UNSCEAR(国連科学委員会）への手紙（その４）

UNSCEAR（国連科学委員会）の事務局長にUNSCEAR2020/2021報告書の問題を指摘した。（第４弾）

今回は
１．UNSCEARが非科学的で信頼できない５つの理由
２．UNSCEARへの公開質問から見えてきたもの
等について『明らかにする会』発刊の『チェルノブイリ並みの被ばくで多発する福島甲状腺がん』の『UNSCERA２０２０・２０２１報告書に日本側どう関与したか』のセクショ８．９．１０の部分を英訳したもの。

セクション8～１０の日本語の原稿部分は以下をご覧ください。https://nimosaku.blog.ss-blog.jp/2023-02-13


以下本日の最初の部分の英文の日本語訳

本日は、以前お送りしたものに加え、すでに出版されている小冊子の第8節から第10節までの英訳をお送りします。

国際放射線関連学会連合が8月末に開催された。https://na.eventscloud.com/website/49433/program/

S3の放射線防護セッション（注）では、Jing Chen UNSCEAR委員長が、UNSCEARのRespectとして、客観性、独立性、能力、仕事の質について語った。

注：原子放射線の影響に関する国連科学委員会-マンデート、活動、研究ニーズ： ジン・チェン博士

しかし、上記のような状況にもかかわらず、UNSCEARに対する信頼と尊敬は高くなかった。UNSCEARが信頼できる国際機関でない理由は以下の5点である。

前回のメールでも申し上げたように、この小冊子をお送りすることは可能ですので、ぜひ手にとってお読みいただければと思います。そして、最終的には2020/2021年の報告書に代わる新しい報告書を発表していただきたい。そうすれば、UNSCEARの信頼性を回復することができるでしょう。福島の真実の記録を後世に残すことは、私たち大人の責任であり、UNSCEARには勇気ある決断をしてほしいと思います。

この小冊子をお送りします。早急に送付先をご連絡ください。この小冊子は、私以外にも多くの専門家（現役の大学教授や元大学教授など）が執筆したものです。

以下の文章と送られてくる小冊子を真摯にお読みいただき、ご意見や反論をいただければ幸いです。

----------------------------

Dear Ms. Borislava Batandjieva-Metcalf,

Today, I am sending you English translations of sections 8 to10 of the booklet, which have already been published, in addition to those I previously sent you .

The International Union of Radiation-Related Conferences was held at the end of August.

https://na.eventscloud.com/website/49433/program/

In the S 3 Radiation protection session (Note), UNSCEAR Chair Jing Chen spoke about the Respect for UNSCEAR as objectivity, independence, competence, and quality of work. The UNSCEAR Chair, Jing Chen, spoke about the objectivity, independence, competence, and quality of work of UNSCEAR.

Note: United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation - mandate, activities and research needs: Jing Chen, PhD

However, despite the above, the trust and respect for UNSCEAR was not high, for the following five reasons UNSCEAR is not a trustworthy international organization.

As I mentioned in my previous e-mail, it is possible for us to send you this booklet, and I　hope that you will take it and read it. And I also hope that you will eventually publish a new report to replace the 2020/2021 report. This will help to restore the credibility of UNSCEAR. It is our responsibility as adults to preserve the true record of Fukushima for future generations, and I hope that UNSCEAR will make a courageous decision.

I will send you this booklet. Please contact us with the shipping address as soon as possible. This booklet was written by many other experts (current and former university professors, etc.) in addition to myself.

I hope that you will read the following and booklet that would be sent to you with sincerity and give us your opinions and counter opinions.

----------------------------------------------

How did Japanese researchers influence the preparation of the UNSCEAR 2020/2021 report?（No.4）

8. Reasons Why we believe that UNSCEAR is Unscientific

I have already mentioned that there are many questions and problems with the UNSCEAR report, which we believe is unscientific and may have been disciplined by each researcher to a particular political position, even though it was written by the scientific representatives of the member countries. Furthermore, I would like to emphasize why we believe that UNSCEAR is not scientific by presenting other evidence. This belief is based on the fact that so far no answers have been given to our questions by the scientific representatives of the various member states who wrote the UNSCEAR report.

Our questions have not even been posted on the UNSCEAR website. We want our simple questions answered with evidence.

1)There was no third-party check of the UNSCEAR report
For the simple mistakes we pointed out to them, they acknowledged the errors, but this fact is not clearly stated on the UNSCEAR website. The fact that there are so many errors indicates insufficient proofreading. The paper provided by the Japanese working group to the authors of the UNSECR report is distorted, but the authors overlooked the distortion without examining it, thus distorting the conclusions regarding the estimation of the maximum dose for the residents of Fukushima prefecture.

2)The UNSCEAR report is inconsistent with the conclusions in the press release.
The agreement between the content and the conclusion is the minimum manner in natural science papers.

3)Refusal to disclose documents between the Japanese National Response Committee and UNSCEAR.
The request for disclosure was rejected on the grounds that it would undermine the relationship of trust with an international organization. This decision is contrary to the principles of open science. Do the researchers sent from the various member states support this decision?

We objected to this decision by the Japanese government. As a result, the Regulatory Agency eventually referred the matter to UNSCEAR. UNSCEAR responded to this inquiry without any explanation as to why disclosure was not desirable. What we want is an explanation. We want you to make a fair appeal to the residents as to why you think it is the right thing to do.   We will take that appeal seriously. The silence of scientists in response to residents' questions is cowardly. We await your rebuttal.

4)A number of papers from Fukushima Medical University were accepted. Despite the fact that many prefectural residents want to know the truth and contribute to science, the data has   not yet been made open data. This makes it impossible for researchers to verify these papers.

The prefectural health survey data had not been made available to researchers other than Fukushima Medical University so that other researchers were unable to reproduce the Fukushima Medical University paper. Papers that cannot be reproduced by other researchers cannot be called scientific papers.

5)They neither correct nor disclose the mistakes pointed out in public questions and public meetings.
Our questions that are inconvenient for scientists who were involved with UNSCEAR are either ignored or not answered.

Again, the Q&A of the public questions have not been made public even though we have requested them to be posted on the website. Even the Japanese government takes this kind of response seriously. Other member states have also followed such procedures in their public hearings.

9.Past Open questions to UNSCESR

To dispel doubts about the Japanese working group, I submitted the following questions to UNSCEAR at the end of September 2021.　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　" The Japan Working Group states that it has not written a report for 2020/2021. However, the Japan Working Group is strongly involved in the detailed analysis. Therefore, it is suspected that convenient papers and data are arbitrarily selected by the Japan Working Group. Researchers dispatched from each member state may have easily relied on them without examining them, leading to biased conclusions regarding the estimation of maximum radiation doses for residents."

“In addition, Dr. Akashi has a personal connection with Dr. Suzuki, as he has co-authored many papers with him. Therefore, it is necessary to verify whether there is any fact that Dr. Suzuki's papers were given preference; what is UNSCEAR's position on this concern?”

UNSCEAR responded to this question three weeks later as follows. This response merely states the mission of the Japanese working group and does not provide a specific answer to the question. However, the Japanese working group should provide technical comments on the draft report, and as a result its involvement would be significant, since the scientists dispatched from each member state cannot be expected to see through its schemes. Dr. Akashi's involvement was evident in his three different positions: the Japanese National Response Committee, the Japanese Working Group within UNSCEAR, and the Coordination Expert Group for final coordination.

10. What emerged from the communication with UNSCEAR over the open letter to UNSCEAR?

The 40 evacuation scenarios adopted by UNSCEAR for the residents of the evacuation zone (estimating the radiation exposure doses of the residents according to the typical evacuation route of each resident) ignore the internal exposure of the residents who delayed or had difficulty evacuating from the area due to inhalation and ingestion of large plumes on March 15 and 16.

There are many questions and doubts, such as the fact that it does not take into account residents who ate highly contaminated open-air vegetables served in soup kitchens at temporary evacuation sites or who ate vegetables that were on the market until March 23, before shipment restrictions were imposed .

Therefore, in late September 2021, we submitted more than 20 "open questions" to UNSCEAR, and received a response three weeks later. However, except for some of the questions, they did not answer the questions item by item and asked us to read the attachments scheduled to be published in December 2021 (actually issued on March-May 2022), so we did not receive a detailed answer.

However, the attachment issued in March-May 2022, more than three months later than scheduled, did not contain answers to the open questions, making it clear that UNSCEAR is an unscientific organization that ignores inconvenient questions for scientists from member states who were involved in this project.

We have repeatedly demanded that the Q&A of the public questions be posted on the website, but it still has not been published. None of the researchers involved in this report have made any sincere attempt to respond, nor have they explained how the error was made. We just want a response.

-----------------------------------------------

I would appreciate your comments soon.

Best regards,