Japan realizes the lies will not hold, and starts fessing up on several tens of times more childhood cancer in Fukushima. Will the Fukushima necklace one day be stylish, or a family shame?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The annual incidence of thyroid cancer worldwide is 1 case per 100 000 men and 2.6 cases per 100 000 women. Most thyroid nodules are asymptomatic and are discovered incidentally on physical examination, self-palpation or incidentally on imaging studies performed for unrelated reasons. Although the majority of both palpable and non-palpable thyroid nodules are benign, approximately 5% may represent thyroid cancer. Thyroid-stimulating hormone, thyroid ultrasound and fine-needle aspiration biopsy are key tests to guide management. Physicians caring for patients with thyroid nodules need to develop a rational, cost-effective approach to ordering and interpreting imaging and diagnostic tests in the evaluation of the thyroid nodule.
- [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
stock here: so thyroid cancer is fairly rare, only 5% of cysts or nodules may be cancer. The nodules usually don't cause symptoms, so they are usually just discovered by accident for another reason.
In Japan, around Fukushima, 21.1% of kids aged 1 to 21 have sizable cysts/nodules, of over 3mm, or about the size of a pea. That is around 31,500 kids out of 153,667 tested.
What if 5% eventually get cancer of the thyroid, that would be 1,575 kids. Or more than 1% thyroid cancer. But the world wide average is only .0018% of all ages, including old people.
So that is 555 times more likely to get cancer
Young people usually don't develop nodules/cysts, but they are much more common in older folks, so this is unusual. Regardless of what main stream media says.
Here is the report from Japan on Thyroid Ultrasounds
They tested 149.065 young people, 30% of the people refused to participate even though it was free.
Those in the 18 to 21 YO range were "bullet proof" and only 22% participated at all. This group is older and more likely to be developing problems. The most likely group to have problems was barely sampled.
The accepted method of determining whether a nodule/cyst is cancerous or malignant (meaning invasive, uncontrollable, dangerous, deadly) if by sampling with a fine needle. Its a pretty simple test, done as an outpatient (you don't stay in the hospital), and no sedation is needed although a local anesthetic will be applied. In other words, this test is "not a big thing" nor a big cost.
The Japan report completely ignores stating how many fine needle test were done, but it was at least 70, but does state that 25 were suspicious or malignant (very bad and probably cancerous)
They promise to do more "testing" very 2 years, but will try hard to make sure no one goes beyond 5 years (what about that 30% that didn't participate at all?)
The study makes no mention or comparison to a "control group" or to worldwide averages.
A pronuker tried to debunk the thyroid problem by pointing at an IAEA report. Part 4 of 5 is 266 pages.
On document page 157 (not PDF page, but document page) they state
It is important to note that 94.9% of cysts are ≤ 20 mm and 43.0% of nodules are ≤ 5.0 mm and would not have been detected without a sensitive screening toolIn such a blatant "promotion" job by the IAEA whose job it is to promote nuclear, they pretend that the only reason they are finding all these nodules and cysts is because they are using "sensitive screening tools". Seriously? So you used an ultrasound, a cheap, fast, and easy way to look? And the option to not looking with a simple tool.....well those cysts and nodules simply would not have been found until they were so large they were popping out the side of the neck. 20 mm is about 3/4" sphere....not as big as a golf ball but still an worrisome abnormality to have in your neck by an important gland. But the IAEA pretends that since you wouldn't notice the pre-cancerous condition until it was popping out the side of your neck, that it is nothing to worry about. Seriously, this is the effect of their language and how they try to spin things.
Next, also at bottom of document page 157, they get people to NOT USE KNOWN DATA, especially in regards to using what I did....percent cancers generating from number of cysts/nodules.
Comparison with rates derived from cancer registries in Japan or other countries should be avoided as misleading because the majority of cases reported to cancer registries are diagnosed by clinical methods and not by screening
Well I disagree, until we know something is NOT A PROBLEM, we should not give the benefit of the doubt to the nuclear promotion agency, it is in their mission statement.
So you would think, OK, well if you want to compare other children percent of cysts/nodules to those in the Fukushima and surrounding areas, then you would do a large sample on cleaner location say in Hokkaido, or Kyushu, ideally far enough away from even the normal day to day radioactive releases from nuclear plants. Did they do this? Well the nuke promoters pretend that other tests were done in other places, and then they go on to say "but there is no evidence that the children in Fukushima have a higher rate of cysts and nodules then Japanese children elsewhere".
What is the reality? The IAEA quotes a smallish test of 4400 children. They provide no data on the number of cysts and nodules, and then use the false argument of only talking about the cancers, and then, seriously and incredulously dismiss the topic with
The number of individuals with cancer or suspicion of cancer on FNAB, if there were any, was 158 not reported by Hayashida et al.
And that is all they provide. Then amazingly, in their summary they trot out this same study and without presenting any data.....they draw this conclusion "don't worry about all those cysts and nodules we found, because it's the same everywhere. And they wonder why people don't trust them. They wonder why people are anxious, when those that should be looking after them, are lying to them at every step. Below statement on P 167 middle.
Similar results were obtained when the same screening was carried out on children living far away from the areas affected by the accident [339, 341