[ RadSafe ] Claim - The Japanese Government Is Lying to the International Community: the Radiological Situation in and around Fukushima is NOT Safe

Roger Helbig rwhelbig at gmail.com
Fri Dec 1 07:43:07 CST 2017


French Anti-nuclear activist dunrenard posted: " A report from NIRS
(Nuclear Information and Resource Service, in USA) The Japanese
government has created foreign language websites which provide the
information about radiology in general and the radiological situation
in Fukushima. Journalists aroun"
Respond to this post by replying above this line

New post on nuclear-news

The Japanese Government Is Lying to the International Community: the
Radiological Situation in and around Fukushima is NOT Safe

by dunrenard
A report from NIRS (Nuclear Information and Resource Service, in USA)
The Japanese government has created foreign language websites which
provide the information about radiology in general and the
radiological situation in Fukushima. Journalists around the world, our
friends and acquaintances living abroad are continually asking us
whether the information that these Japanese central and local
government websites present to the international community is correct
or not. The following is our answer.

Appeal from a Japanese Anti-nuclear Activist Etsuji Watanabe
Nov.29 2017 Revised (Oct.12 2017)
Etsuji Watanabe: Member of the Japanese anti-radiation
citizen-scientist group ACSIR (Association for Citizens and Scientists
Concerned about Internal Radiation Exposures)
Special thanks to Mrs Yuko Kato, Mr Ruiwen Song, Ms Nozomi Ishizu, Mrs
Kurly Burch, Ms Jennifer Alpern, and Mark Bennett Yuko Kato: Evacuee
from Fukushima, member of the Kansai plaintiff group for compensation
against TEPCO and government Ruiwen Song: Taiwanese freelance
The Japanese government has created foreign language websites which
provide the information about radiology in general and the
radiological situation in Fukushima. Journalists around the world, our
friends and acquaintances living abroad are continually asking us
whether the information that these Japanese central and local
government websites present to the international community is correct
or not. The following is our answer.

[Question 1]
The stories uploaded on these websites give people the impression that
worrying about radiation is unnecessary. As for this impression, has
Fukushima now really become a safe place to live or visit?
First of all, Japanese anti-nuclear activists and evacuees from
contaminated areas in Fukushima and Kanto, have been warning people
all over the world NEVER to trust what the Japanese government is
saying about both radiology in general and the specific radiological
health effects caused by the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant
disaster (hereafter Fukushima accident) following the Great East Japan
Earthquake and Tsunami on March 11th, 2011.
Prime-minister Shinzo Abe and the Japanese government as a whole
including Fukushima prefectural government have repeatedly declared
that “with regard to health-related problems (of the Fukushima
accident), I (Abe) will state in the most emphatic and unequivocal
terms that there have been no problems until now, nor are there any at
present, nor will there be in the future.” (Abe’s statement at a news
conference). See the Japanese government website here.
This claim is completely fabricated and false. In making these claims,
the Japanese government is blatantly ignoring the vast number of
studies in radiological sciences and epidemiology that have been
accumulating historically. By engaging in this behavior, the Japanese
government has been systematically deceiving the public, both
nationally and internationally.
Just think of the amount of radioactivity released during the
Fukushima accident. As you know, one of the standards used to assess
the extent of radioactive releases and longtime human health effects
is the levels of cesium 137 (Cs137) released into the environment.
Based on the Japanese government data (which is an underestimate), the
Fukushima accident released 168 times the Cs137 discharged by the
atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. This amount is almost the equivalent
to the total atmospheric nuclear explosions conducted by the United
States on the Nevada test ground. The Nevada desert is not designated
as a residential area, but the Japanese government has recommended
evacuated residents return to live in areas with radiation levels of
up to 20 mSv/year. By removing economic support for evacuees, the
Japanese government has forced many people who had evacuated from
these areas to return.
We estimate that in the Fukushima accident approximately 400-600 times
the Cs137 were released into the atmosphere by the atomic bomb blast
in Hiroshima. Roughly 20% of the Cs137, or 80-120
Hiroshima-equivalents, were deposited on Japan. Of this, the
decontamination efforts have only been able to retrieve five
Hiroshima-equivalents. The waste from decontamination efforts is
typically stored all over Fukushima mostly in mountainous heaps of
large plastic bags. This means that 75-115 Hiroshima-equivalents of
Cs137 still remain in Fukushima, surrounding prefectures, and all over
In addition, the Japanese government is now planning to reuse the
retrieved contaminated soil under 8000Bq/kg in public works projects
all over Japan. This self-destructive program has now been partially
started without any announcements as to where the contaminated soil
are and will be reused, under the pretext of “avoiding damage caused
by harmful rumors”. This project is tantamount to scattering lethal
fallout of Cs137 equivalent to about 5 times that of Hiroshima bomb
all over Japan. The Japanese government is literally behaving like a
nuclear terrorist.
Do you really imagine that Fukushima prefecture and surrounding areas,
contaminated as they are to levels similar to the Nevada test site, is
really a safe place for people to permanently live, or for foreign
tourists to visit and go sightseeing?
Regrettably, we must conclude that it is not, for either residents or
tourists the situation in Fukushima is not safe.

[Question 2]
These websites also point out that the international annual dose limit
for the public is at 1mSv, but this level is easily exceeded by only
one CT-scan, insinuating that this 1mSv standard is set too low and
thus not a useful indicator.
CT-Scans are often cited as if they had no radiation risks, But this
is not true. A recent study clearly shows that every CT-scan (about
4.5mSv irradiation) increases the risk of cancers in children by 24%.
See the website here.
In Fukushima the allowable level of radiation per year for residents
is now 20mSv. Can you imagine having 4-5 CT-scans every year?

[Question 3]
One of the websites states: “In Fukushima, the indoor radiation doses
are now so reduced that no radioactive cesium can be found in the air.
Therefore, no radioactive particles can invade the human body during
breathing.” What do you think of this statement?
The Japanese government also ignores the long-term peril caused by
“hot particles” ――micron-and- nano-sized radioactive
particulates――which, if inhaled or absorbed into the human body, may
lead to many kinds of cancers and other diseases including cardiac
failure. We should consider internal irradiation to the cells near the
radiation sources to be 500 times more dangerous than external
irradiation because particles inside the body radiates very near or
even inside cells, causing intensive damage to DNAs and other cell
organs such as mitochondria.

[Question 4]
These websites explain that there exists not only artificial but also
natural radioactivity, thus people are living in an environment
surrounded by radiation all the time in everyday life.
One of the main tactics that the Japanese government often uses to
propagate the “safety of low level irradiation” is to compare
artificial radioactivity with natural radioactivity. But this logic is
a methodological sleight of hand. It is crystal-clear that even
exposure to natural radioactivity has its own health risks. Cancers
sickened and killed people long before artificial radioactivity was
used. For example, Seishu Hanaoka, one of the founders of Japan’s
medicine, carried out 152 breast cancer surgeries from 1804 to 1836.
Both kinds of radioactivity have their own health risks. Risks caused
by artificial radioactivity should not be compared but be added to the
natural radioactivity risks as they both lead to the accumulation of
For example, potassium 40 (K40) is a typical natural radioactive
nuclide. According to  the Japanese government, the average internal
exposure dose for adults from K40 is about 4,000Bq/year or
0.17mSv/year. See the website here (in Japanese).
The ICRP risk model (2007) allows us to estimate the approximate risk
posed by K40. The calculation shows that K40 is responsible for
approximately 4,000 cancer cases and 1,000 deaths every year. If the
same amount of radiation was added to that of K40 in the human body by
artificial sources, the cancers and mortalities would be doubled to
8,000 and 2,000 a year, respectively. Based on the ECRR (2010) model,
which criticizes the ICRP risk model as a severe underestimate, these
figures should be multiplied by 40, reaching 320,000 and 80,000,
The extract you cite from the Fukushima government website is
completely fake: “In Fukushima, the indoor radiation doses are now so
reduced that no radioactive cesium can be found in the air. Therefore,
no radioactive particles can invade the human body during
respiration”. Reports from civic radiation measurement stations refute
this claim. For example, dust collecting paper packs of vacuum
cleaners used in Iwaki City, Fukushima prefecture, are radiologically
measured and 4,800-53,900Bq/kg radioactive cesium was detected in
Oct-Dec 2015. See the website here (in Japanese).

[Question 5]
One of the websites says that the Fukushima prefecture has conducted
whole-body counter screenings of the 170,000 local population so far
but cesium was rarely detected.” Does this mean that we can safely
consume food from Fukushima, and Fukushima residents are no longer
being exposed internally to radiation?
This is a typical example of demagogy by the Japanese government:
vague expressions lacking specific data, using the words “safe and
secure” without clear explanation. In reality, the government has not
publicized any data indicating serious irradiation of the population.
For example, you mentioned the Fukushima prefectural government
website saying that whole-body counter screenings of 170,000 members
of the local population have found radioactive Cs only in very few
cases. However, the fact that no specific number is given makes the
statement suspicious.
These statistics, more than likely, exclude many firefighters or other
municipal employees who, at the time of accident, helped local
residents evacuate from a lot of contaminated areas surrounding the
defunct Fukushima plant. These people were subjected to serious
radiation doses.
Civic groups’ efforts for the disclosure of information has recently
prompted city officials near the defunct plant to disclose the fact
that it conducted whole-body counter check-ups on about 180
firefighters, nurses and municipal employees. According to Koichi
Ohyama, a member of the municipal assembly of Minami Soma, the
screening conducted in July, 2011, showed almost all of these people
tested positive in Cs. The maximum Cs137 dose among the firefighters
was as high as 140,000 Bq. This data reveals a part of the reality of
irradiation but it is only a tiny part.

[Question 6]
The government websites suggest that no health effects from
irradiation have been reported in Fukushima. Is this true? Or have any
symptoms appeared that indicate an increase in radiation-induced
diseases in Fukushima?
One example is the outbreak of child thyroid cancer, but the Japanese
government has been denying the relationship with irradiation from
radioactive iodine released from the Fukushima disaster.
Japan’s population statistics reflect the health effects from the
Fukushima disaster radioactivity. The following data clearly show that
diseases increasing in Fukushima are highly likely to have been
[Question 7]
The Fukushima prefecture website says, “After the Fukushima accident,
the Japanese government has introduced the provisional standards for
radioactive iodine and cesium. The Fukushima prefectural government
subsequently strictly regulated distribution and consumption of food
with levels of radioactivity exceeding the provisional standards. Now
we have had this new much stricter standard. The distribution and
consumption  of food exceeding this new standard has been continuously
regulated; therefore any food on the market is safe to consume.” Is it
As for food contamination, the Japanese government has also tried to
cover up the real picture. First, the current government standard for
radioactivity in food, 100Bq/kg, is dangerously high for human health,
especially for fetuses, infants, children and pregnant women. Even six
and a half years after the accident, the Agriculture Ministry of Japan
as well as many civic radioactivity measurement stations all over the
country have reported many food contamination cases, although the
frequency is evidently reduced. See the website here.
The Japanese government has underestimated the danger presented by
internal irradiation. But, we must consider two important factors. (1)
The wide range of difference in personal radio-sensitivity. According
to Professor Tadashi Hongyo (Osaka University Medical Faculty), the
maximum difference is as wide as 100 times in terms of biological
half-life of Cs137. (2) Recent studies denying that the so-called
biological half-life decrease curve actually exists. According to the
new model, daily food contamination can cause concentrations to
accumulate as time passes. Even a daily 1Bq internal radiation dose
from food cannot be safe for human health (details below).
Our recommendation is to be cautious of food or produce from Fukushima
and the surrounding areas, and, even if contamination levels are said
to have now generally decreased, to avoid jumping to the conclusion
that all the food is fit to eat.

[Question 8]
We would like to ask about the situations in prefectures surrounding
Fukushima. A television program once reported, “As for the safety of
Tochigi and Gunma prefectures, few people are raising concern about
health effects of radiation.” Is it true that the prefectures somewhat
distant from the Fukushima Daiichi plant are now safe with no human
Regarding the radioactive contamination in prefectures surrounding
Fukushima, you can refer to the following website.
This article examines the contamination in the Tokyo metropolitan
area, but conditions are the same or more serious in Tochigi or other
prefectures north of Tokyo, nearer to the defunct Fukushima Daiichi
Another example is the statistics of stillbirth and neonatal mortality
in Fukushima and the surrounding five prefectures (Tochigi, Gunma,
Ibaragi, Miyagi, Iwate) shown here.
Perinatal mortality in not only Fukushima prefecture but also
neighboring prefectures rose 15.6% just 10 months after the accidents.
This clearly indicates the existence of some kind of human health
damage from radiation.
[Question 9]
We would like to ask about the decontamination efforts by famers
living in Fukushima and neighboring prefectures. Should we think
highly of the farmers measuring the amount of radiation deposited on
the surface of soil to create radiation maps for farms, or washing the
radiation from the surface of every single tree off the radiation with
high-pressure washers? The farmers said that while these methods have
been shown to be radiologically effective, their produce did not sell
well, because consumers are still feeling anxious about health risks.
Does the problem of radioactive food contamination in Japan just end
up in whether each consumer personally believes it safe or not?
We must raise a question that, despite the government’s
decontamination efforts, a huge amount of radioactive materials
deposited in mountainous areas remain untouched. Now they are
re-dispersing and re-depositing over wide areas of Fukushima and
surrounding prefectures via winds, cars, trains, river water, pollen,
spores, emissions from incinerators, in the form of radioactive dusts
and particulates, among many others. For an example, see the following
So I regret to say that, although these farmers’ endeavors you
mentioned are very precious and respectable, they are not sufficient
to completely eliminate the risk of radiation exposure from food. The
problem exists objectively in the nuclear materials deposited on and
in soil, algae, plants, houses, buildings, forests, animal and human
bodies, not subjectively in the consumers’ sentiment or psychology.

[Question 10]
Japanese experts have recently pitched a cultivation method that can
remove cesium by intensive use of potassium fertilizer. Is this method
effective at all? Do you have any doubt about their claims?
They seem to be among those experts who have been criticizing the
general public’s tendency to demand “zero irradiation risk” as an
obstacle to Fukushima reconstruction.
As you know, cesium (Cs) has chemically similar characteristics to
potassium (K). So it is true that higher levels of application of
potassium fertilizer lowers the plant’s absorption, and therefore
concentration, of radioactive Cs, decreasing Cs137/134 concentrations
in produce, often to below the government standard of 100Bq/kg. But
the following problems remain: (1) This procedure can prevent Cs
transfer from the soil to produce only partly, not completely; (2)
This process raises the potassium concentration in the produce and
therefore heightens the burdens on certain human organs such as
kidneys, the heart and the nervous system, causing new health risks;
(3) Heightened concentration of potassium also leads to the heightened
concentration of radioactive K40, so the reduced risk of radioactive
Cs lead to an increased risk of internal irradiation by K40.

[Question 11]
Even if cesium concentration was reduced by applying more potassium
fertilizer than usual, strontium contamination would remain. In
Japanese government’s international press campaign as to the Fukushima
accident, almost nothing has been said about strontium. If you have
any information on strontium contamination, let us know.
We regret that the information about strontium that you are asking for
is very limited and searching for it is also a challenge for us. The
Japanese government and research institutes under the government have
reported very limited data regarding strontium contamination. But it
is important that the Japanese government admits the fact of strontium
contamination within 80km from the defunct Fukushima plant. See the
website here.
Did you know that the US Department of Energy data on the strontium
contamination of soil in Japan and its visualization (in Japanese)
can be seen on the websites here?

[Question 12]
Some Japanese experts say, “the Japanese government has declared that
no health effects from irradiation below 100mSv (or 100mSv/year) have
been confirmed.” Some farmers have established a private food standard
of 20Bq/kg, much lower than the Japanese government standard of
100Bq/kg. Do you think that doses under 100mSv or under 20Bq/kg are
safe and secure?
As you mentioned, the Japanese government claims that no scientific
studies verify that irradiation of 100mSv or less poses a threat to
human health, suggesting that irradiation under 100mSv has no risk.
This, however, is false. The government is fabricating this
information. In fact, very many scientific studies have already
confirmed and proven health effects induced by irradiation under
100mSv. For example, see the websites below.

The Japanese government is using the term “100mSv” in a deliberately
ambiguous and confusing manner. The expression 100mSv can have three
meanings: (1) a one-time irradiation dose, (2) cumulative irradiation
doses, or (3) annual irradiation doses. So 100mSv is not the same as,
nor equal to the 100mSv/year that you mentioned in parenthesis. The
latter amounts to a 1Sv in cumulative dose over 10 years (which is an
up to 10% lethal dose), and 5Sv over 50 years (which is a 50% lethal
dose). The present government standard for evacuees to return,
20mSv/year, means that living there for 5 years leads to a cumulative
dose of 100mSv, at which the Japanese government admits clear health
Regarding 20Bq/kg as some farmers’ private food standard, it is
critical to pay serious attention to the extraction process of Cs from
tissues. Japanese-Canadian non-organic biochemist Eiichiro Ochiai
points out in his book “Hiroshima to Fukushima, Biohazards of
Radiation” (2014) that, based on the Leggett model, the Cs
concentration injected in tissues at one time diminishes relatively
quickly for about 10 days in most tissues. After that, processes slow
down, tending to become steady. He writes: the decrease of the overall
Cs level in the body does not follow an exponential decay curve
(p.83). This means that consecutive intake of Cs, even in very low
levels, results in the accumulation of Cs in the body. (Incidentally,
Ochiai’s book can be downloaded for free from the website below.)
Regarding the Leggett model, see the website below.
Yuri Bandazhevsky considers over 10Bq/kg of radioactive Cs
concentrations in the body to be unsafe because even this low level
can possibly cause abnormal electrocardiographic pattern in babies,
metabolic disorders, high blood pressure, cataracts, and so on.
Therefore, we can conclude unequivocally that neither the irradiation
under 100mSv nor the privately set 20Bq/kg food standard are safe and
PDF Download
dunrenard | December 1, 2017 at 1:08 pm | Tags: Contaminated Foods,
Contamination, Fukushima, Health Problems, Lies & Cover-up, radiation
| Categories: Fukushima 2017 | URL: https://wp.me/phgse-yzg

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from nuclear-news.
Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:

Thanks for flying with WordPress.com

More information about the RadSafe mailing list