A little radiation never hurt anyone, right?

The Fukushima Diaiichi meltdown was the the worst nuclear catastrophe since  Chernobyl in 1986, but you wouldn’t know that by listening to the mainstream media. They’ve tried to downplay the severity of the disaster, going so far to state that animals thrive in polluted environments and that “a little radiation never hurt anyone.”

These remarks are as asinine as they are fictitious. The impact the Chernobyl and Fukushima disaster have had on the neighboring ecosystem have been intensely studied and the results are anything but rosey.

Chernobyl is an enclosed 30 klm restricted zone that has been entombed by a cloud of radiation for the past 30 years. By contrast, the Fukushima disaster occurred a little more than four years ago, and the Japanese government is already sending residents back to their neck of the radioactive woods.

This is in spite of the fact that a new report was just released that found children who live within the Fukushima Prefecture are 20 to 50 times more at risk for thyroid cancer than children who live outside the Prefecture.

Small radiation exposure, big health problems 

The recent discovery that thyroid cancer rates were 20 to 50 times higher among children who lived in the Fukushima prefecture shouldn’t catch anyone by surprise. The impact Fukushima has had on the surrounding environment has been thoroughly documented by Dr. Timothy Mousseau; former Program Director at the National Science Foundation in Population Biology and a world-renowned expert on radiation exposure. ¹

Dr. Mousseau has visited both Fukushima and Chernobyl hundreds of time. His intent upon visiting the sites was to examine the impact radiation had on biological taxa. The claim that “a little radiation never hurt anybody” is met by a baffled stare and a resounding “no” by Dr. Mousseau’s studies.

Furthermore, there is not a dearth of evidence to suggest that low doses of radiation, also known as radiation hormesis, is good for people, as pushed by some energy related outsets. Data which supposedly supports this theory is shakier than the ground the Fukushima power plant sits upon.

In addition, a report published in Cambridge Philosophical Society’s journal Biological Reviews conducted a meta-analysis on the effects small doses of radiation have on biological organisms. The report analyzed 46 peer reviewed studies published in the last forty years. The researchers discovered that even small amounts of radiation can severely damage DNA and lead to long term health problems.

Dr. Mousseau helped co-author the meta-analysis. The scientists found that small radiation exposure led to a range of health problems, including immunology, physiology, mutation and disease occurrence. The consistency of these negative effects were by no means happenstance.¹

These findings were cross verified by a recent landmark study on low doses of radiation published in July, which examined the cause of death of more than 300,000 nuclear industry workers in France, the United States and the United Kingdom. All of the deceased participants had worn dosimeter badges. The workers were exposed to on average just 1.1 millisieverts (mSv) per year above background radiation. The researchers found that the risk of leukemia increased along with exposure to high and low doses of radiation.¹

Japanese citizens already returning home

Thousands of residents were evacuated from the Fukushima Prefecture in 2011. Less than five years after the catastrophe, the Japanese government is permitting citizens to go home, claiming that these areas are now safe to return too. Nevertheless, some radiation dose rates measured ten times the maximum allowed to the general public in the Fukushima Prefecture.¹

Not everyone is swallowing the myth that small doses of radiation exposure are safe. Approximately 200 American sailors of the USS Reagan have filed a lawsuit against TEPCO, the company in charge of the Fukushima power plant, for radiation exposure.¹

In other words, the claim that “a little radiation never hurt anyone” should be taken with a grain of salt.

Sources include:

(1) DissidentVoice.org