The Asia-Pacific Journal | Japan Focus Volume 9 | Issue 29 | Number 1 | Article ID 3563 | Jul 19, 2011

1

Fukushima is Worse than Chernobyl – on GlobalContamination　　チェルノブイリよりも深刻ーー世界的な汚染について

Satoko Oka Norimatsu, Chris Busby

Fukushima is Worse than Chernobyl– on Global Contamination PartialJapanese Text here

Chris Busby

Interview by Norimatsu Satoko andNarusawa Muneo

Introduction

Chemical physicist Chris Busby is at theforefront of scientists who are challenging theradiation risk model propounded by ICRP, theInternational Commission on RadiologicalProtection, whose standards for allowableradiation doses the Japanese government hasadopted for its citizens affected by theF u k u s h i m a D a i i c h i n u c l e a r p l a n taccident.1 Busby, Scientific Secretary of theEuropean Committee on Radiation Risk(ECRR), points out that the ICRP model “dealswith radiation exposure from all sources in thesame way, as if it were external to thebody,”2 and then takes this dose and multipliesit by a risk factor based on the high acuteexternal doses of the atomic-bomb survivors ofHiroshima and Nagasaki. The ICRP methodthus fails to take into account a number of waysin which certain internal radionuclides candeliver very high doses to critical targets incells, particularly the cell DNA. One of these isfrom “inhaled or ingested hot particles, whichare solid but microscopic and can lodge intissue delivering high doses to local cells.”3 Asa result, internal radiation exposure can be “upto 1,000 times more harmful than the ICRP

model concludes.”4 In his calculation based onthe ECRR model that considers such internalradiation risks,5 Busby has estimated thatwithin 100 km of Fukushima Dai ichi ,approximately 200,000 excess cancers willoccur within the next 50 years with about halfof them diagnosed in the next 10 years, if the3.3 million people in the area remain there forone year. He estimates over 220,000 excesscancers in the 7.9 million people from 100 to200 km in the next 50 years, also with abouthalf of them to be diagnosed in the next 10years. By contrast, the ICRP model predicts2 , 8 3 8 e x t r a c a n c e r s i n t h e 1 0 0 k mpopulation.6 “The eventual yield will thereforebe another test of the two risk models,” Busbycontends,7 pointing out that many studies of theChernobyl disaster showed much higher canceryields than the ICRP model had predicted.8

The effect of the nuclear disaster, moreover,extends well beyond the 200 km radius. It hasbeen reported in Japan that “traces ofplutonium” have been found in the proximity ofFukushima Daiichi.9 This is no surprise, sinceunusual amounts of plutonium and uraniumhave been detected in Hawaii, Guam, Alaska,a n d o n t h e W e s t C o a s t b y t h e U SEnvironmental Protection Agency in the wakeof the 3.11 earthquake and tsunami.10 CTBTO,the Comprehensive Test Ban TreatyOrganization, has reported that radioactivematerials had dispersed throughout theNorthern Hemisphere within two weeks of theFukushima accident, and that it had evenreached the Southern Hemisphere by mid-April.11 Shukan Kin’yobi, a weekly magazine,

APJ | JF 9 | 29 | 1

2

interviewed Chris Busby on the issue of globalcontamination at a time when the Japanesemedia have maintained silence on the issue.This is a complete original English text of theinterview, published simultaneously with theJapanese version on Shukan Kin’yobi (July 8edition).

Norimatsu Satoko

Interview with Chris Busby

- Unusual amounts of plutonium have beenfound on the west coast of the UnitedStates and elsewhere. Radioactivematerials have also been found in milk andwater in the US. What is your view of thesefacts?

Plutonium has also been found in the UK in airfilters.12 This means that particles are nowbeing globally dispersed. There will followincreased rates of ill health, including cancerand birth defects, which will be proportional tothe overall air concentration. High in Japan,low in USA, and very low in Europe. I do notthink plutonium is much more dangerous thanthe other alpha emitters, particularly Uranium,on a dose for dose basis. I think the danger is inUranium, Tritium, Strontium-90, Carbon-14,Tellurium-132. I have found Te-132 in carfilters from Japan.

Chris Busby

- If plutonium dispersed so widely, it onlymakes us wonder and fear how it's beendispersed in the immediate proximity ofFukushima Daiichi, Fukushima as a whole,and beyond... Tokyo and all Japan. What isyour view of the seriousness of this issue?

I have car air filters from Fukushima andTokyo. We have found high levels of radioactiveparticles in these. In my March/April paper13 Ipredicted more than 200,000 additionalcancers in the next 10 years within a 200 KMradius of Fukushima.14 I have seen nothing tochange my mind. In fact it is worse than Ithought then and said on TV. I have beenhoping all along that I was wrong, and evennow there may be some good development thatI had not expected or foreseen, but thesituation is bad and I am very sorry. I havebeen helping some lawyers who are making alegal case to have the children evacuated.15 Theproblem is that dose rate, MicroSieverts perHour, cannot be used to reassure on the basis

APJ | JF 9 | 29 | 1

3

of compar isons wi th annual natura lbackground. The exposures are internal andthe risk model of the ICRP, which is based(ironically) on the external exposures atHiroshima, cannot be used. This is the keyissue. There is a more accurate model, theECRR, one which has now been translated intoJapanese and is available on the internet. (Link)

- What will be the effects of the Fukushimameltdown outside of Japan – the US, andbeyond? Asia? Europe? What is the currentsituation and what further effects areexpected?

I think the effects in Europe will be rare andundetectable. There will probably be detectableeffects in the USA, Korea, Hawaii, Marianasand China.

Radioactive materials from FukushimaDaiichi reached the US by March 18,

Iceland by March 20, and Europe by March22 (Kyushu University and Tokyo University

research. From Jiji Press).

- Dr. Janette Sherman reported an increasein US infant mortality rate in the tenweeks after the Tohoku earthquake in herCounterpunch article. What is your view ofpossible causality from the Fukushimacrisis?

It’s possible. I have applied to get data fromSeattle King County to check on this, also thesex ratio, since genetic damage causes achange in the ratio of births of boys and girls.The normal ratio is 1,055 boys to 1,000 girls.This is a sensitive indicator. We should wait fora few months for results. There were increasedrates of infant mortality after the 1960sweapons tests. But the exposures were higherthen.

- What do you see as the similaritiesbetween Fukushima and Chernobyl, andwhat are the differences between them?

The similarity is that in both cases theoperators and/or the authorities lied aboutwhat was happening. In fact the Sovietsreacted more quickly than the Japanese and gotthe people out from 30km much faster. Therewere buses taking everyone out on the Sundayafter the explosion on Friday night atChernobyl.

I believe that they were both nuclearexplosions. In fact we now know that Chernobylwas a nuclear explosion; but there were alsohydrogen explosions. The Reactor 3 explosionat Fukushima, I believe, was a nuclearexplosion. Not that it makes a lot of differencein terms of fallout.

The other difference is that the Fukushimadisaster involved a lot more material than

APJ | JF 9 | 29 | 1

4

Chernobyl where only 200 tons of fuel wasinvolved.

I believe that in the explosions at FukushimaDaiichi, huge amounts of spent fuel were blownsky high. The ground contamination out to 100km at Fukushima is worse than Chernobyl, thedose rates higher. And Fukushima hascontaminated Tokyo with 35 million people.The population of the 200 km radius is alsoenormous, about 10 million. Most of theChernobyl stuff fell away from big populationcenters. Luckily it went north and west and notto Kiev which is south. Fukushima is stillboiling its radionuclides all over Japan.Chernobyl went up in one go. So Fukushima isworse.

Reactor 3 explosion on March 14

- What are the prospects that theFukushima Daiichi accident will bebrought under control or come to an end –when, how, or will it ever?

I do not see any way out of this. Here are somepossibilities.

The units are just left alone. If this1.happens it will quickly get hotter andhotter and quickly vaporise most of themaybe 2,000 tons of reactor fuel andspent fuel. This material will contaminatenorthern Japan but probably not USA andEurope to any great extent. It may also

explode. Whatever other scientists say, Ibel ieve that there were nuclearexplosions involved, especially in Reactor3. I believe that there was a criticality onJune 14th. You can see it happening onthe video and also there was a suddenincrease in radiation in Ibaraki detectorsjust after it happened at about midnighton June 14th.The units continue to be cooled by2.pumping sea water and fresh water. Thismeans that so long as the surfaces of themelted fuel are cooled, the surfaces willnot vaporise but will just contaminate thewater. This will then find its way to thesea and contaminate the whole of theEast coast of Japan. Concerning therecent development on the systeminstalled to cool the reactors by watercirculation, it may be that they havemanaged to sort out the cooling in a waythat will keep the contamination in thecooling water, but I would have to knowexactly what they have done before Iaccept that this will not contaminate theenvironment. I cannot see how theyc o u l d h a v e d o n e t h i s . I t i s m yunderstanding that fuel has breached thecontainers, which have holes in them. Abig problem is that we do not getsuf f i c ient in format ion to drawconclusions.They put a sarcophagus of some sort over3.the reactors. This will reduce the amountof fission products leaving the site. Butunless they dig canals around the siteand recycle the cooling water, it will getinto the sea. This is maybe the bestoption.Whatever happens, northern pacific fish4.and seafood will become contaminated.All individuals within 200 km of the siteshould be evacuated if the local air doseis greater than 1microSievert per hour. Ifthey stay and the air dose is higher than0.5uSv/h, have food and water importedfrom elsewhere. All food and water

APJ | JF 9 | 29 | 1

5

should come with a certificate sayingwhat radionuclides are in it.

- What can the world/the internationalcommunity do to help Japan cope with thecris is and support the v ict ims ofFukushima Daiichi?

I believe that the international nuclear industryis responsible and should be forced to pay.

Chris Busby is Scientific Secretary of theEuropean Committee on Radiation Risk(ECRR), Visiting Professor in the School ofBiomedical Sciences, University of Ulster, andGuest Researcher at the Federal Institute forCrop and Soil Research, Julius Kuehn Institute,Federal Research Centre for Cultivated Plantsin Braunschweig, Germany.

Norimatsu Satoko, a Japan Focus Coordinator,is Director of Peace Philosophy Centre, apeace-education centre in Vancouver, Canada,and Director of Vancouver Save Article 9.

Narusawa Muneo is an editor of ShukanKin’yobi (Weekly Friday), and author of“Mitteran to rokaru (Mitterand and Rocard),”“911 no nazo (Mysteries of 9/11),” and “Obamano kiken (Dangers of Obama).”

An abbreviated Japanese version of thisinterview appeared in the July 8, 2011 editionof Shukan Kin’yobi (Weekly Friday).

Recommended citation: Chris Busby,N o r i m a t s u S a t o k o a n d N a r u s a w aMuneo, Fukushima is Worse than Chernobyl –on Global Contamination, The Asia-PacificJournal Vol 9, Issue 29 No 1, July 18, 2011.

Related Articles

Matthew Penny, Nuclear Workers andFukushima Residents At Risk: Cancer Expert onthe Fukushima Situation

Say-Peace Project, Protecting Children AgainstRadiation: Japanese Citizens Take RadiationProtection into Their Own Hands

Norimatsu Satoko, Worldwide Responses to the20 Millisievert Controversy

Peter Karamoskos, Fukushima Burning:Anatomy of a Nuclear Disaster

Also see the series of Russia Today interviewswith Chris Busby on YouTube:

Full meltdown in a full swing? Japan nuclearmaximum alert (March 30)

Busby: 400,000 to develop cancer in 200 kmradius of Fukushima (April 13)

Busby: Can’t seal Fukushima like Chernobyl – itall goes into the sea (April 25)

Busby: Fukushima reactors a raging radioactiveinferno (May 17)

Notes

1 See ICRP statement, “Fukushima NuclearPower Plant Accident,” March 21, 2011.Link, and ICRP Publication 111, “Application ofthe Commission’s Recommendation to thePeople Living in the Long-Term ContaminatedAreas after a Nuclear Accident or a RadiationEmergency,” Annals of the ICRP, VolumeNo.39, No.3, 2009.

2 Chris Busby, “The health outcome of theFukushima catastrophe – Initial analysis fromrisk model of the European Committee onRadiation Risk ECRR,” March 30, 2011. p.1.Link.

3 Ibid., p.1.

4 Ibid., p.1

APJ | JF 9 | 29 | 1

6

5 Chris Busby, Rosalie Bertell, Inge Schmitz-Feuerhake, Molly Scott Cato, Alexey Yablokov,“ECRR 2010 Recommendations of theEuropean Committee on Radiation Risk – TheHealth Effects of Exposure to Low Doses ofIonizing Radiation,” Regulators’ Edition, GreenAudit, August 2010.

6 See Table 5 and 6 in Chris Busy, “The healthoutcome of the Fukushima catastrophe – Initialanalysis from risk model of the EuropeanCommittee on Radiation Risk ECRR,” March30, 2011. p.12. Link.

7 Ibid., p.12.

8 Ibid., p.1.

9 IAEA, “Japan Confirms Plutonium in SoilSamples at Fukushima Daiichi,” FukushimaNuclear Accident Update, March 28, 2011.Link. TEPCO reported plutonium detectionwithin the premises again on April 22 (seeYomiuri report). On June 5, Sankei reportedthat Professor Yamamoto Masayoshi ofKanazawa University detected traces ofplutonium outside the Fukushima Daiichipremises (1.7km away), the first of suchdetection regarded as coming from theFukushima Daiichi accident. Link.

10 A report and analysis of EPA database“RadNet” by blog “Chuoni to o-oni nofutarigoto,” April 29, 2011. Link.

11 CTBTO, “Fukushima-Related Measurementsby the CTBTO,” April 13, 2011 Link.

12 Later we asked whether the UK air filterswere also car air filters, and the answer wasno. Busby was referring to “high volume airsamplers deployed around the Atomic Weapons

Establishment at Aldermaston.” To ourquestion on whether the radioactive materialson those filters could be from that atomicestablishment instead of Fukushima, heanswered, “There was also an increase inUranium. This level of plutonium in one filter isvery unusual and the increase in uraniumfollowed the Fukushima accident. The level ofuranium was about three times the normallevel and this was statistically significant. Weknow this because we analysed these filtersafter the 2003 Gulf war and found uranium.There was an enormous increase in plutoniumin only one filter and a slight increase in asecond filter. Taken together with the uraniumdata this seems persuasive but not, of course(for the plutonium) absolute proof (that it wasfrom Fukushima).”

13 Chris Busby, “The health outcome of theFukushima catastrophe – Initial analysis fromrisk model of the European Committee onRadiation Risk ECRR,” March 30, 2011 Link.

14 About half of the 191,986 excess cancersexpected in 50 years are expected to bediagnosed in the first 10 years in the 100 kmzone, and also about half of the 224,623 excesscancers expected in 50 years are expected tobe diagnosed in the first 10 years in the 100 –200 km zone, so the sum of those expected tobe diagnosed in 10 years in both zones isapproximately 200,000. See Table 5 and Table6 of Chris Busby, “The health outcome of theFukushima catastrophe – Initial analysis fromrisk model of the European Committee onRadiation Risk ECRR,” March 30, 200 Link.

15 Peace Philosophy Centre, “Fukushimaparents sue government for safe educationalenvironment,” July 4, 2001. Link. See ChrisBusby’s statement to support this lawsuit,“Statement of Chris Busby in relation toprovisional injunction against EducationCommittee of Koryama City, Fukushimma to

APJ | JF 9 | 29 | 1

7

evacuate the children for the radioactivelycontaminated area being filed on 24th June

2011. Link.