tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5056599210263969567.post3770300518490399699..comments2024-01-23T03:52:54.149+09:00Comments on Anne Kaneko's Fukushima Blog: Children and RadiationAnne Kanekohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09520490908508371344noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5056599210263969567.post-68352755480220343902012-06-11T07:41:52.035+09:002012-06-11T07:41:52.035+09:00While I cannot read Anonymous's link, I can te...While I cannot read Anonymous's link, I can tell you that any apparent increase in leukemia over the past year cannot be due to the Fukushima Dai-ichi accident.<br /><br />Radiation-induced leukemia has a significant latency between exposure and diagnosis. Here is a link to the very latest research, published in May of 2012:<br /><br /> http://bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/content/119/19/4363.full.pdf+html<br /><br />While it is probably a bit technical for the average reader, just look at Figures 3 and 6. The blue curve in Figure 3 is the most up-to-date model of the probability distribution for the detection of radiation-induced leukemias. No cases are expected sooner than 2.5 years after exposure, with risk peaking at about 5 years. It has only been a little more than a year since the accident.<br /><br />Figure 6 gives the absolute risk as a function of age at exposure and radiation dose. The "medium" dose (red) ranges from 20 mSv to 1 Sv (1000 mSv). The absolute risk is a little more than 1 chance in 100,000. That's 0.001 percent. Even for the "high" dose, greater than 1000 mSv (equivalent to spending 20 years in the 50 mSv/yr supposedly "uninhabitable" zone), the risk is between 1 and 3 in ten thousand.<br /><br />We have seen similar claims before, in the aftermath of Chernobyl. It is rather long (35 pages), but this paper written in 1992 by a pair of Harvard physicists demolishes the logical and statistical errors underlying a great many perennial favorites among anti-nuclear activists. It is worth reading to inoculate oneself against bad science and faulty math.<br /><br /> http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~wilson/publications/pp470.pdfDiogenesNJhttp://nuclearenvironmentalist.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5056599210263969567.post-35283980088324821962012-05-24T20:34:25.132+09:002012-05-24T20:34:25.132+09:00Anne. Please. When children get stressed out, th...Anne. Please. When children get stressed out, they get tummy aches, nightmares, and regressive behaviour. They don't usually get leukaemia.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5056599210263969567.post-78119863477744603132012-05-23T23:43:51.749+09:002012-05-23T23:43:51.749+09:00Interesting paper.
There have been articles in th...Interesting paper. <br />There have been articles in the newspaper about 'disaster related deaths', nearly a thousand in Fukushima prefecture. Most of them are old people, some suicides, and I guess these extra deaths amongst children.<br />I don't know how much is due to radiation. I do know - in fact all parents here are very aware - that children are sensitive to stress and it's important for parents to provide an emotionally stable environment for children. <br />I agree with the paper's comments on the need for another health survey (the one done last summer has had a poor response). On the other hand, scaremongering only makes parents anxious which in turn endangers children. Parents need practical advice on how to live here and protect their children from any dangers.Anne Kanekohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09520490908508371344noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5056599210263969567.post-11585063352998394722012-05-23T06:47:02.397+09:002012-05-23T06:47:02.397+09:00No, the kids are not all right. Deaths by heart d...No, the kids are not all right. Deaths by heart disease doubled last year, and deaths due to cancer/leukemia rose dramatically. <br /><br />http://dl.dropbox.com/u/17135518/nakate.pdfAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com