The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

The Tenacious Mari Takenouchi takes on JTRIG and TEMPORA and the Japanese Secret Service??

arclight-SmOp Ed by Arclight

Dated 28 April 2014

Posted to

“….In the summer of 2012, when Takenouchi started to raise her voice against Fukushima ETHOS on twitter, a suspicious man appeared in her neighborhood and picked up Takenouchi’s then 2 year old boy. I reported this incident to the local police…..”

My Photo


Mari Takenouchi has been under attack from JTRIG and its five eyes network. The reason I say this is because of the methods that have been deployed against her.
Firstly, I have to explain the methodology of JTRIG UK and the five eyes network and how they connect to Japan.

There is plenty of evidence that lets us know that the UK USA and Japan have homogenised their security systems;
1 The geo political manipulations aimed at China and Russia where a heavily militarised Japan with dozens of US military bases and the recent RUSI conference announcing confirmation of a Japan-UK military joint effort aimed at sending a clear message to Japan.

2 The decision of both Japan and the UK to redefine a new version of the secrets act to be brought in (coincidental) in March/April 2104 which is supported by global trade agreements being discussed in private that include the heavy censoring of the INTERNET by use of copyright laws and creating a two tier INTERNET system (to be fully implemented in the very near future)

Thanks to the revelations of various whistle blowers including Edward Snowden we can begin to see how the INTERNET has been manipulated by JTRIG using the five eyes security arrangement that encompasses The UK, USA, New Zealand, Canada and Australia.

In fact this blog has been under attack from the Australian section of five eyes and we have even been contacted by an anonymous source that allowed us to find out the actual social media campaign company that was used to overload Christina Mac Phearson with multiple tweets, insults and the types of attacks mentioned in the released JTRIG training manual.

This brings me nicely on to Mari Takenouchis case that I have been closely observing and trying to document and reveal for the JTRIG Psy Ops attack that is was.
When I heard of Maris case I wondered best how to tackle it and gain information. I decided that I would go with the advice she received, which was to make public the insults and threats made against her and highlight the more gruesome aspects of this campaign, whilst highlighting the fact that she was a single parent and a caring soul.

The tact that I took which was helped by a recent Reporters Without Borders article seemd to stop much of the aggressive tweets against her. This was to be expected if the tweeters were “sockpuppets” controlled from a central source. But this could be construed as coincidental and I needed further proof that there was a single point of decision making behind these attacks such as might be expected from a secretive and subtle group like JTRIG.


Looking into the JTRIG manual, techniques such as using “Target Templating methodology”, where JTRIG where the target is analysed to see how they connect to the INTERNET and use these forms of attack;
Destroy, Deny, Degrade, Deceive, Disrupt, Protect.
All these terms are part of the larger operation and in the case of Mari Takenouchi we see these techniques as part of a psy ops operation happening over a period of years.
So, Mari has had to block 3,000 twitter accounts in recent years, Her emails have been tampered with in novel ways that are described nicely in the JTRIG training manual using the technology against her. Her twitter accounts have been closed when she has needed them to provide evidence to law enforcement officials and other, then later switched back on when it was of no use to her as evidence. The nature of these attacks has been designed to frighten her and in fact it is likely it had the effect also of encouraging real people such as has been described in my earlier posts, gleaned from Mari`s web blog, to tweet foul things which might actually have had the unintended consequence of helping Mari as she could actually fight back.

Other ways of attacking Mari that can be seen in other high profile cases such as the attacks on Chris Busby by George Monbiot and George Galloway by the Daily Mail are to use high profile people/organisations to degrade the personality and therefore reduce the support of the cause that the target is supporting.

However, Mari has proved tenacious and adaptable and so JTRIG and their Japanese colleagues are trying the next type of attack still based on degrading character and destroying psychological balance. They have decided to attack her for asking for money to support her journalism and translation. This is a very common form of attack and one that was used against myself and Christina MacPherson (By Roger Helbig), as well as the Chernobyl Childrens International Charity in Ireland and amongst many other targets of JTRIG. Also you can see this technique being used on the comments sections of articles in main stream media publications as well as Blogs, Youtube comments, Face book and Talk radio shows.

Mari has also had her family drawn into this by having her son actually being picked up by a stranger in 2012 and her mother being insulted and having to make a statement to try to protect her daughter and grandson in more recent manipulations.

But still the tenacious Mari Takenouchi carries on with her mission to be a spokesperson for the forgotten people of Fukushima and Myiagi who are pressured into silence and having to suffer the effects and fears of the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster.

I might add that also at the disposal of this clandestine operation are the likes of Ogilvey and Maher (who also managed the PR campaign for BP after the disastrous Gulf oil spill) and the Japanese Science Media Center who was set up by the UK Science Media Centre to provide hand picked Scientists to give the “right science”. Also in the frame is the legal profession fronted by the likes of Mr Yabe and the French construct that manages the Chernobyl cover up called ETHOS fronted by Ms. Ryoko Ando for the Japanese version. This helps to combat the points that Mari is making. Also it is obvious that planted main stream articles come out and are promoted by social media above any counter stories.

Also, it is becoming obvious to many bloggers and activists that recently, Google and Facebook are being managed to limit the likelihood of stories going viral. This is described in the JTRIG manual and also the JTRIG operators have techniques for the stories and articles they want to go viral, thus sidelining posts.

Here is a couple of extract from maris recent blog post concerning harassment

“….In the summer of 2012, when Takenouchi started to raise her voice against Fukushima ETHOS on twitter, a suspicious man appeared in her neighborhood and picked up Takenouchi’s then 2 year old boy. I reported this incident to the local police…..”

“…..Even my twitter seemed to be a target of attacks, such as decreasing number of followers in an unnatural way and inability to find my own tweets through searching my own account @mariscontact, resulting in much fewer RTs, and frequent automatic log-out.
My English twitter account @SaveKidsJapan had been suspended for use by the attacks by internet obstructer’s the day before I went to the local police to report the their harassement. (Several days later, @SaveKidsJapan went back to service.)
I have been harassed by these people beyond description, which has inflicting me tremendous stress.
On April 26th, a teacher at my 4 year old son’s nursery school asked me, “It seems that your son has been under some sort of stress especially since this April. Has there been anything different for him?”…..”

Below are some links giving evidence to my findings concerning the mysterious JTRIG mentioned above;
The intercept (Glen Greenwalds new media outlet) is worth bookmarking as he will be releasing more on internet manipulation on that link- Mari Takenouchi uncovers deception and fights litigation

May 11, 2014 Posted by | Arclight's Vision | 3 Comments

Japans slippery slope to fascism? – How a Single Tweet Could Land a Japanese Nuclear Activist in Jail

….”We’re not aware of past cases in which tweets were found to be the basis for criminal contempt, but the law is the law.”….

….If they go ahead with the case, she may be held without bail until her trial, as is often the case in Japan, without a right to see a lawyer or have one present during questioning. Police told VICE News they would not comment on the case “due to privacy matters.”…

My Photo

Mari Takenouchi with her young son

By Nathalie-Kyoko StuckyMay 11, 20148:15 pm

In 2012, more than 15,000 people living near the crippled Fukushima nuclear power plant filed a criminal complaint at the Fukushima prosecutors’ office. They alleged that Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) and the Japanese central government were criminally negligent for the March 2011 Fukushima meltdown and the way in which the resulting cleanup was handled.

The Fukushima police, however, declined to investigate. And prosecutors quietly dropped all charges against TEPCO, arguing that it was too difficult to prove criminal negligence even though several third-party watchdogs found that TEPCO and government officials had failed to carry out measures necessary to prevent the disaster despite knowing that a devastating earthquake could potentially strike near the plant. Even an independent investigative commission set up by the Japanese National Diet had concluded, “The meltdown was a manmade disaster.”

Meanwhile, Fukushima police and prosecutors have set their sites on a 47-year-old single mother named Mari Takenouchi because she wrote a tweet critical of a nuclear lobbyist. Takenouchi may go to jail for it.

* * *

Fukushima police and prosecutors are currently investigating Takenouchi for criminal contempt; if found guilty, she could face a month in jail. Prosecutors confirmed they will be flying to Okinawa, where Takenouchi lives, to question her on May 13. Police have already traveled from Fukushima to Okinawa to interrogate her — an unusual occurrence.

“We only send police officers from one prefecture to another if the subject is really a potentially dangerous criminal,” Fukushima police spokesman Lieutenant Tadashi Terashima told VICE News.

Takenouchi, the potentially dangerous criminal in question, is a journalist and blogger who fled her hometown of Tokyo with her infant son days after the disaster, hoping to avoid fallout from Fukushima. (She was too late; radiation had already reached Tokyo.) Today, she reports on the health of children in Fukushima. This is the translation of the tweet that has authorities flying across the country to interrogate her:

There is a common point between the two criminals of the century: Yasuhiro Nakasone, who introduced nuclear power to Japan, and Ryoko Ando, a government-sided citizen activist who leads Fukushima Ethos. It is their human experimentation project.

Nakasone was an influential Japanese politician for much of the second half of the 20th century — he served as Prime Minister in the 1980s — who championed Japan’s exploration of nuclear power in the 1950s. Ando is the Japanese head of Fukushima Ethos, a project lead by French NGO the Center of Studies on the Evaluation of Protection in the Nuclear Field (CEPN) and funded by the French nuclear energy lobby. Fukushima Ethos encourages residents to continue living in contaminated areas as long as decontamination procedures and radiation measurements continue to be done.

“Ryoko Ando blocked me on Twitter and rejected my offer to engage in an open debate with a mediator,” Takenouchi told VICE News, “and instead filed a criminal accusation against me.”


After the tweet appeared, Ando reported it to the Fukushima Prefectural Police, accusing Takenouchi of either criminal defamation or criminal contempt. This past January 29, Takenouchi received a telephone call from Fukushima police, notifying her that Ando had filed a complaint against her. Two weeks later, Takenouchi said police came to her apartment in Okinawa and examined her computer.

Continue reading

May 11, 2014 Posted by | Uncategorized | 2 Comments

New York times set straight on all things nuclear by Fiona Fox and the Science Media Network (Plus a few good lawyers)


OP Ed Arclight2011part2

arclightDate 11 May 2014

Posted to

OK so 16th March 2014 the NY TIMES prints an article about media censorship where scientists are reported to not be able to talk to the press and are steered clear of doing studies that concern the Daichi power plant in Japan.. the reason for this is the Japanese government using the likes of the Science Media Centre in Japan set up by Herr Fiona Fox of the UK Science Media Centre.. Funding is also impossible to get for studies.. Then on the 17 March 2014 the NYtimes is asked to post this retraction ..

“Correction: March 17, 2014

An earlier version of the headline with this article misstated the actions of the Japanese government. There are deep differences over how to determine the health impact of the Fukushima disaster. The authorities are not ‘‘squelching”efforts to measure the effects of the accident. ”

Of course the dispute is from Prof. Richard Wakeford and Prof. Geraldine Thomas of the UK nuclear lobby who say that radiation is generally a good thing…

HAHAHA !! HERR Fiona Fox and her USA branch “sense about Science” strikes again, giving the “right ” science approach … And we wondered why the NY times recently did a Pro Nuke article.. UMMMMM?

Looks like the editorial staff got a letter from a solicitor eh? and they had to go to the USA equivalent of the Goebbels like Science media Centre (SMC)for some reprogramming.

Heres what the Japanese Science Media Centre has to say about the “right ” Science;

As Asia’s first Science Media Centre, our goal is to help give science a voice on a national and international scale.  Developing the Science Media Centre of Japan (SMCJ) began in 2008, when we found that although the country had a strong R&D industry, scientists were unwilling to talk to the media and focused on talking to the scientific community.

We also found that although the media regarded science as important, there was an overflow of science information, and they had difficulty in finding a scientist who could explain things in a way the average citizen could understand.

As a way to bridge the communication gap between scientists and the media, the SMCJ opened up for service in 2010.  We have been helping scientists share their knowledge about controversial issues with the media in order to help society get access to accurate and good quality information.

Not long after we opened, we were faced with covering the March 11 earthquake, tsunami, and Fukushima.  A huge challenge for a new SMC, but amidst the chaos we managed to send out reliable information, and gain respect from the science community.

Working in Japanese and English has enabled us to take the extra step.  As part of the SMC network, we have been able to help the Japanese and overseas media get in touch with scientists from both sides.

Screenshot from 2013-09-26 13:41:54

Herr Fiona Fox

Does science just right for the corporations

Ewen Callaway

10 July 2013

“..Regardless, the SMC model is now spreading around the world, with the latest franchise slated to open in the United States around 2016. The centres are all run independently, but they abide by a unified charter crafted by Fox.

This means that Fox is about to take her message to a much wider audience. “I think there are problems with her reach,” says Connie St Louis, director of the science-journalism course at City University London and one of Fox’s loudest critics. “She’s becoming one of the most powerful people in science.”…”

“…That is a message that Fox has honed well since establishing the SMC in London in 2002. The centre’s aim is to get scientific voices into media coverage and policy debates …”

“… “Our philosophy is we’ll get the media to DO science better when scientists DO the media better,” says Fox. …”

Nature also funded the SMC UK :0

The UK government tells the SMC to manage the news..
The SMC is pro fracking and pro GMO too!
basically pro big buisness…
I think you were to kind with Cameron Christine.. The UK is managing climate change by saying it will be too far into the future to have any immediate effects. even after the weird weather and flooding we have been having in the UK over the winter. Also, they are commissioning some weather modification studies and has asked the SMC to deal with it.. So no articles on weather modification..

The SMC is funded and supported by petroleum, nuclear, pharma, BBC and the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC UK) etc etc

follow the money! The SMC did


I would like to bring to your attention the mechanism by which science journalism is being undermined.. It may explain George Monbiot`s conversion to the nuclear industry among other things. This mechanism is the Science Media Centers of the world and the nuclear industry driven PR machine
Before SMC
Extra George Monbiot event
After SMC
科学ジャーナリストの地位が弱体化しているメカニズムについて、目を向けてほしいと思います。 多分このことから、原発関連についてのGeorge Monbiotの会話の内容が、理解できるであろうと私は、思っています。このメカニズムは、世界の科学メディアセンターや広告マシーンと化してしまった原発産業のことを、物語っている。 
There is growing evidence that the existence of SMCs is also encouraging news organizations to downgrade science reporters. Recently the newspaper The Australian sacked its science reporter, Leigh Dayton. The reason she was given by the editors was..
SMCの存在によって、ニュース機関等が、科学報告を軽視する傾向が強まってきている。最近、オーストラリアの新聞は、科学レポーターであるLeigh Dayton氏を、解雇した。 その理由は、その新聞社の編集者から、得た理由によると、

they could rely on the supply of press releases from the Australian SMC so that their general reporters could write the science news”.


There is growing evidence that the existence of SMCs is also encouraging news organizations to downgrade science reporters. Recently the newspaper The Australian sacked its science reporter, Leigh Dayton. The reason she was given by the editors was..

“they could rely on the supply of press releases from the Australian SMC so that their general reporters could write the science news”. [Ed: Leigh Dayton denies having said this and we are currently endeavouring to check with the author of the Columbia Journalism Review paper as to the veracity or otherwise of the above statement.]

A large empirical study carried out recently by Andy Williams of Cardiff University, UK also confirmed that..

Science PR was increasing and independent science journalism was decreasing.

Fiona Fox and Connie St. Louis


I knew that quality science journalism in Australia was dwindling. It took the most recent pro-nuclear advertorial in the Fairfax media to really wake me up to this. John Watson, ‘Senior writer’ at Fairfax Media, wrote an article entitled, Want to kill fewer people? Go nuclear…..

Why have The Age,  Sydney Morning Herald and others sunk to this level of sloppy journalism?

Apart from the obvious fact they don’t want to offend their corporate backers, this kind of writing is symptomatic of what happens when you get rid of your qualified dedicated science journalists. Amongst the plethora of Fairfax journalists encouraged to depart their jobs were science editor Deborah Smith, health editor Julie Robotham, health correspondent Mark Metherell and environment reporter Rossyln Beeby. 


Screenshot from 2014-05-11 22:45:51

Click on image to go down the rabbit hole 🙂

May 11, 2014 Posted by | Arclight's Vision | 1 Comment

Unscear 2013 — Fukushima report commentary by Safecast

“Evaluations of the accuracy and relevance of this report should be based on close reading and an understanding of issues such as those presented in this commentary at the very least. It is an extremely challenging document to navigate and parse, and perhaps this is cause for criticism in itself. There is room for valid criticism in several areas, and several underlying assumptions deserve scrutiny. Now is a good opportunity for informed commentary and feedback, because the forward steps taken in this report show that incremental change is possible. The only way to provide useful criticism is to examine the report in detail and address specific content”

Azby Brown – SAFECAST – 30 April 2014

  • 1. Guide to the UNSCEAR 2013 Fukushima report (released April 2, 2014) Azby Brown, SAFECAST Revised April 30, 2014 v04 [This revision: Clarifies that “10% per Sv” refers to fatal solid cancer risk, not to cancer incidence in general.] [Previous revision: Includes feedback from an UNSCEAR contact who was able to closely observe the drafting of the report, but who asked to remain anonymous. Their comments mainly concern clarification of the report’s stance on LNT, DDREF, and collective dose; the approach taken towards release estimates; and UNSCEAR’s intended role.] This is a work in progress. Comments and corrections welcome. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The full title of the report is: SOURCES, EFFECTS AND RISKS OF IONIZING RADIATION UNSCEAR 2013 Report It includes: VOLUME I: Report of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation to the General Assembly Scientific Annex with appendices Released earlier: VOLUME II: Scientific findings on effects of radiation exposure of children Annex B . Effects of radiation exposure of children Available at: ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  • BRIEF SUMMARY: The report’s findings are summarized in greater length below (along with many caveats, exceptions, and explanations). But very briefly, some of the key points of the report include: –AGE GROUPS: The report provides separate dose and health risk estimates for three age groups: 1yr old, 10 yr old, and 20 yr old. This summary will look mainly at doses for 1 yr olds, because they received the highest doses. –GEOGRAPHIC DIVISIONS: Geographically, it is split into four areas: Group 1: Parts of Fukushima Pref. that were evacuated Group 2: Parts of Fukushima Pref. that were not evacuated Group 3: Nearby prefectures (Iwate, Miyagi, Tochigi, Gunma, ibaraki, Chiba) Group 4: The rest of Japan. –METHODS: Because not enough actual dose measurements (in-vivo data) were available for the early weeks of the disaster, the dose estimates are primarily based on models derived from ground deposition data. Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion Modeling (ATDM) was used to derive concentrations in air when necessary, such as when estimating inhalation doses. The range of doses for each settlement or district was estimated and cross-checked against other available data. The dose ranges presented in most graphs and tables are based on the averages of all the settlement or district doses in a particular geographic zone (such as Group 2: Parts of Fukushima Pref. that were not evacuated), not necessarily the highest and lowest doses estimated for that zone. The range of uncertainty is usually such that actual doses could be as little as 30% of the estimated average, or as much as 3 times more. This is confusing, but as described below, the uncertainties needed to be acknowledged, though the available data often did not allow them to be determined more precisely. — FIRST-YEAR DOSES, UNEVACUATED AREAS: The highest average first-year doses (in addition to background exposures) were received by: –Effective dose (full body): 1 yr olds in Group 2 (non-evacuated areas of Fukushima pref) : 2.0- 7.5mSv –Absorbed dose to thyroid: 1 yr olds in Group 2: 33-52 mSv –EVACUATION ZONE: The WHO Fukushima reports did not include dose estimates for residents of the original 20km evacuation zone. This report does. These were estimated as the sum of doses received before and during evacuation, and doses received during the remainder of the year at the location to which they were evacuated. Highest average first-year dose ranges for people from evacuated areas (1-year olds): “Precautionary” evacuation areas, i.e early evacuations (Futaba, Okuma, Tomioka, Naraha and Hirono etc) –Effective dose: 1 yr old,: 1.6 – 9.3mSv –Absorbed dose to thyroid: 1 yr old: 15-82 mSv Later “deliberate” evacuation areas (Iitate, Namie, Kawamata, etc) –Effective dose: 1 yr old,: 7.1 – 13 mSv –Absorbed dose to thyroid: 1 yr old: 47-83 mSv] –ACCUMULATED DOSES: Dose estimates are provided for the first year, accumulated after 10 years, and accumulated after 80 years. Group 2, 1yr old effective dose: 1 year exposure; 2.0-7.5 mSv 10 year exposure: 2.1 -14 mSv
  • 2. lifetime (80 years): 2.1-18 mSv –COLLECTIVE DOSES: There was reportedly much debate about whether or not to include these, but collective effective doses and collective absorbed doses to the thyroid for the Japanese public are described. Collective effective dose (in man-sieverts): 1st yr: 18,000 after 10 yrs: 36,000 after 80 years: 48,000 The report does not take the additional step of calculating the illness and mortality implications of this (and gives reasons why this was not done), but based on LNT it can be calculated that about 5000 persons in Japan will die of cancer from this radiation exposure over the course of 80 years. –AVERTED DOSES: Despite the problems with the evacuation, they estimate that thyroid doses of infants would have been about 10 times higher without it, i.e. up to 750 mGy instead of about 80 mSv. They also estimate that residents of a number of towns would have received lower doses if they had not evacuated. –DOSES TO WORKERS: These are dealt with extensively, and the data provided by TEPCO is scrutinized and in some cases its validity could not be confirmed. –UNCERTAINTIES: The estimation models introduce various uncertainties. The doses are generally given as averages for districts or settlements. Doses to individuals in each settlement might be 30-50% lower than the settlement average, or up to 2 or 3 times higher. If doses could be based on in-vivo data, the uncertainty range would be much smaller. [According to the UNSCEAR contact, the available data did not generally allow an actual uncertainty analysis, so statements about uncertainty are the result of sensitivity analyses instead. This is a bit confusing but the important thing to keep in mind is that statistical uncertainty bounds are generally not provided, while rough estimates of possible variation are. The uncertainties will be revisited in the future.] –COMPARISONS TO OTHER DATA: The dose estimates coincide fairly well with those provided by WHO, but are about a factor of two or more higher than what has been shown by personal dosimetry and WBC monitoring. Nevertheless all of these generally agree within an order of magnitude. –DOES IT UNDERESTIMATE DOSES?: Taken as a whole, the report’s dose estimates for the public can be said to err on the side of overestimation, and no data has emerged yet that suggests gross underestimation of the doses themselves. The range of variability has been clearly noted, along with other uncertainties. They state that, “in some cases sizeable population groups may have been exposed to doses at the higher end of this distribution.” The report might be criticized for not illustrating the range of uncertainty more informatively in the dose graphs and tables themselves. –HEALTH IMPLICATIONS: The report states, “No discernible increased incidence of radiation-related health effects are expected among exposed members of the public or their descendants.” This is not a claim that no disease will occur. They explain clearly and precisely that health risks might exist, but: –Any increase will be within the bounds of normal variation of the disease without radiation. –Risks can be inferred theoretically but not directly detected with current science or statistically. –Compared to normal occurrence of the disease, the risk is relatively small. –The group of people affected is too small to make a meaningful statistical analysis. –They’re not saying they don’t care about the people who are affected, however few they might be. Nevertheless this language is easy to misinterpret, oversimplify, or just misquote. Disease estimates in the report are based on current radiation risk standards, which seem to have been carefully applied, with a higher risk per dose being assumed in general than in the past. Contrary to some claims, doses themselves do not seem to be underestimated, and arguments that health effects are systematically discounted in the report will need to be based on criticism of the underlying standards themselves, particularly concerning very low doses. Some reliable research already points at the potential need for revising the standards, and UNSCEAR itself has a number of things on its agenda to discuss in this regard (including low-dose issues in general, DDREF, age and sex functions, and thyroid), but this process has never moved quickly, and we should expect it to take years. [An earlier version of this summary listed ICRP and BEIR VII as the standards being applied in this report, but an UNSCEAR contact explained that while UNSCEAR has its own risk models, particularly what’s known as UNSCEAR 2006, these are due for revision, and so this report basically adopts the models used by WHO in its earlier Fukushima risk assessments.] –THYROID CANCER: In particular, the report notes, “An increased risk of thyroid cancer in particular can be inferred for infants and children. The number of infants that may have received thyroid doses of 100 mGy is not known with confidence…” but is estimated to be fewer than a thousand. The thyroid dose estimates in the report are up to five times higher than what the limited in-vivo screening data suggest. The report uses thyroid screening data that was available by the end of July 2013, and discusses at length the anomalies and thyroid cancers that have been discovered, and the implications. –ASSUMPTIONS IN THE REPORT INTENDED TO HELP AVOID UNDERESTIMATION AND WHICH MIGHT LEAD TO HIGHER DOSE AND/OR RISK ESTIMATES: –The report uses LNT to infer that risks from doses under 100 mSv exist. [The UNSCEAR contact explained that the report does not in fact “clearly endorse” the use of LNT, as I had originally written, because opinion on this was not unanimous. Nevertheless, the dose and health effects calculations assume risk at low doses as predicted by LNT. This is a compromise that the committee could agree on.] –The report abandons the assumption that doses received over time are less damaging than those received all at once, and so uses a DDREF of 1.0. [Similarly, according to the UNSCEAR contact, while some committee members wanted to officially change DDREF to 1.0, the purpose of the report was to describe the consequences of the Fukushima accident, not to review risk models per se; the WHO had used DDREF = 1.0 in its calculations, so it was adopted here as well.] — The added lifetime fatal cancer risk per Sv of exposure has commonly been assumed to be 5%, but in this report, UNSCEAR effectively doubles the assumed risk to 10% per Sv. –Lifetime doses are based on a period of 80 years, instead of 70, because of longer Japanese lifespans. This leads to higher doses because people are assumed to be exposed 10 years longer. –UNSCEAR could not determine exactly who among the public received potassium iodide (KI) and when, so in their calculations they assumed that no-one did. Also, they did not assume any benefit in reducing thyroid doses from the high iodine content of the Japanese diet. –The report assumes that no-one had or will have better shelter than that provided by wooden buildings, i.e., it uses the lowest sheltering factor. –Accumulated dose estimates over time assume that no remediation would be done and so no reduction of doses will be achieved by it.
  • 3. –They assumed that 100% of the food eaten by Fukushima residents was produced locally, and that all of it contained at least 10Bq/kg of Cs but not more than 100 Bq/kg; the overall contamination levels were based on official food testing databases for marketed food. They note that measurements of food actually consumed by families indicate much lower levels of internal contamination from food than this modeling suggests. –ASSUMPTIONS IN THE REPORT THAT MIGHT LEAD TO UNDERESTIMATES OF DOSE AND/OR RISK: — Assumes that doses from inhaling resuspended particles, etc. are insignificant: This may in fact be true, but it would be better to include these, along with a discussion of the kinds of situations that could make these exposures more significant. — Assumes that direct doses from seafloor sand and sediment are insignificant: They did not include possible exposures from offshore sediment or sand, reasoning that these would only be relevant outside the 20km evacuation zone, where they would contribute only small exposures, whereas within 20km access is restricted. Access has been relaxed in many areas closer to the NPP, however, so more care should probably have been taken to determine potential exposures, particularly in coming years. –UNSCEAR estimates ocean releases of 3-6 PBq direct, and 5-8 PBq from the atmosphere to the ocean. While there’s a wide range of ocean deposition estimates, and a fair amount of relevant data was released after this report’s Sept. 2012 cutoff date, Aoyama gives 15PBq as his estimate of deposition from the atmosphere to the ocean, and Buesseler has said that the estimates for direct releases to the ocean are converging at 15-30 PBq. UNSCEAR’s estimates for this are on the low end. [The UNSCEAR contact explained that actual release quantities were used as intermediate values, to help determine the relative ratios of nuclides that were released; assessments of nuclide levels in the environment were based on actual deposition measurements wherever possible.] –Assumes that food screening will continue in an effective manner in coming decades; in reality the continuing political will to do so cannot be guaranteed, and doses from contaminated food could increase in the future. It would have been instructive to include what the food intake doses would be if testing and intervention were stopped. –PSYCHO-SOCIAL EFFECTS NOT COVERED IN DETAIL: The report notes the importance of mental health issues and a notable increase in these problems in Fukushima and elsewhere, and explains that they examined these, but only briefly, noting that, “Evaluating such effects is not part of the Committeeʼs mandate.” [This is clearly within WHO’s mandate, though, according to the UNSCEAR contact]. –NON-HUMAN BIOTA: The report discusses findings from a number of studies of effects on terrestrial and ocean organisms, and concludes that effects on non-human biota in the marine environment would be confined to areas close to where highly radioactive water was released into the ocean, and any radiation effects for terrestrial organisms would be constrained to a limited area where the deposition density of radioactive material was greatest. The available data would seem to be inadequate to make firm estimates, however. [See comments below about how this overlaps with the mandate of UNEP] –SOURCES OF INFORMATION: Primary sources are predominately Japan gov’t agencies, other member states (like US DOE), TEPCO, and international intergovernmental organizations (WHO, CBTO, IAEA, FAO, WMO). Secondary sources used for independent confirmation of official data include several NGO’s, including CRIIRAD, ACRO, Greenpeace, Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), and SAFECAST. In addition, the committee made use of hundreds of peer-reviewed studies, most of which can be considered independent. –end of brief summary– ========================================================================================== ========================================================================================== LONG SUMMARY: GENERAL COMMENTS: This report is long-delayed, and is apparently the first time a major accident report took UNSCEAR more than three years to produce [The UNSCEAR contact commented that they have only produced one major accident report besides this, for Chernobyl, and that took two and a half years]. The reasons for this include, apparently, long delays in obtaining information from Japanese sources, difficulty reaching consensus on several points, and the desire to integrate information which became available after the initial Sept., 2012 cutoff date. The Japanese govt proposed that the report be undertaken, and it was approved as a “future program of work” in May, 2011. A nearly-complete draft was produced in May 2013, and then entered a long approval, amendment, and publication process. The findings were presented to the UN General Assembly in Oct, 2013, and it was approved in Dec. 2013, and released on April 2, 2014. The authors express frustration with the amount of time required to move a report like this through the system on p.12, saying: “Nevertheless the Committee suggested that the General Assembly might request the United Nations Secretariat to continue to streamline the procedures, recognizing that, while maintaining quality, the timeliness of their publication is paramount to fulfil the expected accomplishments approved in the programme budget, and expecting that the report ought to be published within the same year in which it is approved.” [The UNSCEAR contact stressed that these sorts of administrative delays are a problem with any report it issues, not just the Fukushima report.] Those who have been following know that the draft report was the object of contention and protest, and the final report has been as well. Some of the criticism is valid, while some seems based on misunderstanding or misrepresentation of what’s actually in the report. In Oct 2013, Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR), as well as other groups including the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), released a list of 10 criticisms, based on the May 2013 draft, which had been leaked: Ausfuehrlicher_Kommentar_zum_UNSCEAR_Fukushima_Bericht_2013__Englisch_.pdf It’s worth keeping the points they made in mind while reading the final report. Most of their criticisms seem to have been addressed to some degree, though in fact many already had been in the draft. We heard unconfirmed reports that committee members had been discussing most of the issues raised and gathering support for the inclusion of DDREF=1 and collective dose which were meeting resistance, and that the protest and widespread circulation of the leaked draft in fact were making it more difficult for people pushing for changes within the agency to do so effectively. IPPNW has issued a new press release, in German only so far, restating several of the criticisms, and they may well produce a longer critique of the final report: Original:
  • 4. Machine translation: It may be worthwhile at some point to compare these criticisms with what’s actually in the report. The process of producing a report like this is unwieldy, overly politicized, and open to incremental change only. It’s like steering an oil tanker with dozens of captains. Seen as a whole, it’s easy to call the entire international nuclear regulatory apparatus dysfunctional, particularly in times of emergency when information needs to be gathered and decisions made quickly. This report involved a committee of over 80 people from 18 countries, and the Japanese contingent played an important role. We have heard rumors that Japanese committee members strongly resisted some of the changes, particularly using DDREF =1 (which means that doses received over a long period of time are assumed to have the same effect as those received all at once; until now it had been assumed that they were about half as damaging). [The UNSCEAR contact commented that UNSCEAR itself is intended to be a scientific body, not a regulatory agency, is not involved in policy decisions like the IAEA, and is not directly involved in either emergency response or radioprotection. In addition, he pointed out that the committee that was convened for this report was much larger than any UNSCEAR has assembled previously; they have usually worked with a small group of experts. The size of the committee presented organizational challenges, but the overall depth of expertise it made available and the wide range of opinions represented resulted, he felt, in a stronger committee. Some areas where differences of opinion existed include LNT, DDREF, and collective dose, and the language with which these are dealt with in the report often reflects compromise. Nevertheless, ultimately everyone on the committee approved the final version that was released.] Despite the problems, my initial take is that this report is better than expected in many important respects, and not as bad as some critics make it out to be. UNSCEAR is not a monolith, and a few prominent nuclear critics who have been lobbying for decades for greater recognition of the harmful effects of low-dose radiation have had very positive things to say about Malcolm Crick, the UNSCEAR Secretary who oversaw the report. In the end, a report like this is a compromise, and the system makes it easier to block things than to get them included. Despite the fact that the language in the report is generally very precise, and the sections that treat the issues in depth describe many assumptions, qualifications, and uncertainties, almost all press reports will be based on the brief summary, and it’s easy to misinterpret, oversimplify, or just misquote this. This means it can and will be used to support various agendas, and also as a straw man for critics. There should be a better way: a process that is quicker, more open, more easily understood by journalists and the public, less focussed on producing a massive “authoritative” document and more on rapidly evaluating, discussing, and making use of a broad spectrum of information as it comes in. ++++++++++++++++++++

Continue reading

May 11, 2014 Posted by | Uncategorized | 2 Comments

GREEN SLIME: The Slippery Side of the Solar Industry

Posted on: May 8th, 2014 by Archivist

Tonight on Political Analysis, BeastBusting Broadcaster Sandy LeonVest is joined by activist, inventor and solar industry insider Chuck McCune for a conversation about energy democracy, solar power and paradigm shifts. They discuss why the solar industry needs to get back to its original, egalitarian vision, extract itself from the old energy paradigm and shift its focus from Wall Street to Main Street.     

There was a time when the movement for clean, safe, renewable energy was part of a larger movement — one that sought to create a “better world” for our children — and for our children’s children. The clean energy movement, which initially seemed to take its inspiration from the peace and civil rights movements of the 1960s and the anti-nuclear movement of the 1970s and 80s, nurtured and promoted a vision that solar power could be a huge part of “saving the world.” After all, it was a movement made up of idealists, “progressives” and visionaries. 
It was a movement which wholeheartedly believed its own PR, embracing the idea that energy produced from the sun was “free” and infinitely abundant — and that the technology itself was inherently “more democratic.” It was not so long ago (only a few decades), that egalitarianism was the driving force of the clean energy movement. There was the sense that solar power — as opposed to power derived from nuclear or fossil-based sources — was intrinsically good, and that the clean energy movement would forever change the way energy was produced distributed and consumed.   
But, what happened to the “Sea of Green” and the idealism that once inspired the movement? And how can the clean energy movement get back to its once noble vision of energy democracy and “free sun power for all” at a time when, according to a growing number of insiders, the solar industry itself feels more like a “shark tank” than a Sea of Green?  

You’ll find out on “GREEN SLIME: The Slippery Side of the Solar Industry” — the seventh in PRN’s MEET THE BEAST series. 

May 11, 2014 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment