The role of fear in the nuclear debate

“It is unlikely to be able to attribute any health effects in the future among the general public and the vast majority of workers.”

But the World Health Organisation’s comprehensive report (February 2013) concluded that an increased rate of breast cancer is to be expected in future years amongst women who were children when exposed to low-level Fukushima radiation. It also predicted increased leukaemia amongst Fukushima cleanup workers.

If you dissect the UNSCEAR statement, you can see how very carefully it is worded so that it does not contradict the World Health Organisation.

Firstly, the word“attribute”.

It would be virtually impossible to attribute whose cancer was caused by Fukushima radiation to select individuals. Amongst the exposed population, at least 30% would be expected to get cancer in the normal course of events without any Fukushima accident whatsoever. Of every 30 or so people who later developed cancer, only one would be expected to have come from the Fukushima radiation ― but which one?

Next, the words “the general public”.

That widens the scope to all of Japan’s 128 million people. But the WHO was talking only about the few thousands who were exposed to low-level radiation in the affected area.

The words “the vast majority of workers”.

But the WHO predicted leukaemia to develop in only a minority of the affected workers.

So – not any real difference from the WHO report – just a different emphasis. And, if you go on to read that UNSCEAR press release, it is a lot more reticent about Fukushima radiation being harmless. It does warn that children are more susceptible.

“No Immediate Health Risks from Fukushima Nuclear Accident Says UN Expert Science Panel” is the UNSCEAR headline, with the fine-print being: “Long Term Monitoring is the Key”.

The UNSCEAR report also finds that effects on plants and animals are ‘”transient”, but it gives some exceptions ― notably water plants. The report is talking about radiation releases from Fukushima, or “external radiation”. It does not go into the question of more long-lived effects – from “internal radiation” – radioactive isotopes that enter the body through food or water and remain lodged in the body. This is also an omission in the WHO report.