When University of Edinburgh graduate student Claire Leppold attended a lecture on the aftermath of the Fukushima Daichi nuclear accident, caused by the massive earthquake and tsunami in 2011, she expected to learn about high cancer and birth defect rates because of exposure to high radiation levels. She wrote that what she learned shocked her:

I knew there had been a nuclear accident in Fukushima. I assumed this had led to dangerous radiation levels and increases in cancers. I had never entertained the thought of visiting.

What happens next could be described as a clash between what I thought I knew and reality.

The researchers gave a series of presentations. They showed us what they had found in Fukushima; there were overwhelmingly low levels of internal and external radiation in residents, and a mass screening of babies and children revealed that none had detectable levels of internal radiation contamination. Yet, other health problems were emerging; in contrast to low levels of radiation, an increased burden of diseases unrelated to radiation, such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, hypertension and more, was being found. Particular health risks associated with evacuation were highlighted, including evidence that immediate evacuation of the elderly from nursing homes was associated with three times higher mortality risk that non-evacuation. It was presented to us that radiation may not be the biggest problem for Fukushima.

I was surprised. This appeared to be, in fact, the exact opposite of what one may think about Fukushima. This surely was not the Fukushima I had heard of or visualized, and my curiosity was piqued. I talked to the researchers and proposed an idea for further research. They, in turn, invited me to come to Fukushima to write my Master’s dissertation. I agreed.

When she got there and began her own investigations, she was even more shocked. “I never saw the actual results of misinformation until I moved to Fukushima. Now, I see them everywhere.”

Among the most prominent is misinformation about radiation levels there. The common perception outside Fukushima—not only in distant countries but even in much of Japan—is that radiation from the damaged nuclear plant caused widespread illness and has left the area unfit for habitation. Not so:

… these beliefs directly contradict what is being found scientifically. Recently, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) formally predicted that there will be no effects of radiation exposure on the health of the general public in Fukushima. It was additionally highlighted that there are no expected hereditary or genetic effects that will be seen in new generations. The misinformation that has led to stigma and subsequent disruption of lives here therefore appears to be at conflict with the reality of the situation; an example of the tragic impacts mistaken knowledge can have on the lives of disaster-affected populations.

The reality is that almost all the harm, to people as well as to structures, came from the earthquake and tsunami, and essentially none from radiation. Yet most of the efforts to help there focus on the supposed radiation hazards, ignoring the real harms and scaring away many people who might otherwise go there to help.

Sadly, some other nations have cut back plans to build new nuclear power stations, or, like Germany, are even hastening the closure of operating ones (to be replaced by more coal-fired plants because there’s no way wind and solar can fill the gap), because of fears generated by the Fukushima disaster. What their citizens don’t know is that the disaster wasn’t about radiation at all, and the nuclear plant there was by no means the most important element in it.

Though fears of CO2-driven global warming are badly exaggerated, it is ironic to see countries committed to fighting global warming rejecting the most sensible means: adopting more nuclear energy, which is by all measures the safest and can be among the most affordable source.

 

 

Featured image courtesy of “naturalflow,” Flickr Creative Commons.