are capable of holding more than one thought in our head at the same time. ~ Artemis at November 2, 2019 7:13 AM

Just not opposing ones, in your case.

Also... when you say "roughly 20 thousand", the actual number is 15 thousand. Why exactly did you feel it necessary to enhance the death toll of the tsunami by 33%? ~ Artemis at November 2, 2019 7:13 AM

The National Police Agency of Japan "has confirmed 15,897 deaths, 6,157 injured, and 2,532 people missing...." That's still missing after 8 years. It takes 7 years in the US to be legally declared dead.

So, unless you assume those 2,532 people are living on a deserted island Gilligan-style, you have 18,429 people likely or actually dead from the Tōhoku tsunami.

I think we can accept Isab's "roughly 20,000." That is, unless you want to quibble about 1,571 people.

It is *also* a tragedy that the populations living in the most impacted regions are now at a 70% increased risk for developing thyroid cancer, a 7% increased risk for leukemia for exposed infant boys, and 6% higher risk of breast cancer for exposed infant girls. ~ Artemis at November 2, 2019 7:13 AM

Increased risk, eh?

According to the World Nuclear News, "Studies by the World Health Organisation and Tokyo University have confirmed this with results that showed the people near the damaged power plant recieved[sic] such low doses of radiation that no discernable [sic] health effect could be expected."

Radiation has been ruled out as the cause of at least one cancer death of a worker at Fukushima. "...the radiation workers in Japan, including Fukushima, as with all radworkers around the world, do not have any more cancers than the general population. The people around Fukushima do not have any more cancers than the general population and never will. They never got enough of a dose."

According to WHO, "Considering the level of estimated doses, the lifetime radiation-induced cancer risks other than thyroid are small and much smaller than the lifetime baseline cancer risks."

Youse guys are so sincere with him/her... So patient... I'll never understand how you do it.

Conan Says:

"What we're mocking is your insistence that you alone understand those foundations - and must explain them to the rest of us with pretentious statements like "that's why [peer review] is the standard" after we've pointed out the problems extant in peer review."

Except you haven't actually understood any issues with peer review.

I have never even "insisted" that "I alone" understand these foundations.

I simply have direct experience with the process from start to finish so when I see you or others criticizing the process in a manner that doesn't reflect reality I correct the record.

Conan, I don't know why this is so difficult for you to comprehend... but this is something you only have concocted a story about in your head. You believe you understand a process you have zero direct experience with.

That doesn't imply that the process is perfect, however your criticisms make no sense given the actually realities of how it works.

If you recall, our recent discussion regarding peer review had to do with you criticizing the findings and predictions of scientists based on weird ideas you collected having nothing to do with the published literature.

You even insisted that ozone depletion was somehow related to a catastrophic prediction of melting arctic ice... but that was simply you suffering from a complete misunderstanding of the science.

You have a bad habit of misattributing your own lack of knowledge and understanding to the experts.

At some point you become responsible for your own education Conan, but you cannot even do that. You still somehow blame scientists for something you never properly understood from your youth and then you use that as a point to criticize scientists.

If you were the least bit intellectually curious I could explain to you some problems I see with how peer review works, but it isn't anything like what you or others on this forum have said.

You have a fictional comprehension of the process.

Conan Says:

"The National Police Agency of Japan "has confirmed 15,897 deaths, 6,157 injured, and 2,532 people missing...." That's still missing after 8 years. It takes 7 years in the US to be legally declared dead."

There are deaths and missing people associated with the evacuation.

The issue at hand is *not* the total deaths associated immediately with the tsunami which is accurately reported to be ~15,000.

It is unknown if the additional 2,500 individuals you are talking about went missing after the tsunami and died during the evacuation associated with the nuclear radiation event.

All we know for certain is that ~15,000 folks were killed unrelated to the destruction of the reactors.

All you and Isab are doing is cooking the books by taking each and every possible death and assigning it to the tsunami when none of the official reports make such a claim.

In other words, you are lying and/or distorting the available facts to fit your preferred narrative.

Conan,

Just to drive my point home here:

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/02/20/national/post-quake-illnesses-kill-more-in-fukushima-than-2011-disaster#.Xb9gNG5FzOi

"But it is the death toll from indirect causes in Fukushima — now at more than 1,600 — that has become conspicuous, particularly when compared with Iwate’s 434 and Miyagi’s 879."

"Causes of indirect deaths include physical and mental stress stemming from long stays at shelters, a lack of initial care as a result of hospitals being disabled by the disaster, and suicides."

Where exactly in your calculations are those ~1,600 deaths that are not directly related to the tsunami and are instead associated with the evacuation associated with the 30km exclusion zone?

And this isn't even the missing people you are talking about and want to fold into the direct impact of the tsunami.

Do you now see why Isab's and your calculations are dishonest?

Here was Isab's direct quote I was refuting by the way:

"the real tragedy at Fukushima was the roughly twenty thousand people killed in five minutes by the tsunami. "

I don't know if you guys are aware or not... but the death toll associated with "mental stress stemming from long stays at shelters" didn't occur within 5 minutes of the tsunami.

The Pedantry severs no purpose. It neither reinforces your argument, nor diminishes ours.

Pity, with all your claimed education that a decent English teacher or logistician didn’t wack you over the head a sufficient number of times to get that point across.

Isab,

What reality do you live in?

You asserted that 20K people died within 5 minutes of the tsunami and that was the "real tragedy".

Yet only 15K were actually attributed to death immediately by the tsunami with the remaining figures being attributed to the evacuation aftermath.

Apparently those folks who died weren't part of the "real tragedy" and only served a purpose if you could smuggle them into your made up numbers.

This isn't that complicated for anyone who is interested in truth or facts.

You guys always do this... you make some bold unsubstantiated assertion and then when I check out the facts and it turns out you were wrong you then assert that those facts do nothing to "diminish" your argument or "reinforce" mine.

Your inability to deal with facts that do not comport with your preferred version of reality suggests you are suffering from a massive cognitive impairment.

It is also laughable that you now consider the "killed in five minutes by the tsunami" part of your claim to be "pedantic".

Your entire argument was that the "real tragedy" was the immediate death toll of the tsunami itself as opposed to all the folks who died as an indirect consequence of the tsunami due to what happened with the reactors.

A substantial amount of people died because of the evacuation, which was extensive specifically because of the reactors.

That was your core argument. This isn't "pedantry"... this is you taking out a marker to circle in a path of a hurricane on an official weather map after it has been conclusively demonstrated that your point was illogical and not based in facts or reality.

Youse guys are so sincere with him/her... So patient... I'll never understand how you do it. ~ Crid at November 3, 2019 11:21 AM

Me either. I'm done. It's gotta be an institutional upbringing; perhaps a touch of Asperger's. Dealing with his/her stunted and adolescent worldview is stultifying.

Conan,

Good grief.

The "worldview" that things like facts exist isn't a feature of adolescence.

It is a feature of rational thinking.

You cannot even bring yourself to admit that the 20K figure was a 33% overestimate driven by including all deaths... even the ones that were associated with the evacuation.

As for "adolescent" bevaior… aren't you the guy who was busy "mocking" someone on the internet who wasn't even talking to you?

You don't care about acting like a child, so let's not pretend, shall we?

I'd love it if you could actually operate like a fully functioning adult, but that isn't in the card.

Read the figures posted by the Japanese National Police Agency, Artie. They're posted online. The figure of 2,532 missing (2,531 in the Sep 2019 report) is from the tsunami, not the evacuation, not the nuclear accident, but the tsunami.

And yes, dumbass, I'm familiar with the psychology of shelters. As a Red Cross volunteer, I've worked in a few. Now, tell me again of your expertise and experience in these matters.

Conan,

If you are missing 2532 people after a natural disaster and an evacuation of a 30KM exclusion zone is it not strictly possible to conclude that those 2532 people died "within 5 minutes of the tsunami".

That is the logical error you are making.

The police tabulated reports of a missing 2.5K people... but no one knows if they went missing because they were swept out by the tsumani… or if they died in the aftermath during the

They could have died due to "lack of initial care as a result of hospitals being disabled by the disaster", or they could have died due to "suicide", or they could have perished due to a variety of other reasons that did not occur from the immediate impact of the tsunami.

This is the part where you are either ignorant of how to analyze data... or where you are being purposefully dishonest.

No one knows what exactly happened to those missing people.

As a result it is inappropriate to declare after that now you *know* that they died within 5 minutes of the tsunami hitting the island.

You are like one of those conspiracy theory nutjobs who see something in the sky they cannot explain... and suddenly declare it was an alien spacecraft.

You cannot go from a state of ignorance to a state of knowledge.

Sometimes the best you can do is say you don't really know what happened to those people.

That is why the official figure of people who died directly by the tsunami is ~15K.

Conan,

Also... I have looked at the online report:

https://www.npa.go.jp/news/other/earthquake2011/pdf/higaijokyo_e.pdf

It does not say anything about attributing the missing people to the direct impact of the tsunami as opposed to many other possible fates of those unfortunate souls.

You simply do not know what happened to them (and neither does anyone else), so it is dishonest of you to now declare you know they were dead within 5 minutes of the tsunami impact.

You are welcome to provide documented evidence any time you like of an official report that says otherwise.

Now is the time when an honest person would admit they made a mistake.

Presumed dead is what I said, Artie, when I counted them in Isab’s “roughly 20,000.“ Not confirmed. Until you’ve worked a disaster, even a small one, stop telling me how to work one.

Conan,

I will also point out the following report:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/fukushima-evacuation-has-killed-more-earthquake-tsunami-survey-says-f8C11120007

"A survey by popular Japanese newspaper Mainichi Shimbun said Monday that deaths relating to this displacement – around 1,600 – have surpassed the number killed in the region in the original disaster.
Close to 16,000 people were killed across Japan as a direct result of the earthquake and tsunami in 2011. According to the Mainichi report, 1,599 of these deaths were in the Fukushima Prefecture."

In other words, in the region local to the reactors... *MORE* people died due to evacuating the 30km exclusion zone than died as a direct result of the tsunami itself.

The total deaths from the tsunami obviously include regions outside of the Fukushima Prefecture.

The whole point of this conversation by the way was Isab downplaying the deaths associated with the evacuation, which were actually substantial.

Conan,

Presumed dead due to what cause?

That is what at issue here.

You keep wanting to dance around Isab's erroneous claim:

"the real tragedy at Fukushima was the roughly twenty thousand people killed in five minutes by the tsunami."

Did those 2,500 missing people die within 5 minutes of the tsunami?

If the answer is you do not know then you cannot use them to bolster Isab's numbers.

"Until you’ve worked a disaster, even a small one, stop telling me how to work one."

Until you've published a scientific paper stop telling me how the peer review process is done.

You have this really bizarre habit of placing yourself on a pedestal where if you think you have personal experience with something it trumps everything else in a discussion... yet if someone else has personal experience, then your "fantasy" of how something works somehow is on a level playing field.

Look Conan, that you may or may not have gone into a disaster to help hand out bottled water has no baring on how those 2,500 people are counted in the official statistics.

They are not attributed to the direct impact of the tsunami.