The United Nations Science Commission on Radiation Effects from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Accident (UNSCEAR), which compiled a report on the effects of radiation exposure from last year to this year, held an interactive meeting in Iwaki City, Fukushima Prefecture, on March 21 to explain the contents of the report to the public. The meeting was held in Iwaki City, Fukushima Prefecture. The former UNSCEAR chair Gillian Haas and others explained that the radiation doses were low and that cancer and other health problems did not occur, but domestic researchers raised questions one after another, saying that the report contained errors and underestimated radiation doses.

From July 19 to 22, UNSCEAR has been conducting “outreach activities” in Japan to disseminate the report. On this day, a meeting for the public was held for the first time, attended by about 30 people, including domestic researchers and media representatives. The meeting began with an hour-long presentation on the report, which cited 500 papers selected from more than 1,000 peer-reviewed articles and other materials published by the end of 2019. He emphasized that the report was scientific and objective, citing 500 papers selected from more than 1,000 peer-reviewed papers published by the end of 2019, and pointed out that the radiation dose from the accident was extremely low. He pointed out that the radiation doses from the accident were extremely low. The report concluded that the large number of pediatric thyroid cancers found in Fukushima Prefecture were not the result of the accident, but rather “the result of ultra-sensitive screening tests.

Dr. Hiyako Sakiyama, a medical doctor and president of the NPO 3.11 Thyroid Cancer Children’s Fund, raised the issue of the radiation dose of radioactive iodine being estimated in half based on the dietary habits of the Japanese people. Looking at the amount of iodine in urine, which is publicized as a result of the secondary thyroid examination conducted by Fukushima Prefecture, she pointed out that “the amount of iodine that Japanese people are consuming from food is the same as the world average. He refuted the report, saying that the exposure in the report was “clearly underestimated.

Shinichi Kurokawa, professor emeritus at the High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), criticized the existence of impossible data in the report. He pointed out that the deposition rate of radioactive cesium, which is used as a model for simulations to estimate absorbed doses in the thyroid gland, is at a “physically impossible” rate. He harshly criticized the report.

He also sharply criticized the previous day’s press conference, in which Kurokawa and his group of researchers had responded that the error was a mere typo and that they had not received any suggestions that would change their conclusions. He expressed his anger, saying, “Why did they say that?”

Akashi is a former representative of Japan. He had long served as a member of the prefectural health survey committee, but he was unaware of any data on iodine in urine.

In addition, a number of people from the audience raised questions about the data used and its contents, including a former fishery cooperative official who complained that the doses of fish he had measured had been revised downward. Haas and others, however, reiterated that while they would verify the areas pointed out, their conclusions would not change.
The term “scientific” means “picked up from published papers.”

In an interview with Synodos, former Japanese representative Mamon Akashi emphasized that the report was scientific. When asked about the fierce criticism that was leveled at him in his dialogue with the public, he responded. The report is based on a review of published papers, with the exception of personal dosimeter data from Minamisoma and Naraha, but most of the data has been reviewed. I only said that I picked up the data from the published papers, and I described it as scientific, not that I arbitrarily excluded any papers or tried to exclude any papers. I didn’t say that I arbitrarily excluded or tried to exclude any papers,” he responded.

He also emphasized that he had no idea about the report’s suggestion that errors had occurred in its own analysis, since it was outside his area of expertise.