日比谷公園
今回は日比谷図書館と衆議院議員会館での集会参加が目的で、立ち寄ってみた。
日比谷公園は憩いの空間でもある。昼休みには近くに勤めている人（省庁の役人も？）が散歩していた。
失われた３０年の主犯たち
この主犯が霞が関に、道を挟んで向かい合って建っている。
福島原発事故を発生させた国の主犯格たちは、放射能被ばくをさせてしまった国民や避難者へ何の謝罪も反省もなく、事故を忘れさせようと、電通に国民の税金を大量に注ぎ、事故から１０年以上過ぎたこの時期に、再び原発を推進し始めた。
経産省のここ３０年間の政策はことごとく失敗。日本のGDPも賃金もまったく上がっていない。彼らが失われた３０年を実現した。
この建物の中に、のうのうと悪の集団たちが巣食っている。（怒・怒・怒！）
写真4枚目は財務省。（１２月２７日撮影）
東京・丸の内のイルミネーション
東京・丸の内
東京駅も外国人が多い。
久しぶりのラグビー観戦
鎌倉・明月院の紅葉
明月院は６月には紫陽花の花が一斉に咲きほこる、紫陽花寺としても知られる。紫陽花の時期は観光客でごった返す。
この時期午後２時頃を過ぎると、太陽の光は傾き、山間の鎌倉の寺院は日陰になってしまう。紅葉は太陽に照らされて美しい。太陽光線を失えば、写真映えは無くなる。北鎌倉駅前の休み処で甘いものを食べ、疲れを癒し早めに帰途につく・・
UNSCEAR議長から回答が届いた
第４弾の手紙は以下をご覧ください。
Dear Mr T,
When new relevant scientific information and peer-reviewed literature become available, considering its quantity and quality, the Committee will evaluate the need for another review and assessment of the implications of information published since the UNSCEAR 2020/2021 Report.
日本語訳は以下の通り
新たな関連科学情報や査読付き文献が入手可能になった場合、その量と質を考慮し、委員会はUNSCEAR2020/2021年報告書以降に公表された情報の影響について、再度レビューと評価を行う必要性を評価する。
（※UNSCEARの議長でもある）
既に９月に事務局長から届いた回答は以下で、今回の議長からの回答とほぼ同じ。（最後の結論は一字一句同じ）
原文のみ貼り付ける（日本語は以下のURLをご覧ください）
UNSCEAR議長への手紙（第4弾）
UNSCEAR議長あてに以下の手紙（第４弾）を送信した。
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8章～ １０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る。
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
第２弾の手紙は以下をご覧ください。
https://nimosaku.blog.ss-blog.jp/2023-12-16
第３弾の手紙は以下をご覧ください。
https://nimosaku.blog.ss-blog.jp/2023-12-16-1
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. 4 of” How were Japanese researchers involved in the process of developing the UNSCEAR 2020/2021 report?”
------RESEND-------
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,
鎌倉・円覚寺の紅葉
UNSCEAR議長への手紙（第３弾）
UNSCEAR議長あてに以下の手紙（第３弾）を送信した。
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５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る。
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
第２弾の手紙は以下をご覧ください。
https://nimosaku.blog.ss-blog.jp/2023-12-16
ー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. 3 of” How were Japanese researchers involved in the process of developing the UNSCEAR 2020/2021 report?”
Science is not about what anyone says, but what it says.
In other words, science is not what UNSCEAR, an authoritative international organization, says, but what the UNSCEAR report says.
However, the UNSCEAR 2020/2021 report is full of errors, dose minimization, and falsification, and it has become clear that it is far removed from science.
Please see below for the website of the "Association for Clarifying the Truth about Thyroid Exposure Due to the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Accident".
https://fukushimakyoto.namaste.jp/akiraka/index.html
The database is as follows
http://natureflow.web.fc2.com/HP/index.html
●Publication No. 3 (2023)
Fukushima Thyroid Cancer: A High Incidence of Thyroid Cancer Due to Chernobyl-Level Exposure
-UNSCEAR report that created its own unfavorable situation by underestimating radiation doses"
https://fukushimakyoto.namaste.jp/akiraka/20230331NO3.html
●Publication No. 2 (2022)
High Incidence of Thyroid Cancer: Cause of Exposure Can No Longer Be Concealed
-Criticism of the UNSCEAR Report"
https://fukushimakyoto.namaste.jp/akiraka/20220429NO2.html
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, 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,
横浜港大さん橋・イルミネーション
山下公園・イルミネーションは以下をご覧ください。
山下公園のイルミネーション
横浜・山下公園のイルミネーションイベント「イルミーヌ・ヨコハマ 2023～横浜の未来が輝く～」が、2023年12月1日(金)から12月31日(日)まで開催されている。
「イルミ－ヌ・ヨコハマ 2023～横浜の未来が輝く～」は、 “過去、現在、未来のすべてが輝く横浜”をコンセプトに、横浜・山下公園で実施されるイルミネーションイベント。
ライトアート作品と音の演出を展開し、空間を幻想的な灯りで包み込む。例えば、ランドマークの横浜マリンタワーは輝く黄金色にライトアップ。パリ・エッフェル塔のライトアップのために開発されたLED金色光投光器を用いて、横浜マリンタワーを明るく照らし出している。（HPより転載）
関内駅⇒山下公園⇒横浜港大桟橋⇒赤レンガ倉庫⇒みなとみらい⇒桜木町
途中、スペイン料理レストランで腹ごしらえ・・・
UNSCEAR議長への手紙（第１弾）
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。
『UNSCER2020/2021報告書に日本側はどう関与したか』の日本語は以下をご覧ください。
UNSCEAR２０２０・２０２１報告書に日本側はどう関与したか』について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
ーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーー
Dear Dr Jing Chen Chair of the UNSCEAR Committee
Cc Ms. Borislava Batandjieva-Metcalf,
Six emails were sent to Ms. Borislava Batandjieva-Metcalf on August, September 4, September 5, September 7, September 9, and September 18.
They may have already been forwarded to you, but just in case, I am sending the same six emails.
We have exposed the unscientific nature of the UNSCEAR 2020/2021 report. In particular, we have revealed that the UNSCEAR 2020/2021 report was unscientifically distorted by the strong involvement of Dr Gen Suzuki and Dr Makoto Akashi .
The contents of the first letter (e-mail) sent to UNSCEAR is available at (same content as this email)
https://nimosaku.blog.ss-blog.jp/2023-09-04-1
We strongly, strongly urge you to publish a new report to replace the UNSCEAR 2020/2021 report.
This is to ensure the credibility of UNSCEAR and to help the more than 350 Fukushima children affected by thyroid cancer in a humane way.
We hope that UNSCEAR will be sincere as a human being.
---------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,
汚染水海洋放出に合理性は無い
某新聞社に以下を投稿した。掲載されるかどうかは不明。
地元の福島民報に投稿したが記事掲載を拒否された。若干文章を短く整理し、他の某新聞社に投稿してみた。今後も諦めずに全国紙や東京、神奈川、そして河北新報等への投稿もしていく。
福島民報から掲載拒否された投稿記事は以下ご覧ください。
https://nimosaku.blog.ss-blog.jp/2023-11-06-2
【処理汚染水海洋放出に合理性はなく、日本が失うものは甚大】
IAEAは「処理水放出を推奨も支持もしていない」とし、お墨付きは出していない。中国、ロシア以外にもドイツや太平洋地域諸国も海洋放出に反対し、国際法や環境基本法にも違反している。問題の本質は汚染水対策の失敗。止水できれば海洋放出は必要ない。他の有効な施策がありながら、最も安い３４億円の海洋放出を選択したが、
その費用は４３０億円に増加。更に処理水に伴う施策費用として、各省の総額は４,１５０億円を計上。全て血税であり、貧困対策にも回せる金だ。中国や香港等からの海産物輸入禁止で年間約１,５００億円の損失。国際的信頼失墜含め、日本が失うものはあまりにも甚大。今すぐ海洋放出を止める事が最大の国益になる。
８８０トンのデプリを仮に１日１キロ取り出せたとしても２５００年かかる。政府は「海洋放出は廃炉の為には避けて通れない」と言うが、デプリ取り出しの目途が立っていない今、急いで海洋放出する合理性はない。
--------------------------------------------------
※尚、４,１５０億円とした根拠は以下をご覧ください。
https://www.meti.go.jp/earthquake/nuclear/hairo_osensui/pdf/sesaku_2301.pdf
関連ブログは以下
【汚染水海洋放出に関する東電からの回答（前半）】
https://nimosaku.blog.ss-blog.jp/2023-07-03
【汚染水海洋放出に関する東電からの回答（後半）】
https://nimosaku.blog.ss-blog.jp/2023-08-11
去り行く秋
コゲラと暮らす
キツツキの仲間で最も小柄なコゲラの仕業。
小柄ながら力強く木をつつく・・・
ピンク色に染まる安達太良山
ピンク色はAM７:１０頃
深紅色はAM６：５０頃
コロンビア・ローズの『智恵子抄』をお聴きください↓
智恵子の生家がでてきます。 安達太良山は多分本宮や郡山方面（南東）から撮ったもので、いつも見ている安達太良山とは、少々違和感があるが・・・
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4__pKc72svg
https://www.uta-net.com/movie/66955/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6wsLHTQj3o
作詞：丘灯至夫
作曲：戸塚三博
発売：2010-05-13 05:54:18
東京の空 灰色の空
ほんとの空が 見たいという
拗ねてあまえた 智恵子
智恵子の声が
ああ 安達太良の山に
今日もきこえる
千代紙が好き 折り鶴が好き
故郷の空へ 飛ばすという
願いひとすじ 智恵子
智恵子の夢が
ああ 安達太良の山に
今日も羽ばたく
まごころの花 純情の花
散らない花が 欲しいという
黒い瞳の智恵子
智恵子の姿
ああ 安達太良の山に
今日も生きてる
UNSCEARへの手紙
あまりにも酷い・デタラメなUNSCEAR 2020/2021 報告書なので、UNSCEARの議長及び事務局長、それに前議長と執筆者に以下のメールを出した。デタラメなUNSCEAR 2020/2021 報告書に代わる、新しい報告書を刊行すべきと再度要求した。
3か月前にUNSCEARに対し、同じ要望を出していたら、あいまいな言い方だが、以下の回答を得ている。
『新たな関連科学情報や査読付き文献が入手可能になった場合、その量と質を考慮し、委員会はUNSCEAR 2020/2021報告書以降に発表された情報の影響について、レビューと評価の必要性を評価する。』 と新たな報告書を出す事の可能性を示唆している。
詳細は以下をご覧ください。
【UNSCEARから回答が届いた】
https://nimosaku.blog.ss-blog.jp/2023-11-04
今後 UNSCEARにデタラメな２０２０/２０２１報告書を撤回させ、新たな報告書を発行させるよう、UNSCEARに更に働きかけるとともに、日本政府にも働きかける必要がある。
その為にはメデイアに如何に分かりやすく問題点を解説し、記事や報道に取り上げてもらう事が大事。あった被ばくを無かった事にしてはならない。３５０人以上の甲状腺がん患者達は救われない。
尚、日本語訳は英文の後に掲載していますので、ご欄ください。
Dear Ms. Borislava Batandjieva-Metcalf,
cc Dr Jing Chen Chair of the UNSCEAR Committee
We, the "Association for Clarifying the Truth about Thyroid Exposure due to the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Accident" (Clarifying Association), have seriously and intensively studied many papers and data, including one from Fukushima Medical University, on the causal relationship between thyroid cancer and radiation exposure due to the Fukushima nuclear power plant accident.
Furthermore, since the publication of the UNSCEAR 2020/2021 Report in March 2021, we have been verifying the UNSCEAR 2020/2021 Report together with many other researchers.
The results,
1. Tadashi Hongyo, Professor Emeritus of Osaka University, revealed that the UNSCEAR2020/2021 report contains more than 120 errors, underestimation of dose assessment, trivialization, and fabrication.
In particular, the internal exposure value of the initial equivalent thyroid dose due to the plume was confirmed by Shinichi Kurokawa, professor emeritus at the High Energy Accelerator Research Institute, to be approximately 1/100 (more than two orders of magnitude) lower than the internal exposure value.
Furthermore, as a result of the questions asked at the "public meeting" held by UNSCEAR in Iwaki City and other cities in July last year, as well as the questions asked to the public in advance, the errors, distortions, and fabrications became even clearer.
The results of the questions and answers to UNSCEAR are available on the following website of the "UNSCEAR 2020/2021 Report Verification Network".
https://www.unscear2020report-verification.net/
At the 66th Annual Meeting of the Radiation Effects Society of Japan held on November 6-8 this year, Tadashi Hongyo, Professor Emeritus of Osaka University, made a presentation on the problems with the UNSCEAR 2020/2021 report. Dr. Gen Suzuki, former chairman of the Fukushima Prefecture Thyroid Evaluation Committee, who was present at the meeting, did not ask any questions or raise any objections.
This is nothing but an admission of the problem by Dr. Gen Suzuki, who was strongly involved in the preparation of the UNSCEAR 2020/2021 report and explained the contents of the UNSCEAR 2020/2021 report at the Thyroid Assessment Subcommittee.
We believe that the past discussions at Fukushima Prefecture's Thyroid Evaluation Subcommittee and Prefectural People's Health Survey Review Committee should be withdrawn.
2) The article "Regional dose response and origin of exposure between childhood thyroid cancer in Fukushima and UNSCEAR 2020/2021 thyroid dose: Chernobyl-like high concentration of 131I exposure" published in Cancers by Dr. Toshiko Kato, a member of this committee, and her colleagues, "Fukushima thyroid cancer incidence rate and UNSCEAR 2020/2021 thyroid dose. The dose-response relationship between Fukushima thyroid cancer incidence rates and UNSCEAR2020/2021 thyroid doses in the first and second rounds of examination revealed the following.
(1) Thyroid cancer is derived from radiation exposure,
(2) It also became clear that the actual thyroid exposure in Fukushima is comparable to that of Chernobyl and 50 to 100 times higher than the UNSCEAR 2020/2021 report.
3. The Fukushima Medical University paper was found to have many questions and errors. Many of the Fukushima Medical University papers simply rely on the UNSCEAR report without evaluating or verifying the absorbed thyroid doses (equivalent doses) themselves. It is clear that the reliability of many of Fukushima Medical University's papers has been shattered because the scientific credibility of the UNSCEAR report on which they rely has been destroyed.
Furthermore, the Fukushima Medical University paper on the association of thyroid cancer with radiation exposure makes elementary errors that ignore Rothman's epidemiology and the warnings of the American Statistical Association (ASA), such as the adjustment for confounding factors that ignore the three necessary conditions for confounding factors and the misuse of significance tests.
Note: 12.5 years have passed and still no conclusion has been reached. In order to conduct verification promptly and accurately (scientifically), it is imperative that the information held by Fukushima Medical University be disclosed to the world as much as possible.
Furthermore, in order to prevent biased results and reach a prompt conclusion, we believe it is important to outsource the verification to a third party (other universities) in addition to Fukushima Medical University.
Based on the results of our long-term verification and examination since the Fukushima nuclear accident, we have clarified the errors in the UNSCEAR 2020/2021 report (such as the downsizing and fabrication of radiation dose assessments) and the problems in the Fukushima Medical University paper, and have revealed that 350 thyroid cancers were caused by the Fukushima nuclear accident.
The Japanese side's involvement in the UNSCEAR 2020/2021 report and the fact that the UNSCEAR 2020/2021 report has more than 120 problematic points have made it imperative for UNSCEAR to publish a new report to replace the 2020/2021 report.
https://fukushimakyoto.namaste.jp/akiraka/20230331NO3.htm
We hope that UNSCEAR, which should be fair, neutral, and scientific, without any power of discovery(note), will take immediate action to restore the personal rights of 350 thyroid cancer patients as soon as possible.
Note: UNSCEAR members are composed of scientists appointed by the government of each country, and there is an implicit understanding that when dealing with matters in which the political will of each country is at play, they will not speak out against it.
(Researchers and university faculty members who hold views contrary to national policies are not allowed to be members of the committee in the first place).
We speculate that the fact that the said report, which was to be published in 2020, was pushed back to the following year to become the 2020/2021 report may have been influenced by insistence from the Japanese government and UN member states.
【日本語訳】
Dear Ms. Borislava Batandjieva-Metcalf,（事務局長）
cc Dr Jing Chen Chair of the UNSCEAR Committee （議長）
私たち『福島原発事故による甲状腺被ばくの真相を明らかにする会』（明らかにする会）は、 福島原発事故の甲状腺がんと放射線被ばくの因果関係について、福島医科大学の論文はじめ多くの論文やデータを真剣かつ集中的に研究してきました。
更に、２０２１年３月に「UNSCEAR２０２０/２０２１報告書」が発行されてからは、他の多くの研究者らと共に UNSCEAR2020/2021 報告書の検証をしてきました。
その結果、
１．大阪大学・名誉教授の本行忠志氏によって、UNSCEAR２０２０/２０２１報告書には１２０ヶ所以上の間違い、線量評価の過小評価、矮小化、捏造等がある事が明らかとなりました。
特にプルームによる初期甲状腺等価線量の内部被ばく値は、高エネルギー加速器研究所・名誉教授の黒川眞一氏によって約１/100（２桁以上）の矮小化が確認されました。
更に昨年７月に、いわき市等で開催された、UNSCEAR 主催の『パブリック・ミーテング』での質問や事前の公開質問等の結果、 その間違いや歪曲・捏造がいっそう明らかとなりました。
尚、UNSCEARへの質問結果や回答は『UNSCEAR2020/2021報告書検証ネットワーク』の以下のHPに公開しています。
https://www.unscear2020report-verification.net/
今年１１月６‐８日に開催された第６６回・日本放射線影響学会でも大阪大学・名誉教授の本行忠志氏によってUNSCEAR 2020/2021報告書の問題点について発表されました。その場にいた元福島県甲状腺評価部会長の鈴木元氏からは質問も異論も出なかったようです。
この事はUNSCEAR2020/2021報告書作成に強く関与し、甲状腺評価部会でもUNSCEAR 2020/2021 報告書の内容を説明した鈴木元氏が、その問題点を認めた事に他なりません。
この事によっても、福島県の甲状腺評価部会や県民健康調査検討委員会での過去の議論は白紙撤回すべきと考えます。
２．本会員の加藤聡子氏（理学博士）らによって発表されたCancers誌論文 『福島の小児甲状腺がんとUNSCEAR2020/2021甲状腺量との間の地域線量反応と被ばく起源:チェルノブイリ並みの高濃度１３１Ｉ被ばく』の福島甲状腺がん発生率とUNSCEAR2020/2021甲状腺量との間の１、２巡目検査における量反応関係から、以下が明らかとなった。
①甲状腺がんは放射線被ばく由来である事、
②福島の実際の甲状腺被ばくはチェルノブイリ並みであり、ＵＮＳＣＥＡＲ２０２０/２０２１報告書の５０～１００倍である事も明らかとなりました。
３．福島医科大学論文には多くの疑問や間違いがある事が判明しました。福島医科大学の論文は甲状腺吸収線量（等価線量）を自ら評価・検証する事なく、多くの論文は単にＵＮＳＣＥＡＲ報告書に依拠しています。その依拠するＵＮＳＣＥAＲ報告書の科学性が崩れたことで、福島医科大学の多くの論文の信頼性が崩れた事は明らかです。
更に甲状腺がんの被ばくとの関連についての福島医科大学論文は交絡因子の必要3条件を無視した交絡因子の調整と有意差検定の誤用といったロスマンの疫学やASA（アメリカ統計学会）の警告を無視する初歩的な誤りをしています。
注：１２．５年も経過し、未だに結論がでていない。検証を速やかに、かつ正確（科学的）に実施する為、福島医科大学が保有する情報を可能な限り世界に公開する事は必須です。
更に、偏った結果を防止し、速やかな結論を出す為にも福島医科大学に加え、第三者（他大学）にも検証を委託する事が重要ではないかと考えます。
私たちは福島原発事故以来、長期間にわたる検証・検討結果に基づいて、UNSCEAR 2020/2021報告書の間違い（線量評価の矮小化や捏造等）や福島医科大学の論文の問題点を明らかにし、３５０人もの甲状腺がんは福島原発事故由来によるものである事を明らかにしました。
UNSCEAR 2020/2021報告書に日本側はどう関与したかや、UNSCEAR 2020/2021報告書に1２0ヶ所以上の問題点がある事が明らかとなった事によって、UNSCEARは2020/2021報告書に代わる新しい報告書の刊行は必須です。
※https://fukushimakyoto.namaste.jp/akiraka/20230331NO3.htm
３５０人もの甲状腺がん患者の人格権を早急に復活させる為、権力に忖度なく、公正・中立で科学的であるべきUNSCEARには早急な行動を期待します。
注：UNSCEARの委員は各国の政府が指名した科学者で構成されており、各国の政治的意向が働く案件を扱う際は、それに反することは発言しないという暗黙の了解があります。
（国の方針に反する考えを持つ研究者や大学教員はそもそも委員になれない）。
我々は、2020年に刊行する予定だった当該報告書が翌年にずれ込んで2020/2021年報告書になったのも、日本政府や国連加盟国からの主張が影響したのではないかと推察する。
『教育無償化を実現する会』へ物申す！
記録と記憶の為にもここで記録を残しておく
ーー以下転載ーー
汚染水海洋放出に伴う施策費用として、各省の総額は４,１５０億円も計上しています。全て血税であり、貧困対策や教育にも回せる金です。中国や香港、ロシアからの海産物輸入禁止で年間約１,５００億円の損失。
デプリの取り出せる目途もまったく立っていないまま、今、汚染水の海洋放出する合理性はありません。止水できれば海洋放出は必要ないのです。他の有効な施策がありながら、最も安い３４億円の海洋放出を選択したが、その費用は４３０億円にも増え、今後も増え続けます。問題の本質は汚染水対策の失敗により、汚染水が増え続けている事。
海洋放出を止めさせ、この無駄な金を将来の日本を担う若者に投資すべきです。今、日本に足りないのは人口減少・少子化対策と人材育成です。
ただ、批判ある維新とは近づきすぎないように！共産とも、もっと意見交換する懐の深さを示してください。共産の選挙協力無くして、野党政権の樹立は不可能です・・
教育費無償化には年間いくら必要なのでしょうか？まずは大学、高校は半額にする事から始める事もできます。経済成長なくして、財源確保はできません。失われた３０年、４０年の原因究明を国会で議論ください。自民党政権の失政を明確にさせ、国民の間で共有化する事から始めてください。教育費無償化によりメリットと実現の為に、財源をどうねん出するのかも、明示ください。
