American Deaths from Fukushima Radiation (With an Important and Shameful correction)

  Note: This is the second time I have to make a correction to this posting. They were  important corrections both times. I must be losing my innate criticality. It’s probably from interacting too much with true believers. There is no need to repeat my mistakes. Instead, I am bolding the sentences subjected to recent corrections.

Periodically, I take the time to ridicule on this blog what I think is excessive, unsupported alarm about the Fukushima unclear reactor meltdown.

I point out that the available hard information does not correspond well with the level of fear the event generated and continues to generate. I am especially impressed with the failure to update the alleged human damage. It’s impressive because by its nature an excess of deaths and their purported radiation cause cannot easily be hidden.

My skepticism is fed by my vivid memory of the Chernobyl nuclear plant meltdown that also gave rise to massive hysteria only to be quietly abandoned as a journalistic topic in a few months.

In the case of Fukushima, the most interesting fact that has gone largely unreported is that today in Feb, 2012, no one has yet died from radiation exposure there. No one, not even any of the brave workers involved in the shutting down of the plant.

I don’t mean to convey the message that radiations are good for you. They are bad in large doses. I am glad for the existence of a 12 mile exclusion zone for humans around the plant. I am also very curious to find out what will happen to the wild fauna in the same area. It turns out the large exclusion zone around Chernobyl is a poacher’s paradise. Of course, I can’t bring myself to believe that radiations are deadly to one kind of animals, us, but not to others.

At any rate, it’s only fair to report that there is a new study of possible American deaths associated to radiation from Fukushima. I would not dismiss the study because it’s published in a good scholarly journal that practices peer-review (not everything but much better than nothing). Of the study’s two authors, one is an MD with good credentials; the other is a “health administrator” who I think is a crank. The study’s credibility is hemmed in by limited data but it’s done quite methodically and uses well what data do exist.

The study blames 14,000 extra deaths on Fukushima radiation. ( I will assume they all occurred in a single year. This assumption tends to overestimates the size of the excess death.))That’s out of a total US annual deaths of about 2,440,000. This amounts to about 5% excess deaths. You decide whether it’s big. (Note: I am fairly sure I had picked up from the study of reference itself a much lower – and false – number of annual US deaths. I can’t affirm it because I have not been able to access again this morning the study itself in the International J. of Public Health.)

Here is a link that will take you to an article that is itself linked to  the study published in the International Journal of Health Services:

A Scientific American blog called the study “Voodoo science” but the fact is that it was published in a good, peer-reviewed journal. I am slow to dismiss the work of peer reviewers except in “climate science,” of course where conspiracy rules.

If you are still worried about Japanese radiation and you don’t take the trouble to look at the study, you should lose much credibility in your own eyes, I think.


About Jacques Delacroix

I am a sociologist, a short-story writer, and a blogger (Facts Matter and Notes On Liberty) in Santa Cruz, California.
This entry was posted in Current Events. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to American Deaths from Fukushima Radiation (With an Important and Shameful correction)

  1. Sergey Nikiforov says:

    The amount of hysteria surrounding Chernobyl nuclear accident and ideology-tainted research that has followed is making that singular event an unreliable statistical event for the purposes of this Fukushima study.

    “Over 500 atmospheric nuclear weapons tests were conducted at various sites around the world from 1945 to 1980.” (Wikipedia, There’s a solid, relevant data sample that any self-respecting researcher would take advantage of when exploring a “radiation fall-out in Tinbuktu — infant mortality in Podunk” connection.

    Yet, the paper in question makes a scant, superficial reference to those tests; nor does it attempt to explore the available pile of time-based statistical data. What would be the reasons for avoiding that?

    • jacquesdelacroix says:

      I agree with you but I thought it my duty to mention any real research on the topic. It’s the only one. It’s not nothing. It’s amazing that there is nothing else. That’s worth mentioning.

  2. jimkress says:

    Isn’t it 14/550 (i.e. 14,000/550,000) not 1.4/550 ?

    • jacquesdelacroix says:

      Absolutely. Big mistake on my part. Another senior momen! I thank you and I made the appropriate correction. Thanks for your vigilance, Jim.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s