Antinuclear

Law in Japan recognises victims of low level ionising radiation

The 1986 nuclear accident at Chernobyl in Ukraine deepened the understanding of internal exposure. When thyroid cancer surged among children there, it was traced to contaminated cows’ milk they had consumed. ..

 Since 2006, about 300 hibakusha [in Japan] have won in 30 class-action suits nationwide. In many, judges ruled “early entrants” should also get benefits. In effect, this was the first official acknowledgment that internal exposure could cause health problems, given that these people weren’t exposed to the blasts, but to later fallout.

Discovery of radiation in autumn rice crops from Fukushima has put people on alert. …..

Extended low-level exposure might actually be more hazardous than a one-time blast if a brief, high dose just kills cells, whereas internal exposure could damage them even at low levels, ultimately causing cancer. 

Past Haunts Tally of Japan’s Nuke Crisis, WSJ  By YUKA HAYASHI, 23 Dec 11 KASHIWA, Japan—The struggle to understand the health consequences of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear meltdown carries an eerie echo of Japan’s past: The nation is still debating who is a victim of the atomic bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II.

On Wednesday, in the latest in a series of high-profile lawsuits, four of five people who were exposed to radiation from the bombings—but weren’t present at the actual blasts—won official recognition as victims. Until recent years, Japan held that only people who experienced the actual blasts at close range were victims, because secondary radiation posed negligible danger.

This debate resonates today because many potential victims of the Fukushima disaster will have received only secondary radiation, for instance from eating tainted food or inhaling dust.

Which is one reason why Takashi Asahina, 79 years old, says he recently brought a
megaphone to the train station in Kashiwa—a town on high alert because
radiation “hot spots” from Fukushima have been found here, 120 miles
away.

As commuters hustled by in a winter shower, Mr. Asahina warned passing
mothers to keep children sheltered from the rain and advised anyone
who would listen to track their radiation exposure. “Radiation effects
won’t show up immediately,” he said. “Don’t take down your guard.” For
years after the World War II bombings, Japan kept its criteria for
victim status vague, never stating one way or the other whether
internal exposure (or other conditions) qualified. But before 2008,
virtually all “early entrants” to the bombed areas were denied
benefits, according to a health-ministry official.

Vast studies of Japan’s hibakusha, “the people exposed to bombs,”
provide a foundation of the scientific understanding of radiation’s
human effects. These studies today are the basis for global
nuclear-safety standards.

But hibakusha studies focused on people exposed most intensively to
the blasts. They gave minimal attention to people a few miles from the
blast or who visited the hypocenters later, and to people exposed over
time from tainted food, rain or snow.

The 1986 nuclear accident at Chernobyl in Ukraine deepened the
understanding of internal exposure. When thyroid cancer surged among
children there, it was traced to contaminated cows’ milk they had
consumed. ..
Critics argue that the lack of research on low-level or internal
exposure means today’s policies may downplay the health risks, whether
for bomb survivors or for people near power plants.

“The government has always underestimated the impact of radiation
exposure,” says Shoji Sawada, a Hiroshima survivor and retired nuclear
physicist who advocates for greater attention to the bombs’ health
effects…….
When hibakusha claiming just low-level exposure started seeking
compensation in the 1960s, they faced a kind of Catch-22: They were
told there was no conclusive evidence to prove health effects, because
low-level exposure hadn’t been studied. Many claimed ailments similar
to people who had been hit directly by the blast: hair loss, bleeding
and, years later, cancer, cataracts and heart problems.

They took to the courts, launching a remarkable decades-long
debate—part scientific, part legal—over low-level radiation risks. The
cases offer some of the most comprehensive records assembled on a
question today at the heart of assessing Fukushima’s potential danger.

The movement built slowly. But in 2000, the Supreme Court sided with a
Nagasaki woman who linked her partial paralysis to exposure and
proximity to the blast, some 2.5 kilometers away. The court also ruled
the government should consider compensating hibakusha who received
low-level radiation at greater distances.

That ruling opened the gates. Since 2006, about 300 hibakusha have won
in 30 class-action suits nationwide. In many, judges ruled “early
entrants” should also get benefits. In effect, this was the first
official acknowledgment that internal exposure could cause health
problems, given that these people weren’t exposed to the blasts, but
to later fallout.

In 2008 Japan eased its criteria for survivor benefits, granting them
to people with certain health problems who were within 3.5 kilometers
of the epicenters, compared to 1-to-2 kilometers previously. In
addition, “early entrants” who went near hypocenters within 100 hours
of the bombings are now included.

Now, just as the court cases are winding down, debate over Fukushima
is building. Discovery of radiation in autumn rice crops from
Fukushima has put people on alert. …..
Extended low-level exposure might actually be more hazardous than a
one-time blast if a brief, high dose just kills cells, whereas
internal exposure could damage them even at low levels, ultimately
causing cancer. Other experts say it’s simply prudent to use extra
caution on low-level exposure, since little data
exists…..http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204879004577108954246383844.html

December 23, 2011 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized