A few days ago I had a feeling about the radiation in Japan, it just came into my mind as an issue. I just googled to find out that it is still leaking. I felt reflection around nuclear issues in respect of the Iranians and Israelis and the attempted bombing of Israeli’s by Iranians in Bangkok, as an escalation of the Iranian dispute. The Iranians are alleged to have a nuclear weapons program. Apparently the attack was in response to the killing of a nuclear scientist by Israeli’s in Iran. My first thought was international law as the appropriate forum for dealing with disputes, rather than secret services warring and the escalation of the dispute. I see ironies given the Israeli’s have around 200 nuclear weapons (undeclared) hence they are not part of the Non Proliferation Treaty. Also the US and other nations in the Security Council plus India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons. The latter is a well known nuclear flashpoint.

My feeling in connection with Fukushima is that the fear of nuclear radiation fallout through so-called peaceful energy production has been raised by the accident. Peaceful nuclear generation of energy is often the rationale used by governments to retain and maintain nuclear reactors. In the Non Proliferation Treaty it is indicated that nations states can ‘use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes’. I see this as the flaw in the treaty, as nuclear weapons programs can be covered up under the veil of energy generation. If that clause wasn’t there there would be no nuclear reactors and hence, no cover, if countries are seeking to join the nuclear arms race it would be clear. The nuclear weapons club is considered a power chip in international politics. This was the rationale for India and Pakistan becoming nuclearised coupled with regional hegemonic aspirations by India. So there is power and influence associated with this very destructive material (uranium) which has a half life of 4 billion years (the life of the planet).

I would like to see the complete banning of nuclear reactors and of course nuclear weapons. Complete 100% disarmament. It is indeed affected by unstable climate and could be a first step to creating a safe international context whilst seeking to solve the climate crisis. As climate becomes more unstable and more conflicts arise through declining water and food security, not to mention rising refugees flows (100 million projected). It is not in the world’s interests to have nuclearised nations using nuclear as a power chip, energy generation (earthquakes, tsunamis) or weapon of last resort.

I feel there are real lessons in Japan for the world, even more poignant given they are a nation that experienced the fallout as a result of the US dropping nuclear bombs in 1945. Japan suffered from radiation first hand and the unbelievable pain and sorrow it caused. Now they sadly have the legacy of another nuclear situation caused by a tsunami (nature).

The real issue here, feels to me, the radiation causes cancers and kills people, not to mention the damage to the environment and other species (genetic mutations). It is not in peoples or natures interests to be exposed. Surely that is a key reason to ban it, or as I stated in the heading, apply a philosophy of zero tolerance, as it is a zero sum game if it is released into the environment, we are all affected, as we are part of the global commons.

For myself, as stated, the key issue is the impact on people. I feel the link to the Iranian/Israeli conflict and the recent escalation given this problem has not been resolved and the fear and bullying is being projected politically and behind the scenes. Moreover, the long running conflict between these countries is masked by the latest dispute giving violent actions justification, which places populations at risk.

The risk of nuclear misadventure comes to mind and arises out of the deep animosity by muslims towards Israel (jewish) and its military’s treatment of Palestinians who are muslims. Iranians who identify with the Palestinians, as fellow sunni muslims, are at war with Israel and visa versa. Of course the politics go much deeper and are unresolved as positions are hardened and beliefs unquestioned on both sides. It appears to me extremes on both sides, attracting each other through convenient conflict without truth. For real truth is in alignment with higher principles and this always leads to unity. Issues of dominance, regional power, control, ethnicity and religion come to the fore which is a volatile mix and reasserts the old paradigm of how our world deals with power, conflict and difference. Typically by force rather than cooperation.

The longer it goes on the more serious the risks are to many nations. If it gets out of hand it could have serious consequences around the world. The word ‘consequences’ Al Gore used in An Inconvenient Truth was quoted from Churchill, when he stated in 1945, we are ‘entering a period of consequences’. The issue of climate change, Al Gore felt, was a serious challenge and there is a question mark over whether we as a global society can overcome the problem. Indeed not all hands are on deck, many are still under the table (dishonesty). Yet until we bring them above boards (corporate interests), then we can start from first principles (ethics). Honesty and integrity have to be the starting blocks, if we can’t do that then we will manifest collectively consequences people may refer to as the ‘day of reckoning’ as Al Gore’s referred. The idea what you put out comes back is the actioning of cause and effect. Some even call it Karma.

We create unintended consequences by ignoring issues that need to be faced, allowing media to distract from universal global issues which threaten the life of all beings on the planet. Moreover, there has to be focus to forge pathways for unified action in the best interests of all life on earth. Life is all interconnected and nothing goes unnoticed by nature. The clear question is ‘the gold bar or the earth?’, that is what all of humanity is being asked. Can we let go of self interest and work together for the best interests of the peoples and natural ecosystems of the planet?

My feeling is to think and feel for the people in Iran and Israel, and the impact on them, if a nuclear misadventure occurs. I see this scenario as similar to Russian Roulette with millions of lives. Various actors bluffing or escalating disputation, in a way, playing with fire. Rather than stopping and deeply thinking about the myths that are being generated in the name of national interests. I call for the myth busters here (ha ha). I see Russian Roulette as the mirror with earth changes. They are intimately linked. The parallels for me, appear clear. Japan is somehow a warning I feel and revealing the tragedy and real life harm of radiation. The ante is upped by unstable environmental conditions that make nuclear unsafe.

The interesting irony for me is that when watching Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth tonight, he mentions the media disinformation generated by lobbyists in the energy industry. He states they are selling the product of doubt, hence creating the idea that global warming is a natural oscillation. If believed, this instantly disempowers and demobilises people, causes confusion and deliberately facilitates inaction. He spoke of the previous US government appointing an energy industry lobbyist specialising in disinformation to the Department of Environment, showing a clear conflict of interest. This of course became clear with energy industry connections at the highest levels. He speaks of his dismay at the lack of action, concern and denial which manifests as an inability of politicians to face complex issues let alone solve pressing problems. If they see no concern in constituents, then they don’t have to do anything, the media facilitates this ‘inaction’ with increased information raising doubts. This shows those in power positions as reactive rather than leaders proactively tackling universal problems. I suspect they are so geared to an adversarial system they are unable to cross the floor to represent the people, which is their true charter. They are confused it seems. As for the validity of the science, it was made clear by The Stern Report and in the film that there is no doubt amongst the scientific fraternity, all scientific peer reviewed articles concurred it is a real issue, there was no disagreement. Nicholas Stern made clear it is about policy now, the science is clear. Thus we are seeing politics in political parties and business (linked interests) maquerading seeds of doubt, when it appears really about delay to maximise profits (greed). So we can clearly see some in industry seeking to continue business-as-usual unabated, rather than working together to change practices in the best interests of the people and the planet. The gold bars (money) is clearly chosen over the earth (stewardship) is the image I see. I have to smile, if the planet’s ecological systems collapse industry will follow across the globe, so it is not a payoff that would serve them, even in the short run. Those dominos can trigger anytime, in my view. We see politics and power consuming time (and energy) generating more fear and immobilisation. That is where our people are at psychologically stuck, awaiting leadership, we haven’t matured to the point of taking responsibility for all of it. Self interest predominates at this time. Interestingly, we still haven’t learned how to solve problems between people and in the best interests of people and nature, which has rendered us ineffective in changing (on mass) to deal with the larger problems of climate change and moving to renewables (non nuclear).

Of course climate could be a unifying issue, yet for the moment it appears that governments are still swayed by interests and re-election and are not yet awakened to the real time bomb they are sitting on which could go like a series of dominos. As events in nature do happen suddenly, not gradually overtime. Melting icecaps, is definitely in my feeling, one of those key dominos. However, having said that I feel there are signs people are waking up. As in Japan, they are learning about what is safe radiation and what is not and whether they want nuclear in their lives, I suspect not. The Japanese have much to teach the world about peace through constitutional reform and experience.

The nuclear accident in Japan wouldn’t have happened had they chosen renewables. Neither would the situation in Iran and I would guess the situation in Israel would be far different had they not nuclearised.

I think of the next generation and the world they are inheriting from us. Al Gore states in the film, in the future the children will be asking their parents ‘why they didn’t do anything?.’ I think that is a pertinent question now. I’ve heard people say they are overwhelmed by the issues, just work where you are on small steps. You don’t have to solve the world’s problems. We have a worldwide web where democracy can start to be actioned by opinion pieces. I would urge not to demonise others as we have plenty of that in the media and it only immobilises constructive solutions. What would be helpful is envisaging the world you want and making suggestions for change. Importantly, creating small changes in your life, reducing your ecological footprint, using renewables and engaging others in conversations about the planet we share. That is not overwhelming nor is it political, it is stewardship, it is showing interest and participating. The children will see your reactions. Indeed it is modelling democracy we all say we have, yet many still are in the position of observers rather than participants.

May the kernel of sanity arise out of the insanity when we realise that love creates another world. The power of love is the free energy of the world, that just keeps giving and inspiring others to keep going, to not fall into despair. When you love your planet, naturally you change, as you look at the trees, plants, walk in nature and remember the joy of it. In Al Gore’s film there is a touching part where he speaks of the love of his son, nearly losing him and feeling himself change, or what he termed ‘seeing differently’. He got that the future was connected to the past and our actions. He makes the comment that he woke up to realise we have taken it all for granted and it could be gone for our children. I have worked with many people to find they are in a rut and they don’t question these issues, they care about their own pay cheques, their kids and their life. Yet that life is linked to the entire planet, many assume it will all be the same tomorrow. When the ice caps melt (they are melting now), our world will change, do we wait until then to get moving? The question is – will you play your part? Each of us have created the problem, therefore each of us has a responsibility. Something to reflect on.

Here is some information on the Fukushima situation and in the next blog the BBC writes on the effects of radiation exposure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_from_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster

The radiation effects from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster are the results of release of radioactive isotopes from the crippled Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant after the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami. Radioactive material has been released from the Fukushima containment vessels as the result of deliberate venting to reduce gaseous pressure, deliberate discharge of coolant water into the sea, and associated uncontrolled events. Concerns about the possibility of a large scale radiation leak resulted in 20 km exclusion zone being set up around the power plant and people within the 20–30 km zone being advised to stay indoors. Later, the UK, France and some other countries told their nationals to consider leaving Tokyo, in response to fears of spreading radioactive contamination.^[3] The Fukushima incident has led to trace amounts of radiation, including iodine-131 and caesium-134/137, being observed around the world (New York State, Alaska, Hawaii, Oregon, California, Montreal, and Austria).^[4][5][6] Large amounts of radioactive isotopes have also been released into the Pacific Ocean.

In March 2011, Japanese officials announced that “radioactive iodine-131 exceeding safety limits for infants had been detected at 18 water-purification plants in Tokyo and five other prefectures”.^[7] As of July 2011, the Japanese government has been unable to control the spread of radioactive material into the nation’s food. Radioactive material has been detected in a range of produce, including spinach, tea leaves, milk, fish and beef, up to 200 miles from the nuclear plant. Inside the 12-mile evacuation zone around the plant, all farming has been abandoned.^[8][9]

As of February 2012, the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant is still leaking radiation and areas surrounding it could remain uninhabitable for decades due to high radiation. It could take “more than 20 years before residents could safely return to areas with current radiation readings of 200 millisieverts per year, and a decade for areas at 100 millisieverts per year”.^[10]

The incidents are rated at level 7 rating on the International Nuclear Event Scale. The total amount of iodine-131 and caesium-137 released into the atmosphere has been estimated to exceed 10% of the emissions from the 1986 Chernobyl disaster.^[11][12] Frank N. von Hippel, a U.S. scientist, has estimated that the release of radioactivity is about one-tenth that from the Chernobyl disaster and the contaminated area is also about one-tenth that that of Chernobyl; he also estimates “on the order of 1,000” people will die from cancer as a result of their exposure to radiation from the Fukushima Daiichi disaster.^[13]

.[13]

Total Emissions

The primary releases of radioactive nuclides have been iodine and caesium;^[11][55] strontium^[51] and plutonium^[56][57] have also been found. These elements have been released into the air via steam;^[58] and into the water leaking into groundwater^[59] or the ocean.^[60] The expert who prepared a frequently cited Austrian Meteorological Service report asserted that the “Chernobyl accident emitted much more radioactivity and a wider diversity of radioactive elements than Fukushima Daiichi has so far, but it was iodine and caesium that caused most of the health risk – especially outside the immediate area of the Chernobyl plant.”^[11] Iodine-131 has a half-life of 8 days while caesium-137 has a half-life of over 30 years. The IAEA has developed a method that weighs the “radiological equivalence” for different elements.^[61] TEPCO has published estimates using a simple sum methodology,^[62] and using the IAEA weighting methodology.^[63] As of 25 April, TEPCO has not released a total water and air release estimate.^[64]

According to a June 2011 report of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), at that time no confirmed long term health effects to any person had been reported as a result of radiation exposure from the nuclear accident.^[65]

In a leaked TEPCO-report dated June 2011, was revealed, that plutonium-238, -239, -240, and -241 were released “to the air” from the site during the first 100 hours after the earthquake, the total amount of plutonium was said to be 120 billion becquerels (120 GBq) — perhaps as much as 50 grams. The same paper mentioned a release of 7.6 trillion becquerels of neptunium-239 — about 1 milligram. As neptunium-239 decays, it becomes plutonium-239. TEPCO made this report for a press conference on 6 June, but according to Mochizuki of the Fukushima Diary website, the media knew and “kept concealing the risk for 7 months and kept people exposed”.^{[66][unreliable source?]}

According to one expert, the release of radioactivity is about one-tenth that from the Chernobyl disaster and the contaminated area is also about one-tenth that that of Chernobyl.^[67]

Air releases

A 12 April report prepared by NISA estimated the total air release of iodine-131 and caesium-137 at between 370 PBq and 630 PBq, combining iodine and caesium with IAEA methodology.^[63] On 23 April the NSC updated its release estimates, but it did not reestimate the total release, instead giving indicating that 154 TBq of air release were occurring daily as on 5 April.^[68][69]

On 24 August 2011, the Nuclear Safety Commission (NSC) of Japan published the results of the recalculation of the total amount of radioactive materials released into the air during the incident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station. The total amounts released between 11 March and 5 April were revised downwards to 130 PBq for iodine-131 (I-131) and 11 PBq for caesium-137 (Cs-137). Earlier estimations were 150 PBq and 12 PBq.^[70]

On 20 September the Japanese government and TEPCO announced the installation of new filters at the reactors 1, 2 and 3 to reduce the release of radioactive materials into the air. Gases from the reactors would be decontaminated before they would be released into the air. In the first half of September 2011 the amount of radioactive substances released from the plant was about 200-million becquerels per hour, according to TEPCO, that was approximately one-four millionths of the level of the initial stages of the accident in March.^[71]

According to TEPCO the emissions were immediately after the accident around 800-trillion becquerels per hour, readings declined after that, and in November and December 2011 they dropped to 60 million becquerels per hour, about one 13 millionth the initial level. But in January 2012 due to human activities at the plant, the emissions rose again up to 70 million becquerels per hour. Radioactive materials around reactor 2, where the surroundings were still highly contaminated, got stirred up by the workers going in and out of the building, when they inserted an optical endoscope into the containment vessel as a first step toward decommissioning the reactor.^[72][73]

Iodine-131

A widely cited Austrian Meteorological Service report estimated the total amount of I-131 radiation released into the air as of 19 March based on extrapolating data from several days of ideal observation at some of its worldwide CTBTO radionuclide measuring facilities (Freiburg, Germany; Stockholm, Sweden; Takasaki, Japan and Sacramento, USA) during the first 10 days of the accident.^[11][74] The report’s estimates of total I-131 emissions based on these worldwide measuring stations ranged from 10 PBq to 700 PBq.^[74] This estimate was 1% to 40% of the 1760 PBq^[74][75] of I-131 estimated to be release at Chernobyl.^[11]

A later, 12 April, NISA and NSC estimated the total air release of iodine-131 at 130 PBq and 150 PBq, respectively — about 30 grams.^[63] However, on 23 April, the NSC revised its original estimates of iodine-131 released.^[68] The NSC did not estimate the total release size based upon these updated numbers, but estimated a release of 0.14 TBq per hour on 5 April.”^[68][69]

On 22 September the results were published of a survey conducted by the Japanese Science Ministry. This survey showed that radioactive iodine was spread not only northwestward but also southwards of the plant. Soil-samples were taken at 2,200 locations, mostly in Fukushima Prefecture, in June and July, and with this a map was created of the radioactive contamination at 14 June. Because the short half-life of 8 days only 400 locations were still positive. This map showed that iodine-131 spread northwest of the plant, just like caesium-137 as indicated on an earlier map. But I-131 was also found south of the plant at relatively high levels, even higher than those of caesium-137 in coastal areas south of the plant. According to the ministry clouds moving southwards apparently caught large amounts of iodine-131 that were emitted at the time. The survey was done to determine the risks for thyroid cancer within the population.^[76]

Tellurium 129m

On 31 October the Japanese ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology released a map showing the contamination of radioactive tellurium-129m within a 100-kilometer radius around the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant. The map displayed the concentrations found of tellurium-129m — a byproduct of uranium fission — in the soil at 14 June 2011. High concentrations were discovered northwest of the plant and also at 28 kilometers south near the coast, in the cities of Iwaki, Fukushima Prefecture, and Kitaibaraki, Ibaraki Prefecture. Iodine-131 was also found in the same areas, and most likely the tellurium was deposited at the same time as the iodine. The highest concentration found was 2.66 million becquerels per square meter, two kilometers from the plant in the empty town of Okuma. Tellurium-129m has a half-life of 6 days, so present levels are a very small fraction of the initial contamination. Tellurium has no biological functions, so even when drinks or food were contaminated with it, it would not accumulate in the body, like iodine in the thyroid gland.^[77]

Caesium-137

On 24 March, the Austrian Meteorological Service report estimated the total amount of caesium-137 radiation released into the air as of 19 March based on extrapolating data from several days of ideal observation at a handful of worldwide CTBTO radionuclide measuring facilities. The agency estimated an average being 5,000 TBq daily.^[11][74] Over the course of the disaster, Chernobyl put out a total of 85,000 TBq of caesium-137.^[11] However, later reporting on 12 April estimated total caesium releases at 6,100 TBq to 12,000 TBq, respectively by NISA and NSC — about 2–4 kg.^[63] On 23 April, NSC updated this number to 0.14 TBq per hour of caesium-137 on 5 April, but did not recalculate the entire release estimate.^[68][69]

Strontium 90

On 12 October 2011 a concentration of 195 becquerels/kilogram of Strontium-90 was found in the sediment on on the roof of an apartment-building in the city of Yokohama, south of Tokyo, some 250 km from the plant in Fukushima. This first find of strontium above 100 becquerels per kilogram raised serious concerns that leaked radiation might have spread far further than the Japanese government expected. The find was done by a private agency that conducted the test upon the request of a resident. After this find Yokohama city started an investigating on soil samples collected from areas near the building. The science ministry said, that the source of the Strontium is still unclear.^[78]

Plutonium isotopes

On 30 September 2011, the Japanese Ministry of Education and Science published the results of a plutonium fallout survey, for which in June and July 50 soil samples were collected from a radius of slightly more than 80 km around the Fukushima Daiichi plant. Plutonium was found in all samples. Highest found activities (Pu-239 and Pu-240 combined) were 15 becquerels per square meters in Fukushima prefecture and 9.4 Bq in Ibaraki prefecture. Activities of the especially problematic plutonium-241 isotope were not reported, but minimum values can be with some certainty estimated on the basis of the isotope ratio in the reactors, leading to the possibility of contaminations well above 1000 becquerels per square meter.^[79][80] Earlier in June, university researchers did detect smaller amounts of plutonium in soil outside the plant after they collected samples during filming by NHK.^[81]

Water releases

On 21 April, TEPCO estimated that 520 tons of radioactive water leaked into the sea before leaks in a pit in unit 2 were plugged, releasing 4,700 TBq of total water release (calculated by simple sum, which is inconsistent with the IAEA methodology for mixed nuclide releases^[62]) (20,000 times facility’s annual limit).^[62][82] TEPCO’s detailed estimates were 2,800 TBq of I-131, 940 TBq of Cs-134, 940 TBq of Cs-137.^[62]

Another 300,000 tons of relatively less radioactive water had already been reported to have leaked or purposefully pumped into the sea to free room for storage of highly radioactively contaminated water.^[83] TEPCO had attempted to contain contaminated water in the harbor near the plant by installing “curtains” to prevent outflow, but now believes this effort was unsuccessful.^[83]

According to a report published in October 2011 by the French Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety, between 21 March and mid-July around 2.7 × 10¹⁶ Bq of caesium-137 (about 8.4 kg) entered the ocean, about 82 percent having flowed into the sea before 8 April.^[84] This emission of radioactivity into the sea represents the most important individual emission of artificial radioactivity into the sea ever observed. However, the Fukushima coast has one of the world’s strongest currents and these transported the contaminated waters far into the Pacific Ocean, thus causing a high dispersion of the radioactive elements. The results of measurements of both the seawater and the coastal sediments lead to suppose that the consequences of the accident, for what concerns radioactivity, will be minor for marine life as of autumn 2011 (weak concentration of radioactivity in the water and limited accumulation in sediments). On the other hand, significant pollution of sea water along the coast near the nuclear plan might persist, because of the continuing arrival of radioactive material transported towards the sea by surface water running over contaminated soil. Further, some coastal areas might have less favorable dilution or sedimentation characteristics than those observed so far. Finally, the possible presence of other persistent radioactive substances, such as strontium-90 or plutonium, has not been sufficiently studied. Recent measurements show persistent contamination of some marine species (mostly fish) caught along the coast of Fukushima district. Organisms that filter water and fish at the top of the food chain are, over time, the most sensitive to caesium pollution. It is thus justified to maintain surveillance of marine life that is fished in the coastal waters off Fukushima…

Exposure of Workers

Prior to the accident, the maximum permissible dose for Japanese nuclear workers was 100 mSv per year, but on 15 March 2011, the Japanese Health and Labor Ministry increased that annual limit to 250 mSv, for emergency situations.^[87][88] This level is below the 500 mSv/year considered acceptable for emergency work by the World Health Organization. Some contract companies working for TEPCO have opted not to use the higher limit.^[89][90] On 15 March, TEPCO decided to work with a skeleton crew (in the media called the Fukushima 50) in order to minimize the number of people exposed to radiation.^[91]

On 17 March, IAEA reported 17 persons to have suffered deposition of radioactive material on their face; the levels of exposure were too low to warrant hospital treatment.^[14] On 22 March, World Nuclear News reported that one worker had received over 100 mSv during “venting work” at Unit 3.^[92] An additional 6 had received over 100 mSv, of which for 1 a level of over 150 mSv was reported for unspecified activities on site.^[92] On 24 March, three workers were exposed to high levels of radiation which caused two of them to require hospital treatment after radioactive water seeped through their protective clothes while working in unit 3. Based on the dosimeter values, exposures of 170 mSv were estimated,^[90] the injuries indicated exposure to 2000 to 6000 mSv around their ankles.^{[27][93][94][95]} They were not wearing protective boots, as their employing firm’s safety manuals “did not assume a scenario in which its employees would carry out work standing in water at a nuclear power plant”.^[94] The amount of the radioactivity of the water was about 3.9 M Bq per cubic centimetre.

As of 24 March, 19:30 (JST), 17 workers (of which 14 were from plant operator TEPCO) had been exposed to levels of over 100 mSv.^[14] By 29 March, the number of workers reported to have been exposed to levels of over 100 mSv had increased to 19.^[96] An American physician reported Japanese doctors have considered banking blood for future treatment of workers exposed to radiation.^[96] Tepco has started a re-assessment of the approximately 8300 workers and emergency personnel who have been involved in responding to the incident, which has revealed that by 13 July, of the approximately 6700 personnel tested so far, 88 personnel have received between 100 and 150 mSv, 14 have received between 150 and 200 mSv, 3 have received between 200 and 250 mSv, and 6 have received above 250 mSv.^[97]

TEPCO has been criticized in providing safety equipment for its workers.^[98][99] After NISA warned TEPCO that workers were sharing dosimeters, since most of the devices were lost in the disaster, the utility sent more to the plant.^[100] Japanese media has reported that that workers indicate that standard decontamination procedures are not being observed.^[101] Others reports suggest that contract workers are given more dangerous work than TEPCO employees.^[98] TEPCO is also seeking workers willing to risk high radiation levels for short periods of time in exchange for high pay.^[102] Confidential documents acquired by the Japanese Asahi newspaper suggest that TEPCO hid high levels of radioactive contamination from employees in the days following the incident.^[103] In particular, the Asahi reported that radiation levels of 300 mSv/h were detected at least twice on 13 March, but that “the workers who were trying to bring the disaster under control at the plant were not informed of the levels.”^[103]

Workers on-site now wear full-body radiation protection gear, including masks and helmets covering their entire heads, but it means they have another enemy: heat.^[104] As of 19 July 2011, 33 cases of heat strock had been recorded.^[105] In these harsh working conditions, two workers in their 60s died from heart failure.^[106][107]

Here is the article from the BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12722435

 

Q&A: Health effects of radiation exposure

By Richard Warry BBC News

Concern remains over the potential effect on human health from radiation leaks at the stricken Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant.

A 20km (12 mile) evacuation zone affecting about 70,000 people has been imposed around the plant, and is being extended to five communities outside the zone to the north west of the plant, where radioactive contamination is most significant.

Residents living within 30km (18 miles) have been advised to leave the area, or to stay indoors, and try to make their homes airtight.

Experts believe that swift action of this sort should have minimised the risk to human health, but there are worries about the level of radiation to which emergency workers have been exposed, and about possible contamination of food and water supplies.

What are the immediate health effects of exposure to radiation?

Exposure to high levels of radiation – above one gray (the standard measure of the absorbed dose of radiation) – can result in radiation sickness, which produces a range of symptoms.

Nausea and vomiting often begin within hours of exposure, followed by diarrhoea, headaches and fever.

After the first round of symptoms, there may be a brief period with no apparent illness, but this may be followed within weeks by new, more serious symptoms.

At higher levels of radiation, all of these symptoms may be immediately apparent, along with widespread – and potentially fatal – damage to internal organs.

Exposure to a radiation dose of four gray will typically kill about half of all healthy adults.

For comparison, radiation therapy for cancer typically involves several doses of between one and seven gray at a time – but these doses are highly controlled, and usually specifically targeted at small areas of the body.

A sievert is a gray weighted by the effectiveness of a particular type of radiation at causing damage to tissues, and is used to measure lower levels of radiation, and for assessing long-term risk, rather than the short-term acute impact of exposure. There are 1,000 millisieverts (mSv) in a sievert.

People are exposed on average to around 2mSv of radiation a year from the natural environment, although there is considerable variation in this dose between individuals.

In the UK, the legal limit for radiation exposure from sources such as nuclear plants for members of the public is 1mSv a year, based on recommendations from the International Commission on Radiological Protection.

For emergencies, the upper limit is set higher – 5mSv or more – but these figures are set conservatively, at levels far below those that would significantly raise health risks.

How is radiation sickness treated?

The first thing to do is to try to minimise further exposure to contamination by removing clothes and shoes, and gently washing the skin and hair with soap and water.

Drugs are available that increase white blood-cell production to counter any damage that may have occurred to the bone marrow, and to reduce the risk of further infections due to immune-system damage.

There are also specific drugs that can help to reduce the exposure of internal organs caused by radioactive material by speeding up its removal from the body.

How does radiation have an impact on health?

Radioactive materials decay spontaneously to produce ionising radiation, which has the capacity to cause significant damage to the body’s internal chemistry, breaking the chemical bonds between the atoms and molecules that make up our tissues. Damage to the DNA of a cell is particularly important.

The body responds by trying to repair this damage, but at high doses it is too severe or widespread to make repair possible, leading to short-term acute health effects.

There is also a danger of mistakes in the natural DNA repair process, which can lead in the long-term to cancer.

Regions of the body that are most vulnerable to acute radiation damage include the cells lining the intestine and stomach, and the blood-cell producing cells in the bone marrow.

The extent of the damage caused is dependent on how long people are exposed to radiation, and at what level.

What are the most likely long-term health effects?

Cancer is the biggest long-term risk. Usually when the body’s cells reach their “sell-by date” they commit suicide. Cancer results when cells lose this ability, and effectively become immortal, continuing to divide and divide in an uncontrolled fashion.

The body has various processes for ensuring that cells do not become cancerous, and for replacing damaged tissue.

But the damage caused by exposure to radiation can completely disrupt these control processes, raising the risk of cancer.

Failure to properly repair the damage caused by radiation can also result in changes – or mutations – to the body’s genetic material (DNA), which are not only associated with cancer, but may also be potentially passed down to offspring, leading to deformities in future generations. These can include smaller head or brain size, poorly formed eyes, slow growth and severe learning difficulties.

Are children at greater risk?

Potentially yes. Because they are growing more rapidly, more cells are dividing, and so the potential for things to go wrong is greater.

Following the Chernobyl nuclear reactor accident in the Ukraine in 1986, the World Health Organization recorded a dramatic increase in thyroid cancer among children in the vicinity.

This was because the radioactive materials released during the accident contained high levels of radioactive iodine, a material that accumulates in the thyroid.

Children continued to eat and drink heavily contaminated foodstuffs, such as milk.

What risk does Fukushima pose currently?

The Japanese authorities have recorded a radiation level of up 400 millisieverts per hour at the nuclear plant itself.

Professor Richard Wakeford, an expert in radiation exposure at the University of Manchester, said exposure to a dose of 400 millisieverts was unlikely to cause radiation sickness – that would require a dose of around twice that level (one sievert/one gray).

However, it could start to depress the production of blood cells in the bone marrow, and was likely to result in a lifetime risk of fatal cancer of 2-4%. Typically, a Japanese person has a lifetime risk of fatal cancer of 20-25%.

A dose of 400 millisieverts is equivalent to the dose from 20 -100 CT scans.

Several emergency workers at the plant were exposed to doses in excess of the emergency dose limit of 250 millisieverts, but no-one has exceeded a dose of 1Sv (1000 mSv). A dose of 1Sv would raise the lifetime risk of fatal cancer by 4-8%, depending on the length of time the exposure lasted.

The lower legs of two workers came into contact with highly contaminated water, which led to a high localised dose to the skin (1-2 gray) that was sufficient to cause temporary skin reddening. The dose to the trunks of their bodies was much less, at 100-200 mSv.

However, even a dose of 100 millisieverts over a year is enough to raise the risk of cancer, and a dose of 250 millisieverts could produce an additional lifetime risk of around 1-2%.

The level of exposure for the general population, even those living close to the plant, was unlikely to be anywhere near as high.

However, levels equivalent to around 25 millisieverts a year have been recorded in the village of Iitate, to the north west of the plant. Professor Wakeford said estimating the impact on human health of such a level was difficult, but there was some evidence to suggest that it could raise the risk of cancer – albeit by a small amount.

The pattern of contamination around the plant is patchy, reflecting wind direction and rainfall at the time of any release. The risk to people living in less contaminated communities will be much lower than the areas to the north-west of the plant.

What radioactive materials have been released?

Experts are concerned about two types of radioactive material, created as by-products of the nuclear fission process, both of which are easily released and can contaminate the soil relatively easily, and get into the food chain. This is why foodstuffs sourced from some areas have been banned.

The radioactive form of iodine – iodine-131 – is easily absorbed by the thyroid, the gland which regulates growth and cell production.

This would raise the risk of thyroid cancer in those exposed as children.

To counter that risk, people – in particular children – can be given tablets containing a stable form of iodine which would prevent the body absorbing the radioactive version.

Radioactive iodine decays quite quickly and will disappear from the environment within weeks or months.

The Japanese already have a lot of iodine in their natural diet, so that should help too.

Another potential source of contamination is the radioactive form of the metal caesium (caesium-134 and caesium-137), which once released into the environment continues to pose a potential risk for many years.

Unlike iodine, caesium does not concentrate in one particular tissue, but gets into soft tissues, where it can cause cancer.

How can the Japanese authorities minimise the cost to human health?

Prof Wakeford said that provided the Japanese authorities acted quickly, most of the general population should be spared significant health problems.

He said in those circumstances the only people likely to be at risk of short-term serious health effects were emergency workers at the plant potentially exposed to high levels of radiation.

The top priority would be to evacuate people from the area and to make sure they did not eat food contaminated above the limit.

Distribution of iodine pills would also help to minimise the risk of thyroid cancer in the general population should high levels of radioactive iodine be present in the environment.

Is there evidence that food has been contaminated?

Yes. Japan’s health ministry has urged some residents near the plant to stop drinking tap water after samples showed elevated levels of radioactive iodine – about three times the limit in Japan.

Radioactive iodine has also been found in water supplies in Tokyo at twice the levels deemed safe in Japan for babies and infants to drink, although still some way short of the safety level for adults.

Raised radiation levels have also been found in samples of milk and spinach, in some cases well outside the 20km exclusion zone, particularly to the north west of the plant.

Japan’s chief cabinet secretary Yukio Edano, said the level of radioactivity found in the spinach would, if consumed for a year, equal the radiation received in a single CT scan. For the milk, the figure would be much less.

Professor Wakeford stressed that safe limits in Japan for radiation in food were kept very low and assumed long-term consumption, so people should not necessarily be unduly worried by reports that they had been breached.

For instance, an infant would have to drink over 100 litres of water containing iodine-131 at the limit to reach the dose of radiation received in a year from natural background sources.

However, Professor Wakeford said it would be advisable to stop young children from eating products contaminated over the limit. But he stressed that contmination levels have fallen sharply since mid-March.

What is the threat to Tokyo residents from contaminated tap water?”

Officials said the tap water showed 210 becquerels per litre of iodine-131 – more than twice the recommended limit of 100 becquerels per litre for infants. The recommended limit for adults is 300 becquerels per litre. (Becquerels is a measure of radioactivity whereas millisieverts is a measure of dosage to the body of the radiation emitted on radioactive decay).

Professor Richard Wakeford says that infants who drank 100 litres of water contaminated at the Japanese limit of 100 becquerels of iodine-131 per litre would receive a radiation dose of about 2 millisieverts of radiation.

The Japanese limit for adults is 300 becquerels of iodine-131 per litre because adults are less sensitive to the effects of radiation.

In comparison, the average person is exposed to 2-2.5 millisieverts from natural background radiation in a year, although variations about this average can be large.

In theory, drinking water contaminated at 210 becquerels of iodine-131 per litre for a year would cause a very small additional risk of cancer – but in practice nothing much more than you could expect to get from normal background levels of radiation.

Is it safe to bathe or wash food in contaminated tap water?

Yes, because only small amounts of water would be ingested into the body from these practices.

What about contaminated seawater?

Levels of radioactive iodine-131 in seawater near the nuclear plant have reached 3,355 times the legal safety limit, but this limit is set at a very low level for normal operations.

Japanese officials admitted the reading was a concern – but said there was no immediate threat to human health.

Professor Wakeford said it would be sensible to ensure that fish and other seafoods contaminated beyond the limit did not enter the food chain.

However, he stressed that radioactive iodine would be diluted by the ocean currents, and would, in any case, decay away almost completely within three months.

How does Fukushima compare to Chernobyl?

Although Japan’s Nuclear Safety Commission has upgraded the severity rating of the crisis from five to seven, the highest level and the same as Chernobyl, officials say emissions of radioactive materials at Fukushima currently stand at about 10% of those from the 1986 disaster.

Professor Gerry Thomas, who has studied the aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster, said: “It is very unlikely that this will turn into anything that resembles Chernobyl.

“In Chernobyl you had a steam explosion which exposed the reactor core, which meant you had a lot of radiation shooting up into the atmosphere.”

Prof Thomas said although the Chernobyl disaster had led to a rise in thyroid cancer cases, the only people affected were those living in the areas of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia that lie closest to the site of the Chernobyl Power Plant, and who were young at the time.

What if the situation deteriorates?

If there were to be a meltdown or a fire at the nuclear plant, and unfavourable winds, then experts say radioactive material could reach as far as Tokyo, 150 miles (241km) away.

However, even in that situation, the level of radiation is likely to be such that simple measures, such as staying indoors with windows closed, should significantly reduce the risk.

The situation is much better now than at the time of the major earthquake on 11 March because the short-lived radioactive materials have decayed away – the radioactivity of iodine-131, a major concern in releases from the site, reduces by a half every eight days, so in a month there is only one-sixteenth of the original iodine-131 left.