Fukushima's Children are Dying

[FBaggins]

31. Sorry... you've confused your logical fallacies.

Nobody has asked you to prove a negative. The burden of proof (the fallacy you're missing) is on you since you're the one that claimed an effect from the radiation 70 years earlier. You can't make a claim and then say that although there is no evidence (at all) that it's possible, it can't be proven impossible... so the argument stands.

In fact, the reality that it is impossible can be proven... (since your claim requires not just a never-before-seen effect of radiation... but also mathematically impossible requirements like multiple simultaneous identical mutations in areas hundreds of miles from the blast)

There hasn't been concerted and sufficient research

Again... that's just nonsense. I don't know where people get off assuming that there just hasn't been much research into the subject when it has been studied in depth for decades... including this specific group (the children and grandchildren of the bombing survivors). One set of examples:

Our long-term study of a large cohort of offspring of atomic-bomb survivors screens regularly for possible effects of parental preconception exposure to radiation. The latest mortality study (Izumi et al, 2003) suggested that such exposure did not lead to increased cancer mortality rates in childhood and young adulthood among the offspring born in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This finding is consistent with earlier studies of the cohort, which found no dose-dependent increases in mortality (Kato et al, 1966; Neel et al, 1974; Yoshimoto et al, 1991; Little et al, 1994), childhood cancer (Yoshimoto et al, 1990), untoward pregnancy outcomes (Neel and Schull, 1956; Otake et al, 1990), cytogenetic abnormalities (Awa et al, 1987), or loss of enzyme activity (Neel et al, 1988).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2394417/

And what is Fukushima but a slow-release, 24/7 nuclear bomb?

Just about anything really... it's in almost no sense a "slow-release, 24/7 nuclear bomb". Dose rates were far lower (the highest doses at Fukushima are well below the lowest doses used in Hiroshima/Nagasaki cohorts) and fell rapidly (and continue to fall) - while atom bomb doses have much MUCH higher proportions of more-dangerous and longer-lived isotopes like plutonium and strontium. Also (unlike Fukushima - despite Gundersen's ignorance on the subject) nuclear bombs actually do produce "hot particles".

Oh... and of course the nuclear bombs killed roughly a couple hundred thousand people just in the blasts.