ENE NewsInterview with Dr. Alex Rosen, pediatrician and IPPNW vice president, Nuclear Hotseat, July 22, 2014 (at 39:30 in): The UNSCEAR [United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation] report mentioned the collective dose estimates [due to Fukushima]… But they failed to actually say what this will mean for the people… UNSCEAR says that there will be a total collective dose of 48,000 person sieverts… the sum of all the individual doses of every person in Japan that is exposed to radioactivity due to Fukushima… If you take the risk factors that are internationally accepted, then this would lead to between 4,000-16,000 excess cases of cancer in Japan.
Based on the underestimations that I just explained, the number would probably be much higher if you actually took the right data and the right assumption… You have 9,000, or a little more than 9,000, people who will die because of cancers related to the Fukushima nuclear accident. This is something you have to tell the people, this is something you have to admit – and say look, “This is a huge catastrophe and this is what this will lead to.” … They want to forget this ever happened. They want people to move on. They don’t want to admit this will have health effects in the coming decades. They don’t want to admit that people will be suffering from it. And by ‘they’ I mean the Japanese nuclear village, the politicians behind nuclear energy, the companies behind nuclear energy… All of them are trying to whitewash this catastrophe — and UNSCEAR is part of this movement, UNSCEAR is helping them. This is something we cannot accept as scientists and doctors — that a UN body is actually whitewashing this catastrophe. >> Full interview here
Interview with Dr. Rudi Nussbaum, Professor Emeritus of Physics at Portland State University, on the Hanford Thyroid Disease Study, TalkingStickTV, Published June 24, 2011 (at 10:00 in): You could call it brainwashing, basically, on a very sophisticated level… They market a point of view, and they couch it very, very cleverly in what sounds like scientific jargon. It’s an abuse of science, and scientific jargon, but nevertheless, you can tell the truth and still tell a lie. You can say, for instance — and this is what they did — “We know of no research that shows any relationship between having been exposed to radioiodine and a miscarriage. We know of no research.” That’s true — but it is an infamous lie… because they never looked whether there could be a relationship. They never did any study that would even come close to answering the question. So now you know what I mean by telling the truth, and at the same time telling an infamous and, really, a damaging lie… And that’s what happened in this field all along, and it still happens… You have to go in there and look at the numbers, and you find that their own data contradicts their public conclusion, and that to me is the lowest point of scientific unethical behavior… And they know it, they must know. If they don’t, then they’re really incompetent. >>Full interview here
Danish Emergency Management Agency’s Carsten Israelson, Nordic Nuclear Safety Research’s 2013 Fukushima Seminar (at 7:45 in): Transparency promotes trust and confidence! If transparency is inconvenient the problem is probably not the transparency itself.