Summing up Fukushima

Summing up Fukushima

Summing up Fukushima

Summing up Fukushima

About 60 people died immediately during the actual evacuations in Fukushima Prefecture in March 2011. Between 2011 and 2015, an additional 1,867 people in Fukushima Prefecture died as a result of the evacuations following the nuclear disaster. These deaths were from ill health and suicides.

From the UNSCEAR estimate of 48,000 person Sv, it can be reliably estimated (using a fatal cancer risk factor of 10% per Sv) that about 5,000 fatal cancers will occur in Japan in future from Fukushima’s fallout. This estimate from official data agrees with my own personal estimate using a different methodology.

In sum, the health toll from the Fukushima nuclear disaster is horrendous. At the minimum

  • Over 160,000 people were evacuated most of them permanently.
  • Many cases of post-trauma stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety disorders arising from the evacuations.
  • About 12,000 workers exposed to high levels of radiation, some up to 250 mSv
  • An estimated 5,000 fatal cancers from radiation exposures in future.
  • Plus similar (unquantified) numbers of radiogenic strokes, CVS diseases and hereditary diseases.
  • Between 2011 and 2015, about 2,000 deaths from radiation-related evacuations due to ill-health and suicides.
  • An as yet unquantified number of thyroid cancers.
  • An increased infant mortality rate in 2012 and a decreased number of live births in December 2011.

Non-health effects include

  • 8% of Japan (30,000, including parts of Tokyo, contaminated by radioactivity.
  • Economic losses estimated between $300 and $500 billion.

New evidence from Fukushima shows that as many as 2,000 people have died from necessary evacuations, writes Ian Fairlie, while another 5,000 will die from cancer. Future assessments of fatalities from nuclear disasters must include deaths from displacement-induced ill-heath and suicide in addition to those from direct radiation impacts.

“The Fukushima accident is still not over and its ill-effects will linger for a long time into the future … 2,000 Japanese people have already died from the evacuations and another 5,000 are expected to die from future cancers.”

Official data from Fukushima show that nearly 2,000 people died from the effects of evacuations necessary to avoid high radiation exposures from the disaster.


The uprooting to unfamiliar areas, cutting of family ties, loss of social support networks, disruption, exhaustion, poor physical conditions and disorientation can and do result in many people, in particular older people, dying.

Increased suicide has occurred among younger and older people following the Fukushima evacuations, but the trends are unclear.

A Japanese Cabinet Office report stated that, between March 2011 and July 2014,56 suicides in Fukushima Prefecture were linked to the nuclear accident. This should be taken as a minimum, rather than a maximum, figure.



Evolution demographic schedule

Does Age Bring Death? Not For All Species:



Humans have a pretty straightforward view of aging: They’re born, they mature, they gradually become weaker and lose fertility, and eventually, they die.

But in nature, aging is far more diverse, new research finds. In fact, some animals are actually less likely to die the older they get — at least up to a point.

Understanding mortality

Evolutionary theorists working in the 1950s through 1970s explained the familiar pattern of increasing mortality with age as a trade-off between reproduction and survival. If an organism only has a certain number of resources, it has to decide whether to allocate them to creating offspring (searching for mates, wooing them and mating) or to surviving for another year.

“The question is how do you balance that,” Jones sad. “If you put everything into survival, you don’t reproduce very much or at all. If you put all your energy into reproduction, then you will have a low survival.”

No matter how healthy and resource-rich you are, there is always a slight chance that you’ll die. You could be hit by a bus, struck by lightning, or end up in the path of a rockslide. For this reason, Jones said, evolution favors those who reproduce early, before anything bad can befall them. Thus, genetic mutations that favor early reproduction, even at the expense of an organism’s later life, will be preserved.

Still, a few studies had revealed that some species don’t age as classical theory suggests, Jones said. Jellylike animals called hydras (Hydra magnipapillata) have low mortality rates that are constant throughout their lives. Hydra die so infrequently in laboratory conditions that researchers estimate it would take 1,400 years for 95 percent of a population to die of natural causes.

The desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) actually becomes less likely to die with age. The tortoises aren’t immortal, of course — they do still die. But their mortality rate in youth is actually higher than their mortality rate in old age. If they make it past their younger years, they’re likely to keep trucking until as old as 80 years of age.

A hydra, a small animal with constant mortality.

The diversity of aging

Most people who study aging focus on just a few species. Jones and his colleagues wanted a broader view, so they drew from across the tree of life, comparing aging patterns in 11 mammals, 12 other vertebrates (animals with backbones), 10 invertebrates, 12 plants and a green alga. They picked species for which there was good quality data on the life trajectory.

“We were restricting ourselves to the datasets which followed enough individuals that you had good pictures over the whole life course, which we defined as following 95 percent of the individuals until death,” Jones said.

The results highlighted the diversity between organisms, Jones said. “Mortality can go up [with age], it can stay constant, or it could go down,” he said. “And the same for fertility.”

At 102, the age at which 95 percent of humans are dead, a Japanese woman has 20 times the risk of mortality than the average for adult humans over the life span. In comparison, a white mangrove tree at the same so-called “terminal age” (123 years, for mangroves) is less than half as likely to die than the average adult of its species.

The Southern fulmar (Fulmarus glacialoides), a seabird, becomes more likely to die with age. But it also becomes more fertile as it grows older. Hydras have constant fertility rates their entire lives. And many animals other than humans have life spans that continue past their reproductive years, including killer whales (Orcinus orca), mynah birds (Leucopsar rothschildi) and nematode worms (Caenorhabditis elegans).

The diversity of mortality and aging is independent of life span, Jones added. It’s not only long-lived creatures like the desert tortoise that show declining or constant mortality with age. The collared flycatcher (Ficedula albicollis), a migratory black-and-white bird, lives only about five years, maximum — at that age, 95 percent of collared flycatchers are dead. But the flycatcher’s mortality is fairly constant throughout adulthood, not rising with age.

Challenging theory

The findings challenge the assumptions of classical theory, suggesting the old ideas need a tweak, Jones said.

“In order to make sense of what we’re seeing, theoreticians need to figure out why it is that we’re seeing these patterns and make sense of it,” he said.

It’s likely that body size plays a role, he said. Organisms that grow with age without stopping at a certain size, like some trees, may be less vulnerable in old age to environmental fluctuations or other threats. Fish that outgrow all of their predators are likely to make it to a ripe old age, for example.

Jones and his colleagues plan to study wider populations of species and to get a sense of the reasons behind the varying life spans. For example, does it matter whether a plant is a tree or a shrub? Do certain environments promote longevity?

“There’s good evidence that a lot of these plants that live a very long time tend to live in arid regions,” Jones said. “Aridity might have some kind of effect.”