Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

intaglio

(8,170 posts)
1. Extract from the synopsis and link to the PDF
Thu Nov 7, 2013, 06:02 AM
Nov 2013
http://www.psr.org/assets/pdfs/synopsis-of-unscear-fukushima.pdf

... While parts of the UNSCEAR report will be useful in the future to assess the consequences of the nuclear meltdowns on public health and the environment, we believe the 2013 UNSCEAR report systematically underestimates the true extent of the catastrophe. Many of the assumptions are based on the two WHO/IAEA reports published in May 2012 and February 2013, which did not accurately portray the true extent of radiation exposure, followed faulty assumptions, ignored the ongoing radioactive emissions over the past 2½ years and excluded non-cancer effects of radiation.

Regarding UNSCEAR’s current report to the UN General Assembly, we find the following 10 issues to be most critical:
1) It was mainly the direction of the wind that prevented a larger catastrophe in Japan
2) The nuclear catastrophe is ongoing and continues to be a source of radioactive emissions
3) Estimates of radiation emissions and exposure should be based on neutral sources
4) The endorsement of Fukushima produce increases the risk of radioactive exposure
5) Whole Body Counters underestimate the extent of radioactive exposure
6) TEPCO's employee dose assessments cannot be relied upon
7) The special vulnerability of the embryo has to be taken into account in regards to radiation
8) Thyroid malignancies and other cancers have to be monitored for several decades
9) Monitoring should also occur for non-cancer diseases and genetic radiation effects
10) Comparisons between nuclear fallout and background radiation are misleading

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Editorials & Other Articles»Annotated Critique of UNS...»Reply #1