IPPNW: The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster - International Physicians

A First-Hand Account of Japan's Nuclear CrisisKatsumi Furitsu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

Young doctors speak out on the Fukushima disaster . . . . . . . . . . .40

Japan’s Nuclear NightmareRonald McCoy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41

“A terribly difficult situation with a lot of uncertainties”:PSR Press Conference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46

What may we learn from Fukushima?Frank Boulton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57

Radiation in medicine and in nuclear power plants:the same but very differentAndreas Nidecker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61

Children, Teens and the Japan DisasterHarry Wang . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63

June 2011Special Edition

A publication ofInternational Physicians for

the Prevention of Nuclear War

The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster

Medicine & Global Survival ispublished by InternationalPhysicians for the Preventionof Nuclear War. A peer-reviewed journal on medical,public health, environmental,and humanitarian aspects ofwar—particularly nuclearwar—and other forms ofarmed violence, M&GS waspublished continuously from1990 (as The PSR Quarterly)through 2002.

A complete archive of arti-cles is available atwww.ippnw.org.

Editor: John Loretz

International Physicians forthe Prevention of NuclearWar (IPPNW) is a federationof national medical organiza-tions in 63 countries, repre-senting doctors, medical stu-dents, other health workers,and concerned citizens whoshare the common goal ofcreating a more peaceful andsecure world freed from thethreat of nuclear annihilation.IPPNW received the NobelPeace Prize in 1985.

INTERNATIONAL PHYSICIANS FOR THE PREVENTIONOF NUCLEAR WAR

66-70 UNION SQUARE, #204 SOMERVILLE, MA 02143 USA+1.617.440.1733 (TEL)+1.617.440.1734 (FAX)

[email protected] (EMAIL)IPPNW.ORG

PEACEANDHEALTHBLOG.COM

CONTENTS

About this issue

We decided topublish this special

issue of M&GS—thefirst since 2002—inorder to present inone place the per-spectives on radia-

tion and health, thedangers posed by

nuclear energy,and the links

between nuclearpower and nuclearweapons technolo-

gies that IPPNW,its national affili-ates, and its net-

work of physicianexperts have made

available to thepress and to thepublic since thetragic events in

Japan in March.

This is by nomeans a compre-

hensive collection,and we refer read-

ers to the IPPNWPeace and HealthBlog (peaceand-healthblog.com),

where many moreresources, including

links to audio andvideo reports in

several languages,are compiled.

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

The Fukushima Nuclear Crisis, Month 1: A Brief Chronology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4Fukushima Radioisotopes: Some Key Facts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Editorials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

IPPNW has been a constant voice against nuclear energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7IPPNW Nuclear Energy Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8Nuclear power—“basta”! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9Nuclear energy is no alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10A potential source of radiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10Futility of nuclear energy: Alternatives for Nigeria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10What could be worse? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12From Hiroshima to Fukushima and back . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13The nuclear chain – splitting atoms, hairs and personalities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13Just in case you missed it, here's why radiation is a health hazard . . . . . . . . . . . . .14There really is no safe level of radiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16Anger is renewable energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17Children of Fukushima need our protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Commentaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

In the News . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

A First-Hand Account of Japan's Nuclear CrisisKatsumi Furitsu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

Young doctors speak out on the Fukushima disaster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

Japan’s Nuclear NightmareRonald McCoy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41

“A terribly difficult situation with a lot of uncertainties”:PSR Press Conference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46

What may we learn from Fukushima?Frank Boulton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57

Radiation in medicine and in nuclear power plants: the same but very differentAndreas Nidecker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61

Children, Teens and the Japan DisasterHarry Wang . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63

The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster

Medicine & Global Survival • June 2011 2

On March 11, 2011, a massive earth-quake and tsunami caused extensiveand irreparable damage to the nuclearreactors and spent fuel pools at the

Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant in Japan,releasing harmful radiation into the environ-ment. Since then, our physician experts havebriefed government officials, medical profes-sionals, and journalists in numerous countriesabout the impact of these radiation releases onpublic health in Japan and elsewhere.

IPPNW’s first concern has been for thepeople of northeastern Japan, whose healthand security have been seriously compro-mised by a misguided national reliance onnuclear-generated electricity. In the days fol-lowing the disaster, IPPNW called for anexpansion of the evacuation zone aroundFukushima to protect the health of childrenand pregnant women, who are particularlyvulnerable to the effects of radiation. Thatevacuation zone, comparable to the one thathas surrounded the Chernobyl reactor since1986, had been extended to 12 miles by midApril 2011.

IPPNW has been formally opposed tonuclear energy since 1998, when ourInternational Council called for a halt to newplant construction and the phase out of exist-ing nuclear plants because of the insur-mountable dangers nuclear energy poses tohealth, the environment, and security.

First and foremost, we know that thereis an inherent link between nuclear powerand nuclear weapons. Every commercialreactor produces plutonium and other fissilematerials that can be used in weapons pro-grams. The biggest practical obstacle to theabolition of nuclear weapons is the prolifera-tion of nuclear power plants around theworld—the so-called nuclear renaissancepromoted by the industry and its govern-ment proponents.

The nuclear reactors and spent fuelpools at Fukushima and at similar nuclear

power stations in the US and in other coun-tries contain thousands of times the amountsof radioactive isotopes released by theHiroshima and Nagasaki bombs. Isotopesthat have been steadily and increasinglyentering the air, soil, and water around theplant include iodine-131, which causes thy-roid cancer; cesium-137, which causes cancerin the liver and kidneys; strontium-90, whichcauses leukemia; and plutonium-239, whichhas a half-life of 24,000 years and causes lungcancer when ingested in microscopicamounts.

The International Atomic EnergyAgency and the World Health Organizationhave estimated that there were 6,000 to 9,000

INTRODUCTION

Rescue workers monitor children for increased radiation exposureafter the Fukushima nuclear disaster. Reuters photo.

§


new cases of cancer—primarily thyroid can-cers and leukemias among children—as aresult of the 1986 Chernobyl explosion inRussia, but there is good reason to believethat the true numbers are much, much high-er. While it is now impossible to reconstructan accurate data set of exposures and illness-es related to Chernobyl, independent expertshave concluded that the IAEA/WHO dataitself supports an estimate as high as 25,000additional cancer deaths, and that the realnumber of deaths and illnesses is substantial-ly higher—into the tens or even hundreds ofthousands according to an assessment pub-lished by IPPNW-Germany in April 2011.

In addition to the immediate and longterm health dangers from radioactive conta-mination, the environmental destructionresulting from each major nuclear powerplant disaster to date has been enormous.While one of the two reactors at Three MileIsland continues to produce electricity, thearea surrounding the plant, which was thesite of the first commercial reactor meltdownin 1979, will have to be monitored for hun-dreds of years after the facility is finallydecommissioned. There is a permanent 20-mile “exclusion zone” around the Chernobylreactor. It is still too soon to assess the fullextent of the long term dangers aroundFukushima, but there is no doubt that anextensive area around the doomed reactorswill be uninhabitable and unusable for gen-erations to come.

IPPNW has additional concerns aboutnuclear power plants. They are tempting tar-gets for acts of terrorism. Were someone todeliberately fly an aircraft into the nuclearplant at Indian Point, just north of New YorkCity, for example, and rupture the contain-ment vessel around the reactor, the probableresult, planned or spontaneous, would be theevacuation of one of the world's major cities,immeasurable damage to the US economy,

and ripple effects—more like an economictsunami—to the global economy.

IPPNW rejects the industry's argumentsthat nuclear energy is needed to mitigate theeffects of global warming. Even if the otherrisks described above were acceptable, whichwe believe they are not, the world wouldneed to build hundreds of new nuclearpower plants, at an average cost of $8-10 bil-lion each, in order to bring about sufficientcarbon reductions to protect the climate.Moreover, it would take decades to bring thatnumber of plants online, by which time itwould be too late to prevent a climate cata-strophe. As Amory Lovins, Arjun Makhijani,and other energy experts have pointed out,investments in conservation, efficiency, andrenewable energy sources such as wind andsolar, are dollar-for-dollar more effective inreducing carbon emissions than comparablesubsidies to the nuclear industry. As a sim-ple matter of economics, nuclear energy failsevery test. That is why IPPNW has joinedother NGOs in supporting the InternationalRenewable Energy Agency (IRENA), anintergovernmental body of nearly 150 coun-tries committed to the rapid developmentand deployment of renewable, non-nuclearenergy worldwide.

The attempts to provide security withnuclear weapons and to meet global energyneeds with nuclear power share the sameflawed premise: that we can prevent the mostdangerous technologies ever created byhuman hands from ever failing. The lesson ofHiroshima and Nagasaki is that nuclearweapons must be abolished before they abol-ish us. The lesson of Fukushima—and ofChernobyl and Three Mile Island beforethat—is that we can no longer afford to rollthe dice on a technology that cannot beallowed to fail, when failures now appear tobe inevitable, with catastrophic conse-quences.

The Fukushima Nuclear Crisis, Month 1: A Brief Chronology

March 11, 2011—A magnitude 9 earthquake strikes the northeast coast of Japan and is followed 30 minuteslater by a tsunami. More than 20,000 people are killed or injured, almost 7,000 more are missing, and hundredsof thousands are forced to evacuate. The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant is automatically shut down, butwith no electricity to power the cooling systems, water inside the reactors began to boil off, threatening a meltdownof the uranium fuel in three reactor cores that had been running at the time. The Japanese government declares astate of emergency and advises people living near the plant to leave.

March 12—Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) reports rising pressure inside reactor 1, begins to vent radioactivesteam containing iodine-131 and cesium-137, and starts to evacuate 20,000 people who live within 10 kilometersof the plant. An explosion tears the roof off the building housing reactor 1; workers begin to pump seawater intothe reactor; the government distributes iodine pills to nearby residents.

March 13—The evacuation zone is expanded to 20 kilometers; radiation levels continue to rise; seawater ispumped into reactors 2 and 3, which are also failing.

March 14—A second hydrogen explosion ruptures reactor 3, injuring several workers; evidence begins to appearthat the reactor containment may have been breached; cooling fails at reactor 2, exposing the fuel rods to the air.

March 15—An explosion occurs in the building housing reactor 2 and radiation levels increase four-fold; the reac-tor containment is apparently damaged. A fire in the reactor 4 building, shut down for maintenance at the time ofthe earthquake, threatens the spent fuel ponds on the building's roof. Prime Minister Naoto Kan goes on televisionto warn residents within a 30-kilometer radius of the crippled plant to remain indoors. A fourth hydrogen explosionrocks the reactor 4 building. By day's end, radiation levels near reactor 3 reach 400 milliSieverts per hour; TEPCOevacuates all non-essential workers.

March 16—Water continues to boil off spent fuel ponds in reactors 3 and 4 but temperatures and pressures beginto drop at reactor 2, indicating some level of success. Radiation spikes, however, prevent workers from approach-ing the reactor, and a plan to dump seawater on the reactor by helicopter has to be postponed. Seawater isdropped on the exposed fuel ponds at reactors 3 and 4, but fears of a core meltdown at reactor 3 remain high.

March 17—Military helicopters drop water on reactor 3 building, while fire engines spray water from the ground.

March 18—The Japanese nuclear safety agency declares a Level 5 nuclear emergency on a scale of 7.

March 19—Radioactive materials above "allowable" levels are detected in raw milk in Fukushima Prefecture andspinach in Ibaraki Prefecture; Russian, French, and Finnish experts say Fukushima Daiichi is more likely a Level 6nuclear emergency.

March 20—Reactors 5 and 6, which had not been operating at the time of the disaster, are stabilized in "coldshutdown."

March 21—Workers are evacuated from reactor 3 after smoke spews out.

March 22—More water is dumped on reactor 4.

March 23—Elevated levels of radioactive iodine are detected in a water treatment plant in Tokyo; the city gov-ernment warns residents not to give tap water to infants.

March 24—Three workers are exposed to elevated levels of radiation at reactor 3. Water restrictions in Tokyoare lifted.

March 25—The government urges people living within a 20-30 kilometer radius of Fukushima Daiichi to evacu-ate voluntarily.

March 26—Radioactive iodine at 1,850 times the "allowable" level is found in seawater near the drainage forreactor 1.


March 27—High levels of radioactive water are found in tunnels near turbine buildings for reactors 1 and 3.

March 28—Highly contaminated water is found in the basement of the reactor 2 building. TEPCO announces thatduring the previous week it had detected plutonium in the plant.

March 30—TEPCO announces that reactors 1-4 have been decommissioned.

April 2—A cracked pit near the seawater intake for reactor 2 is found to be leaking water.

April 4—TEPCO begins dumping radioactive water into the sea, raising serious concerns about contamination offish and other marine life, and bioaccumulation of radiation up the food chain; 520 tons of radioactive water willleak into the sea before the leaks are plugged.

April 5—Radioactive material is, in fact, found in fish caught off Ibaraki Prefecture.

April 6—TEPCO states that leaks of highly contaminated water into sea have stopped; pumps nitrogen gas intoreactor 1 to prevent new hydrogen explosions.

April 7—Major aftershock strikes Miyagi Prefecture.

April 10—Work begins to remove rubble, some of it radioactive, with remote-controlled heavy machines; waterin the plant tunnel system is so radioactive—more than 1,000 mSv/h—it must be removed before repair work cancontinue. Removal of radioactive water will continue throughout April and May.

April 11—The Japanese Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) raises the disaster at Fukushima Daiichi toLevel 7 on the INES scale, making the crisis comparable to the Chernobyl disaster 25 years earlier.

April 25 —Japanese government increases the maximum amount of radiation exposure for children to 20mSv/year, prompting international censure and protests from IPPNW and other NGOs.



Fukushima RadioisotopesSome Key Facts

Cesium-137, iodine-131, strontium-90, and plutonium have been the principal radioisotopes of concern tophysicians, public health officials, and epidemiologists during the nuclear reactor crisis at Fukushima Daiichi.The following facts are drawn from radioisotope profiles produced by the US Centers for Disease Control andPrevention (www.cdc.gov).

Cesium-137 (Cs-137) Half-life: 30.17 years Mode of decay: Beta and gamma radiation

Cs-137 is produced by nuclear fission for use in medical devices and gauges. Cs-137 also is one of thebyproducts of nuclear fission processes in nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons testing. Small quantities ofCs-137 can be found in the environment from nuclear weapons tests that occurred in the 1950s and 1960sand from nuclear reactor accidents, such as the Chernobyl power plant accident in 1986, which distributedCs-137 to many countries in Europe. External exposure to large amounts of Cs-137 can cause burns, acuteradiation sickness, and even death. Exposure to Cs-137 can increase the risk for cancer because of exposureto high-energy gamma radiation. Internal exposure to Cs-137, through ingestion or inhalation, allows theradioactive material to be distributed in the soft tissues, especially muscle tissue, exposing these tissues to thebeta particles and gamma radiation and increasing cancer risk.

Iodine-131 (I-131) Half-life: 8.06 days Mode of decay: Beta particles and gamma radiation

I-131 is produced commercially for medical and industrial uses through nuclear fission. It also is a byproductof nuclear fission processes in nuclear reactors and weapons testing. External exposure to large amounts of I-131 can cause burns to the eyes and on the skin. Internal exposure can affect the thyroid gland...which can-not distinguish between radioactive iodine and stable (nonradioactive) iodine. If I-131 were released into theatmosphere, people could ingest it in food products or water, or breathe it in. In addition, if dairy animals con-sume grass contaminated with I-131, the radioactive iodine will be incorporated into their milk. Consequently,people can receive internal exposure from drinking the milk or eating dairy products made from contaminatedmilk. Once inside the body, I-131 will be absorbed by the thyroid gland exposing it to radiation and poten-tially increasing the risk for thyroid cancer or other thyroid problems.

Strontium-90 (Sr-90) Half-life: 29.1 years Mode of decay: Beta radiation

Sr-90 is produced commercially through nuclear fission for use in medicine and industry. It also is found inthe environment from nuclear testing that occurred in the 1950s and 1960s and in nuclear reactor waste andcan contaminate reactor parts and fluids. Sr-90 can be inhaled, but ingestion in food and water is the great-est health concern. Once in the body, Sr-90 acts like calcium and is readily incorporated into bones and teeth,where it can cause cancers of the bone, bone marrow, and soft tissues around the bone.

Plutonium Half-life: Pu-238—87.7 years; Pu-239—24,110 years;Pu-240—6,564 years

Mode of decay: Alpha particles

Plutonium is created from uranium in nuclear reactors. It is a by-product of nuclear weapons production andnuclear power operations. Because it emits alpha particles, plutonium is most dangerous when inhaled. Whenplutonium particles are inhaled, they lodge in the lung tissue. The alpha particles can kill lung cells, which caus-es scarring of the lungs, leading to further lung disease and cancer. Plutonium can enter the blood stream fromthe lungs and travel to the kidneys, meaning that the blood and the kidneys will be exposed to alpha parti-cles. Once plutonium circulates through the body, it concentrates in the bones, liver, and spleen, exposingthese organs to alpha particles. Plutonium that is ingested from contaminated food or water does not pose aserious threat to humans because the stomach does not absorb plutonium easily and so it passes out of thebody in the feces.


IPPNW has been a constant voiceagainst nuclear energy

For the past six days, IPPNW doctors in anumber of countries have been over-whelmed with requests from journalists

hungry for information about the healtheffects of radiation and the potential healthconsequences of the crisis at Japan’s nuclearreactors.

The leaders of IPPNW-Germany, many of themexperts on radiation and onChernobyl-related illnesses,happened to be meeting inFrankfurt on the weekend thedisaster unfolded, and haveworked around the clock eversince analyzing what informa-tion is available and putting itinto a medical and publichealth context (see XantheHall’s excellent piece, “Nuclearpower—basta!”).

In the US, PSR has mobi-lized its own physician leadership to helpreporters (who are openly frustrated with thequality of “official” briefings) understandwhat is going on. A PSR press briefing con-ducted by telephone from Washington, DCyesterday drew questions from the country’sleading newspapers not only about the basicscience of radiation, but also about how tointerpret and evaluate the information com-ing from official sources.

Physicians in Japan, Switzerland,Australia, India, Greece, France, and othercountries are explaining the biological effectsof cesium-137, iodine-131, strontium-90, and

plutonium-239 (a component of the MOXfuel in one of the Fukushima reactors) to anapprehensive and confused public.

To take just one example, if you googleIra Helfand, a PSR/IPPNW leader whose skillas an emergency physician is obvious in hisclear, calm explanations of complex and terri-fying facts, you will find so many print, televi-

sion, and radio interviews sinceMarch 11 that one can onlywonder when he has slept letalone treated patients since thisstarted.

What IPPNW is saying inthe midst of crisis, sadly, is nodifferent from what we havebeen warning for many years.A look back through the histor-ical record shows that PSRissued an appeal to haltnuclear energy development inthe US in 1979, mere weeksbefore the Three Mile Islandincident.

IPPNW-Germany has made it a specialpart of their mission to study and documentthe effects of Chernobyl—an understandableresponse to the large amounts of radioactivefallout from Chernobyl that landed onGerman soil. They have held major confer-ences on Chernobyl over the years, and wereplanning the next one in Frankfurt when real-ity intruded.

PSR/IPPNW-Switzerland held its ownconference, “Rethinking Nuclear Energy andDemocracy After September 11, 2001,” in2003. The conference presentations, some ofthem calling the whole concept of “nuclear

EDITORIALS

§

As the nuclear reactor crisis in Japan unfolded in the days and weeks following theearthquake- and tsunami-induced disaster at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Station,IPPNW doctors, medical students, and policy experts wrote numerous editorials andcommentaries that were published in newspapers and magazines, online news sites,and the federation’s own Peace and Health Blog (peaceandhealthblog.com). Many ofthese articles are collected here, with the publication date and source noted.

What IPPNW issaying in the

midst of crisis,sadly, is no differ-ent from what wehave been warn-

ing for manyyears.

IPPNW’s Peaceand Health Blog(peaceandhealthblog.com) containsa special sectiondevoted to theJapan nuclear cri-sis, including linksto online inter-views, news arti-cles, and analysisby IPPNW experts.

safety” into question, were gathered into apublication that is still worth reading almosta decade later.)

IPPNW’s organizational position onnuclear energy was adopted at the 13th WorldCongress in Melbourne, in 1998. The vote wasnot unanimous (the notes from theInternational Council meeting reflect opposi-tion from the Finnish and Japanese affiliates),but the rejection of nuclear energy approvedby a large majority was unambiguous and thereasons given touched on every major con-cern: the link with nuclear weapons prolifera-tion; the unsolved (to this day) problem of

nuclear waste; health and environmental dan-gers, whether from accidents, terrorist attacks,or “normal” operations; economic costs; andthe availability of wiser alternatives.

In the aftermath of Fukushima, theMelbourne resolution sounds even moreurgent today than it did some 12 years ago.

—John LoretzIPPNW Peace and Health Blog

March 17, 2011


BEARING IN MIND THAT:

• The acquisition of nuclear-weapons-usable materials is the most difficult step in the making of nuclearweapons and the most important obstacle to proliferation;

• Commercial reprocessing produces plutonium that can be used to make nuclear weapons;• The creation of a technical infrastructure and of plutonium (and/or uranium-233) is an inevitable accom-

paniment of the use of nuclear energy, and large surpluses of weapons-usable commercial plutonium havebeen built up as a result;

• Nuclear power makes proliferation more likely and verification more difficult;• All existing designs of nuclear reactors are vulnerable to accidents and can become targets of attack, for

instance in conventional wars or due to terrorism, thereby creating an intolerable risk for health and environment;• The commercial nuclear fuel cycle creates health risks for many generations in a manner similar to nuclear

weapons production;• There are far more satisfactory ways from the point of view of economy and health to meet the world's

energy needs than nuclear energy;• Unless the industrialized countries of the West make a firm commitment to phase out nuclear energy other

countries are unlikely to give it up.

BE IT RESOLVED THAT IPPNW WILL WORK TOWARDS THE FOLLOWING GOALS:

• Reprocessing, both commercial and military, should be stopped.• No new nuclear power plants should be built or commissioned in any country and existing nuclear power

plants should be phased out at most by the end of their current license periods.• Separated plutonium, whether from commercial or military sources, should not be used in nuclear reac-

tors to generate energy.• Immobilization of plutonium should be used as a way to put all military and all separated commercial plu-

tonium stocks into non-weapons-usable form.• The financial, scientific, and technological resources of society should be used to meet energy needs in

far more efficient and less dangerous ways than nuclear power.

THE FIRST STEPS TO BE TAKEN SHOULD INCLUDE:

• Informing all IPPNW affiliates about the links between nuclear power and nuclear weapons.• At this crucial juncture, creating a project to work in coalition with other groups to stop all military and

commercial reprocessing.• Creating a project to analyze the health implications of use of nuclear energy as a power source.

Nuclear Energy ResolutionIPPNW International Council

December 9, 1998Melbourne, Australia


Nuclear power—“basta”!

It really is enough now. Hiroshima,Nagasaki, Windscale, Harrisburg,Chernobyl and now Fukushima. When

will it be enough for governments around theworld to understand that there is no playingwith nuclear fire? The moment thatOppenheimer saw the first nuclear explosionhe understood the magnitude of this new andawful kind of energy. Now the raw power ofnature meets our technical arrogance and isdestroying Japan in the form of earthquakes,tsunami and the unleashing of terrifyingquantities of radiation. It hardly bears think-ing about. But we must think about it and actupon it.

As I boarded the train this morning inFrankfurt heading back to Berlin, an exhaust-ing day behind me, the news was still totallyunclear. Had there already been a meltdownor was it yet to come? Would there be morethan one meltdown? How much radiationhad already leaked out of thereactor that had exploded andhow much had they deliber-ately released to reduce pres-sure in the core?

In one of the televisioninterviews I gave yesterday theinterviewer began by saying“With what we know nowabout the accident at theFukushima reactor, what willbe the consequences for theJapanese people?“ and I had toask back “what do we knownow? We know hardly any-thing at all.“ Impossible toanswer other than to say, as ouroutgoing Chairperson AngelikaClaussen did: “we need moretransparency.” How can physi-cians even begin to react to adisaster such as this withoutany real knowledge of theamounts of radiation and mea-surements of isotopes? It reminded me ofChernobyl where it took days before they evenadmitted what had really happened.

But here it could be even worse. Morethan one reactor is affected. Maybe moreearthquakes are on their way. Evacuation ishampered by the destruction caused by theearthquake. Presumably medical services arealso severely hindered from helping radiationvictims and have their hands already full withmechanical injuries caused by the earthquake.It is not over yet, maybe it is just beginning. Ifear the dragon has only opened its mouth,but not yet breathed out its horrific fire.

IPPNW-Germany was meeting inFrankfurt this weekend for their annual gen-

eral meeting. By Saturday morning it wasclear that we could not continue with ourplanned agenda. For the first hour or two asmall group tried to gather information anddraw conclusions from what had happenedor might have happened. Most of the mediareports were conflicting. We studied the pic-tures of the reactor and tried to surmise howbig the leak might be and whether we werealready facing a meltdown. After a two-minute silence, we then separated intogroups to decide how to act, how to react. Atthe same time, our press officer AngelikaWilmen rang the main TV stations andoffered them interviews with our experts.The one good thing was that we were alltogether: Henrik Paulitz, Angelika Claussen,Reinhold Thiel, Winfred Eisenberg—allexperts on radiation and health, or on securi-ty deficits in nuclear power plants. The mediareaction was nothing short of overwhelming.Other doctors were quickly briefed so they

could help in reacting to allthe interview requests. All ofus, including myself, werecalled upon to give state-ments, appear on TV or speakto the radio.

Meanwhile the other doc-tors were ready to take to thestreets. Equipped with banners,balloons, and “nuclear“umbrellas, we organised aflashmob in the centre ofFrankfurt. About 100 of us werethere, chanting loudly for thenuclear power plants to be shutdown. One group shouted“nuclear power“ and the otheranswered “basta!“ The TVfilmed us and people aroundshowed their approval. It feltgood to be shouting our frustra-tion and anger. No doubt therewill be more actions in the nextfew days and weeks. What else

can we do?The answer to that question was also

brainstormed and ideas emerged. More infor-mation on radiation and health in short, easy-to-read flyers that can be handed out on thestreets is needed. The call for people to imme-diately change their electricity supplier to onethat only provides renewable energy to the netshould be insistent, so that money is cut offfrom the nuclear industry. Moving moneyfrom banks that invest in the nuclear industry,asking “how radioactive is my bank?“Flooding the government with lettersdemanding that nuclear power plants are shutdown, right away. Calling worldwide for anend to nuclear power, starting immediately

§

It really is timethat politicians

admit that the useof nuclear energy,both civilian andmilitary, starting

with uranium min-ing and ending

with a chain reac-tion, controlled or

uncontrolled—contaminates, kills

and causesimmense suffering.

with all nuclear power plants in regions werethere is any seismic activity. These were just afew of the ideas that were voiced.

It really is time that politicians admitthat the use of nuclear energy, both civilianand military, starting with uranium miningand ending with a chain reaction, controlledor uncontrolled—contaminates, kills andcauses immense suffering. There have beenenormous attempts to cover up the data fromHiroshima and Chernobyl so that peopleswallow the nuclear lie. It is not safe, it is notclean, it is not the answer to climate change,it does not keep the peace. It is our onlyenemy and it will kill us. Those who are notkilled will helplessly watch the others dieand not be able to help them. I do not exag-gerate. We are doing exactly that right now,watching the people of Japan—already histo-ry’s hibakusha—dying, and we cannot doanything. We can only raise our voices loudand clear and say—basta!

—Xanthe HallIPPNW Peace and Health Blog

March 13, 2011

Nuclear energy is no alternative

The events around the Japanese quake andnuclear-reactor damage are tragic andwill be repeated again in some other iter-

ation as long as we embrace nuclear energyas an alternative to fossil fuels. The damageto the nuclear reactor and release of nuclearwaste compound the tragedy of the earth-quake because they now likely condemn thepeople of Japan (especially the children) tohigher rates of cancer over the followingdecades as well as an expensive cleanup ofwaste that has an extraordinarily long half-life.

The Japanese government put down themost sophisticated system possible to pre-vent this exact course of events and it stillhappened. As we mourn this catastrophe, Ihope we do not forego the opportunity tolearn from it as well. We owe it to ourselvesand the Japanese people.

—Richard GradyLetter, Seattle Times

March 14, 2011

A potential source of radiationIndian Doctors for Peace and Development(IDPD) has expressed its grief over thedevastation caused by the tsunami andearthquake in Japan. The blast at the

nuclear power plant vindicates the stand ofthe International Physicians for thePrevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) andIDPD that nuclear power plants are a poten-tial source of radiation. We doctors havealways maintained that the option of produc-

ing electricity from nuclear power is danger-ous and expensive.

The world still remembers theChernobyl nuclear accident; an estimated93,000 people are reported to have perished.The health of the “liquidators” (clean-upworkers), engaged in the task of clearing thearea, is a matter of serious concern eventoday.

An accident in a nuclear power plant isalmost like an atomic explosion with devas-tating consequences on flora, fauna and ecolo-gy. The Government of India should reviewits nuclear power policy and use other saferenewable options for power generation.These are widely available alternatives in ourcountry. Japan has the best disaster manage-ment capacity; in contrast India’s track recordis extremely dismal. Our policy-makers oughtto derive a lesson from the calamity in Japan.

—Subhas ChakrabortyThe Statesman (India)

March 14, 2011

Futility of nuclear energy: Alternativesfor Nigeria

The footage of the double sets of tragedy inNorthern Japan are a common scene onour televisions screens and internet

pages. One set being natural (earthquake andTsunami) and the second, technology failure(nuclear plant accidents and potentialradioactive leakages).

On Friday 11th March, 2011 at 2.46pm(Japanese time) 8.9 magnitude earthquake hitthe port city of Sendai in Northern Japansending severe shock waves across the coun-try and region. As if this was not enough, aheavy tsunami with waves as high as 8-10meters raged across Japan and the Pacificsea at the speed of about 1000km/hr.Tsunami alarm was immediately soundedwithin Japan and 53 countries on the path ofthis monstrous phenomenon.

My treatise would be limited to thenuclear plant (NP) explosions and the potentialradioactive leakages with reflection on theNigerian planned Nuclear energy acquisitionwith the evitable risk such investment presentfor public health and human survival.

The much talked about reform in theenergy sector had been raised as political baittossed around by government since thereturn to democracy in 1999. Several solu-tions to “blackouts” had been promised butnever delivered. The roadmap to Nigerian'senergy sectors should be robustly driven bydiversities in clean and modern sources ofpower production.

Our nuclear energy adventure would beaborted even before take off by monumentalbureaucracy and technical challenges; we


§

§

§


have no proven maintenance culture not tothink of an uninterrupted electric supplysupported by an effective backup to anacquired NP. The NPs at Fukushima Daiichi,Japan had three tiers of electricity supply tothe cooling system, all of which failed byforces of nature, the quake and tsunami.Should Nigeria be lucky to have regular elec-tricity supply to power the cooling system,we may run out of water for one phantomreason or another.

The outcome of the failed cooling sys-tem at Fukushima-1 NP was a built up ofpressure within the reactor and an eventualexplosion releasing radioactive substancesinto the environment- a scary development ofan immense historical dimension. However,conflicting reports of the exact amount ofradioactivity has deepen the crisis andprompted heighten fears on the Citizens andthe Government. The Nuclear watchdogChief, Ambassador Amano would be travel-ling to Japan to see things for himself.Fukushima-3 NP exploded on 14 March andFukushima-2 the following day while firewas reported in Fukushima-4 NP.

Plutonium, a highly radioactive andvital component of nuclear reactors is the ele-ment release in the event the core of the reac-tor is compromised. The risks of exposure ofhumans include radiation illnesses, futurecarcinoma and deaths depending of the doseof exposure. However, it is hope that thewinds would blow the emissions eastwardsto reduce contamination.

Apart from leakages and accidental fall-outs, disposal of nuclear waste have alwaysposed a regrettable environmental and healthdisasters of unimaginable proportion.

Chernobyl in Ukraine is a case in contextwhere effects of radioactive fallout of 1986are still felt as far as the Nordic countries.Other NP accidents resulting in release ofradioactive materials were Windscale, UK in1957, Kyshtym, Russia in 1957 and Threemile Island, USA in 1979 just to mention afew. Debate has been re-ignited as to the clo-sure of some of the 104 NPs in USA as theresult of the current nuclear disaster in Japan.

In 2006, a near meltdown of the reactoroccurred after fire broke out at a NP inRinghals, Sweden few months after a reactorin Forsmark also in Sweden went up inflames. Health and environments campaign-ers have not ceased advocating for completeelimination of NP in Sweden, Germany andother European countries.

The International Physicians for thePrevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) for over30 years have advocated and educated thepublic on the dangers of eventual radiationfallout from nuclear weapons. It is universal

knowledge that nuclear reactors are precur-sors of nuclear weaponry. An accidentalmeltdown of such weapons and reactors ascurrently witnessed in Japan poses an enor-mous danger to the environment, health ofhumans and living things. IPPNW's effortwas recognized by the UNESCO PeaceEducation Prize in 1984 and by the NobelPeace Prize in 1985.

In Nigeria, the affiliate of IPPNW isknown as Society of Nigerian Doctors for theWelfare of Mankind with membership allover Nigeria.

There are viable alternatives for powergeneration in this modern age. Hydroelectricitycould be relevant and sustainable in some com-munities for example, NESCO was efficient atelectricity supply to Bukuru and part of Jos inPlateau state from Kura falls when I residedthere. Shiroro falls had its area of supply. Quafalls in Cross River state should be exploited togenerate electricity for her catchment areas.

Hydropower may be complimentedwith other sources such as wind turbines thatcould be conveniently mounted offshoreacross the vast Bight of Benin to supply elec-tricity to the entire South West, South Southand South Eastern zones of Nigeria.Communities in the other zones could alsobenefit from electricity generated from winddepending on their topography.

What of our God given sunlight? Thissource is an envy of countries in the northernhemisphere especially those with long darknights.

A European consortium has planned totap sunrays from the Sahara desert to supplyelectricity to most of Europe, a project that ifcompleted would begin shut down of NPs inthe subscribed nations. A paradox hits hardon our psyche that is comparable to havingcrude petroleum oil and refineries but wewait in long queues for its by-products.Countries without crude petroleum oil orrefinery have petroleum products 24/7. Itwould be reasonable that we hide our faces inshame if we cannot use technology to harnessthe benefit of our abundant sunlight.

Biodegradation has been successfully uti-lized for energy generation in many commu-nities and countries. Why not in Nigeria? Ifwell utilized, our cities would be rid of wastekeeping them clean. Waste would becomemarketable and employment generated fromorganized waste collections and disposalsthrough sales to biodegradation plants.

The suggestions above are not new; sev-eral commentators had made similar andperhaps better proposals in the past.However, one of the reasons for an apparentdisregard to these ideas is situated in the mis-placed priorities of successive Nigerian

Governments, corruption and huge govern-ments; a push to satisfy political cronies out-weighs instituting a legacy for a modernnation.

Unfortunately, in an event of radioactiveaccidents, there's just no sustainable remedy;iodine tablets have very limited solution.Evacuations to far distances have mere pal-liative effect. In case of Fukushima, an initial20 km was advised and later 30 km safe zonewas advocated. Many are impressed by theresilience of the Japanese people and the res-cue teams who are searching all nooks andcrannies despite unfavorable terrain couplewith snow and falling temperatures.

One ponders how we would have man-aged should such a disaster confront us?What relief can we muster when a dambreaks its banks? Nigerians were stranded inTripoli for weeks before being evacuatedhome. The risk of radioactive contaminationshould be weighed against other electricitygenerating options before taking a dive todisaster.

—Ime John Nigeria Plus Citizen Journalism

March 16, 2011

What could be worse?

Each day the news out of Japan is thatmuch worse than the day before.Desperate attempts to scoop loads of

water out of the ocean and dump them fromhelicopters onto overheating spent fuel poolsat the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant failedtoday. So did a plan to spray the reactorbuildings with water cannons normally usedfor crowd control. Neither the helicopters northe cannons could get close enough to theirtargets because radiation levels were toohigh. The secondary containment around onereactor is now reportedly destroyed.

Thousands of people have been evacuat-ed from around the plant, adding to the hun-dreds of thousands already made homeless bythe earthquake and tsunami—events thatwould be dominating the news under anyother circumstances but now seem almost likeafterthoughts (or pre-shocks?). We keep hear-ing that Tokyo is not in any danger from radi-ation right now, but our Japanese friends havetold us that people in Tokyo are under enor-mous stress, unsure of how to balance indi-vidual and family anxiety with their deeplyingrained sense of collective responsibility.

In less than a week, the Japanese econo-my, like the tsunami-ravaged coast, has falleninto shambles. Any natural disaster of thismagnitude has vast social, environmental,and economic repercussions, and even with-out the destruction of the Fukushima reactorsJapan would have faced a prolonged period

of recovery and billions of dollars in costs.The nuclear crisis, however, threatens thevery foundation of Japan’s economy, whichhas been organized, for better or worse,around nuclear power.

“Worse” has now arrived. We keephearing from Japanese leaders (who are in animpossible position) and from “nuclear safe-ty” experts (a term that is now the dictionarydefinition of “oxymoron”), that this is not theworst case scenario, that full core meltdownsat the plants are unlikely, and that even if onewere to occur, there would not be Chernobyl-like consequences.

Is anyone actually supposed to take anycomfort from that? Are the Japanese people—or any of us, for that matter—supposed tobe reassured that the damage from this inci-dent, if it ends here, will be “limited?”Limited to what? The displacement of andtrauma to thousands of people whose liveswill never be the same? The creation of anuninhabitable sacrifice zone many kilometersout from the hopelessly contaminated reactorsite? Tens of billions of dollars of direct andindirect costs? The devastation of an entirenational psyche?

And that’s not the worst-case scenario?The case for nuclear energy, if there ever

was one, has now collapsed. Far from being acheap source of electricity, nuclear power hasproven itself to be extraordinarily expensive.It is an ineffective answer to global warmingbecause even if all other restrictions wereremoved we would not be able to buildenough nuclear power plants to make a dentin carbon emissions in time to make a differ-ence. Even worse, the proliferation of nuclearweapons is inextricably linked to the globalexpansion of commercial nuclear power reac-tors, which are not themselves bomb facto-ries, but which produce the fissionable mate-rials needed in bomb factories.

And now the things that “couldn’t hap-pen,” or “couldn’t happen here,” or weresuch remote possibilities that they were worththe risk, have happened. There’s even anidentifiable trajectory. Three Mile Island wasa catastrophe narrowly averted; Chernobylwas a “unique” catastrophe unlikely to berepeated; Fukushima was the outcome ofoverwhelming natural events that could nothave been anticipated.

Except, of course, that they could havebeen—and were—anticipated by opponentsof nuclear power who have been aggressive-ly demonized by the nuclear industry and itssupporters as doomsayers and fearmongers.Even this week, nuclear energy propagan-dists on Fox have complained that the worldis “overreacting” to Fukushima.

What we have to focus on now (after


§


helping the victims in Japan get through theacute stages of this crisis as best they can), isthe real lesson of Fukushima. The industry—and governments invested in the industry—are already promoting the self-serving mes-sage that Fukushima can teach us how tomake nuclear power operations still saferand less vulnerable to natural disasters.

The lesson we ought to be learning isthat we are finished with this whole misguid-ed enterprise and with the people who persistin promoting it. That it’s time (long past time,in fact) to halt the construction of any newnuclear power plants, to phase out and closedown the ones that exist as soon as possible(and no later than the end of their currentoperating licenses), and to accelerate the tran-sition to clean, sustainable, renewable sys-tems for producing and consuming energy.

—John LoretzIPPNW Peace and Health Blog

March 17, 2011

From Hiroshima to Fukushima and back

Settled agriculture began about 12,000years ago. If human children are stillborn and play on a hospitable planet in

another 12,000 years, it will be because wesucceeded in eradicating the terror of nuclearweapons and preventing runaway climatechange. Twelve thousand years is not verylong really.

Earth has been around for 4.6 billionyears. 400 human generations; one half ofone half-life of plutonium-239, among themost potent radioactive carcinogens, pro-duced in every nuclear reactor, present inlarge amounts in the mixed uranium/pluto-nium fuel in the Fukushima Daiichi No.3reactor, and one of the two fuels for nuclearweapons.

If people can look back in 12,000 years,they will scratch their heads at the unrivalledfolly of the 20th and 21st centuries. Very clev-erly packaging the primordial energy thatpowers the stars into nuclear weapons in theirtens of thousands, about 2,000 still ready to belaunched in minutes. Weapons by which aself-selected few claim the right to threatenthe birthright of all. Weapons able to unleashtemperatures hotter than the sun, and radia-tion which can deliver a lethal dose with littlemore energy than the heat in a cup of coffee.

The same awesome power dispersed inhundreds of nuclear reactors to boil water forelectricity in the most hazardous way possi-ble, amplifying the radioactivity of the start-ing fuel around one million times. After afew decades the reactors themselves becomeradioactive waste, needing absolute isolationfor hundreds of thousands of years on asmall interconnected planet, with 11 earth-

quakes of magnitude 8.5 or greater in the20th century, and 5 in the first 11 years of the21st, almost all of them followed bytsunamis. More nuclear reactors raising fur-ther the danger of nuclear war have been jus-tified on the pretext of slowing climatechange.

Our paramount shared responsibilitiesare clear: first, negotiate an irreversible, veri-fiable global treaty to outlaw and eliminatenuclear weapons, urgently. This will requireenrichment of uranium to be very tightlyrestricted, and extraction of plutonium fromspent nuclear fuel to cease. Second: preventrampant global warming by massively andspeedily scaling up energy efficiency,demand reduction and benign, renewableenergy production.

In our ordinary, fallible, uncontrollableworld, there are already enough primordialforces capable of great destruction. We don'tneed any more. The power of nuclear fissionand fusion belong in the stars. And that iswhere they should stay. The recent catastro-phe in Fukushima is a strong vindication ofthis truth.

—Tilman RuffKyodo News

March 19, 2011

The nuclear chain – splitting atoms,hairs and personalities

It is no coincidence that one speaks of thecivilian and military use of nuclear ener-gy. There is nuclear energy on the one

hand and on the other there is the way it isused. It can create a nuclear explosion or itcan be harnessed to make electricity, butintrinsically, it is the same thing.

After the earthquake and tsunami hitFukushima, many people around the worldasked the question: after what the Japanesehad suffered from the military use of nuclearenergy on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, why didthey invest so greatly in the civilian use?Indeed, it is surprising that the original dis-taste for all things nuclear was lost in the six-ties, when Japan began building nuclearpower plants to beat the band. More than justabout any other country, except perhapsFrance, the Japanese seemed to think nuclearenergy was the best thing since sliced bread.And while just about everyone else (except theRussians) was shifting away from the plutoni-um economy, saying that it was too dangerousand too expensive, Japan began using MOXand expanding its reprocessing facilities.

Yet this inexplicable splitting of the col-lective personality into nuclear good andnuclear bad is not just a Japanese phenome-na. Attend any Review Conference of theNon-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), you will

§

§

hear the same weird belief that nuclear ener-gy is bad in weapon form, but good if youplug it in and run your kettle off of it. Awhole institution has been built on this liethat was part of the 50s propaganda “Atomsfor Peace”, the International Atomic EnergyAgency (IAEA).

Nuclear energy is not good or bad, inmy view. What I condemn is the human arro-gance and ignorance that leads us to thinkthat we can control a force as massive andpotentially destructive as this, or that therisks inherent in harnessing it as a source ofelectricity are calculable. Chernobyl showedus how humans make mistakes. Fukushimahas made it abundantly clear that we are notin control, and that we are pitiful in the faceof nature’s ability to determine our fate. Thedisaster that hit Japan was bad enough, butdid we need to compound it by adding ourown stupidity to the equation by buildingnuclear reactors on fault lines?

It starts at the front end with the miningof uranium. Locked up in rock, uranium wasnot meant to be taken out of the earth—so weare wisely advised by the indigenous peoplesof the world, who have lived on top of urani-um-filled rock for centuries. Remove it fromits natural habitat and it becomes dangerous,releasing particles that, when breathed in,can cause cancer.

After being processed, the uranium thenhas to be enriched. Again, the difference is min-imal. Once you have the technology to enrich,then you can choose how much you enrichyour uranium—roughly, 3-5% for nuclearpower, 20% for medical isotopes, 85-90% forweapons. The only thing that stands in yourway is the view that there is nuclear good andnuclear bad. And a treaty. But you can choosenot to sign the treaty in the first place, or use itto get the nuclear technology and then leave thetreaty. So far, so good (or bad).

The chain does split into two differentbranches when you get to putting yourenriched uranium to use—you can put yourenriched uranium into a nuclear power plantand make electricity with it, or you can enrichit a bit more and make nuclear weapons. (Bythe way, you can also use the by-product ofthe enrichment process, depleted uranium, tomake weapons as well.)

When it gets to the question of waste,however, it gets more complicated. Whatshould you do with it all? Rather than justthrowing it all away (and where should itgo?) you can reprocess it. And because you’vesuccessfully made plutonium by burningyour uranium in a nuclear reactor, you canseparate this out and, bingo, you have thestuff to make MOX. Or nuclear weapons.Japanese politicians have repeatedly remind-

ed the world that they had enough plutoniumstockpiled that they could easily make awhole load of nuclear weapons, should theybe so inclined. What stopped them? The viewof nuclear good and nuclear bad.

When it comes to Iran, there is onlynuclear bad in the eyes of the West. It was theconflict with Iran that really started to shakethe foundations of Article IV of the NPT thatsays everyone has a right to use nuclear ener-gy “peacefully.” Actually, the discovery in theearly 90s that Iraq had hidden a well-devel-oped military nuclear programme successful-ly behind its “peaceful” programme whileremaining an NPT member was the first majorwake-up call. Then the lid blew on A.Q.Khan’s network and people began to realisethat the proliferation of nuclear energy couldlead and had led to the proliferation of nuclearweapons. The good, the bad and the ugly.

What we forget is that while the inten-tion may be peaceful, the energy itself is not.The difference between “peaceful” and “mil-itary” use is no more than a hair’s breadth.From outside, it is hard to see the difference,you have to send in the IAEA to inspect,probe and interrogate. Still, we don’t reallyknow whether Iran’s nuclear programme isgood or bad and the IAEA is still looking foractual (rather than circumstantial) evidence.

Instead of splitting hairs over whetherthere is a difference between nuclear energyand nuclear energy, we should begin tounderstand the connection between all theaspects of the nuclear chain. There is an inex-tricable link that binds uranium mining,enrichment, nuclear power, reprocessing,nuclear weapons, radioactive waste and fall-out together. When we talk about one, weshould not forget all the others. They add upto make an ugly picture of death and destruc-tion, of incalculable risk and contamination.

—Xanthe HallIPPNW Peace and Health Blog

March 21, 2011

Just in case you missed it, here's whyradiation is a health hazard

The March 11 earthquake and tsunami inJapan and complicating nuclear crisisthrow into sharp focus concerns about

exposure to ionising radiation. What is it,how is it harmful, how much is too much?

Inside a nuclear reactor, the radioactivi-ty is increased about a million times as someof the uranium or plutonium is converted toa cocktail of hundreds of different radioactiveelements.

There are many different pathwaysthrough which people can be exposed toradiation: inhalation of gases or particles inthe air, deposits in soil or water, ingestion of


§


food, water or dust. Some radioisotopesmimic normal chemical elements in livingsystems and therefore make their way up thefood chain and onto our plates.

Ionising radiationRadiation is called “ionising” when it

has sufficient energy to knock the electronsoff atoms to produce ions (atoms which havea net positive or negative electrical charge).Ionising radiation damages large complexmolecules either directly or by creating high-ly reactive chemicals inside cells.

The biological potency of ionising radia-tion is not related to the amount of energy itcontains so much as that this energy is pack-aged in a form which can reach and damagecomplex molecules—particularly the DNAthat is our genetic blueprint, that is passed onto form each new generation.

A lethal dose of radiation may containas little energy as the heat in a cup of coffee.Our senses cannot warn us about ionisingradiation—it cannot be seen or touched orfelt or tasted or smelt.

Levels of exposureSome effects of radiation only occur

above certain thresholds. In the short term,high levels of radiation exposure can causeacute radiation sickness. In the longer termthere is an increased risk of cataracts, birthdefects, sterility and hair loss.

High doses of radiation can kill cells -this is the reason targeted radiation is used inthe treatment of some cancers.

Acute radiation exposure at doses over100 milliSieverts (mSv), and particularly over1000 mSv, has most impact on our rapidlydividing cells. These are the blood-formingcells of the bone marrow, lining of the gut,and ovaries and testis. The symptoms ofacute radiation sickness therefore includevomiting and diarrhea, bleeding, andreduced ability to fight infection.

The major long-term effect of ionisingradiation exposure is an increased risk of awide variety of cancers. There is no “safe” levelof radiation below which there is no increase incancer risk. The earliest to appear, after aroundthree to five years, are leukemia and thyroidcancer. The 1986 Chernobyl disaster, forinstance, has resulted in an epidemic of thyroidcancer with 6,500 children affected so far.

Other cancers begin increasing after 10years—lung, breast, colon, ovary, bladderand many others. Excess rates of cancer in theHiroshima and Nagasaki survivors continueto rise.

Sources of exposureAll of us are exposed to ionising radia-

tion all the time - from the stars, from theearth and rocks, from common equipmentand appliances. The global average estimatedhuman exposure is 2.4 mSv per year.

The biggest natural source is radon gasproduced from radium, part of the decaychain of uranium, which is widely distrib-uted in the Earth's crust. After smoking,radon is the second most important cause oflung cancer worldwide.

The bulk of ongoing exposures ofhuman origin are from medical X-rays, andthere is considerable concern about the rapid-ly rising medical radiation exposures, partic-ularly from the growing number of CT scansbeing performed. CT scans involve radiationdoses of between 3 and 11 mSv.

Exposure to ionising radiation from allsources should be kept as low as is feasible.In Australia and most countries, it is recom-mended that 1 mSv per person per year bethe maximum permissible exposure fromnon-medical sources for the general popula-tion; and 20 mSv per year the annual permis-sible limit for nuclear industry workers. InJapan the maximum permissible dose for theemergency nuclear workers in Fukushimahas been increased to 250 mSv.

Health harmsThe most authoritative current estimates

of the health effects of low dose ionising radi-ation are contained in the Biological Effects ofIonising Radiation VII report from the USNational Academy of Sciences (BEIR VII).This report reflects the substantial weight ofscientific evidence that there is no exposureto ionising radiation that is risk-free. Thegreater the exposure, the greater the risk.

BEIR VII estimates that each 1 mSv ofradiation is associated with an increased riskof solid cancer (cancers other than leukemia)of about 1 in 10,000; an increased risk ofleukemia of about 1 in 100,000; and a 1 in17,500 increased risk of cancer death.

But while radiation protection standardsare typically based on adult males, it is impor-tant to note that not everyone faces the samelevel of risk. For infants (under 1 year of age)the radiation-related cancer risk is 3 to 4 timeshigher than for adults; and female infants aretwice as susceptible as male infants.

Females face a lower risk of leukemia,but a 50% greater risk of developing a morecommon solid tumour, so their overall risk ofcancer related to radiation exposure is 40%greater than for males. Fetuses in the wombare the most radiation-sensitive of all.

Over time, estimates of the health risksassociated with radiation exposure haveinexorably risen. Some of these risks areprobably still under-estimated, particularly

the impact of internal contamination, such asfrom plutonium particles lodging in the lung.Internal contamination may not be picked upby external devices designed to detectgamma radiation alone, such as the hand-held radiation monitors now being widelyused to screen people in Japan.

In Germany, a recent national studyshowed that normal operation of nuclearpower plants in Germany isassociated with a more thandoubling of the leukemiarisk for under five year oldsliving within 5 km of anuclear plant, and increasedrisk was seen to more than50 km away. This was muchhigher than expected.

The longevity of someradioactive minerals isalmost incomprehensible.Plutonium-239 has a half-life of 24,400 years. It will take almost a quar-ter of a million years for it to decay to lessthan one thousandth of the starting level. Sothe same particle inhaled into someone's lungcould go on to increase cancer risk for otherindividuals over successive generations.

—Tilman RuffThe Conversation (Australia)

March 24, 2011

There really is no safe level of radiation

As the radioactive contamination of food,water, and soil in Fukushima, Japanworsens, the media is continuously reas-

suring us that these levels are "safe." But thereis no safe level of radiation.

Yes, at lower levels the risk is smaller,but the National Research Council of theNational Academies of Science has conclud-ed that any exposure to radiation makes itmore likely that an individual will get cancer.

The press is reporting that 100 millisiev-erts (mSv) is the lowest dose that increasescancer risks. This simply isn't true. Accordingto the NAS, if you are exposed to a dose of 100mSv, you have a one in 100 chance of gettingcancer, but a dose of 10 mSv still gives you aone in 1,000 chance of getting cancer, and adose of 1 mSv gives you a one in 10,000 risk.

Those odds sound fairly low for oneindividual, but if you expose 10,000 people toa one in 10,000 risk, one of them will get can-cer. If you expose 10 million people to thatdose, 1,000 will get cancer. There are morethan 30 million people in the Tokyo metro-politan area.

To understand the danger of low levels ofradiation exposure, consider several factors.

First, the total dose is the most impor-tant factor, not the dose per hour. When youget an X-ray, you're exposed to a one-time

burst of radiation. If you work for 10 hours ina spot where the radiation level is 1 millisiev-ert per hour, your dose is 10 millisieverts, andthe dose goes up the longer you stand there.

Second, there's a big difference betweenexternal and internal radiation. If you'restanding in a spot where you're exposed toexternal radiation, that exposure ends assoon as you move away. But if you ingest or

inhale a radioactiveparticle, it continues toirradiate your body aslong as it remainsradioactive and stays inyour body.

Further, if youingest radioactive parti-cles, the dose isn'tspread evenly overyour entire body. It con-centrates where the par-ticles lodge. The aver-

age total body dose may be relatively low,but the dose at the site may be large enoughto damage that tissue and cause cancer.

That's why the radiation being found inJapan in spinach, milk, and other food-aswell as water-is so worrisome. If consumed,it will create ongoing radiation exposure andincrease the risk of cancer. A large majority ofthe hundreds of thousands of cancer casesthat have occurred in the former SovietUnion because of the Chernobyl catastrophewere caused by people eating radioactivelycontaminated food.

Finally, it makes a big difference whogets irradiated. Children are much more vul-nerable than adults. If a fetus is exposed toonly 10 mSv in utero, his or her risk of gettingcancer by age 15 doubles. So it's particularlydangerous when children or pregnantwomen consume radioactive food or water.

Reports indicate that the total radioac-tive releases in Fukushima have been rela-tively small so far. If this is the case, then thehealth effects will be correspondingly small.But it's not "safe" to release this much radia-tion. Some people will get cancer as a result.Most importantly, we don't know at thispoint how much more radiation there will be.

That's why the U.S. government has saidthat people shouldn't be allowed within 50miles of the plant.

If a comparable accident were to occurat the Indian Point nuclear reactors 24 milesnorth of New York City, 17 million peoplewould need to evacuate. That's something tothink about when we're told everything isOK at our nuclear plants.

—Ira HelfandCommonDreams.org, widely syndicated

March 28, 2011


§

Over time, estimates ofthe health risks associat-ed with radiation expo-

sure have inexorablyrisen. Some of these risksare probably still under-

estimated...


Anger is renewable energy

Some weeks ago, I had a 9 year old patientwho was suffering from enormous tem-per tantrums. Whenever he felt over-

whelmed and helpless, when it was clear tohim that no one would listen to his voice, hedidn’t know of any better way to deal withhis feelings than to hurt himself and every-one around. Kicking, beating, biting andscratching, he tried to gain control of the sit-uation and forced helplessness onto theadults who had been so ignorant before.

When I read about what is going on inJapan now, I somehow feel like this little boy.I feel overwhelmed with anger, but there’sno one to address, no one listening to peo-ple’s questions and concerns. I feel helplessto the point of being paralyzed. Haven’t wewarned our governments of the hazards ofusing nuclear power again and again? Aren’tthere already thousands and thousands ofinnocent people suffering from the conse-quences of a man-made disaster, in vastareas around Chernobyl?

Prevention is a medical doctor’s mostimportant contribution for securing theirpatients’ well being and survival. In thiscase, it means putting an end to nuclear tech-nology once and for all. The use of nuclearpower, be it civil or military, has brought anintolerable risk upon us. People’s health isconstantly at stake, so to speak from the cra-dle to the grave of the radioactive materialneeded for the nuclear fuel rods.

The tragedy starts with the neglectedsuffering of the uranium miners in Canada,Australia, Niger, Namibia, India or theUnited States. Many of them indigenous peo-ple who have been tricked into sacrificingtheir sacred lands for nuclear weapons andthe Western world’s craving for more andmore energy. Those sacred lands havebecome wastelands, the radioactive tailingsmaking them unsafe for centuries.

It goes on with the children living nearone of the many nuclear power plants. Theirleukemia risk increases 1.2 fold if their homeis located within a range of 5 kilometersaround a nuclear power plant. To makemyself clear on that point: We speak of therisk emerging under normal operation. Still,politicians and so-called independent scien-tists do not seem to be concerned. Besides,the World Health Organization, having themandate to promote and protect the health ofall peoples, is subjected to the interests of theInternational Atomic Energy Agency by aworking agreement approved in 1959. Oh,the IAEA’s objective is to promote the civiluse of nuclear technology throughout theworld, right?

In addition, nobody knows how to deal

with the radioactive waste adding up withevery second of running a nuclear powerplant. Burying it in ancient salt mines orusing outer space as a nuclear landfill? Onesolution is more insufficient than the other.Depleted uranium, a byproduct of uraniumenrichment for nuclear power plants orweapons, has been used by the U.S. andother NATO forces for developing weaponswith unusual armor-piercing capabilities.Dumped on the battlefields in Iraq or theBalkans, the cheap and abundant materialthreatens the health of everyone living in thesurroundings because of its radioactivity andchemical toxicity.

Nuclear power powers the bomb.Research in the field of nuclear technology,even if for medical purposes, always bearsthe risk of being used for the developmentand proliferation of the most cruel weapon ofmass destruction humanity has ever invent-ed. We won’t escape the nuclear vicious cir-cle if we overlook the link between the civiluse of nuclear energy and its even more evilsiblings, the nuclear weapons still beingstored all over the world.

I don’t want to silently swallow all thatanger and sadness. I want to tell the worldabout it even if there’s this meanly naggingsuspicion that no one’s really listening. I’mafraid that the world’s leaders interest willabate within short notice, that the media willfind another topic of urgent interest in notime. Sometimes it is better to be outragedthan to be paralyzed. Maybe we should storesome of this anger and use it as a renewablesource of energy. We’ll have to apply it wise-ly and persistently in order to make sure thatthe nuclear lobby won’t have the final say.

—Ursula VölkerIPPNW Peace and Health Blog

April 4, 2011

Children of Fukushima needour protection

Iwas dismayed to learn that the Ministry ofEducation, Culture, Sports, Science andTechnology earlier this week increased

the allowable dose of ionizing radiation forchildren in Fukushima Prefecture.

The dose they set, 3.8 microsieverts perhour, equates to more than 33 millisieverts(mSv) over a year. This is to apply to childrenin kindergartens, nursery, primary andjunior high schools. Let me try to put this inperspective.

Widely accepted science tells us that thehealth risk from radiation is proportional tothe dose—the bigger the dose the greater therisk, and there is no level without risk.

The International Commission onRadiological Protection recommends that all

§

§

radiation exposure be kept as low as achiev-able, and for the public, on top of backgroundradiation and any medical procedures,should not exceed 1 mSv per year.

For nuclear industry workers, they rec-ommend a maximum permissible annualdose of 20 mSv averaged over five years, withno more than 50 mSv in any one year.

In Japan the maximum allowed annualdose for workers, 100 mSv, was already high-er than international standards. This has beenincreased in response to the Fukushima dis-aster to 250 mSv.

The U.S. National Academy of SciencesBEIR VII report estimates that each 1 mSv ofradiation is associated with an increased riskof solid cancer (cancers other than leukemia)of about 1 in 10,000; an increased risk ofleukemia of about 1 in 100,000; and a 1 in17,500 increased risk of dying from cancer.

But a critical factor is that not everyonefaces the same level of risk. For infants (under1 year of age) the radiation-related cancerrisk is 3 to 4 times higher than for adults; andfemale infants are twice as susceptible asmale infants. Females overall risk of cancerrelated to radiation exposure is 40 percentgreater than for males. Fetuses in the wombare the most radiation-sensitive of all.

The pioneering Oxford Survey ofChildhood Cancer found that X-rays of moth-ers, involving doses to the fetus of 10-20 mSv,resulted in a 40 percent increase in the cancerrate among children up to age 15.

In Germany, a recent study of 25 yearsof the national childhood cancer registershowed that even the normal operation ofnuclear power plants is associated with amore than doubling of the risk of leukemiafor children under 5 years old living within 5kilometers of a nuclear plant.

Increased risk was seen to more than 50km away. This was much higher than expected,and highlights the particular vulnerability toradiation of children in and outside the womb.

In addition to exposure measured bytypical external radiation counters, the chil-dren of Fukushima will also receive internalradiation from particles inhaled and lodgedin their lungs, and taken in through contami-nated food and water.

A number of radioactive substances areconcentrated up the food chain and in peo-ple. As a parent, as a physician, the decisionto allow the children of Fukushima to beexposed to such injurious levels of radiationis an unacceptable abrogation of the respon-sibility of care and custodianship for our chil-dren and future generations.

—Tilman RuffKyodo News

April 26,2011


The writers

Subhas Chakraborty is Secretary, IndianDoctors for Peace and Development, Kolkata.

Richard Grady is President, WashingtonPhysicians for Social Responsibility, Seattle.

Xanthe Hall is a nuclear weapons andnuclear energy policy expert and campaigner

with IPPNW-Germany.

Ira Helfand is an internist and emergencyphysician in Springfield, Massachusetts; past

president of Physicians for Social Responsibility;and North American regional vice president of

International Physicians for the Prevention ofNuclear War.

Ime John is a former co-president ofInternational Physicians for the Prevention of

Nuclear War.

John Loretz is program director ofInternational Physicians for the Prevention of

Nuclear War.

Tilman Ruff is associate professor, NossalInstitute for Global Health, University of

Melbourne; regional vice president ofInternational Physicians for the Prevention of

Nuclear War for Southeast Asia and the Pacific;and chair of the International Campaign to

Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN).

Ursula Völker, a physician from Tübingen,Germany, specializes in child and adolescent

psychiatry, and is on the board of IPPNW-Germany.


IPPNW-Germany demands the closingof all nuclear power plants worldwide

25years after Chernobyl, and on the dayof the catastrophe in Fukushima that

resulted in an uncontrolled release ofradioactivity, the German affiliate of theInternational Physicians for the Prevention ofNuclear War (IPPNW) demands that allnuclear power plants worldwide should beclosed down. The risks of nuclear technologyare uncontrollable even for allegedly safenuclear power plants of the western world.

IPPNW points out that the populationdensity in Japan is about 15 times higher thanit is in the Chernobyl region. (Japan: 337inhabitants/square kilometre). Dependingon the direction of wind and weather situa-tion the health consequences in Japan may bedramatic.

As physicians we wish to emphasise theglobal health risk that is a result of this cata-strophe.

The radioactive cloud will not halt atJapan’s borders. Increased levels of radioactivi-ty were detected after Chernobyl even severalthousands of kilometers away in Japan.

The time has come for politicians to pre-vail against the mighty lobby of the nuclearindustry.

It is irresponsible to endanger us citizensfor the profit interest of a few companies.

—IPPNW-Germany12 March 2011

Medical specialists urge full informa-tion on Japan health risks

Specialists from the Medical Association forPrevention of War today lamented the lack

of accurate information about the continuing

nuclear crisis in Japan. It is deeply concerningthat our government has now advised thatAustralian citizens should evacuate 80 kmfrom Fukushima, having only yesterday reas-sured Australians that the 30km Japaneseevacuation zone was adequate.

“We call on the Australian Governmentto seek and distribute comprehensive infor-mation from Japanese authorities about radi-ation releases from the ailing Fukushimareactors,” said MAPW President Dr. BillWilliams.

“We are gravely concerned for thoseemergency workers on-site at Fukushima,and the hundreds of thousands of desperatepeople now sheltering or fleeing fromradioactive fallout. Without accurate data, itis impossible to accurately assess risk levels.”

MAPW notes that the lack of detaileddata has already led to mischievous claimsfrom industry representatives that people areat no risk. Equally disturbing has been thetrend in some official statements trivialisingthe risks associated with lower level exposures.

“The current scientific understanding ofthe health risks from ionising radiation expo-sures are based on decades of research," saidDr Williams.” The worldwide expert consen-sus conforms with the so-called ‘Linear NoThreshold’ model: this means there is no safedose of ionising radiation.”

While it is essential that a calm andrational approach is adopted in advising thepublic, it is equally important not to givefalse assurance or to trivialise the dangers.Because of the chromosomal disruptioncaused by the radioactive matter beingreleased from the damaged reactors andspent fuel ponds, inhalation or ingestion canlead—even at low doses—to cancers. This is

COMMENTARIES

In addition to articles written for the press, IPPNW and its affiliates published their ownstatements about events at Fukushima; recommendations for action by the Japanesegovernment, their own governments, and interntional agencies; and the need to phaseout and end reliance on nuclear energy around the world. A number of those state-ments are reproduced in this section.

particularly so for children, babies and ofcourse developing embryos. Many of the can-cers caused by radioactive fallout from theChernobyl accident were due to relativelylow levels of radiation in the form of ingestedI-131 in children drinking milk from cowswhich ate contaminated grass.

“We hope and pray that the Japaneseemergency response averts the danger oflarger releases over the coming days,” saidDr Williams, “but the environment hasalready been contaminated, and people willbe at risk of exposure to radioactive agentslike iodine-131 and caesium-137 for manyyears to come.”

—Medical Association for Preventionof War, Australia

March 17, 2011

India Should Use RenewableResources for Power Generation; ShunNuclear Power Plants

While expressing solidarity with thepeople of Japan at the devastation

caused by Tsunami and Earthquake, IndianDoctors for Peace and Development (IDPD)has demanded that India should shun thepursuit for nuclear power plants and insteadlook forward to utilize renewable energyresources like, wind power, biowaste, micro-hydel and solar which are in plenty in ourcountry.

We demand the government to immedi-ately put moratorium on all ongoing nuclearactivity.

Events in Japan are very shocking andvindicate the stand of InternationalPhysicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War(IPPNW) and IDPD that nuclear powerplants are a potential threat of radiation. Thecost of producing electricity from nuclearpower is fraught with dangers and is 2-3times more expensive than from convention-al sources like coal and gas. There cannot beany comparison with the renewableresources which are totally non hazardous.

It is pertinent to note that US has notbuilt any nuclear power plant since the 3 MileIsland incident and France which pioneeredthe nuclear technology and nuclear powerplants have not built one in the last 25 years.The nuclear plant can never be dismantled asthe half life of Uranium in the reactor is 24000years that means the danger is reduced tohalf 24000 years and they have to be kept foran eternity, literally, before the spent fuel (theused Uranium from reactors) for it to becomesafe completely.

More over the cost of dismantling ismuch more than the cost of installation. Thetrack record of safety in the nuclear facilitiesin India is far from satisfactory.

According to reports an estimate 300incidents of serious nature have occurredcausing radiation leaks and physical damageto the workers. But these have remained offi-cial secrets so far. During Tsunami water hadentered the Kalpakkam Nuclear Plant inTamil Nadu. The people around Uraniummines in Jadugoda are total unprotected. Asper the reports the technology being used bythe French company, Areva, which is build-ing the world's largest nuclear power plant inbeautiful coastline of Ratnagiri (JaitapurTown), India has not been completely tested.

The world still remembers theChernobyl nuclear accident where about93000 people are reported to have died.Health of liquidators (cleanup workers)engaged in the job of cleaning the area is amatter of serious concern even today. Anaccident in a nuclear power plant is almostlike an atomic explosion with serious conse-quences on flora & fauna and ecology. Wedemand that the Indian government shouldreview its nuclear power policy and use othersafe renewable options for power generationwhich are available in abundance in ourcountry. Japan has the best disaster manage-ment capacity but in contrast our country?strack record in disaster management isextremely dismal.

The explanation by some of our nuclearlobbyists that our country falls in the lowseismic zone is unfounded and ignoring thereality as next time the disaster may not bedue to earthquake but due to terrorism, cli-mate change, technology failure, prolifera-tion of plutonium or human error.

IDPD is writing a letter to PrimeMinister and all MPs in this regard.

—Indian Doctors for Peaceand Development

March 17, 2011

PSR Statement on Radiation Exposurein the United States from the JapanNuclear Accident

The unknown and changing situationin Japan regarding radiation releases

is continuing to cause concern and confusionhere in the United States. PSR National andour Chapters are receiving many questionsregarding radiation effects and requests formedical advice. It is not possible for PSR toprovide specific case-by-case medical advice.This should be given by individual healthcare providers and public health officials.

Currently, the primary public healthrisk from radiation exposure is to peopleclosest to the plant site in Japan and in partic-ular the workers. At this time, it is not knownhow much radiation may reach the US. It willdepend on the amount of radiation released



and how the wind blows. Given the long dis-tance across the ocean between the US andJapan, much smaller amounts are likely toreach the US and will likely not require anyspecial treatment. However, avoidingradioactively contaminated food and water isstrongly recommended.

For those people who are close by anddirectly affected by the radioactive plume,protective measures include staying indoors,moving to safer areas, and having children,pregnant women and lactating mothers takepotassium iodide (KI). Pregnant mothersshould do this only in consultation with theirphysician. Patients with known thyroid dis-orders should also consult a physician.

At this time, we do NOT recommendthat people in the US purchase or take potas-sium iodide (KI). We do not recommend fur-ther preventive measures at the present time.We will continue to monitor the situation asbest we can.

—Physicians for Social ResponsibilityMarch 21, 2011

Physicians for Social ResponsibilityDeeply Concerned About Reports ofIncreased Radioactivity in Food Supply

Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR)expressed concern over recent reports

that radioactivity from the ongoingFukushima accident is present in theJapanese food supply. While all food con-tains radionuclides, whether from naturalsources, nuclear testing or otherwise, theincreased levels found in Japanese spinachand milk pose health risks to the population.PSR also expressed alarm over the level ofmisinformation circulating in press reportsabout the degree to which radiation exposurecan be considered “safe.”

According to the National Academy ofSciences, there are no safe doses of radiation.Decades of research show clearly that anydose of radiation increases an individual’srisk for the development of cancer.

“There is no safe level of radionuclideexposure, whether from food, water or othersources. Period,” said Jeff Patterson, DO,immediate past president of Physicians forSocial Responsibility. “Exposure to radionu-clides, such as iodine-131 and cesium-137,increases the incidence of cancer. For this rea-son, every effort must be taken to minimizethe radionuclide content in food and water.”

“Consuming food containing radionu-clides is particularly dangerous. If an indi-vidual ingests or inhales a radioactive parti-cle, it continues to irradiate the body as longas it remains radioactive and stays in thebody,”said Alan H. Lockwood, MD, a mem-ber of the Board of Physicians for Social

Responsibility. “The Japanese governmentshould ban the sale of foods that containradioactivity levels above pre-disaster levelsand continue to monitor food and waterbroadly in the area. In addition, the FDA andEPA must enforce existing regulations andguidelines that address radionuclide contentin our food supply here at home.”

As the crisis in Japan goes on, there arean increasing number of sources reportingthat 100 milliSieverts (mSv) is the lowest doseat which a person is at risk for cancer.Established research disproves this claim. Adose of 100 mSv creates a one in 100 risk ofgetting cancer, buta dose of 10 mSv still givesa one in 1,000 chance of getting cancer, and adose of 1 mSv gives a one in 10,000 risk.

Even if the risk of getting cancer for oneindividual from a given level of food contam-ination is low, if thousands or millions ofpeople are exposed, then some of those peo-ple will get cancer.

Recent reports indicate the Japanese dis-aster has released more iodine-131 thancesium-137. Iodine-131 accumulates in thethyroid, especially of children, with a half-lifeof over 8 days compared to cesium-137,which has a half-life of just over 30 years.Regardless of the shorter half-life, doses ofiodine-131 are extremely dangerous, espe-cially to pregnant women and children, andcan lead to incidents of cancer, hypothy-roidism, mental retardation and thyroid defi-ciency, among other conditions.

“Children are much more susceptible tothe effects of radiation, and stand a muchgreater chance of developing cancer thanadults,” said Dr. Andrew Kanter, president-elect of PSR’s Board. “So it is particularlydangerous when they consume radioactivefood or water.”

All food contains some radioactivity as aresult of natural sources, but also from priorabove-ground nuclear testing, the Chernobylaccident, and releases from nuclear reactorsand from weapons facilities. The factors thatwill affect the radioactivityin food after theFukushima accident are complicated. Theseinclude the radionuclides that the nuclearreactor emits, weather patterns that controlthe wind direction and where the radionu-clides are deposited, characteristics of the soil(e.g., clays bind nuclides, sand does not) andthe nature of the food(leafy plants likespinach are more likely to be contaminatedthan other plants like rice that have husks,etc.).However, radiation can be concentratedmany times in the food chain and any con-sumption adds to the cumulative risk of can-cer and other diseases.

“Reports indicate that the total radioac-tive releases from the Fukushima reactor

have been relatively small so far. If this is thecase, then the health effects to the overallpopulation will be correspondingly small,”said Ira Helfand, MD, a member of the Boardof Physicians for Social Responsibility. “But itis not true to say that it is "safe" to release thismuch radiation; some people will get cancerand die as a result.”

—Physicians for Social ResponsibilityMarch 23, 2011

Nuclear catastrophe in Fukushima:extend the evacuation zone

The physician’s organisation IPPNW-Germany and the President of the

German Society for Radiation Protection(GfS), Sebastian Pflugbeil, believe that anextension of the evacuation zone around thedamaged Fukushima nuclear plant is urgent-ly needed. They call on the Japanese govern-ment to evacuate the population promptlyfrom a much wider area, in particular toensure the protection of children and preg-nant women.

The recommendation of the US NuclearRegulatory Commission (NRC) and theAustralian Radiation Protection and NuclearSafety Agency that the evacuation zone beextended to 80 kilometres could be a helpfulfirst step, say the two organisations.Evacuation zones, however, are only amethod of helping to roughly mark out a pos-sible area of contamination and in reality theradioactive exposure depends on wind direc-tion, strength and precipitation. Twenty-fiveyears ago, when the Chernobyl disasteroccurred, there was an irregular distributionof contamination and “hot spots” emerged,where the Soviet authorities found contami-nation of more than 555,000 becquerel per m2.

Reinhold Thiel, member of the GermanBoard of IPPNW, is especially worried aboutthe danger posed by unit 3: “This unit is runon MOX fuel which contains plutonium andblack smoke is billowing out of it. I am con-cerned that large amoungts of plutonium are

now being released into the air.” IPPNW callson the German government to press for animmediate publication of all existing mea-surements of plutonium levels . “It could be,however, that Chancellor Merkel already hasthat information“ said Thiel.

Plutonium is a highly toxic emitter ofalpha radiation which does approx. 20 timesmore biological damage than the same doseof gamma emitting radionuclides such asCesium-137. Breathing in plutonium easilyleads to bronchial and lung cancer. If pluto-nium is taken into the body via food anddrink, it concentrates in the liver and bonesand has a biological half-life of 40 years in theliver, 100 years in bones.

According to IAEA, high levels of beta-gamma radiation were found at distancesbetween 15 and 58 km away from the nuclearpower plant. The measured levels werebetween 200,000 und 900,000 becquerel per m2.This means, according to Prof. EdmundLengfelder of the Otto Hug Institute onRadiation, that the Fukushima disaster has evi-dently reached the same dimensions seen inChernobyl. After the Chernobyl disaster, conta-mination reached more than 555,000 bq/m2(Cesium-137) in Ukraine, Russia und Belarus.

Japanese authorities have found up to55,000 bq/kg iodine-131 in spinach from theIbaraki prefecture. These levels are wayabove the acceptable levels for Japan for con-sumption (2,000 bq/kg).

IPPNW and GfS call on foreign ministerGuido Westerwelle to actively pursue thepublishing of the radiation measurementdata that the Comprehensive Test Ban TreatyOrganisation (CTBTO) has collated throughits global network of monitoring stations. TheCTBTO shares this information with theWHO and IAEA but has not yet made thisdata public.

—IPPNW-Germany; German Society forRadiation Protection

March 24, 2011


Noting that Australia is a major source of the world's uranium fornuclear power plants, Dr. Bill Williams, President of IPPNW'sAustralian affiliate, MAPW, said “the Tokyo Electric PowerCompany is buying about a third of their uranium from us. Thinkabout it. That cloud of radioactive gas and other materials that'sdepositing over Japan right now, some of that actually started herein Australia....On a good day for the nuclear industry, that uraniumends up as radiaoctive waste and we don't know what to do aboutthat. But on a really bad day for the nuclear industry and for the restof us, it ends up as radioactive fallout.”

—www.youtube.com/watch?v=LziwRNUivPM

MAPW President Bill WilliamsYouTube video posted on March 29, 2011


“It is not known how much radiation hasbeen or will ultimately be released from thedamaged Daiichi nuclear reactor in Japan, butas found by the National Academy Sciences,any exposure to radiation increases a person’srisk of cancer. No one, including the plantsoperators, can say what is going to happen,and potentially millions of people are in har-m’s way. The Japanese government should bepreparing for the worst-case scenario. Afterone year of operation, a commercial nuclearreactor contains 1,000 times as much radioac-tivity as was released by the Hiroshima bomb.From a public health perspective, the mostimportant isotopes are short-lived isotopes ofiodine (like Iodine-131), Cesium-137,Strontium-90, and possibly Plutonium-239.Radioactive iodine caused thousands of casesof thyroid cancer in children after theChernobyl accident. Cesium and strontiumcause a number of different kinds of cancerand remain dangerous for hundreds of years;plutonium causes lung cancer as well as othertypes of cancer and remains deadly for hun-dreds of thousands of years.”

—Ira Helfand, Physiciansfor Social Responsibility

Coal GeologyMarch 12, 2011

“I really cannot understand how such anumber of nuclear reactors is built along theeast coast [of Japan] which is known for dan-ger of earthquakes, and we have seen nowwhat has happened. Even here with us inGermany, we have minor earthquakes andnobody knows if one day they may be more

severe and damage one of our reactors. So wethink all reactors should be closed down assoon as possible and we should get our ener-gy from renewables."

—Winfried Eisenberg, IPPNW-GermanyInterviewed by RT (Russia Today) TV,

March 12, 2011

“The accident in Japan could lead to amajor rethink in Europe. And not before itstime. Governments have not been transpar-ent enough about the safety levels of thenuclear power sector.”

—Henrik Paulitz, IPPNW-GermanyNew York TimesMarch 13, 2011

“Each reactor has the radioactivity of1,000 Hiroshima bombs,” said Ira Helfand,MD, an expert on radiation exposure inLeeds, Massachusetts, and a board memberof the group Physicians for SocialResponsibility, referring to the atomic bombdropped on Hiroshima, Japan, during WorldWar II.

—Medscape Medical NewsMarch 14, 2011

Radiation fears for residents nearnuclear plant

The International Atomic EnergyAgency says radiation levels around theplant are now 400 millisieverts an hour.That's eight times the amount, every 60 min-utes, that nuclear workers are normally sup-

IN THE NEWS

Reporters and editors looking for an independent perspective on the health implicationsof the Fukushima nuclear disaster called upon experts at IPPNW and its affiliates toexplain the dangers of rising radiation levels for the people in contaminated areas, andthe potential dangers for those in other parts of the world should the radiation spreadas it did after the Chernobyl explosion. A representative sample of quotes and citationsfrom the international press are reproduced in this section, in chronological order.

posed to absorb in a year.Ira Helfand: That means that somebody

who is exposed to this for a couple of hourswould develop radiation sickness. This is avery, very large increase from the radiationreadings that have been recorded just a fewhours before the most recent explosion.

Bronwyn Herbert: Ira Helfand is a med-ical doctor based in Washington, DC who haswritten extensively on the impacts of radiation.

Ira Helfand: Well there are two differentkinds of harm. If you get a high enough doseof total body irradiation you'll develop some-thing called radiation sickness and you, overthe course of a period of days to weeks, devel-op nausea, vomiting, suppression of yourbone marrow which allows you to becomesusceptible to infections which promotesbleeding and you become weak, dehydrated.And if you absorb a large enough dose you diefrom this over a period of several weeks.

But even if you don't get that kind oflarge total body dose of radiation, if youinhale or ingest radioactive nuclides likeradio-iodine or caesium or strontium or plu-tonium you can develop cancer subsequentlyand this is a second distinct danger that peo-ple will be facing if there is a very largerelease of radiation in this disaster.

—Australian Broadcasting CorporationMarch 15, 2011

Health Risk Fears Escalate as JapanNuclear Plant's Radioactive ReleaseRemains Uncertain

Although the most pressing immediatehealth concern is the powerful direct gammaradiation that threatens workers at the plant,“we need also to focus on the radioactive iso-topes that are being dispersed at some dis-tance from the plant,” Ira Helfand, a formerpresident of Physicians for SocialResponsibility, said at a Wednesday newsconference organized by that group, which isopposed to nuclear power. ...

Some nuclear experts are concerned that“even if the total radiation dose is not realhigh downwind from a plant, the concentra-tion of these isotopes can pose a very serioushealth problem,” Helfand said. ...

The clean “linear relationship betweenyour dose of total body radiation and theeffect on your health is really lost whenyou're talking about low-dose radiation atsome distance from the source,” Helfandsaid. “You can have a very small total bodyradiation dose and end up getting thyroidcancer, or ingest some radioactive strontiumand end up getting leukemia.”

—Scientific AmericanMarch 18, 2011

Radiation might affect Japan'syoungest

You can't smell it, you can't taste it andyou can't feel radioactive materials in the air.But exposure to it can affect the health seri-ously.

For normal adults, depending on theamount of radiation, exposure might causecancer, premature aging, organ diseases oreven acute poisoning which usually ends indeath, explains Dr. Winfrid Eisenberg fromIPPNW, a German working group on nuclearenergy.

He also points out that radiation is a par-ticular threat to unborn children. The youngembryos, especially in the first three monthsof pregnancy, are the most susceptible toradiation damage, much more than born chil-dren or adults, he says. "An embryo growsvery fast and it means that cells are dividingall the time," he explains further. "These cellsare more sensitive to the effects of radiationthan older cells."

Eisenberg says even a very small eleva-tion of radioactivity or ionizing radiationmay be harmful to embryos or fetuses.

—Deutsche WelleMarch 18, 2011

“The nuclear lobby, after being silent forabout 15-20 years, once again has begun toprovoke discussions in favour of nuclearenergy, arguing that ‘oil prices are rising,’‘this is the only solution to the economic cri-


IPPNW-Germany participated in a spontaneous demonstrationagainst nuclear energy in Frankfurt on March 12, 2011—one dayafter receiving news of the disaster at the Fukushima Nuclear PowerStation in Japan. IPPNW-Germany photo.


sis,’ and that ‘lignite is also dangerous forhuman health.’ These people managed toimpose the perception in the European Unionthat this [nuclear] energy is ‘green,’ which isa big lie. I'll explain why. Although thenuclear power plant does not contribute toincreasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphereduring its operation, very large amounts ofcarbon dioxide are produced during thestages of its construction, the extraction of thenuclear fuel and the destruction of thenuclear reactor. So, it is wrong to say that thisis ‘green’ energy.

“The most negative is that all thesenuclear power plants are associated withnuclear and radioactive weapons.Governments of countries that need nuclearweapons always strive to have nuclear powerplants. This connection makes the companiesand people who build them even more pow-erful. Of course, since people were afraid inrecent years and governments have requiredvery high security specifications, the con-struction cost of a nuclear power plant, whichis half the value of its destruction cost, hasbecome very high. For this reason, renewableenergy sources began to compete withnuclear technology on price basis and theyshould be preferred....

“As I said, I was concerned about theongoing discussion in Greece on the goodside of nuclear energy. Even a political leaderargued some time ago: ‘when our neighboursbuild nuclear power plants, why don’t we?’This is crazy. We think that we should exertpressure and we should do it again just likewe stopped the construction of the Akuyunuclear power plant in Turkey the first time,and just as we could ‘freeze’ the constructionof Belene NPP we should not allow it to startagain. We do not want the countries to losetheir energy independence, but to providethe funds they spend now for making safernuclear power plants for alternative energydevelopment.”

—Maria Arvaniti-Sotiropoulou,IPPNW-Greece

Interviewed in GR ReporterMarch 18, 2011

U.S. radiation-safety experts said that,based on radioactivity levels detected inTokyo's tap water, health risks for most peo-ple generally were slight.

Government officials in Tokyo urgedspecial precautions with drinking water afterdetecting traces of radioactive iodine-131 inthe water supply that were twice the accept-able level of exposure for children. The mate-rial was below the government's exposurelimits for adults.

Radioactive iodine is especially worri-some to pregnant women and childrenbecause the body naturally concentrates theisotope in the thyroid gland, where it quicklycan affect growth.

“The reason that iodine-131 is so dan-gerous in children is that their normal growthand development, especially of the brain,depends on the thyroid gland,” saidUniversity of Buffalo Medical School neurol-ogist Alan Lockwood, who sits on the boardof Physicians for Social Responsibility, a non-profit group that advocates against nuclearproliferation. “And if there is exposure as achild, the risk of developing thyroid cancerlater in life is higher.”

—Wall Street JournalMarch 23, 2011

“Plutonium is a very dangerous andharmful substance. Even in small quantities,plutonium, if ingested by the human body,almost certainly leads to the development ofcancer. There is no concept for how to moni-tor and how to store the radioactive fuel,which will radiate for many, many thousandsof years. According to the information pro-vided by the IAEA last week, already a sig-nificant amount of radioactive substancessuch as iodine-131 and cesium-137 will bereleased; it might lead to a situation wherewe might compare Chernobyl andFukushima if it comes to the release of theradioactive substances. Plus, at this timethere is a danger of a release of plutonium.”

—Lars Pohlmeier, IPPNW-GermanyInterviewed by RT (Russia Today) TV,

March 29, 2011

Indian Doctors for Peace and Development (IDPD),IPPNW’s Indian affiliate, held a press conferenceon March17, 2011 to express “solidarity with the people of Japan”and to demand that India “shun the pursuit for nuclearpower plants and instead look forward to utilize renewableenergy resources.” IDPD photo.

“Monbiot's assumption ignores all thatis known about the health effects of previousnuclear accidents, particularly Chernobyl.Leaving aside the deaths of workers killedeither by the initial explosion or throughexposure to dangerous levels of radiationduring the clean-up, the impact on healthfrom nuclear accidents continues—25 yearsand more than 6,000 cases of thyroid cancerlater, the effects of Chernobyl are still beingfelt in the UK. Today, more than 300 farmsremain contaminated and are still under foodrestriction orders.

“Supporters of nuclear power often fail toaddress the threat to the health of future gen-erations by the unsolved problem of nuclearwaste. Buried in the ground, it remainsradioactive for tens of thousands of years, andis vulnerable to climate change and naturaldisasters. What right do we have to dump thislethal legacy on future generations?

“Monbiot worries about the impact ofwind farms, pylons, power lines and reser-voirs on the landscape. Can we really balancethe altered appearance of the landscape withthe impact that drinking water contaminatedby radiation would have on children'shealth? Given the potentially devastatingimpact on the health of future generations,the cost of nuclear power is just too high.”

—Marion Birch, MedactLetter to the Editor, The Guardian

March 29, 2011(in response to an article by George

Monbiot arguing that the Fukushima disaster hadshown that nuclear energy, even in the worst of

circumstances, was less dangerous to publichealth and the environment than the alternatives)

“The discovery of plutonium in the areaaround the Fukushima plant is another indi-cation of the seriousness of this accident. Thedangers of such a release, to public healthand the environment, cannot be overstated. Ifa minute amount of plutonium is trapped inthe lung, it will deliver an intense dose ofradiation to a very small volume of tissue fora very long time. This makes it highly car-cinogenic.”

—Alan H. Lockwood, Physiciansfor Social Responsibility

eNews Park Forest, IllinoisMarch 30, 2011

“Japan’s government and TEPCO mustbe completely transparent about the facts ofthis situation....In order to properly protectthe public and our precious natural

resources, it’s vital that they give us a fullaccounting of what they’ve discoveredaround the plant.”

—Jeffrey Patterson, Physiciansfor Social Responsibility

eNews Park Forest, IllinoisMarch 30, 2011

“[T]here’s a current major controversyin Japan because the government has decreedthat the maximum permissible limit for chil-dren in Fukushima will be not one millisiev-ert, which is the normal standard internation-ally and in Japan, but 20 millisieverts. Nowthat involves significant risks. That meansthat if you say that there are two million peo-ple living within 80 kilometres of Fukushima,if you say roughly half a million of themmight be under 20 then you're talking aboutpotentially 3,000 or 4,000 additional cancersper year in those from 20 millisieverts. Sothat’s currently under intense controversy, asit should be, in Japan....

“[R]adiation in foodstuffs is long term a


Medact director Marion Birch calls for anend to nuclear energy in Britain during ademonstration in London to commemoratethe 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl dis-aster on April 26, 2011. Campaign forNuclear Disarmament photo.

significant hazard from nuclear fallout fromeither nuclear weapons or from accidentsinvolving nuclear reactors or spent fuel.That's complicated and exacerbated by thefact that a number of importantisotopes...mimic important biological con-stituents that are normally part of our bodiesand how they work.

“So, for example, iodine-131—one of theimportant particularly early radioactive cont-aminants released in Fukushima andChernobyl—has a half life of eight days; it'spretty short. Your body can't tell whether thatiodine is radioactive or not, it treats it just asiodine which your body uses to make thyroidhormone—the hormone that's basically theaccelerator pedal on your metabolism; it sortof revs you up or slows you down. Now theuptake and the risk from iodine, which is amajor cause of thyroid cancer, and this majorrise—about 7,000 cases of thyroid cases in thevicinity of Chernobyl so far, an increase that'slikely to continue for some decades—is direct-ly related to exposure to iodine because therewere not appropriate constraints on eatingiodine-contaminated green leafy vegetablesor dairy products, where the iodine contami-nates the soil and the grass, the cows eat, itgets concentrated in the milk and cheese andthen people eat....

“Cesium, another important isotope,behaves chemically like potassium, so yourbody puts it inside cells, treats it like potassi-um so it's widely dispersed in the body.Strontium-90, another important nuclear fall-out contaminant also with a half life of 28years—so around for a long time—behaveschemically like calcium, so it's concentratedin bones and teeth. Plutonium is also concen-trated biologically. So because these sort of

mimic important substances that our bodiesuse, these can be concentrated in plants andanimals and up the food chain...

“...[A] lot of [this information] can beused as a way of helping to minimise peo-ple's exposures in ways that make good pub-lic health sense and informing people aboutthe risks. Particularly protecting the mostvulnerable, who are children and pregnantwomen, who take up more radiation forexample because their thyroids are relativelymore active, who are more susceptible to theeffects and who may have, in fact, accumu-late higher levels in their bodies. So, simplythings like avoiding milk in the weeks andmonths after a release of iodine will avoid therisk of thyroid cancer very substantially.

“So there are significant risks but cer-tainly exposures that would involve smallfractions of a millisievert of additional riskare relatively insignificant. But it's alsoimportant, I think, to say that what might bean insignificant risk at an individual level—ifan individual is exposed to one millisievertextra radiation increases their lifetime risk ofcancer by 1:10,000, it doesn't sound like a bitdeal. But if you apply a 1:10,000 risk to a mil-lion or 10 million or 100 million people thenyou're talking about thousands or tens ofthousands of additional cancer cases. So it'sabout how that burden is shared as well asthe dose itself.”

—Tilman RuffInterview on Up Close, University of

MelbourneMay 17, 2011

[Full interview available atupclose.unimelb.edu.au/episode/144-waiter-theres-cesium-my-soup-health-implications-

radioactivity]


March 11, 2011 5:54:29 PM ESTJapan News Update

Dear all,

You might already know the followingnews.

There is already radioactive leakagefrom the container of the core.

The TV news has just said radiationlevel in front of the gate of the plant increasedup to the level of 8 times higher than the "nor-mal level" (background? or limit?).

Best,Katsumi Furitsu in Osaka

[From Reuters/Kyodo—ed] Thousands evac-uated amid nuclear leak fears

Japan dispatched around 160 military per-sonnel, sending its chemical corps and an aircrafton a "fact finding mission" to the nuclear plant.

o Related Story: Residents near nuclearplant told to evacuate

o Related Story: DFAT issues Japan trav-el warning

o Related Story: Japan death toll could top1,000

o Related Story: Record quake unleashestsunami on Japan

o Related Story: Millions stranded inTokyo subway shutdown

The Japanese government has declared anatomic emergency because of the "possibility" of aradioactive leak from a nuclear reactor in thequake disaster zone.

But operators of the Fukushima No. 1


A First-Hand Accountof Japan's Nuclear Crisis

Katsumi Furitsu

On March 12, 2011, the day after northeastern Japan was struck by an 8.9 Richter-scale earthquake and tsunami, IPPNW began to receive first-person, detailed updatesabout the crisis at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant from Dr. Katsumi Furitsu, a spe-cialist in radiation biology and medical genetics based in Osaka, and a member of theboard of the International Campaign to Ban Uranium Weapons. Katsumi's reports, arriv-ing several times a day, provided information and insights into the worsening situationon the ground—information sometimes in stark contrast with what has been reported inthe Japanese and global media. Following are all of Katsumi's messages, from the firston March 11 to the last on March 19, with a final reflection on April 22. Katsumi is thefirst to advise readers that her posts, which were added as they arrived to the IPPNWPeace and Health Blog, were written in haste and amid the confusion of events on theground. She frequently corrected and revised the information she provided from oneupdate to the next. The real value of these communications—and the reason weinclude them here unedited—is not only in the information Katsumi provided to thoseoutside Japan who were desperate for information, but also in the sense of immediacy,urgency, sadness, and empathy for the victims and the rescue workers she conveyedto readers who could only observe each day’s events from a distance.


nuclear plant have warned that radiation couldalready have leaked.

This morning Japanese prime ministerNaoto Kan said thousands of people living within10 kilometres of the nuclear plant must evacuate.

The amount of radiation reached around1,000 times the normal level in the No. 1 reactor'scontrol room, the Kyodo news agency reported theNuclear and Industrial Safety Agency as saying.

Trade minister Banri Kaieda earlier saidauthorities were nearing a decision to releaseradioactive steam from the troubled nuclear reac-tor in a bid to ease a pressure build-up after itscooling system was damaged by the massiveearthquake.

"Pressure has risen in the container of thereactor and we are trying to deal with it, "aspokesman for Tokyo Electric Power, which oper-ates the plant, said.

The government had earlier said no radia-tion leaks were detected among its reactors afterthe 8.9-magnitude earthquake struck on Friday,Japan's biggest on record, triggering hugetsunamis.

The plant had shut down after the quake, buta reactor cooling system failure had led to theevacuation instruction, a situation the govern-ment said was "under control".

Japan has dispatched around 160 militarypersonnel, sending its chemical corps and an air-craft on a "fact finding mission" to the nuclearplant, Kyodo said.

Prime minister Naoto Kan had earlier saidno radiation leaks had been detected from Japan'snuclear power stations after the massive quakestruck the country.

The IAEA's Incident and Emergency Centrehad said that the four nuclear power plants closestto the quake which occurred near the east coast ofHonshu, Japan, had been "safely shut down".

According to the industry ministry, a totalof 11 nuclear reactors automatically shut down atthe Onagawa plant, the Fukushima No. 1 and No.2 plants and the Tokai No. 2 plant after thestrongest recorded earthquake in the country'shistory.

A fire that broke out in the turbine buildingof Onagawa nuclear plant in Miyagi Prefecturehad been extinguished, the government said.Operator Tohoku Electric Power said there wereno indications of a radioactive leak.

Miyagi prefecture was one of the areas worsthit by the tsunami.

Millions of households were without power innorth-eastern Japan, according to Tohoku Electric.

Japan - located on the Pacific Ring of Fire,where continental plates meet and create a stringof volcanoes and seismic hot spots - records 20 percent of the world's major earthquakes.

As an industrial powerhouse nation poor inenergy resources, Japan also draws about 30 percent of its total power from its 53 nuclear plants.March 12, 2011 1:29:04 AM EST

the core is starting to melt down

Dear all,

The news just says that Cs 134 has justbeen detected surrounding the plant building.

The official nuclear safety committee hasannounced that it means the core may bestarting to "melt".

The government decided to release theair from the containment this morning toreduce the pressure inside. However, it hasbecome clear that they could not open thevalve properly and could not actually reducethe pressure.

Then, the cooling water level is gettinglower and the upper part of the fuel rods (about170cm) has come out from the surface of water.

The temperature of the core is gettinghigher over 2700 degree centigrade.

The radiation level at the gate of theplant is measured to be 90 times as higherthan background.

Not all the people from 10km zone hasyet evacuated.

I am afraid that the situation is similar toTMI or worse.....

We cannot access to any further infor-mation now....

Katsumi

March 12, 2011 1:49:48 AM ESTthe core is starting to melt down

They have just announced that they"successfully" opened the valve to reducepressure of the containment.

They said that pressure inside is gettinglower now.

I really hope that the situation is gettingbetter. They are releasing radioactive materi-als into the environment, though.

March 12, 2011 3:43:29 AM ESTgetting worse...

The news is reporting that the radiationlevel near the plant (?) is measured 1,015micro Sv/h.

March 12, 2011 3:21:17 AM ESTgetting worse...

The reactor (Fukushima I) exploded!The walls and ceiling have fallen down.It is just like Chernobyl......

March 12, 2011 1:47:22 PM ESTcooling with sea water

Dear all,

The government and the companyannounced that the plant-building was bro-ken (by phreatic eruption) but the contain-ment and the reactor vessel are intact.

It is said that the hydrogen eruptioninside the building (outside of the contain-ment) occurred under the high temperaturebecause of the failure of core-cooling-system.

The fuel rods inside the reactor vesselhas actually "melted down" to some extentwithout proper cooling system (the level ofcooling water was getting lower).

They decided to cool the reactor vesseland the containment vessel with sea waterwith boron. The media has reported that ateam of the defense force is pumping the seawater and pour into the container now.

As you know, it is unusual decision (orlast choice for them) to use sea water for cool-ing. They seem to decided not to continue touse the reactor after the settlement of criticalsituation.

It is also reported that the radiation levelaround the plant is getting lower now.

However, people have already beenexposed to radioactive materials to some extentas Ryoma informed. (It is reported that a personwith "positive contamination" was exposed atthe point 3.7km from the reactor while he/shewas getting out of 10km zone. Evacuation zoneis now extended to 20km, though.)

We do not know the actual situation ofexposure. We have to follow up the situationcarefully.

Peace,Katsumi

March 12, 2011 6:35:44 PM ESTsome update

Dear Jeff [PSR-USA president JeffPatterson—ed.] and all,

Thank you for the response and advice.I do not think that people (children)

have already taken iodine. (I know it is mostideal to take iodine before being exposed toradioactive iodine.)

Can you imagine the situation overthere? People have such a disaster of earth-quake already and, in addition to it, they arefacing to the serious danger of nuclear powerplants. It is not a "simple" nuclear-power-plant-accident. The traffic is cut off in someplaces. All the life line is actually stopped.

Some people might already got injured......We ourselves have some friends who

live within 3 km from the plant, but we can-not make contact with them since the earth-quake happened. We do not know whetherthey are safe or not even without the prob-lems of nuclear power plants. We only prayfor their safety.

It is said that a team from the NationalInstitute of Radiological Science was sent (orwill be sent?) to the area.

I really hope they will make a properdecision to protect people.

(I am personally feeling frustration that Icannot do anything directly right now.)

The news has just reported that theyfound 160 people are exposed, but anothernews has reported 15 people are exposed andgetting some treatment of decontamination.However, we do not know how they diag-nosed the people are exposed.

The chief cabinet secretary, Mr.Makieda, has just announced that 9 peopleare contaminated. He said, "the 'count' of sur-face radiation was 1800-40000 cpm." (Theyseem to use a most simple radiation detectorand checked the surface contamination ofpeople's clothes. They do not have any infor-mation of internal exposure.) He emphasizedagain and agin that "the contamination levelis not harmful to people".

As far as I understand from the medianews, they have just pour sea water into thecontainment vessel, but not circulate it at thismoment. However, the situation is not clearto me. If they circulate the sea water, theyhave to release the contaminated water intothe sea....

Yes, the cooling system has not yetrecovered, as far as I understand.

The bad news is that the same processhas been going on in another reactor (No.3reactor) at the same "Fukushima-I" reactor site.They have just decided to release the air insidethe containment to the environment again.

It is a release of radioactive materials tothe environment to avoid the worse scenario.

We have to follow the things carefully.

Peace,Katsumi

March 12, 2011 11:44:00 PM ESTall the three running reactors are goingthough the similar process

The media has reported that the TokyoElectric Power Company has just decided torelease the air from the containment of theNo. 2 reactor of Fukushima-I site to the envi-ronment to reduce the pressure inside.



Therefore, all of the three reactors (No.1-3) at the Fukushima-I site, which were run-ning at the time of the earthquake, have beengoing through the same process.

About 210,000 people in total arealready ordered to evacuate from the 20 kmzone(180,000) from the Fukushima-I site and10 km zone (30,000) from the Fukushima-IIsite. (You might remember that about 120,000people are evacuated from the 30km zone ofthe Chernobyl power plant.)

However, it is not still clear that howmany of them, 210,000 people, could evacuate.

March 13, 2011 10:30:26 PM EDTreactor situation

They are now announcing the news: justabout 20 min ago, the hydrogen explosionhappened at the reactor No.3; the situation isjust as the No. 1 reactor.

The building of the reactor has broken.We can see on TV the walls and the ceilinghave fallen.

We do not have any further informationat this moment. We only hope the core con-tainment would be intact....

March 13, 2011 10:47:41 PM EDTreactor situation

It is said that there are still 600 peoplewithin 20 km, most of them are old people orpatients, their families and medical staff. Itwas not easy for them to evacuate soon.

The Chief Cabinet Secretary is nowannouncing that the company has reportedthat the containment is (seems to be) intact.

It is reported that no increased level ofradiation is measured at this moment at theboarder of the site.

March 14, 2011 7:32:50 AM EDTrunning on the "edge of cliff"

Dear all,

Now the No. 2 reactor is getting into acritical situation.

The company and governmentannounced early in the afternoon that all thecooling system is out of order.

After that the cooling water level insidethe fuel vessel went lower. Then they tried tocool the core with sea water, but they couldnot do so from some reason. Now, it is report-ed that whole body of the collective fuel rodsare above the water surface (or no water any-more in the fuel vessel containment?). They

say that the fuel rods might be "melting".I do not want to believe the situation,

though....They are thinking to cool the contain-

ment anyway.When I have written this message to this

point, the announcer of the TV news programhas suddenly reported, "The government hasjust announced that they successfully startedto pour the fuel vessel with sea water!"

The situation is still unstable. Hydrogengas might be accumulating inside the plantbuilding....

We will continue to follow the situationcarefully.

March 14, 2011 12:09:45 PM EDTreactor No. 2/ "heating an empty bathtub"

Dear all,

The electric power company has justhad a press conference:

They started to pour the sea water intothe core vessel and the level of water surfacewent up to the half of the fuel rods.

However, they came to fail to pour thewater about two hours ago because of a highpressure inside the core vessel. They say thata valve to reduce the pressure has closed.Then the water surface level went down tothe "down scale" again and the whole fuelrods are left without cooling water now (as"heating an empty bathtub"). They does notdeny the fuel rods has meltdown.

They are now trying to open some othervalve to reduce the pressure.

The radiation level at the boarder of theplant was once measured as high as 3,130micro Sv/h.

I am sorry for such a complicated expla-nation.

The situation is really unstable and com-plicated....it is critical situation anyway.

March 14, 2011 7:22:02 PM EDTa part of containment has broken

The government has just announced:There was an explosion at the No.2 reac-

tor.The "Wetwell" (suppression pool- see

the figure in a document which Xanthe sentus yesterday) seems to break. The pressureinside the pool has gone down from 3 to 1atmospheric air pressure.

The radiation level at somewhere at theplant (probably at the gate again?) increasedto 965.5 micro Sv/h (later it went down a lit-tle bit, they said).

The company has ordered a part ofworkers to evacuate out side of the plant.

As you can understand, it means a part ofcontainment itself has broken. This is a quiteserious situation. The most important barrierto retain the nuclear materials has broken.

I have no words.... the people in thebadly affected area by earthquake and tsuna-mi are facing to the danger of nuclear plant.

The government has announced againthat the radiation level is not "an immediatedanger for public health".

March 14, 2011 8:05:42 PM EDT8,217 micro Sv/h is measured after 2 hoursfrom the explosion

The company has just reported:Themeasurement at the gate of the plant was8,217 micro Sv/h.

It was about two hours after the explo-sion at the reactor No.2.

It is also reported that about the half ofthe fuel rods are now above the cooling watersurface.

(It was totally above the water surfacefor some hours during the night, though.)

March 14, 2011 10:27:16 PM EDTa fire in the reactor No. 4

The government is now announcing:There is a fire in the reactor No. 4, which

was not running at the time of the earthquake.It seems to happen by hydrogen explo-

sion. They are now working on extinguishingthe fire.

The radiation level measured inside thesite:

between reactor No. 2 and 3: 30 mSv/h(note it is not micro Sv/h !!)

near the reactor No. 3: 400 mSv/hnear the reactor No. 4: 100 mSv/hNow, the government is officially saying

that the level at the site of the plant is "actu-ally harmful" for people (workers at the site).The workers, except in charge of cooling theplants, were ordered to evacuate.

The people within 20 km ordered againto evacuate completely.

The people within 20- 30 km ordered tobe stay inside building.

Katsumi

P.S. An additional information from thenews:

The fuel cooling ponds of both (?) reac-tor No. 1 and 3 are now left without any over

after the explosion of the building. It is underthe open air. The cooling system is alreadyout of order so it is not actually a "coolingpond". Unbelievable situation, but seemsreality.

March 15, 2011 4:51:06 PM EDTsome updates

Dear all,

I am sorry, but I could not follow indetail the situation since yesterday afternoon.

We, some grassroots groups, went tovisit the main office of the electric poser com-pany in our region (Kansai, the area includ-ing Osaka) to request them to stop all of theirnuclear power plants as soon as possible.There are around 10 nuclear power plantsabout 100 km from Osaka. We requestedthem to learn the lessons from the disasterwhich is now happening in Fukushima. Weknow there is no place in Japan which is com-pletely free from the possible danger of theearthquake and the problems of nuclearpower plants.

Anyway.....as far as I have followed thenews and statements from the governmentand company:

#The problem of spent fuel pond in thereactor No.4 is serious:

-They cannot decide yet what the actualcause and process of the fire at the reactorNo. 4. Fortunately, the fire stopped sponta-neously after some hours.

- They found that the temperature of thewater of the spent fuel cooling pond isincreasing from 40 to 84 degree centigrade asthe cooling system is now out of order. Afterthat they cannot measure the temperature asthe meter was out of order. They think thissituation might link to the fire and explosionat the plant.

- The hydrogen explosion might happenat the building (hydrogen was generatedfrom the situation of spent fuel pond?). Theyfound two big "holes" (8m x 8m)at the walland the ceiling.

- The situation of the spent fuel pond isnow focused. They considered an idea topour water using a helicopter from the "hole"on the ceiling. However, the hole is not justabove the cooling pond and they has gave upthe idea.

- They are still seeking to solve the prob-lem.

- They also reported: the fuel rods com-plex which was to put into the core vessel isin the pond (it is not a spent fuel) ,as theywere just before starting to run the reactorwhen the earthquake happened.



- They also reported that the radiationlevel inside the building is too high for work-ers to work. That is way they are thinking topour water from outside the building.

#The level of radiation slightly elevatedin the morning yesterday, on March 15, in thesouth area from the plant including Tokyo(around 200km from the Fukushima plant). Itseems to come from the explosion at the reac-tor No.2.

Tokyo (Shinjuku):0.81 (around 200 km)Tokyo(Utunomiya-shi): 1.318 (around

200 km)Saitama city:1.22 (around 200km)Fukushima Iwaki: 23.72 (around 50 km)The increase depends on the direction of

the wind.#They are now worrying about also the

increasing temperature and possible decreaseof cooling water of the cooling ponds of reac-tor No. 5 and 6.

# They reported some data about themeasurement at the site:

at the gate: 9:00, March 15: 11930 microSv/h

15:30 : 596.4 micro Sv/hinside the site: most recent?, March 16:

200-300micro Sv/hThe government is emphasizing the

level is decreasing now.#The Ministry of Health, Labour and

Welfare decided to re-consider the "maxi-mum permissive dose" for nuclear workers atthe emergency situation. It is 100mSv at thetime of "emergency situation for lifesaving",now in japan. (In usual situation, it is 100mSv per 5 years, at the maximum limit of50mSv per year.) However, they has decidedto set up the "maximum permissive dose atemergency situation" 250mSv that is 2.5 timesas higher than the present limit. They say thatunder this level, 250mSv, any acute symp-toms would not occur. (I do not agree withtheir idea, though. They might decide it asthey think it impossible to manege this criti-cal situation without letting workers workunder such a hight level of radiation.)

...

I think you can now read some otherdetailed media coverage or reports from spe-cialists on these situations even in English,though.

It is really hard for us to see the situationof people who have been suffering from thedisaster of earthquake and tsunami, and inaddition to it, they have to evacuate again orordered to keep inside building. They cannoteven try to find out their loved ones who arestill under such huge wrecks.

Some (or many) people are now trying

to leave from the 30 km zone.I am sorry for I do not cover all the dis-

aster and suffering of the people in the affect-ed areas, but only focusing the issue ofnuclear power plants.

I hope you can follow the whole situa-tion, which I could not write here, from themedia coverage.

Best,Katsumi

March 15, 2011 5:55:28 PM EDTanother fire/ No.4

The company has just announced thatthere was another fire at the reactor No. 4early in this morning!

We do not have further informationnow. Hydrogen explosion again??

March 15, 2011 9:45:10 PM EDTthe fire seems to be continuing

It is something like a nightmare...We are now seeing the video of the

Fukushima-I plant site, which was takenfrom the distance of 30 km.

The image is not clear, though.We can see white smoke from one of the

reactor buildings.It might be reactor No. 4.....the water

temperature of the spent fuel pond with non-spent-fuel-rods-complex might be gettinghigher or it might be already boiling and in apossible worse scenario, some part of fuelsare above the water surface and starting to"melt"....

I am not a specialist of this kind of tech-nical things. So, I should not make commenton this, though.

The site, especially close to the buildingof No. 4 is now in the very high level of radi-ation.

It is not easy to extinguish fire. Theymight send a special unit to do the properwork at the site as they did in chernobyl......

Please note that it is only my personal"imagination"....

The company have just started toexplain the situation:

They are saying that they themselvescannot recognize/confirm the real situationbecause of the highly contaminated situationinside the site. It seems that the smoke can beseen around No. 3 or No. 4. They are insistingthat they do not make any comment as mak-ing comments based on speculation mightcause more confusion....

We are physicians. When we treat such

serious patients, we usually think about theworst scenario and try to do everything whatwe could do as soon as possible.....before thesituation would get worse. I really would liketo believe that they, the company and gov-ernment, has been working in the same way.

I wonder what we can to protect peo-ple...now....

Katsumi

March 15, 2011 10:07:03 PM EDTthe fire seems to be continuing

The company also mentioned that 4 fireengines were sent to the site from the localfire station.

The company also said that the plantworkers even cannot confirm the situationbecause of the high radiation level.

I am really surprised that the local firestation is still working.....well it should beworking.....but, I really hope that they arewell equipped for the task at such dangeroussituation. It reminds me the firemen at theChernobyl site who worked just at the time ofthe accident. You all might know what hap-pened to them.

I really hope my imagination would bejust an imagination and not real....

March 15, 2011 10:29:49 PM EDT

The Chief Cabinet Secretary hasannounced:

What we saw in the vide image wassmoke/steam from the reactor No. 3.

The radiation level at the gate increasedrapidly from around 600-800 micro Sv/h tomSv/h level for a while around 10:00 am.

However, it is getting down at 10:54.They think that the steam might be com-

ing from a possible leak of the containment ofthe reactor No. 3, as it happened at the reac-tor No. 2 yesterday.

The government has been making greateffort and some staff from the governmenthas been working at the site together with thecompany.

So, it was not from a fire of reactor No. 4.

March 16, 2011 8:24:38 AM EDTThe following are some updates:

#The smoke/seam from reactor No. 3:The company said that the

smoke/steam from the reactor No. 3 camefrom the spent fuel pond (not from a possibleleak from the containment).

The cooling system of the pond is out oforder and the temperature of the water is get-ting higher to make steam. As you know, thebuilding of this reactor already is brokendown and there is no cover/ceiling over thespent fuel pond. It is open to the air now.

Then, they are planning to drop seawater from helicopters and fill the pond withwater to stop the damage of spent-fuel rods.

A team of "Defense Force" started the train-ing to do the task. They are ready to start now.

However, the radiation level over thepond is still high. It was measured "far morethan 50 mSv/h". (They actually measured itby a helicopter.) So, they decided not to pur-sue this operation today. There is no guaran-tee that the radiation level would becomelower tomorrow, though. (The governmenthas decided yesterday to set up the maxi-mum exposure level at an emergency situa-tion from 100 to 250 mSv, as I wrote you yes-terday.)

#The reactor No. 4:The government has just ordered the

"riot police" to go to the site as they have aspecial car which has a "high pressure injec-tion system". (I do not know the properwords for such a car in English. I suppose acar which might be usually used against"riot"....or sometimes against a demonstra-tion, as some of you might know?) They willtry to fill the spent fuel with water using thespecial car. The defense force will lend pro-tective suits to the "riot police". They willstart to work tomorrow morning.

#The result of the radiation level mea-surement today:

Today, a team from the Ministry ofEducation and Science, measured around the20-60 km zone:

about 20km: 0.33 mSv/h30-60 km: 0.0253 - 0.0125 mSv/hThe government and media emphasized,

"the level is not a immediate danger for thepeople's health, though it might be problem tolive in such area continuously for a year."

(I agree that it is not an "immediate dan-ger" but it could contribute to cause "lateeffect" as cancer, leukemia or other disease. Itdepends on the duration of exposure.)

They do not provide us, people, any infor-mation about the concentration of radioactivenoble gas, iodine, cesium and so on.

Peace,Katsumi

March 16, 2011 8:56 PM EDTThey start dropping water.....

We are now watching on TV a helicopterwhich is measuring the radiation level over



the plants.The helicopter has just dropped water

over the No. 3 reactor........The reporter saids: The CH 47 helicopter

can carry 7.5 ton of water. Another helicopteris now heading to the site. (9:48 am)

The second one (or the same one? again)has just drop water....9:52 am

The third drop is over No. 4.I will write further later.....

March 16, 2011 10:19 PM EDTmore information

Just before starting to drop water fromthe helicopter the government had a pressconference.

The following is the information fromthe conference and the TV media (NHK)report showing the actual operation.

We saw white steam coming out afterdropping water. You may see the video lateror already seen? Not all the water could dropin pin-pont over the pond unfortunately.

# Reactor No. 3:They will pour the spent fuel pool with

water both by helicopters of the defense forceand special cars with high pressure injectionsystem of the riot police.

The helicopter, CH 47, can carry 7.5 tonof water. It dips up sea water nearby, flies tothe reactor and drop the water over the pondof reactors. Before the operation, they mea-sure radiation level and wind over a reactorand see the feasibility to work.

The defense force (DF) estimated thatthey have to repeat this procedure more than100 times to fill a pond.

The reporter said that the maximumradiation limit for DF staff is set up 50 mSvwith exception of life saving situation:100mSV. (So, they seem to keep the present limitanyway....)

On the other hand, they are collecting 11cars with special injector from all over Japan.All or some of them are now ready togo....they have already headed to the sitefrom 20km zone. They will start to work afterthe operation of dropping water from heli-copters so that (hopefully) the radiation levelat the site would reduce to some extent. A carcan carry 4 ton of water for each. They willstay about 50 m from the building (as themaximum injection length is 50m), but theyestimated only one min. would be allowedfor a staff before reaching the maximumexposure level.

They decided to start from the reactorNo. 3 as it is more dangerous compared to

No. 4. (You may remember that No.3 has thenot spent fuel complex in the pool.) It is easi-er to drop water in the case of No. 3, as it hasno ceiling anymore.

They have dropped water four timesthis morning from 9:48 to around 10:00 am.(So, the exposure dose might become up to 50mSv for around 15 min inside the helicopter.This is only my guess.) They said that theyput a lead plate on the floor of the helicopterand a staff on board is measuring radiationlevel during the operation. They put on pro-tecting clothes.

#As for No. 4, they will not use heli-copters, but only use the cars of the riotpolice, as a hole on the ceiling is far from thepool. Fortunately (?) it already has a largehole (or holes?) (seeing from the picture, it isnot a hole, almost whole side wall facing tothe sea has completely fallen down) on thewall. So, they think that they can inject waterfrom the side.

#The reactor No. 5 and 6:The temperature of the water of spent

fuel pons is increasing:No. 5: 63 degree centigrade (5 degree

increased compared to yesterday)No. 6: 60 degree centigrade (4 degree

increased compared to yesterday)They are preparing to introduce electric-

ity from outside of the plant site and try torecover the cooling system.

The facilities of pumping weredestroyed by tsunami.

#The reactor No. 1 and 2 are stable any-way. They continue pouring sea water intothe containments and core vessels.

March 16, 2011 10:46 PM EDTsome additional information

#The minister of defense ministry isnow at the press conference:

some additional information:

The radiation level measured before theoperation:

4.13 mSv/h at 1000 feet87.7 mSv/h at 300 feet

They did not start the operation, butthey decided to do this morning as the situa-tion too critical to wait anymore.

The minister does not yet have the dataafter the droppings.

The US force will also join the operationlater.

March 17, 2011 10:27 AM EDT30 tons of water was injected into the reac-tor No.3

#In addition to dropping water from thehelicopters this morning, the defense forcehas injected 30 tons of water in total to theNo.3 reactor.

Five special cars were involved in theoperation today. They spend around five minfor each (7:35, 7:45, 7:53, 8:00, 8:07 p.m.). Apair of personnel worked staying in a car.

We hope the operation was successful-ly......we do not know whether or not radia-tion level has decreased after the operation.

#Prior to the operation by the defenseforce, the riot police tried to inject water intothe No. 3 reactor, but they failed to reach thetarget.

#It was reported the radiation dose ofpersonnel involved in the operation by heli-copter this morning was within the emer-gency dose limit 100 mSv (max data was60mSv).

March 17, 2011 10:27 AM EDT30 tons of water was injected into the reac-tor No.3

#In addition to dropping water from thehelicopters this morning, the defense forcehas injected 30 tons of water in total to theNo.3 reactor.

Five special cars were involved in theoperation today. They spend around five minfor each (7:35, 7:45, 7:53, 8:00, 8:07 p.m.). Apair of personnel worked staying in a car.

We hope the operation was success-ful…we do not know whether or not radia-tion level has decreased after the operation.

#Prior to the operation by the defenseforce, the riot police tried to inject water intothe No. 3 reactor, but they failed to reach thetarget.

#It was reported the radiation dose ofpersonnel involved in the operation by heli-copter this morning was within the emer-gency dose limit 100 mSv (max data was60mSv).

March 17, 2011 8:09:35 PM EDTsome information/ they are ready to go alsotoday.....

# The defense force (DF) personnel whoworked for injecting water into reactor No. 3yesterday:

Dropping water from helicopters:

17 personel were involved in the opera-tion worked around 90 m above the reactor

The exposure dose was officially report-ed: all of them are under 1mSv

They used a plate of tungsten (not lead,reporter revised the information) for shielding.

Injecting water from cars:13 personelThe chief of the DF reported: exposure

dose of personnel was up to 60 mSv (maxi-mum)

#The company made comments on theeffectiveness of the operation yesterday, onMarch 17:

There was not so much change of radia-tion dose rate by the operation of helicopters:changed from 3782 to 3752 micros Sv/h(somewhere inside the plant site).

However, they think a spout of steamfrom the building which can be seen just afterdropping water might be an evidence thatthe operation could reduce the temperatureat the fuel pond to some extent. (I also wantto believe so....)

As for the injection of water from cars onground 50m from the reactor building:

The radiation level at the gate of theplant site:

3:30 pm (before the operation): 309micro Sv/h

11:00 pm(after the operation): 289 microSv/h

#The data radiation level measured bythe Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,Science and Technology on March 17:

Max: 170 mico Sv/h (14:00, 30 km north-west from the plant)

They measured at 28 places in 20-60 kmzone, 9:20-15:00 : 18.3-1.1 micro Sv/h

The data depends on the direction of thewind.

#Today (March 18), the DF is ready towork for the same operation both from skyand ground.

In addition to the DF, a fire brigade withspecial type of cars (usually used for a fire ofairplane) from Tokyo has already headed toFukushima at the midnight. They will alsojoin the operation.

Four helicopter will work.More cars of DF will work.

#More sad stories are reported:More than 20 patients (old people)

passed away who were left in a hospital inthe 20 km zone or on the way of evacuationfrom the 20 zone.



I cannot write all of these stories now,but they must be recorded.

...

We should not/cannot estimate thenumber of people who might be exposed tomore radiation in the case of larger amount ofradioactive materials from the nuclear fuel,though. I would say, at least "hundreds ofthousands" people....

...

We, who know the danger of radiation,are thinking about those personnel, fire fight-er and workers of the company & associatecompanies and their families. I believe thegovernment and the company also know thatthe task is really dangerous because of thehigh level of radiation. However, we alsoknow: without their work, at least severalhundreds of thousands people includingchildren, pregnant women...... might beexposed to more radiation......

It is really sad and complicated situa-tion....

Katsumi

March 17, 2011 9:45:11 PM EDT 30 fire engine has joined the DF

#The 30 fire engine have just arrived atthe place (probably 20km from the plant) andjoined the DF.

The cars are:- rudder truck with folding radder of

22m- large special (chemical?) fire engine

which can spray water 5 ton/ min, evenwhile driving

- fire engine which can pump waterfrom 2km distance water source

- fire engine for special disaster whichhave equipments to clean up radioactive con-tamination

I do not know what actually they are,though.

I would say that they are really to dotheir best to avoid the worst case.

Of course, they will be measuring theradiation dose rate at the site and within the"exposure limit"....

I only hope that they could work withminimum exposure, as smaller as possible....

March 19, 2011 1:47 AMone week has passed.....still in a difficult sit-uation

Dear all,

I am sorry but I do not have time toupdate the things now.

Many things are happening here. Imyself have to deal with the things what Ican do here, in addition to my own routinework and activities.

You may see some of the updates on thefollowing site, at least the "official" informa-tion.

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/nhk-world-tv

We are still in a critical situation at thenuclear power plant site. Many people, manyyoung skilled workers, fire fighters , engi-neers and SD staff, at the site have been mak-ing great effort to try to stop the situation get-ting worse. They themselves are alreadyexposed to radiation......it is really sad, but weknow that we cannot get rid of this crisiswithout their hard work.....

We, anti-nuclear-power-plants activistsare staring to discuss concretely the evacua-tion of children and pregnant women, fromthe 20-30 km zone. We are afraid of the pos-sibility of the worse situation. (We reallyhope it would not happen.) It might be toolate if we decide after having such a situation.We never want to make people in panic.However, we have to prepare even for theworst scenario. We know that we shouldcarry on such a measurement with an officialinitiative. The crisis situation makes the gov-ernment too busy to work on this. They haveto focus on the crisis of the plants to avoid thefurther disaster. It is reality.

Another important thing for us is torequest government and companies to releasereal time and precise information and data ofenvironmental radiation, including the data ofisotopes, and the situation of the plants.

We heard that already some or many ofthem, who have a chance to do so, have alreadyleft the areas. However, it is not easy to do sowithout gas and before preparing proper placeto accept them outside of the zone.

I also know that some people even inTokyo has already left the city and been in akind of "panic" situation. I really understandtheir feeling and we cannot blame none ofthem.

However, we have to focus on the peo-ple right now who have been facing to themost "possible" or "realistic" danger to radia-

tion exposure and also the shortage of food,water, medicine, fuel and everything.

The local governments are already start-ing to accept more than a thousand peoplefrom a town which is within 2km, (they evac-uated already from their hometown to 20-30km zone some days ago). Many people,including local authorities, are now trying todo their best.

I am not sure whether or not you whoare living away from Japan could understandmy complex feeling, sadness and realisticthinking.

Another additional thing is that NHK inJapan has stopped the continuous live newson the affected areas and the nuclear plantstoday. They might decide to do so as a weekhas already passed since the earthquake. (Ofcourse, we can get a live image at the sitefrom time to time, when something new hap-pens.) It makes me strange feeing watchingsports game, cultural program and otherthings which do not have any relation to thepresent disaster. I myself may be in an"unusual" mental a situation.....

I will stop now.

I wish you all have a nice week end. Wehave no idea about our weekend, though.

Please also continue to work hard tostop nuclear power plants in your own coun-try....

Peace,Katsumi

P.S. I saw a video of WHO staff who iscommenting on the evacuation. I personallything it very sorry. They are not in a stance of"preventing" possible health impacts on thepeople who are staying within 20-30km orjust out side of the 30km zone. We are notdiscussing the immediate danger of the peo-ple who are living in Tokyo! I hope he willcome to Japan and stay with the people in the20-30 km zone........ I will not say anythingfurther now. We may discuss after we finishthis crisis. Sorry in a hurry....

April 22, 2011Radiation cut off raised for Japanese schoolchildren

I have come back from Fukushima latelast night. I spent five days there.

I visited some towns and villages overthere including Iitate-village, where they havehighly contamination even outside of 30 kmzone. They have 6,000 residents before theearthquake and accident. Some of them have

already evacuated voluntarily even before thegovernment set of the "planned evacuationzone". (You may already read the report onthe measurement of radiation dose andradioactive materials in soil in the village.)

It is really urgent to let people, especial-ly children, pregnant women and youngerpeople (who may have children in thefuture), evacuate from such a highly contam-inated area. I met the head of the village andsome staff members of the village. I also metwith some groups of residents. I told themthe real situation of the contamination intheir village and explained them that it isurgent to decide to evacuate. (Some residentsdo not want to evacuate as they have theirown life in their beautiful homeland.However, they are starting to understandwhat is happening in their land.) I also listento their stories individually and gave themconcrete advices as a physician. It is reallysensitive situation in many ways, politically,socially and psychologically, so I cannotwrite all the things at this moment here. You,who are living outside of Japan, might notunderstand our Japanese culture, though.

It is really sad and terrible for me to seeand hear that people, including babies (somedozens of babies, infants, their mothers andpregnant women have already evacuatedunder a official program of the village, butnot all of the babies are evacuated) have beenliving in such an area where we can measuresuch radiation level (ex. indoor: 2-3 microSv/h, outside: 5-8 micro Sv/h at 1m abovethe ground, more than 10 micro Sv/h on theground).

Some NGOs and individuals from out-side are now helping people in the village bysupplying non-contaminated vegetable,fruits and such fresh food. They need to havenon-comtaminated food anyway before evac-uation. The evacuation plan takes at least onemonth.

As you may know that some "special-ists" say openly in public that radiation(chronic) exposure below 100 mSv makes noserious health problem. They, together withthe local authority, had lectures in manyplaces in the prefecture. They want to avoidthe panic situation of people. I understandtheir concern, though. However, such com-ments of them influenced people to take theirsituation easy. Some families who once evac-uated outside of the highly contaminatedarea came back to the village after having lec-tures and information from such specialists.

I am thinking to visit the area againearly next month after the events of 25thanniversary of Chernobyl here in Osaka. Iwould like to help them as a physician to letthem decide themselves what to do. I want to



be with them, as far as I can, and work incooperation with them. I really do not wantto make people in panic. It is important totalk to the people and listen to the peopledirectly and think with them what to do insuch a critical situation.

I would add that even outside of theIitate-village, the radiation situation is stillserious.

We can measure 1-3 micro Sv/h radia-tion rate all around in the center of the city ofFukushima, where 290,000 people are living.The problem is not limited at the schools. The"20 mSv" of radiation exposure (it is onlyfrom external exposure) is a serious problemfor almost all of the residents in the contami-nated cities and towns in Fukushima prefec-ture. Of course, "20 mSv" is the dose limit fornuclear workers in Japan in accordance to theJapanese radiation protection low. The radia-tion level above 0.6 micro Sv/h (1.3 mSv ofradiation exposure) is the definition of the"radiation control area" according to the law.However, they are now applying the stan-dards of "emergency version" for both work-ers and public following the recommenda-tion of ICRP.

As many people are already exposed tosome extent, proper health following-up andcompensation will be necessary in the future.

We also have to think about the influ-ence to the industry, agriculture dairy farm-ing and fishing in the area. Many people areliving on that.

We really need to stop all the nuclearpower plants in Japan (and everywhere in theworld). I know that we cannot stop themimmediately, though. We, as citizens groups,will visit the Kansai-electric company torequest them to listen our voices on April 26.We have 10 nuclear power plants just 100 kmfrom Osaka, the second biggest city in Japan.We know that there are active faults veryclose to the plants.

I agree with the idea of Alex to make akind of appeal from IPPNW on this occasionto support the exposed people in Japan. I

think it important to make a critical com-ments on ICRP and Japanese government'spolicy of radiation protection at the emer-gency situation. (Note that Japanese govern-ment are following the recommendationform ICRP and many physicians and special-ists in Japan have been supporting ICRP. Thespecial adviser for the Japanese cabinet at theemergency situation is a member of ICRP.)

Sorry, but I do not have time to writemore in detail now. (I have to prepare themeeting tomorrow.)

The situation is moving here in Japan. Ihave to work on it, as a physician, in accor-dance to my conscience.

Thank you for all the support from ourcolleagues of IPPNW in the world.

Peace,Katsumi

Katsumi Furitsu speaks about the Fukushima nuclear reactor crisis atIPPNW-Germany’s congress, Timebomb Nuclear Power—25 Yearsafter Chernobyl, on April 9, 2011 in Berlin. Photo © Jens Jeske/IPPNW-Germany.


Alex Rosen—GermanyWe’re all very worried about the health effects from thiscatastrophe. ...As we see in Fukushima, nuclear power isnever 100% safe; no technology is....We know about theeffects of these nuclear particles because we have stud-ied the health effects of the Chernobyl disaster, wherewe’ve seen a significant rise of thyroid cancers, a sig-nificant rise in childhood leukemia [and other diseases].www.youtube.com/watch?v=WL_Oew16vIg

Ryoma Kayano—JapanIt is true, nuclear power plants supply us a lot of energy.However, as we see in this situation, catastrophe can occurand we simply cannot control he huge energy....First, wehave to recognize that nuclear energy is uncontrollableand dangerous. Second, we have to stop and think. Is itright to use this energy? Are there other ways to solve ourenergy problems without nuclear energy?www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktHhBSsGvzs

Vilena Avaliani—RussiaAll stages of the nuclear fuel chain have adverse envi-ronmental impacts...If a country has nuclear energy, itincreases its capacity to build nuclear weapons....Wehave good alternatives to nuclear power plants, and theyare renewable sources of energy such as sun, wind, bio-mass and many others....It happened once in Chernobyl;it happened a second time in Fukushima. So what nextbefore we say “no thanks” to nuclear energy?www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSjFMOmvwRE

Ogebe Onazi—NigeriaWe appeal to policy makers of governments all over theworld to deemphasize the need for nuclear energy...Letus put in consideration the generation to come. Let us putin consideration the health of the people of Japan. Let usput in perspective what the unborn babies and theirmothers are going through this moment in Japan. We donot have nuclear disasters going on in our country; nev-ertheless, we feel concern for the people of Japan. www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hq4EcJXqGeI

Young doctors speak outon the Fukushima disaster

IPPNW’s global network of young doctors and medical students used online social networking technologiessuch as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, which offer the potential to reach millions of users with updates,expert analysis, and informed opinion about events in Japan as they occured. Particularly effective are short,self-made videos that can be posted to YouTube and other video-sharing sites, and then linked to blogs andwebsites in what is called viral communication. Below are brief excerpts from video messages by young IPPNWdoctors from four countries. These and others are gathered on the IPPNW medical student website (www.ippnw-students.org/medicalvoices/voices.html). Links are given to the full versions on YouTube.


Since 11th March, Japan has been reelingfrom an unprecedented natural disasterof awesome proportions, followed by aman-made nuclear crisis. First, a record-

breaking earthquake, 8.9 on the Richter scale,off the north-eastern coast of the Japaneseisland of Honshu. Then, a towering ten-metretsunami which killed tens of thousands ofpeople and destroyed almost everything in itspath. Finally, the release of radioactivity intothe environment from a nuclear power plant,damaged by overheating and explosions.

The earthquake had automatically shut-down the six nuclear reactors of theFukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear power plant,owned by the Tokyo Electric PowerCompany (Tepco). But it also knocked outthe power grid, forcing operators to fall backon diesel generators to keep coolant flowinginto hot reactor cores of radioactive uraniumand plutonium fuel rods. Then the tsunamiswept in, knocked out the generators and cutoff power to the plant’s cooling systems. Allat once, four out of its six nuclear reactorswere in dire trouble from overheating.Explosions then damaged fuel rods and theintegrity of the primary containment struc-ture, and radioactivity was released into theenvironment.

There are few environmental dangersmore lasting or more fearsome than radiationfrom a nuclear accident. We saw this in theThree Mile Island and Chernobyl disasters,and now in Fukushima. The truth ofMurphy’s Law is inescapable: “If somethingcan go wrong, sooner or later it will gowrong.”

Public healthThe public health implications of

nuclear power should not be subordinate tothe economic considerations of the nuclearindustry and government energy policies.There is a need to review the scientific evi-dence for public health impacts of nuclearpower, to assess occupational hazards facedby nuclear industry workers, and to assessevidence that challenges the legitimacy of theunderlying assumptions of nuclear safety.

A common thread running throughthese health concerns is the risk posed by ion-ising radiation. There is no safe threshold.Over the past fifty years, the claims of thenuclear industry, that nuclear power is bothsafe and vital for our future, have provenfalse and contentious.

Ionising radiation can damage DNA,causing cancer and inherited mutations.

Japan’s Nuclear Nightmare

Ronald McCoy

Former IPPNW co-president Ron McCoy, a Malaysian obstetrician who, by his owncount, has delivered more than 50,000 babies, read the following paper at a publicforum entitled “Eleven Days After Japan’s Nuclear Fallout: Selangor’s Perspective,”organized by the Selangor state government on March 22, 2011. For reasons of spaceand general interest, paragraphs concerned solely with Malaysian policy have been cut.The paper can be read in its entirety on the IPPNW Peace and Health Blog(www.peaceandhealthblog.com].

§

However, whether an individual developscancer following exposure to ionising radia-tion depends on whether the DNA is dam-aged, what part of the DNA is damaged,whether the cell line can reproduce, whetherthe damage is completely repaired, andwhether the cell completes transformationsthat lead to malignancy.

The most important evidence regardingrisks from exposure to radiation comes fromepidemiologic studies that examine incidenceof cancer in exposed populations, such aschildren exposed to radiation in utero, peopleexposed to background radiation, nuclearplant workers, patients exposed to diagnosticor therapeutic radiation, and people exposedto radiation from nuclear explosions.

The risk of mutation-related damage,including cancer, is propor-tional to the radiation dose.There is no threshold belowwhich ionising radiation pro-duces no damage. Thismeans that background radi-ation from any source causescancer and genetic mutationsamong exposed populations.

What happens in a nuclear accidentWhen a reactor is operating, fuel rods

containing uranium and plutonium pelletsproduce heat through nuclear fission and getvery hot. The fuel is immersed in water andthe heat produces steam, which is used todrive a turbine to produce electricity. Thewater also serves to keep the fuel from over-heating and is continuously circulated tocarry away excess heat. Even if the reactorshuts down, the fuel will remain hot for along time and so must still be cooled.

If the pumps that circulate the coolingwater are not operating, the water will heatup and evaporate, and the fuel can beexposed to the environment. At this point,the zirconium cladding on the fuel rods willstart to heat up, blister, and then rupture. Ifthe fuel is not covered by water and isexposed for a few hours, it will start to melt.The molten fuel will collect at the bottom ofthe steel reactor vessel, and it will be a matterof hours before the fuel melts through thesteel and settles on the concrete floor of theprimary containment vessel. In an accident,the amount of radioactivity released into theenvironment will depend on the integrity ofthe primary and secondary containments.The radioactive isotopes of greatest concernin a nuclear accident are iodine-131 andcesium-137.

Uncertain geological knowledgeNuclear power requires stability—politi-

cal stability and geological stability. Countriesconsidering the option of nuclear power needto soberly assess their plans, particularly ifthey are located in active volcanic regions.

But geological knowledge is incompleteand imperfect. And we rely on such knowl-edge too heavily when making policy deci-sions about locating hazardous technologies.

Designed and built to withstand what istermed “design basis accidents,” nuclearpower plants are usually sited in geologicallystable and physically secure environments,determined by geologists. The possibility of a“design basis accident” is based on “credibleevents,” which are determined by an analysisof probabilities. The Fukushima disaster wasa “beyond design basis accident” because theanalysis was wrong. It was calculated that

the probable “credibleevent” expected to occur inFukushima would be anearthquake no greater thana magnitude of 7.9 and atsunami no higher than 6.7metres. It was not in theanalysis of probabilities thatFukushima would be struck

by an 8.9 magnitude earthquake or a 10-metre high tsunami. But geologists and thenuclear industry, like all human beings,sometimes get it wrong.

It is noteworthy that there are a numberof unknown geological faults and processeswhich make it more difficult to accurately pre-dict a “credible event.” In other words, it isvery much an intelligent guessing game, butguessing it is nevertheless. Incidentally, therecent earthquake in Christchurch occurred onan unknown and unexposed geological fault,and was therefore unpredictable. In fact, dam-aging earthquakes have been known to origi-nate from unknown faults.

Human errorBut earthquakes and tsunamis are not

the only causes of a nuclear accident. Humanerror alone can lead to a nuclear accident. Ithappened in Windscale (later renamedSellafield), Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.

I have heard the facetious argument thatplane crashes are not sufficient reason toabandon air travel. But the scale of a nuclearaccident is incomparable. Radiation couldkill and injure thousands, cause cancers, andcontaminate and render uninhabitable largetracts of land.

Nightmare at FukushimaJapan, the only country to have experi-

enced nuclear warfare, now faces anothernuclear nightmare. Months may pass beforewe can fully understand what went wrong


There is no thresholdbelow which ionisingradiation produces no

damage.


and learn from Fukushima. It is a high priceto pay for using potentially dangerous andreplaceable technology. It has rekindled fad-ing memories of Chernobyl and shifted thebalance in the debate on climate change andthe risks and benefits of nuclear energy.

It is forcing many countries to reviewthe safety of their nuclear facilities and theirenergy policies. Germany has responded tostrong public anti-nuclear sentiment by rein-stating and accelerating its nuclear phase-outpolicy, and temporarily shutting down theoldest seven of its seventeen reactors. BothIndia and China, with their expandingeconomies and energy needs, are reviewingnuclear safety measures, but have notshelved plans to build more reactors in thenext ten years.

A number of studies conclude thatnuclear power cannot meet energy needs;that it is excessively expensive; that it is notcarbon neutral; that it creates additional envi-ronmental and security risks. Most impor-tantly, new evidence indicates that environ-mentally safe and sustainable energy tech-nologies can be developed to meet growingenergy needs.

There is a growing conviction world-wide that nuclear power should be phasedout and a serious commitment made to investin renewable energy, energy efficiency andenergy conservation.

Public distrustThe nuclear industry has carried the

stamp of secrecy like a birthmark. From itsvery beginning, the nuclear industry has hada long history of cover-ups and downrightdeception, with the occasional lapse intosilence - the silence of guilt. Public trust in thepromoters of nuclear power is almost non-existent. In Britain, America, Germany,Russia, Japan and other countries, peoplehave not been told the truth about the realeconomic cost of nuclear energy and thehealth and environmental consequences ofnuclear mishaps and near-misses.

The stricken Japanese population is wellaware of the culture of nuclear cover-ups.The Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco)owns and operates the Fukushima Dai-Ichinuclear power plant. In 2002, Tepco’s chair-man and senior executives had to resignwhen the Japanese government discoveredthat they had covered up the existence ofstructural damage to reactors. In 2006, Tepcoadmitted that it had been falsifying dataabout reactor coolant materials.

Vexing questionsRadiation is invisible and cannot be

recalled. In a nuclear crisis, there will be

many questions about radiation. As theJapanese people are now discovering, it is anightmare trying to make sense of the uncer-tainties.

§ How do you know when youare in danger?

§ How long will this danger per-sist?

§ How can you reduce the dangerto yourself and your family?

§ What level of exposure is safe?§ How do you get access to vital

information in time to prevent or min-imise exposure?

§ What are the potential healthrisks and consequences of exposure?

§ Whose information can you relyon or trust?

§ How do you rebuild a healthyway of life in the aftermath of a nucleardisaster?

These questions are difficult to answer,and they become even more complicatedwhen governments and the nuclear industrymaintain tight control of information, techno-logical operations, scientific research, and thebio-medical lessons that shape public healthresponse.

Transparency and accountabilityTransparency and accountability do not

sit well with an industry, addicted to filteringand censoring information. It explains whythere is no clear consensus on the local andglobal health consequences of Fukushima.

There is no safe threshold for radiation.The claim that exposure to low-level radia-tion does not pose a risk to health is a myth,generated by governments and the nuclearindustry. During the nuclear arms race of theCold War, scientific findings on health risksfrom nuclear fallout that contradicted theofficial narrative were censored. Scientistswith integrity were discredited, punished orblacklisted. In 1994, the US AdvisoryCommission on Human RadiationExperimentation concluded that the litera-ture on radiation and health during the ColdWar was heavily sanitised and scripted toreassure and pacify public protests.

Decades of official censorship have rein-forced the false core message: Human beingshave evolved in a world where backgroundradiation is present and is natural, and thatany adverse health effect of radiation expo-sure is the occasional and accidental result ofhigh levels of exposure.

There are other sources of conclusivedata that allow a very different interpretationof the health hazards posed by a nuclear dis-

aster. These include several declassifiedrecords of US and Soviet human radiationexperiments, Atomic Bomb CasualtyCommission records, long-term research onChernobyl survivors, and proceedings of theMarshall Islands Nuclear Claims Tribunal.

From these records, some importantfacts have emerged. For example, nuclearfallout and radioactive contamination ofocean and land ultimately enter the foodchain and the human body, and thereforerepresent significant health risks. Chronicexposure to radiation does more thanincrease the risk of cancers. It threatens theimmune system, exacerbates pre-existingconditions, affects fertility, increases the rateof birth defects, and can retard physical andmental development.

Japan’s ongoing nuclear crisis demon-strates the degree to which the state prioritis-es security interests over the fundamentalrights of people and their environment.Japan’s response to Fukushima mimics theresponses of other governments to cata-strophic events, such as Chernobyl andKatrina. It has been to control the content andflow of information to prevent panic and mit-igate the inevitable loss of trust in the gov-ernment, reduce legal liability, and protectnuclear and other industry agendas.

There are many lessons to be learnt fromFukushima, not least of which is to recognisethat nuclear energy is exceedingly dangerousand carries unacceptable, unnecessary risks tohuman health and the environment. InMalaysia, there must be strong public demandfor transparency and accountability and anend to all plans to opt for nuclear energy.

Misleading informationNuclear energy is not cheap, clean or

safe. And yet, vested interests in the govern-ment and the nuclear industry are attemptingto override common sense and reason. Theycontinue to trumpet the imaginary virtues ofnuclear power and play down the enormouscost of nuclear power, the problem of nuclearwaste, and the risks of an accident. Nuclearreactors, like nuclear weapons, do not forgivemistakes of judgement, simple negligence,human error or mechanical failure.Malaysia’s poor record of industrial safetyand its bad maintenance culture underlieconcerns about public safety in the event of anuclear accident.

The nuclear industry has a history ofmaking misleading claims about nuclear safe-ty that have often confused and misled theuninformed. Genuine debate and criticalexamination have been avoided, evidenceignored, opponents silenced or marginalised,and critical issues of public health and welfare

have been answered with standard bland plat-itudes. Nuclear regulatory bodies have toooften acted out of expediency and ignored thehealth and protection of the public.

Proliferation of nuclear weaponsNuclear power is directly linked to the

proliferation of nuclear weapons. Memberstates of the Nuclear Non-ProliferationTreaty have the “inalienable right” to peace-ful uses of nuclear energy. All civiliannuclear energy programmes provide a conve-nient cover, as well as the training, technolo-gy and plutonium necessary for the prolifer-ation of nuclear weapons. That was the routetaken by India, Pakistan, Israel and NorthKorea to become nuclear weapon states. Atypical 1000 megawatt reactor producesenough plutonium each year for 40 nuclearweapons.

Radioactive nuclear wasteNuclear power plants produce lethal

radioactive waste that will remain radioac-tive for thousands of years. The half-life ofplutonium-239 is 24,000 years and that of ura-nium-235 is 731 million years. We are talkingabout radiation forever.

No country in the world has been able tosafely dispose of its nuclear waste, which isaccumulating in pools or casks alongsidenuclear reactors in forty-four countries, wait-ing for a solution. Finding satisfactory under-ground geologic repositories has proved tobe an intractable problem. After twenty yearsand US $9 billion of investment, the Obamaadministration has declared that the pro-posed repository site in Yucca Mountain is“not an option.”

When questioned about nuclear waste,the nuclear industry argues that spentnuclear fuel should be reprocessed or ‘recy-cled’ into fresh fuel. Only the French experi-ence with reprocessing has been technicallysuccessful, but economically it has been afailure.

If medieval man had ventured intonuclear energy, we today would still be man-aging his waste, assuming we had survived.Nuclear waste is not a legacy we shouldbequeath future generations.

Cost of nuclear energyCheap nuclear power is a myth. ”Too

cheap to meter” was the false slogan in 1954.Forbes business magazine has described the fail-ure of the US nuclear industry as “the largestmanagerial disaster in business history.”

After fifty years of substantial govern-ment subsidies, nuclear power remains pro-hibitively expensive. Even among businessand financial communities, it is widely



acknowledged that nuclear power would notbe economically viable without governmentsubsidies.

In the United States, the most importantsubsidy comes in the form of loan guaran-tees, which promise that taxpayers will bailout nuclear utility companies by paying backtheir loans if and when their projects fail.

The nuclear industry’s opaque methodsof accounting make it difficult to determinethe full economic costs of nuclear energy.Costs are often buried in generous govern-ment subsidies or conjured into debt legaciesfor future generations.

Tenaga NasionalBerhad, in Malaysia, claimsthat it could build a 1,000megawatt nuclear reactor forRM1 billion, but there is nomention of other costs. Realcosts, such as operating costs,accident insurance, mainte-nance of reactor security,nuclear waste managementand decommissioning costs,are buried in the nuclearindustry’s creative, opaquemethods of accounting.

Capital costs remain acritical problem. Objectivedata on nuclear economicsdo not exist. Examination ofthe limited number of published capital costestimates shows that the estimated capital costof a new nuclear power plant has escalatedrapidly since 2005 and that estimates are large-ly derived from manufacturers of reactor sys-tems. It follows that it is extremely risky toaccept a manufacturer’s estimates and to signa contract that does not specify a fixed cost,and yet some purchasers do exactly that.

The only relatively reliable data on thecosts of nuclear power come from the UnitedStates, the United Kingdom, France andFinland. Within this limited data base, weknow that cost overruns and constructiondelays are customary and that no nuclearpower plant has been built within budget ora contractual time-frame.

As recent as 29 May 2009, two financialreports in the business section of the NewYork Times exposed the risky economics ofnuclear power by highlighting two fiascos:the virtual collapse of Canada’s global flag-ship, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited andthe problems facing the French company,Areva, over the construction of a new thirdgeneration pressurised water reactor inOlkiluoto, which is four years behind sched-ule and more than US$2 billion over budget.Both companies were overtaken by cost over-runs, amounting to billions of dollars, and

long delays in completionschedules extending intodecades.

A recent study in theUnited States, whichfocussed on business risksand the cost of building newnuclear power plants, iden-tified several significantrisks. The cost of capital forbuilding new nuclear powerplants has been rising muchfaster than inflation. Majorconstruction delays result incost overruns of billions ofdollars. Long lead times forconstruction also result in a“premium risk” whichincreases the cost of capital.

In the end, to keep afloat, new nuclear plantswill have to impose high electricity rateswhich will make consumers very unhappyand the economy less competitive.

After more than fifty years in the busi-ness, the nuclear industry cannot attract pri-vate funding or liability insurance, cannotdemonstrate an ability to build new reactorswithin a contractual time-frame and budget,and cannot deal with its radioactive waste.

Instead of investing billions in nuclearpower, it would be far wiser and more justi-fiable to commit our limited resources toresearch and development of renewablesources of energy, energy conservation andenergy efficiency.

The nuclear industry’sopaque methods of

accounting make it dif-ficult to determine thefull economic costs ofnuclear energy. Costs

are often buried ingenerous governmentsubsidies or conjuredinto debt legacies forfuture generations.


Ira HelfandThere's been a lot of media attention

over the last several days to the ambient radi-ation in and immediately around the[Fukushima] plant, which is very appropri-ate, especially given our concerns about theworkers who are remaining in the plant try-ing to bring this situation under control. But Ithink we need also to focus on the radioactiveisotopes that are being dispersed at some dis-tance from the plant, because this is going tocause a whole different set of health prob-lems. We have been told by a number ofnuclear experts who've been appearing in thepress over the last several days that we willnot see the kind of widespread dispersal ofradiation that occurred at Chernobyl becausethere are not graphite bars to burn here, andthe graphite fires played a very importantrole at Chernobyl in dispersing the radioac-tive material.

But we have had fires already from burn-ing spent fuel rods, and there have also beensteam eruptions, explosions—I'm not surewhat one would call them—that can play thesame role in dispersing the radioisotopes togreat distances. And once these are lofted intothe air they get carried by the wind.Depending where the wind is blowing, they're

going to get deposited, and this could be atsome significant distance from the plant site.

We have to be concerned about thisbecause even if the total radiation dose is notreal high downwind from the plant, the con-centration of these radioactive isotopes canpose a very serious health problem. Some ofthem are quite long lived. Some of them areshorter lived, like iodine-131. But strontium-90has a half-life of 29 years, and once it's incor-porated into bone it essentially stays with youfor the rest of your life, irradiating the boneand the bone marrow and causing leukemiaand bone cancer. Cesium-137 doesn't last inyour body quite so long, but it has a very longhalf-life as well. And of course plutonium hasthe longest half-life of all these elements thatwe're concerned about at more than 24,000years.

So the issue is that people at someremove from the plant may be exposed tovery powerfully carcinogenic radioisotopesthat may enter their bodies through inhala-tion or through ingestion from water or food,and that land at some significant distancemay be contaminated so heavily with thesematerials that it cannot be used by humansfor extend periods of time. There are areas,you know, more than 100 miles downwind

“A terribly difficult situationwith a lot of uncertainties”:

PSR Press Conference

On March 16, 2011, Physicians for Social Responsibility, the US affiliate of IPPNW,briefed reporters on the medical, public health, and scientific dimensions of theunfolding nuclear disaster in Japan. More than 200 American and international jour-nalists participated in a moderated telephone conference call that opened with pre-sentations from three experts on radiation, health, and radioactive waste. The open-ing remarks were followed by an hour-long question-and-answer period.

The speakers:

Ira Helfand—past president,

Physicians forSocial

Responsibility;North American

regional vice presi-dent, InternationalPhysicians for the

Prevention ofNuclear War;board-certified

internist inSpringfield,

Massachusetts.

DavidRichardson—

Associate Professorof Epidemiology,School of Public

Health, Universityof North Carolina

at Chapel Hill.

MarvinReznikoff—nuclearphysicist and inter-national consultant

on radioactivewaste issues.

from Chernobyl which are still not safe forpeople to use, and this is I think an aspect ofthe situation which we really need to befocusing on. If the winds blow, for example,in the direction of Tokyo, it is conceivablethat significant portions of the Tokyo metro-politan area could be contaminated in thisway if there is a large release as this situationcontinues to unfold. And so I think this issomething we really need to be focusingsome attention on.

David RichardsonI would want to start by underscoring

some of the points thatwere just made. On theone hand we haveincredibly valiantefforts that are beingmade by the workers atthe facility to deal witha really complex stringof problems that contin-ue to arise related tooverheating, not only ofthe reactors but also ofthe cooling ponds. Theworkers are in a situa-tion now where from anoccupational safety andhealth perspective it'sreally serious. It'sdaunting. There aresubstantial non-radiological hazards: they'reworking in a facility where there are explo-sions going on and fires and extreme heat.And then we add to this some of the workareas have extremely high dose rates now,where workers have to be moved out of thework areas over short periods of time, Iwould imagine spanning minutes, in order toavoid problems of acute radiation poisoning.And over the period of time that they'reworking now they're going to accrue excep-tionally high occupational doses of radiation,and this would be the external ionizing radi-ation which is radiation that's moving in theform of waves through the body, like X-rays,but in this case gamma radiation.

There's been a lot of focus on environ-mental releases related to the reactors and thequestion of will or will not the containmentsaround the reactors hold and serve to miti-gate the environmental releases. What's gotless attention, and I would suggest that thepress has taken their eye off the ball some-what on this issue, is the ponds that are hold-ing the spent fuel—these boiling water reac-tor designs have a relatively thin amount ofcontainment. And for several of the pools—those have been damaged or entirely blownoff—there's a large amount of radiation,radioactive material that's stored in those

ponds, and I believe we can—the evidence isthat we're having releases from those.

Now that's different than the primaryradiological concerns that the workers in thefacilities are facing. It's not exposure exter-nally to radiation in the form of radiationwaves or a beam of radiation, of gamma rays.It's the concern about the intakes of radioac-tive particles in the form of gases or dusts,that they may inhale or ingest, or later on ifyou would get a skin cut you could take itinternally through a puncture of the skin.And how much of that's going to be released?We still don't know in the end, and figuring

that out is going to beextremely complicated.I think given that mostof offsite monitors arenot functioning, it mayrequire that we make aninventory at the end ofthis about what's stillleft in the plant, and bythat we can make areckoning of what waslost.

The other questionis going to be wherewill it go, and that's—aspeople have saidbefore, it's going todepend in part on thewinds, whether they're

moving out to sea or they're moving overland. And it's unlikely that the radioactivematerial is going to be distributed evenly inconcentric circles; rather it's going to bedeposited very likely in narrow bands. So it'sgoing to be quite a while before we have any-thing more than a crude understanding of themagnitude and the distribution of that conta-mination, but we're going to need to be ableto do that in order to help inform peopleabout how to minimize their exposures. Soit's an extremely serious situation.

Marvin ReznikoffI'm going to try to fill in some of the

points that were made previously by theother speakers. Let me start by saying thatthere are two hazards that have beenexplained. One is from reactors where therehave been steam explosions, and the other isfrom the fuel pools. The steam explosionshave released iodine gas and cesium-137.Cesium-137, because that's a semi-volatilemetal, and once the cladding to the fuel isbroken that material can be released alongwith the iodine gas, so when the steam isreleased then these materials are alsoreleased.

I have looked over the NOAA forecaststo see what the wind will be over the next


[I]t's going to be quite awhile before we have any-thing more than a crude

understanding of the magni-tude and the distribution of

that contamination, but we'regoing to need to be able to

do that in order to helpinform people about how tominimize their exposures.


three days. They actually have forecasts forthe next seven days but three days is morereliable. And I think we're fortunate in thatmuch of the wind will be going out from westto east, that is will be going out over theocean. As was pointed out earlier, theChernobyl hazard was about a 1,000 milehazard, but over the ocean to reach theUnited States is approximately 2,000 miles.So material will be deposited along the wayand rain will also take out some of this mate-rial, so I think in that sense we're fortunate.But material will also land in the ocean, andthat means that marine life will pick up thismaterial. People eat fish, then they will inturn intake this material. Fortunately theJapanese government has evacuated a largerzone, so the hazard is less to people.

Let me say a word about the fuel pools.You've probably seen that these fuel poolsare not located on the ground. They are locat-ed up near the top of the reactor, so that gen-erally puts them 70 or 80 feet up in the air.With some of these buildings the roofs havebeen blown off, so the fuel pools are actuallyopen to the environment directly. Also whathasn't been discussed very much is there is astandalone fuel pool at Fukushima that is onground level and that contains most of theradioactive spent fuel. A lot of it has beenshipped to the reprocessing plant atRokkasho, but a lot of the fuel is actually sit-ting in this building, which does have win-dows. And I am not certain what happenedwhen the tsunami hit, and it would be usefulto have Tokyo Electric talk a little about thatfor the media.

Most fuel in the fuel pools, as I said, hasbeen removed, but for Reactor 4 the fuel wasremoved from the reactor core and put intothe fuel pool so that they could examine thereactor. And that fuel is relatively fresh andhotter thermally, so it's not surprising whenthe water is no longer circulating that it hasbeen speculated that the water was actuallyboiled off and a zirconium exothermic reac-tion - that is the zirconium burned. It burns at1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and releases hydro-gen gas at that point. But the material—anymaterial that got into the air would be direct-ly released into the environment. They can-not resupply this reactor with helicoptersbecause part of the roof still remains and theycannot just dump water into the fuel pool.

James Gland, The New York Times You gave a nice overview on both top-

ics, the issue of exposure near and far fromthese reactors. Can you give us any numbers,say, in sort of Rems is, I guess, the favoriteunit out there, in terms of what you're hear-ing or have heard are the levels at the reactor

and far away from it, and how that turns intolevels of danger ranging from radiation sick-ness to cancer risk? Anything? I'm not expect-ing an entire numerical overview. I know allthese numbers aren't available, but we'rehaving a hard time finding them and thenalso turning them into meaning when itcomes to actual risk.

Ira HelfandIn terms of the doses inside the reactor it

seems to be varying dramatically frommoment to moment. The highest that I'veseen was a rate of about 40 Rems or four-tenths of a Sievert per hour at one point,which would have given people in that - whowere working in the reactor site a dose thatwould cause radiation sickness after two anda half hours of exposure. That level was notsustained for a long period of time.

As you get farther away I think thedose—the total dosage that people are get-ting—is perhaps in some ways less importantfor the reasons we were talking about, severalof us, during our presentations. It is unlikely,hopefully, that people at some remove fromthe reactor, say in Tokyo, are going to actual-ly be exposed to high enough doses of totalbody radiation to cause them to have, youknow, radiation sickness. But that doesn'tmean that they're not inhaling or ingestingradioactive nuclides which might cause themto have cancer, and the correlation betweenthem is not very good. You can have a verysmall total body radiation dose but inhaleplutonium and end up getting lung cancerfrom it, or ingest some radioiodine and endup getting a thyroid cancer, or ingest someradioactive strontium and end up gettingleukemia. And so this—the assurance thatwe're given that, well, the total dose of radia-tion that we're measuring is relatively lowneeds to be taken with that big grain of salt.

James GlandThe one number we've got from Tokyo,

.809 microsieverts, you know, as a reassuringnumber being given by the Tokyo govern-ment, is that a justified stance on that numbergiven this cancer issue you mentioned?

Ira HelfandAnd what I'm arguing is that it is not. It's

certainly better that the dose there is low thanthat it were high, but the fact that the totalbody radiation dose is not high does notmean that people there are not being exposedto an increased risk of cancer.

David RichardsonTo follow up on that a little bit, it mat-

ters right—there are several things that make

you want to qualify or at least ask a questionabout what value they're reporting. If they'rereporting, let's say, a measurement of gammaradiation activity one meter off the ground,that tells you about kind of the gamma fieldthere at that location. The concern is thatwhat's been released is not simply gamma-emitting radionuclides—there would also bebeta emitters, for example—and that oncethey're taken into the body you're not somuch interested in the amount of energy—sothese units of Sievert or Rem are giving you asense of what's the energy deposited per, let'ssay, kilogram or per unit mass. And we're notinterested anymore once there's an uptake ofa radionuclide which has proclivity to aggre-gate, for example, in thethyroid or the bone mar-row. You want to knowthe dose delivered to aspecific tissue, not theaverage dose whenyou're averaging overyour total mass of yourbody. So there are sever-al issues there. One iswhat's being measured?Is it relevant to theradionuclides of con-cern? And then not—no longer talking aboutthe average dose to the whole body, but thedose to a specific organ of interest.

Marvin ReznikoffThere is another issue involved which is

the total dose to the population; not just tothe individual, but the total dose to all theindividuals that are receiving this dose.When you get out past the 30-mile or 30-kilo-meter limit, then there are more people outthere, and the total dose to the populationwill really tell you how many cancers mightarise in the future.

I wanted to put this 400 millisievert num-ber in another context, which is to comparethat to a chest X-ray. Generally a chest X-ray isa tenth of a millisievert, and we are talkingabout 400 millisieverts per hour, so that'sequivalent to 4,000 chest X-rays per hour.

David Brown, Washington PostMy first question, which was actually

partially answered, is do you have any sug-gestions on where the best source for mea-surements are? Because I'm also having a hardtime finding them. So anyway, that's one, butthe other one is can you address the risk, atleast from—as seen in the Hiroshima—theatomic bomb survivors is surprisingly low interms of fatal cancers over a long period oftime. Between 1950 and '85 among 76,000 peo-ple that were followed in the LSS study—life

span study—there's 300 excess cancers, whichis obviously not a lot, and this is pretty heavyexposure. So can you sort of put your worrieswithin the context of what's known from pasthigh exposures?

Ira HelfandOne thing I think to bear in mind is the

enormous difference in scale in terms of theamount of radiation involved. [TheFukushima complex] has as much radioactiv-ity as 1,000 Hiroshima-sized bombs...So thepotential amount of radiation that could beinvolved here if there is a large scale release,which there has not been yet, is literallyorders of magnitude greater than the amount

of radiation that wasreleased at Hiroshima.ª

David RichardsonYour first question

concerned where are thebest sources of measure-ments. That informationhas, to my knowledge,been released relativelysporadically, and there'sbeen occasional pressconferences noting dose

rates in certain areas for workers at theplants. There's not been a lot of informationprovided on environmental doses, and par-ticularly kind of the information that wouldhelp you to understand the characteristics ofthe different radionuclides.

Marvin ReznikoffAnd the reason is the monitors are locat-

ed right at the site. What monitors are avail-able have been put on the site, and the windblows in various directions. It's generallyfrom west to east, but you don't necessarilyhave a monitor where the plume is going. It'snot clear that they have monitors located allaround the circumference of this 30-kilome-ter area, so it's not surprising that we're notgetting the numbers that we want.

David RichardsonOne other follow-up regarding the life

span study of atomic bomb survivors. Itwas—there are several aspects to this studythat are important. It's an incredibly usefulstudy for understanding what the risks ofcancer are for people who have been exposedto radiation. It's worth noting that the studystarted in 1950 is when they enumerated acensus of survivors, so it's not giving you


Generally a chest X-ray is atenth of a millisievert, andwe are talking about 400millisieverts per hour, sothat's equivalent to 4,000chest X-rays per hour.

ª Each of the six reactors in the Fukushima com-plex has the equivalent of 40 Hiroshimas worthof isotopes, while the spent fuel pools eachhave three to four times that amount.


information about the risks of mortality fol-lowing an atomic bombing. It's telling youabout the risks of mortality among peoplewho survived five years after an atomicbombing and then were subsequently fol-lowed. So it's an unusual study in the sensethat follow up began quite a period of timeafter the exposure happened. So you mightimagine that there was—there was; you don'thave to imagine—an exceptional loss of lifebetween the point of exposure and when thestudy begins to follow up people.

Another thing to understand is that thedesign of the study was intentionally oversampling people based on different exposurecategories. So while there's 70,000 or actuallymore people who are enumerated in thecohort, most of them aren't high dose people.In fact, the majority of them are people whohad lower doses so that they could have acomparison to draw between people whohad higher and lower levels of exposure. Sothe net numbers of cancers among the five-year survivors of the atomic bombing is inpart a function of understanding the dosedistribution among those survivors.

Deborah Zabarenko, Reuters NewsI'm going to guess that I'm among those

who seem rather overwhelmed with theamount of information that we have andunderwhelmed with the amount of specifici-ty that we're having. A popular question toask these days seems to be what the worst-case scenario would be, so let me narrow thatdown. First, do we agree that the most trou-bling reactor is troublesome Reactor 4? And ifwe do, what's the worst-case scenario forwhat might happen there?

Marvin ReznikoffReactor 4 has—all the fuel was taken out

of the reactor, was put in the fuel pool. AndI'm just looking at it, and the fuel pool con-tains approximately 135 tons of nuclear fuelright now. It's likely that that material is—apparently there now have been two fires atthat particular location and they cannotresupply the water from the air, so it's notclear how they're going to keep that poolcool. So that pool may actually - this exother-mic reaction where zirconium actually heatsup the area further, workers cannot get closeto it because the direct gamma radiation com-ing off the pool is very high when the fuel isuncovered. Water in the pool serves asshielding and cooling, and when that water isgone the direct gamma radiation is very high.So it's not clear how they're going to recover,you know, that particular situation.

So I would have to go back and do thecalculation as to what would happen if 270-some tons of fuel actually began to burn. I

don't know the answer to that off the top ofmy head.

Deborah ZabarenkoI guess I want to make sure that I've

heard things right and that that's the mosttroubling area right now.

Ira HelfandWell, they're all kind of troubling, and

one other that is particularly cause of concernof course is Reactor 3, where the governmenthas reported that there's been some breach ofcontainment. And this is particularly disturb-ing because Reactor 3 is fueled with MOXfuel, not just uranium, and the possibility of avery significant plutonium release and subse-quent plutonium contamination of areaaround the plant, which would really makethis a very, very long term problem, is a bigissue at Reactor 3.

Deborah ZabarenkoHow long is this likely to play out in

terms of fires, in terms of nobody being ableto get in to resupply water? Is this a weeks-long problem? Is this a days-long problem? Isthis a months-long problem? I guess that'sone question I'd like to see answered.

Marvin ReznikoffWell, this is a several months problem.

The heat will be that high for months, highenough to cause an exothermic reaction. Sothis is not—this is going to be a continualproblem for months.

Tom Maugh, Los Angeles TimesYou say there's 135 tons of fuel in the

spent fuel pool. How much is in a reactoritself?

Marvin ReznikoffI don't really know the answer, but less

than 135. I don't have the answer right infront of me.

Tom MaughYou say there are not many monitors

around the plant. Were they destroyed by thetsunami or were they just not installed in thefirst place?

Marvin ReznikoffAgain, this is an assumption on my part,

that they were wiped out—this is a conjec-ture—and that they have temporary moni-tors located there right now. I'm not exactlycertain on that.

Hiramati Yoshotomi, Maniti NewspapersI have a question to Dr. Ira Helfand. You

were talking about contamination risk in

terms of isotopes, but Japanese...governmentsays it doesn't affect people's health, but yousaid [there are] serious potential risks. Socould you please elaborate more?

Ira HelfandTwo points I think need to be made. One

is that the repeated assurances that this doseis too low to affect people's health simplydoes not square with what we know aboutradiation, which is that no dose is safe, thatthere's no threshold dose, that any dose ofradiation increases somewhat your chance ofdeveloping a cancer.

The second point is that there is a verypoor correlation, as Dr. Richardson wasexplaining before, between the total bodydose of radiation that may be measured andthe dose that's delivered to a particular sus-ceptible tissue, so that if you are exposed to arelatively low dose of total body radiationbut you inhale some particles of plutoniumyou can still go ahead and get lung cancer.And obviously if the total body dose is high,the chances of your ingesting or inhaling aradioisotope are greater because there's moreof the material in the area. But this sort of lin-ear relationship between your dose of totalbody radiation and the effect on your healthis really lose when you're talking about lowdose radiation at some distance from thesource, because the internal dose may be verysignificant even if the total body dose of yourentire body is not. Did that explain it?

Hiramati Yoshotomi[What is] the long term effect [of the iso-

topes] you were talking about?

Ira HelfandI mean the various particles of the dif-

ferent isotopes that are released. There arenearly 200 different radioactive isotopesreleased potentially from the reactor. Thereare a few of them that are particularly impor-tant because of their biological activity andtheir radioactive properties: iodine-131because it concentrates in thyroid and causesthyroid cancer, strontium-90 because it con-centrates in bone and causes bone cancer andleukemia, cesium-137 because it's very preva-lent and is widely dispersed throughout yourbody in all tissues and therefore can irradiateany part of your body, and plutonium-239because of its extreme carcinogenicity in verylow doses and because of its very long half-life. And that causes primarily lung cancerwhen it's inhaled; if it's ingested it's usuallynot a problem. But if it's aerosolized and youinhale the plutonium you are at significantrisk for lung cancer at a very, very low doseof inhalation, which would give your—if

they were measuring the total body dosefrom that plutonium might be very low. Butthe dose delivered to the vulnerable part ofthe tubes leading to your lungs, the bronchi,would be enough to cause cancer.

Marvin ReznikoffIt's important to point out just so that

we're in the same ballpark with units the gen-eral background radiation—except forradon—is on the order of 1,000 microsievertsper year. So whatever the Japanese govern-ment is telling you, you need to compare it tothe microsieverts per year, not the microsiev-erts per hour.

Jenny Uechi, Vancouver ObserverI've been keeping in contact with

Japanese relatives and reading up on theJapanese news as well, but they seem to bequite reassured that it's not going to affecttheir health at this moment. In your view,would the radiation released at present beaffecting the health—you know, is this true,is what I'd like to know. Are they safe inplaces like Tokyo and in the south of Japan interms of radiation affecting people's health?

Ira HelfandThe doses of radiation that have been

released so far in this accident have been rel-atively small, and the health effects to peopleas far away as Tokyo presumably is quitelow, but it's not zero. The real concern is thatthe situation remains completely out of con-trol at this point and that the releases that wemight see in the coming days could result ina much higher exposure to populations evenas far away as Tokyo.

Jenny UechiBut the government seems to have been

reassuring people that there is no need forleaving Japan or leaving places near that areaat this moment, but do you feel that there'sbeen not enough information about the risksin the Japanese media so far?

Ira HelfandWell, it's very difficult to remove large

numbers of people from an area. I think thegovernment has acted prudently in removingpeople from the evacuation zone out to 20kilometers and taking additional precautionsout to 30 kilometers. Hopefully that will beadequate, and since you don't know whichway the wind's going to blow it's hard toknow where else you would evacuatebeyond the immediate area. The danger, ofcourse, is if there's a major release where thewinds are blowing from northeast to south-west. That radiation's going to blow down



onto Tokyo, and we just can't predict that. AsProfessor Reznikoff was saying, this process,this radiation leak could go on for months.During that time, there may be periods whenthe wind is blowing in the wrong directionand large amounts of radiation are released.This is a terribly difficult situation with a lotof uncertainties as to how exactly it's going toplay out.

Sam Tranum, Nuclear Intelligence WeeklyI noticed that you had a number for the

amount of spent fuel in the pool at Unit 4,and I'm just wondering where you got thatnumber. I was hoping to find out how muchspent fuel is in the other pools onite.

Marvin ReznikoffReactor 1—this is what's in the fuel pool.

Reactor 1, 50—this is all in tons—Reactor 2,82; Reactor 3, 88; Reactor 4, 135; Reactor 5,142; Reactor 6, 151, and in the separate fuelpool that's sitting at ground level, 1,097 tons.There's also some material in dry storage, Ishould mention: 70 tons.

Sam TranumI also wanted to ask you about the pos-

sibility of a zirconium fire. I've heard somepeople talk about this, but I was reading theNEI fact sheet on the spent fuel pool situationand they said that studies performed by theDepartment of Energy indicate that it is vir-tually impossible to ignite zirconium tubing.So where's the disconnect between peopletalking about how if the pool drains youcould have a zirconium fire and the NEI say-ing that's not possible?

Marvin ReznikoffIt appears possible.

Ira HelfandThe disconnect seems to be reality. It

appears that this has happened to somedegree already.

Sam TranumIf there is a zirconium fire, how do you

put it out? Does just pouring water on it putit out, if that's possible?

Marvin ReznikoffYes, cool it down below the tempera-

ture. Yes.

Sandi Doughton, The Seattle TimesYou were talking about the kind of lack

of monitoring even immediately around thereactors. If there is a large release andradionuclides begin migrating, who's goingto be tracking that?

David RichardsonI think that's a very good question. Right

now there's - as far as I understand they havemalfunctioning monitoring posts, and theNuclear and Industry Safety Agency doesn'tknow when they'll be back up in operation.So it would not be monitoring in a sense ofhaving environmental radiation monitorsonsite and deriving your exposure estimatesfrom that sort of information. It would bemuch less ideal than that. As I said, it mightrequire doing an inventory of what wasreleased, trying to figure out the timesequence of releases, and then taking intoaccount the topography and wind and doingkind of local dispersion modeling, which is along, drawn-out process. It's not somethingthat would be done promptly, which meansthat you're left with sort of crude estimates ofkind of the average - you know, averagereleases over large kind of circles drawn, con-centric circles. And that's not really reflectiveof the exposure that a particular individual ina particular place may receive. So yes, there'sa huge gap right now in the information kindof—as far as I can tell on what can be done todo environmental dose estimation or recon-struction.

Sandi DoughtonObviously the risk is much less to peo-

ple in the United States, but in the case of aplume coming across the Pacific Ocean, onceagain, do you have to wait until it, you know,hits—goes above onshore monitors, or isthere likely to be any kind of aerial monitor-ing at that point?

Marvin ReznikoffThe time for material to get across the

ocean is on the order of five to eight days. Idon't know whether that's useful to you, butonce you begin to see whatever results arecoming—whatever material is coming over tothe United States in that time period. It lookslike from the NOAA maps that Alaska andthen Canada will be first, and then - and thenas—you'll get down to Seattle. And we shouldbe able to detect what's coming across.

David RichardsonMy sense right now is that, I mean, most

of our focus of attention and concern is morelocal than that, and that the exposures andthe environmental contamination of greatestconcern right now that we're talking aboutare those that are not distributed globally butthose that are distributed locally in Japan.

Ira HelfandI think it's obviously understandable

that people here in the United States are con-cerned about potential risks here, but I think

the real lesson for us to draw from this iswhat's happening in Japan, and do we courtthe same risk here in the United States from afuture accident at one of our own plants.

Marilynn Marchione, Associated PressDr. Helfand, I find your biography that

says you have made a career of writing -you're an internal medicine doctor. You'vemade a career of writing about the risks ofnuclear power, and I just would like all threeof you to please state if you have any person-al opinions or if Physicians for SocialResponsibility has a position for or againstnuclear power, nuclear plants—just want tohave all this on the table.

Ira HelfandPSR is very clear in its position. We

believe that nuclear power poses an unac-ceptable risk to public health, both because ofthe danger of catastrophic accident, whichwe're witnessing now in Japan, and becauseof the unsolved problem of what to do withthe long-term storage of waste, and perhapsmost importantly because of the extraordi-nary role that nuclear power plays in further-ing the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Wehave been in the United States promoting thedissemination of nuclear power technologyaround the world, and that technology hasbeen in use in the nuclear weapons programsof a number of countries that we are nowvery worried about. And for all of these rea-sons PSR since 1978 has had a clear andexplicit position against the further develop-ment of nuclear power, which position hasbeen supported by broad segments of theAmerican medical community.

Allison Rose Levy, The Huffington PostUnderstanding your point that the most

immediate concerns are local and in Japan,but also kind of extending a little bit the ques-tion from the reporter from Seattle, if thisexposure continues and as we're told overmany months, you know, this is going to con-tinue to develop or, you know, if a worst casescenario evolves, would there be - you know,not simply toward the West Coast of theUnited States, which would be, you know,the most immediate sort of next recipient ofplumes or anything coming in via air pat-terns, but in terms of, you know, the entireglobe even, you know, with these kinds ofmaterials and gases circulating, would therebe any overall global effect, you know, interms of water, air, overall radioactivity? Iknow this is a really big question, but just toask it, if this process in this location kind ofcontinues unabated or worsens.

David RichardsonI can answer in a sort of historical sense,

is that yes, we currently have—some part ofwhat we call our background radiation expo-sure involves the release of radionuclidesfrom the use of nuclear technologies. So we'vehad a history of nuclear weapons testing, in afew cases nuclear weapons use in Hiroshimaand Nagasaki. We've had unintentionalreleases of radionuclides at commercial plantsand weapons factories, and they've con-tributed to what you would say are detectablelevels, albeit small, of radionuclides in the soiland the air and the water. So yes, presumablywe'll make a contribution to that.

I think the primary concern right now isnot about kind of the global background levelof radiation and an incremental increase inthat so much as—from my point of view any-way—the kind of more local concerns inJapan.

Allison Rose LevyCan I ask a follow up to...the statement

that it's not the level but the level of dose thatis absorbed by a particular tissue or part ofthe body? Where would one find some of thescientific research articles that talk aboutthat? Because it seems that part of, you know,the kind of health communication messagearound all of this is the sense that it has to bea high dose, and—you know, so understand-ing how a small low dose in the wrong placecan lead to a health impact? Where would bethe existing body of literature on that?

David RichardsonOne place to look would be the National

Academies—what's called the BEIR VIIreport, Health Effects of Exposure to LowLevels of Ionizing Radiation. The most recentone is the BEIR VII, and it would lay out thegeneral principles for understanding that atleast the way that we're - most current radia-tion protection models are developed is withthe idea that the carcinogenic risks of ioniz-ing radiation—the probability with the likeli-hood that you're going to cause a cancer isproportional to the dose of ionizing radia-tion, so that as you increase exposure to radi-ation you're going to increase the likelihoodthat you'll cause damage to a cell, which willbe a stepping stone to a subsequent cancer.Now that's sort of the idea that there's not athreshold, that there's a certain level wherewe say there's no health effect; rather, we saythat the risk is proportional to the dose.

The question about whether the properdose metric to talk about is an estimate ofyour total dose divided by your total mass asopposed to a dose to a specific organ getsmore into a more complicated field, which is



kind of how you describe the radiation dosesfor internally deposited radionuclides. Andthere they tend to irradiate locally; that is,they're taking up and they'll reside in a pieceof tissue or a target organ and they'll just irra-diate locally, or they'll deposit most of thedose to an area that's smaller, and so youwant to understand the dose to that organ.And most of the effects will be observed inthe organs that have been locally irradiated.Now there are some exceptions to that, thingslike tritium, which tend to move around likeradiated water, and they can, like water inyour body, be distributed almost across thewhole body. But those are sort of exceptional.

Marvin ReznikoffJust to add to that, for example, stron-

tium-90 would concentrate in the bone, andthen you would be concerned about theleukemia effect. Iodine would concentrate inthe thyroid so you'd be concerned about thy-roid cancer.

Jesse Emspak, International BusinessTimes

You mentioned earlier the spent fuelpools and how much is in them and thatthere's a risk of zirconium fire. And we hadthe question regarding the NEI position thatyou can't ignite zirconium alloy, and I waswondering is this—and you're saying the dis-connect is reality. And I just wanted to makesure that—do we know for sure that that'swhat's burning, and if so what the evidencewas that that's the case? And then the sort ofnext operative question is how many plantsin the US are using a similar design and howmany of those are located near fault lines?'Cause it seems to me that if you've got, youknow, what amounts to a great big swim-ming pool full of spent fuel elevated youneed pumps to keep it going. So, you know,how many in the plants here might end upbeing in a similar situation if they get hit witha very large earthquake?

Ira HelfandWell, there are 23 plants in the United

States that are exactly of the same design asthe Fukushima Reactor 1, and I'm not surewhich of those are located near identifiedfault lines. I think that one of the more inter-esting articles that's appeared in the last cou-ple days was sort of an assessment of whichreactors are most at risk of earthquake dam-age, and it turns out it's not the ones inCalifornia. It's Indian Point north of NewYork City, and then a reactor here inMassachusetts were the two that were felt tohave the highest risk of earthquake becauseof the relatively less strenuous design criteria

that they were held to, so—to answer thatpart of your question.

David RichardsonRegarding the spent fuel pools, I think I

would refer you—there's a really useful reportcalled Safety and Security of Commercial SpentNuclear Fuel Storage. It's National Academies,at press in 2006, so it's by the NationalResearch Council of the National Academies.And it's got a chapter—it's the third chapter ofthat book where they lay out in detail kind ofhow what they call a cladding fire will evolve,and they describe both the chemistry of it anddescribe scenarios. So I think it's actually—it'snot really contested.

Jesse EmspakWell, the follow-up I'm going to ask, the

situation now then, we've got—you're sayingit's going to last for a certain amount - I mean,you have a situation—how long would itordinarily sort of burn for if you can't put anymore water on it? I mean, there's only a lim-ited amount of time I think they can keep theseawater going, and that's pretty corrosiveanyway. So the question then becomes what -I guess, again, you're sort of asking worstcase. Okay, let the stuff burn. You were say-ing it's several weeks that that could keepgoing and releasing stuff into the air?

Marvin ReznikoffThe fuel in the fuel pools in Reactor 4, 5,

and 6 is relatively fresh because they shutdown those reactors, they removed all thefuel from the reactors and put them into thefuel pool, so that fuel is hotter. If you're ask-ing the question at what point will it not—will the fuel pool not be able to reach a tem-perature of 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit wherethis exothermic reaction takes place, I'd haveto, you know, do some calculations. I don'tknow the answer to that off the top of myhead. But this fuel is relatively fresh that's inReactor 4 fuel pool.

Ira HelfandPart of the problem here is that there

might be a sequence of bad events. Therecould be a fire at one of the reactor pools - oneof the storage pools this week, but the need tocool the other pools is ongoing so we couldhave another problem three or four weeksfrom now if at that point we lose the ability toadequately cool the pools. And the problemsof increasing radiation—radioactive contami-nation around and within the plant site aregoing to make it increasingly difficult, noteasier, for people to move about in there anddo work and continue to control the situa-tion. And I think that's what got everybody

who's working on trying to actually controlthe situation so disturbed and upset, becausethere seems to be no way of quickly bringingthis to closure, and the longer it persists themore potential problems can develop.

Marvin ReznikoffThe fuel pool is not located at the same

level as where they are putting water into thereactor. The fuel pool is located 70 or 80 feetup and not where they're trying to relieve thepressure in the reactors. So it makes a moredifficult situation to actually do both.

Nancy Gaarder, Omaha, Nebraska World-Herald

Ira, you said that each reactor has theequivalent of 1,000 Hiroshima bombs, thespent fuel pools several times that, and so thepotential release is orders of magnitude. Areyou saying that there's a plausible possibilityover the next coming months that we couldhave Hiroshima-type releases of many thou-sand times? And then if that were to happen,what can we expect in the US and whatshould we be doing? And how would weknow? How would we know that it - youtalked about we'd know from Alaska toCanada, but how will we know that?

Ira HelfandWell, we certainly - we could have

releases that are 1,000 times as much asHiroshima. That's a real possibility. AtChernobyl, I believe it was about 400Hiroshima equivalents of radiation that werereleased, and we're dealing here with, youknow, four reactors and five storage pools.There is an enormous, enormous inventory ofradioactive material here that is potentially atrisk. How would we know about it? Well, wewill be monitoring—I mean, if there's a majorrelease that's going to be picked up veryquickly, as the spikes have been picked upover the last couple of days. And I assumethat the United States has the technical meansto track a plume of radiation even over thePacific. We have planes with sensors that arepart—and we have the whole system put inplace to detect radioactive releases fromnuclear tests as part of the regimen that wasestablished to implement the ComprehensiveTest Ban Treaty should it ever go into effect.So there are the technical means to monitorand track these releases.

Nancy GaarderAnd then the follow up question would

be is there anything Americans should bedoing to prepare in any way? I know we hearabout people snapping up those pills on theWest Coast. And then if you had family in

Tokyo, would you ask them to leave?

Ira HelfandIf I had family in Tokyo I'm not sure

what I would tell them to do, and I'm not surewhere I would urge them to go to. And Iknow that's a really bad answer to a verylegitimate question, but that's the best I cando on that one.

Marvin ReznikoffLet me just add to what was said. I just

wanted everyone to understand why thereare so much more inventory in these reactorthan released by the Hiroshima bomb. TheHiroshima bomb had fissions on the order ofmilliseconds, and that produced the cesiumand strontium. But these reactors have fuelthat's sitting in the reactor for three years con-tinuing to fission, so there are many more fis-sions and much more fission products thanoccurred in the Hiroshima bomb.

David RichardsonIf I could follow up on that also, I'd like

to just make clear we're not saying that anuclear explosion is going to occur. We'retalking about the mass of material which isthere, and it would be distributed in a waythat would be different than happened inHiroshima and Nagasaki, where there was aprompt explosion. More likely what's hap-pening here is that there are fires, a lot of thematerial may stay in place or may burn andsome of it aerosolize; the comparison beingmade is in terms of volume, not in terms ofthe type of explosion that's going to occur orsomething like that. These are fires and notnuclear explosions that we're talking about.

Sandi Doughton, The Seattle TimesDo you know if any of the reactors in the

United States use the MOX fuel? And the sec-ond part of that, how dangerous is even aslight exposure to plutonium? I mean, canyou get lung cancer from a single particle?

Ira HelfandI can answer that second question. You

can get lung cancer from a single particle ofplutonium, depending on how large it is. Thecarcinogenic dose is felt to be measured inmicrograms, millionths of a gram.

Sandi DoughtonDo we have any MOX fuel reactors in

the United States?

Ira HelfandMy understanding is that we do not

have any commercial reactors that use MOXfuel. There may be research reactors, but I do



not believe that we have any commercialreactors using MOX fuel. But I'm not 100 per-cent certain of that.

David Brown, The Washington PostJust getting back to these estimates of

the amount of radioactivity that was releasedin various events, I have in front of me theHuman Radiation Experiments report—thefinal report of the President's advisory com-mittee in 1996. There's a chart, and it men-tions that at Chernobyl approximately 20 mil-lion curies were released. And it says in thefirst A-bombs, Hiroshima and Nagasaki,approximately 250 million curies released.But Dr. Helfand or someone said earlier thatChernobyl was, like, 400 times Hiroshima—so anyway, could you clarify that?

Ira HelfandI'm not sure of those figures, and I

believe that the release at Chernobyl was sub-

stantially larger than Hiroshima. Part of thedifference is that much of the radiation atHiroshima was direct radiation emanatingfrom the explosion itself as opposed to theisotopes that were distributed afterwards.There is a direct blast of radiation that comesout when there is a fission explosion, andwhat we're talking about at Chernobyl is theradioactive isotopes with their longer half-lives that are distributed from an accident ofthat type. There was not a nuclear explosionat Chernobyl and so there was not that burstof radiation coming out directly from theexplosion itself.

Marvin ReznikoffSo the comparison is with the longer

lived material, such as cesium, and if youlook at that and compare Chernobyl to theHiroshima blast, then the numbers are great-ly different.

Our heartfelt sympathies go to all theJapanese people in these most testingof times following the earthquakesand tsunami of March 11th. Indeed,

were it not for the impact on their nuclearpower industry we would be marvelling atthe civilized nature of the way Japanese soci-ety has responded to the loss of billions ofdollars' investments and thousands ofhuman lives. But the still-unfolding events atFukushima Daiichi throw a different light,and the global implications from the nucleardisaster are very profound even though thedeath toll is, as yet, very low. Radioactivematerials are still leaking and the calculatedamount of released radiation has beenrevised drastically upwards to about a tenththat estimated from Chernobyl in1986, thebiggest nuclear “accident” yet.

Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco),assembled in 1951 to help reconstruct Japanafter World War 2, is the largest electricpower company in Asia and a major compo-nent of Japan's very significant nuclear econ-omy.1 About a third of Japan's energy supplycomes from nuclear power. Tepco does nothave a sound reputation and questions havebeen raised about its democratic and societalaccountability.2,3 In 2002, safety reports

from three nuclear power stations wereapparently faked,3,4 and in 2007 Tepco wasforced to shut the Kashiwazaki-KariwaNuclear Power Plant (the biggest complex inJapan) after the Niigata-Chuetsu-OkiEarthquake on the western side of the coun-try caused initially unreported radiationleaks.5 The plant was off-line until 2009 andTepco posted losses of 150.11 billion yen in2007/8 and expected a loss of 280 billion yen($2.60 billion) for 2008/9.6

The video-clips of the blasts in ReactorsNos. 1 to 4 at Fukushima in mid-March thisyearª give some indication of the scale ofdamage at these old-style 1970s-built boilingwater reactors. Nevertheless Tepco contin-ued to issue falsely reassuring reports forseveral days until human error—in all likeli-hood brought on by exhaustion—causedthem on March 28 to overestimate theradionuclide contamination of the water inthe turbine halls by a hundred-fold.7 Thedetection of traces of I-131 in the air over theUK reported the same day indicate, howeverslight these traces were, the degree of atmos-pheric contamination—enough to spreadover 10,000 miles—and that Tepco's control


What may we learnfrom Fukushima?

Frank Boulton

Medact's Chair Frank Boulton, the chair of IPPNW’s British affiliate, Medact, is a retiredconsultant physician with the National Blood Service, Southampton University HospitalTrust. The following essay, written in April 2011 while events at Fukushima were stillunfolding, considers the implications for the UK's nuclear power industry and revisitsthe health effects of the Chernobyl disaster 25 years ago.

ª(see http://video.ft.com/v/825918290001/Fukushima-nuclear-plant-explosion)

§

of the train of events was being tested tobreaking point.

The leak of radioactive water into thetrenches of Reactor No. 2 (and the surround-ing sea) was only plugged on April 6—aftergreat difficulties8 and as yet uncertain per-manence. The “Mark I” container design forthese reactors has been criticised as being“weak”:9 these containment vessels deterio-rate through continuousradiation exposure andcareful monitoring is need-ed. Furthermore, the localauthorities apparentlyignored expert warning in2005 about the dangers ofallowing too much spentfuel to accumulate in theplants' cooling ponds.2Plutonium now detected inthe soil near Reactor No. 3indicates a melt-down fromits fuel, which fromSeptember 2010 had been ofthe “MOX” type9 (see com-ment on MOX below). Allfour reactors must bedecommissioned and thefuel rods removed (andreprocessed): but they can-not be dismantled for atleast 40 years as too much radioactivitywould be released. They may well need to beentombed long-term and at great expense.The fuel rods in reactors 5 and 6 were shutdown successfully but there are eventualplans to re-activate them.8

Yet advocates of civil nuclear power,who include Barack Obama and GeorgeMonbiot,10,11 persist in promoting greaterexpansion with new “safer” installations.How much Japanese society will continue tosupport nuclear energy remains to be seenbut it will be very difficult for Japan to disen-tangle itself from a rampant addiction whichits political system and societal structuresseem impotent to control.3

In the UK, Sir David King—former gov-ernmental chief scientific advisor—advocatesstill expanding our civil nuclear industry andbuilding a new plant at Sellafield (at £3bn) forre-processing nuclear waste into “MOX”(mixed uranium/plutonium oxide).12 Kingproposes that the current but defective plantat Sellafield be replaced, and attributes itsnotorious failures to “faulty design.” Spentwaste is very hot to handle while MOX is rel-atively safe and, from the viewpoint ofnuclear power advocates, has the addedvirtue that MOX manufacture consumesspent waste from uranium-fuelled powerplants thereby reducing hazardous stocks.

King also states—with some, but limited, jus-tification (in that coal mining and drilling foroil at sea are notoriously hazardous)—thatnuclear power workers have a much loweraccidental death rate than conventionalpower workers,12 but he ignores the unique-ly silent start and horrifically irreversiblenature of radiation poisoning and also thehealth hazards of uranium mining (which his

reprocessing schemewould, at least in theory,reduce).

However, MOX isinherently more dangerousradio-actively than urani-um, is readily converted toweapons-grade materialsand accurate quantitativeaccounting for its produc-tion is impossible (Barnabyand Kemp, 200713). Thus,large scale MOX productionfrom and for a global“nuclear renaissance”would encourage nuclearweapons proliferation bymaking it much harder tocontrol unauthorized accessto weapons-grade materi-als. It doesn't even need tobe used in a fission explo-

sion as it would make an effective “dirtybomb.” Barnaby and Kemp also point out—very tellingly—that MOX-based energy pro-duction systems are far from carbon-free.

A MOX-based nuclear renaissance willstill produce waste—indeed in vastlyincreased amounts: to deal with this Kingadvocates disposal through “geological stor-age.”12 This would be in vitrified blocks trap-ping the waste and hopefully making it inac-cessible to the general environment.Although theoretically attractive, major tech-nical problems have yet to be solved, andvast amounts of industrial energy would berequired for the vitrification—either fromcarbon-intensive combustion or by highintensity (and power-consuming) electric arcfurnaces which have other adverse environ-mental impacts.14 So any such approach towaste disposal would add great expense andstill leave a poisoned legacy for hundreds ofgenerations.

Observers such as Hamish McRae, lessobsessed with scientific and technologicalfixes and taking a long-term financial out-look, offer a different strategy based on non-nuclear renewables and more efficient con-servation.15

Revisiting ChernobylThe Chernobyl reactor had no contain-


How much Japanesesociety will continueto support nuclear

energy remains to beseen but it will be very

difficult for Japan todisentangle itself froma rampant addiction

which its political sys-tem and societal struc-tures seem impotent

to control.

ment facility16 so its burning graphite fuel-rods were exposed and ejected more radia-tion than that so far coming from Fukushima.

In reference 16 there are claims that ear-lier accounts of the numbers of casualtiesfrom Chernobyl following April 1986 wereexaggerated. However, two authoritativereports in April 2006 (Fairlie and Sumner;17and IPPNW-Germany, updated 8 April,2011)18 challenge many ofthe conclusions of theUN/WHO report on theHealth Effects of theChernobyl Accident19which gives a total of 9,000related cancer deaths com-pared with 900,000 expect-ed cancer deaths in theaffected region over thesame period. Fairlie andSumner predict up to 60,000excess deaths from cancer,and the IPPNW reportsdescribe many Chernobyl-related deaths andmuch morbidity not due to cancer. A pressrelease from the International Agency onResearch in Cancer (IARC, part of the WHO)of 20 April 2006, stated that “the cancer bur-den from Chernobyl cannot at present bedirectly measured” but referred to work onprediction models based on other studies,particularly the survivors of Hiroshima andNagasaki. The press release went on to pre-dict that by 2065 a mean of about 16,000 can-cer deaths—with an “uncertainty interval” ofbetween 6,700 to 38,000—may be expecteddue to radiation from the Chernobyl acci-dent, and a mean of 16,000 cases of thyroidcancer (most of which would respond totreatment) and of 25,000 for other cancers. Italso noted that these figures would representa very small proportion of the total cancerdeaths.20

Fairlie and Sumner state that theUN/WHO report was conducted meticu-lously by respected experts, but they alsopoint out inadequacies—for example restrict-ing the study area to Russia, Belarus andUkraine and under-quoting the numbers ofthe “liquidators” who physically cleaned upthe reactor site. “Only” 9,000 excess cancerdeaths still represent 9,000 avoidabletragedies even though being just 1% of thedeaths expected. Bob Gale, the Americantransplant specialist sent to graft bone mar-row to those receiving supra-lethal radiation,such as the helicopter crews dowsing theopenly burning Chernobyl core (none sur-vived), gives a valuably informative medicalhistory.21

It should be noted that observations onnon-human life currently around Chernobyl

indicate profoundly adverse ecologicaleffects associated with the excessive radia-tion.22

All these accounts should be consideredafresh when deciding the future of nuclearpower. This is even though the reactor atChernobyl had no “containment” and that

lessons may be learnt fromthe vulnerable “Mark I”container designs atFukushima. Leaks appearto be continuing whichmakes it likely that upwardrevisions of the calculatedtotal radiation exposurefrom Fukushima will con-tinue. The abysmal reputa-tion of Tepco and the wayin which it became a virtu-ally unaccountable inde-pendent hegemony to

which Japanese society is so dependent isnow very apparent, and a profound lesson toall societies of any political persuasion.However, massive and unaccountable irre-sponsibility is not confined to the nuclearindustries—military or civil, banking and thearms trade also exemplify global fields ofhuman endeavour where good regulatoryintent has cracked under the pressure of“progressive” instincts and the drive for“growth.”

Nuclear advocates will argue that theirinstallations can be regulated into safety. DrMike Weightman, the highly respected Headof the UK's independent safety regulatorunder the Health and Safety Executive, hasbeen charged by the government to issue aninterim and then a full report on the implica-tions of Fukushima for the UK and has invit-ed comments.23 This exercise is not meant tohelp decide whether the UK has a nuclearfuture but to define improved control, and assuch is very important (see ref 24 for an infor-mative response from a nuclear scepticorganisation). However, although it is per-fectly feasible to design much improved sys-tems for nuclear safety—and even puttingthe costs issue on one side—it is a commonexperience that no regulatory system cancompletely protect humankind from evenwell-established health hazards: oft-quotedanalogies in, for example, blood transfusionand the pharmaceutical and airline indus-tries, support this attitude and hence theapplication of the “precautionary principle.”

Hence, while offering our most heart-felt consolations to the Japanese people andrecognising that there are no major geologicalfault-lines in Britain, we need still to heed the


[I]t is a common expe-rience that no regula-tory system can com-

pletely protecthumankind from evenwell-established health

hazards...

§§§

lessons of human frailty and the unpre-dictability of major events affecting theintegrity of nuclear power plants. The betterappreciation of 1) the nature of unexpectedlife-threatening leaks and accidents atnuclear power stations, reinforced byFukushima; 2) the costs of dealing with allthe sequelae of nuclear power includingimproved safety, build and waste disposal;and 3) the increased insecurity generatedfrom vastly higher global stocks of MOX,provides the framework for a particularlypotent case

against a global nuclear renais-sance and

for a healthy non-nuclear worldbased on entirely different economiesand life-styles.

Even though establishing such a worldis probably the greatest challenge yet to facehumankind and would entail significant suf-fering, this would be much preferred tonuclear annihilation.

References1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Elec-tric_Power_Company) (accessed 7 April 2011). 2. Mycle Schneider: 23 March 2011.http://fukushima.greenaction-japan.org/2011/03/23/mycle-schneider-nuclear-cloud-comes-with-aura-of-arrogance (accessed 14April 2011).3. The Worden Report. http://thewordenre-port.blogspot.com/2011/03/ethical-meltdown-in-japan-on-toxicity.html. (accessed 14 April2011).4. http://business.highbeam.com/435557/arti-cle-1G1-102917548/lead-hiranuma-visits-niiga-ta-apologize-tepco-scandal (accessed 7 April2011).5. www.grmcat.com/images/Niigata-Chuetsu-Oki-Japan-Report.pdf (accessed 7 April 2011). 6. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2008/07/28/sppage023-t91589-oisbi-idUKT9158920080728(accessed 7 April 2011).7. http://alienatedinvancouver.blogspot.com/2011/03/what-youve-got-to-understand-about.html (accessed 7 April 2011).8. Japan's nuclear reactor: radioactive leaks;www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12911190 (accessed 7 April 2011).9. http://modernsurvivalblog.com/nuclear/fukushima-reactor-no-2-the-most-vulnerable-design/(accessed 7 April 2011). 10. www.marketwatch.com/story/text-of-obama-speech-on-energy-2011-03-30?siteid=rss&rss=1.11. George Monbiot; Guardian, 22 March 2011www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nuclear-japan-fukushima.

12. www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/mar/29/nuclear-power-safe-sir-david-king.13. Barnaby F and Kemp J, 2007. Secure Energy?Civil Nuclear Power, Security and GlobalWarming. Oxford Research Group. ISBN 978-0-9552846-1-8.14. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_arc_furnace#Environmental_issues (accessed 14April 2011).15. Hamish McRae. The Fukushima effect glob-ally, will be colossal. Independent 30 March2011.16. www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/chernobyl.html (accessed 7 April 2011).17. Fairlie, I and Sumner D, 2006. The OtherReport on Chernobyl (TORCH) pdf available onrequest.18. http://shop.ippnw.de and www.ippnweu-rope.org/commonFiles/pdfs/Atomenergie/ippnw_bulletin_web.pdf.19. Report of the UN Chernobyl Forum ExpertGroup "Health". Health Effects of theChernobyl Accident and Special Health CareProgrammes. Geneva 2006.20. IARC Press Release No. 168.www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2006/pr168.html.21. RP Gale and T Hauser, 1988. Final Warning:The Legacy of Chemobyl. Warner Books; NewYork.22. AP Møler and TA Mousseau, 2011 Rigorousmethodology for studies of effects of radiationfrom Chernobyl on animals… Biology Lettershttp://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/5/3/356.abstract. 23. www.hse.gov.uk/nuclear/news/2011/mar-japan.htm (accessed 14 April 2011). Seealso the attachments on this report.24 http://nuclearinfo.org/view/policy/gov-ernment/a2132.


Ihave been asked to explain as diagnosticradiologist briefly the difference between

radiation used in diagnostic x-ray andnuclear medicine studies and the radia-

tion being emanated from a failing nuclearpower plant as is unfortunately now happen-ing in Japan.

Different types of ionizing radiationsRadiation is called “ionizing” because it

can harm the cell nuclei in living tissues,cause disease and even death depending onthe dose. Radiation occurs naturally in cer-tain rocky areas in the world and is beingemitted by certain substances called radioac-tive isotopes . The most powerful of thoseionizing radiations is gamma radiation whichis used for diagnostic x-ray and for radio-therapy but also in nuclear power plants forelectricity production.

Radiation in medicineAs gamma radiation can penetrate tis-

sues, it has the advantage—if used with cau-tion and in reasonably small dosages—tomake the inner organs of the human body vis-ible. This is done in two ways: either by usingan x-ray tube to send gamma-rays through

the body or by injecting into the body verysmall doses of a short lived radioactiveradioisotope, usually technetium. The infor-mation compiled through the use of comput-ers will be transmitted via x-ray films or CTsensors or gamma cameras to give informa-tion about different organs and measure accu-mulation of technetium or other radioisotopesin the body.

Being short lived, all injected radioactivematerial will have disintegrated and beeneliminated by the patient within minutes orhours. Whether using external radiation in x-ray machines or CT scanners or whetherinjecting radioactive substances in nuclearmedicine studies, radiologist always useminute doses which are known not to harmthe patient. Every patient seen by them needsa diagnosis and radiation may be used if med-ically justified: the risk of missing a patient'sserious disease is much higher than the riskpotentially induced to him by the burden ofionizing radiation. Occasionally other non-radiological methods, i.e., non ionizing, suchas ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging,can also be used to render a diagnosis.


Radiation in medicineand in nuclear power plants:the same but very different

Andreas Nidecker

Dr. Andi Nidecker, a specialist in radiology in Basel, Switzerland and a member of theboard of IPPNW, was asked to explain for non-specialists how exposure to ionizingradiation affects human health, and what factors need to be considered when radioiso-topes are used in diagnostic and therapeutic medical procedures. Dr. Nidecker pro-duced the following fact sheet, which IPPNW made available to its affiliates for publiceducation and to answer questions from the media.

§


Radiation in the nuclear power industry In a nuclear power plant radiation

effects occur in so called fuel rods made byuranium. Uranium exists in different formsand breaks down in the fuel rods by emittingGamma rays just like in medicine. But thisradiation is much stronger and is used to heatwater which then produces steam in order topropel a steam turbine which in turn pro-duces electricity. As long as the radioactivefuel roads are covered by water this processoccurs in a controlled manner and the waterkeeps on being heated and produces steam.

So far this was considered an elegantalthough expensiveway to produce electric-ity. However, there aresafety issues involvedand this makes nuclearpower a potentiallyrisky method to pro-duce electricity. If theradioactive fuel rods arenot persistently keptcool, they start to heatup and increase thetemperature and pres-sure in the innermostlocation of the powerplant. This so-calledcore or inner contain-ment may break under pressure if the cool-ing is not maintained. The fuel rods then dis-integrate and a large amount of radioactivitywill be blown out into the atmosphere.

Radioactive isotopes in the fuel rods,such as uranium, plutonium and cesium, aremuch longer lived than the radioisotopesused in medicine. They will continue to sendout harmful radiation as long as they arearound. These particles can be blown asclouds over oceans and continents, but oncethey land somewhere, they still will emitradiation and will do this sometimes formany years e.g. the strontium and cesiumisotopes for about 50 years, yet plutonium40,000 years and uranium over 400,000 years.

As these radioisotopes can penetrate theground, they will accumulate in the waterand will be ingested by humans or animalsthrough plants: once inside the body, theywill build up in inner body organs, just like

the short lived isotopes used in nuclear med-icine studies. However, due to their muchlonger life, these isotopes may submit thebody or a particular organ e.g. the thyroidgland, to continued harmful radiation.Through this process, the cells in the bodycould experience genetic damage, heart dis-ease and malignant tumours.

Today it is known that even small dosesor so called low level radiation, if ingestedrepeatedly as by the people living in radioac-tive contaminated regions , can be harmfuland lead to disease.

Extremely helpful andextremely harmful

In summary onecan say that radiationused in the core of anuclear power plant isdangerous, obviouslymore so when set free inan accident: it is pro-duced by highly radioac-tive corpuscular sub-stances which are longlived. As the radiationcomes from particles,these may be blown overlarge distances and canpotentially be ingested ,

unnoticed by humans, and lead to chronicradiation diseases including cancer. On theother hand, the radiation produced by an x-ray tube affects the body for milliseconds tominutes and that used in nuclear medicinedisappears from the body within minutes tohours.

Radiation used in medicine has the ben-eficial effect of allowing early detection of aserious disease, whereas radiation from thepower plant accident had a high chance toproduce serious disease and death, depend-ing on the doses experienced. In conclusion,radiation is of the same type in medicine andnuclear power but very different: small dosesare used in a controlled way in medicine anddangerous long lived radioisotopes areblown into the atmosphere in an uncon-trolled way in a nuclear accident.

Radiation used in medicinehas the beneficial effect of

allowing early detection of aserious disease, whereasradiation from the powerplant accident had a high

chance to produce seriousdisease and death...

As we all know, Japan is sufferingthrough a horrific disaster caused bythe 9.0 earthquake, tsunami, andprobable meltdowns at the

Fukushima nuclear power plants.Unfortunately, this crisis will not end anytime soon. I have already heard a variety offears that young clients have expressed asthey grapple with this tragedy. Children andteens who have, themselves, experiencedtraumas and/or losses will be more suscepti-ble to what has happened in Japan. Theamount of news that is watched on televisionmay also increase the anxiety level of chil-dren and teens.

The American Academy of Child andAdolescent Psychiatry has information onchildren and news of disasters. “Childrenand the News” can be downloaded at:www.aacap.org. I have copied their guide-lines below (in italics).

Guidelines for minimizing the nega-tive effects of watching the news include:

• monitor the amount of time yourchild watches news shows

• make sure you have adequate timeand a quiet place to talk if you anticipatethat the news is going to be troubling or

upsetting to the child• watch the news with your child• ask the child what he/she has heard

and what questions he/she may have• provide reassurance regarding

his/her own safety in simple words empha-sizing that you are going to be there to keephim/her safe

• look for signs that the news mayhave triggered fears or anxieties such assleeplessness, fears, bedwetting, crying, ortalking about being afraid

Parents should remember that it isimportant to talk to the child or adolescentabout what he/she has seen or heard. Thisallows parents to lessen the potential neg-ative effects of the news and to discusstheir own ideas and values. While childrencannot be completely protected from out-side events, parents can help them feel safeand help them to better understand theworld around them.

As adults it is also important that wemonitor our own reactions to these events.One’s own history, present sense of safety,and anxieties can effect how we interact withour children and other family members andfriends. Here are some helpful guidelines to


Children, Teens andthe Japan Disaster

Harry Wang

Dr. Wang, a child and adolescent psychiatrist in Sacramento, California, is ClinicalProfessor of Psychiatry at the University of California Davis School of Medicine. He isalso the President of the Sacramento chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility.Dr. Wang said he compiled the following guidelines for possible use by others, because“during this difficult time.... I am dealing with a lot of anxious children and teens.”

§


consider (in italics) from the AmericanPsychological Association found at:http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/distress-earthquake.aspx.

Managing Your Distress About theEarthquake from Afar

For people with friends and family liv-ing in regions affected by earthquakes,watching news coverage of the earthquake’sdevastation can be very distressing, partic-ularly if there is no news on their safetyand well-being. Even for those without per-sonal connections to the country, the newscoverage can be overwhelming.

APA offers the following tips to man-age your distress:

• Take a news break. Watching end-less replays of footage from the disaster canmake your stress even greater. Althoughyou will want tokeep informed – especiallyif you have loved ones in earthquake-affect-ed areas – taking a break from watchingthe news can lessen your distress.

• Control what you can. There areroutines in your life that you can continuesuch as going to work or school and mak-ing meals. It is helpful to maintain theseroutines and schedules to give yourself a

break from constantly thinking about theearthquake.

• Engage in healthy behaviors. Eatwell-balanced meals, engage in regularexercise like going for a long walk, and getplenty of rest. Bolstering your physicalwell-being is good for your emotionalhealth and can enhance your ability to cope.

• Keep things in perspective. While anearthquake can bring tremendous hardshipand loss, remember to focus on the thingsthat are good in your life. Persevere andtrust in your ability to get through thechallenging days ahead.

• Find a productive way to help if youcan. Many organizations are set up to pro-vide various forms of aid to survivors.Contributing or volunteering is a positiveaction that can help you to make a difference.

• Strive for a positive outlook. Manypeople who have experienced tragedy findthat they grow in some respect as a resultof persevering through the hardship. Overtime, people can discover personalstrengths and develop a greater apprecia-tion for life.

I hope that these ideas are useful as weinteract with children and teens during thesedifficult times.

Documents

IPPNW: The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster - International Physicians