大臣と原子力ムラを斬る
IAEAは正当化の評価をしていない
特に岸田や経産省、規制庁、東電、自民党議員とメディア、更にはIAEAに聞かせてやりたい。ここまで科学的に問題点を深く調査し、理解し、追及している。
東電自ら放射線防護の基本である正当化について評価していない事は、社長や広報担当の発言から明らかとなった。東電は自ら考える事を放棄し、すべて政府に頼っている。
磐梯山と安達太良山
近くのキャンプ場には上記３つの１００名山に登る拠点としてテントを張る人が多い。
いずれの登山者も３つ、または２つの山を登っていく・・
初秋の浄土平
紅葉にはまだ早く、リンドウは既に最盛期は過ぎていた・・・
湿原に生える色とりどりのコケが綺麗だ・・・
冬は２mもの雪にうずもれる・・
初秋の安達が原ふるさと村
海洋放出差し止め訴訟
８月から開始された汚染水（アルプス処理水）海洋放出をめぐって漁業者を含む福島県内外の住民１５１人が９月８日、放出の差し止めを国と東電に求める行政訴訟と民事訴訟を福島地方裁判所に起こした。
汚染水を故意に放出することは原発事故を引き起こした国と東電による「二重の加害」であり、漁業者の漁業行使権や人格権、県民らの「平穏に生活する権利」が侵害される。
汚染者負担原則に違反し、放射性物質の海洋投棄を禁じたロンドン条約の１９９６年議定書などに違反すると指摘。福島県漁連と交わした約束をほごにするなど、手続き上も違法。
訴状には１．請求の趣旨2．請求の原因、３．当事者（原告、被告）４．証拠方法等で構成され、本文で４０ページに及ぶ。（以下の写真参照）
海洋放出の大きな問題は国際法・原子力安全条約第１８条に違反している事を規制庁含め政府全体で隠蔽している事。アメリカは見て見ぬふり。
岸田首相は李強首相と処理水について立ち話。岸田は科学的根拠を主張し、李強は法的根拠の原子力安全条約違反を主張。善悪の判断は法的根拠であるから岸田の負け。この真相をメディアは報道していない。
【中国のTV局取材】
【お願い】市民の力でUNSCEARを動かそう！
【お願い】
先日の原発賠償関西訴訟の尋問に大阪大名誉教授の本行先生が法廷でプレゼンした資料が公開された。UNSCEAR2020/2021報告書の線量評価の矮小化・捏造・改竄を批判。
下記からダウンロードしてご活用ください。https://webdisk.doshisha.ac.jp/public/cdorwOPJXnLFE_upcMivL9hlKm8nFs9ABGOuJwCz7u_s
この事を理解した上で、UNSCEARへ多くの方からメッセージ（要求や問題点について）を送信してください。甲状腺被ばく裁判等での被告（国や東電）はＵＮＳＣＥＡＲ報告書を持ち出してきています。
UNSCEAR２０２０/２０２１報告書を修正させる事が多くの裁判にも有利に働くはずです。
多くの市民の力でUNSCEARを動かしましょう。
更に、UNSCEAR報告書には信頼性が無い事を突きつけましょう！
以下から簡単にメッセージを送信できます。
（メッセージは日本語でもOKでした。名前はローマ字で）
https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/contact/form.html
以下送信した例。（日本語でもOK）
【Disclose questions and answers about the UNSCEAR 2020/2021 report on the web! 】
In order to make UNSCEAR fair, neutral, open, and highly credible, I request that UNSCEAR post its answers to questions and doubts from all over the world on the UNSCEAR website. I have requested this many times, but it has not been done yet.
In particular, please publish on the web the questions and answers about the mistakes in the UNSCEAR 2020/2021 report and the answers to them.
If this is not possible, the credibility of the UNSCEAR 2020/2021 report will be severely damaged.
日本語は以下です。
【UNSCEAR2020/2021報告書に関する質問と回答をWeb上へ開示を！】
公正で中立、開かれた高い信頼性のUNSCEARを実現する為にも、UNSCEARのサイトに世界中からの質問や疑問に対するUNSCEARからの回答を掲載するようお願いします。この事は私からも何度も要求していますが、未だに実現されていません。特にUNSCEAR2020/2021報告書の間違いの指摘と回答についての質問と回答をWebにて公開ください。
もしこの事が不可能ならUNSCEARの２０２０/２０２１報告書の信頼は大きく失う事になります。
――――以下参考――――
小生からは、UNSCEARの事務局長あてに、以下の手紙（メール）を４回に分け送付しました。
内容は『明らかにする会』発刊の小冊子『チェルノブイリ並み被ばくで多発する福島甲状腺がんー線量過少評価で墓穴をほったUNSCEAR報告―』に記載されている記事の”UNSCEAR２０２０/２０２１報告書に日本側はどう関与したか”の一部を英文化したもの。
失われたUNSCEARの信頼確保の為には、新たな報告書を作成すべきと依頼しています。
送付した『UNSCEARへの手紙』の内容は以下をご覧ください。
第１弾：https://nimosaku.blog.ss-blog.jp/2023-09-04-1
第２弾：https://nimosaku.blog.ss-blog.jp/2023-09-05
第３弾：https://nimosaku.blog.ss-blog.jp/2023-09-07
第４弾：https://nimosaku.blog.ss-blog.jp/2023-09-11
未だUNSCEARからの返信はない。
政府が言う「科学的」のまやかし
～佐賀新聞の正論！～
佐賀新聞に「欠如しているもの」とのタイトルで以下の記事が掲載された。この記事は時事通信社の記者が書いたもので、栃木県の下野新聞にも掲載された。
【佐賀新聞・下野新聞】
★欠如しているのは、人々の科学的リテラシーではなく、政府や東電の真摯な対応と信頼なのだと知るべき。「欠如モデル」によるコミュニケーションはうまくいかない事が知られている。（詳細は以下の佐賀新聞の記事をお読みください）
【某専門家のFBより】
★岸田総理大臣は6日、中国の李強首相と立ち話を行い、福島第一原発の処理水について話し合いました。岸田は科学的根拠を主張し、李強は法的根拠である原子力安全条約違反を主張しました。善悪を判断するのは法的根拠であるから岸田の負けで岸田は大恥をかきました。夜７時の記者会見では曇った顔でした。
★岸田は科学的根拠で説明するが、善悪を判断する法的根拠である原子力安全条約についてはどうか。条約は１９９５年に批准したので、ほとんどの人は知らない。条約を知らない岸田は法的根拠を知らない。中国は条約違反を知っているので日本をバカと言っている。
★処理水放出について「国際社会の理解は一層広まった」とする悪の首領岸田は間違ったことを言っている。悪の枢軸のアメリカ等は日本の困窮を見て、しょうがなく条約違反に目をつぶっただけで、日本に対しては条約違反をすることには本音では反対している。米国NRCは２０１１年から条約違反を指摘している。岸田がやっている悪行は世界に広まっている。
★「科学的」に安全だと言って、原発事故を防げなかった政府や東電がいう「科学的」という言葉に二度と騙されてはならない。「科学」は将来にわたって安全を保障するものではないからである。彼らの言う「科学的」には必ず政治的な思惑でのバイアスがかかっている。
★日本政府が言っている事こそ非科学的デマ。実害を風評被害とし加害者を消費者に転嫁。実害だと真実を言う人達を風評加害と言う。事故当時に鼻血を出した人たちを放射能の影響では無いとし、UNSCEAR（国連科学委員会）を使って、甲状腺被ばく線量を約１００分の１に矮小化工作し、甲状腺がんは放射能の影響は考えにくいと北朝鮮並みに捏造。
【NY新聞記事】
★「日本政府と東電は、十分な透明性が欠如し、日本内外の重要なステークホルダー（この場合、漁業関係者のような利害関係者のこと）を十分に関与させることのないプロセスを経て、海洋放出を決定した。このことは、何十年にもわたって続く可能性がある不信と対立の種を植えつけている」
日本科学者会議の「海洋放出中止」要請の声明
公正・中立の立場のアカデミズムからの発信はメデイアを動かす為には重要で、国民・市民へ浸透させるには、メディア（TVも含め）がどう反応し、どう伝えたかが重要。反応が気になる・・（関西地区の方教えてください）他の支部や学会等でも同様の動きを期待したい。
【日本科学者会議・近畿地区が『汚染水海洋放出の即時中止』を求める声明文を出した。『ＩＡＥＡ報告書は、「海洋放出決定に係るプロセスを推奨・支持するものではない」と、政府の海洋放出を支持したわけではない。海洋放出は、ロンドン条約議定書に違反する。』詳細は以下ご覧ください↓ https://jsa.gr.jp/d/statement/20230913_kinki_statement 】
是非、SNS等での拡散や、知り合いの記者（県庁記者クラブ等にも）やジャーナリスト、弁護士達にも伝えて欲しい。
ＡＬＰＳ(多核種除去設備)処理とは、原発事故でメルトダウンした原子炉下部のデブリ（溶融核燃料）と接触し汚染した冷却水、地下水、雨水などを凝集・沈殿・沪過処理するものであり、浮遊粒子（ＳＳ）に含まれた放射性核種を一定量除去できるが、水として存在しているトリチウムはＡＬＰＳでは処理できない。また、ヨウ素129、ストロンチウム90、セシウム137、プルトニウム239、カドミウム113など62種類に及ぶ放射性核種を100％除去できるものではないため明確に放射性汚染水である。
しかし、政府と東電は、「処理水」が「汚染水」ではないとして、汚染水との表現を避けて処理水と言っているが、「処理汚染水」と言うべきである。 原子力利用を推進するＩＡＥＡ（国際原子力機関）報告書は、「ＡＬＰＳ処理水の海洋放出計画のトリチウム濃度が国際安全基準に合致している」とするが、「海洋放出決定に係るプロセスを推奨・支持するものではない」としており、政府の海洋放出を支持したわけではない。
ＡＬＰＳ処理水には、トリチウム以外の多数の放射性核種が含まれており、希釈しても放射性物質の総量は変わらず、50年以上前の公害多発時代に明確に否定された希釈放出方式が総量規制方式に変えられた教訓を捨て去るものである。また、汚染水の海洋放出は、放射性廃棄物などの海洋投棄を禁止しているロンドン条約の1996年議定書に違反するものである。
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,
UNSCEAR(国連科学委員会）への手紙（その３）
UNSCEARの事務局長あてに、昨日に続き以下の手紙（メール）（その３）を送った。内容は『明らかにする会』発刊の小冊子『チェルノブイリ並み被ばくで多発する福島甲状腺がんー線量過少評価で墓穴をほったUNSCEAR報告』に記載されている記事の”UNSCEAR２０２０/２０２１報告書に日本側はどう関与したか”の一部を英文化したもの。
送った内容の一部の日本語訳は以下をご覧くださ。冊子の内容のセクション５の部分を英訳して送った。既にセクション６．７及び『はじめに』の部分の英訳は送付済。
第１回目と第２回については以下をご覧ください。
第１回目：https://nimosaku.blog.ss-blog.jp/2023-09-04-1
第２回目：https://nimosaku.blog.ss-blog.jp/2023-09-05
セクション５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/2023-02-12
ーーーーーーーー
本日は、以前お送りしたものに加えて、すでに出版されている小冊子のセクション5の英訳をお送りします。
このセクションは、日本のワーキンググループ、特にそのメンバーの一人である明石眞言氏と、多くの偏向論文を発表した鈴木元氏が、UNSCEAR2020/2021報告書の作成に深く関与し、偏向していたことを記述したものである。この事実は、放医研への情報公開請求によって入手したUNSCEAR国内対策委員会議事録、福島原発事故の原因究明を行った国会事故調の報告書、そして彼らの発言や論文によって明らかにされている。
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。
前回のメールでも申し上げたように、この冊子をお送りすることは可能ですので、ぜひお手にとってお読みいただければと思います。そして、いずれは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。
---------------------------------------
Dear Ms. Borislava Batandjieva-Metcalf,
Today, I am sending you English translations of sections 5 of the booklet, which have already been published, in addition to those I previously sent you .
This sections describes how the Japanese working group, especially one of its members, Makoto Akashi, and Gen Suzuki, who published many biased papers, were heavily involved in and biased the preparation of the UNSCEAR 2020/2021 report. This fact is revealed in the minutes of the UNSCEAR domestic response committee members obtained through a Freedom of Information request to NIRS, the report of the National Diet of Japan Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission that investigated the causes of the Fukushima nuclear accident, and their statements and papers.
I hope that you will read it with sincerity and give us your opinions and counter opinions.
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.
----------------------------------------------
How did Japanese researchers influence the preparation of the UNSCEAR 2020/2021 report?（No.3）
５． How did the Japan Working Group influence the preparation of the report?
The Japanese Working Group established within UNSCEAR had five members: Dr. Akashi, Dr. Akahane, and Dr. Aono of the former NIRS, Dr. Chino of JAEA, and Ozasa of RERF. The Japanese working group did not directly write the report but was strongly involved in providing detailed analysis and information. Its mission is to provide scientific papers and data, especially from Japan to the group of experts who wrote the draft, and to make recommendations. Arbitrary selection of papers was possible .
1.5-1. Involvement of Dr. Makoto Akashi
Dr. Akashi served in three important positions within UNSCEAR, including the Coordinating Expert Group (overall supervision), the Japanese Working Group, and a member of the Domestic Response Committee. He was in an easy position to provide the expert group of the authors with the papers that made the exposure doses look small, and to induce them to minimize the exposure doses. (See the previous footnote)
5-2 Involvement of Dr. Gen Suzuki
Dr. Gen Suzuki is a member of the domestic response committee and is currently the chairman of the Thyroid Ultrasound Examination Evaluation Subcommittee, which is established under the Prefectural Oversight Committee Meeting for Fukushima Health Management Survey. Furthermore, UNSCEAR has fully adopted the "40 Evacuation Scenarios" paper written by Dr. Suzuki, which downsized the radiation dose values of the residents in the evacuation area by ignoring the behavioral records of the most exposed prefectural residents.
At a public meeting held in Iwaki City on July 21, 2022, one of the authors, Dr. M. Balnov , revealed that the Japanese had adopted Dr. Suzuki's recommendation to reduce the uptake ratio of the thyroid gland by 1/2. This was an evidence of Suzuki's strong involvement in the project.
The 2013 report evaluated the inhalation exposure in the situation where the residents of Fukushima Prefecture were ordered to evacuate indoors, but all of them ignored the recommendation to evacuate indoors and stayed outdoors in the extremely cold weather. The dose was reassessed by considering a dose reduction factor assuming that all residents were indoors, which would have a 50% effect of evacuating indoors, and the internal dose due to inhalation was reduced to 1/2.
After a workshop held by the NPO Radiation Safety Forum, I posed a question to Dr. N, a speaker from JAEA, about the background and reasons for the halving of the indoor evacuation effect. I subsequently received the following response by e-mail.
“The value of 0.5, which is the inhalation reduction effect of sheltering indoors, was determined by UNSCEAR based on the experimental data of Dr. H (JAEA). To be precise, Dr. Gen Suzuki selected the value used as the median value of 0.1 to 1, the range obtained based on Mr. H's experimental data, and UNSCEAR adopted this value.”
Furthermore, Professor Yamazawa of Nagoya University has shown that if the windows remain closed after the plume has passed after evacuating indoors, the plume remains inside the room and internal exposure continues for a long time, rendering the indoor evacuation completely ineffective. Although the arrival period of the plume was wide, there is no data showing that the concentration remained lower indoors than outdoors throughout this period, and rather, the amount of radioactive materials deposited indoors supports the idea that a significant amount of radioactive materials entered indoors.
The responses also revealed that Dr. Gen Suzuki had a decisive impact on reducing internal radiation doses. Dr. Gen Suzuki knew that organicized radioactive iodine could easily penetrate indoors and had warned about this before the accident.
5-3. Inaction and problematic behavior of Dr. Akashi and Dr. Suzuki at the time of the nuclear accident
The inaction and problematic actions of Dr. Akashi and Dr. Suzuki at the time of the nuclear accident are as follows.
(1)Dr. Makoto Akashi:
He advised the government to stop screening surveys of all but 1,080 people, claiming that the effects of radiation were minimal and that epidemiological studies were unnecessary . The actual extent of radiation exposure was unknown . Furthermore, he asked the government to approve the standard for screening from 1.3 million cpm to 100,000 cpm.（Note１）
(2)Dr. Gen Suzuki
As per prior training, several facsimiles were sent out from NSC advising the patients to take stable iodine pills if they exceeded the screening criteria, as had been decided beforehand. Involvement in the creation of screening standards.
Dr. Akashi and Dr. Suzuki were at NIRS at the same time in the past, and there are many joint research papers. Dr. Suzuki has formally apologized for inadequate prior assumptions.
Even if the authors (the expert group) were to discuss fairly and neutrally based on the convenient papers and data provided by the Japanese working group, the conclusions will be biased in discussions based on the biased papers and data selected by Japanese working group, so that UNSCEAR's fairness and neutrality will not be persuasive. Therefore, many Japanese residents are assuming that the writing expert group readily accepted the biased information of the Japanese Working Group and the National Response Committee
Note1:In an interview with a Tokyo Shimbun reporter, Akashi admitted that the written request he submitted to the government was a mistake. According to the Tokyo Shimbun's "This is
Special Report Department" (Feb. 4, 2019), "NIRS is in a position to urge the government to start thyroid measurements as soon as possible. Yasuda, who was off-site, said, "The thyroid exposure is at a serious level," and asked NIRS to take early action, but the center's director, Akashi, replied, "There is no consensus within the institute, so we were instructed to hold off on this. Akashi's breach of trust is clear.
------------------------------------------------------------
I would appreciate your comments soon.
Best regards,
UNSCEAR（国連科学委員会）への手紙（その２）
夏休みが終わったので、UNSCEARの事務局長あてに、昨日に続き以下の手紙（メール）（その２）を送った。内容は『明らかにする会』発刊の小冊子『チェルノブイリ並み被ばくで多発する福島甲状腺がんー線量過少評価で墓穴をほったUNSCEAR報告』に記載されている記事の”UNSCEAR２０２０/２０２１報告書に日本側はどう関与したか”の一部を英文化したもの。
今回の（その２）は『パブリック・ミーチング明らかになった問題点』『メデイアのUNSCEAR批判』について英文化したもの。
内容は以下のURLに記載されている6章と７章である。
https://nimosaku.blog.ss-blog.jp/2023-02-13
失ったUNSCEARの信頼を再確保するの為に、UNSCEAR2020/2021報告書に変わる新しい報告書の発行（策定）を要請した。
ーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーー
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.
ーーーー ーーー
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 schedule（14 ）. 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 Hall（15 ） , 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) NHK（16）
“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 Shimbun（17 ）.
“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 Shimbun（18 .）
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 Shimbun（19） .
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.
---------------------------------------------------------
（14）：Minamisoma City and Naraha Machi as they need to go to UNSCEAR to thank them for providing personal external radiation monitoring data of their residents.
（16）：https://www3.nhk.or.jp/lnews/fukushima/20220720/6050019402.html
（17）：https://www.tokyo-np.co.jp/article/191115
（18）：https://www.sankei.com/article/20220912-6MX2OTC3TZIOVHAHXDG4OBDWLU/
（19）：https://digital.asahi.com/articles/ASQB57VYKQ9GUGTB005.html
------------------------------------------------------------
I would appreciate your comments soon.
Best regards,
UNSCEAR（国連科学委員会）への手紙（その１）
夏休みが終わったので、UNSCEARの事務局長あてに、以下の手紙（メール）を送った。内容は『明らかにする会』発刊の小冊子『チェルノブイリ並み被ばくで多発する福島甲状腺がんー線量過少評価で墓穴をほったUNSCEAR報告』に記載されている記事の”UNSCEAR２０２０/２０２１報告書に日本側はどう関与したか”の一部を英文化したもの。
詳細は以下のURLに記載されている”はじめに”に記載されてる内容＋αである。
https://nimosaku.blog.ss-blog.jp/2023-02-12
今後は『日本作業グループはどう関与したか』『パブリック・ミーチング明らかになった問題点』『メデイアのUNSCEAR批判』についても英文化して送付予定。
Dear Ms. Borislava Batandjieva-Metcalf,
It was a hot summer in Japan this year.I hope your summer vacation was fulfilling.
This report is an English translation of part of the previously published booklet.Other reports described in this booklet will be sent out shortly
The title of the booklet is below.
“Fukushima thyroid cancer occurs frequently due to radiation exposure comparable to Chernobyl”-UNSCEAR report that was left behind by underestimation of doses.
Please see the URL below for details.
https://fukushimakyoto.namaste.jp/akiraka/index.html
https://fukushimakyoto.namaste.jp/akiraka/20230331NO3.html
http://natureflow.web.fc2.com/HP/index.html
If you would like to read this booklet (Japanese version), we can send it to you.I look forward to your reply.
Your prompt comments would be appreciated.
Best regards,
―――――――――――― RESEND.――――――――――――――――
Dear Ms. Borislava Batandjieva-Metcalf,
Thank you for your efforts.
The public meeting last July ended without satisfactory answers from UNSCEAER to the questions and concerns of many citizens and experts.
We believe that leaving the wrong and unscientific report as it is a crime and a desecration to the people of Fukushima Prefecture and thyroid patients.
A book has been published in which experts and citizens have pointed out that the thyroid equivalent doses in this report are underestimated by two to three orders of magnitude. Many briefings, workshops, and symposiums have been held on UNSCEAR's erroneous report.
There has already been a great swell of distrust of UNSCEAR among the Japanese public.
Many media outlets have reported on the problems and deceptions in the UNSCERA report in response to the public meetings held last year.
Please conduct a review of the UNSCEAR 2020/2021 report ASAP. It is the only way for UNSCEAR to regain credibility.
Below is a partial report of questions and allegations about the UNSCEAR 2020/2021 report．
This text is only an introduction, and the details will be reported separately.
How were Japanese researchers involved in the process of developing the UNSCEAR 2020/2021 report?
１．Introduction
In March 2021, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiation (UNSCEAR) released the UNSCEAR 2020/2021 Report. UNSCEAR intentionally misled the media and the public by issuing a press release in Japanese [1] stating that "it is unlikely that health effects (cancer, etc.) directly attributable to radiation exposure will be seen in the future. There were major discrepancies between the English and Japanese versions of the press release.
The thyroid equivalent dose coefficient (presented by the ICRP) was set at 1/2 that of Westerners because Japanese people eat kelp daily, and the inhalation dose indoors was set at 1/2 that of outdoors, although methylated radioactive iodine easily penetrates indoors and is considered to have reached almost equilibrium with the outdoor level in a few hours when the plume arrived. Note that the effect of indoor evacuation is relatively small when people stay indoors for a long time, but the contribution as dose is small.
Furthermore, UNSCEAR falsified the amount and rate of deposition of the large plume (including radioactive iodine, etc.) on March 15 and 16, and assumed that all residents in the evacuation zone had been completed evacuation by March 15, which further underestimated the maximum inhalation internal exposure, assuming that radioactive iodine in the air is efficiently carried to the alveoli even under foggy conditions, by three orders of magnitude.
This resulted in an underestimation of the maximum inhalation internal exposure by another three orders of magnitude. Furthermore, increasing the deposition rate and amount of deposition would unjustifiably overestimate internal exposure due to external exposure and resuspension in the vicinity.
Moreover, UNSCEAR ignored the oral intake of open-air vegetables and raw milk for the 11 days leading up to March 23, when shipments were suspended , and significantly reduced the internal exposure values to make the doses more realistic.
Thus, even from the UNSCEAR 2013 report , they tried in every way to trivialize the maximum internal exposure dose for Fukushima residents and maximized external exposure in the certain area since radioactive materials fall more early in the atmospheric dispersion process. The report states that realistic dose estimates were made, but they are not realistic for the residents of the prefecture who were exposed to the maximum internal dose.
1.The revised data that is entitled "realistic dose estimates” dramatically reduce internal doses as a result of dwarfing inhalation from the massive plume and ingestion doses from vegetables, etc. Based on the amount and rate of deposition of the massive plume on March 15-16, it is estimated that each resident whose evacuation was delayed may have received a equivalent dose to thyroid more than two orders of magnitude less than the internal doses from inhalation intake.
Professor Emeritus Hongyo of Osaka University School of Medicine has suggested that the equivalent thyroid doses may have been dwarfed by two orders of magnitude or more (references are needed).
2.The evacuation of evacuees from Hamadori was completed in Iitate Village and the shelter was closed on March 18. A large amount of plume flowed on March 15-16. There is a large possibility that the residents who evacuated to the evacuation center in Iitate Village and the residents of Iitate Village were exposed to a large amount of internal radiation. It is clear from this fact that the government and UNSCEAR's claim that there was no internal exposure because all residents in the evacuation zone had been evacuated by March 15 is a distortion.
3.Paragraph "153" of the UNSCEA 2020/2021 Report and "A83 (not 82)" of APPENDIX A. ASSESSMENT OF DOSES TO THE PUBLIC, " For evacuees, doses from ingestion of food before and during evacuation have been assumed to be negligible, based on survey results.” However, according to the Tokyo Shimbun's "Special Report" issued on 5 of April 2021, 8,000 residents stopped by the Tsushima district of Namie Town on their way to evacuate. Mr. I, a resident of the Tsushima area, testified, "I brought vegetables grown in the open air for the soup kitchen. On the other hand, there were no critical comments on the UNSCEAR 2020/2021 draft report from any countries.
Therefore, it is safe to assume that the Japanese draft, which Dr. Suzuki, Dr. Akashi, and others had the secretariat of the National Response Committee compile, was almost accepted. The composition of the committee members also suggests that Dr. Akashi, who has the former NIRS secretariat under his control, is working with Dr. Suzuki to arbitrarily trivialize the UNSCEAR report.
４．Some papers such as by Kato and Yamada [5]suggest that the number of residents in the evacuation zone, which UNSCEAR it shows 40 evacuation scenarios indicated was completed by March 15, was not necessarily all evacuated, and many residents spent time in cars parked in the high-dose area on the way to evacuation. It is highly possible that not all the residents of Tsushima, Namie Town, which has high radiation levels, were evacuated by March 16.
５．T. Kato and K. Yamada, CLINICAL ONCOLOGY AND RESEARCH 2022 5 May.
https://www.sciencerepository.org/individual-dose-response-and-radiation_COR-2022-2-102
I would appreciate your rebuttal or comments on UNSCEAR within the next two weeks.
Best regards,
沈黙の福島を伝える～おれたちの伝承館～
関西テレビ「“未来”に進む前に、向き合うべき“過去”がある 原発事故と福島を伝える『おれたちの伝承館』開館 福島から避難した17歳高校生『原発事故のことを隠さず潔くありたい…』
https://news.yahoo.co.jp/articles/be35cb47d81bd7cfc2869a16246450fc2d5eab7c
汚染水海洋放出は「正当化」されていない
8月28日に外国特派員協会の記者会見が行われ、アージュン・マキジャニ米エネルギー環境研究所所長を中心に、黒川眞一高エネルギー加速器研究機構名誉教授、市民団体「放射線被ばくを学習する会」代表の温品淳一氏の３人が東電＆日本政府の汚染水海洋放出に反対であることを理由を示して世界に発信。
汚染水海洋放出という行為は利益が被害を上回ることを示せず、IAEAやICRPの原則に照らしても正当化できないということを丁寧に説明。
★マキジャニ博士 太平洋諸島フォーラムパネルメンバー
『東電の汚染水投棄はIAEAの安全原則とガイドラインに違反。IAEAは、特に海洋投棄が正当化されるかどうかの検証を拒否することで、日本政府を支持するために、太平洋地域諸国の利益とIAEAのガイダンス文書を放棄した。』
記者会見で使用された資料等が公開されているURLは以下。
日本語版 http://anti-hibaku.cocolog-nifty.com/blog/2023/08/post-1b042e.html
注：「正当化」についても解説されています。
又、記者会見の模様は以下からご欄頂けます。
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYlzuGEEdP8
この記者会見をアラビアのニュースを日本語で伝える「アラブニュースジャパン」が正確に報道してくれた。
【専門家らが核汚染水の海洋放出決定を非難】https://www.arabnews.jp/article/japan/article_98434/
★金子勝氏
『汚染水放出は原発敗戦、経済敗戦の象徴。日本は環境にやさしい、精巧な製品をつくる「工業先進国」の看板を下ろさざるを得ない。環境汚染国、技術後進国として歴史に汚名を残す』
★イタリアメディア
『日本は今後何年も国際的非難に直面。生態系破壊者、海洋汚染者として非難される』
★最近の海洋放出に関するツイートをまとめてもの。
https://nimosaku.blog.ss-blog.jp/2023-08-30
★経産省や東電に提出した『正当化』に関する質問。
https://nimosaku.blog.ss-blog.jp/2023-08-18
★東電からの呆れる回答。
https://nimosaku.blog.ss-blog.jp/2023-08-11
