New Atomic Risk Strategy Needed After Fukushima

New ways must be found to provide the public the true risks of radiation emitted by crises like the one at the plant in Fukushima, Japan Nuclear without inflaming the exaggerated fears of "Apocalypse," the scientists say.

Communication must get through statistics on the risks and fears of people at the same time address "real power, especially when they involve atomic has associations with the Cold War and the 1945 bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Many experts say that Japan's March 11 tsunami, which so far has left 28,000 dead or missing, may have a greater impact on public health in Japan that radiation leaks from the stricken plant .

Part of the problem is that many scientists are both some good news and bad news - which may seem contradictory. They admit they are struggling to express the risks in a way that can guide governments and individuals.

"On one hand, scientists say" yes, very serious, "said Jim Smith of the University of Portsmouth and an expert on the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl in 1986." On the other hand, personally, I do not expect health effects of being very harsh radiation therapy. "

As an illustration of the problem between personal and public reactions, the risk of a person living in developed countries cancer is about one in three during a lifetime.

A dose of 170 mSv - a level found in two workers exposed to radiation at the plant and transported to the hospital - could increase the risk of cancer of approximately 1 in 100.

Yet in the next few decades, millions of people in Japan who develop cancer are linked to wonder if they could have avoided away from Fukushima. So for peace of mind, to escape together, can make sense, even if risk levels are lower. On the other hand, the stress of being uprooted and family life to go elsewhere may have a higher incidence of health.