News

www.thelancet.com/oncology Published online March 8, 2013 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70103-7 1

Fukushima: no ChernobylSlightly under 2 years since the earthquake and tsunami that sent three reactors into meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in 2011, WHO has released its assessment of the health risks associated with the disaster .

The authors estimated risks for people who worked in the power plant and those involved in the emergency response, the general population in the most contaminated parts of Fukushima, the population elsewhere in the prefecture, and the general population of Japan.

On the basis of estimated doses deliberately chosen from the upper end of what was likely (so as to minimise the possibility of understating risk) and epidemiological information and data taken from the Chernobyl disaster, the report concluded that the general population of Japan, including that in less contaminated parts of Fukushima, was not at any increased risk of cancer.

The same applied to two-thirds of the emergency workers. But certain subsets of the population do face increased cancer risks.

In the most contaminated areas, among individuals exposed as infants, women face an overall 4% increased relative risk of developing any solid cancer, a 6% increase in their relative risk of developing breast cancer, and a 70% increase in the relative risk of developing thyroid cancer. Men exposed as infants in the same region can expect a 7% increase in the relative risk of developing leukaemia. Among the third of emergency workers at heightened risk of cancer, the increases in relative risk were as high as 20%.

WHO’s Maria Neira (Geneva, Switzerland) stressed that overall risks remained low. “For female thyroid cancer, the background rate is 0·75/100; with the increased risk this becomes 1·25/100”, she pointed out. The relative risks were halved for

people in the second most aff ected regions. “The reason we are not talking about a public health disaster is because the internationally recommended emergency response measures were applied in Japan”, Neira told The Lancet Oncology. These measures included mass evacuations—around 160 000 people were moved from the area—and embargoing potentially contaminated food and water supplies (the earthquake had destroyed much food production in the region anyway).

Oregon State University’s Kathryn Higley (Corvallis, OR, USA) is confi dent that WHO’s fi ndings are robust. “The approach they’ve taken is very appropriate”, she affi rmed. Surveillance and follow-up will continue into the future. “The international community also needs to work on understanding the eff ects of low-dose radiation”, added Neira.

Talha Khan Burki

Published OnlineMarch 8, 2013 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70103-7

For WHO’s assessment of Fukushima health risks see http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/fukushima_report/en/index.html

Geoe

ye/S

cienc

e Ph

oto

Libr

ary