Hiroshima still tallying victims...

[Lancer44]

I would like to know your opinions.
For me adding more victims to the tally every year, 61 years after the war is nothing but fraud. If someone lived this 61 years he/she is no victim of atomic bomb.
Person which had, say, 20 years in 1945 will have 82 next year...
Why not tally in the same way Dresden survivors, London Blitz survivors, Warsaw bombing survivors, Stalingrad survivors and so on?


"Hiroshima still tallying victims 60 years after bombing
About 140,000 people – about 40 per cent of the city's estimated population of 350,000 – were killed instantly or within a few months by the bomb.
The number of people in Hiroshima who have died from radiation-related disease continues to grow.
Hiroshima officials now put the total dead at 237,062. This year, 5,000 more names are expected to be added to the list."

This information is from 2005. I heard about victims tally today driving to work. I could not find any todays ifo about tally, but something like that exist- no doubt.

CBC News: Massive crowds mark Hiroshima anniversary

[Jim O]

I'll look at the math.

There were 340,000 people in the area of whom they claimed 140,000 died in the aftermath, leaving 200,000 living. Assuming the median age of the survivors was 30 years, more than half would be over 90 years old now., and the youngest would be 61. With a life expectancy in Japan of just under 75 years now (see PR-2000/ WHO Issues New Healthy Life Expectancy Rankings), one can assume it was a bit less at the time. So half of those 200,000 survivors would not have been expected to reach 75 even if they were born today, and since half would be 91 or over, we could easily anticipate that many more than half would already be dead of natural causes. I would venture a guess that easily 75%, or 150,000 would already have succumbed to natural causes. So if one assumes that none of the survivors had died from the bomb then there would be at most 50,000 left. But we know that in the first 10-20 years that some did die from the latent effects of radiation. If we allow that 20%, or 40,000, may have lost their lives under such circumstances, the pool is reduced to 160,000 suvivors, 75% of which, or 120,000, would now be dead from natural causes, leaving 40,000 actual survivors of the bombing living today.

To think that one in eight (12.5%) of those is dying each year from the bomb is ridiculous. If that were the case, they would ALL be dead by now.

Looking at the math another way, if only 10% of the survivors died each year beginning in 1947 from the bomb, and none from natural causes, then look at the following numbers:

• 1947: Survivors at start of year 200,000; died 20,000;
• 1948: Survivors at start of year 180,000; died 18,000;
• 1949: Survivors at start of year 162,000; died 16,200;
• 1950: Survivors at start of year 145,800; died 14,480;
• 1951: Survivors at start of year 131,220; died 13,122;
• 1952: Survivors at start of year 118,098; died 11,810;

If you continue this along, you will see that it takes only into the early 1960's to reach a population of survivors of less than 50,000 and by 2000 there would certainly be fewer than 5000 survivors living. And this assumes zero deaths from other causes.

Looking at their numbers, they list the total dead at 237,062. Assuming that some were aid workers who later died, let's say that 220,000 were from that population of 350,000. That leaves 130,000 who did not die from the bomb. Again, 75% would have died by now of natural causes, leaving a population of 32,500 still living. 5,000 out of that population is 15%. But if 15% of the survivors were dying each year just from the effects of the bomb, and none from natural causes, the numbers of survivors left living today would not even be 5000. They would basically all be dead by now.

So the math doesn't add up, though I admit I made several assumptions here. Unless they can show that these were specific radiation induced deaths they are "fudging" the numbers to perhaps include any bomb survivor who dies of cancer. Of course cancer is quite common in the elderly, and in a population with a median age over 90, one would expect a lot of typical, old age cancers. like prostate, colon, and breast. Add lung cancer as being common as tobacco smoking was fairly prevalent in Japan during these years.

Just my humble opinion, of course.

[Dani]

From all that I have read, the 1946 consensus figure of 90,000 dead seems about right to me. Deaths after December 1945 evidently were not very numerous, and they seem to have been adequately accounted for in the 1946 studies. Even the Radiation Effects Research Foundation (cited above) seems to confirm this. The foundation's website concludes that the number of excess deaths among 50,000 survivors who got a severe dose of radiation comes to only a few hundred, and certainly not as many as a thousand.

Three things seem to be going on here. First, there is the confusion between fatalities and casualties--that may well beto be how the original jump from 90,000 to 130,000 took place. Secondly, there is the problem that once a figure has been widely circulated, it ceases to impress, and there is a very human tendency (especially among journalists) to hype it a bit: you want the reader to say wow! Thirdly, there is a strong constituency for anything that serves to demonize the United States in world affairs--a constitutency that exists not only in Japan, as the victim of the bomb; and in Europe, resenting America's dominance in world affairs; but also in American universities and journals of opinion. Take them all together, and they seem to have exaggerated the death toll at Hiroshima by more than 100 percent.

http://www.warbirdforum.com/hirodead.htm

That's a point!

[Stacy]

1. Chromosomal abnormalities. The radiation from the bombs has changed the chromosomes of the survivors, and that gets passed on to children and their children.

2. There is a certain period of time that apparently must elapse before the first radiation-induced cancers begin to occur. This minimum waiting time is called the "latency period". Once the latency period is past, the cancer rate increases and remains elevated not just for one or two years but for decades. Health/Environment Issues Linked to the Nuclear Fuel Chain -- Section B

[Jim O]

Originally Posted by Stacy

1. Chromosomal abnormalities. The radiation from the bombs has changed the chromosomes of the survivors, and that gets passed on to children and their children.

Is there evidence that such causes "death" in the children? IIRC, birth defects were not uncommon in the years immediately following the bombing, but I don't know that the numbers support that it continued.

Originally Posted by Stacy

2. There is a certain period of time that apparently must elapse before the first radiation-induced cancers begin to occur. This minimum waiting time is called the "latency period". Once the latency period is past, the cancer rate increases and remains elevated not just for one or two years but for decades. Health/Environment Issues Linked to the Nuclear Fuel Chain -- Section B

Again, this may be so, but those who were actually exposed to high levels of radiation were exposed over six decades ago. Most are dead. Many of their children are nearing retirement age. If the median life expectancy is 75 in Japan today, it was shorter then. Most likely between one third and one half of those children born in the decade after the bombing would be dead from natural causes anyway. The decades have already passed. Most of the radiation induced cancers simply do not occur 60 years later. To assume that all cancers are the result of the bombing in 1945 is not supported by common sense or any firm epidemiological data.

The real questions, (for which there may be real data) are what are the current life expectancies in these two cities and how does they compare to other comparable locations in Japan (controls). Then one can also look at rates of birth defects and specific cancers commonly linked to radiation exposure. Without that information, tallying "victims" six decades after the fact carries with it too many ASSumptions.

[Stacy]

No ASSumptions, let's look at some data:

To determine the possible late health effects of atomic-bomb radiation, Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF) has been conducting mortality follow-up on a fixed cohort of 120,000 members (Life Span Study cohort or LSS cohort) since 1950. Through record linkage with local cancer registries in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, RERF has also been conducting cancer incidence studies of atomic bomb survivors since 1958. The central finding of the study is an increase in cancer risk. Besides the increase in leukemia risk, increase in risks of solid cancers such as cancers of the breast, lung and colon have also been demonstrated. Radiation-induced leukemia occurred 2 to 3 years after exposure, reached its peak within 6 to 8 years after the bombing, and has since declined steadily. However, radiation-related solid cancer began to appear at later years and the risk still remains to be present, even today. An increase of solid cancer risk appears to be larger for those exposed as children than those exposed as adults. However, since a majority of those exposed as children are still alive and risk estimates for them are uncertain at this stage, it is essential to continue their follow-up. Recently, the LSS also demonstrates an excess risk of death from non-cancer diseases, largely from cardiovascular, digestive and respiratory diseases. Further investigation is of absolute necessity in order to determine whether or not the excess was caused by atomic bomb radiation.
ScienceDirect - International Congress Series : Long-term health consequences of atomic bomb radiation: RERF Life Span Study

"Although breast cancer rates among Japanese women are normally very low compared to
other countries, the excess risk associated with exposure to ionizing radiation, as observed in
the LSS sample... is fully as high as that seen in medically irradiated Western populations."
This begins the review of the breast cancer incidence studies of the survivors and other populations
(Tokunaga et al.) and is certainly one of the most extensive incidence studies under investigation.
To date the data indicate that those exposed from infancy on are at excess relative risk. The
0-9 ATB group is at higher relative risk by a factor of about 2 more than the 10-19 group
which is also about a factor of 2 greater than the 20+ age groups. There appears to be no
acceleration of risk in time of exposure to diagnosis, the excess becoming apparent at the normal
age of occurrence in the non-exposed population. Moreover, the excess risk experienced by the
LSS population is apparently considerably higher than that observed in other epidemiological
studies. The breast has been characterized as "the single organ most susceptible to cancer induction
after exposure to ionizing radiation. The authors note that most of the breast cancers among
the under 40 ATB receiving low doses would not have occurred in the absence of exposure."
http://www.journalarchive.jst.go.jp/...om=jnlabstract

[Jim O]

Originally Posted by Stacy

No ASSumptions, let's look at some data:

I'm not going to argue the point much further but even the authors of the the first paper state clearly that "Further investigation is of absolute necessity in order to determine whether or not the excess was caused by atomic bomb radiation." I would interpret that, at least as per the abstract, as the numbers did not meet the threshold for statistical significance.

As for the breast cancer issue, most of those occur between the ages of 45 and 75. Since it has been over 60 years since the bombings, we may see some number of excess cases but likely most have already occurred. Again, the aggregate numbers are small, and could not possibly explain how "Hiroshima officials now put the total dead at 237,062. This year, 5,000 more names are expected to be added to the list." Just look at the population numbers and it is impossible. I'm not arguing that there are not some cancers related to the bombings, but most of the survivors are already dead from whatever causes. To think that 5000 new deaths could be added in 2006 is simply ludicrous.

Consider also the source of much of the original data is Japanese, not internationally validated. Given the Japanese general attitude toward World War II (US provoked them, and we did this terrible thing to them) I am a bit suspect. But even if you accept the Japanese data as accurate, US breast cancer death rate is about 25/100,000 population/year. Of the roughly 210,000 bomb survivors in Hiroshima let's say there were 120,000 females (likely fewer). If the median age was 30 and life expectancy even as high as 70, most would be dead by now. Perhaps 20,000 females (likely many fewer) survive today ranging in age from 62 and up. Of those 20,000, if their death rate is comparable to US rates, 5 would be expected to die from breast cancer this year. If even 60% of those are due to radiation exposure, that would be 3 deaths this year from atomic bomb related radiation exposure!* Three.

So, I will concede that there may still be a few excess cancer deaths in those cities until the last survivors are dead. Not enough to add 5000 names to the list of those who are dead.


*Source of US breast cancer incidence and mortality data: American Cancer Society - Cancer Facts and Figures 2008

[Stacy]

The 'excess' you talk about is for non-cancer related deaths. That said, I've done some research and found a site that is dually run by both Japan and the US that studied the effects of radiation on victims and their progeny. The descendents of the victims don't have any birth defects births outside normal limits, and they don't seem to be predisposed to cancer from their chromosome mutations. So, if they're still adding deaths by radiation, it must be from the victims of the bombs that are still alive and get cancer.
The Radiation Effects Research Foundation Website

[Jim O]

Originally Posted by Stacy

The 'excess' you talk about is for non-cancer related deaths. That said, I've done some research and found a site that is dually run by both Japan and the US that studied the effects of radiation on victims and their progeny. The descendents of the victims don't have any birth defects births outside normal limits, and they don't seem to be predisposed to cancer from their chromosome mutations. So, if they're still adding deaths by radiation, it must be from the victims of the bombs that are still alive and get cancer.
The Radiation Effects Research Foundation Website

Perhaps I misunderstood that. Having only read the abstract to which you pointed, and not the article itself left that unclear to me. Either way, adding 5,000 new fatalities in 2006 has to be ridiculous. That was my point and still is. The case rate simply can't support such a thesis. That there may be some excess mortality (over and above the natural death rate which is high in a population 60-100 years of age) is agreed, just not that high a number. If that were to be the case they would all have died of cancer by now. We're probably speaking of well under 100 people per year. In fact, if you look at Site-specific cancer mortality risk from the site that you linked, all excess cancer deaths between 1950 and 1990 totaled about 350. Also from that site, over the same period, "Aside from diseases of the blood, the number of noncancer deaths associated with atomic-bomb radiation exposure is estimated to be about 140-280". That was over four decades!

Once again, I ask where are the 5000 new deaths coming from in 2006? The simple answer is that they are a figment of someone's imagination. Propaganda? Maybe. If one does not carefully look at the numbers and simply accepts them then the conclusions one might draw are significantly different from what the hard data suggest.

I don't think we really disagree a great deal here. My point has been from the start of this thread that most of the deaths have already had to have been tallied, and that a figure of 5000 new deaths in a year at this time is simply preposterous. That is still my point. We are speaking of a different order of magnitude, dozens, not thousands. Who is responsible for that discrepancy? I can only speculate...

[Panzermacher]

Wow you guys...I learned quite a bit here from this. I have been to Hiroshima, and never really took a good look at the after effects. (Mainly because it is pretty tough to get over the direct effects!) I knew that some numbers of the population that still inhabit the city from 1945 on...have had a lot of health issues, and that the Cenotaph continues to get new names added to it.
I guess the big totals come from who ever does the tallying....