That is a matter of opinion. A UN backed
report in 2006 estimated that
among the 600 000 persons receiving significant exposures (liquidators,
evacuees, and residents of the most ‘contaminated’ areas), about 4,000 extra
fatal cancers might occur and that among the 5
million persons residing in less contaminated areas with lower doses, an
additional 5,000 cancer deaths might occur. These estimates were speculative,
and later UN studies talked of stress playing a role in observed illnesses.
However , it has been accepted that that there had been over 4,000 cases of
thyroid cancer in children and adolescents who were exposed at the time of the
accident, although in nearly all cases that was treatable. The debate continued. Independent
studies claimed that the total death toll could be in the range of
30,0000-60,000 . See www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html
and
www.chernobylreport.org
Nuclear
Consult persevered with their complaint via the BBC Trust and recently received
a further response. This reiterated the view that ‘with regard to Chernobyl, the failure to mention
known non-fatal health effects and the decision not to put the “observable”
deaths into a wider context meant the audience would not be able to reach a
reliable conclusion. This was not consistent with the stated aim of the
programme to get to “the truth about the effects of radiation”, and would not
have met audience expectations.
But it added ‘whilst
the finding of inaccuracy in relation to the programme’s representation of the
scale of health impacts from the Chernobyl fallout acknowledged the health
impact was greater than the programme reflected, the programme’s broader
contention
that in relative terms the impact was not as great as some people have
come to
believe appears to have been well-founded.’
It also found that ‘with regard to the prediction
of zero deaths as a result of the Fukushima accident, Prof. Thomas was offering
an informed judgement and not stating an established fact, and that she was
qualified to do so as an acknowledged expert in the field of radiation and
human health. The Committee noted that her conclusion was broadly in line with
other informed opinion’. See
‘Sept’ 2012 on the BBC Trusts web site: www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/our_work/complaints_and_appeals/editorial.html
Does that includes the very cautious
Stanford University study which concluded there would be between 15 and 1100
radiation related cancer deaths due to Fukushima, with their best estimate
being 130 deaths, plus 24 to 1800 non-lethal cancers, with 180 being their best
estimate? It noted that 600 people had died as a result of the evacuation.
Given uncertainties about the location/exposure of evacuees and also the
unreliability of the radiation impact model used for low doses, it said upper
bound mortalities and morbidities could be increased to 1300 and 2500,
respectively. http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2012/ee/c2ee22019a
Some more recent estimates put the
possible death toll higher: see Nuclear Monitor 758 www.nirs.org
However, it will take time before any impacts show- it can take decades for cancers to
present. This hasn’t stopped the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of
Atomic Radiation
(UNSCEAR) from issuing preliminary findings last December, in which it said that that so far no radiation
health effects had been observed in Japan among the public, workers or children
in the area of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant: it claimed that the
doses of radiation received were low and no discernible health effect could be
expected. It admitted that there were impact
uncertainties at low doses, but did not recommend
multiplying low doses by large numbers of individuals to estimate numbers of
radiation-induced health effects. Six workers received total doses of over 250
mSv during their time tackling the emergency, while 170 received doses over 100
mSv, but none of these have shown ill effects so far. Amongst the general
public, it says the largest dose thought to have been received by a Japanese
child is 35 mSv. Background level
is around 2mSv, but the critics of the ‘low does is no problem’ view say that’s
for external exposure: internally absorbed radioactive material is likely to
have a much larger, longer term, impact. Time will tell.
In a
subsequent report, the World Health Organisation repeated the ‘low risk’ claim.
It calculated that in the worst hit areas there could be an increase in solid cancer risk of 4% for females
exposed as infants. In Japan, 29.04% of females develop
solid cancer by the age of 89, so an increase in that risk of 4% would raise it
to 30.20% among females in the most exposed population, with breast cancer risk rising 6% in
females, raising the risk for the exposed group from
5.53% to 5.86% by the age of 89.,
while the risk of leukemia in
males might rise by around 7% in males exposed as infants, raising the
risk for the exposed group from 0.6% to 0.64% by age 89. The risk of developing
(treatable) thyroid cancer was
estimated to have risen by 70% in females exposed as infants but with
"little risk apparent after the age of 20." The overall thyroid risk
estimate was raised from 0.75% to 1.27% by age 89. Given these figures, it
concluded that ‘no observable increases
in cancer rates above baseline rates are anticipated’.
We will have to wait a few decades to find
out if they are right.. UNSCEAR
is to do further studies, including, in 2014, a review
of the epidemiology of low-dose radiation risks and WHO did recommend long term
monitoring. Like UNSCEAR, WHO's used the linear ‘no-low threshold’ method of
gauging health effects, which on one hand, the industry sees as overestimating
impacts from low doses and on the other some scientist feel underestimates the
impact, for example of ingestion of
radioactive material, even at radiation levels below (external)
background. So there are unresolved scientific disputes, and despite the
continued assurances from UNSCEAR and WHO
that all is well, we
still don’t know for certain yet, but sadly ‘zero’ deaths seems optimistic.
