For both sexes. No a good place to be.
Oops:
Now that I read the rest of it I see that is mentioned.

Must read all next time

K & R Thanks, newfie11, for showing you care.

The Guardian title could easily leave the reader with the impression that females from Fukushima have a 70% higher cancer risk due to the accident... but of course that isn't what the report actually says.

I guess an accurate title wouldn't sell many papers.

than quite a few people in the US get from Xrays:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/26/health/26brody.html?_r=0

Presumably, there aren't very many infants in the most-contaminated portions of Fukushima who stayed there for an entire year.

As an upper-bounds approximation of additional risk using LNT, this is dramatically better than even I expected in March of 2011.

Not that it will keep the usual suspects from misreading/misrepresenting the report (or making up their own entirely).

Not purely fictitious creations of an industry totally lacking moral restraint.

You forgot, eh?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=36980

kris,

We DO have very accurate data; and not due to the nuclear industry.

The US national laboratories were on top of this from the beginning including mine.

https://str.llnl.gov/JanFeb12/sugiyama.html

Making Sense of a Tsunami of Data
During the early days of the crisis, data were scarce. The tsunami brought down power lines, and many stations were off-line. But within days, the floodgates of 21st century communications opened up. NARAC carried out calculations based on information from a multitude of sources—weather and monitoring stations in Japan, the DOE teams deployed to Japan, other national laboratories, NRC, and a plethora of Web sites and e-mail streams, many of which had to be translated and checked for accuracy.

Once in Japan, DOE’s Aerial Measuring System and ground-monitoring teams began to send large volumes of valuable data to CMHT, as did Japanese organizations. Soon, NARAC was flooded with an abundance of riches. “Having to process, quality assure, and analyze all the data so they could be used in support of modeling efforts was a major challenge,” says Sugiyama.

It is either a MYTH or DOWNRIGHT LIE from the anti-nukes that there was no data, or that the data was made up by the nuclear industry.

We have had to inform people like Rosen of their ERROR in saying that there was no data, or that the results are less than what would be expected. These other people like Rosen are the one's that are going with "made up" or "approximated" data. The actual results from the actual measurements of what was released, is much, much milder than that hypothesized by people like Rosen. Besides, Rosen is part of an anti-nuclear advocacy group; how "objective" do you really think they are?

I know you don't like it; but we DO have very accurate data on what was released and the radiation effects thereof.

PamW

Last edited Fri Mar 1, 2013, 08:05 AM - Edit history (1)

Surely you can do better than a German pediatrician on the board of an anti-nuke organization falsely criticizing a different assessment?

written mainly by the IAEA and collaborating nuclear institutions

The actual report from the OP lists 16 physicians from the WHO and 21 physicians from (among others):

Japan's National Institute of Radiological Sciences
Germany's Federal Office of Radiation Protection
Switzerland's Federal Office of Public Health
The UK's Health Protection Agency
Japan's Radiation Effects Research Foundation
The CDC
Frances's Institut de Radioprotection et de Surete Nucleaire
The National Cancer Institute (US)
The EPA
Finaland's Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority
The Russian Federation's Urals Research Center for Radiation Medicine
And the Universities of Utah, Tampere, Wurzburg, Manchester, Bremen and Indiana University.

But by all means... let's listen instead to a pediatrician with no relevant expertise from Helen Caldicott's anti-nuke crusaders. That's where we'll find reality.


And on further review - the earlier piece (the one his reply actually relates to)... only three of the forty people involved were from the IAEA and only one of them was part of the nine primary contributors.