Talk:Radiation effects from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is filled with unsourced, and utterly ridiculous propaganda.[edit]

I have done my best to verify the information in it, but the claims are just astoundingly and blatantly false. 1,600 dead from evacuation, and 1,599 dead from the earthquake, with no corresponding source to back those numbers up? Authors opining about accepted science, and attempting to imply that all increases in thyroid cancer are attributable to stress, over radiation? I will be watching this article from now on, and I will be doing my best to recommend administrative action against anyone deliberately attempting to manipulate this article in a non-encyclopedic fashion.--Senor Freebie (talk) 07:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF, etc. VQuakr (talk) 08:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are removing cited content because it doesn't fit your understanding of the topic.VQuakr (talk) 08:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is a personal attack. Apologise and retract immediately.--Senor Freebie (talk) 09:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
25 April 2017 right out of the gate you expend considerable effort in using loaded language like "unsourced, and utterly ridiculous propaganda" " astoundingly and blatantly false" "attempting to imply that all increases in thyroid cancer are attributable to stress" , SEO in your own words "That is a personal attack. Apologise and retract immediately" to VQuakr & everyone else playing nice with you & PS: i normaly do not edit , but i do trace, Waptek (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flailing about and screaming Propaganda! Doesn't make that more ok.VQuakr (talk) 08:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is a personal attack. Apologise and retract immediately.--Senor Freebie (talk) 09:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DRAMA. Your accusations are spurious, particularly from someone who just accused another editor of supporting "propaganda". VQuakr (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, what unsourced material are you contesting? So far you have only removed and challenged reliably sourced information. I did remove [1], which was sourced but tangential. VQuakr (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The information that was removed. I will detail it piece by piece here. As I have already requested that you discuss these, rather than edit warring, only to be ignored, I don't expect that you will act in good faith, but I now believe that I have to do this in order to demonstrate that you have taken ownership of this article.--Senor Freebie (talk) 09:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Presupposing a conclusion is poor grounding for a discussion about article content. VQuakr (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"A survey by the newspaper Mainichi Shimbun computed that there were 1,600 deaths related to the evacuation, comparable to the 1,599 deaths due to the earthquake and tsunami in the Fukushima Prefecture." This line was allegedly supported by a dead link. No other sources confirm similar numbers for deaths due to the evacuation. Given the enormity of this claim, it would need to be supported by multiple sources.--Senor Freebie (talk) 09:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
False, the archive link works fine. Whether the original is (or ever was) online is not relevant; "verifiable" is not synonymous with "available online". A quick check online shows additional sources ie [2], but why exactly do you find this claim so exceptional? VQuakr (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a circular reference. They are referring to the dead link, and since that is cited here, it's quite likely it's due to this article, not the actual content.--Senor Freebie (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Prove your unsupported assertion that the NBC news article used Wikipedia directly or indirectly as a source for that content, and I will agree that it cannot be used per WP:CIRCULAR. I note that the NBC article is dated Sept 10 2013; here is the revision of our article as of Sept 18 2013. VQuakr (talk) 02:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They link to the Japanese source in their article, and cite it as the source for their information. It's genuinely troubling that after your behaviour towards a fellow editor, you are asking for proof of a circular link that YOU provided, that is so blatantly obvious.--Senor Freebie (talk) 15:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The citation needed tag, with the following text; "Life expectancy dropped across the entire former Soviet Union, not just at Chernobyl." that you removed without discussion refers to information found in an interview, where someone is giving their opinion, and is therefore not encyclopedic. Unless you can find a better source for this information, which directly attributes that drop in life expectancy to the disaster, that segment is getting removed too.--Senor Freebie (talk) 09:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The citation needed tag is for unsourced content. The section you mention is sourced; the tag was invalid. We provide a quote, with attribution of the quote. This is how quotes work. Shunichi Yamashita was born in 1952 in Nagasaki and is a recognized expert on radiation, public health, and Chernobyl; he is a stellar source for this information. VQuakr (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The citation needed tag was the links being drawn between the quote, and the paragraph above. He did not explicitly state that the life expectancy of Chernobyl evacuees dropped because of relocation. He seems to imply it, but the paragraph above, makes a giant, uncited leap. "In the former Soviet Union, many patients with negligible radioactive exposure after the Chernobyl disaster displayed extreme anxiety about low level radiation exposure, and therefore developed many psychosomatic problems, including radiophobia, and with this an increase in fatalistic alcoholism being observed."--Senor Freebie (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph that begins with; "According to the Japanese Government, 180,592 people in the general population were screened in March 2011 for radiation exposure and no case was found which affects health." includes references that are not verifiable. The line; "It is believed that the health effects of the radioactivity release are primarily psychological rather than physical effects." in particular appears to be entirely conjecture, and the opinion of the editor, rather than encyclopedic and does not align with any of the information from any of the sources cited after it.--Senor Freebie (talk) 09:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
False, that is taken directly from the sources, primarily [3], which states in the byline, "After the Fukushima nuclear disaster, Japan kept people safe from the physical effects of radiation — but not from the psychological impacts." and later goes on to say, "...the chaotic nature of the evacuation makes it difficult to assess how long and severely each person was exposed. The few attempts made so far, however, have generally shown minimal risk. The health survey’s latest assessment suggests that the dose for nearly all the evacuees was very low, with a maximum of only 25 millisieverts (mSv), well below the 100-mSv exposure that has been linked to an increased risk of cancer..." and "For Fukushima evacuees, says Bromet, 'There’s going to be a tremendous amount of health-related anxiety and it’s not going to go away easily.' Yabe says that “radiophobia” remains a major problem among the Japanese refugees.".
If Nature and the NRC aren't adequate sources for this information, what possibly is? VQuakr (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The issue I have here is not the quality of the sources. It is the content of the Wikipedia article. It simply draws conclusions that are not in the articles. That you are still pushing those conclusions, even while quoting the sourced material is troubling.--Senor Freebie (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What specific conclusions in the article were not drawn by the sources provided? You have made a few claims precise enough to respond to specifically, and I have done so using direct quotes from the existing sources that you have repeatedly and inaccurately claimed do not contain that very information. VQuakr (talk) 02:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your failure in comprehension, here, and in my warnings against edit warrings are not my responsibility. It honestly appears as if you are feigning confusion, in order to contravene Wikipedia rules.--Senor Freebie (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph that begins with; "Experts on the ground in Japan agree that mental health challenges are the most significant issue." Which experts? The source never once uses terms like these, and this clearly reflects an attempt to include someone's subjective opinion. This segment needs a rewrite to reflect the actual source material, and should not be included until this is done.--Senor Freebie (talk) 09:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
False, this is cited to Scientific American, [4]. "Experts on the ground in Japan agree. 'Mental health is the most significant issue," notes Seiji Yasumura...' VQuakr (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You really like using the word false don't you?
The context in which that quote is made is not clear in the article. The Wikipedia page again draws conclusions that are simply not in the source material. Again, I think it's worth noting that you are pushing those conclusions.--Senor Freebie (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Typical of all of these, you are making no attempt to explain why you find the cited content above unsuitable. You keep claiming it isn't verifiable, but that has been demonstrated, with quotes from the source, to be untrue. VQuakr (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I explained it in plain English. The source material simply does not align with the assertions made in the wiki article. If you disagree, please explain why, while referencing the ACTUAL sourced content.--Senor Freebie (talk) 12:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have already replied with quotes, repeatedly, that refute every claim you have made that is specific enough to refute. These quotes are verifiably in the sources provided, so I am not sure what else could possibly be considered better "ACTUAL sourced content" than what I have already provided. VQuakr (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a lie. You have argued tooth and nail that I am not being specific, where I am, and you have not engaged in discussion, while undoing huge amounts of content that you're utterly unwilling to discuss.--Senor Freebie (talk) 03:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't being specific (enough). I have replied to every specific complaint you have raised, with quotes from the sources that you keep removing from the article. It seems strange that you would say I am not engaging in discussion at the bottom of a ~15kB thread. VQuakr (talk) 03:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The relationship between mental health disorders—such as anxiety and depression—and thyroid disorders is well known in the medical community." This segment is utterly irrelevant and clearly conjecture.--Senor Freebie (talk) 09:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not conjecture, but I agree that it is irrelevant. Why did you restore it then? VQuakr (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The link that is being made here is the conjecture. I restored it in error.--Senor Freebie (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, we are agreed on this one. Progress. VQuakr (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please cease your unilateral edit war immediately, and apologise for your previous personal attacks. I have other commitments in real life. This content should not be included in the article until the obvious, major problems with it are discussed in detail. The article was already flagged as in breach of NPOV, and rambling, and you seem to be fighting against improving it, tooth and nail, while being utterly uncivil to other editors attempting to help.--Senor Freebie (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This thread has become rather rambling as it attempted to address several proposed removals at once. I am going to start separate sections for each, as it seems unfair to expect anyone uninvolved to tackle this as written. VQuakr (talk) 00:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Will continue under sub-headings from now on.--Senor Freebie (talk) 07:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1,600 deaths due to the evacuation[edit]

This is an incredible claim. I need to emphasise this. There is no current source in the Japanese language that supports this, that does not directly cite the NBC article, which in turn cites the dead Mainichi link. The current, apparent article owner, is doing their best to include this claim, and associated other claims in the article, in a clear effort to demonstrate that evacuation is more dangerous than radiation. There is not one mention of the specifics of these deaths, and the associated figure, of 1,599 deaths due to the earthquake, within the evacuation zone is repeatedly mentioned in articles on deaths during the evacuation.--Senor Freebie (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With the help of my partner, who is fluent in Japanese, I may have gotten to the bottom of this. The number refers to the total amount of deaths amongst the evacuated group since the evacuation, at the time of the survey. The numbers are as follows, according to this material; deaths within the zone due to the earthquate; 1,607. Deaths between the earthquake, and the survey being undertaken, due to all causes (including, but not exclusive to the evacuation and fallout), 1,599. Until a source that more clearly explains the figures in this link; http://healthpress.jp/2016/03/5-24.html ... this content may not be included in the article as it appears to be misleading.--Senor Freebie (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the source does not define clearly between deaths due to people evacuated as a result of the earthquake, and people evacuated as a result of the fallout.--Senor Freebie (talk) 15:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What leads you to determine so conclusively that that article, dated 2016, was the source of information for the 2013 Mainichi Shimbun survey? Why should we rely on personal analysis, particularly when we have sources that say the complete opposite? VQuakr (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because those sources literally link or reference the now dead article and refer to the newspaper BY NAME. Are you even reading this material that you're referencing?--Senor Freebie (talk) 12:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you believe it matters if verifiable content is not currently online? VQuakr (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not verifiable content. There is literally zero mention of this figure in Japanese sources. It's an utterly exceptional claim, and requires more than a dead link. Simple as that.--Senor Freebie (talk) 02:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiability means that the original claim must be possible to examine. All we know is that a newspaper conducted a survey, and listed figures that have since been quoted by other sources. We don't know for sure what the context of those figures is, and there seems to be no continued discussion of them in English or Japanese, most likely because they are bogus.--Senor Freebie (talk) 02:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, verifiable means that content has been published somewhere; ie, it is not just made up by the WP article editor. That has been demonstrated, so you are incorrect in asserting that the statement is not verifiable. I think you are trying to express that you do not think the sources provided are reliable, though the only reasoning you have provided to support that line of thought is that it doesn't match your original research and the content doesn't parse with your personal beliefs. VQuakr (talk) 03:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly misunderstand what I am saying. What I am saying is this; the information is not presented clearly or consistently in secondary reporting of it. The information that was allegedly in the dead link is unlikely to be accurate, is now deleted, and is most likely out of context. It is not possible to verify that this information ever existed, in the way it is presented in the article, let alone whether it is reliable, or accurate.--Senor Freebie (talk) 11:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is trivial to verify the information since a convenience archive link has been provided, [5]. Of course in any case, there is no requirement for a source to be available on the internet for it to be used; unscanned print books and newspapers are perfectly valid as sources. I'll post a query at WP:RSN to get additional input on your suggestion that the source might be unreliable, since we seem unable to independently agree on that one. VQuakr (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the section is WP:RSN#Fukushima evacuation deaths. VQuakr (talk) 00:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Answered on RSN - we have the original source archived and the reputation of the source is more than enough to satisfy WP:RS. Garzfoth (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did you guys actually read this link?
"A survey by popular Japanese newspaper Mainichi Shimbun said Monday that deaths relating to this displacement – around 1,600 – have surpassed the number killed in the region in the original disaster."
"Close to 16,000 people were killed across Japan as a direct result of the earthquake and tsunami in 2011. According to the Mainichi report, 1,599 of these deaths were in the Fukushima Prefecture."
Meanwhile in the article that they linked to:
"The number of deaths in Fukushima Prefecture caused mainly by stress from the nuclear disaster reached 1,539 at the end of August, almost equaling the 1,599 fatalities due directly to the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami, the Mainichi Shimbun has learned."
In summary, NBC misquotes the source they're quoting, the paragraph in this article misquotes NBC, and attributes that to Mainichi, which never made the claim in the article in the first place. Not only that but, they even concede that "many municipalities declined to specify the causes of those disaster aftermath-related deaths, saying they would affect future screenings of applications for condolence money."
And then, inexplicably, they go on to talk about the number of deaths in OTHER prefectures due to evacuation. Can you guess why those people were evacuated? And why, at the 'start of the article they clarify their statement as only partially applying to the nuclear disaster? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senor Freebie (talk • contribs)
2nd paragraph from Mainichi: "In addition, bereaved families have filed condolence money applications for at least 109 victims who they say died due to fatigue, stress and aggravated health conditions while living in evacuation shelters and temporary housing. If this number is added, deaths attributable to post-disaster conditions surpass the number of those killed directly by the March 11, 2011 quake and tsunami." You claim that NBC misquotes Mainichi is not accurate. We are not going to "guess" at anything.
I would be fine, though, with changing the article sentence to read, "A survey by the newspaper Mainichi Shimbun reported that by August 2013 there had been about 1,600 deaths related to the evacuation, comparable to the 1,599 deaths due to the earthquake and tsunami in the Fukushima Prefecture." VQuakr (talk) 15:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the entire article before responding. If you had done so, you would have noticed that there were a significant number of additional deaths attributed to the post-evacuation conditions that were not already included in the first count of 1539, as the article clearly explains. And Mainichi actually did make that claim that they surpass the tsunami deaths once added - again, if you had actually read the article you would have seen this. I was going to quote more of the article but since you really need the entire thing for sufficient context I decided the first paragraph combined with a link should be plenty -- apparently I was mistaken.
For reference the archived original article is located at https://web.archive.org/web/20130927033901/http://mainichi.jp/english/english/newsselect/news/20130909p2a00m0na009000c.html. I'll reiterate my original argument from RSN again: Since we have the original source archived, I think this question can be considered answered - the Mainichi Shimbun appears to be the most reliable news source in Japan, so barring direct evidence from a more reputable source (which would always be ideal but cannot always be located directly in all cases), this should be more than enough to satisfy the requirements of WP:RS. Garzfoth (talk) 09:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


i offer the following redaction proof archive-ception as well; 2013/09/13 mainichi jp = [6] & , 2016/03/5 = healthpress jp google translated = [7] ergo, this question is asked & answered so may i put this in the main article to end this "despute" , , PS: will this be considered a personal attack Senor Freebie? Waptek (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jacobson[edit]

@Senor Freebie: what was the reason for this reversion? VQuakr (talk) 03:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was unable to undo your other, unconstructive undo. You provided insufficient edit summaries, and refused to engage in discussion of the changes, and frankly I believe you have been deliberately engaging in time wasting, so I was simply trying to be as efficient as possible in improving the article. Please note the following complaints in the heading, which I have been trying to address by removing irrelevant, unsourced and repetitive information; "This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: the article is incoherent, rambling and poorly organized" & "This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably." --Senor Freebie (talk) 11:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot tell from your reply - do you object to the change? If so, why? VQuakr (talk) 00:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed removal - Health effects[edit]

Proposed markup to be removed:

Status quo text

According to the Japanese Government, 180,592 people in the general population were screened in March 2011 for radiation exposure and no case was found which affects health.<ref name="Seismic Damage Information (the 127th Release)"/> Thirty workers conducting operations at the plant had exposure levels greater than 100 mSv.<ref name="Seismic Damage Information (the 110th Release)"/> It is believed that the health effects of the radioactivity release are primarily psychological rather than physical effects. Even in the most severely affected areas, radiation doses never reached more than a quarter of the radiation dose linked to an increase in cancer risk (25 mSv whereas 100 mSv has been linked to an increase in cancer rates among victims at Hiroshima and Nagasaki).<ref name="Fukushima: Fallout of fear"/><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/radiation/health-effects/rad-exposure-cancer.html |title=Radiation Exposure and Cancer |date=29 March 2012 |website=[[Nuclear Regulatory Commission]] |accessdate=18 April 2017}}</ref> However, people who have been evacuated have suffered from depression and other mental health effects.<ref name="Fukushima: Fallout of fear"/> ... [[Radiation epidemiologist]] Roy Shore contends that estimating health effects in a population from the LNT model "is not wise because of the uncertainties".<ref name="Science 2011"/> The LNT model did not accurately model casualties from Chernobyl, Hiroshima or Nagasaki; it greatly overestimated the casualties. Evidence that the LNT model is a gross distortion of damage from radiation has existed since 1946, and was suppressed by Nobel Prize winner [[Paul Hermann Müller|Hermann Muller]] in favour of assertions that no amount of radiation is safe.<ref name="UMass researcher points to suppression of evidence on radiation effects by 1946 Nobel Laureate"/><ref name="Muller's Nobel lecture on dose–response for ionizing radiation: Ideology or science?"/><ref name="ClinicalOncologyChildren"/>

Senor Freebie, can you explain the reasoning for your proposed removal of this content? It seems relevant and well-sourced to me. The last two sentences are a bit of a digression though; do you think excising that part would resolve your concern? VQuakr (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

wait senon freebie claimed that a link to Radiation Exposure and Cancer 2008/05/06 , nrc gov [8] was contradictory to the science of radiation health effects?!! really? Waptek (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Waptek; the issue is how the information from the source is applied in the article. It's clearly a misrepresentation of the science. Especially considering the long winded segments throughout this article on the LNT. In fact when I first came here, the subject of Fukushima seemed somewhat secondary to soapboaxing about the LNT.--Senor Freebie (talk) 04:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed removal - Psychological effects of perceived radiation exposure[edit]

Proposed markup to be removed:

Status quo text

Experts on the ground in Japan agree that mental health challenges are the most significant issue. Stress, such as that caused by dislocation, uncertainty and concern about unseen toxicants, often manifests in physical ailments, such as heart disease. So even if radiation risks are low, people are still concerned and worried. Behavioral changes can follow, including poor dietary choices, lack of exercise and sleep deprivation, all of which can have long-term negative health consequences. People who lost their homes, villages and family members, and even just those who survived the quake, will likely continue to face mental health challenges and the physical ailments that come with stress. Much of the damage was really the psychological stress of not knowing and of being relocated, according to U.C. Berkeley's McKone.<ref name="Japan's Post-Fukushima Earthquake Health Woes Go Beyond Radiation Effects"/>

Senor Freebie, that paragraph is sourced to Scientific American, [9]. I think there is improvement to be made to the paragraph, particularly with attribution in Wikipedia's vs the source's voice. Do you agree, or do you still think the section should be completely removed? If the latter, why? VQuakr (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After your threats, to ban me from editing, I decided not to continue attempting to edit this article, that you so clearly want to control.--Senor Freebie (talk) 03:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 36 external links on Radiation effects from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Radiation_effects_from_the_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster&oldid=1212608381"