Stanford University Researchers: "#Fukushima Radiation May Cause 1,300 Cancer Deaths Around the World"

"The best estimates of cancer cases resulting from the Fukushima disaster is 180, and range from 24 to 2,500", according to the Bloomberg News article below.

(180 cases?)

Further, the article says:

The most likely number of cancer deaths is 130 and estimated to range from 15 to 1,300, the authors said, adding that the ranges reflect uncertainties about emissions and the methods the researchers used to calculate their impact.

(130 deaths?? Worldwide?)

The paper by the Stanford researchers further says 2 to 12 cases of cancer may happen among the plant workers.

From Bloomberg News (7/17/2012; part, emphasis is mine):

Fukushima Radiation May Cause 1,300 Cancer Deaths, Study Finds

By Jason Gale - Jul 17, 2012 3:15 PM PT

Radiation from the Fukushima nuclear plant may cause as many as 1,300 cancer deaths globally, according to a study that showed fallout from Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s (9501) 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. They incorporated emission estimates into 3-D global atmospheric modeling to predict the effects of radiation exposure, which was detected as far away as the U.S. and Europe.

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. Identical emissions from a hypothetical accident at California’s Diablo Canyon Power Plant would be 25 percent deadlier because of differing weather patterns, according to the study published yesterday in the journal Energy & Environmental Science.

“There was a lot of luck involved,” said Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford, in a telephone interview. “The effects vary significantly with the meteorological conditions and the only reason this wasn’t a lot worse was because 81 percent of all the emissions were deposited over the ocean.”

The failure of backup power at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi plant, located 135 miles (220 kilometers) north of Tokyo, caused the worst atomic accident since Chernobyl in 1986.

Radiation fallout forced the evacuation of about 160,000 people surrounding the plant. It also left about 132 square kilometers as a no-go zone, some of it uninhabitable for decades. Prolonged exposure to radiation in the air, ground and food can damage DNA, causing leukemia and other cancers.

The best estimates of cancer cases resulting from the Fukushima disaster is 180, and range from 24 to 2,500, yesterday’s study said.

The most likely number of cancer deaths is 130 and estimated to range from 15 to 1,300, the authors said, adding that the ranges reflect uncertainties about emissions and the methods the researchers used to calculate their impact.

“They have demonstrated there are no significant public health effects” from radiation exposure, said Evan Douple, associate chief of research at the Hiroshima Radiation Effects Research Foundation. “Their best estimate of 130 cancer deaths in Japan would be lost in the background wash of the hundreds of thousands of cancer deaths that would be occurring in the million or so people in the population exposed.”

The biggest health effects were psychological, said Douple, whose team is studying the impact from Fukushima. Stress from the earthquake, tsunami and meltdown may cause a range of health effects, including cancer, he said.

(Full article at the link.)

Excellent. Bloomberg even quotes in the last two paragraphs above the researcher at the institution whose antecedent is the infamous Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission.

Only 130 deaths worldwide (though mostly from Japan) from 3 core melts and 900,000 terabecquerels of radioactive materials (iodine equivalent).

The abstract from Energy & Environmental Science also says that radiation exposure to workers at the plant may result in 2 to 12 cases of cancer:

This study quantifies worldwide health effects of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident on 11 March 2011. Effects are quantified with a 3-D global atmospheric model driven by emission estimates and evaluated against daily worldwide Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) measurements and observed deposition rates. Inhalation exposure, ground-level external exposure, and atmospheric external exposure pathways of radioactive iodine-131, cesium-137, and cesium-134 released from Fukushima are accounted for using a linear no-threshold (LNT) model of human exposure. Exposure due to ingestion of contaminated food and water is estimated by extrapolation. We estimate an additional 130 (15–1100) cancer-related mortalities and 180 (24–1800) cancer-related morbidities incorporating uncertainties associated with the exposure–dose and dose–response models used in the study. We also discuss the LNT model's uncertainty at low doses. Sensitivities to emission rates, gas to particulate I-131 partitioning, and the mandatory evacuation radius around the plant are also explored, and may increase upper bound mortalities and morbidities in the ranges above to 1300 and 2500, respectively. Radiation exposure to workers at the plant is projected to result in 2 to 12 morbidities. An additional [similar]600 mortalities have been reported due to non-radiological causes such as mandatory evacuations. Lastly, a hypothetical accident at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant in California, USA with identical emissions to Fukushima was studied to analyze the influence of location and seasonality on the impact of a nuclear accident. This hypothetical accident may cause [similar]25% more mortalities than Fukushima despite California having one fourth the local population density due to differing meteorological conditions.

*Definition of "morbidity": The rate of incidence of a disease.

One of the researchers, Dr. Mark Z. Jacobson, is a Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford University, California. I can see that he may be good at radioactive materials dispersion modeling. But at putting the numbers on cancer cases and deaths?

Tweet

(UPDATED) Stanford Researchers Found Radioactive Cesium of #Fukushima Origin in Pacific Bluefin Tuna Off California Coast

(UPDATE) The paper as posted in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS):

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/05/22/1204859109.abstract?sid=92ce1d87-a1c1-4fd4-a674-2db99d7bf957

(H/T karl)

=====================================

The researchers from Stanford University, California caught 15 tuna fish off the coast of southern California last August and measured radioactive cesium-134 and -137. Nine months later, it is in the news now that their research paper has finally been published in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Neither the Wall Street Journal article below, or Reuters', mentions the exact numbers for radioactive cesium, but Japan's Kyodo News does:

Cesium-134: 4 Bq/kg
Cesium-137: 6.3 Bq/kg

The Stanford researchers think the fish were in the Japanese water about a month after the accident started. Daniel Madigan, who led the study, said they were surprised to find cesium at all, and that it was found in all samples they collected and tested.

Wall Street Journal says the added radioactivity is about 3% of the naturally occurring radioactivity in the fish, and Reuters converts becquerels into curie to put things in perspective saying "It takes 37 billion becquerels to equal 1 curie".

Well, at least the Japanese media, MSM or alternative, has gotten comfortable over the last year quoting the measured numbers instead of trying to put them in perspective without mentioning the numbers.

From Wall Street Journal (5/28/2012; emphasis is mine):

Tuna Carried Fukushima Radioactivity to U.S. Coast

By ROBERT LEE HOTZ

Pacific bluefin tuna migrating last year from coastal Japan to the waters off Southern California contained radioactive cesium isotopes from the Fukushima nuclear disaster, scientists reported Monday.

The amount of radioactivity in the fish was one-tenth the level the U.S. and Japan consider dangerous, and likely posed no public health hazard or risk to people who ate the seafood, the scientists said. But the study showed for the first time that migrating sea life rapidly brought traces of radioactive elements from the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactors across vast distances.

"The tuna packaged it up and brought it across the world's largest ocean," said marine ecologist Daniel Madigan at Stanford University, who led the study team. "We were definitely surprised to see it at all and even more surprised to see it in every one we measured."

Their findings raise the possibility that other wide-ranging sea-life that foraged near Japan, such as turtles, sharks and seabirds, may also have carried low levels of radioactive cesium from the accident around the Pacific basin. The scientists expect to conduct more tests on migrating bluefin tuna as well as albacore tuna, sea turtles, and several shark species this summer.

Their research was published Monday in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Prized as a sushi delicacy in Japan and around the world, Pacific bluefin tuna spawn in the Sea of Japan, among other locales. As they grow, the fish usually travel around the southern tip of Japan and follow the Kurishio Current up the country's east coast, past the scene of the nuclear accident, before migrating over 6,000 nautical miles to the eastern Pacific. The fish eventually return to their birth waters to spawn.

In their study, Mr. Madigan and his colleagues tested tissue from 15 young Pacific bluefin tuna caught by recreational fisherman off the coast of San Diego in August 2011, about five months after an earthquake and a tsunami severely damaged the Fukushima reactors, triggering the largest known accidental release of radioactivity into the ocean.

For weeks after the accident, levels of radioactivity were up to 10,000 times normal in the coastal waters off eastern Japan, where the bluefin tuna spend their early life before migrating across the ocean.

In the young bluefin tuna that reached California, the researchers found slightly elevated levels of cesium-137 and cesium-134, two primary products of nuclear fission that tend to concentrate in muscle tissue. The amount of cesium 137 was five times as much as the background level, leftover from nuclear weapons testing decades ago. Prior to the Fukushima accident, cesium-134, which has a half-life of about two years, was undetectable in seawater or marine life.

Overall, the levels were just enough to raise the naturally occurring radioactivity of the fish by about 3%, the scientists said.

"We found that absolutely every one of them had comparable concentrations of cesium-134 and cesium-137," said marine biologist Nicholas Fisher at Stony Brook University in New York state, who was part of the study group. "It is crystal-clear data."

For comparison, the researchers also tested tissue from yellowfin tuna caught at the same time last August and tissue preserved from bluefin tuna caught in 2008, three years before the nuclear accident. Yellowfin tuna typically spend their entire lives in the sea off the coast of California.

In both the yellowfin and the tissue of the 2008 bluefin, the scientists didn't find any cesium-134 and detected only the expected background levels of cesium-137.

Write to Robert Lee Hotz at sciencejournal@wsj.com

Tweet

Madoff and Stanford "Victims" Want Government to "Make Them Whole"

Jewish and Christian coalition of the (once-)wealthy to make the rest of us pay, ultimately. Can you spell C-H-U-T-Z-P-A-H?

Investors Who Lost In Madoff and Stanford Schemes Want Government to "Make Them Whole" (3/10/2010 Jesse's Café Américain)

Citing the Business Week article, the post informs us that the Madoff and Stanford victims have banded together and have been lobbying Congress for a law that could require Wall Street firms to pay billions of dollars to cover some of the losses they suffered.

"Revenue neutral" solution to so that this wealthy group of investors are made "whole". RRIIGGHHTT.

But as Jesse's Cafe says, "What about the rest of us?":

What about the many who have lost, on a percentage basis, equally if not more devastating amounts of their retirement savings in the tech, housing and credit bubbles? Their only fault is that they lack the political connections and high powered lawyers to make the case for them to the Congress, and the influence to get their way from pliable Congressmen.

...To take the losses of wealthier investors from hedge funds and other high risk investments having no productive benefit or socially redeeming value, and socialize them to the many is almost unbelievable.

This holy coalition even has Federal Reserve Dallas's spokeswoman as one of the lobbyists, and influential Senators are already quite sympathetic to their "plight".

Tweet