Over two years after Fukushima, is it really safe?

I initially started this post four months ago, in response to an online thread that referred to this WHO report as proof of limited risk to Fukushima residents. But then, life intruded and so I put it off, plus, I thought that maybe some new information might surface to make my point stronger.

Since last April, Tepco has announced that three of the seven radioactive waste water pits are leaking into the ground; that something as simple as an electrocuted rat had caused a temporary power failure that stopped the cooling mechanism; that workers installing traps to keep rats out, accidentally tripped the cooling mechanism's circuit, thus shutting it down; and it just doesn't look good that they'll stop those pesky radiation leaks anytime soon.

Within the last month we've seen leaks expand with overflow of contaminated water into the soil, streams and into the ocean, and an admission that these leaks have probably been ongoing since the beginning of the disaster.  We've had reports of workers covered with highly radioactive dust, and young people finding out that they have cancer.  The latest leaks have prompted Japan to raise the alert level at the Fukushima plant.

I'm frankly disappointed at the apologists who suggest that Fukushima presents a low-risk radiation poisoning case, and I've read many "experts" claim that outside of the exclusionary zone, it is safe.  This is simply untrue.  Greenpeace's field surveys and monitoring posts provide some insight into all this.  When you look at the data, keep in mind that most of the monitoring posts are far outside of the exclusionary zone:

Latitude	Longitude	dose rate 1m (uSv/h)	dose rate 0.5m (uSv/h)	dose rate 0.1m (uSv/h)
37.6612200	140.7230490	13.7	20.9	46.0
37.7187210	140.7133220	12.8	22.5	31.2
37.7182180	140.7132460	12.8	16.0	25.0
37.6926670	140.7502240	12.0	21.0	48.0
37.7198340	140.7135160	9.4	15.7	38.0
37.7188190	140.7134670	8.2	12.3	20.4
37.7186640	140.7132350	7.9	10.9	20.5
37.6457560	140.7464180	7.8	12.0	41.0
37.7188560	140.7135740	7.1	11.6	35.1
37.6948230	140.6976210	7.1	10.8	21.8
37.7199450	140.7133990	7.0	8.5	14.0
37.6939610	140.6989700	6.2	12.1	25.1
37.7183360	140.7134870	6.0	7.5	10.5
37.6450120	140.7469170	5.8	7.9	10.7
37.6949620	140.6976830	5.5	10.6	23.4
37.6957020	140.7484970	5.4	9.4	19.4
37.6612900	140.7231860	5.4	8.7	22.0
37.6452340	140.7467940	5.4	6.1	7.4
37.7186120	140.7144640	5.2	6.3	8.2
37.7185540	140.7137270	5.0	5.9	7.4
37.6457820	140.7465040	5.0	5.9	6.2

While there is no updated data for this year, there are three points to make here:

1. The monitoring stations are extremely limited, and cannot trace and track all of the radiation contamination out there.  But just because no one is tracking it, does not mean that it -- the radiation -- doesn't exist in higher concentrations in the areas that weren't explored and tracked.  To the contrary, the percentage of highly-contaminated areas should be presumed to match the ratio of monitoring stations with high levels of radiation, with the conclusion that 25 miles outside of the exclusionary zone, a quarter of all lands are highly contaminated.
2. You can't see radiation.  While it stands to reason that your overall exposure may be low in any given area, what happens if you step on some mud that was contaminated with radiation that gave you over 100 uSv/hr, and it stuck to the bottom of your shoes?  You wouldn't know it until you got very sick.
3. If you think this is bad, it's even worse in the Pacific Ocean.  Many have determined that, because of the volume of water in the Pacific Ocean, the radiation will become diluted.  Well, this is just wrong, and we have specific proof of this.  Bottom-feeders are at highest risk of contamination.  In a way, we have parallels in the Portland (Oregon) Harbor, where years of contamination from manufacturing, have resulted in most of this toxic waste settling to the bottom, affecting bottom feeders first, then moving its way up the food chain.  If you eat fish caught in Portland Harbor, you risk consuming high levels of lead, mercury and other pollutants.  

Now, one of the worst apologists is Tim Worstall, a Forbes contributor.  (Frankly, he's constantly posting the most ridiculous conservative arguments that conveniently ignore some facts, only to find himself backtracking.)  The easiest way to demonstrate his terribly misguided writing (and even-worse logic), is the fact that he uses what is referred to as the "Banana Equivalent Dose" of radiation.  The moment someone brings up BED, they lose all credibility, in my view.  To start with, not all radioactive materials are equal.  Biologically speaking, the radiation in bananas is discarded rapidly and therefore not dangerous.  And it's fairly easy to prove, without delving into the science behind why the EPA does not consider radiation from bananas worthy of tracking.

If high-consumption of bananas or simply working with large amounts of bananas were dangerous, then the regions between the tropic belts should have the highest cancer rates, given that they have both the highest per-capita consumption and cultivation of bananas.

Yet that's not what you see:

1	Denmark	326.1
2	Ireland	317.0
3	Australia	314.1
4	New Zealand	309.2
5	Belgium	306.8
6	France (metropolitan)	300.4
7	United States of America	300.2
8	Norway	299.1
9	Canada	296.6
10	Czech Republic	295.0
11	Israel	288.3
12	The Netherlands	286.8
13	Luxembourg	284.0
14	Hungary	282.9
15	Iceland	282.2
16	Germany	282.1
17	Uruguay	280.3
18	Italy	274.3
19	French Polynesia	269.6
20	Switzerland	269.3

The fact that cancer rates are much higher in developed (northern) nations, should inform you that banana equivalent dose is a terrible means of measuring cancer risks.  Yes, I am aware that (inverse) correlation does not equate to causality necessarily.  However, before BED can be asserted as a viable metric of radiation exposure and cancer risk, it must first be proven using data of its causal relationship; since I have shown that in fact the inverse may apply, BED has insufficient support to be used.

If radiation-danger deniers had their way, we'd eat our daily dose of radiation.  For example, see conservative tool Ann Coulter, who actually believes that radiation is something that wards off cancer.



All I can say is, if these people really believe in their BS, they should sell whatever they can and buy land in and near contaminated areas around the world....Chernobyl, Fukushima, or closer to home, at Hanford.  Heck, why not drink some of that radioactive water daily?