[ RadSafe ] RadSafe Digest, Vol 1519, Issue 1
z3ix at kamprint.com
Sat Feb 22 18:26:05 CST 2014
As a U.S. citizen resident in Japan, it seems to me that the lawsuits based on
junk-science, false 'reports', and manufactured hysteria about USS Reagan
sailors' radiation exposure have the potential to damage relations between the
United States and Japan. The assistance of the U.S. Navy was crucial in
supplying very large amounts of water during the early days of the Fukushima
meltdowns. The U.S. Army supplied tents and emergency facilities for refugees.
All of this was done with little or no publicity, with an informal understanding
that assistance would be welcome, but without a formal request. This differed
significantly from the Japanese Government's refusal of foreign assistance after
the Kobe earthquake of January 1995. The only likely consequences of a frivolous
billion-dollar lawsuit are <1> That the Japanese Government will revert to its
previous stance of 'no foreign assistance' in disaster relief efforts; <2> That
valuable resources needed to deal with the reactor wreckage will be diverted to
legal defense; and <3> That the goodwill created by the U.S. military's quiet
assistance will have been converted into long-lasting distrust and suspicion.
Radsafers and others with real expertise in radiation health should do all they
can to bring real science to bear on this debate, in the media, in the
courtroom, and in diplomatic relations, for the sake of future ties between the
United States and Japan.
> A new report on the nuclear crisis that started to unfold in Fukushima, Japan
> almost three years ago suggests that American troops who assisted with
> disaster relief efforts were exposed to unheard of radiation levels while on
Unheard-of indeed, and unrecorded as well.
> The latest report, NextGov's Bob Brewin wrote, comes only days after
> the attorneys representing 79 USS Reagan crewmember filed an amended
> lawsuit in California against Tokyo Electric Power Co., or TEPCO.,
> which has been accused of negligent with regards to maintain the
> Fukushima nuclear facility ahead of the March 2011 earthquake and
> tsunami that started the emergency.
If this is a direct quote, the writer doesn't even know the difference between
an adjective ('negligent') and a noun (negligence). He seems to have trouble
with verbs and nouns 'with regards to maintain' as well. Might elementary
literacy be a prerequisite for understanding radiation health?
> Attorneys for those servicemen are asking TEPCO for $1 billion in damages,
In other words, the attorneys would like to divert funds from disaster relief
efforts and into their own bank accounts.
> Attorneys in that suit say that "up to 70,000 US citizens [were] potentially
> affected by the radiation," and might be able to join in their suit.
I would certainly never join anything such as this which, as Radsafers have
abundantly documented, has no scientific basis, and which has the potential to
seriously damage U.S.-Japan relations.
-- Peter Miller
More information about the RadSafe