Radiation from Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster may eventually cause anywhere from 15 to 1,300 deaths and from 24 to 2,500 cases of cancer, mostly in Japan, Stanford researchers have calculated.
The estimates have large uncertainty ranges, but contrast with previous claims that the radioactive release would likely cause no severe health effects.
In 2011, 440 nuclear reactors existed in the world. To date, modest to major radionuclide releases have occurred in almost 1.5 percent of all reactors ever built (Three-Mile Island, 1979; Saint-Laurent, 1980; Chernobyl, 1986; 3 at Fukushima, 2011), suggesting that the risk of a meltdown is not small. This study finds that atmospheric and ground-level radioactivity from a meltdown, even when diluted to the large scale, may have quantifiable health impacts assuming a LNT model of human exposure. Health effects from inhalation, external exposure, and ingestion of radionuclides from the Fukushima accident are estimated to result in 130 (15–1100) cancer-related mortalities and 180 (24–1800) cancer-related morbidities worldwide, taking into account uncertainties associated with the exposure–dose and
dose–response models employed. The majority of the health effect is local to Japan and projected mortalities in other countries are much smaller.
February 11, 2010 TED Debate on nuclear versus renewables video (link) slides (pptx)
The estimates have large uncertainty ranges, but contrast with previous claims that the radioactive release would likely cause no severe health effects.
Modeled near-surface atmospheric worldwide activity concentrations (mBq m 3) of I-131 (a) 36 hours (1.5 days), (b) 180 hours (7.5 days), (c) 324 hours (13.5 days), and (d) 468 hours (19.5 days) into the Fukushima Daiichi simulation. Northern Hemisphere (NH) averages noted above each panel are weighted by population.
Credit:
Computer simulation starting 12 GMT March 12, 2011 of the transport of cesium-137 as particulate matter from the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant in Japan. The simulation accounted for size-resolved emissions of cesium, horizontal and vertical transport of aerosol particles containing cesium, cloud drop and ice crystal activation of aerosol particles containing cesium, coagulation of aerosol particles containing cesium with cloud drops, ice crystals, and graupel, tracking of cesium in hydrometeor particles from entry to precipitation, aerosol-aerosol coagulation, aerosol sedimentation, aerosol dry deposition, condensational and dissolutional growth/evaporation of aerosol particles containing cesium, and internal aerosol chemistry and hydration of aerosol particles containing cesium.
The simulations were performed with the GATOR-GCMOM computer model. Graphics were prepared by John Ten Hoeve.
The numbers are in addition to the roughly 600 deaths caused by the evacuation of the area surrounding the nuclear plant directly after the March 2011 earthquake, tsunami and meltdown.
Recent PhD graduate John Ten Hoeve and Stanford civil engineering Professor Mark Z. Jacobson, a senior fellow at the Precourt Institute for Energy and the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, are set to publish their findings Tuesday (July 17) in the journal Energy and Environmental Science. The research constitutes the first detailed analysis of the event's global health effects.
No effects?
The Fukushima Daiichi meltdown was the most extensive nuclear disaster since Chernobyl. Radiation release critically contaminated a "dead zone" of several hundred square kilometers around the plant, and low levels of radioactive material were found as far as North America and Europe.
But most of the radioactivity was dumped in the Pacific – only 19 percent of the released material was deposited over land – keeping the exposed population relatively small.
"There are groups of people who have said there would be no effects," said Jacobson.
A month after the disaster, the head of the United Nations Science Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, for example, predicted that there would be no serious public health consequences resulting from the radiation.
Global reach?
Evaluating the claim, Ten Hoeve and Jacobson used a 3-D global atmospheric model, developed over 20 years of research, to predict the transport of radioactive material. A standard health-effects model was used to estimate human exposure to radioactivity.
Because of inherent uncertainties in the emissions and the health-effects model, the researchers found a range of possible death tolls, with a best estimate of 130. A wide span of cancer morbidities was also predicted, with a best estimate of 180.
Those affected according to the model were overwhelmingly in Japan, with extremely small effects noticeable in mainland Asia and North America. The United States was predicted to suffer between 0 and 12 deaths and 0 and 30 cancer morbidities, although the methods used were less precise for areas that saw only low radionuclide concentrations.
"These worldwide values are relatively low," said Ten Hoeve. He explained they should "serve to manage the fear in other countries that the disaster had an extensive global reach."
The response
The Japanese government's response was much more rapid and coordinated than that of the Soviets in Chernobyl, which may have mitigated some of the cancer risk.
Japanese government agencies, for example, evacuated a 20-kilometer radius around the plant, distributed iodine tablets to prevent radioiodine uptake and prohibited cultivation of crops above a radiation threshold – steps that Ten Hoeve said "people have applauded."
But the paper also notes that nearly 600 deaths were reported as a result of the evacuation process itself, mostly due to fatigue and exposure among the elderly and chronically ill. According to the model, the evacuation prevented at most 245 radiation-related deaths – meaning the evacuation process may have cost more lives than it saved.
Still, the researchers cautioned against drawing conclusions about evacuation policy.
"You still have an obligation to evacuate people according to the worst-case scenario," said Jacobson.
If it happened here
To test the effects of varying weather patterns and geography on the reach of a nuclear incident, the two researchers also analyzed a hypothetical scenario: an identical meltdown at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, near San Luis Obispo, Calif.
Despite California's population density being about one-fourth that of Japan's, the researchers found the magnitude of the projected health effects to be about 25 percent larger.
The model showed that rather than being whisked toward the ocean, as with Fukushima, a larger percentage of the Diablo Canyon radioactivity deposited over land, including population centers such as San Diego and Los Angeles.
Jacobson stressed, however, that none of the calculations expressed the full scope of a nuclear disaster.
"There's a lot more to the issue than what we examined, which were the cancer-related health effects," he said. "Fukushima was just such a large disaster in terms of soil and water contamination, displacement of lives, confidence in government oversight, cost and anguish."
The numbers are in addition to the roughly 600 deaths caused by the evacuation of the area surrounding the nuclear plant directly after the March 2011 earthquake, tsunami and meltdown.
Recent PhD graduate John Ten Hoeve and Stanford civil engineering Professor Mark Z. Jacobson, a senior fellow at the Precourt Institute for Energy and the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, are set to publish their findings Tuesday (July 17) in the journal Energy and Environmental Science. The research constitutes the first detailed analysis of the event's global health effects.
No effects?
The Fukushima Daiichi meltdown was the most extensive nuclear disaster since Chernobyl. Radiation release critically contaminated a "dead zone" of several hundred square kilometers around the plant, and low levels of radioactive material were found as far as North America and Europe.
But most of the radioactivity was dumped in the Pacific – only 19 percent of the released material was deposited over land – keeping the exposed population relatively small.
"There are groups of people who have said there would be no effects," said Jacobson.
A month after the disaster, the head of the United Nations Science Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, for example, predicted that there would be no serious public health consequences resulting from the radiation.
Global reach?
Evaluating the claim, Ten Hoeve and Jacobson used a 3-D global atmospheric model, developed over 20 years of research, to predict the transport of radioactive material. A standard health-effects model was used to estimate human exposure to radioactivity.
Because of inherent uncertainties in the emissions and the health-effects model, the researchers found a range of possible death tolls, with a best estimate of 130. A wide span of cancer morbidities was also predicted, with a best estimate of 180.
Those affected according to the model were overwhelmingly in Japan, with extremely small effects noticeable in mainland Asia and North America. The United States was predicted to suffer between 0 and 12 deaths and 0 and 30 cancer morbidities, although the methods used were less precise for areas that saw only low radionuclide concentrations.
"These worldwide values are relatively low," said Ten Hoeve. He explained they should "serve to manage the fear in other countries that the disaster had an extensive global reach."
The response
The Japanese government's response was much more rapid and coordinated than that of the Soviets in Chernobyl, which may have mitigated some of the cancer risk.
Japanese government agencies, for example, evacuated a 20-kilometer radius around the plant, distributed iodine tablets to prevent radioiodine uptake and prohibited cultivation of crops above a radiation threshold – steps that Ten Hoeve said "people have applauded."
But the paper also notes that nearly 600 deaths were reported as a result of the evacuation process itself, mostly due to fatigue and exposure among the elderly and chronically ill. According to the model, the evacuation prevented at most 245 radiation-related deaths – meaning the evacuation process may have cost more lives than it saved.
Still, the researchers cautioned against drawing conclusions about evacuation policy.
"You still have an obligation to evacuate people according to the worst-case scenario," said Jacobson.
If it happened here
To test the effects of varying weather patterns and geography on the reach of a nuclear incident, the two researchers also analyzed a hypothetical scenario: an identical meltdown at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, near San Luis Obispo, Calif.
Despite California's population density being about one-fourth that of Japan's, the researchers found the magnitude of the projected health effects to be about 25 percent larger.
The model showed that rather than being whisked toward the ocean, as with Fukushima, a larger percentage of the Diablo Canyon radioactivity deposited over land, including population centers such as San Diego and Los Angeles.
Jacobson stressed, however, that none of the calculations expressed the full scope of a nuclear disaster.
"There's a lot more to the issue than what we examined, which were the cancer-related health effects," he said. "Fukushima was just such a large disaster in terms of soil and water contamination, displacement of lives, confidence in government oversight, cost and anguish."
dose–response models employed. The majority of the health effect is local to Japan and projected mortalities in other countries are much smaller.
The number of projected mortalities, however, is still considerably smaller than the nearly
20,000 mortalities from the T ohoku earthquake and tsunami79 and is also smaller than
the estimated number of projected mortalities from the Chernobyl nuclear accident. Nevertheless, long-term cancer risk studies should be conducted in Japan to compare with the estimates developed here as well as with future modeling studies of the health effects from Fukushima.36 The risks and consequences of a meltdown must be considered along with other impacts, risks, costs, and benefits of nuclear power, discussed elsewhere, in comparison with other electric power sources in deciding the future direction of worldwide energy policy.
Even though the population density of California is roughly one fourth that of Japan, Table 3 indicates that a Diablo Canyon release identical to Fukushima could surpass Fukushima in
terms of excess mortalities and morbidities by 25% for best estimates. This is because the bulk of radioactive emissions at Fukushima were advected westward over the Pacific Ocean,
where they decayed or became diluted and removed, whereas in the Diablo Canyon simulations, radioactivity was trapped by an inversion as it was slowly transported along the California coastline over populated regions of Los Angeles and San Diego before it was transported offshore.
the estimated number of projected mortalities from the Chernobyl nuclear accident. Nevertheless, long-term cancer risk studies should be conducted in Japan to compare with the estimates developed here as well as with future modeling studies of the health effects from Fukushima.36 The risks and consequences of a meltdown must be considered along with other impacts, risks, costs, and benefits of nuclear power, discussed elsewhere, in comparison with other electric power sources in deciding the future direction of worldwide energy policy.
terms of excess mortalities and morbidities by 25% for best estimates. This is because the bulk of radioactive emissions at Fukushima were advected westward over the Pacific Ocean,
where they decayed or became diluted and removed, whereas in the Diablo Canyon simulations, radioactivity was trapped by an inversion as it was slowly transported along the California coastline over populated regions of Los Angeles and San Diego before it was transported offshore.
Nuclear power: the energy crisis has even die-hard environmentalists reconsidering it. In this first-ever TED debate, Stewart Brand and Mark Z. Jacobson square off over the pros and cons. A discussion that'll make you think -- and might even change your mind.
Since the counterculture Sixties, Stewart Brand has been a critical thinker and innovator who helped lay the foundations of our internetworked world. Full bio »
At Stanford, Mark Z. Jacobson uses numerical models to study the effects of energy systems and vehicles on climate and air pollution, and to analyze renewable energy resources.
Contacts and sources:
Max McClure
Stanford University
Since the counterculture Sixties, Stewart Brand has been a critical thinker and innovator who helped lay the foundations of our internetworked world. Full bio »
At Stanford, Mark Z. Jacobson uses numerical models to study the effects of energy systems and vehicles on climate and air pollution, and to analyze renewable energy resources.
Contacts and sources:
Max McClure
Stanford University
Mark Z. Jacobson, Civil and Environmental Engineering
'Worldwide Health Effects of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident,' Energy and Environmental Science, at Mark Z. Jacobson's Fukushima research page:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/fukushima.html
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/fukushima.html
Worldwide health effects of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident†
John E. Ten Hoevea and Mark Z. Jacobson*b
3 2
Received 23rd April 2012, Accepted
Onex
ReplyDeleteHa detto: bel blog
this is so much more than i needed!!! but will all come in use thanks!!
ReplyDeleteWhat is lasik
Modern cell-based therapies have progressed from the first recorded human–human blood transfusion by James Blundell through to the advanced cellular therapies of today. This 200 year journey, based initially on clinical trial and error and more recently on laboratory science, has culminated in the necessary critical mass and unique challenges to justify being a distinct industry in its own right. Thus, today cell therapy is the fourth and most recent therapeutic pillar of global healthcareStem Cell Treatments
ReplyDeleteits really very difficult to imagine about any type disaster am really get scared whenever i heard about such disaster news in nearby our area..
ReplyDeleteSafety Products