Nuclear Deniers: Guilty
Knowledge of Radiation
from Hiroshima to
Fukushima
Charles Perrow, Emeritus
Professor, Yale University
Visiting Professor, Stanford
University
radiation from
• atomic bombs,
• nuclear processing plants,
and
• nuclear power plants
in several countries:
Japan, the USA, the Soviet
Union, the UK, Germany
and France
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945
“No Radioactivity in Hiroshima Ruin”
“Survey Rules out Nagasaki Dangers”
“Radioactivity after atomic bomb is only 1000th
of that from luminous dial watch.”
1953: AEC: low-level exposure to radiation
“can be continued indefinitely without any
detectable bodily change.”
1954: H-bomb explosion in Marshall Islands;
Residents and fishermen exposed
“…they are more like us than the mice."
1956: Nat. Acad. of Scientists:
Nuclear scientists: low-level radiation not harmful.
Geneticists: all levels are harmful.
2005 BEIR VII: any dose harmful;
extensive health effects other than cancer
including genetic generational changes.
Radiation-related excess deaths: 2,850 to 3,800
Bomb death rate from immediate effects:
about 200,000
Nuclear bomb fuel processing plants
1957 Windscale, UK. Large areas of Wales
contaminated. No announcement.
Nuclear bomb fuel processing plants
1957 Chelyabinsk, Soviet Union, Ural
Mountains. Nearly one half a million
people irradiated. Secret for 30 years.
Accepting nuclear
1953: US National Security Council:
"The President and Secretary [John Foster] Dulles
were in complete agreement that somehow or other
the tabu [sic] which surrounds the use of atomic
weapons would have to be destroyed.”
“ While Secretary Dulles admitted that in the
present state of world opinion we could not use an Abomb, we should make every effort now to dissipate
this feeling."
1953 AEC Chair:
“highlight the peaceful applications of nuclear explosive
devices and thereby create a climate of world opinion
that is more favorable to weapons development and
tests.”
As a DOD official put it in 1953: "The atomic bomb will
be accepted far more readily if at the same time atomic
energy is being used for constructive ends
In 1953 the State Department warned that the civilian
nuclear power industry could be seriously damaged
because of the “mistaken impression” that low-level
radiation is hazardous.
1959: International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA)
and the World Health Organization (WHO)
agree not to release radiation effects data the other has
not agreed to.
IAEA: to promote nuclear power, oversee its safety, and
study the effects of radiation – conflicting mandates
1979: Three Mile Island, Harrisburg, PA
Negligible radiation declared
1990 Columbia University: radiation too low to account
for observed increases in cancer.
Stress cited.
1997: University of California, Berkeley:
“Accident doses were positively associated with cancer
incidence. Associations were largest for leukemia,
intermediate for lung cancer, and smallest for all cancers
combined; larger for longer than for shorter latency; and
larger with adjustment for socioeconomic variables.”
1987: Chernobyl, USSR
Not announced for 2 days; late evacuation; no
warnings on food; radiation sickness not allowed as
diagnosis, etc.
The radioactive cloud spread over Belarus, the
Ukraine and parts of Russia, and then Europe.
Chernobyl deaths:
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of
Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR): 64 (workforce only)
UN Chernobyl Forum (UNSCEAR, IAEA, WHO) 4,000
deaths among the “liquidators.”
Another report estimates an additional 5,000 deaths
among the 6 million living in the contaminated areas of
Ukraine, Belarus and Russia, giving us 9,000.
Chernobyl deaths continued:
Union of Concerned Scientists: 50,000 excess cancer
cases and 25,000 excess deaths.
Greenpeace: 200,000
Russia scientists: 950,000 premature cancer deaths
IAEA: Not victims, but survivors. Calling them victims:
“has led them to perceive themselves as helpless, weak
and lacking control over their future. This, in turn, has
led either to over cautious behavior and exaggerated
health concerns, or to reckless conduct, such as
consumption of mushrooms, berries and game from
areas still designated as highly contaminated, overuse of
alcohol and tobacco, and unprotected promiscuous
sexual activity.
we might ask how wise it is to build systems whose
failure will prompt citizens in the affected area to
engage in such destructive behavior.
What if the plants behaved well?
Children at highest risk. 2002 study of 8 US nuclear
plants closed in 1987. Strontium 90 in milk drops
sharply, as did birth defects and infant deaths.
Biggest effect is childhood leukemia (CL)
Germany, 2007 study found CL twice as likely near all
16 nuclear power plants. Could not determine cause.
French 2012 study: similar results for 54 nuclear
power plants. Cannot attribute to gaseous discharges.
2011: Fukushima’s rosy predictions:
Nuclear Energy Institute declared two months after the
accident, that ‘no health effects are expected among the
Japanese people as a result of the events at Fukushima.’
The Fukushima Medical University in February, 2012,
reported only about 29 people were expected to have
doses over 10 millisieverts (mSv), and the highest
recorded does was 23 mSv, well below the 100-mSv
exposure level that might lead to a slight increase in
cancer risk.
Scientific American (republished in Nature):
Those exposed, one expert said, “are probably
getting better care than they were before” the accident.
“Mental health is the most significant issue” said a
professor of gerontology in Japan.
"In terms of the health impact, the radiation is
negligible," he said. "The radiation will cause very few,
close to no deaths." (Prof. at Columbia University)
"Much of the damage was really psychological—the
stress of not knowing, of being relocated." (Berkeley
professor)
No point in making studies:
Columbia U. radiologist: “40% of everybody will get
cancer…It doesn’t seem to me that it’s possible to do
an epidemiological study that will see an increased
risk.”
Head of US agency on protection and measurement:
“There’s no opportunity for conducting
epidemiological studies that have any chance of
success.’’
“The doses are just too low,’’ he said. “If you were to
do a proposal, it would not pass a scientific review.’’
British sociologist:
The accident “actually represent a compelling case for
[nuclear power] expansion, as even these old fashioned
reactors have withstood the worse that nature could
throw at them.”
Unit 4 spent storage pool 100 feet up in a shaky,
damaged building with high radioactivity, with as much
Cesium 137 as at Chernobyl.
US government grant to MIT to examine the
"difficulties in gaining the broad social acceptance" of
nuclear power.
Some doubts:
the external exposures over a 90 day period were
between 20 -64 times the natural background radiation,
or the equivalent of 300-950 chest ex-rays.
The 70,000 people who spent a year in contaminated
land outside of the evacuated area were exposed to an
external radioactivity 100 times higher than normal
background radiation in that first year.
a rough estimate of a cancer rate of 2%, with 1,400
people expected to contract cancer due to the
additional radiation from fallout during the year.
a child living in one village and spending about 8
hours of the day outside and 16 hours inside would
be exposed to about 148 mSv in the course of a year
- 100 times the natural background radiation in
Japan. This contradicts the WHO report of only 10-50
mSv.
Over 35% of young people tested have thyroid cysts
(a fluid-filled sac) or nodules (a solid tumor which
could be carcinogenetic) according to a survey
conducted in March of 2011
51% of the 527 children checked in after September,
2011, had internal exposures to cesium-137, and
evidence of high-level exposure to gamma rays was
detected
Conclusions: Fukushima not much different
• Atomic bomb and testing denials
• Secrecy surrounding Windscale and Chernobyl.
• Fallout from TMI more serious than allowed
• Multiple denials about Chernobyl
• Radiation from normal operation plants denied
Vast investments at stake by weapons and power
industries.
Grant money to scientists for whitewashing
Scientific ambiguity persists as
“no harm in low-level radiation” is replaced by
“too low to measure any harm.”