The stresses of personal involvement in the evacuation, management and cleanup related to the Fukushima nuclear accident have emerged as the biggest factors in ill health for Japanese people.
The mental or physical burden of the forced move from their homes because of the Fukushima accident was the cause of 34 early deaths, said a report from Japan's Reconstruction Agency on 21 August. The figure compares to 1916 people from Fukushima, Iwate and Miyagi prefectures that died during evacuation from areas hit only by the tsunami and the earthquake. The leading causes of the majority of those early deaths were disruption to the smooth operation of hospitals, the exacerbation of pre-existing health problems, and the general 'mental fatigue' from dramatic changes in life situation.
"If we took a 'do more good than harm' approach I suspect we would abandon forced evacuation altogether, especially where iodine tables are available."
Malcolm Grimston
Imperial College
A cross-section of all people that died during their evacuation showed that the vast majority were elderly: only 4% were below 60 years of age, while 67% were over 80. Some 18% of these fatalities came within one week of the natural disasters and nuclear accident; 48% within one month; and 78% within three months.
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_The_health_effects_of_Fukushima_2808121.html?goback=%2Egde_2170900_member_154737743
Here is a parallel article that critisizes the evacuation then continues to evacuation and emergancy response in general. The full article is at the link below.
The Aftermath of FukushimaCivil Defense Perspectives September 2012, Vol. 28 No. 6
After Fukushima, people are asking questions such as: Should Japan, and the world, totally give up on nuclear energy(Nature 6/7/12)? Casualties from radiation, from the worst nuclear accident in history, are still zero. But what about the projected later cancers? What if an accident contaminates the environment forever? Should people be allowed to return home?
A rational discussion of evacuation policy must begin with the question: “What is the dose?” The follow-up: If we evacuate Fukushima, should Denver be evacuated? How about Finland?
The Harm of Over-reaction
The 172,000 people living within a 30-km radius of the Fukushima Daiichi plant have been forced or advised to leave. More than two-thirds of the world’s 211 nuclear power plants have more people than that living with 30 km (Nature 4/28/11).
Because of shutting down most of its nuclear reactors, Japan’s imports of fuel increased by $55 billion in 2011. This, coupled with slowdowns in manufacturing from power shortages, reversed Japan’s trade balance from 20 years of trade surpluses to an $18 billion deficit (W. Tucker, WSJ 3/6/12).
Uprooting people from their homes, work, and usual support systems, and forcing them into crowded refugee centers, causes casualties, especially among the elderly. It may permanently destroy their livelihood from farm or business. After Chernobyl, the most widespread and devastating effects were psychological, including suicide and psychosis, writes Z. Jaworowski (
http://tinyurl.com/95rdafa). He attributes this to excessive remedial measures and global radiophobic propaganda.
Consistent, Meaningful Doses
The public is often frightened by doses given in tiny units, or confused by new international units (sieverts, grays) versus older units (rems, rads). For example, some workers “suffered” exposures of 100,000 μSv [100 mSv, 10 rad] after wading in radioactive water (WSJ 6/14/11).
Another scary number is the 36,000 terabequerels (~1 million curies [Ci]) of radioactivity that the plants “spewed”—which amounted to 11 kg of radioactive material out of the 60,000 kg of fuel per unit (
http://tinyurl.com/9mvb5du). Alarmists warned that the reactors contained about 134 million Ci of Cs-137 or 85 times as much as was released at Chernobyl. In contrast, U.S. and Russian weapons complexes have released some 1.6 billion Ci, compared with an inventory of ~140 billion Ci in the oceans.
Exposures from a contaminated environment, suggest Buongiorno et al., should be compared with average total natural background rates (
http://tinyurl.com/c6whqb8). This accounts for the low dose-rate and is thus more scientifically valid than comparisons with medical exposures delivered over a few seconds. Comparison with the range of natural levels is also much more informative than with government permissible limits, which may be thousands of times too low.
The world average dose-rate for natural background is 0.27 μSv/hr (times 8766 hr/y gives 2.4/y). The excess dose received in Denver is 3 mSv/y—what Richard Muller calls the “Denver dose.” The current International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) evacuation standard of 1 mSv/y would appear to require the immediate evacuation of Denver, Muller notes (WSJ 8/18-19/12), among many other places.
Some approximate lifetime (70-y) exposures in mSv:
United States (avg)
180
Sweden*
410
Finland*
510
Chernobyl (“high” contamination)*
480
Kerala, India (coastal)+
1,600-14,000
Ramsar, Iran (high background area)‡
18,200
*Jaworowski, op. cit.; +Luckey
http://tinyurl.com/9jrt52u; ‡Health Physics 2002;82:87-93.
http://www.physiciansforcivildefense.org/2012/09/28/the-aftermath-of-fukushima/#more-44