|

Rosy Fukushima health report faulted by experts

Dear Prime Minister Shinzo Abe,

The February 2013 report by the World Health Organization on the predicted radiation effects of the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear disaster provided some welcome news indeed.

For example, Richard Wakeford of the University of Manchester wrote: “The additional risk is quite small and will probably be hidden by the noise of other (cancer) risks like people’s lifestyle choices and statistical fluctuations.”

If true, the Japanese government can, for example, now confidently inform mothers living in the irradiated areas of Fukushima Prefecture and beyond that there is no need to worry about their children’s health or futures.

Unfortunately, many international experts take strong exception to these optimistic findings. This disagreement was starkly revealed at a recent symposium held in New York on March 11-12 titled “The Medical and Ecological Consequences of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident.”

Addressing the symposium, Alexey Yablokov of the Russian Academy of Sciences said: “Using criteria demanded by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) resulted in marked underestimates of the number of fatalities and the extent and degree of sickness among those exposed to radioactive fallout from Chernobyl.”

Yablokov continued: “The Chernobyl catastrophe has already killed several hundred thousand human beings in a population of several hundred million that was unfortunate enough to live in territories affected by the fallout. The number of Chernobyl victims will continue to grow over many future generations.”

Prime Minister, I know many of your advisors claim that the amount of radiation released at Fukushima No. 1 was far less than at Chernobyl. However, a report released by the U.K.-based nonprofit Institute of Science in Society in November 2012 said: “Analysis based on the most inclusive data sets available reveals that radioactive fallout from the Fukushima meltdown is at least as big as Chernobyl and more global in reach.” That conclusion was reached based on work with state-of-the-art atmospheric dispersion models by an international team led by Andreas Stohl at the Norwegian Institute for Air Research.

Further, nuclear researcher Hiroaki Koide of Kyoto University told the conference: “The cesium-137 that was released into the atmosphere by Units 1 through 3 was 168 times that of the Hiroshima bomb, according to the Japanese government report to the IAEA, an international organization which promotes nuclear power.

“However, I myself believe this is probably an underestimate, and two or three times that amount, that is, 400 to 500 times the amount of cesium-137 of the Hiroshima atomic bomb, has already been dispersed into the atmosphere. I believe almost the same amount of radioactive material released into the air has probably flowed into the ocean.”

Steven Starr of the University of Missouri pointed out that the WHO is not a reliable source of objective information since it is required to base its research on data submitted to it by member governments. Further, beginning in 1959, all WHO reports on nuclear contamination must first be approved by the IAEA, whose charter requires it to do its utmost to promote the use of nuclear power.

One point made over and over again at the symposium is that long-term epidemiological studies have shown there is no such thing as a “safe dose” of radiation. In 2006 the U.S. National Academy of Science noted: “There is a linear dose-response relationship between exposure to ionizing radiation and the development of solid cancers in humans. It is unlikely that there is a threshold below which cancers are not induced.”

Thus, as little as a single becquerel of radiation has the potential to initiate cell damage ultimately leading to cancer and assorted illnesses. Further, as Mary Olson of Nuclear Information and Resource Services said, research has demonstrated that women are significantly more susceptible to radiation-induced illness than men, and children, especially little girls, even more so. The most endangered of all is the fetus, which, through the placenta, can have radiation introduced into its rapidly developing body through its mother.

Radiation contamination is cumulative, with the greatest danger resulting from internal exposure through inhaling contaminated air, eating contaminated foods and drinking contaminated water. Thus, the longer one remains in a contaminated environment, the more likely one is to become sick.

These findings are highly significant in light of Koide’s conclusion: “The contamination areas were as large as 20,000 sq. km, which meant a vast zone in the Tohoku and Kanto regions would have to be evacuated. Faced with such a reality, the Japanese government decided it would never be able to help the people in these contaminated areas, and that the people would be abandoned and left there. As of today, about 10 million people have been left in areas that should have been designated radiation-controlled areas, and they are exposed to continual radiation every day.”

As to what this means in concrete terms, one conference presenter, nuclear expert Arnie Gundersen, estimates that the disaster would lead to 1 million extra deaths from cancer. While Gundersen puts the release of cesium at about half that of Chernobyl, he noted that little attention has been paid to radioactive gases xenon and krypton, which poured out of the No. 1 plant in quantities “two to three times” greater than the 1986 Ukrainian meltdown. Gundersen’s assessment on the health effects of Fukushima is based on the damage done to area residents from the 1979 partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania, where he served as an expert witness.

Prime Minister, you have called for a “beautiful Japan,” a Japan its citizens can be proud of. Can there truly be a beautiful Japan when large numbers of its citizens are left to face the possibility of slow, painful deaths resulting from radiation-induced cancers and other illnesses? Can the Japanese people be proud of a country that would allow this to happen to its own citizens?

It is still not too late to act, Prime Minister. For example, will your government provide financial support for residents in contaminated areas who wish to move to safe areas, most especially women of childbearing age and those with children?

BRIAN A. VICTORIA
Yellow Springs, Ohio

Presentations made at the conference in New York on March 11-12 can be viewed at www.totalwebcasting.com/view/?id=hcf# . Send comments on this issue and Hotline to Nagata-cho submissions of 500-700 words to community@japantimes.co.jp .

  • Ken Yasumoto-Nicolson

    Oh dear, this article quotes just about every “expert” who I feel would not be happier to see lots of Fukushima children die just so they could say “See, I told you so!” A little bit of Googling will show you that there are mixed opinions (to put it mildly) regarding that statistic on “several hundred thousand human beings” killed by Chernobyl, and Mr Gundersen’s one million cancer victims is not in the slightest bit backed up by science, but by zealotry.

    • williambanzai7

      Have a cesium cracker…

    • johnny cassidy

      KY says “this article quotes just about every “expert” who I feel would not be happier to see lots of Fukushima children die…” That’s a pretty bold statement and I wonder if he has even a thread of evidence to back it up. Otherwise it’s really nothing more than mean-spirited hyperbole perhaps tailored to suggest that anyone who disagrees with his point of view must be a monster salivating over the terrible prospect of children dying in massive numbers.
      While these sorts of overzealous fabrications of the truth pollute the quality of debate, there may be a valid point tucked in between the layers of mud. The jury is still out when it comes to the full impact the disaster will have on human health and mortality. On the other hand, the financial toll from the disaster is abundantly clear and the impact it has had on the wallets of ordinary taxpayers in Japan is enough to make anyone sick.

      • Sam Gilman

        Actually, there is a history of Greenpeace, for example, rejecting reports on Chernobyl by mainstream scientists, and reacting by producing their own in-house or sponsored reports that inflate the numbers way beyond anything scientifically plausible. They seem to be constitutionally invested in more, rather than fewer deaths.

        Journalists are also invested in horror stories. They have a natural inclination to choose the high-end figure in any tragedy, to create false science controversies where none exists (see also vaccines, climate change).

        And then there are people who directly make money out of massively overstating risks. Chris Busby, Arnie Gundersen and others get consultancy fees, court appearance fees and so on.

        You say “the jury is still out”, which is technically true. But it’s wrong to read that as “we have no idea”. We do actually have a fairly good idea of the possible range of deaths. The estimates of people like Gundersen are way outside of that, and are based on junk science anyway. We can safely dismiss them, like we can safely dismiss homeopathy.

    • disqus_bugafmk1Tf

      Dear Ken,

      You are certainly right that this is a contentious issue. But rather than “Googling” for mixed opinions, may I suggest that you actually take the time to watch the related online presentations and then, if you wish, refute their presentations with hard evidence. And, Ken, your statement that these experts “would not be happier to see lots of Fukushima children die . . .” betrays a lack of empathy and concern that saddens me deeply. I once held the young twisted bodies of the victims of Minamata disease in the 1970s when Chiso Corp, backed by the Japanese government, claimed it were not responsible for this environmental disaster (the scale of which pales in comparison to THREE nuclear meltdowns/meltthroughs with explosions at Fukushima Daiichi). There is certainly room for intelligent debate about the damage done to human health by this unprecedented disaster, but please don’t demean yourself or the victims by denying the seriousness of not only what has happened but what is continuing to happen in Fukushima and beyond. Let the SERIOUS AND INFORMED debate begin! Brian Victoria

      • http://www.dadsarmy.co.uk/ GMainwaring

        “There is certainly room for intelligent debate” Yes, yes there is. And Arnie Gundersen is NOT a part of that debate.

      • Ken Yasumoto-Nicolson

        Argument by Google is really quite a fruitless pursuit, so instead I’ll just point out that in this paper there have been reports that:

        (a) The 40% of Fukushima kids have thyroid nodules fact is actually in line with the rate of nodules in children from the other end of Japan;

        (b) Although 7 cases of thyroid cancer were discovered compared to about an average of 1, the doctor involved reckoned that they were (i) pre-disaster, and (ii) early detection from increased screening; and

        (c) The WHO (and the IAEA having to screen their reports is a red herring) have said that the increase in cancers will be negligible for all except those children closest to the plant.

        Now, I am NOT proposing that Fukushima kids be left to their fate, but as already proposed, annual screening should take place for the rest of their lifetime. However, consider this, which is going to lead to the better quality of life; (a) being told that there is nothing really to worry about and annual screening will catch anything untoward (note, Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors have had a higher life expectancy due to at least increased screening), or (b) being told that 1,000,000 from you and your friends will die even with annual screening?

        This paper has further reported that the WHO has said that stress-related illnesses will sicken and kill more people than radiation; your talk of equating Fukushima children to Minamata victims is, I most strongly argue, another stress factor for and sigmatisation of them and their parents.

      • Sam Gilman

        Brian, I’m afraid that Ken has been far too gentle on the sources you use. I’d be stronger. They’re tripe. Tosh. Bad Science. Made up. I see no reason to be diplomatic about this.

        Yablokov’s book that claims nearly a million deaths from Chernobyl is not science but propaganda pretending to be science. When a book explicitly rejects the scientific method as his does (i.e. the foundation of scientific knowledge for the past few hundred years), ignores pretty much all the internationally published research – including that coming out of the former Soviet Union – in favour of obscure news articles, blames cirrhosis of the liver on radiation then it’s clearly a joke. The house that was tricked into publishing it disowned it and returned the rights to the authors.It’s just a junk study.

        Arnie Gundersen is not a world expert on radiation, health and nuclear power. He may say he’s an expert, but what he actually is, is someone who collects consultancy fees from anti-nuclear groups that amount to a very healthy hourly sum. That is, he’s financially invested in nuclear scaremongering. He’s the mirror image of a TEPCO executive. He supports a theory of radiation (hot particles) which has been examined and rejected repeatedly by actually qualified scientists. Gundersen has also been found to have “padded” his CV quite substantially. As Ken says, this is easy to find out. I suspect you never tried to check.

        Hiroaki Koide is not a world expert on nuclear power, but someone who managed to get a tenured job in an age when they were plentiful and then proceeded to do (little or?) no apparent scientific research for the next forty years (staying firmly at the bottom rank of academia – which is pretty impressive if mediocrity impresses you), and just published popular anti-nuclear tracts that have no scientific standing. He has not demonstrated to his scientific peers that he is any good at all. Again, I don’t think you ever seriously asked yourself “is this Hiroaki Koide a respected expert?”

        I’m fairly confident that the only reason you cite these people is because they are people who support your point of view (given their lack of standing, what other reason could there be?). You have done nothing to check if they are respected in their field, or what happens when their ideas are subject to scrutiny by other experts.

        Your claims about the WHO having to get IAEA approval about all research to do with nuclear contamination is simply wrong. If you actually go look at the interagency agreements, you’ll find that the WHO is totally free (“without prejudice”) to say what it likes in relation to health. Funnily enough, it’s actually in the same sentence of the document where the IAEA is given the lead in promoting the safe use of nuclear power. A sentence I suspect you’ve never checked. Why did you never check it?

        We know from Chernobyl on a grand scale, and now, very sadly, from Fukushima, that (overblown) fear of radiation from accidents has widespread serious physical and mental health effects. If you genuinely cared about people, about their children and their welfare, you’d have checked to see if your “experts” were what they were cracked up to be before spreading such fear. You’d have checked if the fears were warranted.

        But the thing is, Brian Victoria, you didn’t check, did you? If you’re going to dismiss the work of internationally respected scientists and scientific organisations, don’t you think a bit more due diligence is appropriate?

        Look, if you want a serious and informed debate, that’s fine. But before anything else, you need to sort yourself out before you can join it.

      • Michael Radcliffe

        Sam, that was a seriously impressive reply.

      • Roy Warner

        I know nothing about the others mentioned in the article but I am in a position to comment on Koide. The reason he has not been promoted and has published little to nothing in the way of science is that scientific research in Japan is funded almost exclusively by the Japanese Ministry of Education. There is also some funding from industries that have a financial stake in the outcome of the research. Opponents of nuclear power are excluded from research funding and thus cannot do research. They are thus denied promotions.

      • Sam Gilman

        Roy, could you explain what puts you in a position to know that Koide has been prevented from doing any research by the Japanese government because of his opinions?

        The thing is, Koide was anti-nuclear before he got his job (it’s why he wanted the job in the first place); there are anti-nuclear academics in Japan who have been promoted above the first rank, and to my knowledge, the ministry of education in Tokyo is not required to approve university promotions anyway. In addition, the ministry of education does not directly control the editorial decisions of all Japanese scientific journals, science funding comes from all kinds of organisations in Japan, and there has been nothing stopping Koide publishing in non-Japanese academic journals. As for research funding? He works at a reactor research institute. Do you think they employed him not to do any funding? And if he’s that good his word should be taken over opinions published in the most prestigious international scientific journals, why didn’t he just get a job in another country?

        To be honest, I’m rather worried that you’re indulging in the tired western colonialist prejudice that Japan, like all these damned inscrutable oriental places, is actually a crypto-fascist state. That it’s not actually a liberal democracy very much like your average western European country, but a devious, thought-controlled autocracy.

        Or perhaps, like Brian, your anti-nuclear views are actually a kind of religious faith, such that you’ll believe any old nonsense you read on the Internet so long as it bolsters that faith.

      • anna miller

        You challenged Mr. Warner’s position to make his fears known about nuclear energy, now, who pays you to support nuclear energy? It seems to me there has been a flurry of paid individuals visiting web sites these days, purporting the glories of nuclear irradiation of our planet. This is nothing short of insane. We should be working 24/7 to create alternative methods of energy, not perpetuating known methods of energy that can destroy the health of our planet.
        The problem is removing the status quo who perpetuate the enormous profit factor over sane alternatives. Given the present situation in Fukushima, which corporate owned media is not reporting, and Chernobyl, and current ongoing problems with France’s waste disposals, and recent shutdowns of reactors in the United States, people who support increasing nuclear reactors should be deeply ashamed.

      • Roy Warner

        I have no strong objections to nuclear power. It can be reasonably safe in areas with low seismic activity, low population density, and high safety standards, provided that there are also similar areas available for spent fuel storage in perpetuity. I do object to Japan’s failure to prioritise safety and to the construction of nuclear plants on known tsunami flood plains and fault lines. I spend several years in the same university in which Koide works. I was in a different faculty but funding circumstances are similar across Japan. Since I myself am Asian I suggest you take your comments on inscrutability elsewhere.

      • anna miller

        Where is the radioactive waste from Fukushima being stored?
        in containers? How long do these containers last?Is the plant still leaking? When will the radiation
        finally be contained? The responses that I have read from supporters
        of the nuclear industry, give compelling arguments for the safety
        of exposure to radiation, but absolutely fail at discussions regarding
        the storage of nuclear waste. That part of the debate seems to be left out of the dialogue.

      • Sam Gilman

        Anna, as you’re trying to broaden the discussion beyond whether or not Brian Victoria is relying on pseudoscience, and casting aspersions on me (am I really a supporter of the nuclear industry? After I wrote disparagingly of TEPCO executives?): I had a look at your other Disqus comments. You have an “interesting” relationship with science and evidence.

        Where mainstream science supports your ideology, for example on global warming, you are happy to rely (as one should) on the mainstream view that we have a serious problem with regard to CO2 and other GHG emissions, and quite rightly highlight the documented corporate attempts to corrupt public debate. Yet where the same international network of research processes and institutions produces results that you don’t like, such as with the safety of genetically modified crops or the health risks of radiation or what we can do with nuclear waste, you back away into the walled garden of green movement dogma. Like so many on both the left and right, you only turn to science when it suits your ideology.

        Can we store nuclear waste safely? If you want absolute safety for all your energy sources, then you’d use no energy at all, so what does safe mean? Can we store it so that deaths from nuclear waste would not be higher than deaths from other acceptable energy sources? Yes, as near as certainly as makes no odds.Here’s another question: Can we recycle the waste? Yes. The newest generation of reactors can do just that and reduce the amount of waste we’d need to store dramatically.

        As for the leaks at Fukushima, of course, I don’t know how long it will be until there are no more. But I do know they’re at such a low level that to the best of our scientific knowledge, they do not present a meaningful danger to people outside the plant or to the environment, although it is important to keep monitoring the situation. Of course, Fukushima is not good. I’ve no illusions about that.

        One could ask a series of provocative rhetorical questions about all other low-carbon energy sources – when will people stopped being poisoned by rare earth mining for solar and wind? How many people will die from hydropower accidents? Exactly how much CO2 emitting natural gas back-up is needed for the misnamed “renewables only” solutions of groups like Greenpeace? What is the true cost of a smart grid to accommodate intercontinental intermittent power sources? How much land needs to be taken up growing large scale biomass, and what will it do to food prices and how many famines will it create?

        Asking these questions without taking an open-minded interest in the answers would be dishonest. I’m not against any of these technologies as being part of the energy solution (well, maybe biomass). We need to look at all sources of low-carbon energy by the same metric. Not pro-this tech or that tech, but, in David MacKay’s words, “pro-arithmetic”.

        Unless you’re prepared to be even-handed in looking at energy and unless you’re committed to good scientific evidence (based on its quality, not on what you want it to say), you’ll be part of the logjam preventing progress that also includes the fossil fuel industry as well as many major so-called “green” organisations.

      • anna miller

        Sometimes humans should back away from science.
        Not all science has proven to be good for humanity. More emphasis should be placed on a holistic approach to the scientific method. For example, how will this science affect the totality of habitat? Was plastic a good idea? The propensity of the average human to employ whatever is the most convenient does not always prove to be the most wise in the long run, for the survival of nature.

      • anna miller

        You state that the newly designed nuclear reactors can
        “recycle” nuclear waste? Given the recent flurry of serious problems around the United States involving nuclear reactors,
        see ENE.news web-site, it is hard to believe that nuclear waste can be stored or recycled. Even mainstream corporate
        owned news media such as ABC is now reporting the serious
        complications of nuclear energy. Given the fact that nuclear energy reactors only supply 13% of energy world wide, it is hardly worth the expense and danger of our planet being irradiated forever, only to supply electricity for a short period of time. Do you make your living in support of nuclear energy?

      • Sam Gilman

        Anna, if you want to use the argument that nuclear power only provides 13% of the world’s energy, then clearly you think solar, wind and hydro are worse still, and that the best thing is to burn wood and fossil fuels. Do you earn your money from fossil fuel companies?

        If you are so interested in media ownership, can you tell me about the ownership of ENEnews? It’s very secretive indeed. It’s a news biasing site, run by a very secretive lawyer (and I mean very: he has zero web presence except as a registered name on the site). ENEnews caused a lot of problems for people in Japan when the Fukushima crisis began, as it was a source of a lot of highly exaggerated and downright false information. (It started up within days of the accident, nice logo, professional design, coping with heavy traffic: it’s not the work of a single individual despite its claims.)

        Why did you love ENEnews? Because it fits your biases. You didn’t check its accuracy (headline versus source material, ir quality of source material) or origins.

        Oh, and to reassure your paranoia, no, I have no financial attachment whatsoever to any energy producer at all. Do you think everyone who disagrees with you is paid to do so?

  • PX

    Even if Gunderson and all of the others in this article exaggerated their claims, I still wouldn’t live in Fukushima and risk me and my family’s health. No thanks.

    • http://www.facebook.com/geoff.russell.39 Geoff Russell

      Do you risk your family’s health by eating red meat? Do you let them stand next to roads on which diesel vehicles travel? Do you ever allow them near open fires? Nuclear power is an infinitesimally tiny risk compared to the certainties of massive climate change damage.

      • johnny cassidy

        I guess one could be worried about all these things you mention (I know I am) in addition to living near the crippled Fukushima reactors. They’re not necessarily mutually exclusive concerns.

      • PX

        I don’t fear red meat, so that is a moot point. Like Johnny Cassidy said, you bring up all of these mutually exclusive factors which are completely irrelevant. Nuclear power in itself is another issue, but I am not willing to live in an area which has reported high radiation levels and a corrupt and manipulative govt that has been trying to brainwash people into believing things are ok. Not worth it IMO.

      • Sam Gilman

        I think you’ve missed the point that Geoff was making. It’s not about a choice between red meat and nuclear power, but about risk perception. The risk from the radiation is so low that it’s actually equivalent to so many other risks that we take without thinking. Living in Tokyo carries a greater environmental risk of cancer from the environment than in pretty much most of the exclusion zone around Fukushima daiichi, as does the regular consumption of red meat. What we’re now doing, which burning more gas, coal and oil, is a far, far greater risk to health.

        I don’t get this from the Japanese government. I do something that so many people who spread fear about the radiation don’t seem to do. I cannot for the life of me understand why they don’t do it too. I go look at science journals. When a journalist quotes a stat on radiation, I don’t take it on trust. When a government or TEPCO official makes a statement, I don’t take it on trust. I go to independent experts whose work has been scrutinised by their peers.

        Toolongone on this page thinks it’s odd to rely on “expertise and scientific credentials” for information about science. I don’t.

      • 高飛鷂

        I don’t fear eating red meat becasue I can stop eating them whenever I feel necessary.
        Nuclear power is an infinitesimally tiny risk that I can agree. Only when there is an accident it is always catastrophic.

      • anna miller

        There is no known method to store the nuclear waste, which lasts forever.
        Proponents of the nuclear industry, blithely dismiss that extremely
        important factor in discussions concerning the dangers of nuclear energy.

  • http://www.facebook.com/geoff.russell.39 Geoff Russell

    Check globocan.iarc.fr … Russia+Ukraine+Belarus have had (together) about 14 million cases of cancer in the past 25 years. If these countries had the same cancer rates as clean green non-nuclear Australia, how many would they have had? About 20 million. Being contaminated by radiation just isn’t in the big league for causing cancer. We have BBQs, with bucket loads of red and processed meat, sunshine, obesity, couch potatoes (along with the usual booze and cigarettes). Chernobyl radiation clearly hasn’t matched these. Caldicott tells people to avoid Turkish food. Why? Because it is contaminated. She should check. Turkey has half the rate of cancer that Australia has. The reason why radiation is so dismally ineffective at causing cancer is starting to be understood. It’s because the damage is random. Compare that with red meat which does very specific genetic damage and is packaged with growth factors … which are the key. People with Laron’s syndrome get genetic damage from radiation, just like everybody else, but they don’t get cancer. How come? They don’t have the cellular mechanisms to turn damage into cancer. Caldicott got her medical degree 50 years ago. The science has moved on. Cancer and radiation are much better understood now than when she began her crusade. She doesn’t understand epidemiology in the slightest and simply doesn’t keep up with the research.

    Here’s an article with what I hope is an easy to understand explanation of what the WHO report is saying.

    http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/3/22/energy-markets/exploding-australias-nuclear-delusion

  • Al

    The biggest mistake – is to live on the irradiated area, the Fukushima area must be closed for 30 years (decay period of cesium137) like the current “ghost” town Pripyat near Chernobyl.

    The solution to this problem is only one – signing the Peace Treaty with Russia immediately and migration into neighboring Russia. Anyway it is already the free visa regime between our countries for business, students and culture trips.

    • http://www.dadsarmy.co.uk/ GMainwaring

      If the options are on the one hand to live in a free, democratic state with a very tiny portion of contaminated land that is unfit to live on, and on the other to migrate to Russia, I will not migrate to Russia.

      • http://www.facebook.com/danuta.zasada.5 Danuta Zasada

        When the industrial revolution began nobody thought it would bring such problems like CO2 smog and chemical pollution. Today many people suffer of asthma and other disease because of these factors. Let’s think about future with atomic power: how many accidents will be in future, how much contaminated water and contaminated food? Slowly it will become a geat problem in the whole earth. Every technical construction is prone to accident. Men are prone to errors. The contamination of the whole earth is not so difficult to imagine. And shall humans learn to deal better with atomic power? Maybe. But now it is obvious they don’t know how to control it.

        Dan

  • Toolonggone

    Funny the way some people use expertise and scientific credentials as the guideline to dismiss public concerns about radiation and various studies made by domestic and international researchers. Their studies are not credit-worthy because they are not really expert in nuclear engineering? Then why are the opinions of those ‘engineers and scientists’ affiliated with Japanese government are distrusted by the general public? Why are we seeing some of those Japanese government-certified ‘experts’ being replaced in the middle of appointment, if their reports are far more credible than independent researchers worldwide?

  • Dallas

    I wouldnt believe a thing the Government , the IAEA, the NRC, or Monsanto says