Photo

Reuters Photojournalism

Our day's top images, in-depth photo essays and offbeat slices of life. See the best of Reuters photography.  See more | Photo caption 

Photo

Flooding in India

Heavy monsoon rains have swollen several rivers.  Slideshow 

Photo

Celebrity portraits

Up close and personal with famous faces.  Slideshow 

Sponsored Links

Health risk from troubled Japan nuclear plant

TOKYO | Fri May 6, 2011 2:23pm EDT

TOKYO (Reuters) - Radioactive substances have been leaking from Japan's tsunami-damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant for nearly two months, and the plant is likely to continue emitting radiation into the atmosphere, and possibly into the ocean and ground water, for many months to come.

People living within a 20 km (12 mile) radius of the plant have been evacuated, while those in five towns downwind from the plants have also been told to prepare to leave their homes.

Following are some questions and answers about the health risks from continued radiation exposure from the plant, 240 km (150 miles) from Tokyo, as operator Tokyo Electric Power Co struggles to bring it under control:

HOW MUCH RADIATION HAS BEEN MEASURED OUTSIDE THE EVACUATION

ZONE?

The highest radiation reading outside the evacuation zone on Thursday measured 0.046 millisieverts an hour in Namie, Fukushima, which is one of the towns whose residents are preparing for evacuation.

Most areas outside the evacuation zone logged readings around 0.001 millisieverts an hour or less.

Japan's National Institute of Radiological Sciences calculated that in the month from March 14 to April 11, following the earthquake and tsunami, a person in Tokyo who spent eight hours a day outdoors and drank tap water would have been exposed to about 0.12 millisieverts.

In absolute terms, these quantities are extremely small. People in Japan are on average exposed to 1.5 millisieverts of natural background radiation a year.

HOW MUCH EXPOSURE IS DANGEROUS?

Experts' opinions vary. One benchmark from the Symposium on the International System of Radiological Protection recommends maximum exposure levels of 1 millisievert per year for the general public.

Children, whose cellular activity is more active than in adults, are especially vulnerable, and public health officials say they should be shielded as much as possible from unnecessary exposure.

CAN LONG-TERM EXPOSURE TO LOW LEVELS OF RADIATION CAUSE

CANCER?

Yes. Radiation is cumulative, and in theory, every radioactive particle that makes its way into the body increases the risk of cancer.

But there is no conclusive study that links a rise in cancer to cumulative radiation doses of less than 100 millisieverts. Experts are divided on the policy implications for these lower dosages.

Researchers are stumped in part because it can take decades and even generations before cancer emerges, and because so many other lifestyle choices can increase cancer risk. Researchers also had very poor quality data on dosage measurements after Chernobyl.

Japan's National Institute of Radiological Sciences says that cumulative exposure to 100 millisieverts of radiation raises the risk of death from cancer by 0.5 percent.

Every day, people are exposed to a vast array of other cancer-causing substances through cigarette smoke, eating and drinking habits, chemicals, viruses and bacteria.

IS SOME RADIATION MORE HARMFUL THAN OTHERS?

Yes. Radioactive particles are most harmful when inhaled or ingested, and particles that are easily absorbed and which have longer half-lives can cause more damage to cells and genetic material inside.

When examining radiation from the Fukushima plant, health officials focus especially on Iodine-131. Inside the body of an adult, it has a half-life of 7 days, but it accumulates quickly in the thyroid gland. Children are especially at risk because their thyroids are still developing.

Another by-product, Cesium, spreads throughout the body, concentrating in muscle tissue. Cesium-137 has a half-life of 30 years, but inside an adult, the amount will be halved in 90 days.

Strontium and plutonium are rarer by-products of nuclear fission. But if they are ingested, they tend to collect in bones, where they are likely to stay put. Strontium can cause bone cancer. Plutonium is more dangerous when inhaled, increasing the risk of lung cancer.

HOW CAN RISK BE MINIMIZED?

Everything depends on how good the Japanese government is in monitoring radiation levels and how thoroughly it samples food products.

"The Japanese are very sensitive when it comes to food safety, so I am confident that children will not be exposed to radiated milk products," said Shunichi Yamashita, professor of biomedical sciences at Nagasaki University.

"Just as we have become attuned to pesticide risk, we will have to learn to live with radiation risk and do what we can to avoid contaminated food and water."

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (3)
DavidK wrote:
I would like to correct you on Isotopes of caesium, there are 39 known of which only one is stable caesium 133, all the others are products of fission and range from fractions of a second to one with a 2.5 million year half life.

Caesium is so close chemically to potassium that the human body readily absorbs it as a substitute, the only reason that the amount in the adult body is decreasing in your 90 day statement is that it is undergoing radioactive decay in the most damaging way, inside living human tissue.

May 06, 2011 5:50pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
DagL wrote:
A considerable part of the evacuation within 20 km from the reactor has a radioactivity level which means an exposure below 10 mSv in the coming year. My opinion is that people who lived where should be allowed to go home. That means an increased risk of death by cancer of 0.05% or less. That is a small addition to the risk of dying from other reasons. The cancer does not kill immediately but first after maybe 15 years. Living as an evacuee has far reaching consequences, which are dramatically different for different people. At a small risk level people should make their own decisions about what is best for them in their particular situation.
To let life return in some of the presently evacuated areas seems motivated, as the radioactivity has decayed and been carefully mapped and is a well-known danger. A 20 km radius circle is not the most efficient way for long-term management. It was motivated by the need for fast decision and the uncertain development. The sooner re-entry is allowed, the less the burden will be of the evacuees on the rest of the Japanese society as well on the evacuees themselves. If the forbidden zone starts shrinking, it is a signal that it is time to start looking forwards. The situation is normalizing, and from here it can only be better!

May 07, 2011 7:01am EDT  --  Report as abuse
desertlabs wrote:
I have trouble swallowing the conclusion, drawn from a lack of “scientific monitoring” following Chernobyl, that the increased health risk from radiation exposure is miniscule. If the data points are few, then any conclusions drawn from them is weak, particularly if those conclusions are used to tell us there is nothing to worry about, and that nuclear power isn’t all that bad. This mantra flies in the face of all logic and common sense.

Scientific purists who accept only rigid protocols are doing the public a disservice by pressing that insistence with regard to radiation exposure. If we don’t have the preferred types of research, we still need to evaluate the data we do have. We shouldn’t just ignore it. The fact that there is not enough data speaks to the desire of the Soviet government efforts to cover up the serious nature of what happened. Consequently, any conclusions are logically significant underestimates.

I have read that it is the IAEA that has blocked scientific research into the effects of radiation in Russia. There are plenty of experts who have attempted to analyze the ongoing effects of Chernobyl in the generations following that accident. But I have seen no hard news organizations dealing with these alternate views.

If you give credence to people who clearly wish to minimize the dangers, it should be balanced with more detailed evidence given by experts who have a different viewpoint–and I believe a more pragmatic view that would better serve the public. In addition, complete information is needed if globally we can make rational decisions about the future of nuclear power.

If you want to compare radiation to pesticides, consider that many pesticides have been banned because of their effects on human health. We know pesticides persist in the environment. We know that they bioaccumulate. That, it seems, would lead to the conclusion that we should abandon nuclear power. To be more “attuned” to the dangers, those dangers must be reported. We will not be able to simply avoid contaminated food and water. Particularly when monitoring is decreasing and the “acceptable levels” are increasing.

May 08, 2011 1:30pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.