Scientists Confirm Fukushima Radioactive Water Will Raise Cancer Risk
Susanne Posel (OC) : While it has been 3 years since the disaster at Fukushima Diachi nuclear power plant, the effects of radiation poisoning are still a current issue. At the 2014 Ocean Sciences Meeting, researchers asserted that radiation levels will “increase as contaminants slowly swell eastwards.”
The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) has explained how radioactive contaminants expelled from Fukushima are moving along the Pacific Ocean currents and heading directly to the West Coast of North America (WCNA).
Researchers have surmised, that with the arrival of debris from Fukushima to the WCNA, the radio-nuclides will begin to arrive and affect the WCNA; and continue to its peak some time in 2016. Scientists at the Bedford Institute of Oceanography (BIO) have observed and monitored the radiation expelling into the Pacific Ocean since the disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant.
Their research has produced evidence of cesium 137 and 134 from samples taken and shows that as the Becquerel level rises in the Pacific Ocean, the danger of over-exposure to radioactive elements will also become a major health issue within the next few years. A large part of the problem is that when it comes to long-term answers about the effects Fukushima will have on human and marine life health is still unknown.
According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), who recently released a study, the answer that centers on the need for establishing “reliable and accurate radiation dose estimates for the affected populations.” This study details how scientists do not know the impact of radiation exposure to the human body and how the long-term effects of exposure to Fukushima radiation is still unknown.
Indeed, this study refers to the fact that currently the “strategies for dose assessment”, when involving nuclear accidents, are haphazard, and do not follow the universal scientific method. In this study, researchers “propose a comprehensive, systematic approach to estimating radiation doses for the evaluation of health risks, resulting from a nuclear power plant accident.” The study asserts:
“The guidelines we recommend here are intended to facilitate obtaining reliable dose estimations for a range of different exposure conditions. We recognize that full implementation of the proposed approach may not always be feasible because of other priorities during the nuclear accident emergency and because of limited resources in manpower and equipment. The proposed approach can serve as a basis to optimize the value of radiation dose reconstruction following a nuclear reactor accident.”
According to the report, deciphering the dangers of “radiation exposure following nuclear accident” is based on “medical planning, emergency response, and immediate consequence management, but is limited for the collection of radiation exposure–related data needed to predict or estimate risks for late health effects.”
Indeed, this issue poses a problem when there are no established “guidelines to estimate radiation doses for evaluations of health risk.” The researchers studied Fukushima, Chernobyl, Windscale and Three Mile Island nuclear plant disasters for comparison and strategy. Two questions were posed:
• Immediately after the accident: What adverse health effects should be expected as a consequence of the accident?
• Years after the accident: What were the actual health consequences caused by the accident?
The answer to these questions further how these disasters could be dealt with, and “health risks” could be evaluated based on “risk projections and epidemiological studies.” Risk projections encompass “the types and number of expected, adverse effects resulting from an accident [and] the estimated or assumed extent of human exposure.”
This strategy allows scientists to create responses “well in advance of the expected occurrence” with the assumption that the disaster will hold true to prior “estimation[s] of average does over populations.”
Epidemiologic studies will facilitate long-term consequences of nuclear disasters through “analysis of observed adverse health risks” to project and assume what the “background baseline rate” is and compare that to public health assessments.
Through “projections generate[d] by observed rates of disease” researchers state that “we [can] discuss dose assessment” to give the general public a standard by which to judge whether their exposure to radiation is detrimental to their health.
The study explained that “the radiation health impacts of the Windscale, TMI, and Chernobyl accidents were projected or assessed on the basis of estimated radiation doses to the affected populations; similar efforts to estimate dose are in progress for the Fukushima accident.”
With special regard to Fukushima, the study reads: “Radiation-exposure data related to the assessment of doses received by the population affected by the Fukushima accident are still being collected.”
Strategic assessment of radiation dose exposure and dangers to health are based on variations that include:
• Identification of the target population
• Collection of as many individual-based radiation measurements as possible for persons in the target population
• Collection of individual, personal and lifestyle information that can be used for the estimation of individual dose
• Collection of information on the spatial and temporal patterns and variations of the radiation field
• Calculation of realistic radiation doses with efforts to minimize sources of bias
• Validation of the dose estimates by independent measurements or strategies
• Qualitative and quantitative evaluation of the uncertainties associated with dose estimates.
In 2011, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) asserted that “it is appropriate for U.S. residents, within 50 miles of the Fukushima reactors”, to evacuate their immediate environment. That same year, media reported, that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) RadNet monitoring system, used as a comprehensive “network for [observing] radioactivity and ionizing radiation.”
Two years ago, RadNet was being used, although the EPA admitted “that its network isn’t fully operating.” It was stated that RadNet was neglected by the agency and in bad need of repairs and systems updates.
The EPA admitted, that samples revealed, that “elevated radiation levels were found in Alaska, Alabama, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands and Washington [and that] traces of radiation also were found as far east as Pennsylvania and Massachusetts.”
In a statement the EPA wrote: “Elevated levels of radioactive material in rainwater have been expected as a result of the nuclear incident after the events in Japan since radiation is known to travel in the atmosphere. There have been reports received that the states of Pennsylvania and Massachusetts have seen elevated levels of radiation in recent precipitation events.”
Susanne Posel, Occupy Corporatism – Edt. nsnbc F/aK 27.02.2014