Scientists setting radiation exposure limits took utility money: probe

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

  • 9

    YongYang

    It is endemic within Japanese society isn't it? Are you STILL not learning? Are you STILL continuing as WAS? Absolutely disgusting. WAKE UP! Act with sense of morality and ethics!

  • 16

    Penfold

    How about sending them on an all expenses paid trip to decontaminate school playgrounds in Fukushima. I hear the seafood is great.

  • 9

    y123?!

    Only the tip of iceberg, ppl don't realize how deep this corruption goes. Hush money everywhere.

  • 16

    Yubaru

    Nobody should be surprised at this, just another day at the office of Japan Inc. This country has so much good in it but with cronyism and everybody and their Mother getting into bed with each other and screwing the public in the process it is truly amazing that anything ever gets accomplished.

  • -18

    ebisen

    Those limits were the lowest (strictest) in the world, working against the sponsors interests. I wonder if why is this then seen as an issue. Typical example of bad journalism.

  • -19

    ebisen

    Low-dose radiation may be even good for you

    This is ascientifically proven fact. it teaches the body to flexibly adjust to and correct the DNA mutations occurring due to incidental low levels of radiation.

  • 2

    smithinjapan

    And what's going to be done about this? nothing. What will be learned? zip.

  • 3

    marcelito

    " those who evacuated just want to believe in danger of radiation to justify the action they took " said leading scientist Mr. Niwa. Well, dear Mr. scientist I think it is much worse when those scientists & experts" who for years were on the receiving end of money, gifts and entertainment from the power utilities make statements that downplay the radiation dangers to justify the actions THEY took when they enjoyed the utility bribes ( because that's what all those funded trips/ expenses and " research " are dear mr. Niwa - bribes. You don,t expect anyone to believe the power companies paid all this money and didn,t expect any favorable research results or anything like that in return , do you? And for those experts making statements like " low dose radiation is good for you" - we can expect them , their families and kids to spend their next vacation enjoying the beautiful outdoor scenery and sightseeing Fukushima right?...yeah I didn,t think so.

  • 0

    hereforever

    It's all about the cheapest way to handle a crisis as explained in Micheal Sandel's Justice. I am sure a team if Cost Anlyisis came in to assess the situation and they most likely teamed up with TEPCO, Government, and scientist.

  • 2

    gokai_wo_maneku

    Japanese standards are based on the experience of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, what is called "real life" experience. They are not based on lab mouse studies. They are the strictest in the world. Even when Japanese limits are exceeded, the US or Euro limits are not exceeded. Press reports don't take this into account. They don't say "Japanese limits exceeded", just "limits exceeded". It is like comparing apples and oranges, as they say.

  • 3

    Kabukilover

    Shocking but not surprising. These so-called scientists should be investigated and fired from their academic posts if it is proved that they deliberately committed fraud. The fact alone that they were wined and dined by the nuclear industry should exclude them from international conferences and awards.

    The truth eventually will come out about how dangerous exposure to supposedly safe levels of radiation is when people affected by the Fukushima disaster start developing cancers.

  • 1

    hereforever

    I agree Kabukilover, but how many need to die before the truth comes out?

  • 2

    Ewan Huzarmy

    Come on now! No deaths from cancer would ever be attributed to Fukushima, especially in a country where any anything corrupt, dodgy, or illegal is seen as only 'regrettable'.

  • 0

    Jessica Marie Sato

    Since the radiation doesn't directly affect them, they will do as they please. They have no ethics. Someone gets cancer, they get a vacation. They will probably never meet the ones that suffer. So why would they care?

  • -1

    Pontepilate

    Whoa! I thought such corruption is the gangrene of the developing countries alone!

  • -1

    Jim Greenidge

    Er, were their findings disputed by reputable authorities in case this is another media evil nuke witch hunt?

  • 3

    Farmboy

    checks on the thyroids of Fukushima children that found some nodules or growths that are not cancerous but not normal.

    and

    Yoshiharu Yonekura.... brushes off the worries and says such abnormalities are common.

    So... these are common, non-normal lumps on the kids? Nice.

  • 3

    Farmboy

    “Low-dose radiation may be even good for you.”

    Low-dose stable cesium chloride may be, but not the radioactive isotope from nuke plants. This is a bunch of hooey, and is deliberately misleading. .

    http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp157-c3.pdf

  • 7

    zichi

    Another aspect of the nuclear village exposed, there'll be others. An independent scientific panel needs to investigate the findings and recommendations of these scientists.

    Prior to the 3/11 nuclear disaster, the maximum radiation level exposure was 1 millisievert per year above background radiation. Above that, and people had to be evacuated. After the 3/11 nuclear, the gov't raised that limit to 20 millisieverts per year for the people of Fukushima.

    Yoshiharu Yonekura, president of the National Institute of Radiological Sciences and an ICRP member, should be removed from his position for making his stupid comment, “Low-dose radiation may be even good for you.”

    There isn't full agreement from scientists that exposure to less than 100 millisieverts is not harmful. I would say, that also depends on whether it was a young child or an old person.

    One year after the 3/11 nuclear disaster, more than 38,000 children tested from the Fukushima Prefecture, 36%, 13,680 cases, have abnormal growths, cysts or nodules on their thyroids. This would not have happened without the nuclear disaster.

    The results up to September 28, 2012 revealed that 24,682 (42.7%) of 57,840 children had thyroid ultrasound abnormalities. Together with 38,114 children (13,645 or 35.8% had thyroid ultrasound abnormalities) tested in the last half of Fiscal Year Heisei 23 (FYH23) from October 2011 through March 2012, a total of 38,327 (39.9%) of 95,954 Fukushima children have been found to have ultrasound abnormalities.

    http://fukushimavoice-eng.blogspot.jp/

    The children will be tested throughout their lives to check on whether they develop thyroid cancer due to the radiation released from the plant following the accident. Some children have received "lifetime" doses of radiation to their thyroid glands.

    Dozens of workers received potentially cancerous doses of radiation to their thyroid glands during recovery work at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, according to data submitted to the World Health Organization.

    http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/life_and_death/AJ201212010050

    The majority of workers at the atomic plant will not receive cancer scans.

  • 0

    BurakuminDes

    Dodgy "scientists" at best - criminals at worst. Name and shame these grubs!

  • -3

    Frungy

    The official stance of the International Commission on Radiological Protection is that the health risks from radiation become zero only with zero exposure

    The ICRP are idiots if they believe this. The potassium in our bodies (vital for nerve activity) generates radiation. The human body is NATURALLY radioactive. Low amounts of radiation are not only safe, but necessary for human biological processes.

    To put this in context the ICRP statement is like saying, "all bacteria are a health risk"... while conveniently ignoring the bacteria that help us to digest food.

  • -1

    GW

    In Japan EVERY ministry is full of these incestuous relationships between govt, business, the K/Bing, amakudari, stealing wasting, joy riding SOBs are destroying Japan point blank.

    This is only another example same as we see with the tunnels............... corruption in Japan is KILLING both literally & figureatively!

    The only chance Japan has to turn things around is to DESTROY all these parasites who put themselves BEFORE their own country & people!

  • 1

    bajhista65

    Geezzzzz...SOMETHING IS WRONG here. Too many STUPID reasons to justify their lies. The official stance of the ICRP is that the health risks from radiation become zero only with zero exposure. So what else is correct. The Potassium in our body generates radiation. Could be true but the radiation production are far different. Hope these scientists under the payroll of the Federation of Electric Power Corporation suffer from the Universal rule of KARMA. It's all about MONEY in exchanged for lives affected by the Radiation.

  • 0

    Kazuaki Shimazaki

    I personally won't get too excited about this. For a reasonably prominent scientist in a 1st World country, a trip to visit some convention is perfectly within his means and making a present of it is too small to constitute a bribe. It is like sending caviar around - in Russia people are poor enough that's a bribe even among the middle-upper class, but in the US people of that class would simply BUY their own caviar. Any caviar they receive would be a gift, not a bribe.

    There are actually places in the world where the NATURAL exposure is over 20mSV/year. The people there were NOT evacuated.

    The truth is, no one knows for sure what happens when radiation exposure is below a certain point because the effects only become truly significant and easily assessable when the radiation levels are high, much higher than 20mSV/year. To play it safe, the LNT theory came about. Not because there's really evidence for it, in fact, the evidence seems to suggest it is not quite true, but it is safe and so it is the public stance.

    Which is a shame, because the LNT theory caused enormous emphasis to be placed on minimizing the "peacetime" exposure to any radiation. That's nice unless you are a buyer of radiation hormeosis theory that says that VERY low levels of radiation is actually good for you. The problem is that all the extra lead protection is money that could have been used on oh, say higher seawalls, or extra backup power.

    It is nice to think the power company should put safety first. I say, Get Real. Any company that puts safety first on a permanent basis is uncompetitive unless safety is free which it is generally not. It is a concern, but don't expect it to be the only one, or for it to be achieved at all costs.

  • 2

    Yubaru

    Shocking but not surprising.

    If it's not surprising why are you shocked?

  • -6

    jerobeam

    I have met prof.Niwa a few times and I can only defend him as being a great thinker, highly regarded scientist and deeply concerned about people's health. People should think before throwing garbage at people they don't know at all. Niwa-san comes from Kyoto and has worked there for most of his life. From his age, he should already be retired, but he now even moved to Fukushima to help the people there. People should listen to his knowledge and experience rather than being destructive about the (very rare and difficult to obtain) sources of funding for fundamental radiation protection research. If companies support environmental protection research activities it is regarded as "sustainability" and the companies are complimented - if they fund radiation protection / radiobiology research, it is considered corruption??

  • 5

    Yubaru

    @ jerobeam

    People should think before throwing garbage at people they don't know at all.

    People should know better than to accept funding from companies that are directly affected by his findings.

    There should be laws against it!

    Oh and while the guy could be Ghandi reincarnated morally and ethically it's wrong.

  • 1

    billyshears

    Niwa, a professor at Fukushima Medical University, said that residents need to stay in Fukushima if at all possible, partly because they would face discrimination in marriage elsewhere in Japan from what he said were unfounded fears about radiation and genetic defects.

    What does that statement indicate about this professor's way of thinking? If these fears are unfounded, he should be expounding the fact to all those Japanese people who hold deluded notions about radiation and not offer advice that helps to maintain such beliefs. It seems he is purposely trying to frighten young people to stay in Fukushima for his own (and the government's??) purposes. "Kusai mono ni futa" is a saying in Japanese which literally means "put the lid on something that stinks" suggesting that the best way to deal with a problem is to cover it up and pretend it doesn't exist. It seems this way of thinking is prevalent within Japanese society.

  • 0

    cramp

    no way, corruption in jpn?...that's impossible

    conflict of interests maybe but come on...

  • -4

    jerobeam

    People should know better than to accept funding from companies that are directly affected by his findings.

    Yubaru, you and the author of this article obviously do not understand the nature of ICRP. ICRP is not a regulator or a body of authority. It is essentially a research institution and an association of researchers in the field of radiobiology. ICRP does NOT make laws. It does NOT regulate or enforce regulations on companies. The most prominent researchers in the field come together under the umbrella of the ICRP association to give RECOMMENDATIONS to governments, companies or individuals to organize and take radiation protecion measures that have a sound scientific basis. With this in mind, no one will directly be "affected" by the findings of researchers that are members of ICRP. Recommendations are just recommendations. The national laws on radiation protection are adopted by the respective national legislation bodies, and they differ in many details from country to country. However, it is a testament to the high standards of ICRP that most of the recommendations issued by the commission are eventually adopted in national legislations. Most of the time, the national legislations are not as strict regarding dose/exposure limits as the ICRP would recommend having it (most recent topic is the recommended eye lens dose limit recommended by ICRP to prevent cataracts - the ICRP-recommended limit is well below what is currently in law all over the world). The best example is the USA, where the annual occupational dose limit is still at 50 mSv, whereas the ICRP-recommended value is 20 mSv and adopted in most countries around the world.

    There should be laws against it!

    Again, your revolted feeling is probably the source of a misunderstanding. By your standard, drug companies should be legally prohibited from funding cancer research, car companies should be prohibited from funding research into automotive safety, etc. Do you also think this is morally and ethically wrong? It is only natural that the nuclear power industry, whose workers are potentially exposed to ionizing radiation, would fund research into radiation protection to optimize their workers' and plants' safety. In the same way, mining companies have funded the mining departments of universities, tech companies have funded informatics or engineering departments and drug companies have funded medical research. I really see nothing wrong with that.

  • 1

    Open Minded

    Frungy:

    Low amounts of radiation are not only safe, but necessary for human biological processes.

    I have learnt quite extensively biology. But I must have missed this course about radiation necessary for human biological process. Can you explain in what this necessary?

  • 0

    Yubaru

    @jerobeam

    Nice try, I dont care what the nature of the ICRP is and don't give a whit about their lack of legislative power, groups like this influence the people who di make decisions and money talks,

    Again, your revolted feeling is probably the source of a misunderstanding. By your standard, drug companies should be legally prohibited from funding cancer research, car companies should be prohibited from funding research into automotive safety,

    Wrong, poor analogy as I see it because both are mandated typically by law and it effects their bottom line, by creating new drugs to battle cancer or safety features to improve cars they in effect are increasing their customer base and profits.

    What they should have done is publicly, prior to accepting the funding, have it vetted by the appropriate government agency overseeing the issue to ensure there was no conflict of interest.

    The companies, TEPCO included, that oversee the nuclear reactors are only interested in pulling the wool over the public's eye's to make it appear that their motives are altruistic when in fact all they care about is not having to pay compensation to people affected by the radiation fallout.

    They influence the reporting of any findings and withhold information that may make them look bad or is (more) damaging to their reputations.

    Again it's morally and ethnically wrong and in my opinion illegal as well.

  • -5

    jerobeam

    you are completely out of line, and again I believe you don't understand what ICRP is and what it does. ICRP is an independent organization whose members are volunteer scientists, not government officials. Why should they have any vetting/reporting obligations to anyone? You would be right if talking about an official body or public institution. I work myself for a public institution and taking private money is completely out of the question. But research associations such as ICRP that do not (and sadly, cannot) rely on public funding have to look for any source of funds they can get. If the public is so upset about private companies funding ICRP members' travel costs, why isn't the government supporting researchers more? Most of professors' time nowadays is spent trying to secure funds for their research rather than the research itself. University departments are chronically under-funded. Prof. Niwa's research covers areas such as host cell reactivation of UV irradiated herpes simplex virus in tissue culture cells; radiation activation of endogenous retrovirus and its silencing in embryonal stem cells; minisatellite instability of the maternal allele in one cell stage mouse embryos by fertilization with radiation exposed sperm; p53 dependent induction of minisatellite instability and pink-eyed unstable allele; and, the mechanism of p53 dependent S checkpoint in preimplantation stage mouse embryos. Please tell me in which shape or form these research topics are supposed to affect the safety of nuclear reactors operated by TEPCO.

  • 2

    mike23thurgood

    A quote from the article: "The official stance of the International Commission on Radiological Protection is that the health risks from radiation become zero only with zero exposure. But some of the eight Japanese ICRP members do not subscribe to that view, asserting that low-dose radiation is harmless or the risks are negligible".

    Although, in the total absence of ionizing radiations, they obviously can't cause any health harm, the practicality of achieving zero exposure is itself effectively zero. Up to when I retired in 1992, it was generally accepted that, at the "normal" background radiation levels, little or no health harm was caused. Of course, there's always the extremely sensitive individual on whom any radiation exposure will result in cancers forming. But who can claim that evolution in part doesn't depend on mutations which are caused by exposure to low levels of ionizing radiations? I doubt if it's a factor which can ever be proved, unless someone one day succeeds in seeing an actual interaction of a single ionizing radiation event with a gene in a specific cell of a young person, and the observer is clever enough to be able to claim "Hey Presto! That mutation will definitely benefit the human race if it can be dispersed widely".

    For all I know, individuals currently running the ICRP, none of whom I have heard of, possibly have different concepts on their minds about the effects of low intensity - ie at b/g levels - ionizing radiations, to that of their predecessors. Who is to say that they aren't right - or, indeed, wrong - without any substantive evidence to prove their thesis? So perhaps I need to think: had I better change my mind, quick?!

    But maybe not. Thus for every 99 out of 100 mutation events which are either useless or harmful, one might be highly beneficial. Nature and evolution clearly know the answer because it's all around us with every vestige of evolution. Like it or not, evolution has undoubtedly made use of ionizing events with genes to improve the gene pool of individual species of plants and animals, not just homo sapiens.

  • 0

    mike23thurgood

    Before I forget, I suppose I should make some comment on what the article was actually about! Radiation scientists attending international conferences paid for by the Japanese utilities, rather than from a government source. But did the utilities pool their contributions to a fund which was used to anonymously to reimburse the scientists their expenses, or did the utilities select the scientists and tell them if you support us we will pay all your expenses?

    But there remains a great difference between having one's actual expenses paid and being given a high bonus for doing a company's bidding. The status of the Japanese radiation scientists perhaps needs a little more in-depth investigation before clear accusations are made against them.

    Interestingly, the work I carried out, although as an employee of a private company in Britain, I was paid by the Ministry of Defence for attendance at conferences. The question of any conflict of interests never arose. In fact, the results of our work didn't relate to any company employees, but to personnel in the armed forces. So we were third parties in any event.

  • -1

    Yubaru

    ICRP is an independent organization whose members are volunteer scientists, not government officials. Why should they have any vetting/reporting obligations to anyone? You would be right if talking about an official body or public institution. I work myself for a public institution and taking private money is completely out of the question

    independent? Taking money from companies that have only profits for their interests?

    You pay me enough money and I will say whatever you want.

    you are completely out of line, and again I believe you don't understand what ICRP is and what it does. ICRP is an independent organization whose members are volunteer scientists, not government officials.

    Which just reinforces my opinion. Don't be so naive to think that money isn't affecting the decisions and "reports" that are being made with regards to radiation exposure.

    Neither the public nor private sector can be trusted here.

  • -2

    Kabukilover

    Here is a gem:

    The official stance of the International Commission on Radiological Protection is that the health risks from radiation become zero only with zero exposure. But some of the eight Japanese ICRP members do not subscribe to that view, asserting that low-dose radiation is harmless or the risks are negligible.

    What strikes me is that we are not dealing with real scientists, as far as these paid-off people go, by courtesans. Their credentials have been turned into charms to trick us.

    Poor Fukushima. Suffer while the pampered "scientists" deny worries you have about radiation poisoning are "overblow."

  • -3

    jerobeam

    What strikes me is that we are not dealing with real scientists, as far as these paid-off people go, by courtesans. Their credentials have been turned into charms to trick us.

    And how did you come to this conclusion? Are you a "real scientist" with the 'right' credentials? Have you been a professor at multiple universities and conducted top-level international research and published your findings in highly regarded journals? Niwa-Sensei did. Btw, the Nobel prize is also privately funded. It obviously goes without saying all Nobel laureates are paid-off courtesans and prostitutes.

    Poor Fukushima. Suffer while the pampered "scientists" deny worries you have about radiation poisoning are "overblow."

    Prof. Niwa actually moved to Fukushima to work there after the accident. Nobody in Fukushima is physically suffering from the added exposure, they are just suffering because of the irrational fear and perception of people like you who know nothing at all about the effects of ionizing radiation.

    The passage you quoted is not a "gem", the LNT hypothesis is used as a practical tool for radiation protection, it is not to be assumed as scientific truth, and ICRP-103 clearly states that. Below 100 mSv it is extremely difficult if not impossible to prove that ionizing radiation has an effect. Look at the dose-effect diagram from the life-span study (LSS) conducted by the RERF (probably another highly corrupt organization by Yubaru's standards since it is funded by various cancer institutes and foundations). There are arguments for and against LNT, and this is a scientific debate. It has no effect at all on radiation protection policy.

  • 0

    badsey3

    You have two types of radiation claims here:

    1. People exposed to radiation on a temporary basis: radioactive energy/particle exposure.

    2. Longterm radiation exposure: People that have radioactive particles embedded in their bodies. (radioactive iodine/thyroid, cesium (metals) embedded in tissues).

    (zichi) http://fukushimavoice-eng.blogspot.jp/

    The results up to September 28, 2012 revealed that 24,682 (42.7%) of 57,840 children had thyroid ultrasound abnormalities. Together with 38,114 children (13,645 or 35.8% had thyroid ultrasound abnormalities) tested in the last half of Fiscal Year Heisei 23 (FYH23) from October 2011 through March 2012, a total of 38,327 (39.9%) of 95,954 Fukushima children have been found to have ultrasound abnormalities.

    ***Those numbers are very high especially when you consider the number should be ~0% if these people were given potassium iodide as anyone living around a nuclear reactor should have and the education and warning from the Gov in case of an accident. Radioactive iodine has a very short 1/2 life.

    http://www.japantoday.com/category/lifestyle/view/amid-japan-crisis-the-hunt-for-better-radiation-treatment-speeds-up

    Obviously I am upset about this since life mistakes like this should not happen and many families in Japan only have 1 or 2 children.

  • 2

    The passage

    The title is objectionable at the very least - "TOOK MONEY" and had trips paid for to safety conferences are not exactly the same. There is stil a lot of fear of radiation but no-one here is really pointing at a real cause of radiation effects. Saying x% of a sample have increased issues with Y, but how does that fit into the global (or even national) picture? Too much manipulatulation of numbers to suit fear mongering.

    It really is time to get back on with life!

  • -1

    jonjonsama

    "It's all about the cheapest way to handle a crisis as explained in Micheal Sandel's Justice. I am sure a team if Cost Anlyisis came in to assess the situation and they most likely teamed up with TEPCO, Government, and scientist." Yes, everything they did seems to indicate this is what happened. E.F Schumacher said it well: "economics as if people really didn't matter at all".

    This is, as econimist E.F Schumacher pointed out about the nuclear industry, "economics as if people really didn't matter at all".

  • -1

    Disillusioned

    He denied that the funding influences his science and stressed that he stands behind his view that continuing radiation worries about Fukushima are overblown. Niwa told the AP in an interview.

    So, this joker takes kick-backs and gifts from TEPCO then releases a report in favor of TEPCO and we are supposed to believe him? WTF!!! Seriously, it is high time the international community banded together and kicked these corrupt criminals out fo Fukushima! They are not only playing the lives of some 130 million Japanese, but the lives of countless other millions throughout south-east Asia.

  • -1

    Dave Louthan

    Money makes the World go around.

  • -4

    herefornow

    Scientists setting radiation exposure limits took utility money: probe

    No one should be the least bit surprised by this. Japan Inc. has its dirty little fingers in everything. That is how the un-holy triumvirate -- Companies, Politicians, Bureaucrats -- has manged to control Japan for so long. It's call mutual back-scratching. And anyone who thinks even a disaster of the magnitude of Fukushima is suddenly going to make the actual public interest a priority is just delusional.

  • 3

    Amidalism

    Where else do you expect these scientists were going to get the money from to go to these conferences? Out of their own pockets? It states in the article that this has been going on for years now - ie. before 3/11. Do you all seriously believe that TEPCO has since the beginning of its inception been a completely soulless company that only had the absolute worst interests of the Japanese in their minds? Were they purposely paying for these scientists to go to conferences so that just in the worst case situation they would have someone to cover their backs? If they were so concerned about needing to have a backup plan like that, do you not think that they would have put more effort in preventing that situation in the first place?

    I won't deny that the way TEPCO is handling the aftermath has been terrible and full of lies, but I didn't hear anyone complain about these scientists getting funding beforehand, just like nobody complained about having power for the past decades. It's not likely they bought each one of these scientists a fully crewed private jet with its cargo hold filled with cash ready to make a stop somewhere offshore before/after their conference.

    Conflict of interest? Who should be more interested in radiation safety than a company that runs nuclear powerplants?

  • 1

    mike23thurgood

    Having read through the comments so far, there would appear to be a lot of misunderstandings of the status of the ICRP. As has been stated, it makes recommendations, and it relies on the general high level international status of its members in the radiation safety field that it's recommendations are generally accepted by government regulatory authorities with few questions being asked - generally, anyway. If anyone questions any recommendations, it will normally be the specialists themselves.

    The Linear-no-threshold - LNT - theory was rather unfortunate, in that there never seemed to be adequate explanation that it didn't represent the actual situation relating to the health effects of ionizing radiations going right down to zero exposure, but it was in reality a simple system for radiation control in radiation facilities of all sorts, eg those run by industry and governments. But the concept has been misunderstood - deliberately to the advantage of the nuclear opponents, of course.

    No one can escape from the natural radiation background. And where naturally occurring radioactive isotopes are concerned, whether they are alpha or beta emitters, and whether or not they also emit electromagnetic photon radiation - gamma and X-rays - there's nothing unusual about any of these radiations. The only difference with nuclear reactors is that the most rare radiations in nature, neutrons, are produced in abundance, because the nuclear fission reactions depend on their production. In the natural environment there aren't many neutrons around, although let's be quite definite in understanding that some uranium isotopes undergo what is referred to as spontaneous fissioning, emitting a few neutrons in the process.

    As I comments in an earlier post, I think that the scientists involved in attending international conferences, apparently at the cost of the Japanese utilities, need some further in-depth investigation before too vapid claims are made against them. I am sure that no one in japan is at all happy about what occurred at the Dai-Ichi nuclear power station in March 2011, but unhelpful comments don't help get things back to normality, as it was prior to the serious accident. But I am not Japanese, and it is not my business to pontificate on matters which are the concern of the Japanese in their own country.

  • 0

    Star-viking

    This reads like a hit-job. These researchers, if you care to look on Google Scholar, are widely respected in their respective specialities, and are even published in Nature - the world's number one scientific journal. If their conference expenses and travel are being paid by utilities then it says more about academia in Japan - such costs are borne by the institutions who attendees are employed by in the West. The Doctor complaining about them has no academic publications in the field of radiological safety.

    Some of these same scientists have consistently given optimistic assessments about the health risks of radiation, interviews with the scientists and government documents show.

    And how is this surprising? Some people are going to be optimistic, some pessimistic.

    The official stance of the International Commission on Radiological Protection is that the health risks from radiation become zero only with zero exposure. But some of the eight Japanese ICRP members do not subscribe to that view, asserting that low-dose radiation is harmless or the risks are negligible.

    "risks are negligible" is not at variance with the official ICRP stance.

    Internal records at the Federation of Electric Power Companies obtained by the investigative committee showed officials rejoicing over how their views were getting reflected in ICRP Japan statements.

    Rejoicing? Poor journalism unless they were dancing in the boardrooms.

  • 0

    Star-viking

    badsey3Dec. 09, 2012 - 11:42PM JST

    The results up to September 28, 2012 revealed that 24,682 (42.7%) of 57,840 children had thyroid ultrasound abnormalities. Together with 38,114 children (13,645 or 35.8% had thyroid ultrasound abnormalities) tested in the last half of Fiscal Year Heisei 23 (FYH23) from October 2011 through March 2012, a total of 38,327 (39.9%) of 95,954 Fukushima children have been found to have ultrasound abnormalities.

    ***Those numbers are very high especially when you consider the number should be ~0% if these people were given potassium iodide as anyone living around a nuclear reactor should have and the education and warning from the Gov in case of an accident. Radioactive iodine has a very short 1/2 life.

    Is should not be 0%. It has recently been found in Germany that more modern ultrasound scanners detect more abnormalities - 68% of the population in the German study vs. 33% in an earlier study using older scanners. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2362.2009.02162.x/full

    If the Fukushima scans are being undertaken with modern scanners then these numbers may not be worrying. Still, as studies on children have not been performed in the past the government is running studies in different parts of Japan to provide a baseline to compare the Fukushima results against. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20120828a5.html

  • -2

    nedinjapan

    I have a publication of Nagasaki School of Medicine joint with WHO that shows Japanese researchers know very well "Both for total cancer mortality and incidence, the dose response appear to be linear, even down to the lowest radiation doses". My job will be to show to the world that the Japanese government is not telling the truth, what they can easily find with the modeling of data for low dose radiation, the risks to Fukushima children. I will reveal their lies in international conferences, and now I have all the proof I needed in 57 pages, to be exact : - )

  • 0

    Star-viking

    That is unsurprising Ned. What is the title of the publication?

  • -1

    nedinjapan

    Starviking; you can find abstracts here but the full text has graphs which show the linear no threshold (LNT) relationship, and the LSS (Life Span Study) is a low dose radiation sample. Also cancers started to appear 10 years after exposure and would peak between 40 to 60 years after exposure. Look at the link now: http://ci.nii.ac.jp/volissue/nels/AA00508430/ISS0000141958en.html

  • -2

    nedinjapan

    What I am telling is this: radiation researchers in Hiroshima and Nagasaki "already" have all the dose-response modelling information to calculate the "excess" number of cancers in each area around Fukushima powerplant based on the radiation contamination measurements. But they lie to people and tell them extra radiation may be good for them?! Shame on them.

  • 0

    Star-viking

    The link is broken now Ned. Do you have the title of the paper?

    But they lie to people and tell them extra radiation may be good for them?!

    Well, that is one person - and they say that 'low-dose' radiation might be good for people. That may be possible, but I think even if it is it might depend on the isotopes involved. There's some more info at this site:

    http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/ann-coulter-says-radiation-is-good-for-you-2/

  • -2

    nedinjapan

    Please try this link: http://ci.nii.ac.jp/volissue/nels/AA00508430/ISS0000141958en.html The idea that very low levels of radiation may be good does not have any empirical support and is based on some anecdotal reports from areas with high background radiation where they say people are healthy. The 60 years of data in Hiroshima and Nagasaki support only a ZERO level of radiation as safe. I am now scanning the data from that publication, and I am going to write a paper and have it published on the official UN Internet sites. I will let you know as they come out ...

Login to leave a comment

OR
  • Sales & Marketing Staff

    Sales & Marketing Staff
    Nicolai Bergmann (ニコライバーグマン株式会社)、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥230,000 / Month Negotiable
  • Social Media Manager

    Social Media Manager
    Nicolai Bergmann (ニコライバーグマン株式会社)、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥230,000 / Month Negotiable
  • Cafe Kitchen Staff

    Cafe Kitchen Staff
    Nicolai Bergmann (ニコライバーグマン株式会社)、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥200,000 / Month Negotiable
  • Cafe Manager

    Cafe Manager
    Nicolai Bergmann (ニコライバーグマン株式会社)、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥250,000 / Month Negotiable
  • SERVICE AND SUPPORT SPECIALIST

    SERVICE AND SUPPORT SPECIALIST
    SCALA KK、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥2.5M / Year Negotiable

More in National

View all

View all