Tag Archives: Fukushima

Nuclear Education Nuclear Safety

Experts Say Health Effects of Fukushima Accident Should Be Very Minor

This article from the NEI in the U.S., shares some excellent information from three radiation health experts about the health effects of radiation from the Fukushima accident. It is important to note that there have been no deaths associated with exposure to radiation from the Fukushima accident; and in fact public exposure levels were very low.

Originally posted here.

__

Experts Say Health Effects of Fukushima Accident Should Be Very Minor

The following story originally appeared in NEI’s Nuclear Energy Overview.

Radiation health experts said at a Washington press briefing that based on the radiological data collected, the health effects of the Fukushima accident should be very minimal for both the public and workers.

“From a radiological perspective, we expect the impact to be really, really minor,” said Kathyrn Higley, professor of radiation health physics in the department of nuclear engineering at Oregon State University. “And the reason for that is we understand how radionuclides move through the environment, how they disperse and how people can be exposed. Because we understand that we are able to make decisions to block exposure.”

At the event hosted by the Health Physics Society, Higley said that prompt evacuations and food monitoring by the Japanese authorities had helped reduce the public’s exposure.

“Because of those actions, the Japanese government was able to effectively block a large component of exposure in this population,” Higley said.

Dr. Robert Gale, visiting professor at Imperial College London, pointed out that although approximately 20,000 people died from the 2011 Tohoku earthquake and subsequent tsunami, none of those deaths are attributable to radiation from the Fukushima accident.

However, Gale said, “The fact that everyone is here today, shows that the public’s focus is really on Fukushima. You hear very few things about the earthquake and tsunami.”

Gale presented preliminary data on the 10,000 inhabitants near the Fukushima plant thought to have received the highest doses of radiation showing that:

  • 5,800 received doses less than 1 millisievert (mSv).
  • 4,100 received doses between 1 and 10 mSv.
  • 71 received doses between 10 mSv and 20 mSv.
  • 2 received doses between 20 mSv and 23 mSv.

By comparison, each year a resident of the United States receives an average total dose from background radiation of about 3.1 mSv.

Gale said it was important to translate these doses into something the general public could easily understand. These radiation doses indicate an “incredibly small” increase in risk of death from cancer of only 0.001 percent for a member of the Japanese public, he said.  The increased risk of cancer incidence would be only 0.002 percent for a member of the Japanese public.

Such a small increase in the cancer rate would make it very hard to scientifically verify an increase in cancers that could be directly linked to the Fukushima accident.

“The exposures to the population are very, very low,” said John Boice, professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine and President Nominee of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. “As such, there is no opportunity to conduct epidemiological studies that have any chance of detecting excess [cancer] risk. The doses are just too low.”

Despite this, the Japanese government is conducting various large-scale studies of the public’s exposure to radiation to “reduce anxiety and provide assurance to the population,” Boice said.

These studies include:

  • A health study of all 2 million residents in the Fukushima prefecture, with a 30-year follow-up study planned. This includes a 10-page questionnaire sent to residents.
  • A study of 360,000 children under the age of 18 who are having their thyroid glands scanned.
  • A health exam of people in the proximal area, including blood exams.
  • A special survey of 20,000 pregnant and nursing mothers.

The health effects for workers at the Fukushima nuclear power plant would also be minimal, Boice said. The average radiation dosage for a worker at the plant was 9 mSv. (See above for comparative dosages for the public.) He added that out of 17,000 workers involved in “reactor containment and reactor cleanup”—including both TEPCO employees and contractors—only 37 workers had received external doses greater than 100 mSv. He said that up to 100 workers had received more than 100 mSv combining internal and external doses.

Boice added that these internal doses would have a “minimal” health effect because of the way the adult human body reacts to Iodine-131, one of the major byproducts of a reactor accident.

“In terms of health effects, these would be minimal because most of the internal, the ingested radiation, was radioactive iodine to adult thyroid glands,” he said. “Adult glands are relatively insensitive to cancer-producing effects of radiation, in particular, to Iodine-131. We have lots of studies of adults exposed to Iodine-131 where there is no effect.”

Boice said that among the small number of workers that had received over 100 mSv of radiation doses, the increased cancer risk in their lifetime would be one or two percent. He added that these workers would be studied throughout their lives.

Asked what role the Fukushima accident should play in licensing nuclear power plants in the United States, panelists said lessons learned should be applied.

“This event is being dissected for ramifications for old designs, [and] what we can learn in terms of seismic safety for new designs,” Higley said. “You really do need to look at the knowledge that is coming out of this event and decide what is relevant to reactors here in the United States.”

Boice praised the actions of the Japanese government, but hinted at improvements.

“It was a very appropriate response. What the Japanese authorities failed to do was communicate effectively,” Boice said. “And that still remains a problem—xplaining what was being done in terms of radiation exposure.”

The Health Physics Society is a scientific organization of professionals who specialize in radiation safety. Its mission is to support its members in the practice of their profession and to promote excellence in the science and practice of radiation safety.

The HPS shortly will release a white paper on the radiological effects of the Fukushima accident.

Messages Nuclear Safety

Fukushima: One Year Later – Statement by Denise Carpenter

Statement by Denise Carpenter, President and CEO of the Canadian Nuclear Association on the first anniversary of the earthquake and tsunami in Japan

March 8, 2012– Ottawa, Ontario

“One year ago, approximately 20,000 lives were lost and many forever changed following a devastating earthquake and tsunami off the north coast of Japan.

The natural disaster was also felt in the nuclear industry when the emergency back-up generators at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear station were disabled by the unprecedented 24-foot tsunami.

Since the tragedy, the nuclear industry – at home and around the world – has been working to share valuable lessons learned to continue to ensure safety standards and policies reflect current findings. In Canada, our industry moved quickly to provide Canadians with as many facts as possible about the event – and assure them of the safety of our nuclear facilities.

Soon after the disaster struck, Canada’s nuclear companies launched a thorough assessment of our own systems and operations to confirm their safety, including looking at back-up power systems and the ability of nuclear facilities to withstand natural disasters that might occur here.

Last October, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) released the Fukushima Task Force Report.  It concludes that all Canadian nuclear power plants are safe with facilities designed to withstand conditions similar to those that triggered at Fukushima.

Globally, it’s important for the nuclear industry to share valuable lessons learned from the tragedy in Japan. As an industry, we acted swiftly to increase safety through a diverse and robust emergency response capability that can deal with unexpected events.

In particular, we examined natural disasters such as tornadoes, flooding, earthquakes, and the emergencies these events create. Canada’s nuclear facilities are planning and implementing dozens of Fukushima-related projects between now and the end of 2016.

Nuclear is a clean, reliable source of baseload power and an important part of Canada’s energy portfolio. Opportunities ahead in the Canadian industry span the country and the globe, including, the Government of Saskatchewan’s  investment in a $30 million Canadian Centre for Nuclear Innovation; refurbishment plans underway in Ontario; and the broadening of the Canada-China Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Energy Cooperation which will see hundreds of new jobs and billions in new investments for Canada.

As an industry, we are committed to working together as we continue to analyze and implement lessons learned from Fukushima. But today, on behalf of the 71,000 workers in Canada’s nuclear industry, we pause to remember those affected by the Japanese earthquake and tsunami one year ago.”

Visit our Fukushima: One year later page for more updates and FAQ

CNA2012 Nuclear Energy Nuclear News Nuclear Outreach Nuclear Pride

Canada’s Nuclear Industry Aligned for Growth in 2012

February 24, 2012 – Ottawa, Ontario

Canada’s nuclear industry is poised for future growth and prosperity, according to discussions at the Canadian Nuclear Association (CNA) Annual Conference and Trade Show in Ottawa.

Canada’s nuclear industry is as strong as ever,” said Denise Carpenter, President and Chief Executive Officer, CNA. “Over the past few days, we have had great discussions on how our industry is leveraging lessons learned from Fukushima and how innovations in research and technology can improve and grow nuclear in Canada and abroad.”

More than 650 delegates from the nuclear community attended the conference, themed ‘Leadership Through Innovation.’

Tom Mitchell, President and Chief Executive Officer, Ontario Power Generation (OPG), provided an overview of the progress made by the World Association of Nuclear Operators Fukushima Response Commission and discussed groundbreaking methods of communicating risk and nuclear safety. (Download the PDF of Tom’s speech here)

“We are not ignoring the lessons we learned from Fukushima,” said Mitchell. “Safety, despite our industry’s excellent track record, can never be taken for granted.”

OPG has almost a dozen Fukushima-related projects underway or planned for implementation between now and the end of 2016.

Underscoring the industry’s growth, the Honourable Rob Norris, Saskatchewan’s Minister Responsible for Innovation, announced a multi-year agreement to provide funding for the new $30 million Canadian Centre for Nuclear Innovation.

Other conference highlights included a keynote speech by Patrick Lamarre on the future opportunities for SNC-Lavalin Nuclear following their recent acquisition of the CANDU Reactor Division of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, and the presentation of the annual Ian McRae Award to Mr. Gerald (Jerry) Grandey, former Chief Executive Officer of Cameco Corporation.

Conference highlights, including links to videos from speaker sessions, can be found on Twitter by following @TalkNUclear and #cnagm2012.

(Update: check out #cnagm2012 photo highlights on our Google+ page)

CNA Responds

CNA Responds to “Nuclear Aftershocks”

Last night, CBC’s The Passionate Eye, aired a re-broadcast of PBS’ Frontline documentary “Nuclear Aftershocks.” The doc asks: how safe are North American nuclear facilities?

The focus of the program was South of the border, and the Nuclear Energy Institute (our equivalent in the U.S.) did a great job of responding in two blog posts.

So, how safe are Canadian nuclear facilities?

Very safe. They’ve been very safe for 45+ years (as demonstrated by our remarkable safety track record).

But we NEVER rest on our laurels. Here’s what Canadian operators and the federal regulator have done to ensure the safety of our facilities post-Fukushima.

Soon after the disaster struck, nuclear operators in Canada launched a thorough assessment of their own systems and operations to confirm their safety. This included looking at back-up power systems and the ability of nuclear plants to withstand natural disasters that might occur here.

Last October, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission released the Fukushima Task Force Report. It concluded that all Canadian nuclear power plants are safe. It also said our plants are designed to withstand conditions similar to those that triggered at Fukushima. Still, it’s important for the nuclear industry internationally to share valuable lessons learned from the tragedy in Japan and ensure that safety standards and policies reflect current findings.

Nuclear power is very important for Canada’s future, as it is an energy alternative to fossil fuels. But power generation is only one of the many great things about nuclear power. Our nuclear industry provides a broad spectrum of products and services that benefit not only Canadians but people around the world. Nuclear science provides nuclear medicine and food safety technologies. Innovation in nuclear science is also being applied to address a number of societal challenges such as public health and transportation.

Messages Nuclear Education Nuclear Outreach

Radiation Fears Strike Again: The Culprit? Bad Math.

An online news site based in Vancouver recently posted an article called Japan’s Fukushima catastrophe brings big radiation spikes to B.C.

The article claims that levels of airborne Iodine-131 in Canada shortly following the Fukushima accident, far exceeded the regulatory limits. It says, for example,

For 22 days, a Health Canada monitoring station in Sidney detected iodine-131 levels in the air that were 61 percent above the government’s allowable limit. In Resolute Bay, Nunavut, the levels were 3.5 times the limit.

This is, however, based on flawed calculations and a lack of understanding of the publicly available information presented on the CNSC website.

The CNA responded with this letter to the editor:

I read Alex Roslin’s article “Japan’s Fukushima Catastrophe Brings Big Radiation Spikes to B.C.” and wanted to clear up some misinformation that is presented in the article. There are many instances where it is stated that levels of airborne Iodine-131 exceeds federal limits; however this is not true according to publicly available information from the CNSC and Health Canada.

Airborne Iodine-131 from Fukushima was identified in the article as exceeding 200 milli-Becquerel per cubic meter (200mBq/m3). This value was presented on the CNSC website for the purpose of showing what certain concentrations in air meant in terms of dose if exposed for an entire year. In fact, the CNSC website states “These values should not be construed as regulatory limits set by the CNSC, but rather as reference values provided for context.” The highest recorded level in Canada occurred on March 29, at Resolute Bay in Nunavut and was measured to be 9.76mBq/m3. In this case, the concentration was only present for a single day.

Estimates for the dose to Canadians as a result of Iodine-131 from Fukushima are 500,000 times less than what has been shown to have any negative health effects. Equivalent activities that would give you the same dose include getting 1/50th of a panoramic dental X-Ray, or 6 hours worth of cosmic background radiation.

Radiation is part of our natural environment and has been present in our lives for much longer than human history, at levels that are hundreds, if not thousands of times more than what was received as a result of Fukushima. Canadian knowledge about radiation has saved and improved the quality of life of millions of people, at home and around the world in the fields of medicine and science. The article written by Alex Roslin is poorly researched and I urge all Canadians to think critically and use their own good judgment before believing false arguments.

Any readers wishing to continue this discussion are encouraged to leave a comment on our blog TalkNuclear.ca and join the conversation at Facebook.com/TalkNuclear and Twitter.com/TalkNuclear.

Sincerely,

James Harrington
Project Researcher
Canadian Nuclear Association.