UNSCEAR議長への手紙（第２弾）
以下の手紙（第2弾）をUNSCEAR議長あてに送信した。
今年８月と９月にUNSCEARの事務局長に『UNSCER2020/2021報告書に日本側はどう関与したか』について、４回に分け英訳を送っていた。その内容を現議長、前議長（この報告書の責任者）と執筆者の一人（ロシア人）にも送付した。
デタラメ、線量矮小化、改竄等の非科学定な内容のUNSCEAR2020/2021報告書に代わる新たな報告書の作成を強く要請した。
以下の英文は『UNSCEAR２０２０・２０２１報告書に日本側はどう関与したか』の第６章と第７章を英訳したもので、以下で公開しています。
鈴木元氏や明石慎言氏の強い関与が記載されています。
前半： https://nimosaku.blog.ss-blog.jp/2023-02-12
後半： https://nimosaku.blog.ss-blog.jp/2023-02-13
第１弾の手紙は以下をご覧ください。
https://nimosaku.blog.ss-blog.jp/2023-12-09
ーーー以下転載ーーー
Dear Dr Jing Chen Chair of the UNSCEAR Committee
Cc Ms. Borislava Batandjieva-Metcalf,
Following yesterday, I am sending you the No. 2 of” How were Japanese researchers involved in the process of developing the UNSCEAR 2020/2021 report?”
A booklet in Japanese has also been published and is available for sale regarding this content.
It is also published in the following blog, "How the Japanese side was involved in the UNSCEAR 2020/2021 report.”
It exposes how the UNSCEAR 2020/2021 report was distorted by Japanese officials and authors.
First half : https://nimosaku.blog.ss-blog.jp/2023-02-12
Second half: https://nimosaku.blog.ss-blog.jp/2023-02-13
I would be appreciated if you point out any problems or errors in the content of this article.
------RESEND---
Dear Ms. Borislava Batandjieva-Metcalf,
Today, we are sending you English translations of sections 6 and 7 of the booklet, which have already been published, in addition to those we sent you yesterday. These sections are about the issues and challenges of the public meeting held last year and the articles in the Japanese media that reported on the meeting. We hope that you will read it with sincerity and give us your opinions and counter opinions.
As I mentioned in yesterday's e-mail, it is possible for us to send you this booklet, and we hope that you will take it and read it. And we 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 we hope that UNSCEAR will make a courageous decision.
How did Japanese researchers influence the preparation of the UNSCEAR 2020/2021 report?（No. 2）
6. Issues discussed at Public Meetings in Japan
6-1. Tokyo Institute of Technology (held on July 19, 2022)
The author remotely participated in a public meeting held at Tokyo Institute of Technology for radiation experts and posed the following question.
"Are you ignoring the internal exposure of residents to contaminated vegetables and milk that were home-grown and marketed until March 26, before shipment restrictions were imposed at the time of the nuclear accident?"
In response to the question, Dr. Balnov, one of the authors of UNSCEAR, responded, "The impact is low". His answer was one-sided, without any scientific basis. Residents of Fukushima prefecture are aware of the extent to which they have consumed open-air vegetables and raw milk at that time.
6-2. Iwaki City (held on July 21, 2022)
The event was open to the public but required reservations due to limited space considering the infection control. However, participants were only invited five days prior to the date of the event. The management of this event may have been extremely difficult under the drastically changing situation of Covid-19 epidemic no one could have predicted it, but from a citizen's point of view, the operation was very closed and information disclosure was inadequate.
UNSCEAR should have followed a textbook approach in its response, with the assistance of communication experts. The date of the event and the information that it would be held in Iwaki City were known by an e-mail from the Executive Director of UNSCEAR in February as I was getting this by emailing her personally. The information obtained in this communication was the only source of information for citizens interested in this issue in Japan, regardless of their position. They are engaged in heated debates day and night on the Internet, but the information kindly provided by UNSCEAR to the citizen activist was guided by a combined effort between different positions.
However, even as the date of the event approached, details of the event were not announced, and emails to UNSCEAR went unanswered without any reasons and no announcements at their web page due to the difficult Covid-19. After confirming with Iwaki City elected prefectural assembly members, Iwaki City assembly members, and Iwaki City Hall, I finally learned the location of the event just five days before it was to be held.
The author submitted questions in advance, but due to the many questions and doubts raised by citizens and experts, time ran out and the author was not able to ask any questions. Promises to update the Q&A page have been reneged on, and questions from citizens remain ignored. Questions from participants are being posted and shared verbatim on the Japanese municipalities' event pages.
The following is a summary of the meeting.
(1)UNSCEAR wasted more than an hour beyond the scheduled two hours, a very valuable time to interact directly with the residents by explaining what the participants had already well-prepared for this workshop and understood. The progression of the meeting was completely different from the previous dialogue meetings with citizens in Fukushima Prefecture that utilized a communicator.
(2)Many simple editorial mistakes were pointed out and questions were raised by scientists and citizens, but no satisfactory answers were obtained. It is questionable whether the reviewers read the manuscript seriously. Why not make it an open-peer review?
(3)Dr. Balnov revealed that he had adopted Dr. Suzuki's recommendation that the ratio of radioactive iodine uptake in the thyroid gland of the Japanese be reduced by one-half. It is based on outdated data on the eating habits of the most of young Japanese. Within Fukushima prefecture they are not in the habit of drinking miso soup especially at that season. Even though, there is scientific evidence that many children had adequate iodine intake before the accident in Fukushima, but not all did.
(4)Many questions and doubts erupted, and the discussion was not sufficient, so the group requested an extension of time and an afternoon discussion, but it was terminated due to the next schedule14 . No follow-up proposal was ever made. The situation was quite different from the previous UNSCEAR briefings in Fukushima, which were functionally held with the assistance of a communicator who used to work in Fukushima Prefecture.
７． Criticism of UNSCEAR by the Media
Following the public meeting held in Iwaki City on July 21 and the press conference of the "UNSCEAR 2020/21 Report Verification Network" at the Fukushima Prefectural Government Press Conference Hall15 , several media such as NHK, Tokyo Shimbun (newspaper), Asahi Shimbun, Sankei Shimbun, Fukushima Minpo, and the local monthly magazine Political economy North-east, began to report criticism. They were influential in shaping public opinion that the UNSCEAR report should be re-examined.
1) NHK16
“A group of researchers in Japan has announced the results of the verification of the report. In the part of the report that estimates the amount of iodine-131, a radioactive substance that causes thyroid exposure, present in the atmosphere immediately after the nuclear power plant accident, the researchers pointed out that UNSCEAR incorrectly quoted data from the original paper and underestimated the amount of radiation exposure.” “The group is demanding a retraction of its conclusions.”
NHK's critical report was a landmark report with great impact for citizens in Fukushima Prefecture, who had previously accepted the UNSCEAR report as correct.
(UNSCEAR's claims were also reported at the same time)
2) Tokyo Shimbun17 .
“There are several incorrect graphs and data. It underestimates exposure doses due to errors in citing papers. It is far from a scientific report." Criticisms by a group of researchers were reported along with UNSCEAR's claims.
3) Sankei Shimbun18 .
The Sankei Shimbun published a series of seven articles such as "Rumors Surpass Science”. The first article featured a public meeting in Iwaki City.
In the article, the author discussed the opinions of citizens and scholars who participated in the meeting, including: "Since UNSCEAR received 70 million yen in funding from Japan for the preparation of its 2020/2021 report, there are smoldering opinions that UNSCEAR is trying to make the effects of radiation exposure appear small," " Does UNSCEAR mean independence, independent from the victims and taking the side of the government without taking the victims into consideration?”
The UNSCEAR did not give the public a chance to discuss it," "An urgent statement calling for the withdrawal of the conclusions of the 2020/2021 report and a collection of questions to pursue Dr. Gillian Hirth and others are also shown," "The deposition rate is wrong by three digits," "Then UNSCEAR is underestimating the estimated exposure dose in the 2020/2021 report," " The audience voiced their opposition”. These articles were listed together with Dr. Gen Suzuki's comments. The author does not understand the meaning of this comment. The author, as a concerned citizen, simply asks for an explanation.
(4) Asahi Shimbun19 .
The article, "The Divided Views on Radiation Exposure Effects," reported both sides of the argument on October 6, 2011. The article included criticism of UNSCEAR by domestic researchers as follows.
①Professor Emeritus Tadashi Hongyo, Osaka University
He criticizes UNSCEAR for "grossly underestimating various factors related to radiation exposure by adopting values that are at or below the minimum of the range of possible estimates.“
The supporting data for the "kelp effect" that led to the reduction of radiation doses is "completely unreliable" because only 15 people were studied 55 years ago.
The most recent iodine intake of the Japanese population is not high compared to the world standard, and the assessment is not based on facts.
Even though some contaminated vegetables and other products were on the market immediately after the accident, he notes, this was not taken into account, which "also runs counter to the precautionary principle of adopting a maximum value for something uncertain."
②Professor Toshihide Tsuda of Okayama University
He said that " The hypothesis that it derives from overdiagnosis, which is believed to be the cause of the high incidence of cancer, has not been scientifically verified”.
③Dr. Yasuyuki Taneichi
To prevent overdiagnosis, the screening criteria for the size of masses that should be examined secondarily are based on strict criteria and are highly quality-controlled. As a result, it can be objectively proven that nodules smaller than 5 mm are not subject to close examination, and that this does not constitute overdiagnosis in detecting small, non-life-threatening cancers. The highly sensitive equipment allows detailed identification of cancerous growths, and the number of cases leading to surgery has been decreasing. High-sensitivity instruments prevent overdiagnosis, and the report says the opposite.
This important issue was also raised by the chairperson at the 15th meeting of the Thyroid Ultrasound Examination Evaluation Subcommittee, which was established under the Prefectural Oversight Committee Meeting for Fukushima Health Management Survey (held on June 15, 2020). These issues can be analyzed scientifically and objectively through the contributions of young researchers using image analysis based on AI technology, which has been advancing more recently.
---------------------------------------------------------
14Minamisoma City and Naraha Machi as they need to go to UNSCEAR to thank them for providing personal external radiation monitoring data of their residents.
16https://www3.nhk.or.jp/lnews/fukushima/20220720/6050019402.html
17https://www.tokyo-np.co.jp/article/191115
18https://www.sankei.com/article/20220912-6MX2OTC3TZIOVHAHXDG4OBDWLU/
19https://digital.asahi.com/articles/ASQB57VYKQ9GUGTB005.html
------------------------------------------------------------
I would appreciate your comments soon.
Best regards,
コメント 0