The Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant accident and exposures in the environment

Akahane, Keiichi; Yonai, Shunsuke; Fukuda, Satoshi; Miyahara, Nobuyuki; Yasuda, Hiroshi; Iwaoka, Kazuki; Matsumoto, Masaki; Fukumura, Akifumi; Akashi, Makoto

doi:10.1007/s10669-011-9381-2

Cited by 46 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, collective radiation exposure to workers and local populations appears to be lower from Fukushima compared with Chernobyl due to stricter safety precautions taken after the Fukushima accident. [21][22][23] For these reasons, some have suggested that radiation exposure from the Fukushima nuclear accident had no health effects. 24,25 This contention is evaluated here.…”

Section: 13mentioning

confidence: 99%

Worldwide health effects of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident

Hoeve

Jacobson

2012

Energy Environ. Sci.

277

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study quantifies worldwide health effects of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident on 11 March 2011. Effects are quantified with a 3-D global atmospheric model driven by emission estimates and evaluated against daily worldwide Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) measurements and observed deposition rates. Inhalation exposure, ground-level external exposure, and atmospheric external exposure pathways of radioactive iodine-131, cesium-137, and cesium-134 released from Fukushima are accounted for using a linear no-threshold (LNT) model of human exposure. Exposure due to ingestion of contaminated food and water is estimated by extrapolation. We estimate an additional 130 (15-1100) cancer-related mortalities and 180 (24-1800) cancer-related morbidities incorporating uncertainties associated with the exposure-dose and dose-response models used in the study. We also discuss the LNT model's uncertainty at low doses. Sensitivities to emission rates, gas to particulate I-131 partitioning, and the mandatory evacuation radius around the plant are also explored, and may increase upper bound mortalities and morbidities in the ranges above to 1300 and 2500, respectively. Radiation exposure to workers at the plant is projected to result in 2 to 12 morbidities. An additional $600 mortalities have been reported due to non-radiological causes such as mandatory evacuations. Lastly, a hypothetical accident at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant in California, USA with identical emissions to Fukushima was studied to analyze the influence of location and seasonality on the impact of a nuclear accident. This hypothetical accident may cause $25% more mortalities than Fukushima despite California having one fourth the local population density due to differing meteorological conditions.

show abstract

Section: 13mentioning

confidence: 99%

Worldwide health effects of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident

Hoeve

Jacobson

2012

Energy Environ. Sci.

277

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Whereas the vulnerable subduction zone off Japan's east coast is known for its earthquake potential, the combination of episodic effects that occurred on March 11, 2011, together with power outages, were not anticipated in the siting and emergency planning of the Fukushima power plants. The radioactive releases that followed now bring into question the need for contingency planning that could anticipate such human and environmental exposures (in time and space) and how to proceed with managing contaminated areas (79,80). By reinterpreting planning and response strategies based on experiences gained during this multifaceted disaster, decision makers can learn ways of promoting more sustainable approaches of mitigating risk (37).…”

Section: Examples Of Improving Sustainability Analysis In Different Ementioning

confidence: 99%

Broader perspective on ecosystem sustainability: Consequences for decision making

Sidle

Benson

Carriger

et al. 2013

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although the concept of ecosystem sustainability has a long-term focus, it is often viewed from a static system perspective. Because most ecosystems are dynamic, we explore sustainability assessments from three additional perspectives: resilient systems; systems where tipping points occur; and systems subject to episodic resetting. Whereas foundations of ecosystem resilience originated in ecology, recent discussions have focused on geophysical attributes, and it is recognized that dynamic system components may not return to their former state following perturbations. Tipping points emerge when chronic changes (typically anthropogenic, but sometimes natural) push ecosystems to thresholds that cause collapse of process and function and may become permanent. Ecosystem resetting occurs when episodic natural disasters breach thresholds with little or no warning, resulting in long-term changes to environmental attributes or ecosystem function. An example of sustainability assessment of ecosystem goods and services along the Gulf Coast (USA) demonstrates the need to include both the resilient and dynamic nature of biogeomorphic components. Mountain road development in northwest Yunnan, China, makes rivers and related habitat vulnerable to tipping points. Ecosystems reset by natural disasters are also presented, emphasizing the need to understand the magnitude frequency and interrelationships among major disturbances, as shown by (i) the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and resulting tsunami, including how unsustainable urban development exacerbates geodisaster propagation, and (ii) repeated major earthquakes and associated geomorphic and vegetation disturbances in Papua New Guinea. Although all of these ecosystem perturbations and shifts are individually recognized, they are not embraced in contemporary sustainable decision making.ecosystem stressors | complex system behavior | sustainability analysis | cascading effects | coastal zone management

show abstract

“…In addition, the development of nuclear medicine and nuclear energy elevates the radiation background over the planet, not even considering Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters (Akahane et al, 2012;Grigoriev, 2012c In conclusion, we would like to point out the following:…”

Section: Wi-fi and Mobile Communications Effects On Childrenmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wi-Fi technology – an uncontrolled global experiment on the health of mankind

Markov

2013

Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The twenty-first century is marked with exponentially increasing development of technologies that provide wireless communications. To the pollution of the atmosphere with radio and TV signals, not only satellite communications but also any varieties of the Wi-Fi networks are added. By 2010 in the USA, 285 million mobile phone subscribers have been registered (for a little bit more than 300 million inhabitants). The estimate for the world is more than 5 billion mobile phone users at approximately 7 billion people living on this planet. Approximately 2 years ago, the International Agency of Research on Cancer (IARC) classified the electromagnetic fields used in mobile communication as a possible cancerogene. This paper discusses the potential health hazard and lack of scientific assessment and regulatory actions in protection of the life on the planet.

show abstract

The Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant accident and exposures in the environment

Cited by 46 publications

References 0 publications

Worldwide health effects of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident

Worldwide health effects of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident

Broader perspective on ecosystem sustainability: Consequences for decision making

Wi-Fi technology – an uncontrolled global experiment on the health of mankind

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About