critical analysis of the unscear report “levels and effects of

Critical Analysis of the UNSCEAR Report “Levels and effects of radiation exposu-re due to the nuclear accident after the 2011 Great East-Japan Earthquake and

tsunami”

by Physicians for Social Responsibility, USA

International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War / Physicians in social responsibility, GermanyPhysicians for Global Survival, Canada

Mexican Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, MexicoAssociation of Guatemalan Physicians and Scientists for the Prevention of War, Guatemala

Physicians for Social Responsibility / IPPNW, SwitzerlandDanish Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (DLMK), Denmark

Medical Association for the Protection of the Environment and Against Nuclear and Biochemical Threat, GreeceFrench Physicians Against Nuclear Weapons (AMFPGN), France

Physicians Union Lege Artis, SerbiaDutch Medical Association for Peace Research (NVMP), The Netherlands

Irish Doctors Environmental Association, IrelandAssociation of Physicians and Medical Workers for Social Responsibility / IPPNW, Kenya

Society of Nigerian Doctors for the Welfare of Mankind, NigeriaPhysicians for Social Responsibility, Egypt

Physicians for Peace and Preservation of the Environment, IsraelIndian Doctors for Peace and Development (IDPD), IndiaPhysicians for Peace and Social Responsibility, Malaysia

Austrian Physicians against Violence and Nuclear Dangers (OMEGA), Austria

Outline

I) Introduction

II) Where we agree with the UNSCEAR report

» 1 CalculatingcollectiveeffectivedosesforallofJapan » 2 Estimatingradiationdosesfornon-evacuateddistrictsandneighboringprefectures » 3 Describingamuchhighermarinedischargethanpreviouslyreported » 4 CorrectlyportrayingtheFukushimacatastropheasanongoingprocessratherthanasingularevent

III) Mainpointsofcriticism

» 1 ThevalidityofUNSCEAR'ssourcetermestimatesisindoubt » 2 Thereareseriousconcernsregardingthecalculationsofinternalradiation » 3 ThedoseassessmentsoftheFukushimaworkerscannotbereliedupon » 4 TheUNSCEARreportignorestheeffectsoffalloutonthenon-humanbiota » 5 Thespecialvulnerabilityoftheembryotoradiationisnottakenintoaccount » 6 Non-cancerdiseasesandhereditaryeffectswereignoredbyUNSCEAR » 7 Comparisonsofnuclearfalloutwithbackgroundradiationaremisleading » 8 UNSCEAR'Sinterpretationsofthefindingsarequestionable » 9 Theprotectivemeasurestakenbytheauthoritiesaremisrepresented » 10 Conclusionsfromcollectivedoseestimationsarenotpresented

IV) Conclusion

V) Listofacronymsandabbreviations

VI) References

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE UNSCEAR REPORT

4


I) Introduction

TheInternationalPhysiciansforthePreventionofNuclearWar(IPPNW)isaglobalfederationofdoctorsworkingto-wardsahealthier,saferandmorepeacefulworld.Inmorethan60countries,ournationalaffiliatesareactingasad-vocatesofnuclearabolitionandproponentsofanuclear-freeworld.Foritswork,IPPNWwasawardedtheNobelPeacePrizein1985.

In2011,theIPPNWBoardofDirectorsunanimouslyag-reedtoadoptamoreencompassingstancetowardsthegoalofanuclearweapons-freeworldbyaddressingthestronginterdependencybetweenthemilitaryandcivilianbranchesofthenuclearchain.Aworldwithoutnuclearweaponswillonlybepossibleifwealsophaseoutnucle-arenergy.Asphysicians,wearealsoconcernedabouttheenvironmentalandhealthimplicationsofallaspectsofthenuclearchain–fromthepublichealthimpactofura-niumminingandthecreationoflargeamountsofradio-activetailings,theinherentdangersofprocessingandtransportingfissilematerialaroundtheglobe,theuncon-trollablerisksattachedtotheciviluseofnuclearenergy,thedualusecapabilityoffissilematerialforbothcivilianandmilitarypurposesandtheensuingproliferationrisk,allthewaytotheglobalhealthimpactofnuclearwea-ponstestingandtheunsolvedproblemofnuclearwaste.Everyhumanbeinghastherighttoliveinanenvironmentfreeofradioactivecontamination,compatiblewithhealthandwell-being.

AftertheFukushimanuclearmeltdownsinMarchof2011,IPPNWphysicianswereapproachedbymanyaffectedfa-milies, localpoliticiansanddoctors inFukushimaandwereaskedfortheirexpertiseonthehealtheffectsofradioactivefallout.Inthepastthreeyears,IPPNWphysi-cianshavebeenhelpingthepeopleofthecontaminatedregionsgathervalidscientificinformationandprotecttheirchildrenfromtheharmfuleffectsofradiation.Inmanyinstances,IPPNWhashadtoconfrontandpubliclycriticizeattemptsbythenuclearindustryanditslobbygroupstodownplaytheconsequencesofthecatastro-phe.Wesupportedthefamilies,doctorsandscientistswhoopposedthegovernment’sdecreetoraisetheper-missibleannualradiationexposurelevelforchildrenfrom1to20mSvandtookastrongstanceagainstthepropo-nentsoftheJapanese“nuclearvillage”whopubliclypro-claimedthattheincreasedradiationexposurewouldposenoharmtohumanhealth.

AftertheIPPNWWorldCongressinJapaninAugustof2012,IPPNWphysiciansvisitedthecontaminatedregionsinFukushimaandparticipatedinscientificconferences,publicmeetingsanduniversitylectures.LikeAnandGro-ver,theUNSpecialRapporteurontherighttohealthto

theHumanRightsCouncil,weareconcernedthatthepeopleaffectedbyFukushimaradioactivefalloutaresys-tematicallydeprivedoftheirrighttoastandardoflivingadequatefortheirhealthandwell-being.

OnApril2nd,2014,theUnitedNationsScientificCommit-teeontheEffectsofAtomicRadiation(UNSCEAR)publis-heditscompletereport“Levelsandeffectsofradiationexposureduetothenuclearaccidentafterthe2011greateast-Japanearthquakeandtsunami”.Initspressrelease,UNSCEARusesthefollowingphrasetosumupitsfin-dings:“Nodiscerniblechangesinfuturecancerratesandhereditarydiseasesareexpectedduetoexposuretora-diationasaresultoftheFukushimanuclearaccident”.1 ThisechoestheUNSCEARpressreleasefromMay31st,2013,whichstated:“RadiationexposurefollowingthenuclearaccidentatFukushima-Daiichididnotcauseanyimmediatehealtheffects.Itisunlikelytobeabletoattri-buteanyhealtheffectsinthefutureamongthegeneralpublicandthevastmajorityofworkers”.2

Currentresearchgivesnojustificationforsuchoptimisticpresumptions.AlthoughUNSCEAR’sevaluationsofthecomplexdatamaybeusefulinassessingtheconsequen-cesoftheFukushimanuclearcatastrophe,wealsofeelthatthereportdoesnotrevealthetrueextentofthecon-sequencesofthedisaster.TheBelgianAssociationforRadiationProtection,amemberofUNSCEAR,criticizedthatthereporthasevenretreatedfromthelessonsofChernobyl3UNSCEARdrawsmainlyondatafromthenuc-learindustry'spublicationsratherthanfromindependentsourcesandomitsormisinterpretscrucialaspectsofra-diationexposure.Inquestionarealsosomeoftheas-sumptions,whichUNSCEAR'scalculationsarebasedon.Evenamonthafterpublicationofthereport,theimport-antappendicescontainingtherawdatahavestillnotbeenmadeaccessible,preventingindependentverificati-onofUNSCEAR'sconclusions.Forthesereasons,doctorsfrom19affiliatesofIPPNWhavefoundtheneedtoissuethiscriticalanalysisoftheUNSCEARreport.

Weareconcernedthattheapparentlysystematicunde-restimationsandquestionableinterpretationsinthere-portwillbeusedbythenuclearindustrytodownplaytheexpectedhealtheffectsofthenuclearcatastropheinFu-kushima.Furthermore,publicauthoritiesneedreliableinterpretationsofscientificdatainordertoactinthebestinterestofthepublic,aswellasanhonestassessmentofthelimitationsanduncertaintiesofavailabledataandas-sumptions.The“precautionaryprinciple”asdefinedbytheDeclarationofRioin1992dictates,thatinsituationsofscientificuncertainty, theworstpossibleoutcomeshouldbepresumedandactedupon.However,wefeelthattheUNSCEARreport,whichwillmostlikelybeconsi-deredbymostpublicauthoritiesasareliableandscienti-ficallysoundbasisfortheirpolicies,isover-optimisticand

5

misleading.Thiscouldnegativelyaffectfuturepublicpo-licy,scientificresearch,socialsupportandhealthservicesfortheaffectedpopulationinJapan.WearealsoworriedthattheunsubstantiatedandunreliableconclusionsoftheUNSCEARreportcouldhavenegativelong-termim-pactson internationalradiationsafetystandardsandemergencyresponseguidelinesandriskhigherexposuretofuturegenerations.Forthesereasons,wepresentourmedicalandscientificinsightontheUNSCEARreport,no-tingfirstthepointswithwhichweagree,followedbyourtenmainpointsofcriticism.

II) Where we agree with the UNSCEAR report

TheUNSCEARreportrepresentsanextensiveproject,dealingwithamultitudeofdata.Inparticular,wearepleasedtonotethefollowingfourpoints:

1 Calculating collective effective doses for all of Japan

UNSCEARestimatedthecollectiveeffectivelife-timedoseoftheentireJapanesepopulationduetotheFukushimanuclearcatastrophetobe48,000Person-Svandthecol-lectiveabsorbedlife-timethyroiddoseoftheentireJapa-nesepopulationtobe112,000Person-Gy.4Thiscalcula-tionrepresentsasubstantialstepforwardfromtheWorldHealthOrganization(WHO)healthassessment,whichrestricteditselftocalculatingaverageindividuallife-timedoses.Withthecollectiveeffectivelife-timedoses,healtheffectsinlargepopulationscanbecalculated.Itisappre-ciatedthatUNSCEARacknowledgesthelinearnon-thres-holdmodelandtherebyrejectstheuseofathresholdforradiationeffectsof100mSv,usedbytheInternationalAtomicEnergyAgency(IAEA)inthepast.However,thereareseriousdoubtsregardingtheestimationsbehindthecollectivedosecalculationsintheUNSCEARreport,whichwebelieveresultsinsystematicunderestimations.ThiswillbefurtherelaboratedoninsectionIII.

2 Estimating radiation doses for non-evacuated districts and neighboring prefectures

UNSCEARestimatedthetotaleffectivedose5andabsor-beddose6tothethyroidfornon-evacuateddistrictsofFukushimaPrefectureandsixneighboringprefecturesinthefirstyearfollowingtheaccident.TheUNSCEARreportacknowledgesthat“thedepositionofradionuclidesinthegroundatlocationswithintheSouthtrace(Tomioka,Na-raha,HironoTownsandIwakiCity)wassignificantlyenri-

chedintellurium-132,iodine-132andiodine-131compa-redwith the restof Japan.”7Asa result, thehighestfirst-yearthyroiddoseinnon-evacuateddistrictswasdeterminedtobe52mGyfora1-year-oldinfantlivinginIwakiCity.8Thisis52timestheannualabsorbeddosetothethyroidfromnaturalbackgroundradiation(~1mGy).9 UNSCEARhasfurthermorecalculatedtheaverageabsor-bedthyroiddosesforthesixneighboringprefecturesChi-ba,Gunma,Ibaraki,Iwate,MiyagiandTochigi,acknowled-gingthatradioactivefalloutdidnotjustaffectpeopleinFukushimaPrefecture,butpeoplealloverJapanwhocameincontactwithairborneoringestedradionuclides.10 Contaminatedrice,beef,sea-food,milk,milk-powder,greentea,vegetables,fruitsandtapwaterwerefoundallovermainlandJapanandeveninJapanesefoodexports.11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22However,UNSCEARstoppedshortofestimatingdosesforTokyoandSaitamaintheKantoregion,immediatelysouthofChiba,whichalsore-ceivedasignificantfalloutbothonMarch15thand21st,2011.23SinceproduceasfarasShizuokaPrefecture,140kmsouthofTokyo,wasfoundtobecontaminated,24notconsideringtheradioactivefalloutintheprefecturesofTokyo,Saitama,KanagawaandShizuokareducestheesti-matedradiationdosesofthepopulationintheseregionsandultimatelyleadstoanunderestimationofthetotalcollectivelifetimedoseoftheJapanesepopulation.

3 Describing a much higher marine discharge than previously reported

TEPCO’sinitialestimatesofthetotalradioactivecontami-nationofthePacificOceanduetotheFukushimanucleardisastercameto4.7PBq.Byfarthebiggestmarinecon-tamination,however,occurredfromradioactivefalloutinthedaysandweeksfollowingtheinitialnuclearmelt-downsandwasnotconsideredintheTEPCOestimate.Scientists from the JapaneseAtomic EnergyAgency(JAEA)andKyotoUniversitysubsequentlycalculatedthetotalamountofmarinecontaminationfromiodine-131andcesium-137tobe15PBq.25InOctoberof2011,calcu-lationsbytheFrenchInstituteforRadioprotectionandNuclearSafety(IRSN)toppedthisnumberbydetermining27PBqofcesium-137marinecontaminationalone.26

AccordingtothecurrentUNSCEARreport,however,alloftheseestimateswerestillfartoolow.Indeterminingma-rinecontamination,theauthorsrelymostlyonastudybyKawamuraetalfromAugustof2011,calculatingthetotalamountofradiationthatenteredthePacificOceanbyde-positionfromtheatmospheretobe5PBqforcesium-137and57PBqforiodine-131intheperiodoftimebetweenMarch12thandApril30thandanadditional4PBqofcesium-137and11PBqofiodine-131thatweredirectlyreleasedduringtheperiodoftimefromMarch21sttoApril30th.27

6


However,eventhesefiguresmostprobablydonotdescri-bethefullextentofmarinecontamination.RegardingradioactivedischargebeforeMarch21st, Kawamurastatesthat“nodirectreleaseintotheoceanwasassumedbeforeMarch21stbecausethemonitoringdatawerenotavailableduringthisperiod”.28Also,hiscalculationsdonottakeintoaccountanyatmosphericemissionafterAp-ril6th,takingthequestionablestancethat“thereisnoinformationontheamountsreleasedintotheatmosphe-refromApril6.Itwasassumed,therefore,thattheradio-activematerialswerenotreleasedintotheatmospherefromApril6.”29Mostincomprehensibly,however,allra-dioactivedischargeafterApril30th,2011isignored,de-spiteTEPCO’srecentrevelationthatsincethebeginningofthedisaster,about300tonsofradioactivedischargereachedtheoceaneveryday,amountingtoatotalofab-out346,500tonsduringthepast38months.Kawamura’sstudyatleastconcedesthat“itwillprobablybenecessa-rytoestimatethesourcetermonoceanicandatmosphe-ricreleasesmoreaccuratelyatsomepointinthefutu-re.”30

Givenalltheuncertaintiesandunderestimationsexplai-nedabove,itcanbesummarizedthatUNSCEARassumesmarinecontaminationof68PBqiodine-131and9PBqcesium-137.ThisfigureexceedsJAEA’sestimatebymorethan5timesandTEPCO’sinitialcalculationsbymorethan15times.HenceitisclearthatFukushimafalloutconsti-tutesthesinglehighestradioactivedischargeintotheoceanseverrecorded.31,32AccordingtotheIAEA,Fukushi-manuclearfalloutalreadyranksasoneoftheprimera-dioactivepollutantsoftheworld’soceans,togetherwiththeatmosphericnuclearweaponstests,thefalloutfromChernobylandtheradioactivedischargeofnuclearre-processingplantslikeSellafield,UKorLaHague,France.33

4 Correctly portraying the Fukushima catastrophe as an ongoing process rather than a singular event

Thenuclearindustrycommonlyportraysthenuclearca-tastropheinFukushimaasasingularevent,nottakingintoconsiderationthecontinuedemissionsofradioactivityaftertheinitialmeltdownsinMarch2011.Inparticular,thereisusuallynoconsiderationofthecontinueddisper-sionofradioactiveparticles,leaksintosoilandgroundwa-terfromradioactivestoragetanksandthedestroyedre-actorcores,aswellastheradioactivecontaminationofsoilandgroundwaterduetowashoutofradioactiveiso-topesinfields,forestsandurbansettlements.Deconta-minationeffortshaveproventobeonlytemporarymea-sures, as radiation is redistributed over previouslydecontaminatedareasfromnaturalreservoirssuchasforestsorfieldsduringrainyandtyphoonseason,onwin-dydaysorduringspring,whentheflightofpollencan

contributetothespreadofradioactiveparticles.34,35

IntheUNSCEARreport,theFukushimanucleardisasterisrecognizedasanongoingcatastrophe,requiringconstantreevaluationofthecumulativeextentofcontamination.UNSCEARnotesthat“releasestothemarineenvironmentwereongoingattheendofDecember2013”andthat“thismaywarrantfurtherfollow-upofexposuresandtrendsinthecomingyears.”36UNSCEARalsoreportsthat“groundwater,contaminatedbynumeroussourcesofra-dioactivematerialonsite(e.g.leaksfromstoragetanks,dispersalofcontaminatedreactorcoolant,anddepositionofradionuclidesreleasedtotheatmosphere),representsacontinuingsourceofreleasetotheocean”andthat“furtherreleasescouldnotbeexcludedinthefuture,eitherinadvertently(e.g.fromwatercontinuingtobere-leasedfromthereactorbuildingsintogroundwater)oraspartofthewastemanagementstrategyadoptedintheremediationoftheFDNPS[FukushimaDai-ichiNuclearPowerStation]site.”37Inthelongrun,thismayleadtoanincreaseininternalexposureinthegeneralpopulationthroughradioactiveisotopesfromgroundwatersuppliesandthefoodchain.Thisscenarioisarealisticassessment,consideringthatinmanyplacesinEasternandCentralEurope,radioactivecesium-137containedinmushroomsandwildgamestillposesapublichealthconcern,almostthreedecadesaftertheChernobylnuclearmeltdown.38,39 Unfortunately,theseprecautionaryaspectswerenotsta-tedintheUNSCEARpressreleaseandseemtobeignoredbymostmediareportsaboutthefindingsofthecommit-tee.

III) Mainpointsofcriticism

WhilewebelievethatpartsoftheUNSCEARreportmaybeusefulinfutureassessmentsoftheenvironmentalandpublichealthconsequencesoftheFukushimanuclearmeltdowns,weareconcernedthatthisreportcouldlaythegroundworkforasystematicunderestimationofthetrueextentofthenuclearcatastrophe.InitsreporttotheUNGeneralAssembly,UNSCEARstatesthat“nodiscerni-bleincreasedincidenceofradiation-relatedhealtheffectsareexpectedamongexposedmembersofthepublicortheirdescendants”.40 Tomanypeople this statementcouldbeunderstoodasapredictionthatnohealthef-fectsaretobeexpected,wheninreality,itismerelysug-gestingthatthehealtheffects(e.g.cancercases,non-cancerdiseases,geneticmalformationsandstillbirths)willbetoosmalltomanifestthemselvesinepidemiologicalsurveysof theentire Japanesepopulation.Whilewesharetheviewthatmanyoftheexpectedhealtheffectscannotbeunambiguouslyattributabletotheradioactivecontaminationinnorth-easternJapan,thisisnottruefor

7

rarediseasessuchaschildhoodthyroidcancer,theinci-denceofwhichcanbesignificantlyincreasedintheafter-mathofanuclearcatastrophe.41Itiscommonlyacceptedthattheexposureofa largepopulationtoevensmallamountsofionizingradiationleadstoapredictablenum-berofcancercases,afactalsostatedintheUNSCEARreport.InthecaseofFukushima,thisaffectsnotonlythepopulationintheimmediatevicinityofthenuclearplants,butalsopeopleinotherprefectureswhocanbeaffectedbyinternalradiationthroughcontaminatedfood,water,air-borneradioisotopesorthegrowingamountsofnucle-arwaste.

UNSCEARbasesmanyofitsassumptionsregardingmedi-calradiationeffectsanddoseestimatesontheWHO/IAEAreportspublishedinMayof2012andinFebruaryof2013.42,43TheWHOreportswerecriticizedformisrepre-sentingthetrueextentofradiationexposure,followingfaultyassumptionsonthevulnerabilityoftheunbornchildtoradiationandignoringtheongoingemissionsofradioactivityfromthedamagednuclearreactors.Also,theyexcludednon-cancereffectsofradiationwithoutacriticaldiscussionandwereinfluencedtoalargeextentbyscientistswithconflictsofinterestsbecauseofclosetiestothenuclearindustry.44,45

RegardingthecurrentUNSCEARreport,theestablishedscientificprinciplestillholdstruethatanyassessmentcanonlybeasgoodasthedataandtheassumptionsthatitisbasedupon.Accordingly,ourmainpointsofcriticismcanbesummedupunderthesetenarguments:

1. ThevalidityofUNSCEAR’ssourcetermestimates isindoubt2. There are serious concerns regarding the calculationsofinternalradiation3. ThedoseassessmentsoftheFukushimaworkers cannotbereliedupon4. The UNSCEAR report ignores the effects of falloutonthenon-humanbiota5. The special vulnerability of the embryo to radiationisnottakenintoaccount6. Non-cancerdiseasesandhereditaryeffectswere ignoredbyUNSCEAR7. Comparisonsofnuclearfalloutwithbackground radiationaremisleading8. UNSCEAR’Sinterpretationsofthefindingsare questionable9. Theprotectivemeasurestakenbytheauthorities aremisrepresented10. Conclusionsfromcollectivedoseestimationsare notpresented

1 The validity of UNSCEAR’s source term estimates is in doubt

SeveralstudieshavedealtwiththecalculationoftheFu-kushima‘sourceterm’–thetotalamountofradioactivityreleasedbythenucleardisaster.46Evenwithoutaddres-singthefactthattheemissionsofradioactiveparticlesfromFukushimaDai-ichicontinueunabatedandthattheavailablesourcetermestimatesonlydealwiththeemis-sionsduringthefirstweeksofthedisaster,therearestillvariousconcernsregardingthesourcetermassumptionsusedintheUNSCEARreport.TheauthorsstatethattheybasetheircalculationsonthesourcetermestimateofTeradaetal,47butfailtomentionthatthisstudywasun-dertakenbytheJapaneseAtomicEnergyAgency(JAEA),whichwasseverelycriticizedbytheFukushimaNuclearAccidentIndependentInvestigationCommissionoftheJapaneseDiet[parliament]foritscollusionwiththenuc-learindustryanditscarelessnessinthefieldofnuclearsafety.48JAEAhasaclearconflictofinterestwhenitco-mestoassessingtheeffectsofthenucleardisasterandcannotbeconsideredaneutralsourceofinformationinthisregard.

UNSCEARarguesthatJAEA’sstudy,publishedonMay22nd,2012,representsthemostcurrentassessment,alt-houghtherenownedNorwegianInstituteforAirResearch(NILU)publisheditsfindingsjustthreemonthsearlier,inFebruaryof2012,andfoundareleaseofcesium-137fourtimeshigherthantheJAEAestimate(37PBqinsteadof9PBq).Furthermore,TEPCO’sownestimatesofthereleaseofiodine-131fromMay2012werealsomorethanfourtimeshigher(500PBqvs.120PBq).49Iftheprimarycon-cernistoadequatelyassesspossiblehealtheffectsonthepopulation,itisnotclearwhyUNSCEARreliesonthesig-nificantlylowersourcetermestimatesofthecontrover-sialJapaneseAtomicEnergyAgencyratherthanthoseofneutralinternationalinstitutionsorofTEPCOitself.

Radioisotope TEPCO JAEA NILUIodine-131 ~500 PBq 120 PBq -Cesium-137 ~10 PBq 9 PBq 37 PBq

Table 1: Source term estimates cited in UNSCEAR report 49

Anothercontentiousissueregardingsourcetermestima-tesisthereleaseofotherradioisotopes,suchasradio-activestrontium(Sr-89/-90).Uponingestion,strontiumcanaccumulateinbonetissue,asitisverysimilartocal-cium,andcancausebonemarrowcancerandleukemia.Itisthereforeahighlyrelevantenvironmentaltoxinanditseffectsonhumanhealthhavebeendemonstratedinnumerousnuclearaccidentsinthepastdecades.Initsreport,UNSCEARstatesthatradioactivestrontiumiso-topesweredetectedinconcentrationsthatwerehigherbyfourordersofmagnitude[i.e.morethan10,000times]thanthosethatprecededtheaccident.50Thereportgoes

8


ontosaythatradioactivestrontiumconcentrationswerealwayslessthan1/10ofCs-137concentrations,exceptinDecember2011,whenradioactivestrontiumwasdirectlyreleasedintotheocean.51WithamarinereleaseofCs-137inthemagnitudeofabout9PBq,evenonetenthofthisstillamountstoasignificantamountofradioactivestron-tiumreleasedintothePacificOcean.AndwhilemostoftheinitialradioactivefalloutfromFukushimahasgoneinto theocean, strontiumwas also detected in soil,groundwaterandsedimentsamplesindifferentpartsofFukushimaPrefecture.52

Radioactivestrontiumisotopesshouldthereforebeinclu-dedintheassessmentofradiationdosestothegeneralpopulation.However,UNSCEARstatesinitsreportthat“Sr-89andSr-90depositedonthegroundweresignifi-cantlylowerthanthoseofCs-137andtheseradionuclideswerethereforenotincludedintheCommittee’sestima-tionofdosestothepublic.”Thisunfortunateomissionisjustifiedintherapporteur’sreportofUNSCEAR’sMay2012sessionasfollows:“Thefirststrontiummeasure-mentswerereceivedafterthedeadlineandthereforetheyarenotincluded”.53BetweenMayof2012andAprilof2014,almosttwoyearspassed,butstill,thehealthef-fectsofradioactivestrontiumemittedbythecrippledpowerplantinFukushimawerenottakenintoconsidera-tion.Thesameistrueformorethantwodozenotherra-dionuclidesemittedinthecourseofthedisaster,mostnotablyXenon-133orplutonium.

Whilewerealizethedifficultiesinassessingthetrueex-tentof radiationemissionsafter suchacatastrophicevent,wehavedoubtsastothevalidityoftheUNSCEARsourcetermestimatesduetotheargumentslistedabove.ItisnotclearwhyUNSCEARdecidedagainstthemoreconservativeapproachandinsteadchosetorelyonthelowestpublishedsourcetermestimatesandtoomitrele-vantradioisotopesdueto‘deadline’issues.

Onasidenote,theaftermathoftheTohokuearthquakeandtsunamiincludedenvironmentalpollutionfromfiresatoilrefineriesandindustrialareas,releasingnumeroustoxicchemicals intotheair.54Thesechemicalscanbeharmfultohumansandotherlivingorganisms,causingrespiratory,dermatologicalandhematologicalproblems,aswellascarcinogenicandteratogeniceffects.UNSCEARshouldacknowledgethatexposuresofindividualstoha-zardouschemicalcontaminationduetotheearthquakeandthetsunamimayseverelyconfoundtherelationshipbetweenradiationexposureandcarcinogeniceffects.Thecoexistenceofradiationandchemicalexposurescouldhavesynergisticeffects,possiblyleadingtoearlierandmoreseverehealthconsequences.HealthservicesinFukushimashouldbeawareofthispossibilitysothatpro-permonitoringisconductedinallthosewhowereexpo-sedtoradioactivefallout.

2 There are serious concerns regarding the calculations of internal radiation

Similartothesourceterm,theestimateduptakeofradio-activeisotopeswithfoodanddrinksignificantlyinfluen-cesthetotalradiationdoseanindividualisexposedtoafteranuclearcatastrophe.Nomatterhowexpertlyun-dertaken,anyassessmentofhealthrisksduetointernalradiationcanonlybeasexactastheassumptionsitisbasedupon.Furthermore,anydosecalculationisinfluen-cedbythemethodofchoosingfoodsamplesandofde-terminingsamplesize.Estimatesbasedondatawhosevalidityhastobequestionedonthegroundsofselectivesampling,distortionandomissionarenotacceptableasabasisonwhichtomakepredictionsandhealthpolicyre-commendations.55

SuchconcernsunderminetheconclusionsoftheUNSCE-ARreport.Regardingradiationdosesinfoodstuff,UNSCE-ARuses,asitsoneandonlysource,thestillunpublisheddatabaseoftheIAEAandtheFoodandAgricultureOrga-nization(FAO).56TheIAEAwasfoundedwiththespecificmissionto“promotesafe,secureandpeacefulnucleartechnologies”andto“accelerateandenlargethecontri-butionofatomicenergytopeace,healthandprosperitythroughouttheworld.”57Itthereforehasaprofoundcon-flictofinterest.TherelianceonfoodsampledatafromtheIAEAisnotadvisable,asitdiscreditstheassessmentofinternalradiationdosesandmakesthefindingsvulne-rabletoclaimsofmanipulation.

ThereareseveralcontentiousissuesregardingtheIAEA/FAOfoodstuffdatabase.Firstofall,itonlyincludesmea-surementdataforI-131,Cs-134andCs-137andsotheUNSCEARreportonlyconsideredthesethreeradionucli-desintheassessmentofdosesfromingestion.58Otherradionuclides,suchasSr-89/90werenottakenintoac-count.Also,nocommentismadeintheUNSCEARreportregardingthesiteswhereandhowtheIAEAfoodsampleswerecollected,raisingthesuspicionthatselectivesam-plingmayhavetakenplace.

Togiveaconcreteexample,wecitefromarecentanalysisoftheWHO/IAEAdoseassessmentreportfromMayof2012,whichalsobasesitsestimatesontheIAEA/FAOfoodstuffdatabase.ThequantityandselectionoffoodsamplesusedinthecalculationsoftheinternalradiationdoseintheWHO/IAEAreportwereshowntobeinade-quateandinstarkcontrasttosamplespublishedbytheJapaneseauthoritiesearlyduringthedisaster.59Whilethehighestlevelofradioactivecontaminationofvegetablesincluded intheWHO/IAEAreportweresampleswith54,100Bq/kgofiodine-131(incidentallyfoundoutsideofFukushimaPrefecture)and41,000Bq/kgofcesium-137,60 theJapaneseMinistryforScienceandTechnology(MEXT)foundcontaminatedweed/leafyvegetablesampleswith

9

iodine-131concentrationsashighas2,540,000Bq/kg(morethan40timeshigherthanthemostcontaminatedvegetablesamplementionedintheWHO/IAEAreport)andcesium-137concentrationsofupto2,650,000Bq/kg(morethan60timeshigherthanthemostcontaminatedvegetablesamplementionedintheWHO/IAEAreport).Suchhighlevelsofradiationinweeds/leafyvegetableswouldsuggest thatproducegrown in thesameareawouldhaveaccumulatedsimilarradiationdoses.Evenonemonthafterthemeltdowns,MEXTscientistsstillfoundmaximumconcentrationsabove100,000Bq/kgforiodine-131(almosttwiceashighasintheWHO/IAEAre-port)and900,000Bq/kgforcesium-137(morethan20timeshigherthanintheWHO/IAEAreport)inweeds/lea-fyvegetables.61Whyaresuchhighlycontaminatedsam-plesnotfoundintheWHO/IAEAreportandcouldthisindicateaselectionbias?NoexplanationwasofferedbyWHOorIAEAwhytheseMEXTsamples,readilyavailableonthewebsiteoftheministryandcitedbynumerouspu-blications,wereomittedintheirdatabase.Byrelyingso-lelyontheIAEA/FAOfoodstuffdatabase,UNSCEARre-peatstheapproachoftheWHO/IAEAreport,discreditsitsassessmentofinternalradiationdosesandmakesitsfindingsvulnerabletothesuspicionofselectivedatasam-pling.

Radioisotope WHO/IAEA JAEAIodine-131 54,100 Bq/kg 2,540,000 Bq/kgCesium-137 41,000 Bq/kg 2,650,000 Bq/kg

Table 2: Maximum radiation dose readings in plants 60, 61

Anotherimportantissueistheassumptionofdietaryha-bits,whichplayalargepartinestimatinginternalradia-tionexposure.TheauthorsoftheUNSCEARreportassu-medthat“themajorityofpeopleinJapanobtaintheirfoodfromsupermarketswherefoodissourcedfromthewholeofthecountry”andcalculatedtheamountofinter-nalradioactiveexposureaccordingly.62Thismayseemlogical,butignorestheoverwhelminglyruralcharacteroftheaffectedregion,wheremanypeoplerelyonfarmermarketsandhome-grownproduce.Theprincipleof‘chi-san-chisho’or‘consumingthefoodproducedlocally’waswidelyencouragedinFukushimatothepointwheremu-nicipalitiesencouragedordecreedtheuseoflocalFukus-himaproductsinschoollunches.63UNSCEARadmitsthatpeopleeatinglocallyproducedfood“couldhavereceivedexposuressignificantlyhigherthanthosepresented”.64

Alsonottakenintoconsiderationwasthenationwidego-vernmentalcampaign‘tabeteouenshiyou’,whichpromo-testhepurchaseoffoodproducedinFukushimaasanactofsolidarity.65Therefore,theassumptionthatpeopleinFukushimaeatfoodfromtheentirecountryprobablyleadstoanunderestimationoftheactualconsumptionofcontaminatedfood.

Italsoneedstoberecalledthatatthebeginningofthenuclearcatastrophe,residentssufferedfromshortageoffreshfoodandwaterduetotheearthquakeandthetsu-nami.Duringthisperiod,therewasnopossibilityfortes-tingcropsforradiation.Peoplemaythereforehavecon-sumedhighlycontaminatedlocalfoodorwaterbeforepropertestingandregulationcameintoeffect.ThisfactreceivesnomentionintheUNSCEARreport,whichmere-lystatesthat“therewereinsufficientdatainthefirstmonthsfollowingtheaccidenttoadoptafinespatialre-solutionfortheassessmentoftheingestiondoses.”66 Thismaypresentanadditionalsourceoferrorinthecalcula-tionoftheinternalradiationdose.

3 The dose assessments of the Fukushima workers cannot be relied upon

TheUNSCEARreportlists24,832peoplewhowereemp-loyedonthesiteofthenuclearcatastropheasplantwor-kers,emergencypersonnelandclean-upstaff.Regardingtheirradiationexposure,UNSCEARreliessolelyondatareceivedfromTEPCOitself.67Thereportlists173workersexposedtoeffectivedosesgreaterthan100mSvandab-out24,659workerswhoreceivedeffectivedosesoflessthan100mSv.Additionally,thirteenoftheseworkersre-ceivedthyroiddosesintherangeof2to12Gy.

TheJapaneseDiet’sFukushimaNuclearAccidentIndepen-dentInvestigationCommissionaccusedTEPCOofcollu-sionwiththeauthoritiesandofignoringwarningsaboutthepossibilityofTsunamisdamagingcoastalnuclearpow-erplantsandgivesthecompanyalargepartofthere-sponsibilityforthenucleardisaster.68ItisthereforeonlynaturaltoassumethatTEPCOhasaconflictofinterestwhenitcomestodivulgingfactsandfiguresaboutradia-tiondosestoitsemployees.Thereisnomeaningfulcon-troloroversightofthenuclearindustryinJapananddatafromTEPCOhasinthepastfrequentlybeenfoundtobetamperedwithandfalsified.69

Also,UNSCEARstatesthatonly15%ofthetotalnumberofaffectedworkersweredirectlyemployedbyTEPCO,70whiletherest(about20,000)wasemployedbyanobscu-renetworkofsubcontractorsandsub-sub-contractors.Manyofthesesub-contractedcompaniesemploytempo-raryworkerswhoareunaccountedforintheofficialsta-tistics.71,72Therearealsonumerousreportsaboutmissingdosimeters,deliberateleadcasingofdosimeterstodis-ablemeasurementandfaultyradiationmeasuringinstru-ments.73,74,75

Finally,short-livedradioisotopessuchastellurium-132,iodine-132, iodine-133andxenon-133wereexcludedfromthecalculationsofworkers’exposuredoses.Asanexample,thereportstatesthat“noaccountwastakenof

10


thepotentialcontributionfromintakesofshorter-livedisotopesofiodine,inparticulariodine-133;asaresult,theassesseddosesfrominternalexposurecouldhavebeenunderestimatedbyabout20percent.Formanyworkers,becauseofthelongdelaybeforemonitoring,iodine-131wasnotdetectedintheirthyroids;forthoseworkerstheinternaldosesestimatedbyTEPCOanditscontractorsareuncertain.”76

Forallofthesereasons,itisdifficulttoacceptthedataprovidedbyTEPCOasarepresentativeandvalidbasisforprognosticcalculations.TheUNSCEARreport,however,basesitshealthassessmentsentirelyonthedatafromTEPCO,mostprobablyunderestimatinghealtheffectsinthispopulation.

WealsodisagreewiththeassessmentofUNSCEARthat“studieswouldlacksufficientstatisticalpowertoassesstheriskofcancerduetoirradiation;thedoseswouldbetoolowandthepopulationsizetoosmall”.77Numerousstudieshaveshownsignificanthealtheffectsfromlow-levelradiationexposureinverydiversepopulationswhowereexposedtoverydifferentlevelsofradiation:fromuranium miners,78-83 downwinders of nucleartests,84-86workersinnuclearfactories,87-90topeopleli-vinginthevicinityofpowerplants91andtheclean-upworkers(liquidators)inChernobyl.92-94Intheend,itisaquestionofstudydesignandstrictadherencetoscientificprinciples,whichinthecaseofTEPCOcannotbeassu-med,judgingfromtheunwarrantedmagnitudeofdatamanipulationinrecentyears.78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94

4 The UNSCEAR report ignores the effects of fallout on the non-human biota

Observedeffectsoflow-levelradiationonnon-humanbiotacanhelptounderstandtheconsequencestohu-mans.InitsFukushimareport,UNSCEARdisregardscur-rentscientificfieldworkonactualradiationeffectsbystatingthat“theobservationsarenotconsistentwiththeCommittee’sassessment”95andratherreferstoitsownreportsontheeffectsofradiationonnon-humanbiotafrom1996and2008.96,97

Thisimpliesthatnonewknowledgehasbeenacquiredsincethen,eventhoughagrowingnumberofpublishedecologicalandgeneticstudiesfrombothChernobylandFukushimafindsubstantialevidenceforlowdoseratera-diationeffectsgeneratinggeneticdamagesuchasincrea-sedmutationrates,aswellasdevelopmentalabnormal-ities,cataracts,tumors,smallerbrainsizesinbirdsandmammalsandfurtherinjuriestopopulations,biologicalcommunitiesandecosystems.98,99,100

Unlikeolderradiationstudiesconductedunderlaborato-rysettingsforshortperiodsoftimeandfocusingonacu-teresponsestorelativelyhighdosesofradiation,thescientificstudiesofMousseau,Møller,Lindgrenandot-hersaddressthemuchmorecomplexquestionofwhet-herornottherearemeasurableeffectsinnaturalpopu-lationsfollowingmultiplegenerationsofchronicexposuretolowdosesofionizingradiation.

Assuch,theirobservationsreflectcumulativeeffectsun-dernaturalconditions-effectsthatcannotbeobservedundertheartificialconditionsusedbymostconventionaltoxicologystudies.Underliningthispoint,arecentreviewintheJournalofEnvironmentalRadiologysuggestedthatresponsesbyorganismsinChernobylwereabouteighttimeslargerthanpredictedbyconventionalmodels.101

UNSCEARshouldincludethefindingsofthecurrentfield-studiesfromChernobylandFukushima,giventheirpubli-cationinpeerreviewedscientificjournals.IgnoringsuchstudiesgivestheappearanceofbiasoralackofrigorbytheUNSCEARproceedingsthatcanonlyservetounder-mineanyconstructiveorusefuladvicethecommitteemighthave.

5 The special vulnerability of the embryo to radiation is not taken into account

TheUNSCEARreportdividestheaffectedpopulationintothreeagegroups:adults,childrenandinfants.Thespecialsituationoftheunbornchildwasspecificallynottakenintoconsideration:“TheCommitteedidnotexplicitlyes-timatedosestothefetusorbreast-fedinfantsbecausetheywouldhavebeensimilartothosetootheragegroupsforbothexternalandinternalradiationexposure.”102

Thisapproachgoesagainstbasicprinciplesofneonatalphysiologyandradiobiology,asthespecialvulnerabilityof theunbornchild iscompletely ignored.While it isknownthattheradiationdoseforanembryofromexter-nalexposureislowerthanforchildrenandadultsduetotheadditionalshieldingofthemother’sskin,abdominalmusclesanduterus,thisisnottrueforinternalradiation,whichisthemuchmorerelevantfactorinanuclearcatas-trophe.Iodine-131,ingestedorinhaledbythemother,accumulatesinthefetalthyroidglandandcanleadtothedevelopmentofthyroiddiseasesandcancerafterbirth.Anotherradioisotope,cesium-137,freelypassesthede-velopingplacentaintotheembryo,andalsoaccumulatesinamnioticfluidandthebladder,affectingtheunbornchildfromallsideswithbeta-andgamma-radiation.Mostimportantly,theeffectofagivendoseofradiationposesamuchgreaterriskforanembryothanitwouldinchil-dren:hightissue-metabolismandmitosisratesofcellsincreasethechanceformutationsofthegenome.Asthe

11

immunesystemandcell-repairmechanismsoftheun-bornchildarenotyetfullydeveloped,theycannotade-quatelypreventmalignanciesfromdeveloping.103UNSCE-ARdoesstatethat“previousexperienceindicatesthattherelativerisksforcertaincancersincertainpopulationgroups(notablyfollowingexposureasfetus,orduringin-fancyandchildhood)arehigherthanforthepopulationaverage”,butgivesnospecialconsiderationtounbornchildreninitsassessments.104

Itiswidelyacceptedthat“inuteroexposuretoionizingradiationcanbeteratogenic,carcinogenicormutagenic.Theeffectsaredirectlyrelatedtothelevelofexposureandthestageoffetaldevelopment.Thefetusismostsu-sceptibletoradiationduringorganogenesis(twotosevenweeksafterconception)andintheearlyfetalperiod.”105 Everyexposuretoionizingradiationcarriesaquantifiablerisk,asnumerousstudiessincethelate1950’swereabletoshow:

Dr.AliceStewartundertookthefirstepidemiologicalstu-diesofchildhoodcancerscausedbyinuterox-rayexpo-sure.Shewasabletoshowthatasinglex-raytotheab-domen of a pregnantwoman could result in a 50%increaseinchildhoodcancerincidence.Also,herstudiesshowedthattheriskofchildhoodcancerincreaseslinear-lywiththenumberofinuterox-rayexposures.Nocon-foundingvariablescouldbeidentifiedthatcouldofferalternativeexplanationstotheseeffects.106,107

In1997,DollandWakefordconcludedthat“aconsistentassociationhasbeenfoundinmanycase-controlstudiesindifferentcountries.Theexcessrelativeriskobtainedfromcombiningtheresultsofthesestudieshashighsta-tisticalsignificanceandsuggeststhat,inthepast,aradio-graphicexaminationoftheabdomenofapregnantwo-manproducedaproportionalincreaseinriskofabout40%.[...]Itisconcludedthatradiationdosesoftheorderof10mGyreceivedbythefetusinuteroproduceacon-sequentincreaseintheriskofchildhoodcancer.”108

Numerouslarge-scalestudiesfromaroundtheworldcon-firmedthefindingsofStewartetalandhaveledtoamuchmorecarefulapproachtowardsantenatalradiationexposure.109,110,111

Itisthereforenotacceptabletoarbitrarilyhaveareferen-ce1-year-oldinfantrepresentallinfantsyoungerthan5,includingtheunbornchild.112Indismissingtheeffectofthephysiologicaldifferencesbetweenanunbornandaninfant,theauthorsofthereporteffectivelyunderestima-tethehealthrisksofthisparticularlyvulnerablepopula-tion.

6 Non-cancer diseases and hereditary effects were ignored by UNSCEAR

Non-cancerhealtheffectssuchascardiovasculardisea-ses,endocrinologicalandgastrointestinaldisorders,infer-tility,geneticmutations inoffspringandmiscarriageshavebeenreportedinmedicalliteraturebutarenotcon-sideredintheUNSCEARreport.Instead,theauthorscitetheWHO/IAEAhealthriskassessment,which“didnotexpectanydeterministiceffects inanyofthevariousgroups”.Also,they“didnotexpectprenatalexposuretoincrease‘theincidenceofspontaneousabortion,miscar-riages,perinatalmortality,congenitaleffectsorcognitiveimpairment.’”113

Thispositiontakesforgrantedthatnon-cancereffectsofradiationwouldhavetobedeterministic,whileitisjustasreasonabletoassumethattheymaybestochasticinna-ture,similartothecancer-effectsofradiation.Largeepi-demiologicalstudieshaveshownundeniableassociationsoflowdoseionizingradiationtonon-cancerhealthef-fects.Astheseassociationshavenotbeenscientificallychallenged,theinternationallyacknowledgedprecautio-naryprincipleinpublichealthdictatesthatbroadpreven-tivemeasuresshouldbetakentominimizeradiationex-posureofallpersonsatrisk.

Onestrikingexampleofnon-cancerdiseasesassociatedwithionizingradiationisthegroupofcardiovasculardi-sorders.Therearenumerousstudiesthatsuggestasto-chasticriskofionizingradiationforthecardiovascularsystem,possiblythroughradiationdamagetotheepithe-lialliningofbloodvessels,similartotheeffectsofhighbloodsugar,cholesterol,fats,bloodpressureorotherin-dependentriskfactors:

Littleetalproposedaplausiblemodelforcardiovasculardiseaseduetofractionatedlow-doseionizingradiationexposureandsuggestsalinearcorrelationbetweenradia-tiondoseandeffects,similartothemodelusedforesti-matingcancercases.114

ASwedishstudyonwomenwhoreceivedradiotherapyduetobreast-cancershowedaradiation-inducedincrea-seofcardiovasculardiseases.115

AJapanesestudyontheHibakushaofHiroshimaandNa-gasakifoundincreasedrisksofheartdiseaseandstrokeinaradiationdoserangeof0-2Gy,supportingalinearmodelsimilartotheoneusedincancerrateestimationandsuggestingexcessriskevenatlowerdoses.116

12


7 Comparisons of nuclear fallout with back- ground radiation are misleading

TheUNSCEARreportconcludesthat“forthegeneralpu-blicofJapan,inhabitingareaswhereexposuresfromtheFDNPSaccidentinthefirstyearwereoftheorderoforbelowannualbackgroundexposuretonaturalsourcesofradiation (and lifetimeexposuresareexpectedtobemuchbelowthoseincurredfrombackgroundradiation),theCommitteeestimatedthatrisksovertheirlifetimesweresolowthatnodiscernibleincreaseinthefuturein-cidenceofhealtheffectsduetoradiationexposurewouldbeexpectedamong thepopulationor theirdescen-dants.”117Thiscomparisonisoftenbroughtuptodown-playthehealthimpactoflow-levelradiationandapartfrombeingmisleading,cancausesystematicunderesti-mationsofthepublichealthimpactofanucleardisaster.

Firstofall,itisimportanttorealizethatsomeformsofradiationaffectthewholebody(terrestrialorcosmicra-diation),whileingestedorinhaledradioactiveparticlesmayonlyaffectparticularorgans:iodine-131,forexam-ple,ismainlyincorporatedinthethyroidglandandcancausemalignanciesinthislocation,whilestrontium-90ismainlydepositedinbones,causingleukemiaorbonecan-cers.Cesium-137,ontheotherhand,isdistributedfairlyevenlyinmostsofttissues,leadingtothedevelopmentofsolidtumors.However,allofthemhaveonethingincom-mon:theydelivertheirradioactivedosedirectlyandcon-tinuouslytothesurroundingtissueandthereforeposeamuchlargerdangertointernalorgansthanexternalback-groundradiation.Organdosesarethereforeabettertoolforpredictingcancerincidencethanwhole-bodydoses.

Toput this inperspective, theaveragenaturalback-groundradiationthatanindividualinJapanreceivesinthecourseofayearamountsto~1.5mSvandconsistsof~0.3mSvcosmicbackgroundradiation,~0.4mSvterres-trialradiationfromradioisotopesintheground,suchaspotassium-40oruranium-238,~0.4mSvperyearfromtheinhalationofairborneradioactiveisotopes(mostlyradongasinhouses)and~0.4mSvperyearfrominges-tion,becausemostfoodscontainatleastsomeamountofinherentradiation.118Thisnaturalbackgroundradiationisnotharmless.Numerouswell-designedstudieshaveshownsignificantassociationsbetweencancerlevelsandbackgroundradiation119,120,121,mostnotablynaturallyoc-curringradiationingroundwater122,soil123,radonlevelsinhomes124,125,126,127,128,129,aswellastheexposuretocos-micbackgroundradiationinairplanes.130Itcanbeassu-medthatacertainproportionofthe‘naturally’occurringcasesofcancerarecausedbyexposuretonaturalback-groundradiation.

Theinternationalscientificconsensusisthatthereisnothresholdbelowwhichradiationposesnoharm.Instead,

thereisalinearrelationshipbetweenradiationdoseandcancerincidence.Accordingtothecomprehensivere-port,publishedin2006bytheUSNationalAcademyofSciencesAdvisoryCommitteeontheBiologicalEffectsofIonizingRadiation(BEIR-VII),full-bodyexposureof10,000peoplewith1mSvofradiationstochasticallyleadstooneexcesscaseofcancer.Putdifferently,apersonexposedtoafull-bodydoseof1mSvhasa1/10,000chanceofdevelopingcancerbecauseofthisexposure.Atadoseof10mSv,thisriskisalreadyincreasedto1/1,000andwith100mSvtheriskis1/100or1%.Thiscalculationistruefornaturalbackgroundradiation,medicalradiationandra-dioactivefalloutfromanuclearcatastrophe.

Itisthereforenotscientifictoarguethatnaturalback-groundradiationissafeorthatexcessradiationfromnuc-learfalloutthatstayswithinthedoserangeofnaturalbackgroundradiationisharmless.Ifthisweretrue,thendoctorsshouldhavenoqualmsaboutplacingachildorapregnantwomanunderanx-rayandirradiatethemwith1.5mSv,theequivalentdoseofJapanesebackgroundra-diation(thatwouldbeapproximately3x-rayexaminati-onsof theabdomenor75x-rayexaminationsof thechest)131.Themedicalprofession,however,iswellawareoftheharmfuleffectsofionizingradiationevenatdoselevelscomparabletobackgroundradiation.Largeepide-miologicalstudieswereabletoshowsignificantmedicaleffectsoflow-levelionizingradiation.Astrongcorrelationbetweeninuterox-rayexposureandchildhoodcancerswasalreadyfoundinthe1950’s.132MorecurrentstudieswereabletoshowthattheaveragecancerriskofpeoplewhounderwentCT-scanswithanaveragedoseof4.5mSvroseby24%forthefirstCTandby16%foreverysubse-quentexamination.Thehighestincreaseincancerriskwasseeninyoungchildren.133,134AvoidingunnecessarymedicalradiationfromCTscansorx-raysarethereforeimportantpublichealthmeasures,whichcanhelppre-ventexcesscancercases.Thisprincipleofminimizationmustalsobeappliedtonuclearfallout.

8 UNSCEAR’s interpretations of findings are questionable

TheauthorsoftheUNSCEARreportstatethattheirjobwastoassessonlyradiation-relatedhealtheffects.135

Apartfromthese,itisimportanttorealizethatanuclearcatastrophesuchastheoneinFukushimahasasevereimpactonpopulationhealthforanumberofreasons,beittheacutestressonpeopleduringtheevacuationpro-cess,psychosomaticeffectsandpost-traumaticstressdisorder,chroniceffectsonpeopleinthecontaminatedzoneduetolackofphysicalexerciseoutdoors,etc.Thesefactorsshouldnotbeusedtodismisstheeffectsofradia-tionexposure,however.EvenaftertheChernobyldisas-ter,thehealtheffectsonthegroupofliquidatorswere

13

blamedon“stressandunhealthylifestyle”.136ThisshouldnotberepeatedinFukushima.

Initspressrelease,UNSCEARcomestotheconclusionthat“nodiscerniblechangesinfuturecancerratesandhereditarydiseasesareexpectedduetoexposuretora-diationasaresultoftheFukushimanuclearaccident;and,thatnoincreasesintheratesofbirthdefectsareexpec-ted.”137Itisimportanttorealizethatthisstatementisnotsayingthattherewillbenohealtheffects,onlythatcom-monlyusedepidemiologicalmethodswillnotbeabletofindthem.Thisisanoldstrategy,alreadyusedfordeca-desbytobaccocompaniesortheautomotiveindustryinordertoargueagainstscientificevidenceshowingacau-sallinkbetweencigarettesmokeorunfilteredexhaustfumeandlungdisease.Acancerdoesnotcarryalabeloforiginandcanneverbeattributedtoasinglecause.Ho-wever,whenepidemiologicalevidencebecomesoverw-helming,causallinkscanbeestablishedwithreasonablecertainty.

Thereportitselfstatesthat“theCommitteehasusedthephrase“nodiscernibleincrease”toexpresstheideathatcurrentlyavailablemethodswouldmostlikelynotbeabletodemonstrateanincreasedincidenceindiseasestatis-ticsduetoradiationexposure.Thisdoesnotruleoutthepossibilityoffutureexcesscasesordisregardthesuffe-ringassociatedwithanysuchcasesshouldtheyoccur.”138

However,mostpeoplereadingthereport,itsbriefexecu-tivesummaryorthepressrelease,willunderstandthatnohealtheffectsaretobeexpected.Byphrasingitscon-clusioninsuchawaythatwouldmostlikelybemisun-derstoodbymostpeople,theauthorsareputtinga‘spin’ontheirreport.Thereport’sfindings,however,givenojustificationforsuchanoptimisticconclusion.Thereportdoesnotadheretoscientificstandardsofneutrality,butsystematicallyunderestimatesthehealthrisksfortheaf-fectedpopulation.

Also,itisworryingthatwhencomparingthecomplete292-pagereportwiththeshort22pagesummaryfortheUNGeneralAssemblyandtheone-pagepressrelease,thelevelofcertaintywithwhichinterpretationsarepre-sentedseemstoincrease,themoresuccinctthetextbe-comes.Whilethecompletereport,supposedlywrittenbyscientistsforscientists,includesalargenumberofuncer-tainties,thesearenotcarriedthroughtothemorewide-lyread,shorterdocuments,aimedatpolicy-makers,me-dia and the general public. In its complete report,UNSCEARadmitsto“incompleteknowledgeaboutthereleaseratesofradionuclidesovertimeandtheweatherconditionsduringthereleases.”139Theauthorsgoontostatethat“therewereinsufficientmeasurementsofgam-madoserateandofradionuclidesinairduringthepassa-geoftheradioactiveplumesforanassessmenttobe

madeofexternalexposurebasedonenvironmentalmea-surements.”140Also, “relatively fewmeasurementsoffoodstuffweremadeinthefirstmonths”andthatthere“wasinsufficientinformationonthetransferofradionuc-lidestofoodasafunctionoftimeforfoodsproducedinJapan.”141Withtheseuncertainties,howcanthecollecti-vedoseestimatesbepresentedwiththelevelofcertain-tyemployedintheexecutivesummary?

9 The protective measures taken by the authorities are misrepresented

Initsreportandpressreleases,UNSCEARfrequentlyap-plaudstheprotectivemeasurestakenbytheauthorities.Withoutwantingtounderestimatethelaudableeffortsofmanytensofthousandsofemergencyworkers,reliefco-ordinatorsandothersinvolvedintheoperationsaimedatpreventingevenhigherradiationexposureinthegeneralpopulation,itseemsoddthatascientificbodylikeUN-SCEARwouldturnablindeyetothemanygravemistakesoftheJapanesedisastermanagement,whichhaverightlybeencriticizednotonlybycitizens,journalists,doctors,scientistsandpoliticiansintheaffectedprefectures,butalsobytheFukushimaNuclearAccidentIndependentIn-vestigationCommissionoftheJapaneseDiet:

“Thecentralgovernmentwasnotonlyslowininformingmunicipalgovernmentsaboutthenuclearpowerplantaccident,butalsofailedtoconveytheseverityoftheac-cident.[…]Specifically,only20percentoftheresidentsofthetownhostingtheplantknewabouttheaccidentwhenevacuationfromthe3kmzonewasorderedat21:23ontheeveningofMarch11.Mostresidentswithin10kmoftheplantlearnedabouttheaccidentwhentheevacuati-onorderwasissuedat5:44onMarch12,morethan12hoursaftertheArticle15notification[nucleardisasterresponse]-butreceivednofurtherexplanationoftheac-cidentorevacuationdirections.Manyresidentshadtofleewithonlythebarestnecessitiesandwereforcedtomovemultipletimesortoareaswithhighradiationlevels.[…]Somepeopleevacuatedtoareaswithhighlevelsofradiationandwerethenneglected,receivingnofurtherevacuationordersuntilApril.[…]

TheCommissionconcludesthatthesituationcontinuedtodeterioratebecausethecrisismanagementsystemoftheKantei[officeoftheJapaneseprimeminister],there-gulatorsandotherresponsibleagenciesdidnotfunctioncorrectly.[…]

Residents’confusionovertheevacuationstemmedfromtheregulators’negligenceandfailureovertheyearstoimplementadequatemeasuresagainstanucleardisaster,aswellasalackofactionbypreviousgovernmentsandregulatorsfocusedoncrisismanagement.Thecrisisma-

14


nagementsystemthatexistedfortheKanteiandthere-gulatorsshouldprotectthehealthandsafetyofthepub-lic,butitfailedinthisfunction.[…]thegovernmentandtheregulatorsarenotfullycommittedtoprotectingpub-lichealthandsafety;[…]theyhavenotactedtoprotectthehealthoftheresidentsandtorestoretheirwelfa-re.”142

ThedistributionofstableiodinerightafterthenuclearmeltdownillustratesquitevividlyhowUNSCEAR’spraisesoftheprotectivemeasurestakenbyJapaneseauthoritiesareoftenill-deserved.AccordingtoUNSCEAR,“medicalcountermeasuresincludedtheuseofstableiodineforthyroidblocking.”143Onlycarefulreaderswillnoticethatstableiodinewasonlyprescribedtoabout2,000workersinvolvedintheemergencyresponseandnottothegene-ralpublic.144Infact,theJapaneseDiet’sFukushimaNuc-learAccidentIndependentInvestigationCommissioncon-cludedthat“althoughthepositiveeffectsofadministeringstableiodineandthepropertimingwerefullyknown,thegovernment’snuclearemergencyresponseheadquartersandtheprefecturalgovernmentfailedtogiveproperins-tructionstothepublic.”145Thisgraveerrorcausedthou-sandsofchildrentobecomeirradiatedwithiodine-131.TheWHO/IAEAreportonFukushimaconcludedthatduetothelackofstableiodinedistribution,theestimatedthyroiddosesoftheaffectedpopulationwouldbe“higherthanthoseexpectedinpeoplewhohaveundergonethy-roidblockingtoreducetheuptakeofradioactiveiodi-ne.”146

UnlikethemembersofUNSCEAR,wearedisturbedbytheevidencethattheauthoritieshavenotmadepublichealthandsafetytheirtoppriority.TheJapanesegovernmenthasfailedintheparamountdutyofprotectingitscitizens.Byraisingthepermissibleannualexposurelimitsto20mSvonApril19th,2011,theauthoritieshaveeffectivelyforcedmanychildrentoliveinradioactivelycontamina-tedareas.147Onlyafterprotestsbyparentorganizations,scientistsanddoctors,thegovernmentadvisedtouse1-20mSvperyearinschoolsasaguidelevelwiththeaimofreducingtheannualdoseto1mSvorless.Unfor-tunately,thisrecommendationisnotmandatoryandhasnotbeenfullyimplemented.148TheJapaneseMinistryofEducationmadeadecisiontorestartschoolsinFukushi-masoonaftertheaccidentwithoutprovidingairconditio-ningunitsforclassroomssothatwindowscouldremainshuttokeepradioactivedustfromdriftingin.149SchoolofficialshavebeenignoringradiationhotspotsjustafewfeetoutsideofschoolpremisesandarereintroducingFu-kushimaricetoschoollunches.150NoneoftheseissuesaretalkedaboutintheUNSCEARreport.

Finally,itisimportanttorealizethatthepeopleofJapanhavebeensparedtheworst-casescenario,asabout80%oftheradioactivefalloutofthenuclearmeltdownsdi-

spersedoverthePacificOceanandnotoverlargemuni-cipalareas.151Thereasonforthiswerenotthe“numberofmeasurestoprotectthepublic,includingimmediateandlate(‘deliberate’)evacuation,shelteringinhomes,restrictingdistributionandconsumptionofcontaminatedfoodstuffs”152,astheUNSCEARreportimplies,butrathersheerluckthatthewindturnedtowardthenortheastandnottowardsthesouth,whereMetropolitanTokyo,withapopulationofmorethan35millionpeople,wasatriskofheavycontamination.Onesingledayofwindblowingto-wardsthecoast,however,ledtoalargeradioactivetracereachingdozensofkilometersinlandfromthecrippledplant,forcingtensofthousandsofpeopletoevacuatefromsmalltownsandvillages.FukushimaclearlyshowedthatevenahighlyindustrializedcountrysuchasJapanisunabletocontroltheinherentdangersofnuclearenergy.

10 Conclusions from collective dose estimations are not presented

TheUNSCEARreportincludesanumberofdoseestima-tions,whichcanhelpunderstandtheexpectedhealtheffectsofthenuclearcatastropheinJapan.Whilethescientificbasisofthecalculationsunderlyingtheseesti-matesisquestionable,aswasillustratedinpreviouschap-ters,itistheinterpretationoftheresultsthatismostcritical.UNSCEARlistscollectivedosesinitsreport,butdoesnotexplaintheexpectedcancercasesthatwouldresultfromthesedoses.Inthefollowingchapter,wewilltrytoexplaininlayman’terms,whichhealthconsequen-cescanbeexpectedforthepopulationofJapan,basedontheUNSCEARcalculations–keepinginmindthatthesemostprobablyrepresentunderestimationsfortherea-sonslistedabove.Wewillrestrictourselvestocancerca-ses,whilewehavealreadystatedabovethatnon-cancerdiseasesalsorepresentasubstantialpartofthetotalhealtheffectsofanuclearcatastrophesuchastheoneinFukushima.

Overall cancer cases

Todayweknowthatthereisalinearrelationshipbetweenthedoseofradiationexposureandtheriskofdevelopingcancer,withnothresholdunderwhichradiationdoseswouldbeharmless.Thismodeliscalledthelinearnon-thresholdmodelandisinternationallyacceptedbyorga-nizationssuchasUNSCEARortheWHO.Inordertocalcu-latehowmanycasesofcanceraretobeexpectedinanirradiatedpopulation,itisnecessarytoknowtwovariab-les:thetotalcollectivelifetimeeffectivedoseandtheattributablecancerriskforadefinedeffectivedose.

Startingwiththecollectivelifetimeeffectivedose,UN-SCEARcalculatesthatinthefirstyearofthecatastrophe,

15

infantsinFukushimaPrefecturewereexposedtowhole-bodyradiationdosesof1.6to13mSv.153Toputthisinperspective,theaverageannualdosefromnaturalback-groundradiationinJapanisabout1.5mSv,sothateventheleastexposedchildreninFukushimastillreceivedmorethantwicetheirnormalradiationdoseinthefirstyear.Theseandallotherestimatesregardingradiationdosesareaveragecalculations.Truedosesdependonalargenumberoflifestyleanddietaryhabits,aswellasindividualhealthfactors,sothatcertainpeople,especial-lychildren,mayhaveincurredhigherdoses.Becausera-dioactivefalloutandfoodcontaminationextendedbe-yondtheboundariesofFukushimaPrefecture,peoplealloverJapanwereexposedtoincreasedlevelsofradiation.AccordingtoUNSCEAR,infantsinotherpartsofthecoun-tryreceivedwhole-bodydosesof0.2-2.5mSvinthefirstyearofthecatastrophe.154Ingeneral,adultsreceivedlo-werfirst-yeardosesthanchildren:1.0to9.3mSvinFukus-himaPrefectureand0.1to1.4intherestofJapan,accor-dingtoUNSCEAR’sestimations.155Fromtheseaveragewhole-bodyexposuredata,UNSCEARcalculatedthecol-lectivelife-timeeffectivedosefortheentireJapanesepopulationtobe48.000Person-Sv.156Wewillusethisfi-gureinourassessment,keepinginmindthatduetothereasonslistedinthepreviouschaptersandbecauseofUNSCEAR’sconservativemethodofcalculatinglifetimedose,thisfiguremostprobablyrepresentsasystematicunderestimation.

Thesecondimportantvariableinestimatingcancerinci-dencesistheriskfactorforagivenradiationdose.ThemostwidelyusedsourceofsuchriskfactorsistheBEIRVIIreport.Inthisreport,theage-andsex-averagedlife-timeattributableriskofcanceriscalculatedtobe1,190(615-2,305)casesper10,000Person-Sv(~0.06-0.23/PSv),andtheage-andsex-averagedlifetimeattributablecan-cermortalityrisk610(305-1240)casesper10,000Per-son-Sv(~0.03-0.12/PSv).157TheBEIRVIIreportstillusesanarbitraryreductionfactorforlow-doseionizingradia-tion(DDREF)of1.5,however.Thisfactorhasbeendee-medobsoletebyrecentstudies,referencedinthelatestWHOpublicationonFukushima,whichstates that“aDDREFof1wouldbe reasonable.”158 Sowithout theDDREFof1.5,theage-andsex-averagedlifetimeattribu-tableriskofdevelopingcancerderivedfromtheBEIRVIIreportis1.785(923-3,458)casesper10,000Person-Sv(~0.09-0.35/PSv),andmortalityrisk915(458-1,860)casesper10,000Person-Sv(~0.05-0.19/PSv).Recentstudiesthatanalyzetheeffectsoflow-doseionizingradiationondown-windersofnucleartestsorradiationworkersinover15countriesshowedthatriskfactorsof0.4/PSvforcancerincidenceand0.2/Svforcancermortalitywereevenmorerealisticinassessingtherelationshipbetweenradiationdoseandcancer.159,160,161Nevertheless,inthispaperwewillusethewidelyacceptednumbersfromtheBEIRVIIreportandhencearangeof0.09-0.35/PSvfor

estimatingcancerincidenceandarangeof0.05-0.19/PSvforestimatingcancermortality.

BEIR VII risk factors Incidence MortalityWith DDREF 0.06 – 0.23 / Psv 0.03 – 0.12 / PsvWithout DDREF 0.09 – 0.35 / Psv 0.05 – 0.19 / Psv

Table 3: Cancer risk factors from BEIR VII report 158

Bringingtogethertheestimatedtotalcollectivedoseof48,000Person-Svandtheriskfactorsexplainedabove,wearriveatanestimated4,300to16,800excesscasesofcancerduetotheFukushimanuclearcatastropheinJapaninthecomingdecades,withmortalityfiguresrangingbetween2,400and9,100.UNSCEARmaycallthesenum-bersinsignificantandwithJapan’srelativelyhighbaselineincidenceofcancer(approximately630,000newcasesofcancerperyear)162,itcanrightlybeassumedthatthead-ditional4,300-16,800Fukushima-associatedcancercasesmaynotbenoticedinnationalepidemiologicalstatistics.Fromanindividual’sperspectivehowever,everycaseofcancerisonetoomanyandweasdoctorsknowthetragicconsequencesthatcancerhasonaperson’sphysicalandmentalhealth,aswellasthesituationoftheentirefamily.Inthecaseofanuclearcatastrophe,theseexcesscancercasesrepresentpreventableandman-madediseasesandshouldbegivenspecialattentionbypublichealthinstitu-tions.

Radiation exposure of the thyroid

Thethyroidglandisofspecialinterestafteranuclearca-tastrophe,becauseoneofthemainisotopesofradioac-tivefalloutafternuclearmeltdownsisiodine-131.Ifinges-ted, iodine-131 behaves like normal iodine and isincorporatedintothethyroidgland.Here, itdamagessurroundingtissuewithbeta-andgamma-radiationuntilitsfulldecay(ithasahalf-lifeof8days),causingthyroidcancer.163AfterChernobyl,themostprominentlyobser-vedtypeofmalignancywasthyroidcancer.Astudypu-blishedintheInternationalJournalofCancerin2006pre-dictedmorethan15,000excesscasesofthyroidcancerduetonuclearfallout.164

Thetopicofthyroidcancerispredominantlyapediatricissue,aschildren’ssusceptibilitytoradioactivefalloutisproportionallyhigherthanthatofadultsduetotheirplay-ingandeatinghabits.Inaddition,theirmucousmembra-neshaveagreaterpermeabilityandtheirrespiratorymi-nutevolumeishighersothatlargeramountsoffalloutareabsorbed.Above-averagetissue-metabolismandhighratesofmitosisincreasethechancethatmutationscausemalignanciesbeforetheycanbestoppedbythebody’sself-regulatorymechanisms.Asthechildren’simmunesystemsandcell-repairmechanismsarenotyetfullyde-veloped,thesemechanismscannotadequatelyprevent

16


thedevelopmentofcancer.Arecentmeta-analysisfoundthat“qualitativeandquantitativephysiologicalandepi-demiologicalevidencesupportsinfantsbeingmorevul-nerabletocancer”andestimatedthatinfantshaveabout10timeshigherradiationrisksperunitdosewhenitco-mestoradioactivefalloutthanadults,165whilethemoreconservativeInternationalCommissiononRadiologicalProtection(ICRP)assumesthatthesensitivitytoionizingradiationinyoungchildrenandfetusesishigherthaninadultsbyonlyafactorof3.166Severalinternationalstu-diesalsofoundthatthyroidnodulesinchildrenhaveamuchhighermalignancyratethaninadults,between2and50%.167,168,169Itbecomesclearthatanyassessmentofthyroidpathologies in thewakeofanucleardisasterneedstoadoptadifferentiatedapproachtowardsthedif-ferentagegroups.LookingatthemethodologyoftheUNSCEARdoseassessments, it ishighlyquestionablewhetherallofthesefactorswereappropriatelytakenintoconsideration.170

InthefirstthreemonthsoftheFukushimanucleardisas-ter,radioactiveiodinewasdetectedinmilk,drinkingwa-ter,vegetables,rainandgroundwater,aswellassoilsam-plesaroundNortheasternJapan,171 includingpartsofdowntownTokyo,wereiodine-131levelsreached36,000Bq/m2onMarch23rd,2011.172Inthiscontext,itisim-portanttorecallthatthenationalemergencyauthoritiesinJapandidnotgivetheordertoadministeriodinepro-phylaxistothegeneralpopulation,potentiallyexposingmanychildrentoradioactiveiodine-131.AccordingtotheWHO,itcanbeassumedthat“stableiodinetabletswerenottakenbymembersofthepublic,eitherinJapanorelsewhere.Thereforetheestimatedequivalentthyroiddosesarehigherthanthoseexpectedinpeoplewhohaveundergonethyroidblockingtoreducetheuptakeofra-dioactiveiodine.”173

Likeallformsofmalignancies,radiogenicthyroidcancerratesshowalinearrelationshipwithradiationexposuredoses.Inordertocalculatehowmanycasesofthyroidcanceraretobeexpectedinanexposedpopulation,weagainneedtoknowtwofigures:thetotalcollectivelife-timeorgandoseoftheJapanesepopulationandtheattri-butablethyroidcancerriskforadefinedorgandose.

Startingwiththecollectivelifetimeorgandose,UNSCEARhaslookedatthethyroidexposurefromexternalandin-ternalradiationinFukushimaPrefectureandtherestofthecountry.Mostaffectedbyradioactivefalloutarethechildren.AccordingtoUNSCEAR,inthefirstyearofthecatastrophe,thethyroidsofinfantsinFukushimaPrefec-turewereexposedtoradiationdosesbetween15and83mGy,“asmuchasonehalfofwhicharosefromtheinges-tionofradioactivityinfood”.174,175Toputthisinperspec-tive,“theaverageannualabsorbeddosetothethyroidfromnaturallyoccurringsourcesofradiationistypically

oftheorderof1mGy”.176Thatmeansthatinthefirstyearofthecatastrophealone,thethyroidsofinfantsinFukus-himaPrefecturewereexposedtoharmfulradiation15to83timeshigherthannaturalbackgroundradiation.Theseandallotherestimatesregardingradiationdosesareave-ragecalculations.Truedosesdependonalargenumberoflifestyleanddietaryhabits,aswellasindividualhealthfactors,sothatcertainpeoplemayhaveincurredhigherthyroiddoses.BecauseradioactiveiodinedidnotstopattheprefecturalbordersofFukushimaandwasfoundinmilk,seafood,meat,water,vegetablesandricefromtheregion,infantsinotherpartsofthecountrywerealsoexposedtoradioactiveiodine-131andreceivedthyroiddosesabout2.6to15timesthenormalannualdose.Ingeneral,adultsreceivedlowerfirst-yeardoses:7.2to35mGyinFukushimaPrefectureand0.5to5.1mGyintherestofJapan.Extrapolatingthedataoftheaveragethy-roidexposure,UNSCEARcalculatedthecollectiveabsor-bedlife-timedosetothethyroidforallofJapantobe112,000Person-Gy177.Wewillusethisfigureinouras-sessment,keepinginmindthatduetothemanyreasonslistedaboveandtheveryconservativewayofcalculatinglifetimedosesemployedbyUNSCEAR,thisnumbermostprobablyrepresentsasystematicunderestimationandmayinfactbesignificantlyhigher.

Regardingtheriskfactor,weagaindrawfromtheBEIRVIIreport,whichcalculatestheage-andsex-averagedlife-timeattributableriskofthyroidcancertobe60.5casesper10,000Person-Gy(~0,006/PGy).178AsthisfigurestillincludestheobsoleteDDREFof1.5,thecorrectedage-andsex-averagedlifetimeattributableriskofthyroidcan-cerderivedfromtheBEIRVIIreportis90.75casesper10,000Person-Gy(0,009/PGy).

Takingthisnumberandthecollectiveabsorbedlife-timedoseof112,000PGy,wearriveatanestimated1,016ca-sesofthyroidcancerduetothenuclearcatastropheinFukushima.UNSCEARmayberightthatthisnumberdoesnotconstitutea“discernibleincreasedincidence”179ofthyroidcancer,buttousdoctors,itmeansthatformorethan1,000people,mostlychildren,thedirectconse-quenceofthemultiplemeltdowns,theuncoordinatedevacuations,thefailuretodistributestableiodinetabletsandthecontinuingcover-upoftherisksofradioactivecontaminationwillbethyroidcancer.

Whileitisoftenclaimedbythenuclearlobbythattheriseofthyroidcancerisofrelativelysmallconcernduetogoodtreatmentoptions,weshouldnotunderestimatetheimpactofsuchdiseasesonchildrenandtheirfamilies.Thenecessaryoperationandremovaloftheentirethyro-idcarrieswithitnotjustapsychologicalimpact,butalsocertainperioperativerisksconnectedwithgeneralanest-hesiaandthecloseproximityofthevagusnervetotheoperationfield.Thelifelongneedtotakeartificialthyroid

17

hormones,frequentmedicalfollow-ups,bloodtests,ult-rasounds,possiblyfine-needlebiopsiesandtheconstantfearofapossiblerelapseareallveryseriousissuesfortheindividualpatientsandtheirfamilies.TheUSNationalCouncil on Radiation Protection andMeasurements(NCRP)estimatesthat7%ofthyroidcancerscausedbyradiationwouldbefatal.180Thiswouldmeanthatoftheapproximately1,000estimatedexcesscasesofthyroidcancers,about70wouldleadtodeath.Thenumberofnon-fatalcases,whichleadtosubstantialhospitalizationandlossofqualityoflifecannotbeadequatelyassessed,butalsohavetobetakenintoconsideration.

Inadditiontothepredictionsoffuturethyroidcancerca-sesonthebasisofdoseestimates,thereisalreadyepi-demiologicaldataavailablefromthefirstroundofthyro-idexaminationsonchildrenaged18orlesson11March2011,performedbetweenOctober2011andMarch2014.181Itisimportanttonotethatfromthisfirstroundofscreening,itisnotpossibletomakeassertionsregar-dingtheincidenceofthyroidcancer,asthescreeningoftheentirecohortofchildrenintheprefectureyieldstheprevalence(i.e.thetotalnumberofcasesinthepopula-tion)ofthyroidcancersandonlyfuturescreeningswillrevealtheincidence(i.e.theriseinnumbersfromyeartoyear).Sofar,theprevalenceoftumor-suspectthyroidbi-opsiesinFukushimais29.1per100,000childrenundertheageof18(absolutenumber:74)andtheprevalenceofconfirmedcasesofthyroidcancer13.0per100,000(absolutenumber33).182Incomparison,theincidenceofthyroidcancerinJapaneseyouths(<19years)intheyears2000to2007was0.35per100,000.183WhilewecannotdirectlycomparetheprevalencefoundinthescreeningprogramtotheincidencelevelsbeforetheFukushimadi-saster,thisisnonethelessaworryingnumber,withthenumbersofdetectedthyroidcancershigherthanexpec-ted.

TheassuranceintheUNSCEARreportthatthesecasesofthyroidcancerinFukushimaare“consistentwithresultsfromastudyofacohortofUkrainians(the“UkrAmco-hort”)whohadbeenexposedduringchildhoodoradole-scenceto131IfromtheChernobylaccident”184isdifficulttoaccept,asitisnotexplainedhowsupposed“non-radia-tion-related”thyroidcancercasesweredifferentiatedfromthosewitha“radiation-relation”inapopulationofirradiatedchildrenintheSovietUnioninthelate1980’s,whenmodernultrasounddeviceswerenotavailableandwhere,duetogovernmentalrestrictionsandlimitedre-sources,littlescientificworkupactuallytookplace.

TherearealsosomeotherinconsistenciesintheUNSCE-ARreportregardingtheFukushimathyroidexaminations.WhilethereportwasreleasedinAprilof2014,itonlyusedthedataofthethyroidexaminationsuptoJuly31st,2013.MorecurrentpublicationsbyFukushimaMedical

UniversityfromNovember12th,2013andFebruary7th,2014werenotincluded,eventhoughthenumberofdia-gnosedthyroidcancershasincreasedfromthe9casesmentionedinUNSCEAR’sreporttothecurrentnumberof33,withanother42suspectmalignancycaseswaitingforfurtherdiagnostics.EvenwithanunderstandingthattheFukushimathyroidexaminationisanongoingprocessandthatsecondaryexaminationforthefirstroundisnotyetcomplete,UNSCEARcouldstrivetoincorporatethelatestresultswithanaccuratenumberofcancercases,insteadofmentioningjustpartoftheavailableresults.

Moreover,UNSCEARcitesanultrasoundexaminationintheprefecturesofAomori,NagasakiandYamanashiasacomparisonstudy,supposedlyrepresentingthenormalbaselinerisks.185UNSCEARfailstomention,however,thatthecohortswerenotmatchedforage,sexorotherde-mographiccharacteristicsandconsistedprimarilyofstu-dentsfrominstitutionsassociatedwithnationaluniversi-ties,notrepresentativeof thegeneralpopulation. Inaddition,thelengthofultrasoundexaminationwassaidtobelongerforthisstudy,potentiallyleadingtomoredetailedexaminationthantheFukushimaexamination.

Instead,UNSCEARcitedareviewarticlepublishedonDe-cember3rd,2013,stating,“Theprevalenceofclinicallyoccultsmallpapillarythyroidcancerscouldbeashighas35%inmanypartsoftheworld,”suggestingthatthehighratesofcancersfoundintheFukushimathyroidexamina-tionsaresimplyscreeningeffectsandthatotherpediatricpopulationswouldhavesimilarratesofcancerifscree-ned.186Thisstatement,however,issolelybasedonaFin-nishautopsystudy,which,interestinglyenough,mentionsaprevalenceof27%andnot35%andspecificallyfoundnoclinicallyoccultthyroidcancersinchildrenundertheageof18.ThisfactisnotmentionedbyUNSCEAR,asitcontradictsthescreeningeffecthypothesis.187

18


IV) Conclusion

TheFukushimanucleardisasterisfarfromover.Despitethedeclarationof“coldshutdown”bytheJapanesego-vernmentinDecemberof2011,thecrippledreactorshavenotyetachievedastablestatusandevenUNSCEARadmitsthatemissionsofradioisotopesarecontinuingun-abated.188TEPCOisstrugglingwithanenormousamountofcontaminatedwater,whichcontinuestoleakintothesurroundingsoilandsea.Largequantitiesofcontamina-tedcoolingwaterareaccumulatingatthesite.Failuresinthemakeshiftcoolingsystemsareoccurringrepeatedly.Thedischargeofradioactivewastewillmostlikelyconti-nueforalongtime.

Boththedamagednuclearreactorsandthespentfuelpondscontainvastamountsof radioactivityandarehighlyvulnerabletofurtherearthquakes,tsunamis,ty-phoonsandhumanerror.Catastrophicreleasesofradio-activitycouldoccuratanytimeandeliminatingthisriskwilltakemanydecades.Moreover,manyofJapan’sothernuclearpowerstationsarejustassensitivetoseismicca-tastrophesastheFukushimaDai-ichiplant.

Attemptstomakereliableforecastsforthenextdecadesseemfutileagainstthebackdropofsomuchuncertainty.WhilemuchoftheUNSCEARreportrepresentsusefulandimportantgroundworkforfutureassessments,itdoesnotinanywayjustifythetypeof‘all-clear’thatUNSCEARisproposing.

Itisimpossibleatthispointtocomeupwithanexactpro-gnosisoftheeffectsthattheFukushimanucleardisasterwillhaveonthepopulationinJapan.However,basedontheargumentspresentedinthispaper,ithastobestatedthattheUNSCEARreportrepresentsasystematicunde-restimationandconjuresupanillusionofscientificcer-taintythatobscuresthetrueimpactofthenuclearcatas-tropheonhealthandtheenvironment.

Initsreport,UNSCEARcalculatesthecollectiveeffectivedosesandabsorbedthyroiddosesfortheJapanesepopu-lation.However,theadmitteduncertaintiesregardingexposuredoses,questionabledataselection,faultyas-sumptionsandthefactthatongoingradioactiveemissi-onswerenotconsideredunderminethevalidityofthesecalculations.Theresultingdoseestimatesaremostlikelyunderestimatedanddonotreflectthetrueextentofra-diationreceivedbytheaffectedpopulation.

Byutilizingmoreneutralsetsofdata,acknowledgingin-herentuncertaintiesindoseestimates,citingthefullran-geofpossibleexposureratesratherthanthebest-casescenarios,andbyincorporatingthelatestinformationaboutongoingradioactiveemissions,UNSCEARcould

havepresentedamorerealisticpictureofwhateffectspeoplecanexpectfromtheradioactivefalloutintheco-mingdecades,includingthyroidcancer,leukemia,solidtumors,non-cancerdiseasesandgeneticdefects,allofwhichhavebeenfoundinthepopulationaffectedbytheChernobylnuclearcatastrophe.

Evenwithmorerealisticdata,however,thenumberofcancercasesinducedbyFukushimaradioactivefalloutmaystillbeconsideredinsignificanttothemembersofUNSCEAR,especiallygiventherelativelyhighbaselinein-cidenceofcancerinJapan.Fromaphysician’sperspectivehowever,everypreventablecaseofcancerisonetoomanyandthetragicconsequencesthatcancerhasonaperson’sphysicalandmentalhealth,aswellasthesitua-tionoftheentirefamilyhavetobeconsidered.

ToreducethehorribleeffectsoftheFukushimanucleardisasterontensofthousandsoffamiliestoastatisticalproblemandtodismisstheseindividualstoriesofsuffe-ringbystatingthat“radiationexposurefollowingthenuc-learaccidentatFukushima-Daiichi[...]isunlikelytobeabletoattributeanyhealtheffectsinthefutureamongthegeneralpublicandthevastmajorityofworkers”189isinappropriateforacommitteeoftheUnitedNations,anorganizationthatpridesitselfontheDeclarationofUni-versalHumanRights.

Throughthecombinationofaman-madenucleardisas-ter,corruptoperators,regulatoryinstitutionsandpolitici-ans,inadequateemergencymeasures,andfinallythroughthesystematicunderestimationofradiationdosesandexpectedhealtheffects,thepeopleofFukushimaarebeingdeprivedoftheirrighttoastandardoflivingade-quatefortheirhealthandwell-being.

Asphysicians,primarilyconcernedwiththehealthofthepeopleaffectedbythenucleardisaster,weurgetheUni-tedNationsGeneralAssemblyandthegovernmentofJapantorealizethattheaffectedpopulationneedspro-tectionfromfurtherradiationexposure.Inouropinion,thefollowingissuesneedtobeaddressed:

» Allavailableexpertiseshouldbeusedforthetre-mendoustasksofminimizingongoingradioactiveemis-sionsfromthedamagedreactorsandspentfuelpoolsandpreventinglargeremissionsinthefuture.

» AccordingtoUNSCEAR,morethan24,000wor-kershaveworkedonthepremisesofthecrippledreac-torssincethestartofthedisaster.Tensofthousandsmorewillberequiredovermanydecades.Inadditiontotheprovisionofadequateradiationprotection,monito-ringandhealthcarefortheseworkers,anationallife-timeradiationexposureregisterforallworkersinthenuclearindustryisrequiredinJapan.Thismustinclude

19

subcontractorsaswellasutilityemployees.Individualworkersshouldhavereadyaccesstotheirresults.

» Theissueoffunctioningregistriesisalsoimport-antforthecivilianpopulation.Currently,theabsenceofbotheffectivecancerregistriesinmostprefecturesinJapanandcomprehensiveregistersofexposedpersonswithdoseestimatesthatcanbeusedtoassesslongtermhealthoutcomesmeansthatpotentialimpactswillgoundetected.Suchregistriesshouldbecreatedsothatfuturehealtheffectsoftheradioactivecontaminationcanbeproperlyassessed.

» Itisunacceptablethatpeoplearecurrentlybeingencouragedtoreturntosomeareaswheretheycanbeexpectedtoreceiveupto20mSvinadditionalannualradiationexposure.Weseenoadequatealternativetominimizesuchunacceptableexposuresotherthanmorerelocationsthanhavecurrentlyoccurred.Logisticandfinancialsupportforfamilieslivingintheradioactivelyaffectedmunicipalitieswhowanttomovetolessconta-minatedregionsshouldbeofferedtoreducetheriskoffuturehealtheffects.Evacueesshouldnotbepressuredorbribedintoreturningtocontaminatedregions.

» Decontaminationonthescalethatwouldbere-quiredtosufficientlyandsustainablyreduceradiationexposureshasnotprovenfeasible.Also,radioactivecon-taminationknowsnoboundaries,andfallouthasnotbeenconfinedtoFukushimaPrefecturealone.PartsofTochigi,Miyagi,Ibaraki,Gunma,SaitamaandChibahavealsobeencontaminated.Atpresent,governmentpro-gramsrespondingtothenucleardisasterarelargelyli-mitedtoFukushimaPrefecture.Anationalapproachbasedoncontaminationlevels,notprefecturalboundar-iesisneeded.

» WeasktheUnitedNationsGeneralAssemblyandtheJapaneseGovernmenttostudythereportoftheUNSpecialRapporteurontherightofeveryonetotheen-joymentofthehighestattainablestandardofphysicalandmentalhealth,Mr.AnandGrover,andheedhisconstructivesuggestions.190Theprecautionaryprincipleshouldbeemployedinradiationprotectionpolicies.

ThepeopleofFukushimaarenotbeinghelpedbyfalseclaimsandprematurereassurancesthatnohealtheffectsaretobeexpected.Theyneedproperinformation,healthmonitoring,supportandmostofall,theyneedacknow-ledgmentoftheirrighttoastandardoflivingadequatefortheirhealthandwellbeing.Thisshouldbetheguidingprincipleinevaluatingthehealtheffectsofthenuclearcatastrophe:

“Thenumberofchildrenandgrandchildrenwithcancerintheirbones,withleukemiaintheirblood,orwithpoi-

sonintheirlungsmightseemstatisticallysmalltosome,incomparisonwithnaturalhealthhazards.Butthisisnotanaturalhealthhazard-anditisnotastatisticalissue.Thelossofevenonehumanlife,orthemalformationofevenonebaby-whomaybebornlongafterwearegone-shouldbeofconcerntousall.Ourchildrenandgrand-childrenarenotmerelystatisticstowardwhichwecanbeindifferent.”JohnF.Kennedy,July26th,1963

20


V) Listofacronymsandabbreviations

BEIR US National Academy of Sciences AdvisoryCommitteeontheBiological EffectsofIonizingRadiation

CT ComputerTomography

FDNPS FukushimaDai-ichiNuclearPowerStation

IAEA InternationalAtomicEnergyAgency

IPPNW International Physicians for the PreventionofNuclearWar

IRSN FrenchInstituteforRadioprotectionand NuclearSafety

JAEA JapaneseAtomicEnergyAgency

LNT Linearno-threshold

MAFF JapaneseMinistryAgriculture,Forestry andFisheries

MEXT JapaneseMinistryofEducation,Culture, Sports,ScienceandTechnology

NILU NorwegianInstituteforAirResearch

PSR PhysiciansforSocialResponsibility

TEPCO TokyoElectricPowerCompany

UNSCEAR UnitedNationsScientificCommitteeon theEffectsofAtomicRadiation

WBC WholeBodyCounter

WHO WorldHealthOrganization

Scientificunits

Bq = Becquerel; unitforradioactivityintheInternationalSystemofUnits(SI)DefinedasthenumberofdisintegrationspersecondFormerunit:Curie(Ci):1Bq=2.7x10-11Ci

Examplesusedinthetext:MBq= Megabecquerel(1x106Becquerel)PBq=Petabecquerel(1x1015Becquerel)

Gy = Gray; SIunitforabsorbeddosebymatterDefinedastheamountofenergy(inJoules)absorbedpermass(inkg)Formerunit:Radiationabsorbeddose(rad):1rad=0.01Gy

ToconvertBqintoGy,itisnecessarytoknowthedoseconversionfactorrelevanttotheisotopeinquestionandthespecificirradiationpathway

Examplesusedinthetext:mGy=Milligray (1x10-3Gray) Person-Gy=collectiveabsorbeddoseofapopulation(numberofpeoplexaverageindividualdose)

Sv=Sievert;SIunitforequivalentdosebytissueDefinedastheamountofenergy(inJoules)absorbedpermass(inkg)Formerunit:Roentgenequivalentman(rem):1Sv=100rem

ToconvertGyintoSv,theabsorbeddoseismultipliedwiththeradiationweightingfactorWR(WR=1forx-ray,g-andb-radiation;WR=20fora-radiation)

Examplesusedinthetext:mSv=Millisievert(1x10-3Sievert)µSv=Microsievert(1x10-6Sievert)Person-Sv=collectiveequivalentdoseofapopulation(numberofpeoplexaverageindividualdose)

21

VI) References

1 “IncreaseinCancerUnlikelyfollowingFukushimaExposure-saysUNReport”.UnitedNationsInformationService(UNIS)pressrelease,April2nd,2014.www.unis.unvienna.org/unis/en/press-rels/2014/unisous237.html

2 “NoImmediateHealthRisksfromFukushimaNuclearAcci-dentSaysUNExpertSciencePanel”.UNISpressrelease,May31st,2013.www.unis.unvienna.org/unis/en/pressrels/2013/unisinf475.html

3 MolitorM.“Lesdéléguésbelgesindignés:‘OnminimiselesconséquencesdeFukushima’”.WebsiteofRadioTélévisionBelgeFrancophone(RTBF),July6th,2013.www.rtbf.be/info/societe/de-tail_les-delegues-belges-indignes-on-minimise-les-consequences-de-fukushima?id=8042566

4 Sources,effectsandrisksofionizingradiation–UNSCEAR2013Report;VolumeI–ReporttotheGeneralAssembly–ScientificAnnexA:Levelsandeffectsofradiationexposureduetothenuclearaccidentafterthe2011greateast-Japanearthquakeandtsunami".UnitedNationsScientificCommitteeontheEffectsofAtomicRadia-tion(UNSCEAR),April2nd,2014,p.60,table8.www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2013/13-85418_Report_2013_Annex_A.pdf

5 UNSCEAR2014,p.182,tableC6


7 UNSCEAR2014,p.183,paragraphC83


9 UNSCEAR2014,p.255,paragraphE43


11 “FukushimaNuclearAccidentUpdate”.InternationalAtomicEnergyAgency(IAEA),March24th,2011.www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2011/fukushima240311.html

12 “ImportantInformationfromJapaneseGovernment,Rea-dingsofDustSampling”.MinistryofEducation,Culture,Sports,Sci-enceandTechnology(MEXT),April18th,2011.http://eq.wide.ad.jp/files_en/110418dust_1000_en.pdf

13 “FukushimaNuclearAccidentUpdate”.IAEA,March20th,2011.www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2011/fukushima200311.html

14 “IbarakiPrefectureAgriculturalProductsTestResults”.Ibar-akiPrefecturalGovernment,August8th,2011.www.pref.ibaraki.jp/bukyoku/seikan/kokuko/en/links/agriculture_radiation.html

15 “CurrentStatusofFukushimaDaiichiNuclearPowerSta-tion”.TokyoElectricPowerCompany(TEPCO),January27th,2012.www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/f1/images/f12np-gaiyou_e_3.pdf


17 “CesiumdetectedfrommoreFukushimarice”.EarthquakeReportNo.276bytheJapaneseAtomicInformationForum(JAIF),November29th,2011.www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENG-NEWS01_1322541949P.pdf

18 “RegardingtheLimitationofTapWaterforInfantstoIntake-DisasterInformation65th–TranslationEdition”.MultilingualSup-portCenterfortheTohokuEarthquakeoutatPacificOcean,March23rd,2011.http://eqinfojp.net/?p=2999

19 WeissD.“Contaminationofwater,sedimentsandbiotaoftheNorthernPacificcoastalareathevicinityoftheFukushimaNPP”.GesellschaftfürAnlagen-undReaktorsicherheit(GfR),October31st,2011.www.eurosafe-forum.org/userfiles/2_2_%20paper_mari-ne%20environment_Fukushima_20111031.pdf

20 “Resultsoftheemergencymonitoringinspections–provi-sionaltranslation”.JapaneseMinistryofAgriculture,ForestryandFisheries(MAFF),April13th,2011.www.jfa.maff.go.jp/e/inspection/pdf/20110413_fukushima_kounago_en.pdf

21 “AnalysisReport:AnalysisofMatricesoftheMarineEnvi-ronment(Seaweeds)”.ACROLaboratoireindépendantd’analysedelaradioactivité,May22nd,2011.www.acro.eu.org/RAP110522-GPJ-01.pdf

22 “TestResultsforRadioactivityonTeaProducedinShizuokaPrefecture”.ShizuokaPrefecturalGovernment,May20th,2011.www.pref.shizuoka.jp/sangyou/sa-340/20110520_test_results_ra-dio_activity.html

23 PriestND.“RadiationdosesreceivedbyadultJapanesepo-pulationslivingoutsideFukushimaPrefectureduringMarch2011,followingtheFukushima1nuclearpowerplantfailures”.JEnvironRadioact. 2012 Dec;114:162-70. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub-med/22770771

24 “TestResultsforRadioactivityonTeaProducedinShizuokaPrefecture”,ShizuokaPrefecturalGovernment,May20th,2011.www.pref.shizuoka.jp/sangyou/sa-340/20110520_test_results_ra-dio_activity.html

22


25 “Radioactivereleaseintoseaestimatedtriple”.EarthquakeReportNo.199bytheJAIF,September9th,2012.www.jaif.or.jp/eng-lish/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1315542569P.pdf

26 “Synthèseactualiséedesconnaissancesrelativesàl’impactsurlemilieumarindesrejetsradioactifsdusitenucléaireaccidentédeFukushimaDai-ichi”.IRSN,October26th,2011.www.irsn.fr/fr/ac-tualites_presse/actualites/documents/irsn-ni-impact_accident_fu-kushima_sur_milieu_marin_26102011.pdf

27 UNSCEAR2014,p.127,paragraphB26

28 KawamuraHetal.“Preliminarynumericalexperimentsonoceanicdispersionof131Iand137Csdischargedintotheoceanbe-causeoftheFukushimaDaiichinuclearpowerplantdisaster”.JNuclSciTechnol48(11):1349-1356(2011).www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/18811248.2011.9711826,www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/18811248.2011.9711826

29 Kawamura,2011

30 Kawamura,2011

31 “Synthèseactualiséedesconnaissancesrelativesàl’impactsurlemilieumarindesrejetsradioactifsdusitenucléaireaccidentédeFukushimaDai-ichi”.IRSN,October26th,2011.www.irsn.fr/FR/Actualites_presse/Actualites/Documents/IRSN-NI-Impact_accident_Fukushima_sur_milieu_marin_26102011.pdf

32 “ResearchersAssessRadioactivityReleasedtotheOceanfromtheFukushimaDaiichiNuclearPowerFacility”.WoodsHoleOceanographicInstitution(WHOI),December6th,2011.www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7545&tid=282&cid=123049&ct=162

33 “Worldwidemarineradioactivitystudies(WOMARS)-Ra-dionuclidelevelsinoceansandseas”,IAEA,2004.www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/TE_1429_web.pdf

34 “GovernmentsecretlybacktracksonFukushimadeconta-minationgoal”.TheAsahiShimbun,June16th,2013.http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201306160022

35 Higakietal.“Thereductiveeffectofananti-pollinosismaskagainstinternalexposurefromradioactivematerialsdispersedfromthe Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster”. Health Phys. 2013Feb;104(2):27-31.www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23274827

36 UNSCEAR2014,p.84,paragraph202


38 “RadioactiveContaminationofWildBoar”.GermanMinis-tryofHealth.bmg.gv.at/home/Schwerpunkte/VerbraucherInnenge-sundheit/Radioaktive_Belastung_von_Wildschweinen

39 Hawley,C.“AQuarterCenturyafterChernobyl:RadioactiveBoaron theRise inGermany”. SpiegelOnline, July 20th, 2010. www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/a-quar ter-century -after-chernobyl-radioactive-boar-on-the-rise-in-germany-a-709345.html


41 Cardis,Eetal.“EstimatesofthecancerburdeninEuropefromradioactivefalloutfromtheChernobylaccident”.Int.J.Cancer:119,1224–1235(2006).http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.22037/pdf

42 “Preliminarydoseestimationfromthenuclearaccidentaf-terthe2011GreatEastJapanEarthquakeandTsunami”.WorldHealthOrganization(WHO),May23rd,2012.http://whqlibdoc.who.int/pu-blications/2012/9789241503662_eng.pdf

43 “Healthriskassessmentfromthenuclearaccidentafterthe2011GreatEastJapanearthquakeandtsunami,basedonaprelimi-narydoseestimation”.WHO,February28th,2013.www.who.int/io-nizing_radiation/pub_meet/fukushima_report/en/index.html

44 Rosen,A.“CriticalAnalysisoftheWHO’shealthriskassess-mentoftheFukushimanuclearcatastrophe”.IPPNWGermany,March1st,2013.www.ippnw.de/commonFiles/pdfs/Atomenergie/Fukushi-ma/WHO_Fukushima_Report2013_Criticism_en.pdf

45 Rosen,A.“AnalysisofWHOreportonFukushimacatastro-phe”,IPPNWGermany,August3rd,2012www.fukushima-disaster.de/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/english/ippnw_analysis_WHO-re-port_fukushima.pdf

46 UNSCEAR2014,p.116,tableB2


48 “TheofficialreportofTheFukushimaNuclearAccidentIn-dependentInvestigationCommission(NAIIC)oftheNationalDietofJapanExecutiveReport”.NAIIC,July5th,2012,p.16https://www.nirs.org/fukushima/naiic_report.pdf

49 UNSCEAR2014,p.116,tableB2



52 Zhengetal.“IsotopicevidenceofplutoniumreleaseintotheenvironmentfromtheFukushimaDNPPaccident”.ScientificRe-ports2,Articlenumber:304,March8th,2012.www.nature.com/srep/2012/120308/srep00304/full/srep00304.html

53 “Rapporteur’sreportfromthe59thsessionofUNSCEAR,Vienna,21-25May2012”.June8th,2012.UNSCEAR/59/14/Rev.1,Do-cumentR.691,p.23

23

54 BirdWAetal.“ChemicalAftermath:ContaminationandCleanupFollowingtheTohokuEarthquakeandTsunami”.EnvironHealthPerspect.2011July1;119(7):a290–a301.www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222972/

55 RosenA.“AnalysisofWHOreportonFukushimacatastro-phe”.IPPNWGermany,August3rd,2012.www.fukushima-disaster.de/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/english/ippnw_analysis_WHO-re-port_fukushima.pdf

56 UNSCEAR2014,p.102

57 IAEA.“AtomsforPeace”,IAEAWebsite.www.iaea.org/Ab-out/

58 UNSCEAR2014p.173,paragraphC54

59 Rosen.“AnalysisofWHOreportonFukushimacatastro-phe”,IPPNWGermany,August3rd,2012,p.7www.fukushima-disas-ter.de/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/english/ippnw_analysis_WHO-re-port_fukushima.pdf

60 “Preliminarydoseestimationfromthenuclearaccidentaf-terthe2011GreatEastJapanEarthquakeandTsunami”.WHO,May23rd,2012,p.106,tableA8.2.http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publicati-ons/2012/9789241503662_eng.pdf

61 “ImportantInformationfromJapaneseGovernment,Rea-dingsofDustSampling”.MEXT,April18th,2011http://eq.wide.ad.jp/files_en/110418dust_1000_en.pdf

62 UNSCEAR2014,p173,paragraphC56

63 “InvestigativeReportonFukushimaCityandKoriyamaCityFact-findingmissionconductedonNovember26and27,2011”.Hu-manRightsNow,December2011,p.19.http://hrn.or.jp/eng/activity/Investigative%20Report%20on%20Fukushima%20City.pdf


65 “Tabeteouenshiyou”.MAFF.www.maff.go.jp/j/shokusan/eat/


67 UNSCEAR2014,p.104,tableA1


69 “HeavyfalloutfromJapannuclearscandal“.CNN,Septem-ber2nd,2002.http://edition.cnn.com/2002/BUSINESS/asia/09/02/japan.tepco/


71 SatoJ,TadaT.“TEPCOfailstosubmitdosedataon21,000Fukushimaplantworkers”.TheAsahiShimbun,February28th,2013.h t tp: //a jw.asah i . com/ar t i c l e /0311d i s as te r/ f ukush ima/AJ201302280086

72 HackenbrochVetal.“AHaplessFukushimaClean-UpEf-fort”.DerSpiegel,April5th,2011.www.spiegel.de/international/world/a-hapless-fukushima-clean-up-effort-we-need-every-piece-of-wisdom-we-can-get-a-754868-2.html

73 McCurryJ.“LifeasaFukushimaclean-upworker”.TheGuardian, March 6th, 2013. www.theguardian.com/environ-ment/2013/mar/06/fukushima-clean-up-radiation-public-criticism

74 SatoJetal.“TEPCOsubcontractorusedleadtofakedosi-meterreadingsatFukushimaplant”TheAsahiShimbun,July21st,2012. http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201207210069

75 “TEPCOsubcontractortriestounderreportworkers’radia-tionexposure”.KyodoNews,July21st,2012.



78 GroscheBetal.“LungcancerriskamongGermanmaleura-niumminers:acohortstudy,1946–1998”.BrJCancer.2006Novem-ber6;95(9):1280–1287.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2360564/

79 Kusiaketal.„MortalityfromlungcancerinOntariouraniumminers”.BrJIndMed1993;50:920-928.www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1035522/

80 WoodwardAetal.“RadondaughterexposuresattheRa-diumHilluraniummineandlungcancerratesamongformerworkers,1952-87”.CancerCausesandControl,Vol2,1991.www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1873450

81 GillilandFDetal.“UraniumMiningandLungCancerAmongNavajoMeninNewMexicoandArizona,1969to1993”.JOccupEn-vironMed.2000Mar;42(3):278-83.www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub-med/10738707

82 ZaireRetal.“UnexpectedRatesofChromosomalInstabili-tiesandAlterationsofHormoneLevelsinNamibianUraniumMiners”.Rad Res 1997May;147(5):579-84. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub-med/9146703

83 Racheletal.“Mortality(1950–1999)andCancerIncidence(1969–1999)intheCohortofEldoradoUraniumWorkers”.RadiationResearch2010,Vol.174,No.6a,pp.773-785.www.rrjournal.org/doi/full/10.1667/RR2237.1

24


84 SalomaaSetal.“MinisatellitemutationsandbiodosimetryofpopulationaroundtheSemipalatinsknucleartestsite”.STUK-Ra-diationandNuclearSafetyAuthorityResearchandEnvironmentalSurveillanceftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp5-euratom/docs/ef-fects-health_semipalatinsk.pdf

85 ManganoJetal.“ElevatedInVivoStrontium-90fromNuc-learWeaponsTestFalloutamongCancerDecedents”.IntJHealthServ,Vol41:1,2011.www.radiation.org/reading/pubs/101201_IJHS_ManganoSherman.pdf

86 “EstimatedexposureandthryoiddosesreceivedbytheAmericanpeoplefromiodine-131falloutfollowingNevadaatmo-sphericnuclearbombtests”.NationalCancerInstitute,October1997.www.cancer.gov/i131/fallout/

87 Guizard et al. “The incidence of childhood leukaemiaaroundtheLaHaguenuclearwastereprocessingplant(France):asurveyfortheyears1978-1998”.JEpidemiolCommunityHealth.2001Jul;55(7):469-74.www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11413175

88 Pobeletal.“Case-controlstudyofleukemiaamongyoungpeople near La Hague nuclear reprocessing plant”. BMJ 1997.314:101.www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9006467

89 „RadiationDoseEstimatesfromHanfordRadioactiveMate-rialReleasestotheAirandtheColumbiaRiver».HanfordEnviron-mentalDoseReconstructionPanel,April1994.www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/hanford/dose.pdf

90 DickinsonHetal.“LeukaemiaandNon-HodgkinLymphominchildrenofmaleSellafieldradiationworkers”.Int.Journ.Cancer:99,437–444(2002).www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11992415

91 KaatschPetal.“LeukaemiainyoungchildrenlivinginthevicinityofGermannuclearpowerplants”.IntJCancer.2008;1220:721-726.www.rachel.org/lib/leukemias_near_german_nukes.080215.pdf

92 NesterenkoVB.“RadiationProtectionofthePopulationoftheRepublicofBelarus”in:“HealthofLiquidators–20yearsaftertheChernobylExplosion”.SymposiuminBern,Switzerland,November12th,2005.www.ippnw.org/pdf/chernobyl-health-of-clean-up-wor-kers.pdf

93 IvanovVKetal.“MortalityoftheChernobylEmergencyWorkers:AnalysisofDoseResponsebyCohortStudiesCoveringFol-low-UpPeriodof1992–2006”.RadiationHealthRiskSciences,2009:4,S . 9 5 - 1 0 2 . h t t p : / / l i n k . s p r i n g e r . c o m / c h a p t e r /10.1007%2F978-4-431-88659-4_14

94 BabadjanovaSAetal.“HealthofLiquidatorsintheRemotePeriodaftertheChernobylAccident”InternationalJournalofRadia-tionMedicine2001,3(3-4):71-76


96 “SourcesandEffectsofIonizingRadiation”.UNSCEAR1996ReporttotheGeneralAssembly.www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publi-cations/1996.html

97 “SourcesandEffectsofIonizingRadiation-VolumeII:Ef-fects.ScientificAnnexesC,DandE”.UNSCEAR2008ReporttotheGeneral Assembly. www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publicati-ons/2008_1.html

98 ChernobylResearchInitiativePublications,UniversityofSouthCarolinahttp://cricket.biol.sc.edu/chernobyl/Chernobyl_Re-search_Initiative/Publications.html

99 MøllerAPetal.“Differencesineffectsofradiationonab-undanceofanimalsinFukushimaandChernobyl”.EcolIndicators24(0):75-81 (2013).www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X12002324

100 MøllerAPetal.“AbundanceofbirdsinFukushimaasjudgedfromChernobyl”.EnvironPollut164:36-39(2012).www.sciencedi-rect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749112000255

101 Garnier-LaplaceJetal.“Areradiosensitivitydataderivedfromnaturalfieldconditionsconsistentwithdatafromcontrolledexposures?AcasestudyofChernobylwildlifechronicallyexposedtolowdoserates”.JEnvironRadioact.2013Jul;121:12-21.www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22336569


103 HaywardAR.“Thehumanfetusandnewborn:developmentoftheimmuneresponse”.BirthDefectsOrigArticSer.1983;19(3):289-94.www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6606446


105 WilliamsPMetal.“HealthEffectsofPrenatalRadiationEx-posure”.AmFamPhysician.2010Sep1;82(5):488-493.www.aafp.org/afp/2010/0901/p488.html#afp20100901p488-b19

106 StewartAMetal.“Radiationdoseeffectsinrelationtoobstetricx-raysandchildhoodcancers”.TheLancet,Volume295,Is-sue7658,Pages1185-1188,June6th,1970.www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2870%2991782-4/abstract

107 BithellJFetal.“Pre-natalirradiationandchildhoodmalig-nancy:AreviewofBritishdatafromtheOxfordSurvey”.BrJCancer1975,31:271–287.www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2009418/

108 DollRetal.“Riskofchildhoodcancerfromfetalirradiation”.BritishJournalofRadiology(1997)70,130-139.http://bjr.birjournals.org/content/70/830/130.abstract

109 WakefordRetal.“Riskcoefficientsforchildhoodcancerafter intrauterine irradiation: a review”. Int J RadiatBiol. 2003May;79(5):293-309.www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12943238

25

110 BithellJFetal.“AnewcalculationofthecarcinogenicriskofobstetricX-raying”.StatMed.1988Aug;7(8):857–864.www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3413365

111 MacMahonB.“PrenatalX-RayExposureandChildhoodCancer”.JournalOfTheNationalCancerInstituteVol.28:1173-1191.1962.http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/28/5/1173.abstract



114 LittleMPetal.“AModelofCardiovascularDiseaseGivingaPlausibleMechanismfortheEffectofFractionatedLow-DoseIonizingRadiationExposure”.PLoSComputBiol.2009October;5(10).www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759077

115 Darbyetal.“Mortalityfromcardiovasculardiseasemorethan10yearsafterradiotherapyforbreastcancer:nationwidecohortstudyof90000Swedishwomen”.BMJ,2003February1;326(7383):256–257.www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC140764

116 YukikoShimizuetal.„Radiationexposureandcirculatorydiseaserisk:HiroshimaandNagasakiatomicbombsurvivordata,1950-2003”.BMJ2010;340:b5349.www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.b5349


118 “Radiationinenvironment”.JapaneseNuclearRegulationAuthority.www.kankyo-hoshano.go.jp/04/04-1.html

119 FlodinUetal.“Backgroundradiation,electricalworkandsomeotherexposuresassociatedwithacutemyeloidleukemiainacase-referentstudy”.ArchEnvironHealth1986,41,77-84.www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3459400

120 KnoxEGetal.“Backgroundradiationandchildhoodcan-cers”.JRadiolProt1988,8,9-18.http://iopscience.iop.org/0952-4746/8/1/302

121 KendallGetal.“Arecord-basedcase-controlstudyofnatu-ralbackgroundradiationandtheincidenceofchildhoodleukaemiaandothercancersinGreatBritainduring1980–2006”.Leukemia2013,27,3-9.www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22766784

122 LymanGHetal. “Associationof leukemiawith radiumgroundwatercontamination”.JAMA1985,254,621-626.http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=399812

123 KochupillaiNetal.“”Down’ssyndromeandrelatedabnor-malitiesinanareaofhighbackgroundradiationincoastalKerala”.Nature1976,262,60-61.www.nature.com/nature/journal/v262/n5563/abs/262060a0.html

124 PaviaMetal.“Meta-analysisofresidentialexposuretora-dongasandlungcancer”.BullWorldHealthOrgan,2003;81(10):732-8.Epub2003Nov25.www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14758433

125 KrewskiDetal.“ResidentialRadonandRiskofLungCancer–aCombinedAnalysisof7NorthAmericanCase-ControlStudies”.Epidemiol 2005, 16, 137-145. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub-med/15703527

126 GrayAetal.“Lungcancerdeathsfromindoorradonandthecosteffectivenessandpotentialofpoliciestoreducethem”.BMJ,2009,338,a3110.www.bmj.com/content/338/bmj.a3110

127 “Radonandcancer-FactsheetN°291”.WHO,September2009.www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs291/en/

128 DarbySetal.“Radoninhomesandriskoflungcancer:col-laborativeanalysisofindividualdatafrom13Europeancase-controlstudies”.BMJ2005,Jan.29,330(7485)223-228.www.bmj.com/con-tent/330/7485/223

129 HenshawDLetal.“Radonasacausativefactorininductionofmyeloidleukaemiaandothercancers”.Lancet1990,28,1008-1012. www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PII0140-6736%2890%2991071-H/abstract

130 “CosmicRadiationExposurewhenFlying”.AustralianRadia-tionProtectionandNuclearSafetyAgency(ARPANSA).www.arpansa.gov.au/radiationprotection/factsheets/is_cosmic.cfm

131 “Sourcesandeffectsofionizingradiation-Vol.1:Sources”.UNSCEAR,2000.www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/09-86753_Report_2008_Annex_B.pdf

132 StewartAMetal.“Radiationdoseeffectsinrelationtoobstetricx-raysandchildhoodcancers”.TheLancet,Volume295,Is-sue7658,p.1185-1188,June6th,1970.www.thelancet.com/jour-nals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2870%2991782-4/abstract

133 MathewsJDetal.“Cancerriskin680000peopleexposedtocomputedtomographyscansinchildhoodoradolescence:datalinkagestudyof11millionAustralians”.BMJ2013;346:f2360.www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f2360

134 PearceMSetal.“RadiationexposurefromCTscansinchild-hoodandsubsequentriskofleukaemiaandbraintumors:aretro-spectivecohortstudy”.Lancet2012;380:499-505.www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2812%2960815-0/abs-tract


136 “Chernobyl:TheTrueScaleoftheAccident”.IAEA,Septem-ber 5th, 2005. www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/2005/prn200512.html

26


137 “IncreaseinCancerUnlikelyfollowingFukushimaExposure-saysUNReport”.UNISpressrelease,April2nd,2014.www.unis.unvienna.org/unis/en/pressrels/2014/unisous237.html


139 UNSCEAR2014.p.200,paragraphC118


141 UNSCEAR2014.p.201,paragraphC123

142 “TheofficialreportofTheFukushimaNuclearAccidentIn-dependentInvestigationCommission(NAIIC)oftheNationalDietofJapanExecutiveReport”.NAIIC,July5th,2012,p.18-19https://www.nirs.org/fukushima/naiic_report.pdf




146 „Preliminarydoseestimationfromthenuclearaccidentaf-terthe2011GreatEastJapanEarthquakeandTsunami“.WHO,May23rd, 2012, p.49. ht tp://whql ibdoc .who. int /pub l i cat i -ons/2012/9789241503662_eng.pdf

147 “Notificationofinterimpolicyregardingdecisionsonwhet-hertoutilizeschoolbuildingsandoutdoorareaswithinFukushimaPrefecture”.MEXT, April 19th, 2011.www.mext.go.jp/english/ incident/1306613.htm

148 “ImmediateMeasurestowardReducingtheRadiationDo-sesthatPupilsandOthersReceiveatSchools,etc.inFukushimaPre-fecture”.MEXT,May27th,2011.http://radioactivity.mext.go.jp/en/important_imformation/0001/

149 TabuchiH.“AngryParentsinJapanConfrontGovernmentOverRadiationLevels”.NewYorkTimes,May25th,2011.www.nyti-mes.com/2011/05/26/world/asia/26japan.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

150 “InvestigativeReportonFukushimaCityandKoriyamaCityFact-findingmissionconductedonNovember26and27,2011”.Hu-manRightsNow,December2011,p.19.http://hrn.or.jp/eng/activity/Investigative%20Report%20on%20Fukushima%20City.pdf

151 StohlAetal.“Xenon-133andcaesium-137releasesintotheatmospherefromtheFukushimaDaiichinuclearpowerplant:deter-minationofthesourceterm,atmosphericdispersion,anddeposi-tion”.Atmos.Chem.Phys.Discuss.,11,28319-28394,2011.www.at-mos-chem-phys-discuss.net/11/28319/2011/acpd-11-28319-2011.html


153 UNSCEAR2014,p.87,table10




157 “BEIRVIIreport,phase2:Healthrisksfromexposuretolowlevelsofionizingradiation.”NationalAcademiesPress,Washington,2006,p.279f,tables12.5aand12.5b.www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11340&page=279

158 “Healthriskassessmentfromthenuclearaccidentafterthe2011GreatEastJapanEarthquakeandTsunamibasedonaprelimina-rydoseestimation”.WHO,February28th,2013,p.32.www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/fukushima_report/en/index.html

159 BauerSetal.“RadiationexposureduetolocalfalloutfromSovietatmosphericnuclearweaponstestinginKazakhstan:solidcan-cermortalityintheSemipalatinskhistoricalcohort,1960-1999”.Ra-diatRes.2005,164(4Pt1),409-419.www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub-med/16187743

160 KörbleinAetal.“Backgroundradiationandcancermorta-lityinBavaria:anecologicalanalysis”.ArchEnvironOccupHealth2006,61(3),109-114.www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17672352

161 CardisEetal.“The15-CountryCollaborativeStudyofCan-cerRiskamongRadiationWorkersintheNuclearIndustry:estimatesofradiation-relatedcancerrisks”.RadiatRes2007,167,396-416.www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17388693

162 Katanodaetal.“AnupdatedreportofthetrendsincancerincidenceandmortalityinJapan”.CenterforCancerControlandIn-formationServices,NationalCancerCenter,Japan.JapaneseJournalofClinicalOncology,2013;43:492-507.http://ganjoho.jp/pro/statis-tics/en/table_download.html

163 “ToxicologicalProfileInformation”.AgencyforToxicSub-stances&DiseaseRegistry.www.atsdr.cdc.gov

164 CardisEetal.“EstimatesofthecancerburdeninEuropefromradioactivefalloutfromtheChernobylaccident”.Int.J.Cancer:119,1224–1235(2006).http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.22037/pdf

27

165 RichardsonRB.“Factorsthatelevatetheinternalradionuc-lideandchemicalretention,doseandhealthriskstoinfantsandchil-dreninaradiological–nuclearemergency”.RadiationProtectionDo-s imetr y. 2009;134(3-4):167-80. www.ncbi .n lm.nih.gov/pubmed/19460847

166 “Radiationandyourpatient:AGuideformedicalpractitio-ners”.InternationalCommissiononRadiologicalProtection(ICRP).www.icrp.org/docs/rad_for_gp_for_web.pdf

167 HungWetal.“SolitaryThyroidNodulesin93ChildrenandAdolescents”.HormRes1999;52:15–18.www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub-med/10640894

168 RaabSSetal.“Pediatricthyroidnodules:diseasedemogra-phicsandclinicalmanagementasdeterminedbyfineneedleaspira-tionbiopsy”.Pediatrics.1995Jan;95(1):46-9.www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7770308

169 NiedzielaMetal.“Pathogenesis,diagnosisandmanage-ment of thyroid nodules in children”. Endocrine-Related Can-cer(2006)13427–453. ht tp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub-med/16728572

170 UNSCEAR2014,AppendixC,p.167-178

171 “ImportantInformationfromJapaneseGovernment,Rea-dingsofDustSampling”.MEXT,April18th,2011.http://eq.wide.ad.jp/files_en/110418dust_1000_en.pdf


173 “Preliminarydoseestimationfromthenuclearaccidentaf-terthe2011GreatEastJapanEarthquakeandTsunami”.WHO,May23rd, 2012, p.49. ht tp://whql ibdoc .who. int /pub l i cat i -ons/2012/9789241503662_eng.pdf





178 “BEIRVIIreport,phase2:Healthrisksfromexposuretolowlevelsofionizingradiation.”NationalAcademiesPress,Washington,2006,p.279, table12.5.www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11340&page=8


180 “ModifyingEPARadiationRiskModelsBasedonBEIRVII”.OfficeofRadiationandIndoorAir,U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA),August1st,2006,p.31.www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/docs/assessment/white-paper8106.pdf

181 YasumuraSetal.“StudyProtocolfortheFukushimaHealthManagementSurvey”.JEpidemiol.2012;22(5):375-83.EpubAugust25th, 2012. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3798631/#!po=13.8889

182 “ThyroidUltrasoundExamination,FukushimaHealthMa-nagementSurvey“.FukushimaMedicalUniversity,February7th,2014.www.fmu.ac.jp/radiationhealth/results/media/14-2_Thyroi-dUE.pdf

183 Katanodaetal.“AnupdatedreportofthetrendsincancerincidenceandmortalityinJapan”.CenterforCancerControlandIn-formationServices,NationalCancerCenter,Japan.JapaneseJournalofClinicalOncology,2013;43:492-507. http://ganjoho.jp/pro/statis-tics/en/table_download.html


185 TaniguchiNetal.„Ultrasonographicthyroidnodularfin-dingsinJapanesechildren“.JMedUltrasonics40(3):219-224(2013).http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10396-013-0456-1#pa-ge-1

186 ReinersC.„Thyroidcancerin2013:Advancesinourunders-tandingofdifferentiatedthyroidcancer“.NatureReviewsEndocrino-logy,VO.10,p.69-70(2014).www.nature.com/nrendo/journal/v10/n2/pdf/nrendo.2013.247.pdf?WT.ec_id=NRENDO-201402

187 KaarleOetal.„Occultpapillarycarcinomaofthethyroidinchildrenandyoungadults:AsystemicautopsystudyinFinland“.Can-cer,Volume58,Issue3,pages715–719,August1st,1986.http://o n l i n e l i b r a r y . w i l e y . c o m / d o i / 1 0 . 1 0 0 2 / 1 0 9 7 -0142(19860801)58:3%3C715::AID-CNCR2820580319%3E3.0.CO;2-P/pdf

188 UNSCEAR2014,p.126,B23andB24

189 “NoImmediateHealthRisksfromFukushimaNuclearAcci-dentSaysUNExpertSciencePanel”.UNISpressrelease,May31st,2013.www.unis.unvienna.org/unis/en/pressrels/2013/unisinf475.html

190 “ReportoftheSpecialRapporteurontherightofeveryonetotheenjoymentofthehighestattainablestandardofphysicalandmentalhealth,AnandGrover,MissiontoJapan(15-26November2012)”.HumanRightsCouncil,May27th,2013.www.ohchr.org/Do-c u m e n t s / H R B o d i e s / H R C o u n c i l / R e g u l a r S e s s i o n /Session23/A-HRC-23-41-Add3_en.pdf

Note: all hyperlinks were accessed on April 26th, 2014

IPPNW–GermanAffiliateoftheInternationalPhysiciansforthePreventionofNuclearWarKörtestr.10·10967BerlinPhone:+49/(0)30-688074-0Fax: +49/(0)[email protected]·www.ippnw.de

Onlineavailable:www.ippnw.de/strahlung

©GermanaffiliateofIPPNW(DeutscheSektionderIPPNWe.V.),June5th,2014Allrightsreserved.Authors:AlexRosen,IPPNWGermany,YuriHiranuma,AlfredMeyer&JohnRachow,PSRUSAContact:[email protected]

Ifyouwishtocontributefinanciallytothispublication,pleasetransferthemoneyto:IPPNW.IBANDE39100205000002222210,BIC(SWIFT-Code)BFSWDE33BER,BankfürSozialwirtschaft,ReasonforPayment:„UNSCEARReport“