| Welcome to Natural Hazards Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Do not underestimate the severity of the Fukushima nuclear crisis: interview | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: 19 Aug 2012, 11:18 PM (22 Views) | |
| skibboy | 19 Aug 2012, 11:18 PM Post #1 |
|
Do not underestimate the severity of the Fukushima nuclear crisis: interview![]() European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR) chair Inge Schmitz-Feuerhake. (Mainichi) 拡大写真 Before her retirement in 2000 from the University of Bremen in Germany, Inge Schmitz-Feuerhake had been an experimental physicist who some 30 years ago had analyzed data on nuclear bomb survivors and warned of the dangers of low-level and internal exposure to radiation. Since 2004, she has been the chair of the European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR), a Belgium-based civic organization founded in 1997 independent of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), and various governments. In 2003 and 2010, the ECRR released recommendations on radiation risk assessment methods. Mainichi: In 1983, you published an essay criticizing a survey on the health of nuclear bomb victims that was conducted by the Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF). What was your paper about? Schmitz-Feuerhake: The RERF survey compared the health risks of those who directly experienced the bombings with those who'd entered hypocentral areas after the bombs exploded and those who were farther away at the times of the bombings. Using the average incidence and death rate from cancer and other illnesses among all Japanese, I went to figure out the relative risks of those who entered the cities after the bombings and those who experienced the bomb at least 2.5 kilometers away from the hypocenter. What I found was that the death rate from leukemia and respiratory and gastrointestinal cancers was above the national average, and that the incidence of thyroid cancer, leukemia, and breast cancer among women were 1.5 times to 4.1 times higher. These results showed that internal exposure to radiation from radioactive fallout (including "black rain" and "ashes of death") had a great impact on health. But because my findings went against common academic knowledge at the time, my paper was initially rejected when I submitted it for publication in an international medical journal. On the suggestion of the journal, I subsequently had it published in the journal in the form of a "letter to the editor" instead of a scientific paper. Mainichi: What would you say about the fact that the RERF's research on nuclear bomb victims is used as foundational data for the ICRP's radiation health risk assessment? Schmitz-Feuerhake: The RERF data is indeed very important. However, it's limited information in that it lacks data from the first five years after the bombs were dropped. That is, the data was taken from a "chosen people" who survived despite having been unable to receive appropriate medical treatment for their physical and emotional injuries, and it also ignores residual radiation after the bombings. Meanwhile, in the past several decades, various studies on nuclear accidents, nuclear facility workers, medical x-rays, and natural radiation have shown the effects of low-level radiation exposure on health. However, the research has been largely ignored, primarily because they contradict data from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The ICRP's risk assessment, in particular, underestimates the effects of long-term low-level radiation exposure, and also lacks awareness of its effects on illnesses other than cancer. Mainichi: There have been class action suits in Japan on atomic-bomb sickness certification in which plaintiffs arguing they have suffered health consequences from internal radiation exposure caused by residual radiation have won. And yet, the central government has not changed its original stance that "the effects of internal exposure are negligible." Schmitz-Feuerhake: Similar things are happening in many other countries. It's because once a public organization acknowledges internal radiation exposure, they would be forced to acknowledge their responsibility for the risks to the health of nuclear plant workers. Nuclear plant workers are burdened with the same problems as the people of Fukushima who have been exposed to radiation. Mainichi: What do you think of the claim made after the outbreak of the Fukushima nuclear crisis by Japanese politicians and some experts that "radiation exposure of 100 millisieverts or less has little effect on health?" Schmitz-Feuerhake: It's a statement that completely ignores the medical knowledge that we have accumulated thus far. Cancer among people who have been exposed to less than 100 millisieverts of radiation has been reported in medical journals and elsewhere. Radiation promotes cell mutation, and no amount of exposure is safe. It's necessary to take precautions and institute measures to reduce radiation exposure. Mainichi: Some people claim that the stress from worrying about radiation is a much bigger health hazard than radiation itself, while others express concern over the effect that extreme reactions can have on economic activity. What are your thoughts on that? Schmitz-Feuerhake: The argument that panic is a bigger health hazard than radiation is one that's used all the time. The same argument was used in Germany after the Chernobyl accident, but it's one that lacks a scientific basis. Isn't people's health, including that of unborn children, more important than economic activity? Of course, it's not good to panic without any information. We must measure radiation levels in our environment and food, and get a grasp on our individual levels of exposure. Based on that, we must try to learn what the information means. Mainichi: How would you evaluate the way the Japanese government has handled the crisis? Schmitz-Feuerhake: I praise the government for designating the area within a 20-kilometer radius from the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant as a no-entry zone. That it set annual radiation levels of 20 millisieverts as a standard for evacuation is understandable for a government that was unprepared for a large-scale nuclear disaster. But it's being grossly irresponsible by reactivating nuclear reactors and trying to shift the public's attention towards "recovery." With the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and past atmospheric nuclear tests, the total volume of radioactive material released was clear. In the case of the Fukushima crisis, however, we still don't know how much radioactive material has been released. Nuclear fuel that far exceeds the nuclear bombs in both quality and quantity remain in very vulnerable conditions, and it's unclear whether it will be possible to retrieve them safely in the future. While the amount of radioactive material being released may be far less than immediately after the disaster began, the reactors still continue to release these materials. The government needs to recognize the gravity of this situation. August 19, 2012 source: ![]() |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Japan - Earthquake, Tsunami and Fukushima Disaster 2011 · Next Topic » |








8:34 PM Jul 11