UN experts find 'no harmful effects' from Fukushima (2021)

Clearly this is anti-science and pro-authority, and maybe the UN doesn't claim that their organizations like the World Health Organization are science based.

However when a common person hears the World Health Organization gives a recommendation, they likely have no idea that a panel of experts gave an opinion with potentially no scientific backing. (Citation for this particular incident was the WHO recommendation on number of hours a <1 year old can watch tv, 0 hours before age 1, no scientific basis.)

I've read of similar (non-)findings after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Basically, there is no evidence of any long-term cancer or birth defect increase among survivors. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_a...>

First, once again, it was said in a sister thread, no mention of the workers. Especially the 13 who were exposed to up to 32 gray. Those were "heroes" at the time, they volonteered, and like all "heroes", were quickly forgotten.

I imagine getting those doses prevents you from being near a reactor, at a hospital or flying a plane, so they likely had to loose their jobs, but also be harder to treat at hospitals and endanger themselves when taking the plane for vacations. The fact that "only" one died and that none of the other yet suffer from anything is good (the report indicated cataracts and blindness are more probably than hyperthyroid, so that's great for them). I would like to know if they receive a pension and are now retired, or if they still work.

(also i think its evidence that privatization and subcontracting in the nuclear industry is the dumbest thing you can do. I can imagine doing that at 50yo for the country i live in. For a subcontracting company? please, let the administrators and the execs do that)

--------------

Second, sorry it's my left brain who does that:

What are the plan in case another fukushima hit then? 2k people (between 1600 and 1900) died during fukushima evacuation. Mostly displaced ederly, but the panic killed small children. Displacement stress could have added up too, being on the ground could be view as a stigma (i've hear its less true than for the two atomic bombs and Chernobyl - where sightly irradiated people were pariahs - but still), and suicide are not counted on this stat, but the death count could be higher.

This is evidence than even without a core catcher and an old, pretty poor design, we have time to think and slow down the evacuation, take our time to do it correctly, and maybe redraw the exclusion zone once the reactor is stopped and data come in. In both direction: i wouldn't have minded at all making the exclusion zone on the shore and in the sea bigger, and the one inland smaller, as soon as 2013.

The story I heard is that old people volunteered because they wouldn’t live long enough to get cancer. Assuming they didn’t get radiation poisoning doing the work in the first place.

If you don’t account for those sorts of sacrifices then I don’t know that you can count on them repeating in the future.

The premature disaster-related deaths were mainly related to (i) physical and mental illness brought about by having to reside in shelters and the trauma of being forced to move from care settings and homes; and (ii) delays in obtaining needed medical support because of the enormous destruction caused by the earthquake and tsunami.

However, the radiation levels in most of the evacuated areas were not greater than the natural radiation levels in high background areas elsewhere in the world where no adverse health effect is evident.

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-sec...