No, asshole. It isn’t “unsafe”. It’s REGULATORY.

The accident at Fukushima Daiichi has had tremendous impacts on the Japanese people, and as the site cleanup is ignored and radiation spreads in to the Pacific Ocean, the repercussions of this accident are beginning to be felt worldwide. We’ve been working to bring international attention to this immense, and growing, public health crisis. Today we’re asking for your help.

Our video tour of Fukushima Daiichi is 20 minutes long, and we have much more educational content of all types (videos, podcasts, blog posts, technical reports, TV and radio interviews, book lists and more) on our website. Your (website/blog) is well known and respected, and if you could take the time to share our video and bring increased attention to the Fukushima Daiichi crisis, your contribution to expanding public education would be one step forward towards a cleaner and safer world.

Thanks for taking the time to read this email, and please consider sharing our video with your audience.
https://vimeo.com/76075250
Sincerely yours,

Nathaniel White-Joyal
Fairewinds Media Producer
http://www.fairewinds.org

With that I’d guess the scanners are picking up cancers which would have presented later in life, if at all (The incidentaloma problem).

Also, the J-Gov did a check on juvenile populations in other parts of Japan with the same methods and equipment. No difference in thyroid stats. Ref: http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201303090076

On the subject of cancer stats, Japan’s are available from the “Monitoring of Cancer Incidence in Japan (MCIJ) Project”. The latest free published one is available here: http://jjco.oxfordjournals.org/content/41/1/139.full.pdf

Japan however does not have a national database, the data has to be judged and collated from prefectures all the way down to villages, and not every prefecture is in the registry, or has the resources to devote the time and money needed. Fukushima was one of 3 prefectures that started their registries in 2010(!)

What IS amazing in many of these cases is that Fukushima-originated radioactive material can be detected across the Pacific (and it can be). But that is a testament to the instrumentation and not the amount of radiation.

The Leukemia compensation headline is accurate. It refers to a specific health benefit rule. Workers who receive a certain level of exposure now get a special benefit if they happen to get leukemia.

I’m not sure what to make of the BC fish headline. The article is accurate. The title says “unclear” … which it may be, but any reasonable estimate of the risk should conclude that it is non-existant or negligible. Hard to say what was on the editor’s mind there.

Fukushima prefecture has about 360 children in the age range, but something like 180,000 have been screened, of which 44 have had some sort of issues either 18 or 28, depending on how one reads the secondary reports, diagnosed as cancer. Supposedly thyroid cancer is very rare in Japan. But, thyroid cancer rates change a great deal over time probably because of changes in diagnostics, so it is quite possible that Japanese methods and methods elsewhere are different enough that the data are not comparable. In any event, one would not expect to see thyroid cancer develop in children in the area for another 10-3 years from now, so this is probably people being extra edgy.

Anyway, of the 31 headlines, you’ve identified 3 as problematic, and it is possible that only two of them are, so that’s pretty good Also, the fact that most of the confusion and misunderstanding is related to radiation dosage and risk, is very unsurprising. Indeed, over the same period of time covered by these mostly MSM items, there is quite a bit not included in this post including simulations of giant radioactive blobs eating California!

Thanks for the input.