Japan admits first possible case of cancer linked to Fukushima

The only link this cancer has to Fukushima is that “it can’t be ruled out”. Of course we can’t prove the negative, but based our many years of studying radiation exposure at these levels, there is a much greater likelihood that this was just another case of cancer, and not caused by exposure at Fukushima.

Unfortunately out of thousands of people, there are going to be cancer cases (1.5% leukimia rate in the US), and so of the thousands of workers (over 45,000 according to reports) that have been at Fukushima, there are going to be some people with cancers, and some with leukemia. But one thing is for certain, every single case will come with the “cannot be ruled out” disclaimer, and get misleading headlines.

An accurate headline should read, “one person out of 45,000 that have worked on Fukushima recovery has developed cancer”. In the US , approximately 1.5% of people will be diagnosed with leukemia, and it is more common in men than women. Did this guy smoke cigarettes? The risk is higher if he did. The news reports ignore important stuff like this. Any given group of 45,000 should see over 10 cases of Leukemia per year. Why only 1 case in 3-4 years at Fukushima?

According to established radiation science and statistics, it is highly unlikely that this cancer is from exposure at Fukushima. He might be lucky that he and his family will receive significant compensation, unlike the many Luekemia sufferers who never worked at Fukushima.

Lets all hope he can get top notch treatment and beat it, and same for the many other Leukemia sufferes that don’t get the headlines or the compensation.

I must be missing something here. There is a possibility that one man may have cancer due to excessive radiation exposure and there is an outcry. What about the 18000 who died in the disaster??

I’m writing from Japan. There is a very important misunderstanding in this article about the compensation decision that needs clearing up, and commentary (and context) that needs to be made about the Tsuda study.

The compensation decision is NOT a medical recognition that this case of leukaemia was caused by cancer. That would actually be impossible to assess. This is from the Japan Times article on the issue:

“While the causal link between his exposure to radiation and his illness is unclear, we certified him from the standpoint of worker compensation,” an official of the Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry said.

“For leukemia to be certified as an industrial accident caused by radiation exposure, a claimant must meet certain requirements, such as being exposed to radiation of at least 5 millisieverts in a year, and having developed the illness more than a year after they were first exposed to radiation.”

In other words, no medical case needs to be proven. What are the chances that the man actually has acute myeloid leukaemia after an exposure of 11mSv? The Excess Relative Risk of 1 Gray of absorbed dose (which we can assume for argument’s sake is the same as 1 Sievert exposed dose) in a recent study was found to be 2.96. For 11mSv therefore, using the slightly controversial linear dose-response relationship, it would be 0.0326. That is, there would be a 3.26% rise in AML-type leukaemia. That is, we’d go from around 5 people in 1000 to 5.16 in 1000 getting AML. It is highly unlikely that this man’s leukaemia is from Fukushima. The linear model is also felt by many to seriously overestimate the effects of low dose radiation. This compensation is – by necessity – a political decision, not a medical one. And good for him in any case.

As a parent raising young children here (which is how I got drawn into learning about the possible effects of Fukushima), I cannot stress this next point enough: Greenpeace sadly cannot be trusted to say anything remotely accurate about nuclear power and the effects of radiation, and their statement here is just further evidence. In sharp distinction to their laudable championing of good climate science, they have sponsored some of the most appallingly overblown and fearmongering texts on the topic that exist, including the notorious Yablokov book on Chernobyl.

As for the Tsuda study mentioned at the end that supposedly finds hugely elevated rates of thyroid cancer, it has been met with a reception by experts ranging from severe reservation to outright dismissal by one of the leading Chernobyl researchers (“this is a bad study to base any decisions on”, according to Gerry Thomas, head of the Chernobyl tissue bank). The researchers who produce the data he analyses straightforwardly reject his conclusions. I can go into more detail about all of the many things that are wrong with this study if anyone is interested.