Survey: 34 died from stress caused by nuclear accident.
THE ASAHI SHIMBUN Japan. 22 August 2012

Primary Source: Japanese Government Reconstruction Agency Survery released on Aug. 21 2012.

Physical and mental fatigue have been the main causes of death among evacuees following last year’s earthquake and tsunami, including 34 who died of stress over the Fukushima nuclear disaster, a survey showed.

According to the survey, released by the Reconstruction Agency on Aug. 21, 1,632 people in 10 prefectures had died as an indirect consequence of the Great East Japan Earthquake as of March 31.

The figure included 761 deaths in Fukushima Prefecture and 829 in Iwate and Miyagi prefectures. The three prefectures accounted for 97 percent of the death toll.

The agency found the causes of 1,263 deaths in 18 municipalities of the three prefectures. More than one cause could be given for each death.

“Physical and psychological fatigue from life at evacuation centers and elsewhere” caused 433 deaths, or 59 percent of the total, in Fukushima Prefecture. The same reason was cited in 205 deaths, or 39 percent, in Iwate and Miyagi prefectures.

The survey showed that travel to evacuation centers took a heavy toll after the disaster hit the Tohoku region on March 11 last year.

In Fukushima Prefecture, which hosts the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant, as many as 380 deaths, or 52 percent, were attributed to the “physical and psychological burden from traveling to evacuation centers and elsewhere.” In Miyagi and Iwate prefectures, that cause was cited in 21 deaths, or 4 percent.

A lack of information about the nuclear accident and repeated travel when evacuation zones were expanded became huge problems for the evacuees, the agency said.

“Fukushima Prefecture had a greater number of disaster-related deaths than in other prefectures,” an agency official said. “It has been largely affected by evacuation following the nuclear accident.”

People 70 or older accounted for 90 percent of the deaths in the survey, with 50 percent dying within one month of the Great East Japan Earthquake and the start of the nuclear accident, and 80 percent dying within three months.

The agency said laws should be enacted carrying stipulations that will improve the lives of the evacuees, such as securing food and preparing for the cold weather at evacuation centers, in addition to promptly releasing information on the nuclear accident. end quote

in other words, the deliberate suppression of information, including the documented SPEEDI data suppression, false assurances, and regular but ad hoc (ie when lies were discovered) expansion of exclusion zones, caused deaths.

This is SOP for nuclear industry.

eg in 1962, British nuclear “authorities” informed Australia that the Maralinga nuclear test site was clean, uncontaminated and fit for human use. The Australian government refused at that time to listen to nuclear veterans and Aboriginal people who knew that the test site was lethal in places.

In 1984 the Australian government discovered that the nuclear veterans (who had previously been threatened with imprisonment for speaking out) and Aboriginal people were in fact correct and that British authorities had lied.

Britain also lied to the European Court of Human Rights.

Lying is what nuclear authorities have done very well since 1945. The old AEC apparently trained the Japanese authorities very well indeed.

In relation to Australia, I have long been perplexed by the many decades of official Australian Federal government ignorance about the state of the Maralinga nuclear test site. It is on the public record that the Royal Australian Navy regularly monitored the Wester Australian nuclear test sites in the Monte Bello Islands up until the mid 1970s.

The Army radiological surveys of Maralinga nuclear test sites in South Australia have never been discussed in public by any government authority.

It is beyond my belief that such surveys did not occur. A cursory glance at radiac instrument histories at Australian Archives reveals a lot of Army radiac instruments got a lot of use and calibration in the period to the mid 1970s. While Army use of such instruments in the Cold War setting accounts for some of the large calibration and repair costs of these instruments, I find it incredible that if training in the use of such instruments took place, which it obviously did, then sorties to the Maralinga Range would be “ideal”. Nuclear veterans were after all called “indoctrinees” after all – training on the nuclear battlefield.

So where are the military radiological survey documents from 1964 to 1974 pertaining to Maralinga?

Same place as the SPEEDI data I guess. In a secret box somewhere.

Maralinga was sort of cleaned up in the early 1990s. The decontamination procedures used constrast greatly with those slack and hopeless methods in use in Japan today – keeping the occupants in situ while steam cleaning mobilises and re suspends nuclear crap, failure to stop the reactors emitting, fresh contamination each time it rains, dispersing the nuclear concentrate all over Japan, as if natural leaching is not bad enough.

Yet people are supposed to believe government assurances that its all perfectly safe. Meanwhile, TEPCO denies ownership of its dispersed radionuclides.

All very British. Americans would say all very American, Russians would say all very Russian, and an alien watching from outer space would say all very World Nuclear.
Australian Archives for Radiac.



date range 1957 to 1975

A fair bit of Army activity using radiation detecting equipment in South Australia. And we are supposed to believe the Australian Army never monitored Maralinga after the British left in 1964? Like the dudes in Canberra just took the word of British nuclear authorities?

Britain’s Dirty Deeds at Maralinga.–britains-dirty-deeds-at-maralinga-fresh-evidence-suggests-that-britain-knew-in-the-1960s-that-radioactivity-at-its-former-nuclear-test-site-in-australia-was-worse-than-first-thought-but-it-did-not-tell-the-australians-.html

New Scientist magazine article: “Britain’s dirty deeds at Maralinga: Fresh evidence suggests that Britain knew in the 1960s that radioactivity at its former nuclear test site in Australia was worse than first thought. But it did not tell the Australians

Magazine issue 1877.”

But the Australians are not stupid and had a sophisticated radiac capability from 1964 through to the current era.

Some pro- Anglo elements within the Australian government I think helped hide the truth until 1984. I believe that the Australian Army monitored Maralinga routinely up till the 1970s. I believe the Army survey documents were in Federal government hands from 1964. I believe the official surprise at the extent of the contamination in South Australia was phony surprise.

These sorts of military/government deceptions became standard nuclear industry procedure in the reactor era. See the British Redfern Report.

No doubt the same sort of modus operandi is in use in Japan today.

It sure as shit was not the nuclear veterans who tried to speak out from the 1950s who should have been threatened with jail time for opening their mouths. It should have been members of the political elite for keeping their mouths shut for the sake of England at the expense of Australia.

Speaking as a Pom.

Paul Langley
Corporal, RAEME, Radiac, 1971 – 1974, retired.

In the period from 1964 to 1984, 22 kgs of plutonium dust blew away from Maralinga.

How much “Australian Obligated Plutonium” blew out of the Fukushima reactors? The stuff is subject to international non proliferation treaty. Where is it, will they clean it up and secure it as the Treaty demands?

Probably not. According the nuke lunatics its less hazardous than coffee. Despite the evidence to the contrary.




1 June 1998

Australia and the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) exchanged diplomatic notes in Canberra on 28 May 1998 as the first step towards bringing into force an Agreement under which Australia will – subject to certain conditions – broaden its consent for the return from the European Union to Japan of Australian obligated plutonium following the reprocessing of Japanese spent fuel in Europe. The European Union is an important provider of nuclear fuel cycle services for countries purchasing Australian uranium and Japan is a major market for Australian uranium exports.

The new Agreement will represent a further refinement of Australia’s advance consent to plutonium retransfers under the 1981 Australia-Euratom Agreement concerning Transfers of Nuclear Material. In September 1993, Australia gave Euratom its consent for the retransfer from the European Union to Japan of plutonium bearing both Australian and United States safeguards obligations; the latter obligation acquired as a result of Australian nuclear material undergoing processing at some stage of the fuel cycle in the United States Under the new treaty-level Agreement Australia will give consent for the retransfer from the European Union to Japan of the small proportion of Australian obligated plutonium which does not also carry a United States safeguards obligation and is thus not covered by the 1993 agreement.

The refinement of prior consent rights under the Australia-Euratom Agreement is seen as desirable by both Euratom and Japan, and is consistent with the practice of their other major uranium suppliers; Canada and the United States. The Agreement is consistent with Australia’s non-proliferation and security objectives. Plutonium covered by the Agreement will continue to be accounted for by the Australian Safeguards Office.

The Agreement stipulates that retransfers of Australian obligated plutonium can only take place if it is transported with plutonium which is subject to the United States-Japan Agreement on nuclear cooperation – i.e. which also carries a United States safeguards obligation – and is thereby subject to the stringent and very detailed security arrangements for the transport of plutonium which the United States requires of Japan. The Agreement also provides for direct assurances from Euratom to Australia concerning the security arrangements being applied to transfers involving Australian obligated plutonium. Any retransfers of Australian obligated plutonium not conforming to the agreed conditions would continue to require case-by-case consideration by Australia.

In accordance with Australia’s treaty-making procedures, the exchanged diplomatic notes constituting the Agreement will be tabled in Parliament for fifteen sitting days and considered by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. The Agreement will enter into force when Australia notifies the Delegation to the European Commission that all domestic requirements necessary to give effect to the Agreement have been satisfied.

end quote.

I asked Kevin Rudd relevant questions in regard to the above. I got no answer.

I informed Tony Abbott, and got a nice reply devoid of any relevant information.

The Japan Times Online

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

MOX fuel arrives in Japan
Kyodo News

Two cargo ships carrying recycled nuclear fuel arrived Monday in Japan from France for the planned introduction of plutonium-thermal power generation in the fall, power company officials said.

One of the two armed ships entered a port near Chubu Electric Power Co.’s Hamaoka nuclear power plant in Omaezaki, Shizuoka Prefecture, the first stop for the delivery of plutonium and uranium mixed oxide, or MOX, fuel.

The ships will also deliver the fuel, a combination of uranium and plutonium extracted from spent nuclear fuel, to Kyushu Electric Power Co.’s Genkai nuclear power plant in Saga Prefecture and Shikoku Electric Power Co.’s Ikata plant in Ehime Prefecture.

The fuel was manufactured in France on an order placed by the three utilities and will be used in conventional uranium-burning light-water reactors.

The Pacific Pintail and Pacific Heron left the northern French port of Cherbourg in early March and reached Japan after sailing through the southwestern Pacific via the Cape of Good Hope in South Africa.

The Pacific Heron was escorted by Japan Coast Guard ships and helicopters as it entered the port of Omaezaki.

Antinuclear groups staged demonstrations against the pluthermal power generation plan, shouting, “No transport of dangerous MOX fuel.” Pluthermal is a Japanese word combining the English words plutonium and thermal.

Critics point to the potential dangers of MOX fuel, warning that use of fuel containing plutonium exposes residents to greater health risks in the event of serious accidents.

Kyushu Electric plans to put MOX fuel into the No. 3 reactor of the Genkai plant at the time of the next regular inspection in August. end quote.

Delivered under armed guard, and then the same stuff is spread about the joint with gay abandon. No armed guards, or any honest consideration, for the people of Japan.

If they cant use it to make bucks and bomb fuel, they loose interest rapidly.

One Response to “Survey: 34 died from stress caused by nuclear accident.”

  1. CaptD Says:

    Expect to see many excuses that try and lay the blame on anything other than RADIATION, thanks to the Japanese Government close relationship to the nuclear industry!

    One tiny question, why are they hiding their health and birth records since 3/11/11…?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: