Fukushima Disaster Led to 14,000 Excess Deaths?


This article has been staring at people for the last couple days. The study ranges from March 20, just 9 days after the disaster through June 20th. 14 weeks. Does this mean that the US population got infected and died from the disaster? Did it speed up already ill people? Surely there will be some effects elsewhere in perhaps minor or even major ways, but this number seems off. You’d think the numbers would be 10 times worse just in Japan alone but it’s not.Who is this researcher?! (Medpagetoday – Fukushima 14000)


  1. Lilly
    20 December 11, 2:04pm

    The researchers that did this study have a track record of studies that don’t meet the basic expectations of study methods or evidence. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/12/20/researchers-trumpet-another-flawed-fukushima-death-study/

  2. Hey GR
    20 December 11, 2:31pm

    Hey GR, this is effin’ stupid. Please stop reposting and adding sensational headlines to terribly researched tabloid stories just because there’s an Asian country involved. By this guy’s reasoning, anything that happened in March 2011 caused an excess of 14,000 US deaths. It would also help if your blog showed who authored each post it so I can start filtering out nonsense posts. Thanks.

  3. 20 December 11, 2:39pm

    Did you read our post? We’re criticizing it as much as you are!

  4. unspokenhermit
    20 December 11, 4:57pm

    One research report alone is hardly strong enough to give a conclusive finding.

    I just found this new study, produced independent organization Datapoke, concerning the estimated concentrations of radionuclides at upper altitudes. The report indicates concentrations orders of magnitude higher than those physically recorded at near surface level.


    The report includes dispersion images but I can’t figure out how to post them here. Can anyone post the dispersion images?


  5. Hey GR
    20 December 11, 7:03pm

    Yes, and now that I’ve reread it, the voice can go either way. When I first read it, it sounded like you’re giving credit to the opinions of the report from the article by repeating them in the form of a question, and adding that the numbers just “seem off.” Didn’t sound very critical to me. Your reply here tells me that you are criticizing it, but the blog post is ambiguous.

    I still would like to know who is authoring the posts, much like the initials after the reviews of the print version (RIP). Thanks.

Leave a Reply