Let's dig in!
From the op-ed:
"So, is Dr. Gen Suzuki assessing the increased cancer risk for 20 mSv over a lifetime, a long time, or just one year? It is hard to say for sure, though, based on his estimates, it seems more like he is using a much longer timeframe than a single year."
Dr. Suzuki is referring to the lifetime risk of 20 mSv. However, some people may actually receive 20 mSv for more than one year, but it's not likely to be much longer because decontamination will continue to progress.
" The effects of radiation exposure on children are quite a bit different from the effects of the same exposure on adults–and quite a bit more troubling"
About three times the low risk. Not very troubling.
And of course he mentions
But let's not forget that the people are in areas with maximum dose rates of 20 mSv per year. Actual doses will be below that (because a school won't have the exact same dose rate as a house) . And let's not forget background risk, which is 30% (about 42% in the U.S.).
So, let's take the proffered example and say that the risk increase is 1 in 20 girls will (not really, we don't know what "will" happen) get cancer from Fukushima if the they were exposed at 20 mSv/yr for 5 years (they won't be).....they had a 30% risk of getting cancer anyway...it has now !!!SKYROCKETED!!!! to 35%.
What isn't mentioned is that the people in the higher dose areas will know it and they should be more disciplined in getting screened. And screening and treatment technologies continue to improve. This will likely save many lives who might not have otherwise have gotten screened, if they weren't motivated by Fukushima. It might even be 5%...or more.
What if Fukushima had not been constructed? What would their source of power be? How much does the risk of death increase without power? How much does the risk increase if a coal plant had been operated for 40 years?
No comments:
Post a Comment