nuclear-news

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

CRlTlCAL ANALYSIS OF THE UNSCEAR FUKUSHIMA HEALTH REPORT – Conclusion

 

“… The people of Fukushima are not being helped by false claims and premature reassurances that no health effects are to be expected. They need proper information, health monitoring, support and most of all, they need acknowledgment of their right to a standard of living adequate…”

“….radioactive contamination knows no boundaries, and fallout has not been confined to Fukushima Prefecture alone. Parts of Tochigi, Miyagi, Ibaraki, Gunma, Saitama and Chiba have also been contaminated. At present, government programs responding to the nuclear disaster are largely limited to Fukushima Prefecture. A national approach based on contamination levels, not prefectural boundaries is needed…”

“….Currently, the absence of both effective cancer registries in most prefectures in Japan and comprehensive registers of exposed persons with close estimates that can be used to assess long term health outcomes means that potential impacts will go undetected….”

“….Through the combination of a man-made nuclear disaster, corrupt operators, regulatory institutions and politicians, inadequate emergency measures, and finally through the systematic underestimation of radiation closes and expected health effects, the people of Fukushima are being deprived of their right to a standard of living adequate for their health and wellbeing….”

Comment by Shaun McGee

Contributer to Nuclear-news.net

Posted on 7 June 2014

This report has been put together by health professionals from around the world. This is the summary to that report that challenges the UNSCEAR report that has minimised and confounded debate on the health effects from the Fukushima nuclear disaster and placed the victims at the mercy of corrupt officials and greedy corporations that want to save money without regard to the human and environmental consequences of their actions and inactions. The full report is on this link;

http://www.fukushima-disaster.de/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/english/Akzente_Unscear2014.pdf

Weiss,-Wolfgang-hypocritImage source ; https://nuclear-news.net/2014/04/03/unclear-unscear-report-aims-to-unscare/

 CONCLUSION TO THE CRITIQUE OF THE UNSCEAR REPORT

The Fukushima nuclear disaster is far from over. Despite the declaration of “cold shutdown” by the Japanese government in December of 2011, the crippled reactors have not yet achieved a stable status and even UNSCEAR admits that emissions of radioisotopes are continuing unabated. TEPCO is struggling with an enormous amount of contaminated water, which continues to leak into the surrounding soil and sea. Large quantities of contaminated cooling water are accumulating at the site. Failures in the makeshift cooling systems are occurring repeatedly.

The discharge of radioactive waste will most likely confinue for a long time.

Both the damaged nuclear reactors and the spent fuel ponds contain vast amounts of radioactivity and are highly vulnerable to further earthquakes, tsunamis, typhoons and human error. Catastrophic releases of radioactivity could occur at any time and eliminating this risk will take many decades. Moreover, many of Japan’s other nuclear power stations are just as sensitive to seismic catastrophes as the Fukushima Daiichi plant.

Attempts to make reliable forecasts for the next decade seem futile against the backdrop of so much uncertainty.

While much ofthe UNSCEAR report represents useful and important groundwork for future assessments, it does not in any wayjustify the type of ‘all-clear’ that UNSCEAR is proposing.

It is impossible at this point to come up with an exact prognosis of the effects that the Fukushima nuclear disaster will have on the population in Japan. However, based on the arguments presented in this paper, it has to be stated that the UNSCEAR report represents a systematic underestimation and conjures up an illusion of scientific certainty that obscures the true impact ofthe nuclear catastrophe on health and the environment.

In its report, UNSCEAR calculates the collective effective doses and absorbed thyroid doses for the Japanese population. However, the admitted uncertainties regarding exposure closes, questionable data selection, faulty assumptions and the fact that ongoing radioactive emissions were not considered undermine the validity of these calculations. The resulting close estimates are most likely underestimated and do not reflect the true extent of radiation received by the affected population.

By utilizing more neutral sets of data, acknowledging inherent uncertainties in close estimates, citing the full range of possible exposure rates rather than the best-case scenarios, and by incorporating the latest information about ongoing radioactive emissions, UNSCEAR could have presented a more realistic picture of what effects people can expect from the radioactive fallout in the coming decades, including thyroid cancer, leukemia, solid tumors, non—cancer diseases and genetic defects, all of which have been found in the population affected by the Chernobyl nuclear catastrophe.

Even with more realistic data, however, the number of cancer cases induced by Fukushima radioactive fallout may still be considered insignificant to the members of UNSCEAR, especially given the relatively high baseline in cidence of cancer in Japan. From a physician’s perspective however, every preventable case of cancer is one too many and the tragic consequences that cancer has on a person’s physical and mental health, as well as the situation of the entire family have to be considered.

To reduce the horrible effects of the Fukushima nuclear disaster on tens of thousands of families to a statistical problem and to dismiss these individual stories of suffering by stating that “radiation exposure following the nuclear accident at Fukushima—Daiichi […] is unlikely to be able to attribute any health effects in the future among the general public and the vast majority of workers” is inappropriate for a committee of the United Nations, an organization that prides itself on the Declaration of Universal Human Rights.

Through the combination of a man-made nuclear disaster, corrupt operators, regulatory institutions and politicians, inadequate emergency measures, and finally through the systematic underestimation of radiation closes and expected health effects, the people of Fukushima are being deprived of their right to a standard of living adequate for their health and wellbeing.

As physicians, primarily concerned with the health o f th e people affected by the nuclear disaster, we urge the United Nations General Assembly and the government of Japan to realize that the affected population needs protection from further radiation exposure. In our opinion,

the following issues need to be addressed:

» All available expertise should be used for the tremendous tasks of minimizing ongoing radioactive emissions from the damaged reactors and spent fuel pools and preventing larger emissions in the future.

» According to UNSCEAR, more than 24,000 workers have worked on the premises of the crippled reactors since the start of the disaster. Tens of thousands more will be required over many decades. In addition to the provision ofadequate radiation protection, monitoring and health care for these workers, a national lifetime radiation exposure register for all workers in the nuclear industry is required in Japan. This must include subcontractors as well as utility employees. Individual workers should have ready access to their results.

» The issue of functioning registries is also important for the civilian population. Currently, the absence of both effective cancer registries in most prefectures in Japan and comprehensive registers of exposed persons with close estimates that can be used to assess long term health outcomes means that potential impacts will go undetected. Such registries should be created so that future health effects of the radioactive contamination can be properly assessed.

» It is unacceptable that people are currently being encouraged to return to some areas where they can be expected to receive up to 20 mSv in additional annual radiation exposure. We see no adequate alternative to minimize such unacceptable exposures other than more relocations than have currently occurred. Logistic and financial support for families living in the radioactively affected municipalities who want to move to less contaminated regions should be offered to reduce the risk of future health effects. Evacuees should not be pressured or bribed into returning to contaminated regions.

Decontamination on the scale that would be required to sufficiently and sustainably reduce radiation exposures has not proven feasible. Also, radioactive contamination knows no boundaries, and fallout has not been confined to Fukushima Prefecture alone. Parts of Tochigi, Miyagi, Ibaraki, Gunma, Saitama and Chiba have also been contaminated. At present, government programs responding to the nuclear disaster are largely limited to Fukushima Prefecture. A national approach based on contamination levels, not prefectural boundaries is needed.

We ask the United Nations General Assembly and the Japanese Government to study the report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, Mr. Anand Grover, and heed his constructive suggestions. The precautionary principle should be employed in radiation protection policies.

The people of Fukushima are not being helped by false claims and premature reassurances that no health effects are to be expected. They need proper information, health monitoring, support and most of all, they need acknowledgment of their right to a standard of living adequate

for their health and well being. This should be the guiding principle in evaluating the health effects of the nuclear catastrophe:

“The number of children and grandchildren with cancer in their bones, with leukemia in their blood, or with poison in their lungs might seem statistically small to some, in comparison with natural health hazards. But this is not a natural health hazard – and it is not a statistical issue.

The loss of even one human life, or the malformation of even one baby – who may be born long after we are gone – should be of concern to us all. Our children and grandchildren are not merely statistics toward which we can be indifferent.” John F. Kennedy, July 26th, 1963

Contributers to critique

by
Physicians for Social Responsibility, USA
International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War / Physicians in social responsibility, Germany
Physicians for Global Survival, Canada
Mexican Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, Mexico
Association of Guatemalan Physicians and Scientists for the Prevention of War, Guatemala
Physicians for Social Responsibility / IPPNW, Switzerland
Danish Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (DLMK), Denmark
Medical Association for the Protection of the Environment and Against Nuclear and Biochemical Threat, Greece
French Physicians Against Nuclear Weapons (AMFPGN), France
Physicians Union Lege Artis, Serbia
Dutch Medical Association for Peace Research (NVMP), The Netherlands
Irish Doctors Environmental Association, Ireland
Association of Physicians and Medical Workers for Social Responsibility / IPPNW, Kenya
Society of Nigerian Doctors for the Welfare of Mankind, Nigeria
Physicians for Social Responsibility, Egypt
Physicians for Peace and Preservation of the Environment, Israel
Indian Doctors for Peace and Development (IDPD), India
Physicians for Peace and Social Responsibility, Malaysia
Austrian Physicians against Violence and Nuclear Dangers (OMEGA), Austria

 

June 7, 2014 - Posted by | Uncategorized

4 Comments »

  1. […] More: CRlTlCAL ANALYSIS OF THE UNSCEAR FUKUSHIMA HEALTH … […]

    Pingback by CRlTlCAL ANALYSIS OF THE UNSCEAR FUKUSHIMA HEALTH ... | welcome to radiologysecrets.comwelcome to radiologysecrets.com | June 7, 2014 | Reply

  2. Reblogged this on Ace News Services 2014 and commented:
    #ANS2014

    Comment by #AceNewsGroup | June 10, 2014 | Reply

  3. […] CRlTlCAL ANALYSIS OF THE UNSCEAR FUKUSHIMA HEALTH REPORT – Conclusion […]

    Pingback by Fukushima nuclear disaster measured | Dear Kitty. Some blog | June 16, 2014 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: