nuclear-news

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

How Toyota and Ogilvy and Mather help to cover up health effects caused by radiation in Fukushima

“…..so that is why the Audubon article made a comment from 3 anonymous sources and did not point out that Christelle Adam-Guillermin et al are actually in a competitive adversarial position to Moller et al. ….”
nukebird

 

Posted to nuclear-news.net

posted on 27th June 2014

posted by Shaun Mc Gee

aka arclight

 

 

A new article that discusses Mollers et al findings on the effects of radioactive contamination on bird wildlife in the Fukushima area was recently posted on line.
Within the article 2 scientists were commented as saying that these findings were important and that the study was efficient.

http://mag.audubon.org/articles/birds/chernobyl-s-radiation-seems-be-robbing-birds-their-sperm
However, one scientist was quoted;

“Christelle Adam-Guillermin points out that the researchers based their statistics on ambient radiation levels in the environment rather than on each bird’s absorbed dose, or the amount of radiation it’s exposed to both internally and externally. “

Christelle Adam-Guillermin  thought that this study was flawed and with a little bit of digging I found that she also was doing a similar bird study in Fukushima in 2013 supported by Japanese scientists and the French IRSN (with whom she works).
The link to that study is here ..

https://wiki.ceh.ac.uk/download/attachments/196083904/Effects%20on%20birds%20and%20frogs.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1369323874000&api=v2

Also in this article 3 scientists (who preferred to remain anonymous), said that Moller had made a mistake and although he did admit this mistake, they thought that he had done it fraudulently an should never be forgiven . Even though this mistake was made many years ago (11 years ago, concerning a 1998 mistake ), these 3 anonymous scientists were still quoted.

This is not the first time that Mousseau, Galvan and Moller have had the results of their work in Fukushima twisted to suit the views of the big energy companies connected to the nuclear industry.
In a recent article by the Sciencedaily.com magazine, findings showing that some birds eventually developed an immunity to the radiation, were twisted to make the reader think that there was very little problems with wildlife in the nuclear contaminated areas of Japan. The true extent of the damage was not discussed though if one looked at the actual report, one would see that many species had died out and the surviving species had suffered catastrophic loss in order to get the result of “radioactive proof birds”. The link to a breakdown of that article is here;

https://nuclear-news.net/2014/04/28/how-to-spin-a-radioative-bird-during-chernobyl-remberance-day-using-google-and-sciencedaily-com/

You might ask why the IRSN,  nuclear lobby an the Audubon organisation might want to challenge Moller et als findings in such a nasty way? In the field of epidemiology there has been little study on the effects of radiation on humans. However, funding for some butterfly and bird species has been made available (though limited). The small amount of funding ( in the case of Moller et al) was made up by the fact that the team including Galvan worked very hard at gleaning as much evidence in their short time in Japan whilst the IRSN team seemed to have a good party (It does look like they may have some work also ). The evidence to the IRSN having a party can be found here (along with their inconclusive findings) ;  Screenshot from 2014-06-27 02:10:15
https://wiki.ceh.ac.uk/download/attachments/196083904/Effects%20on%20birds%20and%20frogs.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1369323874000&api=v2
Obviously, the IRSN and anonymous scientists themselves would not be able to give the impression that they were the only real, informed and superior scientists on bird epidemiology without the connivance of the media outlets and authors that present articles on these topics.
You might ask why such a media outlet as Audubon might want to do this?

“….. What do a car company and a conservation organization have in common? Plenty. Innovation. Leadership. Commitment to community. Dedication to diversity. And a focus on meeting the needs of the present while investing in the future. When Audubon and Toyota joined forces to create Toyota TogetherGreen, we knew we wanted to create a conservation program that modeled those qualities. http://www.togethergreen.org/about ….”

Toyota are hoping to make it big in the “renewable”car field.. they dont want efficient and clean chemical batteries created and maintained by small local industries but want to use old style energy systems that require global sized large energy infrastructure to operate. Of course Toyota have decided to go for the hydrogen fuel cell as batteries may be replace with this chemical battery; https://nuclear-news.net/2013/05/03/an-aluminium-fuel-cell-why-is-uk-government-blocking-it/

Media outlets are reliant on advertising revenue to survive and the big PR companies that supply this essential revenue work directly with the large energy corporations that support the nuclear industry. A recent Manga story that showed possible health effects from radiation in Fukushima prefecture had to be pulled as the publisher was refused advertising spots from a large amount of media organisations.

Added to the fact that fictional Manga articles (based on real people and situations), real discussion on health effects from the nuclear disaster have been banned and health professionals and journalists are under threat from imprisonment if they release any information that shows any health effects.
https://nuclear-news.net/2014/06/25/the-manga-oishinbo-controversy-radiation-and-nose-bleeding-in-the-wake-of-3-11/

So, summarising as to why Moller et als study is being attacked. Because the findings seem to point at a number of health effects (some shocking) in the wildlife in the contaminated areas, it would make sense that other scientists with a financial and academic interest would want to attack any study that might stop the nuclear industry and increase costs in compensation from the nuclear accident.

Their very jobs and funding are at risk. It is the same for the media companies that have to place strategic comments on their articles that detract from the honesty and accuracy of such findings. The media companies would also face litigation from corporate legal teams representing nuclear connected industry interests as well as losing advertising spaces and reduced business from their corporate customers, so that is why the Audubon article made a comment from 3 anonymous sources and did not point out that Christelle Adam-Guillermin et al are actually in a competitive adversarial position to Moller et al.

Here is some info on the PR campaign connections with WPP and Ogilvy and Mather (who covered up the Fukushima daichi nuclear disaster effects for the Japanese government) ;

“….Toyota is the most valuable car brand in the world. This is according to the annual BrandZ Top 100 study conducted by marketing research firm Millward Brown Optimor.

The BrandZ Top 100 Most Valuable Global Brands ranking assesses brand value with the help of financial data and feedback from potential and current buyers. ……… It was started by Millward Brown Optimor, which is a unit of Kantar. Kantar is the data investment management arm of advertising firm WPP.

The Toyota brand took the top spot in the 2014 study with value of $29.6 billion, a 21 percent jump over last year’s figure. In the nine years the study has been conducted, it has been named the number one global automotive brand seven times. Toyota is in the 26th spot in the list of the top global 100 brands.  22 may 2014  ….”

Toyota have recently decided to use the hydrogen fuel cell in their cars and are soon bringing working vehicles on line. They hope to use nuclear reactors to create the hydrogen needed for the fuel…

Nuclear power is relevant to road transport and motor vehicles in three respects: (1) hybrid vehicles potentially use off-peak power from the grid for recharging; (2) Nuclear heat can be used for production of liquid hydrocarbon fuels from coal; and (3) hydrogen for oil refining and for fuel cell vehicles may be made electrolytically, and, in the future, thermochemically using high-temperature nuclear reactors.  December 2009

 

 

 

June 27, 2014 Posted by | Uncategorized | 2 Comments