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 Hiroshima to Fukushima http://thebulletin.sagepub.com Charles Perrow Abstract Governments and the nuclear power 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; plutonium plant accidents at Windscale in England and Chelyabinsk in the Soviet Union; nuclear power plant emissions during normal operations; and the power plant accidents at Three Mile Island in the United States, Chernobyl 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 water. 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 Vienna by the community who specialize in radiation United Nations 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. sieverts, 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.