Talk:Fukushima nuclear accident casualties

I think that we can remove the warning at the beginning, since the material is properly sourced.--Gautier lebon (talk) 09:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

That was a reasonable split and properly attributed, so the MadmanBot was in error. Tag removed. 203.206.183.123 (talk) 22:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Number of casualties?
Given the title of this article, I should expect to see, somewhere near the beginning, a concrete figure for the number of verified casualties, accompanied, perhaps, by an authoritative estimate of future casualties, if such an authoritative estimate exists. Lacking concrete figures, this article seems like an exercise in obfuscation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.247.191.211 (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Strongly agree. It's an article on casualties, be instead has many paragraphs of lede describing "significant" radiation exposure and release, and the preventative acts by the government, but doesn't actually mention the extremely small number of casualties until the end.  I'll re-organize it. Jess (talk) 13:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Why are Sternglass and Mangano even mentioned in this article? If they are to be mentioned it should be clearly noted that their work is undeniably fraudulent (cherry picked data) concerning the infant mortality rates in the US. This has been confirmed by numerous sources within the scientific community, hence no corroborated studies in reputable journals will ever be published...192.36.28.75 (talk) 07:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Under the Casualties section, there is this statement: "However, Masao Yoshida, the former Fukushima supervisor [...] died of esophageal cancer in July 2013. There is some dispute as to whether this was due to his radiation exposure during the 2011 event." I do not understand why such a statement is even present. Cancer takes quite some time to develop. As such, this almost guarantees that Yoshida died of a cancer that was forming long before the Fukushima incident ever occurred. As to the supposed dispute, there is no citation and such claims should not be mentioned until a citation is provided. This statement is grasping at straws in order to implicate this nuclear disaster with a death. I considered outright deleting the entire statement, but I would like to know the opinion of others first. &#124; &#124; skubb &#124; &#124; 07:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyropulse (talk • contribs)

This article and the article on the Fukushima Disaster itself make comments about how many people were killed by the earthquake and tsunami, which seems like a thinly-veiled "Look over there!" exercise in misdirection. However, if it is okay to minimize one disaster by comparing it to another, maybe the articles should discuss how many people were killed in the nuclear bombings of 1945 and possibly how many people have died of cancer not caused by Fukushima. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.89.58.198 (talk) 19:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster casualties. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130217162707/http://msa.hanford.gov/hills/lesson.cfm?id=2468 to http://msa.hanford.gov/hills/lesson.cfm?id=2468

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster casualties. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130217162707/http://msa.hanford.gov/hills/lesson.cfm?id=2468 to http://msa.hanford.gov/hills/lesson.cfm?id=2468

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster casualties. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/77959.html
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/81375.html
 * Added archive https://web.http://www.webcitation.org/60Z80WNOE to http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/29_05.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster casualties. 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:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5y2agYEQZ?url=http%3A%2F%2Fin.ibtimes.com%2Farticles%2F132391%2F20110409%2Fjapan-nuclear-crisis-radiation.htm to http://in.ibtimes.com/articles/132391/20110409/japan-nuclear-crisis-radiation.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131202235552/http://www.hyer.eu/news/regional-news/hydrogen-in-nuclear-accidents-what-is-the-role-of-the-gas-in-fukushima to http://www.hyer.eu/news/regional-news/hydrogen-in-nuclear-accidents-what-is-the-role-of-the-gas-in-fukushima
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120524191342/http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2012/05/159960.html to http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2012/05/159960.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130119181123/http://naiic.go.jp/en/ to http://naiic.go.jp/en/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160314232413/https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141023090736.htm to https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141023090736.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20305-caesium-fallout-from-fukushima-rivals-chernobyl.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130119181123/http://naiic.go.jp/en/ to http://naiic.go.jp/en/
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/60axydhPx?url=http://icanps.go.jp/eng/ to http://icanps.go.jp/eng/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster casualties. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140413220232/http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201207230081 to http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201207230081
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110930063423/http://mdn.mainichi.jp/features/archive/news/2011/04/20110426p2a00m0na006000c.html to http://mdn.mainichi.jp/features/archive/news/2011/04/20110426p2a00m0na006000c.html
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/65oxMRZVP?url=http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/files/en20110423-6-1.pdf to http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/files/en20110423-6-1.pdf
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/65oxMRZVP?url=http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/files/en20110423-6-1.pdf to http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/files/en20110423-6-1.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T120204003191.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120713061847/http://www.slideshare.net/jikocho/naiic-report-hires to http://www.slideshare.net/jikocho/naiic-report-hires
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120829070907/http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/ to http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130523040356/http://www.lensculture.com/mittica-fukushima.html?thisPic=100 to http://www.lensculture.com/mittica-fukushima.html?thisPic=100

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Radiation death
I have added a government source confirming the death. Reports by other media groups such as Reuters have confirmed through government sources over the phone. The YouTube video below is misinformation.

I noticed that the one radiation death reported yesterday has only received one brief mention in the heading, coming off as a blink and you'll miss it sort of thing. I think at least a little bit more should be mentioned somewhere in the body, including that he went back into the plant twice and his job was to measure radiation, as well as the fact that he died from lung cancer determined to have been caused by radiation despite the fact that the Japanese government stated that he had worn all appropriate protective gear while on site (all of this info gleaned from the article about his death on Ars Technica) as it seems notable, plus it would help counteract the criticisms noted at the top of this talk page.--2600:1702:280:ECE0:586F:41FF:5FEB:37A0 (talk) 09:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Could you please get this death confirmed from an official government site? I asked the BBC, and they say they got it from Ars Technica.

Looks like fake news to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:5EB8:8C00:68B6:435E:456E:935E (talk) 00:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

You are quite right! The "first radiation death" story was fake news from the very beginning. I just made my first edit attempt to a Wikipedia page, but I was told a bot undid my edit.

In two places on the Wikipedia page it has said a worker has died from Fukushima radiation, but this is incorrect. Perhaps I didn't know what I was doing when I tried to edit, but this is a lie I have been fighting all over the internet for months now.

The links provided as references are both false stories; references #3 and #24. I proved this with my YouTube video I linked when I revised the article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWhGhb5tzW8 It appears the bot doesn't like my link, so I would challenge anyone to show where the Japan Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare acknowledged this radiation death as mentioned in both reference articles Wikipedia posted. They didn't. It's a lie, and I proved how this story falsely originated in my video. The Reuters and BBC both have failed to retract their false stories even when I tried to get them to realize they fell for a scam, probably from Russian Propaganda bots who would have motive to make their own Chernobyl accident (worst nuclear power plant accident in the world) from 1986 less important and throw the spotlight more to Japan.

How do I fix this lie on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForbiddTV (talk • contribs) 19:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

First confirmed Fukushima radiation death
I have added a government source confirming the death. Reports by other media groups such as Reuters have confirmed through government sources over the phone. The YouTube video below is misinformation.

The "first radiation death" story was fake news from the very beginning. I just made my first edit attempt to a Wikipedia page, but I was told a bot undid my edit.

In two places on the Wikipedia page it has said a worker has died from Fukushima radiation, but this is incorrect. Perhaps I didn't know what I was doing when I tried to edit, but this is a lie I have been fighting all over the internet for months now.

The links provided as references are both false stories; references #3 and #24 at the time of this posting. I proved this with my YouTube video I linked when I revised the article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWhGhb5tzW8 It appears the bot doesn't like my link, so I would challenge anyone to show where the Japan Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare acknowledged this radiation death as mentioned in both reference articles Wikipedia posted. They didn't. It's a lie, and I proved how this story falsely originated in my video. The Reuters and BBC both have failed to retract their false stories even when I tried to get them to realize they fell for a scam, probably from Russian Propaganda bots who would have motive to make their own Chernobyl accident (worst nuclear power plant accident in the world) from 1986 less important and throw the spotlight more to Japan.ForbiddTV (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

How do I fix this lie on Wikipedia?

Direct Deaths
Knowing the total number of indirect deaths is difficult. But we do definitely know the number that were directly killed, and that should be listed up front, I think it is about 3. Then the number killed during clean up. Of those exposed during clean up an estimate of likely deaths. Those numbers should be clear and up front.

Then we can get to the more difficult doubly indirect deaths -- someone that died maybe because of displacement.

Incidentally, if someone is electrocuted in a house with solar panels, do we call that a Solar Energy death? What about someone has a car accident while driving to a store that sells ladders some of which are used for Solar? .... Tuntable (talk) 05:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Study showing radiation deaths needs better wording
The study by anti-nuclear Mark Z. Jacobson needs more context. Using the LNT model to estimate the number of deaths from low-level radiation is improper and unscientific. The Health Physics Society has written a position paper on this subject: http://hps.org/documents/radiationrisk.pdf

"Collective dose and radiation protection planning A common approach in many circles, not recommended here, involves extrapolating the calculated risk derived at high doses to low-dose levels. Extrapolation may be convenient for setting radiation protection guidelines. However, when used prospectively to predict future risk to an exposed population, the multiplication of small risk coefficients by large population numbers leads inevitably to unsupportable claims of cancer risk from ionizing radiation (NCRP 1997, 2012).

"Significant dosimetry uncertainties for individual subjects characterize most epidemiological studies. Actual doses and individual responses to radiation may be highly variable. It follows, therefore, that the collective population dose (the sum of individual effective doses expressed in units of person-sievert) is a highly uncertain number. Since the risk coefficient at low effective dose is uncertain, and the individual contributors to population effective dose are also uncertain, the resultant uncertainty is greater than each of the individual contributions—and should not be used with confidence to predict cancer incidence in an exposed population" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpguy1988 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Citation 12 is no longer credible
In the intro citation 12 is used to illustrate a range of possible future cancer deaths from academic sources with an upper bound of hundreds. The prediction was made in June 2011. The science is in from numerous studies cited in the article and it looks like close to zero. Why maintain citation 12 as a credible upper bound at the same level of authority as the lower bound studies from credible scientific sources that are now unanimously near zero? Unless the authors of citation 12 still stand by this with data from the last ten years how is it still credible and relevant? 203.25.144.4 (talk) 00:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

An article on casualties should primarily be about causualties (duh)
After a short intro about the accident, the article starts with a possible cause of death that was not actually a cause of death. For an article on causualties, that is rather weird, considering that there were casualties caused by the accident itself. Those should be mentioned first. Instead, they are only mentioned way at the end of the rather lengthy introductory section, almost as an afterthought. Apparently, this is a long standing problem with this article, and I feel no desire to start a fight with the pro-nuclear lobby that appears to be active here. But let me point out that because of the much greater threat of climate change I started considering nuclear energy and reading up on it. However, I encountered such a large web of lies that I no longer trust anyone and have dedided to err on the side of caution and not vote for any party that is pro-nuclear energy. DirkvdM (talk) 08:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)


 *  Reply -, what do you suggest? Changing the title, or reverting the content? -- Jax 0677 (talk) 16:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)