Fuksuhima nuclear accident – two years later

On March 11^th , and 12^th, the two year anniversary of the Fukushima nuclear accident, some 400 people gathered at of the New York Academy of Medicine to hear 20 prestigious speakers discuss the meaning of this event, for Japan, and for the world. The subject was The Medical and Ecological Consequences of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident, a project of The Helen Caldicott Foundation, co-sponsored by Physicians for Social Responsibility.

I don't think that there has ever been an international gathering quite like this, with so many highly qualified speakers discussing the meaning of a critical world event.So, I was a bit disappointed to find myself to be the only Australian there.(apart from symposium co-ordinator Dr Helen Caldicott ).

The professionalism of this event was apparent – from the historic venue, to the calibre of the speakers, the organisation of the event, and the seriousness of the 400 or so participants. Yet, amongst the people present, I did not feel the presence of the general scientific and political Establishment. Certainly there was no one in evidence from the nuclear industry, or any pro nuclear group. I suppose that They just might feel uncomfortable, listening to highly competent experts like Dr Alexie Yablokov, who contradicted the official position about "few deaths" from Chernobyl. Or like nuclear engineer Arnie Gunderson, with his incisive criticisms of nuclear power safety claims.

Then there's Dr Helen Caldicott herself, with her unanswerable way of combining an encyclopaedic knowledge of nuclear issues, with formidable logic , passion, and even more impressive – plan speaking.

So, the mainstream media didn't show up, either, – except for that brief period at one lunch-time, when two American navy men from the USS Ronald Reagan spoke of their radiation exposure at Fukushima.

Anyway – if they thought that this symposium would be full of flag waving activists, and with anti nuclear pamphlets and books everywhere – they thought wrong. The whole atmosphere of this gathering was serious, and the speakers emphasised the limitations of research, and the need for critical thinking. As epidemiologist Dr Steve Wing pointed out – "Not every study has to find excess cancers".

The content of the symposium kept pretty well to the title. So, participants learned a great deal about the effects of ionising radiation, and also about the complexities and problems in assessing those effects.

Japan's former Prime Minister Naoto Kan opened the symposium, (by Video). The seriousness of the Fukushima situation was explained by Dr Hisaku Sakiyama , diplomat Akio Matsumura , and nuclear engineer Hiroaki Koide The Japanese presence and support for this event was strongly evident. A group of concerned Japanese mothers, spoke at an informal lunch-time meeting.

It is not easy to pick out significant speeches from this field of speakers – covering radiation science, biology, cancer studies, paediatrics, epidemiology ecology, marine environments, oceanography, engineering, nuclear technology, public health, public policy - I thought that they were all significant.

Arnie Gundersen and scientist David Lochbaum elaborated on the design and safety issues of the Fukushima and American nuclear plants, and the needs for future safety design, (and the costs of this)

Medical scientist Dr Steven Starr , and and marine biologist Ken Buesseler addressed environmental issues – the spread of cesium 134 and 137 , and the continuing radiation release into the ocean. Biologist, Professor Tim Mousseau's research into wildlife in Chernobyl, and now Fukushima, is revealing the genetic effects of radiation, on later generations of insects and birds. This has implications for human genetics – and the newly important studies into genomic instability.

On the subject of ionising radiation, Dr Sakiyama gave perhaps the most comprehensive explanation – leading to the conclusion that children and pregnant women are at greatest risk from exposure .

Dr. Marek Niedziela's (video) presentation gave a timely account of radiation effects on thyroid glands, thyroid abnormalities and later cancers.

Radiation experts Dr Ian Fairlie, Dr David Brenner, Dr Steve Wing, Joseph Mangano and Herbert Abrams discussed methods of estimating radiation effects, particularly in relation to cancer.. Brenner and Wing sounded notes of caution – about the incidence of cancer anyway, (without exposure to radiation), and about the drawbacks in both risk assessment methods, and epidemiological methods of doing this estimation.

The inadequacies of the Atomic Bomb Survivors Lifetime Study were explained, and speakers were scathing about the biases and assumptions made in early estimates of the Fukushima health effects. Dr Fairlie exposed the flaws in the World Health Organisation's radiation risk science.

Joe Mangano warned on "the greatest challenge to the research community – corruption – the corruption of the scientific method". Steve Wing saw the main threats to scientific knowledge as "a lack of critical thinking", and "a failure to question authority".

A huge welcome was given to Dr Alexei Yablokov, Russian environmental researcher, who in 2009 first revealed to the world the magnitude of the health effects of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. (And The Establishment didn't like this). He and Dr Wladimir Wertelecki focussed on research areas that have been ignored by the world's scientific and health authorities. Their research highlighted the effects of internal emitters of radiation – the radionucleides that are breathed in or ingested, and lodge inside the body.

Both Yablokov and Wertelecki stressed the impacts on women, on foetuses, infants and children. Dr Werterlecki's outstanding research on congenital malformations deserves a presentation all on its own. Alas, no space here to do justice to his account of the 10 year Ukraine program Omni-Net Ukraine Birth Defects Prevention Program . But, having listened to these speakers, one is left in no doubt that women and infants are in the greatest need of protection from ionising radiation. And also that the accepted radiation standards – based on an adult man, are a joke. This imbalance, the neglect of focus on the vulnerability of women, was emphasised by Mary Olson in discussing "Gender Matters in the Atomic Age".

While radiation was the main theme of the symposium, the second day shifted the focus to America's nuclear waste problem.. Robert Alvarez described the dangers of America's cooling ponds of nuclear wastes. Kevin Kamps / discussed this too, in his overall look at the history of the nuclear industry, and the secrecy and collusion in Japan that is paralleled in America.

Cindy Folkers, radiation and health researcher. detailed another area that has been pretty much "taboo" in the media – the question of radioactive contamination of food – the monitoring, and the non monitoring of this. Folkers recommends a limit of no more than 5 becquerels per kilogram in food, (though none is better) . USA permits 1200 becquerels and upwards per kg in food.

My favourite speaker was David Freeman, former head of the Tennessee Valley Authority – well, favourite because of his sense of humour, and very, very, down to earth style. Freeman outlined the history of commercial nuclear power – born in war, always a cover for nuclear weapons, always uneconomic. The USA's spread of nuclear technology leads inevitably to the spread of nuclear weapons. Freeman criticised the anti nuclear movement for using sarcasm – which doesn't work, doesn't persuade anybody. He emphasised the nuclear waste problem, and nuclear costs, and pointed to the renewable energy movement as the way to a nuclear free future.

I worry about many other facets of the nuclear danger - the effect of climate change on nuclear reactors, the effect of the nuclear industry on water scarcity, secrecy, on indigenous peoples, weapons proliferation, civil liberties. This symposium could not, and did not try, to cover so many other aspects. But the focus on ionising radiation was timely, as the nuclear lobby pushes the idea that "low level" radiation is safe, and governments lift the standard for "acceptable" radiation.

The public is not aware of the full implications of the radiation issue. We understand that an individual's health risk, particularly the cancer risk, of added low level radiation is small. But even the rather conservative Dr Brenner emphasised the seriousness of the increased collective risk - which means a great many more cancers in the population as a whole.

David Freeman assessed nuclear power and climate change as "the most horrible threats that mankind faces". With two years having passed now, since the Fukushima accident, media, business and governments will no doubt tend to ignore its effects.

The impact of this symposium will go well beyond March 2013, because of the impression made on the participants, and because the lectures, documents and graphic illustrations are available online at Nuclear Free Planet They will also appear as a film Cinema Forum Fukushima, and in book form.

The New York lectures will continue to play an important role in keeping the nuclear danger in front of the public.