nuclear-news

UNCLEAR UNSCEAR Report aims to UNSCARE

Christina Macpherson, 3 April 14, I have not yet read the latest report.  But I have seen many headlines – telling us that there will be  few or no health effects from Fukushima radiation.

Here are a few of the points that I noticed in the news reports.

• It talks about cancer predictions for the whole of Japan with “ low impact” – rather than focussing on the Fukushima exposed population
• It finds that there will be no discernable change in cancer rates for the whole of Japan, nor of birth defects.
• It finds that any effects on terrestrial and marine ecosystems would be “transient”
• effects on flora and fauna of marine ecosywas limited to the shoreline area adjacent to the power station
•  the potential for marine effects over the long term was considered insignificant

If you bother to analyse all this –  it really means nothing.  The report admits to a few thyroid cancers amongst children.  But that doesn’t seem to matter!

As to mixing up the exposed population with the whole Japanese population – then the cancer incidence increase would look negligible.  But it mentions “low impact” –  So there IS some impact!

There’s no “discernable ” change –  there could be  a change but they won’t be able to pin[point it, therefore it doesn’t exist?

As no-one really registers birth defects – there is no baseline to compare whether or not birth defects will increase. (also stillbirths, spontaneous abortions – all not measured)

Effects on ecosystems are “transient”.  That’s not what the studies by Dr Timothy Mousseau are finding. but then UNSCEAR hasn’t done any ecological studies, as far as I can find out

Marine effects are limited to the shoreline –  so where did the newly arrived radioactive Cesium in Pacific fish come from? (Radioactive cesium is unknown except from nuclear industry sources – does not exist in nature)

April 3, 2014 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | Christina's notes