Harvey Wasserman is a JOURNALIST. He is not a nuclear scientist.

He doesn't measure the data, analyze the data, massage the data....

HE JUST REPORTS THE FACTS.

He's far more likely to make up facts than report them.

More than 48 percent of some 375,000 young people—nearly 200,000 kids—tested by the Fukushima Medical University near the smoldering reactors now suffer from pre-cancerous thyroid abnormalities, primarily nodules and cysts.

You're claiming the FMU didn't test all those kids and find almost half of them with those nodules and cysts? That he simply made it all up?

If he did, maybe he should be banned as a quotable source onsite. If he didn't, maybe you're simply smearing him.

Not the fact that FMU is doing tests, or that they found nodules and cysts... but that they've found anything abnormal. Roughly half of all Japanese children had these same structures in their thyroids before Fukushima... and they aren't "pre-cancerous" except in the same sense that anything that isn't cancerous is "pre" cancerous (which is to say... not really at all).

There's no reason to believe that thyroid cancer rates have changed at all. Diagnosis rates have climbed... but that's what you expect when you start applying more sensative diagnostic testing to a large population. Wasserman continually ignores the purpose of this testing. It's pretty well established that it takes several years or more before thyroid cancer appears after a significant radioiodine dose. Knowing that most cases of thyroid cancer go undetected, the Japanese (sensibly) set out to create a baseline for future studies. These aren't the studies that will show how many additional children get cancer from Fukushima... but Harvey continues to pretend that that's what they're doing.

Thyroid Control Screening Reveals Much Higher Percentages of Cysts and Nodules... in Children Far Away from Fukushima

Are those rates typical worldwide, or does Japan have abnormally high rates all over? Is there some prior issue that has been tied to such high rates of thyroid cysts and nodes in Japanese?

... because nobody does this level of thyroid testing. It's normally just palpation by your doctor (which wouldn't have picked up any of these cases). Previous studies imply that it's likely to be the norm, but it's also possible that there are genetic differences in different populations. All this study shows is that the rate for Japanese children unexposed to radioiodine from Fukushima is consistent with that found in the baseline studies of exposed children.

Is there some prior issue that has been tied to such high rates of thyroid cysts and nodes in Japanese?

The point here is that there isn't any evidence that it's "high" at all.

Well before Fukushima, there were medical groups that questioned whether we were dealing with thyroid issues correctly, because most people with thyroid cancer never know that they have it or develop any symptoms. They were worried that they were treating people (and scaring them) unnecessarily. In a couple studies, autopsies of people who did not die of cancer showed as many as half of the subjects had thyroid cancer and never knew it.

On edit - Here's a good example (pre-Fukushima) - http://medicalconsumers.org/2010/06/11/thyroid-cancer-overtreatment/

abnormalities strikes me as high. I'd really be interested in seeing other populations around the world receive comparable study time, to see if there simply are that many thyroid cysts and nodes wandering around out there. Studies across age cohorts would be nice too, to see if it's something that's become more prevalent over time, and thus likely some other environmental issue.

... "what makes me think that it's a medical abnormality in the first place?"

It sounds as though that's a normal variation in thyroid structure.

Studies across age cohorts would be nice too, to see if it's something that's become more prevalent over time,

Well... that's pretty clearly true. If as many as half of adults get thyroid cancer in their lives (with most never knowing it)... it stands to reason that we start off with comparatively "clean" thyroids and develop what you're calling "abnormalities" that often lead to cancers.

Keep in mind that the normal standard for a "clean" thyroid would encompass essentially all of these kids.

After all, ionizing radiation is known to affect the DNA, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki did a number on the same population 70 years ago, so...

Let's see who can come up with the most reasons why that post is entirely nonsensical. I'll go first.

1) If thyroid abnormalities were caused by Hiroshima & Nagasaki and the rate is the same around Fukushima... then Fukushima isn't the cause.

2) Ionizing radiation has been known to damage DNA, but what hasn't been shown (unless your sources are Godzilla movies) is that impacted DNA being passed down from one generation to the next (let alone persisting).

3) Even if damaged DNA could replicate in the next generation, how would an entire population get the same genetic abnormality only 2-3 generations later? Again... unless comic books are your source, this simply doesn't happen. The damage to each DNA strand would be different.

4) "Japan" didn't suffer massive irradiation any of those three times... distinct parts of Japan did (IOW... it is in no sense the "same population". One of the three sampling locations was in Nagasaki, but the other two were hundreds of miles away... yet have the same "Abnormality" rates. Wouldn't you expect the descendants of Nagasaki to have a greater impact from this imagined effect of yours than those in Aomori (1300 km away)?

5) There aren't parts of the world that have shown much lower rates of these supposed "abnormalities". You can't go and come up with a theory as to why the Japanese have a higher rate... until you first show that they do.

6) Speaking of which... if they really did have a far higher rate of "pre-cancerous" "abnormalities" due to "Japan" suffering "massive irradiation", then you would expect a higher rate of thyroid cancer (and deaths from same) compared to the rest of the world. Yet this isn't the case.

Ok... your turn.

"A UCLA Physician's Eyewitness Report and Call to Save the World's Children"

http://www.aasc.ucla.edu/cab/200708230011.html



The left half of the photograph shows a boy who was one year old at the time of exposure, resulting in a severe form of hypothyroid/cretinism. The right half of the photograph shows the same child three years later following treatment with thyroid hormone.




Radioactive iodine in the fallout is internally absorbed by inhalation and injures the thyroid. The developing thyroid of infants and young children is very vulnerable. Nearly all of the children under ten years of age developed injuries to the thyroid.


FROM ANOTHER SECTION OF THE WEBSITE:



One of the initial Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission studies conducted at Nagasaki in 1950 was the outcome of the pregnancy in mothers exposed to the radiation from the atomic bomb. Note the abnormally shaped small head—microcephaly—accompanied by mental retardation.
Microcephaly due to in-utero exposure (seven week gestation in estimate). Exposure distance of 1.2km from Nagasaki hypocenter. Delayed grown in whole body and microcephaly observed (right). Fifteen years and eight months old. Died March 1962. Twelve year old normal child (left).


Outcome of pregnancies of mothers who were within 2,000 metres of the hypocenter was finally initiated and concluded just prior to my return to the U.S. In mothers who demonstrated signs of radiation sickness compared to mothers who did not develop such findings there was a significant increase in perinatal loss and some of their children had an abnormally shaped small head who were mentally retarded. The incidence of miscarriage, stillbirth and death during infancy was 43 percent, seven times the incidence in a control group who were considered to have received no radiation. In an interdisciplinary laboratory investigation initiated at UCLA following my return, the effect of radiation alone revealed the marked vulnerability of the developing brain. The brain lesions and neurological abnormalities were greater in the younger animals and the severity was a function of the radiation dose.

THESE ARE PEOPLE'S LIVES AND SUFFERING YOU DISMISS WITH A WAVE OF YOUR TOTALLY NON-CREDENTIALED HAND.

THESE ARE PEOPLE'S LIVES AND SUFFERING YOU DISMISS WITH A WAVE OF YOUR TOTALLY NON-CREDENTIALED HAND.

Nope... that's entirely your imagination.

Because... totally lacking from your post is anything that refutes what I said. No evidence of a genetic abnormality passed from one generation to the next. No evidence that, for instance, radioiodine exposure in a parent caused thyroid damage in the child.

Instead... what the post evidences is:

1: Damage to offsprint that were in-utero at the time of the parent's exposure. That's a child receiving his own dose at the most vulnerable part of the development process - not inheriting mom's damage (which would be impossible since the DNA has already been inherited)
2: Parents with high doses of radiation being unable to gestate healthy children (entirely different from the child inheriting the parent's damage).
3:Children who were themselves dosed (obviously different)

Nearly all of the children under ten years of age developed injuries to the thyroid.

Nearly all of the children exposed to much MUCH MUCH higher levels of I131? That's supposed to be a surprise? It's well established that high doses of radioiodine (particularly to young children) can damage the thyroid. The problem with drawing conclusions from that is:

1: The children of Fukushima didn't receive such high doses
2: Your claim doesn't rest on the established fact that radioiodine in large doses can damage the thyroid... it rests on the notion that such damage would be inherited by three generations of children (70 years later).

It has been running for years now. It is neither stopped, capped, nor ameliorated.

I am speculating about genetic damage surviving the live/don't live level. I am NOT speculating about the live/don't live level. NOR about the cumulative effects of continued exposure.

AND the total blackout of data from reliable investigations speaks for itself. Japan is not willing or able to face the magnitude of the disaster they effected, nor do they let other people get in to do research.

Nothing to see here, you say---doesn't mean they are looking with open eyes or any intention of finding truth and letting the world know.

That's for the comics and movies.

I am speculating about genetic damage surviving the live/don't live level.

Nope... you're speculating about it surviving that level and then passing on the damge to the next generations (and so on). Remember... the control group that shows that Fukushima's children had "abnormalities" at a same/lower rate than other parts of Japan was measuring the grandchildren (or great grandchildren) of those who survived the bombings. (and somehow becoming a dominant trait in almost half of all Japanese kids?)

There's no evidence for this... nor even a rational theory. Radiation would have to damage millions of strands of DNA (in the same way)... and then those changes would have to persist from generation to generation. I'm only aware of one even claimed germline impact of a single generation (at Chernobyl), but the "scientists" didn't even try to rule out the far more plausible causes... and decades of research in Japan have never shown such an effect.

AND the total blackout of data from reliable investigations speaks for itself.

I'm aware of no such blackout. There have been scores of publised studies by reliable institutions... you just aren't happy with what they've said.

It has been running for years now. It is neither stopped, capped, nor ameliorated.

Thyroids are damaged by I131... which most certainly stopped three years ago.

http://atomicbombmuseum.org/3_health.shtml

Even now, after over half a century later, many aftereffects remain: leukemia,
A-bomb cataracts, and cancers of thyroid, breast, lungs, salivary glands, birth defects, including mental retardation, and fears of birth defects in their children, plus, of course, the disfiguring keloid scars.

****************

—Radiation injury penetrates deeply into human body and injures cells, and thus molecules, resulting in cell death, inhibited cell division, abnormalities of intracellular molecules and membranes.

**********

—Actively regenerating and proliferating cells are most sensitive to radiation, e.g., young blood cells, lymphocytes, spermatogonia (of testicles), follicle cells (of ovaries) are most sensitive; next are mucosal epithelial cells of the mouth, the esophagus, and stomach, and epithelial cells of the eye lens, and cells forming the hair bulb. (Note: epithelial tissues cover surfaces or line cavities, as well as perform various secreting, transporting, or regulatory functions.)

**************************

By 1975 a total of 1,838 cases were diagnosed as leukemia in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Of these, 512 were exposed within 10 km from ground zero. Incidence peaked in 1951-52 in both cities. THAT'S 28 YEARS LATER.


4. Cancers

Thyroid: first case reported in 1957. High incidence among females. Some cases first discovered by autopsy. THAT'S 10 YEARS AFTER

Breast: cases much higher among those exposed than in non-exposed. Exposure to 100 rads or more made risk 3.3 times that of those unexposed. Peak incidence was found higher among women ages 20-30.

Lung: First case noted in Hiroshima in 1954, with 37 cases in Nagasaki soon added. A 1972 large-scale survey revealed 3,778 lung cancers in 10,412 deaths, with correlation of high risks to high radiation dosage.

5. Chromosome changes

Chromosomes are present in constant numbers in the nuclei of cells, and can be seen as visible entities during cell division. The count in humans is a constant 46. Chromosome aberrations were first noted in exposed survivors in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1960. Subsequent systematic surveys revealed a high frequency of aberrations in blood cells and lymphocytes in fetuses exposed to large radiation doses in utero (in the womb) or soon after birth.

Although chromosome aberrations increased with higher radiation doses, frequency of aberrations was consistently high at all dose ranges. As late as 1985, chromosomal aberrations in somatic (body) cells persisted among exposed survivors.

6. Exposure in utero and microcephaly

A Nagasaki survey of 98 pregnant women exposed at a distance of 2.0 km from ground zero and 113 pregnant women exposed at 4.0 and 5.0 km from ground zero, showed a high percentage of neonatal and infantile deaths for those exposed within a 2.0 km range, as well as signs of acute radiation illness such as loss of hair, bleeding tendency, and inner mouth lesions. Mental retardation was noted in 25% of newborn survivors.

Besides high mortality rates, retarded growth and development was also indicated. Most notable in those exposed within 1.0–5.0 km of ground zero were retarded stature, underweight, and smaller head circumference, a condition called microcephaly, one of the most pathetic aftereffects of the atomic bombings, especially when accompanied by mental retardation.

************************************

7. Genetic surveys

Genetic surveys have not yielded positive evidence of genetic hazards due to atomic bomb radiation. Even so, possible A-bomb-induced effects such as spontaneous abortions, stillbirths, congenital malformations, and more, require continued study.

1-6 all say that nuclear bombs are dangerous things. Congratulations! If you thought that anyone disagreed with you on that... you've now proven your point. Unfortunately, nobody disagreed on that fact. Entirely missing from anything in 1-6 is evidence that a nuclear bomb 70 years ago could plausibly impact thyroid structures of the children of an entire nation three generations later.

Then we come to #7 -

Genetic surveys have not yielded positive evidence of genetic hazards due to atomic bomb radiation.

Which is exactly what I told you. There is no evidence that radiation damages DNA in a way that is:

1) Consistent across millions of people (that is... doing the same damage to the same pieces of DNA such that it has the same impact on all of the victims)
2) Inheritable

and the current lack of evidence is not sufficient. There hasn't been concerted and sufficient research, nor will there be, if the nuclear industry isn't castrated by events.

Given the sandbagging, prevarication, outright lying and fraudulent statistical history, I doubt that we have even an inkling of the truth, but the Truth WILL out...when enough people have suffered lasting harm.

And what is Fukushima but a slow-release, 24/7 nuclear bomb?

Nobody has asked you to prove a negative. The burden of proof (the fallacy you're missing) is on you since you're the one that claimed an effect from the radiation 70 years earlier. You can't make a claim and then say that although there is no evidence (at all) that it's possible, it can't be proven impossible... so the argument stands.

In fact, the reality that it is impossible can be proven... (since your claim requires not just a never-before-seen effect of radiation... but also mathematically impossible requirements like multiple simultaneous identical mutations in areas hundreds of miles from the blast)

There hasn't been concerted and sufficient research

Again... that's just nonsense. I don't know where people get off assuming that there just hasn't been much research into the subject when it has been studied in depth for decades... including this specific group (the children and grandchildren of the bombing survivors). One set of examples:

And what is Fukushima but a slow-release, 24/7 nuclear bomb?

Just about anything really... it's in almost no sense a "slow-release, 24/7 nuclear bomb". Dose rates were far lower (the highest doses at Fukushima are well below the lowest doses used in Hiroshima/Nagasaki cohorts) and fell rapidly (and continue to fall) - while atom bomb doses have much MUCH higher proportions of more-dangerous and longer-lived isotopes like plutonium and strontium. Also (unlike Fukushima - despite Gundersen's ignorance on the subject) nuclear bombs actually do produce "hot particles".

Oh... and of course the nuclear bombs killed roughly a couple hundred thousand people just in the blasts.

but perhaps the place to start is in your inability to deal with the issues, and dragging in everything but the kitchen sink to change the topic.

What are your credentials? Do you do this PR for free, or get paid by the word?

You don't even see the irony in your "inability to deal with the issues" comment as you try to shift off of the conversation, do you?

You likely also missed the new circular argument that is so common among the true believers (whether chemtrails, 9/11 conspiracies, whatever). "Everyone knows that x is wrong, therefore anyone advocating x must be a paid shill!"

So transparent... but at least entertaining.

You made up an entirely new theory out of whole cloth (that WWII bomb radiation had altered the genetics of all Japanese citizens so that they were now more likely to have thyroid "abnormalities" than the rest of the world). Why should you be surprised that it's nonsense (and easily shown to be so)?

Obviously even you see it now... but rather than own it, you shift to this nonsense?

the pro-nuclear people I talked about kept saying 'No one has died from the Fukushima meltdown', and then deflecting to the people who die from coal pollution.

Maybe that particular talking point will finally go away.

We don't need 'All of the Above' energy policies. We need renewables, not nuclear, not coal, not oil, not natural gas.

Wind, sun, wave.

...it must first cease being true.

Someone who believes that thousand of children have already died in the US rom doses lower than dental xrays... Is probably not the best source to rely on for that evidence.

You get dental x-rays once every couple of years for a few seconds at a time. You're not being x-rayed for months or years on end.

Dose rates have a time component. Dose does not.

The dose that I was refering to was an estimate that assumed that a child was exposed for an entire year to the highest radiation levels detected on the West Coast. That's necessarily high because the primary contaminant (I131) was gone very quickly... and even the Cesium was undetectable long before a year went by... so no single child would have received even a tenth of that dose.

You're not being x-rayed for months or years on end.

Neither are the kids on the West Coast.

And... of course... these were deaths claimed in the first couple months after 3/11 - so they wouldn't have doses build up anyway.

Your total dose of radiation depends upon the rate at which you're being exposed AND the total amount of time for which you're exposed. Dose = rate x time.

And the OP is about kids in Fukushima, not 'the West Coast'. If you want to drag in some totally different group, you might want to mention that explicitly.

Your total dose of radiation depends upon the rate at which you're being exposed AND the total amount of time for which you're exposed. Dose = rate x time.


You just agreed with what I said... yet claim that I got it backwards?

I cited a total dose... you treated it as though it were a dose rate. I pointed out that it wasn't.

And the OP is about kids in Fukushima, not 'the West Coast'. If you want to drag in some totally different group, you might want to mention that explicitly.

How much more explicit do I need to be?

"Someone who believes that thousand of children have already died in the US from doses lower than dental xrays... Is probably not the best source to rely on for that evidence."

I see where I misread you - I assumed you WERE talking about a rate, because treating what you said as 'dose' made no sense if we were talking about Fukushima - there was no way anyone around there was getting 'less than xrays', so yes, I did assume you meant 'rate' because I missed the 'in the US'. You threw me off because you pulled up some external thing Wasserman said somewhere else that I've never seen, so with me reading so quickly I missed the 'in the US', it came across completely differently.

You seem to be dealing with the issue with a healthy amount of skepticism. Nothing wrong with that... but you should recognize Wasserman as a fear monger (or to be kinder... an activist) who deserves at least as much skepticism.

were just talking past each other on dose and how we each used the words 'dose' and 'component'.

You mean 'component' in the sense that the measurement units for rates are in radiation/time unit, and I was referring to total dosage, not the amount of radiation you were receiving at any one specific time unit.

It says they are precancerous nodes and cysts with 120 showing childhood cancer.

Radiation is good for us because Fox News said so...

I will never support nuclear power, ever, after reading this topic.

Wasserman is right that "The nuclear industry and its apologists continue to deny this public health tragedy." The lies told about Fukushima parallel those about Chernobyl and other cases.

History shows that nations committed to nuclear energy, nuclear weaponry, and medical x-rays, (eg France, US, Japan, or Russia) have long been ignoring, disregarding, and actively hiding the real facts about the harm and toxicity of ionizing radiation (discussed in the e-book "The Mammogram Myth" by Rolf Hefti).

The recognition that the corporate press is merely a propaganda tool of these massive corporate interests, gives meaning to its eery silence and blatant distortions about the current Fukushima disaster.

Now even medical x-rays are a concern?

Welcome to DU, SdolmPisn/Weolo/Barry87/Wo49... You going to stick around, or are you done now that your ebook has been advertised?