Preposterous Statements

@Home@
An Anthology of Preposterous@@@
@@@@@@@@@Statements/Remarks

by
Government mouth-piece Academics
@@@@@@@@on Nuclear Energy Policies


xxxxxx = underlined by the editor @@@@= comments by the editor



index @Click a name.

@01@Shunich YamashitaF ( Prof.at Graduate School of International Health Development, Nagasaki@Univ.EAdvisor to Fukushima Prefectural Control of Rad-affected Health Risks)


@02@Naoto Sekimura: @ (Prof. at Graduate School of Engineering Studies, Univ. of Tokyo.)


@03@Ryuta Kawashima: ( Prof. at Institute of Development, Aging and Cancer, Tohoku Univ.)


@04@Haruki Madarame: ( Chair of the Nuclear Safety Commission)


@05@Yoshihisa Matsumoto: @ Associate Prof. at Tokyo Institute of Technology.


@06@Atsuyuki Suzuki: @ (Chief Director of Japan Atomic Energy Agency, former-Chair of the Nuclear Safety Commission)


@07@Shunsuke Kondo: @ (Chair of the Nuclear Energy Commission)@@


@08@Michio Ishikawa: ( Top Consultant to Japan Nuclear Technology Institute)


@09@Muneo Morokuzu: (Specially-appointed Prof. at Graduate School of Public Policies, Univ. of Tokyo formerly working for Toshiba )


@10@Keiichi Nakagawa: (Associate Prof. at Dpt.of Radiology, Tokyo Univ. Hospital)


@11@Jun Itami:@ ( Director of Dpt.of Radiation Therapy in National Cancer Center Hospital )


@12@Tokio Kanou: (Counselor to TEPCO, one-time Upper House parliamentarian )


@13@Hironobu Nakamura: ( Director of Japan Radiology Association, one-time prof. at Osaka Univ.)


@14@Keiji Miyazaki: (Emeritus prof. at Osaka Univ.)


@15@Kazuaki Kato: (Chief Director of Radiation Safety Forum)


@16@Kenji SumidaF (Emeritus Prof. at Osaka Univ. and one-time acting-Director of Nuclear Safety Commission)


@17@Yoshihiko OtsukiF (Emeritus Prof. at Waseda Univ.)


@18@Ministry of Fisheries HP


@19@Ministry of Education and Science:
gFor a Correct Understanding of Radioactivitiesh (April 20th )








@01@Shunich YamashitaF ( Prof.at Graduate School of International Health Development, Nagasaki@Univ.EAdvisor to Fukushima Prefectural Control of Rad-affected Health Risks)

@FgWhat matters with the radiation exposure in the case of those people like us 20 to 30 kms away from the site is the internal one.h gWe need to draw a line somewhere. This boundary drawing is done because we can say eso and so area is safe.f When we are more than 20kms away, our health will not be affected at all even when some radioactive fallout may come down and taint the area. Thatfs why the decree for those areas 20 to 30kms away stipulates that the people should be made to remain/take refuge indoors.h

@A little radioactive contamination doesnft affect our health at all?! This is a complete disregard of external radiation exposure.


AFhExposure to 1mSv of radiation will injure one gene of your cells. Very easy, to figure out: 100 mSv of radiation will injure 100 genes. This is also easy to understand. Then injured genes increase in accordance with the increase of radiation amount. This you understand, too. All of us without exceptions have our genes injured, but we are still alive. Our living cells heal the injuries of the genes. You see, you have 1mSv of radiation one day, but the injury will have been healed by the next day. This is how human body works. Letfs suppose you had your 100 genes injured and you may have had 99 but one of them healed right. To fear the development of this one wrongly healed gene leading to an on-set of cancer cells after tens of years is what you mean when you talk about the health effects of radiation. This is exactly the theory of probability. The fact is that 1mSv of radiation injures 1 gene and 100 mSv at a time will injure 100 genes. Then the 10 Sv or the 50 Sv which are now being talked about are doses which we cannot judge for sure whether they injure a gene or not. They donft. This is the tricky but important point.h

g 1 mSv of radiation injures 1 gene,h is something unheard of ! Is a specialist allowed to talk something so irresponsible/unscientific?


BFgIn this city of Fukushima something like 20 micro Sv/hr of radiation is said to have continued.h gIf you multiply the dose by 24, it means that there may have been about 480 micro Sv per day. But if you are indoors, the dose amounts is only one-tenth of it, 48 micro Sv per day. The dose taken into your body is one-tenth of the radiation, which means the dose taken into your body indoors is one-hundredth of the outdoor radiation.h

This irresponsible remark is out of question! Itfs true that the indoor dose is usually lower than the outdoor one, but you cannot say it is one-tenth. As for the internal exposure being one-hundredth, it is a big lie. Any amount of radiation can cause an internal exposure greater than an external one.


CFgWhat we as citizens of a democratic state must at least believe is the government guidelines and information coming out of our government.h

back to the top



Is it democratic to tell people to believe whatever the government says?

DFgWe have our responsibility for the children who will carry on the next generation. Thatfs why all the radiation protection benchmarks are set with the permissible doses for babies as their bases. Adults above 20 years of age hardly have any radiation sensitivity, almost zero. Firstly please remember that adults hardly have any radiation sensitivity. In spite of this fact, itfs the adults who worry about their radiation exposure. They are mistaken. Especially men are greatly mistaken.h
( quoted from his lecture in Fukushima on March 21st, 2011)

Itfs a big lie that all the radiation protection benchmarks are set with the permissible doses for babies as their bases ! !

EFgItfs wrong to say even a smallest dose of radiation exposure is dangerous.h gAn exposure to more than 100 mSv of radiation at a time will raise the probability of on-setting cancer, but there will be no risk if the exposure is contained within 50 mSv. The upper limit of permissive exposure for nuclear plant laborers has been set at 50 mSv per year just to broaden the margin of safety. People in general fear that the radiation exposure may on-set cancer in their future body. Well, if 100 people were exposed to 100 mSv of radiation at a time, the number of people out of the 100 who will have cancer in their lifetime would increase by 2 or 3 (One out of three Japanese dies of cancer). So we canf t possibly say from the present circumstances that the number of cancer cases will increase remarkably.h

@It is common sense to think that even a smallest dose of radiation exposure is dangerous. The lack of this common sense is a sign of an academic being a government mouth-piece.



FFgThose who had been in and then evacuated the areas within 10 to 20kms of the nuclear plants may have been exposed to about 1mSv of radiation, but the effects of the radiation exposure on their health will not differ much whether the dose was some micro Sv or 100 mSv, i.e. the increase rate of cancer on-set between the doses will not differ.h
@@@@ @@@@@@@@ ( at the Foreign Correspondentsf Club of Japan on May 3rd ,2011)

To sum up, he is trying to say that up to 100 mSv there is no need to worry about its effects on health, though his logic is too illogical to understand.


back to the top


GFgFrom now on, we need your cooperation to find out whether you will get sick or not.h g We need an epidemiological survey with the cooperation of all the Fukuhsimaites to find out the effects of the radiation exposure after ten years. So we cannot say anything about the effects here at this point.h@

He virtually asks Fukushimaites to be guinea pigs. Is this a disclosure of his real intention?


HF g Since the government guideline set the permissive radiation exposure dose to be 20 mSv, itfs the obligation of the people to accept the guideline.h gThe effects of radiation exposure below 100 mSv not having been scientifically proved yet, it is only after ten years that we will get to know the effects. Thatfs why I have been telling the people of Fukushima not to worry so that they can have peace of mind.h g The risk of getting cancer hasnft been recognized unless you are exposed to 100 mSv at a time.h g Those who cannot accept the policy of raising the usual limit of 1mSv to 20mSv have no choice but to evacuate the area.h g I am not talking about safety. I am talking about peace of mind.h
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@(in Nihonmatsu on May 3rd ,2011)

In short he admits, following the government guideline, he has not been telling the people that itfs safe but not to worry so that they can have peace of mind. According to him we need to wait ten years to know the results. What an irresponsible thing to say!


back to the top




@02@Naoto Sekimura: @ (Prof. at Graduate School of Engineering Studies, Univ. of Tokyo.)

@FgA meltdown of a nuclear reactor cannot have happened.h
gThe possibility that the cooling water is leaking is low.h
@@@@@@@@@@@@(quoted from the April 16th,2011 issue of ShukanGendai)

He has been telling a lot of lies.


AFgI will report on the results of an on-the-spot inspection of the 1st Reactor of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant.hgWe executed the inspection, and confirmed the required items.h
( inspection in August, 2010 and reporting on Feb.7th, 2011, with Sekimura as the head of High Level Aging Technology Evaluation Working Group within Nuclear Energy Safety and Preservation Section, Comprehensive Natural Resources and Energy Institute)

Mr Sekimura was the very head that had guaranteed the safety of the reactor just before the earthquake.


back to the top




@03@Ryuta Kawashima: ( Prof. at Institute of Development, Aging and Cancer, Tohoku Univ.)

gBecause of the nuclear tests carried out by the US and the USSR, the density of radioactive substances in the air the whole world over had been several hundred times or even thousand times that of the whole world atmosphere prior to the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant accident. However, there was no evidence of an increase in the rate of cancer cases being on-set by the high radiation level due to the nuclear tests.h
@@@@@@@@@@@@(quoted from the April 16th,2011 issue of ShukanGendain)

Not only the rate of cancer on-set, but also the rate of infant mortality had been clearly increasing because of the nuclear tests. Letfs stop making the on-going radioactive contamination look small by underrating the effects of other/former radiation release cases. That is a double distortion of the facts. It must be classified as a criminal act if this underrating is done for the purpose of further promoting nuclear energy generation.


back to the top




@04@Haruki Madarame: ( Chair of the Nuclear Safety Commission)

@FgTo end up in a big accident after two emergency diesel engines going down simultaneously, you need to have various things happening, this and that, one after another.h gIf you keep supposing every possible mishap leading to an accident, you canft build anything. Thatfs why you stop striving for absolute safety at some point on which you make your best bet.h
(quoted from gMan-made Disaster at Fukushima Nuclear Planth written by Minato Kawamura and published by Gendai Shokan)

gYou cannot build a nuclear plant if you must suppose a situation where every source of power is lost.h
@@@@@@@@ (quoted from the April 14th ,2011 issue of ShukanGendai)

gYou cannot build a nuclear plant unless you can make your best bet on the point at which you allow yourself to stop striving for absolute safety. We do admit that our bet on the stopping point was not the best or the right one and we are deeply regrettable for that.h
@@@@@@@@@ ( at the Upper House Budget Committee on March 22nd,2011)

His statement is a proof that it is impossible to build an absolutely safe nuclear plant.

AFgRadioactive substances will be diluted and spread far and wide in the sea. You hardly need to worry about internal exposure even if you eat fish.h @@@@@@@@@ ( quoted from the May 21st,2011 issue of ShukanGendai)

How can he say such an irresponsible thing as this ?! Isnft it common sense that there is a phenomena called food chain and bio-concentration/accumulation/?


back to the top




@05@Yoshihisa Matsumoto: @ Associate Prof. at Tokyo Institute of Technology.

gYour safety is guaranteed by the called Genes. Sperms are regenerated anew. Itfs perfectly safe ( even for a baby to be fed water above 300 Bq.)h @@@@@@@@@@@ (on a TV Asahi program in March and April, 2011)

Just an outrageous remark! Itfs out of the question!

back to the top




@06@Atsuyuki Suzuki: @ (Chief Director of Japan Atomic Energy Agency, former-Chair of the Nuclear Safety Commission)

@FgThose many people who are in charge of the nuclear plant safety measures are doing their best, hardly leaving any room for improvements.h
gWhat went wrong was their way of explaining things to the public.h
gThe explanation ethe nuclear plant safety is insured because an earthquake surpassing the quake benchmarks will never occurf was too off-handed.h

If he really means to claim that there is no room for improvement as they are, nuclear plants should be stopped immediately. Whates wrong was not the way of explanation but the notion itself that things they did not want to predict would never happen.

AFgIt is important for regulatory actions for nuclear plant safety to apply the principle that greater, the risks, the more capital input is needed for safety insurance. However, risk evaluation which looks quite objective is, in a way, best bets making on where to stop pursuing the absolute safety.h @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ (in an interview by The Denki Shinbun on May 8th, 2009)

Risk evaluation is something you can do in any way you want? !

BFgNuclear power is an indispensable energy to our everyday lives.h gWe will keep challenging to further develop nuclear energy.h As we have been doing until now, we will, with the spirit of safety ensuring and job-site consideration, we will engage in our activities to be able to gain your strong trust.h
@ (quoted as saying on April 1, 2011 from gThe Man-made Disaster at Fukushima Nuclear planth written by Minato Kawamura and published by Gendai Shokan)

This is what he said in the very midst of the Fukushima disaster. No remorse or contrition can be detected in his say. There will surely be the second and the third nuclear accident if we entrust them with the nuclear plants !!

back to the top




@07@Shunsuke Kondo: @ (Chair of the Nuclear Energy Commission)@

gWe believe our mission is to believe in the bright prospect of the nuclear energy, esp. in the development of the fast-breeder reactor and to show its utility for the mankind by succeeding in its construction and operation.h @@@@@ (as a witness on the side of Donen in Monju court case in 1991)@

Will he still say the same thing now about Monju when we canft even have a prospect of its running at all after wasting so much money on it ? The money for Monju should be reallocated for the victims of the earthquake-nuclear disaster.@

back to the top




@08@Michio Ishikawa: ( Top Consultant to Japan Nuclear Technology Institute)

gWe are most concerned about the possible social disruption caused by inaccurate and irresponsible information.h gFrom the standpoint of stable energy supply and anti-global warming measures, nuclear power generation is indispensable to our country and we should promote nuclear power generation on the condition that the lesson from Fukushima Disaster will fully be reflected.h
@@@@@@@@ ( quoted from May 15th,2011 Extra Edition of AERA gNuclear Power Plants and the Japaneseh)

What does he think the glessonh was/is from the Fukushima nuclear accident? It is not by the but the of the earthquake-nuclear disaster and radiation release that the society is disrupted and thrown into confusion.

back to the top




@09@Muneo Morokuzu: (Specially-appointed Prof. at Graduate School of Public Policies, Univ. of Tokyo formerly working for Toshiba )

gThe cesium level in the air around 1960 was 10,000 times that of today (due to the nuclear tests by China, the US, and the USSR). So itfs too eccentric for a farmer to commit suicide. Excess worry is not necessary.h
@@@@@@@@@@ ( quoted from the July,2011 issue of Takarajima as saying in a TV Asahi@program in April )

(The data published by Ministry of Education and Science showed the detected fallout of cesium 137 in Tokyo was 2.8 times that of 1963, which makes the desperation of the farmer who committed suicide understandable.) Whatfs more, there is also data showing this very radioactive fallout from the nuclear tests then raised the infant mortality rate in Japan.

back to the top




@10@Keiichi Nakagawa: (Associate Prof. at Dpt.of Radiology, Tokyo Univ. Hospital)

gIt is a known fact that radiation dose below 100 mSv doesnft have bad effects upon human bodies.h gExposure to 100 mSv of radiation may raise the risk of on-setting cancer by 0.5%. Japan is the most cancer-infested country in the world anyway. One out of two people in Japan gets cancer. The dose 100 mSv only raises the original cancer risk of 50 % to 50.5 %. You can say that smoking tobacco is by far riskier.h @@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@ ( quoted from the March 31st,2011 issue of Shukan Shincho)
gIn the case of Chernobyl, the only increase really reported was that of thyroid cancer in children.h @@@@ (quoted from the April 14th,2011 issue of Shukan Shincho)

Itfs wrong to compare radiation with smoking. He lacks proper understanding of Chernobyl. At this very moment thyroid cancer is on the increase in adults. By 2006, the number of people in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus who have had radiation-affected health problems had amounted to 7,000,000.

back to the top




@11@Jun Itami:@ ( Director of Dpt.of Radiation Therapy in National Cancer Center Hospital )

@FgThough Russians have taken in cesium through foods like milk after the Chernobyl nuclear plant accident, we have no scientific data showing the increase of cancer cases with the exception of thyroid cancer cases in children due to iodine. It depends on the contamination from now on, but the amount of cesium detected now can be taken into your body without causing any health problems.h
@@@@@@@ (quoted from HP gA Manual for Complete Control of Cancersh on April 6,2011)

This again is an underestimation of the Chernobyl nuclear plant accident. At this very moment thyroid cancer is on the increase in adults. By 2006, the number of people in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus who have had radiation affected health problems had amounted to 7,000,000. The rad-affected ones easily get tired and are prone to get infectious diseases due to secretion or/and immunity troubles.

AFgSurmising from the lifestyle of children going to school, their internal exposure through inhaled air, eaten food, and wound openings all added up only amounts to about 1% of the external exposure.h
@@@@@@@@@ ( quoted from the June 23rd,2011 issue of the Tokyo Shinbun )

This is an intentional underestimation of internal exposure, when an internal exposure can well be greater than an external one.

back to the top




@12@Tokio Kanou: (Counselor to TEPCO, one-time Upper House parliamentarian )

gSome researchers profess that low dose radiation is good for your health. I think itfs persuasive. A colleague of mine recovered from his illness by low dose radiation therapy.h
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ( quoted from the May 5th issue of the Asahi Shinbun)

He seems to be talking about hormesis effect, but he is not persuasive enough. What is a low dose radiation therapy? We have never heard of it !

back to the top




@13@Hironobu Nakamura: ( Director of Japan Radiology Association, one-time prof. at Osaka Univ.)


gA low dose exposure is good for health. Accumulated amount of as much as 1000 mSv would probably be harmless.h
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ( in a Yomiuri TV program in March and April, 2011)

An irresponsible remark ! 1 Sv is harmless ?? It will definitely cause an acute disorder!

back to the top




@14@Keiji Miyazaki: (Emeritus prof. at Osaka Univ.)

gSeismic vibration of the earthquake was around 400 gals, which was within the seismic vibration benchmark of 600 gals and the reactors stopped. The problem was that the tsunami was beyond our supposition.h
gNuclear energy which is economical and little CO2- emitting should continue to be promoted. If not, Japan will suffer from electric power shortage which in turn will lag Japanfs civil and social development through disruption of everyday lives of the people and the stagnation of the whole economy.h
@@@@@@@@@@ (quoted from May 15th Extra Edition of AERA gNuclear Power Plants and the Japaneseh)

He trivializes the issue putting the blame on the "tsunami". Mr.Mitsuhiko Tanaka, a one-time reactor construction engineer, says that at least the 1st Reactor lost its coolant due to the plumbing damage caused by the "earthquake". How can we prioritize the worry for electricity shortage over the damage by radiation? With the nuclear disaster still uncontrollably continuing, how can you arrive at the notion that nuclear power generation is cheaper and emit little CO2? Power can be supplied without nuclear plants, but those government mouth-piece academics donft see other power generating means.

back to the top




@15@Kazuaki Kato: (Chief Director of Radiation Safety Forum)

@FgThe upper dose limit for general public (1000Sv=1mSv per year) is a promise or an agreement to contain the impact of the radiation caused by the use of specific radioactive source and not a figure showing the boundary between safe and unsafe doses for the general public.h
gMany people are not familiar with the radiation units like Sv. And Bq. They cannot understand what those figures mean.h gI advise you to use following two figures as a guideline for judgment: one is the average of annual radiation amount an ordinary Japanese is exposed to (4 mSv.) and the other is the lethal radiation amount at a one-time whole body exposure left untreated causing an acute radiation disorder and eventual death( 7mSv).h @@@@@@@@ ( quoted from Radiation Safety Forum HP, on March 21st,2011)

Does he mean to say that this much of explanation is enough for the unintelligent general public? Where does he get the figure 4mSv which we hear for the first time? Wasnft the world average 2.4 mSv and the Japanese one, 1.5mSv?

AFgEven in a case where a overdose has been found in a measurement report, it is not advisable to supervise an immediate and complete throw away of the econtaminatedf material. A small amount of radiation will disappear right away. You need to check the state of the food when you read the measurements: for example, the milk detected to be overdose radioactive can be made into powder milk or into dairy products such as butter and cheese to be sold and eaten when the dose comes down below the benchmark .h
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ( quoted from Radiation Safety Forum HP, on March 21st,2011)

His advice may be a realistic one if almost all the foods are contaminated, but the basic idea@should still be gtry to evade any radiation exposure as much as possible.h

back to the top




@16@Kenji SumidaF (Emeritus Prof. at Osaka Univ. and one-time acting-Director of Nuclear Safety Commission)

gThe review of the Quake Proof Guideline after the Great Hanshin Earthquake reached the conclusion that there was no problem with the prescribed provisions. But I now remember not only one but quite a many scholars came back to us after the review saying, e I was in the minority and didnft speak out knowing that my opinion would not be considered, but I believe the guideline needs to be renewed.f All of them had no stake in nuclear energy.h
@@@@@@@@ ( quoted from May 15th Extra Edition of AERA gNuclear Power Plants and the Japaneseh)

There is no crying over spilt milk, isnft there?

back to the top




@17@Yoshihiko OtsukiF (Emeritus Prof. at Waseda Univ.)

gAlmost 10,000 die in car accidents per year and nobody thinks it 100% safe to ride in a car. But we definitely need cars in our present society. The situation is the same with nuclear power plants.h gEven after an appallingly disastrous contamination like Chernobyl, we cannot find any research results proving the increase of cancer and leukemia cases among adults in the surrounding areas.h
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ (quoted from the April 16th Issue of Shukan Gendai)

It is wrong to compare nuclear energy plants with cars, to start with. His understanding of Chernobyl disaster is not full enough. At this very moment thyroid cancer is on the increase in adults. By 2006, the number of people in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus who have had radiation affected health problems had amounted to 7,000,000.

back to the top




@18@Ministry of Fisheries HP

gRadioactive substances, unlike mercury and organochlorine compounds, donft concentrate and accumulate in the fishes through food chains.h
gThe expression used in our HP edonft concentrate and accumulatef meant to mean not that but edonft continue to concentrate and accumulate.f
@@@@@@@@ ( a correction made by the ministry after being asked by ShukanGendai, a weekly magazine)

The Ministry of Fisheries is another unreliable institution! The language they use is not understandable Japanese.

back to the top




@19@Ministry of Education and Science:
gFor a Correct Understanding of Radioactivitiesh (April 20th )


gExternal Exposure is caused when radioactive substances stick to your clothes and skin.h

The understanding of external exposure is too narrow:
is it intentional not to mention@the@exposure from the ground soil?


gTo be noted in school life, the accumulated amount of radiation exposure per year should be contained below 20 mSv, which means the amount per hour should be less than 2.2 microSv on the average. A school day plan based on the Nuclear Safety Commission guideline with 8 hours of outdoor activities and 16 hours of indoor activities will expose children to 3.8 microSv per hour. Areas where their radiation dose is below 3.8 micro Sv per hour are fit to live normal lives without any risks. g

Areas where radiation dose is above 0.6 microSv per hour are supposed to be designated as gRadiation Controlled Areah where laborers under 18 are forbidden to work. To say that a normal life is possible being exposed to the radiation of 3.8 micro Sv per hour is criminal, ignoring the higher proneness of children to be affected, the fact that children are closer to the ground and thus more liable to be exposed to the ground soil radiation, the possibility of internal exposure, and the risks of late-onset disorders.

gOf all the , any have not been detected so far in human beings including the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bomb victims, nuclear tests victims, and nuclear plants victims like those of Chernobyl. By the way in the case of Chernobyl, no increase in cancer cases except in those of childrenfs thyroid cancer has been acknowledged.

Here again past examples are trivialized. To ignore the serious effects by taking advantage of the non publication of genetic effects for fear of discrimination against the victims, is inexcusable. Chromosome disorders in pregnant women and congenital malformations in new born babies have been detected. The IAEA had reported that the number of deaths caused by Chernobyl accident was 4000. The newly in-US published book ,gThe Aftereffects of the Appalling Disaster of Chernobyl on the Environment and the Peopleh written by researchers in Belarus (not yet translated) reports that the number of deaths due to the accident is 985,000.h

gIt is said that the effects of psychological stress caused by the worry you harbor about the radiation you have been exposed to is greater than the effects of the radiation exposure itself. If guardians worry excessively, the worry will be passed on to their children and make them physically and mentally unstable.h

This pamphlet published by the Ministry of Education and Science aims at trivializing the realities of a most disastrous accident by its psychological interpretation/treatment. Not radiation specialists but Japanese Society of Psychosomatic Pediatrics are guiding and cooperating with the Ministry. We can imagine schools reacting negatively to guardians worrying about childrenfs health. It is a very malicious act to trivialize the realities of the radiation exposure into a psychological issue.

back to the top






References:
EgThe Man-made Disaster at Fukushima Nuclear Planth written by Minato Kawamura and published by Gendai Shokan
EgA Nuclear Power Plant Running Wildh written by Ryuichi Hirokawa and published by Shogakkan
EgThe Guilt of Nuclear Power Plant Celebrities who Gather around Electric Companiesh ( April 15th ,2011 issue of Shukan Kinyoubi )
EgThe Government mouth-piece Academics who Promoted Nuclear Power Generationh ( April 29th,2011 issue of Shukan Kinyoubi )
EApril 16th,2011 issue of Shukan Gendai
EMay 15th,2011 Extra Edition of AERA: The Nuclear Plant and the Japanese
EJuly,2011 issue of Takarajima