Pays to read the source

ABC once again push the panic button on a WHO report on a Health Risk Assessment of the Fukashima Nuclear Disaster. The ABC story by Reuters fails to adequately explain the WHO findings.

The source document is quite clear and succinct on the risks. Here are a few things missing from ABC's report.
This from the report's executive summary:
"Outside of the geographical areas most affected by radiation, even in locations within Fukushima prefecture, the predicted risks remain low and no observable increases in cancer above natural variation in baseline rates are anticipated."


"The estimated dose levels in Fukushima prefecture were also too low to affect fetal development or outcome of pregnancy and no increases, as a result of antenatal radiation exposure, in spontaneous abortion, miscarriage, perinatal mortality, congenital defects or cognitive impairment are anticipated."


The Exec. summary states: "In the two most affected locations of Fukushima prefecture, the preliminary estimated radiation effective doses for the first year ranged from 12 to 25 mSv."

However ABC's report claims:
"The report found that these people received a lifetime radiation dose of up to 50 milli-Sieverts (MSV) and therefore have a significant, but relatively small, additional risk of contracting cancer in later life."

ABC's report states:
"In the most contaminated area, the WHO estimated there was a 70 per cent higher risk of females exposed as infants developing thyroid cancer over their lifetime.
The thyroid is the most exposed organ as radioactive iodine concentrates there and children are deemed especially vulnerable."

 ABC fails to add the important follow on information explaining the risk for Thyroid cancer:
"Due to the low baseline rates of thyroid cancer, even a large relative increase represents a small absolute increase in risks. For example, the baseline lifetime risk of thyroid cancer for females is just three-quarters of one percent and the additional lifetime risk estimated in this assessment for a female infant exposed in the most affected location is one-half of one percent."

It was only in the geographically smaller areas where exposures were higher that the increased cancer risks are significant. For thyroid cancer the actual increase in risk is one-half of one percent.

Nothing ABC loves more than a beat up!

Suckers for alarm: Latest radiation scare

ABC's alarmist reporter Mark Willacy gets sucked in by a study that claims "the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan may eventually cause up to 1,300 deaths." There is not a skerrick of journalistic scepticism in ABC's report. Andrew Bolt provides some missing background in his criticism of a similar piece published by the Fairfax Press.

Here's the gist of it:

Here’s a few facts omitted from the article - facts which suggest the findings are alarmist trash.

- Jacobson (co-author of the study) is a long-time anti-nuclear activist and global warming campaigner.

- Jacobson’s past absurd claims include asserting that by 2030 “wind, water and solar technologies can provide 100 percent of the world’s energy, eliminating all fossil fuels” - a purely fantastical infrastructure plan that grossly exaggerates the output and reliability of solar and wind power and grossly underplays the cost.

- Jacobson has claimed “nuclear power results in up to 25 times more carbon emissions than wind energy” (a finding contradicted by many experts), basing his calculations on the absurd assumption that the emissions of a nuclear power station should include the emissions of the likely nuclear war that could result...

- Jacobson still assumes the discredited no-safe-dose theory of nuclear radiation, claiming that infinitesimally small levels of radiation spread widely enough will still kill hundreds.

See Andrew's Post for the rest.