Bulletin IT IS 5 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT of the Atomic

Scientists ®

Feature Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 69(5) 56–67 ! The Author(s) 2013 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav Nuclear denial: From DOI: 10.1177/0096340213501369 to Fukushima http://thebulletin.sagepub.com

Charles Perrow

Abstract Governments and the industry have a strong interest in playing down the harmful effects of radiation from atomic weapons and nuclear power plants. Over the years, some scientists have supported the view that low levels of radiation are not harmful, while other scientists have held that all radiation is harmful. The author examines the radiation effects of nuclear bombs dropped on Japan in 1945; nuclear weapons testing; plant accidents at Windscale in England and Chelyabinsk in the Soviet Union; emissions during normal operations; and the power plant accidents at Three Mile Island in the United States, in the Soviet Union, and Fukushima Daiichi in Japan. In each case, he finds a pattern of minimizing the damage to humans and attributing evidence of shortened life spans mostly to stress and social dislocation rather than to radiation. While low-level radiation is now generally accepted as harmful, its effects are deemed to be so small that they cannot be distinguished from the much greater effects of stress and social dislocation. Thus, some scientists declare that there is no point in even studying the populations exposed to the radioactive elements released into the atmosphere during the 2011 accident at Fukushima.

Keywords Chernobyl, Fukushima, Hiroshima, human health, Nagasaki, nuclear power plants, radiation, Three Mile Island

he Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disas- headlines differ little from those that ter, which began in March 2011, is appeared in 1945: ÒSurvey Rules Out T unique in many respects: the massive Nagasaki DangersÓ then, and ÒExperts tsunami, the multiple reactor meltdowns, Foresee No Detectable Health Impact the rats gnawing through switchboards, from Fukushima RadiationÓ now (Greene, the struggle to contain huge amounts of 2012; Revkin, 2013). This is the same radioactive . But when it comes to nuclear denial that also greeted nuclear the human health impacts of the ongoing bomb tests, plutonium plant disasters at emergency in Japan, itÕs djˆ vu all over Windscale in northern England and again, as Yogi Berra would say. Fukushima Chelyabinsk in the Ural Mountains, and is an eerie replay of the denial and contro- the nuclear power plant accidents at versy that began with the atomic bomb- Three Mile Island in the United States ings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The 2011 and Chernobyl in what is now Ukraine. Perrow 57

Today, the scientific community declared that there were not likely to remains divided over the effects of low- be any long-term radiation dangers. level radiation, with a significant minor- One of the first was a spokesperson for ity of experts holding that low levels are the Nuclear Energy Institute, a nuclear essentially harmless, while the majority energy trade group, who declared says that all levels are harmful to some three months after the accident that degree (Beyea, 2012). Estimates of how Òno health effects are expected among many people will die as a result of radi- the Japanese people as a result of the ation released from Fukushima range events at FukushimaÓ (Nuclear Energy from none (UNSCEAR, 2013) to 1,400 Institute, 2011). people developing cancer as a result of The World Health Organization was just the first year of exposure to fallout in also reassuring, stating that while people the contaminated regions outside the worldwide receive about 3 millisieverts evacuation zone (Rosen, 2012). of radiation per year from sources The Fukushima disagreement is only including background radiation and the latest chapter in a 68-year-old story. medical procedures, only two Japanese Although it may seem that the two sci- communities had effective dose rates of entific camps are not far apart, the ques- 10 to 50 millisieverts, a bit higher than tion of whether there is any threshold for normal.1 The rest of the Fukushima pre- radiation impacts is a critical one. Unlike fecture and neighboring prefectures the climate debate, nuclear ÒdeniersÓ were below 10 millisieverts (Brumfiel, are not a tiny minority but rather are 2012; World Health Organization, 2012b). respected members of the scientific Experts convened in by the community who specialize in radiation Scientific Committee effects. Most of these experts no longer on the Effects of Atomic Radiation con- contend that there is zero harm in low- cluded: ÒRadiation exposure following level radiation, but rather that the range the nuclear accident at Fukushima- of uncertainty includes zero: In other Daiichi did not cause any immediate words, low-level health effects may health effects. It is unlikely to be able to exist, but they are too small to measure. attribute any health effects in the future This view preserves the status quo, since among the general public and the vast there is no point in comprehensively majority of workersÓ (UNSCEAR, 2013). measuring low-level radiation effects A public health study at Fukushima or taking aggressive steps to prevent Medical University reported that only harm. Nuclear denial creates scientific 0.7 percent of people exposed received ambiguity that provides cover for gov- doses above 10 millisieverts in the first ernmental and commercial interests four months after the accident, and that and allows nuclear power to continue the highest recorded dose was 23 milli- expanding worldwide. , well below the 100-millisievert exposure level at which the World Fukushima’s health effects Health Organization estimates a slight increase in cancer risk (Brumfiel and Soon after the Fukushima Daiichi dis- Fuyuno, 2012). aster began, industry organizations, An article in Scientific American governments, and international agencies (republished in Nature) saw no health 58 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 69(5) effects from radiation and was positively IRSN found places in four municipalities jolly. While one expert quoted in the art- where doses could have been higher icle said that victims could no longer get than 25 millisieverts, and noted this was the usual treatments for their conditions without counting plume exposure or because of disruptions in the health consumption of contaminated food- system, he also said they Òare probably stuffs (IRSN, 2012). Contamination at getting better care than they were levels above 50 millisieverts could have beforeÓ the accident (Harmon, 2012). occurred as far as 60 kilometers south of Other studies, however, have raised the power plant (IRSN, 2012). Close to considerable alarm. German pediatri- 70,000 people living outside the evacu- cian Alex Rosen examined reports from ation zone were likely to receive a dose Japanese agencies that came to quite dif- greater than 10 millisieverts in the first ferent conclusions than US and inter- year, the report said (IRSN, 2012). national agencies such as the World Nuclear physicist Frank N. von Hippel Health Organization. One example, initially estimated 1,000 extra cancer from the Japanese Ministry of Education, deaths from radiation by extrapola- Culture, Sports, Science and Technology ting from an estimate of 16,000 cancer (MEXT), indicated that a child living in deaths caused by Chernobyl (von Iitate (a village in Fukushima prefecture) Hippel, 2011). More recently, von Hippel and spending about eight hours a day and others have estimated from 1,000 to outside would be exposed to about 148 3,000 cancer deaths (Beyea et al., 2013; millisieverts during the course of a Fairlie, 2013). yearÑ100 times the natural background radiation in Japan of 1.48 millisieverts per Nuclear bomb fallout year (Rosen, 2012). Medical checks by the Minami- Contradictory messages about radiation Soma municipal hospital using whole- effects are nothing new. In 1945, the body counters reportedly found that bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki more than half of the 527 children exam- created radioactive fallout that contami- ined during and after September 2011 had nated food sources and the landscape. internal exposure to cesium-137, one of The US government minimized the dam- the isotopes that pose the greatest risk ages immediately. Based on government to human health following nuclear acci- reports, a headline in the New York dents (Sentaku, 2012). Times claimed, ÒNo Radioactivity in The French Institute for Radiological Hiroshima Ruin.Ó Three weeks later, Protection and Nuclear Safety (IRSN) under the headline ÒSurvey Rules Out also tells an alarming story. The institute Nagasaki Dangers,Ó the subhead in the found areas with ambient dose rates 20 New York Times said, ÒRadioactivity to 40 times higher than natural back- after Atomic Bomb Is Only 1,000th ground radiation, and in the most con- of that from Luminous Dial WatchÓ taminated areas the rates were 10 times (Greene, 2012). those elevated dose rates (IRSN, 2012:). The denial continued long after the While the World Health Organization initial blasts. In 1953, the Atomic Energy report found just two communities Commission insisted that low-level with doses of 10 to 50 millisieverts, exposure to radiation Òcan be continued Perrow 59 indefinitely without any detectable framing than a small increase of two bodily changeÓ (Johnston, 2007). In 1954, per 1,000 (Hamblin, 2007). the United States exploded a powerful The passage of time allowed more hydrogen bomb in the Marshall Islands, cancers to appear, and by 2005 it was releasing a huge amount of cesium-137. clear that any dose of radiation was The fallout area was wider than harmful, and scientists had found a expected. Marshall Island citizens were linear increase in risk with increasing exposed to life-threatening doses of radiation doses. They had also identified radioactive fallout, as were Japanese other damaging health effects besides fishermen outside the official danger cancers: in particular, genetic changes zone. There was a public outcry, but the passed on to succeeding generations. Atomic Energy Commission saw it as an There was no threshold below which radi- opportunity. One scientist said, with ation exposure was harmless (National ghoulish racism: ÒIt would be very inter- Research Council, 2006). Still, some scien- esting to go back and get good environ- tists, even radiation experts, continue mental data [on what happens] ... when to speak of radiation in relative lan- people live in a contaminated environ- guageÑcomparing exposure with x-rays, ment. ... Whileitistruethatthese forexampleÑratherthanacknowledging people do not live, I would say, the way that any additional radiation is harmful Westerners do, civilized people, it is and still insist that there is a threshold nevertheless also true that they are more below which there is no harm. like us than the miceÓ (Alvarez, 2010). What, in fact, were the long-term The aftermath of the 1954 test created effects of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki a fissure in the scientific community. bombs? Reports estimate a total of Atomic scientists said that while high about 1,900 excess leukemia deaths and levels of radiation could kill, low levels cases of other cancers can be attributed were not harmful. But geneticists said to radiation (Radiation Effects Research that all levels of radiation exposure Foundation, 2007). This is not a gigantic were harmful. The two factions reached number compared with roughly 200,000 a fragile consensus in a 1956 report by deaths from the bombsÕ immediate the National Academy of Sciences. Biol- effects, but it is not as negligible as the ogists on the committee successfully US governmentÕs estimate of 430 cancer established that all radiation was harm- deaths (US Department of Homeland ful, but representatives of the Atomic Security, n.d.). Energy Commission succeeded in promoting a statistical or population Nuclear weapons processing approach, which diluted the danger. One member of the AcademyÕs research team As the United States, the Soviet Union, pointed to the problem: The number of the United Kingdom, and other coun- children handicapped by genetic muta- tries expanded their nuclear arsenals, tions per 1,000 live births might only another problem emerged. In 1957, a increase from 20 to 22, but in the United fire in a at the British States alone this would mean something plutonium-manufacturing plant at like an additional 300,000 handicapped Windscale burned for five days, sending children per generationÑa different radioactive material over a large area 60 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 69(5) of Cumbria. The event was not made The chairman of the Atomic Energy public and no evacuation was ordered. Commission announced that the project The accident resulted in an estimated was intended to Òhighlight the peaceful 240 cancers among those living near applications of nuclear explosive the site (Corey, 1979; Morelle, 2007). devices and thereby create a climate of But, as with the link between smoking world opinion that is more favorable and cancer, some scientists disputed to weapons development and testsÓ the cancer connection. One imaginative (Strauss, quoted in Kuznick, 2011, research account attributes the docu- emphasis added). As a Pentagon official mented rise in childhood leukemia to put it in 1953: ÒThe atomic bomb will be Òpopulation mixing,Ó wherein rural chil- accepted far more readily if at the same dren who have not acquired the usual time atomic energy is being used for immunity to childhood leukemia move constructive endsÓ (Osgood, 2008: 156). to an urban place where they can be Nuclear power became the major exposed (Kinlen, 2011). vehicle for this constructive change. A much more serious accident, also in The relationship between weapons and 1957, was a huge explosion at the power is intimate; nuclear power plants Chelyabinsk nuclear weapons process- produce low-grade plutonium that can ing plant in the eastern Ural Mountains be reprocessed into weapon-grade plu- of the Soviet Union. One estimate is that tonium. As State Department Attorney 272,000 people were irradiated; lakes William H. Taft IV warned in 1981, the and streams were contaminated, and civilian nuclear power industry could radioactivity levels are still extremely be seriously damaged because of the high in some areas (Hertsgaard, 2006). Òmistaken impressionÓ that low-level The world did not know of this event radiation is hazardous (Greene, 2012). It for decades; the Soviet Union thought was not a mistaken impression. In 1953, it was essential to keep it secret. The an American anthropologist working for CIA knew of it immediately but also the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission kept it secret. If a processing plant showed that Japanese children who were could do that much damage, it would exposed to fallout were not only smaller be a powerful argument against building than their counterparts but also had nuclear weapons. less resistance to disease in general and were more susceptible to cancer, Nuclear power especially leukemia. The report was censored (Johnston, 2011). But there By exploiting the peaceful uses of the would be more. atomÑin medicine, earth removal, and later in nuclear power plantsÑnuclear Power plant accidents deniers embarked on an ambitious pro- gram to dissipate fears about things After bomb testing ended, a new demon nuclear and gain acceptance for nuclear emerged: the possibility of a serious weapons. One element in the Òfriendly power plant accident. Following the atomÓ program was Project Plowshare, ThreeMileIslandaccidentin1979, in which atomic explosions would a Columbia University study found enlarge harbors and the Panama Canal. increases in some cancersÑbut there Perrow 61 were factors that ruled out a cancer link, penetrating radiations, almost every one of which was that the level of radi- instance of cancer that could have ation was said to be too low to have come from radiation could instead have caused them. What, then, could have come from other sources. These cancers caused the increase? The researchers sug- existed before the nuclear age, just as gested it was stress (Hatch et al., 1991). A lung cancers existed before smoking group of citizens that was suing the utility was widespread. There could always be asked for a second study (Wing, 2003). an alternative explanation. The issue is Lawyers for the litigants supported a non- ripe for what British sociologist Linsey profit group that financed a new analysis McGoey (2012) calls Òthe mobilization of the data by researchers from the Uni- of ambiguity.Ó versity of North Carolina. They found: The Soviet Union successfully mobi- ÒAccident doses were positively asso- lized this ambiguity after the 1986 ciated with cancer incidence. Associa- , when Soviet pres- tions were largest for leukemia, tige was at stake. The government sup- intermediate for lung cancer, and smal- pressed medical studies by Soviet lest for all cancers combined; larger for scientists, and doctors were told not to longer than for shorter latency; and use the designation of leukemia in health larger with adjustment for socioeco- reports. But as the years went by and nomic variablesÓ (Wing et al., 1997: 52). radioactive particles in the air, earth, In a lengthy trial, the federal judge dis- plants, and animals did their work, life agreed, finding that Òthe paucity of expectancy in the polluted areas of Bela- proofÓ by the plaintiffs was Òmanifest.Ó rus, Ukraine, and southern fell A later study at the University of sharply. Twenty-seven years later, Ger- Pittsburgh once again reviewed the many still requires testing of wild boar data, but this time it followed residents meat; some reindeer in Scandinavian not just to 1985, as had the previous stu- countries are still contaminated; areas dies, but to 1998. The researchers found of Ukraine and Belarus closest to the only slight increases of both overall plant are still off-limits. mortality and overall cancer mortality. Today, estimates of the damage from Thus they concluded that there was radiation vary to an astounding degree. Òno consistent evidenceÓ of Òa signifi- United Nations agencies generally cite cant impactÓ (Talbott et al., 2003: 341). 4,000 premature deaths in the contami- Large uncertainties remain. People nated areas of Ukraine, Belarus, and who left the area were not included in Russia, while Greenpeace puts the the sample; the track of the radioactive figure at 200,000 (Greenpeace, 2006). plume could only be grossly estimated; Then there is the very controversial esti- individual exposures could not be mea- mate of 985,000 premature cancer deaths sured; and, as Wing (2003) noted in a worldwide between 1986 and 2004 made lengthy critique, the studies that found by Russian scientists with access to no impact were set to avoid overesti- thousands of Russian, Belarusian, and mation of radiation effects, and thus Ukrainian publications (Yablokov and risked underestimation. About 13 per- Nesterenko, 2010; Yablokov et al., 2009). cent of all deaths are due to various The easiest way to play down the forms of cancer, and aside from direct damage in the face of evidence of sharp 62 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 69(5) declines in life expectancy is to say that hard to detect. In 2007, a German study these declines are only partly related to found increased rates of childhood leu- radiation, and mostly to other causes. kemia in the vicinity of all 16 nuclear Stress is an obvious one, but the Soviet power plants in Germany. Children Union piled on with more general Òlife- who lived less than 5 kilometers (about styleÓ causes. The International Atomic 3 miles) from a plant were more than Energy Agency agreed, saying that des- twice as likely to develop leukemia as ignating the affected population as Òvic- children who lived more than 5 kilo- timsÓ rather than ÒsurvivorsÓ Òhas led meters away. It should not surprise us them to perceive themselves as helpless, that, despite their findings of leukemia, weak and lacking control over their the studyÕs authors said they could not future. This, in turn, has led either to determine the cause (Federal Office for over cautious behavior and exaggerated Radiation Protection, 2009). It could health concerns, or to reckless conduct, not be radiation because the levels such as consumption of mushrooms, ber- were too low! ries and game from areas still designated A French study, for the years 2002 to as highly contaminated, overuse of alco- 2007, found a clear correlation between hol and tobacco, and unprotected pro- the frequency of acute childhood leuke- miscuous sexual activityÓ (International mia and proximity to 19 nuclear power Atomic Energy Agency, n.d.). stations. The study reported a doubling of childhood leukemia incidence under “Normal” operation the age of five, but the researchers con- cluded that there was only a ÒpossibleÓ Even the normal operation of a nuclear excess risk for this cancer, and are expli- power plant is expected to release some cit that it cannot be attributed to gaseous radiation. While most studies have con- discharges because the radiation is so cluded there is no risk to human health, low. They called for more studies some see radiation damages. A study (Sermage-Faure et al., 2012). A meta- published in 2002 looked at the health study of 136 reactor sites in seven coun- effects on children in the two years fol- tries, extended to include children up to lowing the closing of eight US nuclear age nine, found childhood leukemia plants in 1987. Strontium-90 levels in increases of 14 percent to 21 percent local milk declined sharply, as did (Baker and Hoel, 2007). death rates of infants who lived down- wind and within 40 miles of the plants, Assessing Fukushima suggesting a link between low-dose radi- ation from emitted by the plants Epidemiological studies of children and and early deaths (Mangano et al., 2002). adults living near the Fukushima Daiichi The research task is daunting. Chil- Nuclear Power Plant will face the same dren are the most vulnerable population, obstacles as earlier studies. It will take and the biggest risk is childhood leuke- decades for all radiation damages to mia, so most studies focus on this. But appear, and many experts deny that since the disease is rare among children, there will be any significant long-term a doubling of the tiny number of effects. ÒIn terms of the health impact, expected deaths is still so small it is the radiation is negligible,Ó said Richard Perrow 63

Garfield, a professor at Columbia Radiation Damaged More Souls Than UniversityÕs Mailman School of Public BodiesÓ (Brumfield, 2013). Any increase Health. ÒThe radiation will cause very in human disease, the WHO report said, few, close to no deaths.Ó Thomas is Òlikely to remain below detectable McKone of the University of California, levels.Ó The report modeled estimated Berkeley, School of Public Health doses from sub-optimal data, rather agreed: ÒMuch of the damage was really than from direct measures of exposure psychologicalÑthe stress of not knowing, or the consequences of exposure. (It is of being relocatedÓ (Harmon, 2012). worth noting that the WHO still only While the Japanese government plans releases reports on radiation impacts in an extensive and expensive health consultation with the International follow-up on citizens from the Fukush- Atomic Energy Agency.) ima area, American radiological experts One direct examination has been con- say it is not worth it. David Brenner, a ducted: In its 10th report, dated March radiologist at Columbia University, 2013, the Fukushima Prefecture Health doubts a direct link will ever be defini- Management Survey reported examin- tively made. He said that, under normal ing 133,000 children using new, highly circumstances, in a developed country sensitive ultrasound equipment. The such as Japan, Ò40 percent of everybody survey found that 41 percent of the chil- will get cancer. It doesnÕt seem to me dren examined had cysts of up to 2 centi- that itÕs possible to do an epidemio- meters in size and lumps measuring up logical study that will see an increased to 5 millimeters on their thyroid glands, risk.Ó He did add that it might be valu- presumably from inhaled and ingested able to conduct studies to reassure the radioactive iodine. However, the sur- population that they are not being vey found no cause for alarm because misled (Brumfiel, 2012: 3). the cysts and lumps were too small In a panel discussion of Fukushima at to warrant further examination. The the National Press Club in March 2012, defense ministry also conducted an John Boice Jr., a medical epidemiologist ultrasound examination of children who now heads the National Council on from three other prefectures distant Radiation Protection and Measure- from Fukushima and found somewhat ments, said: ÒThereÕs no opportunity for elevated percentages of small cysts and conducting epidemiological studies that lumps, arguing that radiation was not the have any chance of success. ...The doses cause (Oiwa, 2013). are just too lowÓ (Wald, 2012). He empha- A June 9, 2013 article in the Japan sized the stumbling block that haunts Times reported on the latest findings of the radiation field: the lower the dose, the Fukushima Medical University the greater the difficulty in detecting survey, which found that 12 of 175,499 any increase in the number of cancers children had tested positive for possible possibly attributable to radiation. thyroid cancer, and 15 more were In late February, the World Health deemed at high risk of developing the Organization (2013) announced its lat- disease (Osaki, 2013). This might be con- est assessment of Fukushima, nearly sidered a small number for a population two years after the event. CNN summar- of this size, giving authorities even ized it under the headline ÒFukushimaÕs more grounds for finding no radiation 64 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 69(5) damages. However, children on other a century. Giant companies such as continents have not had this type of Areva in France and South Korean ultrasound examination, so no normal firms are building more plants. In the rate has been established. Experts con- United States, while three plants are cerned about radiation effects point out being retired for mechanical reasons that the small cysts and lumps found in and one because its electricity is more many of the children surveyed, which expensive than power from -fired are signs of possible thyroid cancer, plants, construction is still going ahead have appeared alarmingly soon after for four US reactors. Europe is not on the accident; that the radiation would board. Germany is planning to shut not be expected to be limited to the down all its existing plants, and other Fukushima prefecture; that there is evi- European countries are phasing them dence of unusual numbers of cysts and out. But leads the way in construc- growths in children living on the West tion, and India is not far behind. While Coast of the United States (Mangano the picture is mixed, and cheap natural and Sherman, 2013); that it is not clear gas may greatly weaken the US nuclear that the Fukushima survey subjects industry, the number of plants world- were randomly selected (some refused wide will continue to grow. examination); and finally, that it will Ambiguities about radiationÕs effects take some years to see whether the ab- have at times appeared to be purposeful. normalities increase in size, so follow- Vast investments are at stake in both ups are essential (Caldicott, 2012; Osaki, the weapons and the nuclear power 2013; RT, 2013). industries, and there is enough ambigu- ity about low-level radiation and its Echoes of the past social acceptance to keep government- sponsored grants flowing to scientists. The denial that Fukushima has any sig- While international agencies now nificant health impacts echoes the agree that there is no threshold denials of the atomic bomb effects in below which radiation can be deemed 1945; the secrecy surrounding Windscale harmless, that does not translate into and Chelyabinsk; the studies suggesting policy recommendations for evacu- that the fallout from Three Mile Island ations or power plant closures was, in fact, serious; and the multiple (Thompson, 2012). Only one United denials regarding Chernobyl (that it hap- Nations agency, the UN Human Rights pened, that it was serious, and that it is Council, has shown alarm about the still serious). post-disaster radiological effects, refer- Will Fukushima make nations reject ring to them as Òimmense and long- nuclear power? It appears not. In June termÓ and calling for greater transpar- 2012, the US Department of Energy ency and accountability (Grover, 2013). granted $800,000 to the Massachusetts Even if the only health impacts of Institute of Technology to address the nuclear power plantsÑduring normal Òdifficulties in gaining the broad social operations or following a serious acci- acceptanceÓ of nuclear power. The dentÑwere stress and Ònuclear phobia,Ó Energy Department, as we have seen, the risks of these human costs (which are has been attempting this for half said to include premature deaths) must Perrow 65 be weighed against the advantages of Beyea J, Lyman E, and von Hippel FN (2013) Account- producing nuclear power and weapon- ing for long-term doses in Òworldwide health effects of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear acci- grade plutonium. Denials of radiation dent.Ó Energy & Environmental Science 6(3): effects only exacerbate stress, by under- 1042”1045. mining public trust. Brumfiel G (2012) FukushimaÕs doses tallied. Nature While Òno harm in low-level radi- 485(7399): 423”424. Brumfiel G and Fuyuno I (2012) JapanÕs nuclear crisis: ationÓ is an increasingly minority view, FukushimaÕs legacy of fear. Nature 483(7388): it has been replaced by Òtoo low to meas- 138”140. ure any harm,Ó which is a handy excuse Brumfield B (2013) Report: FukushimaÕs radiation for continuing business as usual. For damaged more souls than bodies. CNN, May 3. Available at: www.cnn.com/2013/02/28/world/ some scientists, it means there is no asia/japan-who-radiation/index.html. point in measuring the effects. The Caldicott H (2012) The nuclear sacrifice of our chil- Japanese government assures the world dren: 14 recommendations to help radiation con- that Fukushima victims will be closely taminated Japan. August 24. Available at: http:// 2 nuclearfreeplanet.org/articles/dr-helen-caldi- monitored. The same government, cott-l-the-nuclear-sacrifice-of-our-children-14- however, assured the world that an acci- recommendations-to-help-radiation-contami- dent like this could never happen. nated-japan.html. Corey GR (1979) A brief review of the accident at Funding Three Mile Island. IAEA Bulletin 21(5): 54”59. Fairlie I (2013) Assessing long-term health effects This research received no specific grant from any from FukushimaÕs radioactive fallout. March 3. funding agency in the public, commercial, or not- Available at: www.ianfairlie.org/news/assessing- for-profit sectors. long-term-health-effects-from-fukushimas-radio- active-fallout/. Notes Federal Office for Radiation Protection (2009) Epide- miological study on childhood cancer in the vicin- 1. The World Health Organization says that ity of nuclear power plantsÑKiKK study. German there is a significant increase of cancer risk Childhood Cancer Registry. at doses above 100 millisieverts (World Greene G (2012) Science with a skew: The nuclear Health Organization, 2012a). power industry after Chernobyl and Fukushima. 2. After a November 2012 mission to Japan, the Asia-Pacific Journal 10(1): 3. Special Rapporteur for the UN Human Greenpeace (2006) The Chernobyl catastrophe: Con- Rights Council prepared a report that com- sequences on human health. May. Amsterdam: mended the government on steps taken to Greenpeace. Available at: www.greenpeace.org/ monitor the health of the population affected international/en/publications/reports/cherno- by Fukushima, but pointed out significant bylhealthreport/. gaps in monitoring (see Grover, 2013). Grover A (2013) Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the high- est attainable standard of physical and mental References health: Mission to Japan (15”26 November 2012). Alvarez R (2010) The legacy of US nuclear testing in Human Rights Council, 23rd session. Geneva: UN the Marshall Islands. Institute for Policy Studies, Human Rights Council. Available at: www. May 24. Available at: www.ips-dc.org/articles/ ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/ the_legacy_of_us_nuclear_testing_in_the_ RegularSession/Session23/A-HRC-23-41-Add3_ marshall_islands. en.pdf. Baker PJ and Hoel DG (2007) Meta-analysis of stan- Hamblin JD (2007) ÒA dispassionate and objective darized incidence and mortality rates of child- effortÓ: Negotiating the first study on the bio- hood leukemia in proximity to nuclear facilities. logical effects of atomic radiation. Journal of the European Journal of Cancer Care 16(4): 355”363. History of Biology 40(1): 147”177. Beyea J (2012) The scientific jigsaw puzzle: Fitting the Harmon K (2012) JapanÕs post-Fukushima earthquake pieces of the low-level radiation debate. Bulletin health woes go beyond radiation effects. of the Atomic Scientists May/June 68(3): 13”28. Scientific American, March 2. Available at: www. 66 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 69(5)

scientificamerican.com/article.cfmNid¼japans- Nuclear Energy Institute (2011) Comparing Chernobyl post-fukushima-earthquake-health-woes- and Fukushima. April 1. Available at: http://safety- beyond-radiation. first.nei.org/news/nei-fact-sheets/comparing- Hatch MC, Wallenstein S, Beyea J, et al. (1991) Cancer chernobyl-and-fukushima/. rates after the Three Mile Island nuclear accident Oiwa Y (2013) Ministry: Rate of Fukushima thyroid and proximity of residence to the plant. American abnormalities roughly normal. Asahi Shimbun, Journal of Public Health 81(6): 719”724. March 9. Available at: http://ajw.asahi.com/art- Hertsgaard M (2006) Return to Chelyabinsk. The icle/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201303090076. Nation, October 26. Available at: www.thenation. Osaki T (2013) Fukushima kidsÕ thyroids screened. com/article/return-chelyabinsk. Japan Times, June 9. Available at: www.japanti- International Atomic Energy Agency (n.d.) Cherno- mes.co.jp/news/2013/06/09/national/fukush- byl: Answers to longstanding questions. Available ima-kids-thyroids-screened/. at: www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/chernobyl/ Osgood K (2008) Total Cold War: EisenhowerÕs Secret faqs.shtml. Propaganda Battle at Home and Abroad. Law- IRSN (2012) Fukushima, one year later: Initial ana- rence, KS: University Press of Kansas. lyses of the accident and its consequences. Radiation Effects Research Foundation (2007) Fre- March 12. Paris: Institut de Radioprotection et de quently asked questions: How many cancers in Sret Nuclaire. Available at: www.irsn.fr/EN/ atomic-bomb survivors are attributable to radi- publications/technical-publications/Docu- ation? Available at: www.rerf.jp/general/qa_e/ ments/IRSN_Fukushima-1-year-later_2012- qa2.html. 003.pdf. Revkin AC (2013) Experts foresee no detectable Johnston BR (ed.) (2007) Half-Lives & Half-Truths: health impact from Fukushima radiation. New Confronting the Radioactive Legacies of the Cold York Times, May 31. Available at: http://dotearth. War. Santa Fe, NM: School for Advanced blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/31/experts-foresee- Research. no-detectable-health-impact-from-fukushima- Johnston BR (2011) In this nuclear world, what is the radiation/. meaning of ÒsafeÓ? Bulletin of the Atomic Scien- Rosen A (2012) Effects of the Fukushima Nuclear Melt- tists, March 18. Available at: www.thebulletin. downs on Environment and Health. Dusseldorf: org/nuclear-world-what-meaning-safe. University Clinic Dusseldorf. Kinlen L (2011) Childhood leukaemia, nuclear sites, RT (2013) Almost third more US West Coast new- and population mixing. British Journal of Cancer borns may face thyroid problems after Fukushima 104(1): 12”18. nuclear disaster. April 3. Available at: http:// Kuznick (2011) JapanÕs nuclear history in perspective: rt.com/usa/fukushima-us-children-thyroid-291/. Eisenhower and atoms for war and peace. Bulletin Sentaku (2012) Put children before politics. Japan of the Atomic Scientists, April. Available at: http:// Times, February 14. Abridged translation from thebulletin.org/japans-nuclear-history-perspec- the February 2012 issue of Sentaku magazine. tive-eisenhower-and-atoms-war-and-peace-0. Available at: www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/ Mangano JJ and Sherman JD (2013) Elevated airborne 2012/02/14/commentary/put-children-before- beta levels in Pacific/West Coast US States and politics/. trends in hypothyroidism among newborns after Sermage-Faure C, Laurier D, Goujoun-Bellec S, et al. the Fukushima nuclear meltdown. Open Journal of (2012) Childhood leukemia around French nuclear Pediatrics 3(1): 1”9. power plants: The Geocap study, 2002”2007. Mangano JJ, Gould JM, Sternglass EJ, et al. (2002) International Journal of Cancer 131(5): E769”E780. Infant death and childhood cancer reductions Talbott EO, Youk AO, McHugh-Pemu KP, et al. after nuclear plant closings in the United States. (2003) Long-term follow-up of the residents of Archives of Environmental Health 57(1): 23”31. the Three Mile Island accident area: 1979”1998. McGoey L (2012) Strategic unknowns: Towards a Environmental Health Perspectives 111(3): 341”348. sociology of ignorance. Economy and Society Thompson G (2012) Unmasking the truth: The sci- 41(1): 1”16. ence and policy of low-dose ionizing radiation. Morelle R (2007) Windscale fallout underestimated. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists May/June 68(3): BBC News, October 6. Available at: http://news. bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7030536.stm. 44”50. National Research Council (2006) Health Risks from UNSCEAR (2013) No immediate health risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: Fukushima nuclear accident says UN expert sci- BEIR VII Phase 2. Washington, DC: National Aca- ence panel. United Nations Scientific Committee demies Press. on the Effects of Atomic Radiation press release, Perrow 67

May 31. Available at: www.unis.unvienna.org/ Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami, unis/en/pressrels/2013/unisinf475.html. based on a preliminary dose estimation. Available US Department of Homeland Security (n.d.) The at: www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/ nuclear bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, fukushima_risk_assessment_2013/en/index.html. Japan. Available at: www.dhs.gov/nuclear- Yablokov A and Nesterenko A (2010) Reply to letter attack-what-do. by Jargin on Òoverestimation of Chernobyl conse- von Hippel FN (2011) The radiological and psycho- quences: Poorly substantiated information logical consequences of the Fukushima Daiichi published.Ó Radiation and Environmental Biophy- accident. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 67(5): sics 49(4): 747”748. 27”36. Yablokov AV, Nesterenko VB, and Nesterenko AV Wald ML (2012) Sizing up health impacts a year after (2009) Chernobyl: Consequences of the catastro- Fukushima. New York Times, March 1. Available phe for people and the environment. Annals of the at: http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/01/ New York Academy of Sciences 1181(December). sizing-up-health-impacts-a-year-after-fukush- Available at: www.strahlentelex.de/Yablokov ima/. %20Chernobyl%20book.pdf. Wing S (2003) Objectivity and ethics in environmen- tal health science. Environmental Health Perspec- tives 111(14): 1809”1818. Author biography Wing S, Richardson D, Armstrong D, et al. (1997) A reevaluation of cancer incidence near the Three Charles Perrow is an emeritus professor of Mile Island nuclear plant: The collision of evi- sociology at Yale University and a visiting pro- dence and assumptions. Environmental Health fessor at Stanford UniversityÕs Center for Inter- Perspectives 105(1): 52”57. national Security and Cooperation. An World Health Organization (2012a) Ionizing radi- organizational theorist, he is the author of six ation, health effects and protective measures. books, including The Next Catastrophe (Prince- Fact Sheet no. 371, November. Available at: ton University Press, 2011) and the award-win- www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs371/en/. World Health Organization (2012b) Preliminary dose ning Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk estimation from the nuclear accident after the 2011 Technologies (Princeton University Press, Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami. Avail- 1999). His current research focuses on the insti- able at: www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/pub_ tutional and organizational aspects of global meet/fukushima_dose_assessment/en/. warming. World Health Organization (2013) Health risk assess- ment from the nuclear accident after the 2011