★阿修羅♪ > 原発・フッ素9 > 829.html
 ★阿修羅♪  
▲コメTop ▼コメBtm 次へ 前へ
放射能の危険性は本当? 英国で議論呼ぶ異説
http://www.asyura2.com/11/genpatu9/msg/829.html
投稿者 sci 日時 2011 年 4 月 25 日 13:41:51: 6WQSToHgoAVCQ
 

低線量被曝の健康問題は、CO2問題と同じく、政治闘争と神学論争の世界に入りつつあるな
http://business.nikkeibp.co.jp/article/world/20110422/219548/?ST=print
日経ビジネス オンライントップ>アジア・国際>大竹剛のロンドン万華鏡 
放射能の危険性は本当?
英国で議論呼ぶ異説

2011年4月25日 月曜日


ガーディアン紙に掲載されたモンビオ氏のコラム

 福島第1原子力発電所の事故をきっかけに、英メディアが放射能による健康被害を巡る異説を取り上げたことで、議論が巻き起こっている。

 環境問題の報道で定評のある英ガーディアン紙は3月21日、著名環境ジャーナリストのジョージ・モンビオ氏のコラムを掲載。同氏は原発に中立的だったが、「私たちが知る限り、(フクシマでは)まだ1人も致命的な被曝をしてない」と書き、福島原発事故を契機に原発支持へ転向したと告白して読者を驚かせた。

「反原発ロビーの主張に異議あり」

 さらにモンビオ氏は同紙に4月5日、「不愉快な真実は反原発ロビーが私たち全員をミスリードしてきたことだ」との寄稿を掲載し、反原発で有名な医師ヘレン・カルディコット氏を批判。彼女が放射能による健康被害の根拠として示した、チェルノブイリ原発事故による死亡は98万5000人との報告書についても「間違いだ」と断じた。

 カルディコット氏も反撃に出た。4月11日、ガーディアンのウェブサイトに「いかに原子力擁護者が放射能について世界をミスリードするか」と題した寄稿を掲載。「モンビオ氏は外部被曝と内部被曝の違いが分かっていないようだ」などと反論し、彼が批判した報告書の科学的根拠も擁護した。

 一方、英国放送協会(BBC)は3月26日、自社ウェブサイトにモンビオ氏より踏み込んだ異説を載せた。この寄稿「放射能から逃げていてはいけない」の筆者、英オックスフォード大学の原子力・医学物理学者ウェード・アリソン教授は、被曝許容量は「月100ミリシーベルト(mSv)」(生涯で 5000mSvを上限)にできると主張する。これは国際放射線防護委員会(ICRP)が推奨し、日本などが採用している一般市民の被曝許容量「年 1mSv」の1000倍以上だ。
オックスフォード大学アリソン教授の著書

 アリソン教授は2009年10月に自費出版した著書で、1回の被曝量が100mSv以下の場合、ガンになる測定可能なリスクを示すデータはないと指摘。その100mSvを健康被害が発生し始める“閾値(しきい値)”と捉え、少なくとも閾値以下の低線量被曝なら、細胞の自己修復機能が働くとも主張する。

 同教授は、閾値や細胞の修復機能を考慮しないICRPのリスク評価は妥当でないと言う。ICRPの推奨被曝許容量は、1951年は週3mSvだったが、 57年に一般市民は年5mSv、放射線作業者は年50mSvとなり、90年にそれぞれ年1mSv、年20mSvに引き下げられた。

「過剰規制の背景に核開発競争」

 規制強化の背景には、冷戦時代の核開発競争があると同教授は見る。「核戦争の恐怖が政治的に利用され、市民の放射能への恐怖心が煽られた。そのため、規制当局は基準を厳しくして、市民を安心させようとした」と話す。そして90年の規制強化は、86年に起きたチェルノブイリ原発事故への過剰反応だと言う。

 ガーディアンは昨年1月、アリソン教授の主張を検証する記事を掲載している。閾値や細胞の修復機能に関する結論に疑問を投げかける複数の科学者のコメントを載せ、「これ(アリソン教授の主張)は、主流の科学者が同意しない見方だ」とした。だが同時に、低線量被曝の被害については、研究データが不十分なことや、たばこや飲酒などの要因に隠れて特定が難しいことを指摘する意見も紹介。放射能への過度な恐怖が放射線医療の妨げになっているとする意見など、同教授の主張の一部に賛同する声も取り上げた。

 低線量被曝に関する論争は、原発推進派と反対派の間では以前からある。だが、福島原発事故を機に、ここ英国でも再び様々な見解が飛び交い始めている。人間はどこまで被曝を許容できるのか。私たちは真実が知りたい。
このコラムについて
大竹剛のロンドン万華鏡

ギリシア危機を発端に、一時はユーロ崩壊まで囁かれた欧州ですが、ここにあるのは暗い話ばかりではありません。ミクロの視点で見れば、ベンチャーから大企業まで急成長中の事業は数多くあるし、マクロで見ても欧州統合という壮大な実験はまだ終わっていません。このコラムでは、ロンドンを拠点に欧州各地、時にはその周辺まで足を延ばして、万華鏡をのぞくように色々な角度から現地ならではの話に光を当てていきます。

⇒ 記事一覧
 

  拍手はせず、拍手一覧を見る

コメント
 
01. 2011年4月25日 13:57:05: cqRnZH2CUM
これか
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/05/anti-nuclear-lobby-misled-world

The unpalatable truth is that the anti-nuclear lobby has misled us all

I've discovered that when the facts don't suit them, the movement resorts to the follies of cover-up they usually denounce 
George Monbiot
George Monbiot
The Guardian, Tuesday 5 April 2011
Article history

Over the last fortnight I've made a deeply troubling discovery. The anti-nuclear movement to which I once belonged has misled the world about the impacts of radiation on human health. The claims we have made are ungrounded in science, unsupportable when challenged, and wildly wrong. We have done other people, and ourselves, a terrible disservice.

I began to see the extent of the problem after a debate last week with Helen Caldicott. Dr Caldicott is the world's foremost anti-nuclear campaigner. She has received 21 honorary degrees and scores of awards, and was nominated for a Nobel peace prize. Like other greens, I was in awe of her. In the debate she made some striking statements about the dangers of radiation. So I did what anyone faced with questionable scientific claims should do: I asked for the sources. Caldicott's response has profoundly shaken me.
Daniel Pudles Illustration by Daniel Pudles

First she sent me nine documents: newspaper articles, press releases and an advertisement. None were scientific publications; none contained sources for the claims she had made. But one of the press releases referred to a report by the US National Academy of Sciences, which she urged me to read. I have now done so – all 423 pages. It supports none of the statements I questioned; in fact it strongly contradicts her claims about the health effects of radiation.

I pressed her further and she gave me a series of answers that made my heart sink – in most cases they referred to publications which had little or no scientific standing, which did not support her claims or which contradicted them. (I have posted our correspondence, and my sources, on my website.) I have just read her book Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer. The scarcity of references to scientific papers and the abundance of unsourced claims it contains amaze me.

For the last 25 years anti-nuclear campaigners have been racking up the figures for deaths and diseases caused by the Chernobyl disaster, and parading deformed babies like a medieval circus. They now claim 985,000 people have been killed by Chernobyl, and that it will continue to slaughter people for generations to come. These claims are false.

The UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (Unscear) is the equivalent of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Like the IPCC, it calls on the world's leading scientists to assess thousands of papers and produce an overview. Here is what it says about the impacts of Chernobyl.

Of the workers who tried to contain the emergency at Chernobyl, 134 suffered acute radiation syndrome; 28 died soon afterwards. Nineteen others died later, but generally not from diseases associated with radiation. The remaining 87 have suffered other complications, including four cases of solid cancer and two of leukaemia.

In the rest of the population there have been 6,848 cases of thyroid cancer among young children – arising "almost entirely" from the Soviet Union's failure to prevent people from drinking milk contaminated with iodine 131. Otherwise "there has been no persuasive evidence of any other health effect in the general population that can be attributed to radiation exposure". People living in the countries affected today "need not live in fear of serious health consequences from the Chernobyl accident".

Caldicott told me that Unscear's work on Chernobyl is "a total cover-up". Though I have pressed her to explain, she has yet to produce a shred of evidence for this contention.

In a column last week, the Guardian's environment editor, John Vidal, angrily denounced my position on nuclear power. On a visit to Ukraine in 2006, he saw "deformed and genetically mutated babies in the wards … adolescents with stunted growth and dwarf torsos; foetuses without thighs or fingers". What he did not see was evidence that these were linked to the Chernobyl disaster.

Professor Gerry Thomas, who worked on the health effects of Chernobyl for Unscear, tells me there is "absolutely no evidence" for an increase in birth defects. The National Academy paper Dr Caldicott urged me to read came to similar conclusions. It found that radiation-induced mutation in sperm and eggs is such a small risk "that it has not been detected in humans, even in thoroughly studied irradiated populations such as those of Hiroshima and Nagasaki".

Like Vidal and many others, Caldicott pointed me to a book which claims that 985,000 people have died as a result of the disaster. Translated from Russian and published by the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, this is the only document that looks scientific and appears to support the wild claims made by greens about Chernobyl.

A devastating review in the journal Radiation Protection Dosimetry points out that the book achieves this figure by the remarkable method of assuming that all increased deaths from a wide range of diseases – including many which have no known association with radiation – were caused by the Chernobyl accident. There is no basis for this assumption, not least because screening in many countries improved dramatically after the disaster and, since 1986, there have been massive changes in the former eastern bloc. The study makes no attempt to correlate exposure to radiation with the incidence of disease.

Its publication seems to have arisen from a confusion about whether Annals was a book publisher or a scientific journal. The academy has given me this statement: "In no sense did Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences or the New York Academy of Sciences commission this work; nor by its publication do we intend to independently validate the claims made in the translation or in the original publications cited in the work. The translated volume has not been peer reviewed by the New York Academy of Sciences, or by anyone else."

Failing to provide sources, refuting data with anecdote, cherry-picking studies, scorning the scientific consensus, invoking a cover-up to explain it: all this is horribly familiar. These are the habits of climate-change deniers, against which the green movement has struggled valiantly, calling science to its aid. It is distressing to discover that when the facts don't suit them, members of this movement resort to the follies they have denounced.

We have a duty to base our judgments on the best available information. This is not only because we owe it to other people to represent the issues fairly, but also because we owe it to ourselves not to squander our lives on fairytales. A great wrong has been done by this movement. We must put it right.


02. 2011年4月25日 14:00:36: cqRnZH2CUM
Alison、1Sv/yは流石に、ちょっと過激過ぎだろう

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12860842
26 March 2011 Last updated at 12:50 GMT 
Viewpoint: We should stop running away from radiation
By Wade Allison University of Oxford

More than 10,000 people have died in the Japanese tsunami and the survivors are cold and hungry. But the media concentrate on nuclear radiation from which no-one has died - and is unlikely to.
House and power station at Dungeness Modern reactors are better designed than those at Fukushima - tomorrow's may be better still

Nuclear radiation at very high levels is dangerous, but the scale of concern that it evokes is misplaced. Nuclear technology cures countless cancer patients every day - and a radiation dose given for radiotherapy in hospital is no different in principle to a similar dose received in the environment.

What of Three Mile Island? There were no known deaths there.

And Chernobyl? The latest UN report published on 28 February confirms the known death toll - 28 fatalities among emergency workers, plus 15 fatal cases of child thyroid cancer - which would have been avoided if iodine tablets had been taken (as they have now in Japan). And in each case the numbers are minute compared with the 3,800 at Bhopal in 1984, who died as a result of a leak of chemicals from the Union Carbide pesticide plant.
Continue reading the main story
Becquerels and Sieverts

A becquerel (Bq), named after French physicist Henri Becquerel, is a measure of radioactivity
A quantity of radioactive material has an activity of 1Bq if one nucleus decays per second - and 1kBq if 1,000 nuclei decay per second
A sievert (Sv) is a measure of radiation absorbed by a person, named after Swedish medical physicist Rolf Sievert
A milli-sievert (mSv) is a 1,000th of a Sievert

Q&A: Health effects of radiation
Energy solution or evil curse?

So what of the radioactivity released at Fukushima? How does it compare with that at Chernobyl? Let's look at the measured count rates. The highest rate reported, at 1900 on 22 March, for any Japanese prefecture was 12 kBq per sq m (for the radioactive isotope of caesium, caesium-137).

A map of Chernobyl in the UN report shows regions shaded according to rate, up to 3,700 kBq per sq m - areas with less than 37 kBq per sq m are not shaded at all. In round terms, this suggests that the radioactive fallout at Fukushima is less than 1% of that at Chernobyl.

The other important radioisotope in fallout is iodine, which can cause child thyroid cancer.

This is only produced when the reactor is on and quickly decays once the reactor shuts down (it has a half life of eight days). The old fuel rods in storage at Fukushima, though radioactive, contain no iodine.

But at Chernobyl the full inventory of iodine and caesium was released in the initial explosion, so that at Fukushima any release of iodine should be much less than 1% of that at Chernobyl - with an effect reduced still further by iodine tablets.

Unfortunately, public authorities react by providing over-cautious guidance - and this simply escalates public concern.
Over-reaction

On the 16th anniversary of Chernobyl, the Swedish radiation authorities, writing in the Stockholm daily Dagens Nyheter, admitted over-reacting by setting the safety level too low and condemning 78% of all reindeer meat unnecessarily, and at great cost.
Bottled water distributed in Tokyo Bottled water was handed out in Tokyo this week to mothers of young babies

Unfortunately, the Japanese seem to be repeating the mistake. On 23 March they advised that children should not drink tap water in Tokyo, where an activity of 200 Bq per litre had been measured the day before. Let's put this in perspective. The natural radioactivity in every human body is 50 Bq per litre - 200 Bq per litre is really not going to do much harm.

In the Cold War era most people were led to believe that nuclear radiation presents a quite exceptional danger understood only by "eggheads" working in secret military establishments.

To cope with the friendly fire of such nuclear propaganda on the home front, ever tighter radiation regulations were enacted in order to keep all contact with radiation As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA), as the principle became known.

This attempt at reassurance is the basis of international radiation safety regulations today, which suggest an upper limit for the general public of 1 mSv per year above natural levels.

This very low figure is not a danger level, rather it's a small addition to the levels found in nature - a British person is exposed to 2.7 mSv per year, on average. My book Radiation and Reason argues that a responsible danger level based on current science would be 100 mSv per month, with a lifelong limit of 5,000 mSv, not 1 mSv per year.
New attitude

People worry about radiation because they cannot feel it. However, nature has a solution - in recent years it has been found that living cells replace and mend themselves in various ways to recover from a dose of radiation.

These clever mechanisms kick in within hours and rarely fail, except when they are overloaded - as at Chernobyl, where most of the emergency workers who received a dose greater than 4,000 mSv over a few hours died within weeks.
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote

Some might ask whether I would accept radioactive waste buried 100 metres under my own house?”

However, patients receiving a course of radiotherapy usually get a dose of more than 20,000 mSv to vital healthy tissue close to the treated tumour. This tissue survives only because the treatment is spread over many days giving healthy cells time for repair or replacement.

In this way, many patients get to enjoy further rewarding years of life, even after many vital organs have received the equivalent of more than 20,000 years' dose at the above internationally recommended annual limit - which makes this limit unreasonable.

A sea-change is needed in our attitude to radiation, starting with education and public information.

Then fresh safety standards should be drawn up, based not on how radiation can be excluded from our lives, but on how much we can receive without harm - mindful of the other dangers that beset us, such as climate change and loss of electric power. Perhaps a new acronym is needed to guide radiation safety - how about As High As Relatively Safe (AHARS)?

Modern reactors are better designed than those at Fukushima - tomorrow's may be better still, but we should not wait. Radioactive waste is nasty but the quantity is small, especially if re-processed. Anyway, it is not the intractable problem that many suppose.

Some might ask whether I would accept it if it were buried 100 metres under my own house? My answer would be: "Yes, why not?" More generally, we should stop running away from radiation.

Wade Allison is a nuclear and medical physicist at the University of Oxford, the author of Radiation and Reason (2009) and Fundamental Physics for Probing and Imaging (2006).


03. 2011年4月25日 15:02:51: nYZ8lFOaMo
>George Monbiot,・・・who also knows nothing about radiation and health・・・he(Monbiot) asked me(Dr.busby) a few years ago to explain why internal and external radiation exposure cannot be considered to have the same health outcomes. He ignored what I said and wrote for him (with references) and promptly came out in favour of nuclear energy in his next article.
>what about Wade Allison? ・・・he epitomises and crystallises for us the arguments of the stupid physicist. ・・・breathtaking ignorance of the scientific literature. Prof. Steve Wing in the USA has carried out epidemiological studies of the effects of 3-Mile Island, But let us move to Chernobyl. The health effects of the Chernobyl accident are massive and demonstrable. ・・・two Chernobyl studies in the west which falsify Wade Allison's assertions. ・・・study of cancer in Northern Sweden by Martin Tondel and his colleagues at Lynkoping University. ・・・
The other study I want to refer to is one I carried out myself.
http://rense.com/general93/decon.htm
チェルノブイリの影響を調査研究したものだけが、チェルノブイリについて語ることができる。そして福島原発の影響についても、最も傾聴すべき人物だ。

04. 2011年4月25日 17:19:35: YerQsTMp46
ヒロシマ、ナガサキの原爆被災者の放射能障害をみればわかるだろ。
議論の余地なんかない。

05. 2011年4月25日 18:31:15: w9WjdByNBY
「天国はあるかもしれない、ないかもしれない。
あるって聞いたから、天国に行くために毒をくらいましょう。」
悪魔か気ちがいか本物のまぬけしかそうは言わない。
この世界に神はいないという人はたくさんいますが。
時間のない方は、このコメントはとばして、武田先生のページを見てください。

フランス国の、安全証明野菜への態度。福島・栃木・茨城・千葉・群馬・宮城産品。
IRSN Fukushima-Daiichi Accident Information Bulletin No.3,13/04/2011

2. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FRENCH CITIZENS LIVING IN JAPAN
・・・・・
2.1Food consumption recommendations for all French citizens living in Japan
IRSN recommendations:
* avoid consuming vegetables [spinach,celery,broccoli,bok choy,parsley]and fresh milk produced since March 11 in the districts of Fukushima,Tochigi,Ibaraki,Miyagi and Gunma;
* make sure that all fresh foods listed above originating from districts where standard threshold levels for safe consumption have been exceeded[Saitama,Tokyo,Kanagawa,Chiba]are compliant with applicable Japanese regulations;
* in the absence of information on the origin and radiological quality of fresh foods, consume a diversity diet, avoiding the repeated consumption of leaf vegetables as much as possible [spinach,hana wasaki,kakina,komatsuna,lettuce,chrysanthemum,cabbage,white cabbage,celery,broccoli,bok choy,parsley].
No restrictions are necessary regarding the use of tap water for food preparation and cooking.

Hermetically sealed products[canned foods,dry foods,long-keeping milk, and bottled spring water]
may be consumed without risk.

It is important to note that the occasional consumption of foods with contamination levels slightly exceeding authorized threshold limits does not pose a significant health risk.

2.2 Recommendations for French citizens living in areas most affected by radioactive deposition

Generally speaking, the districts of Miyagi,Fukushima,Ibaraki and Tochigi,in particular those areas east of the Fukushima district,should be avoided unless absolutely necessary to prevent useless exposure to external radiation doses due to radioactive deposition.
French citizens living in thesedistrists should observe all instructions given by Japanese authorities.In case,the IRSN recommends the following:
* prepare all food for infants and young children using bottled spring water,
* minimize the consumption of foods originating from home gardens,
* carefully wash all fruits and vegetables.
・・・・・・・


PSRのサイトを見ると精神のバランスが保てます。
PSR Physicians for Social Responsibility March 2011
・・・・・・
It is important to know that there is no such thing as a "safe" level of exposure.
The scientific consensus is that exposure to ionizing radiation at any level carries some risk of harm.Low doses carry less chance of harm.Higher doses carry more chance of harm.For those who like the technical descriptions, this is referred to as the "linear,no threshold model."

Absolute claims that a certain exposure is "not harmful to the public"are,to be blunt, incorrect.Actually, it is implying a value judgement: that the levels of exposure[and doses]are not viewed as significant enough to warrant concern.A judgment like this is often based on two[related]beliefs:

*Exposure levels below regulatory standards are not dangerous to public health.
Regulatory standards are basically government determinations of how much harm society is willing to tolerate from some sort of hazard[i.e.,exposure to toxins].
Except in rare examples, regulatory standards reflect complex trade-offs between the kinds of harms we want to avoid[e.g.,additional cancers in a population], economic costs, and our values about what is important. In other words, assertions that even a small level of radiation "will not harm human health" is really an assertion that "the levels will not cause intolerable levels of harm among the public, even though ther is a small risk." Fuurthermore, arguments have been put forward that regulatory standards for radiation exposures are not always protective enough.
・・・・・
右も左も網羅した研究レビューはこれかと。
買って読んだ方がいたら、ガーディアンの記事についてコメントしてください。
ECCR Recommendations 2010 [Purchasing information]

The presentation in 2003 of the new radiation exposure model of the European Committee on Radiation Risk caused something of a revolution in the focus of scientists and politicians on the adequacy of previous scientific theories of the effects of radiation on living systems. This was long overdue, of coyrse, since evidence has been available for more than 40 years that it was unsafe to use studies of external acute radiation to inform about risk from internal chronic exposures to evolutionarily novel radionuclides. Such a scientific paradigm shift is not easy: the course and direction of the nuclear,military,economic and political machine dedicated to the development of nuclear energy and its military applications is monolithic and has massive inertia. It was therfore surprising and encouraging that ECRR2003 received such attention, and effectively brought about a new and intense interest in the flaw in the then current philosophy of radiation risk: the pphysics-based concept of absorbed dose. The support and encouragement for the new model, and its success in many court cases [where it was invariably set against the ICRP model]was perhaps assisted by the increasing evidence from Chernobyl fallout exposures and from examination of Depleted Uranium effects which were emerging at the time of ECRR2003.The success of the ECRR model is that it gives the correct answer to the question about the numbers of cancers and other illnesses that follow an exposure to internal fission products. This is immediately clear to anyone: to juries and judges as well as ordinary members of the public. It received poerfil support from reports of increases in cancer in Belarus after Chernobyl and also from the epidemiological studies of Martin Tondel of cancer in northern Sweden published in 2004: Tondel's findings of a statistically significant 11% increase in cancer per 100KBq/m2 Cs137 contamination from Chernobyl are almost exactly predicted by the ECRR2003 model.

There have also been developments in laboratory science that can be explained in the new model but are quite impossible to explain in the old ICRP model. One of these is the understanding that elements of high atomic number, like Uranium [but also non-radioactive elements like Platinum, Gold etc.] have the ability to alter the absorption characteristics of tissues in which they are embedded.
Uranium is the central element around which the nuclear fuel cycle revolves, and huge quantities of the substance have been contaminating the biosphere since early in the last century. It is therefore necessary to update the ECRR risk model and include consideration of these 'phantom radiation effects'. The widespread dispersion of Uranium from weapons usage has made it necessary to add a chapter on Uranium weapons. Since its founding in Brussel in 1988, the ECRR has been joined by many eminent radiation scientists from many countries. It will be clear from this new revised edition, that the pressure on politicians and scientists to change their understanding of the health effects of ionizing radiation is now too great to ignore.


06. 2011年4月25日 18:37:51: ISciM0uj5A
 原発に中立的ってことは原発に反対でないってことで、そういう人物が賛成という立ち場に立つことは転向とは言わないのではないか。原発を許容する要素をもともと持っていたから中立なんだろ。地が出たってこと。
 東大の学者屋みたいな人物じゃないのか。イギリスの原発推進シンジケートが仕掛けた巻き返しだろ。だいたい、細胞の修復作用などとっくに知られているが、それを根拠に安全閾値を主張するのなら、実証的根拠が必要だろう。

07. 2011年4月25日 19:12:30: lI29enkwe2
いっそのこと。イギリス国民を対象に二重盲検法で調査でもしてくれたらいいのに
ただし、日本ではお断り

08. 2011年4月25日 20:48:14: qoRFi2PFGg
>「私たちが知る限り、(フクシマでは)まだ1人も致命的な被曝をしてない」

またカネで魂を売るバカが湧いたな。
内部被曝の影響が出るのは何年も後だっつうの。


09. 2011年4月25日 22:53:23: rIV9vR6jYg
ま、西欧ならばイエローモンキーと金を比べたら金を取るだろ誰でも。
大丈夫、どうせイギリスじゃこんなもん誰も信じないってw
モンキー共が馬鹿見るだけだから何も問題ないww

10. 2011年4月25日 23:39:30: rWmc8odQao
放射線科学センター
「広島・長崎の原爆被爆者に対する調査では、約200mSv以下では、がんの発生確率の増加が認められませんでした。
しかし、この結果から「発がんにもしきい線量があるので、それ以下の少ない被ばく量ではがんや遺伝的影響は増加しない」とはっきり結論づけることはできませんでした。
それで、放射線防護においては、より安全に考えようという立場に立ち、がんや白血病、遺伝的影響にはしきい線量がなく、少ない被ばく量でもその線量の増加と共に影響の発生確率が増加すると仮定されることになりました。」
http://rcwww.kek.jp/kurasi/page-55.pdf

だそうです。
「はっきりしない」−ので→「安全」ではなく
「はっきりしない」−ので→「発生確率が増加すると仮定して」
そういう社会をつくっておいて、後になって安全だと分かったら、「昔の人は過剰防御だったなぁ。ハハハ、でもそのおかげで自分たちが生きられているのかも」と子孫に笑われましょう、ということです。


11. 2011年4月26日 00:02:19: tgygGCo5OI
内部被爆
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/kibono/sumika/kibo/note/naibuhibaku/naibuhibaku1.htm

12. 2011年4月26日 00:28:12: BOUc2pvG4U
>致命的な被曝をしていない

水素爆発を起こした周囲で本当に死人が出ていないのか?
⇒出ていると思う。福島原発の死者はゼロと言うけれど
東電と政府が事実を公表していない可能性もある。
また、作業員ならば隠蔽される可能性大。ノーネームですから。


  拍手はせず、拍手一覧を見る

この記事を読んだ人はこんな記事も読んでいます(表示まで20秒程度時間がかかります。)
★登録無しでコメント可能。今すぐ反映 通常 |動画・ツイッター等 |htmltag可(熟練者向)|(各説明

←ペンネーム新規登録ならチェック)
↓ペンネーム(なしでも可能。あったほうが良い)

↓パスワード(ペンネームに必須)

(ペンネームとパスワードは初回使用で記録、次回以降にチェック。パスワードはメモすべし。)
↓画像認証
( 上画像文字を入力)
ルール確認&失敗対策
画像の URL (任意):
 重複コメントは全部削除と投稿禁止設定  ずるいアクセスアップ手法は全削除と投稿禁止設定 削除対象コメントを見つけたら「管理人に報告」をお願いします。 最新投稿・コメント全文リスト
フォローアップ:

 

 次へ  前へ

▲このページのTOPへ      ★阿修羅♪ > 原発・フッ素9掲示板

★阿修羅♪ http://www.asyura2.com/ since 1995
スパムメールの中から見つけ出すためにメールのタイトルには必ず「阿修羅さんへ」と記述してください。
すべてのページの引用、転載、リンクを許可します。確認メールは不要です。引用元リンクを表示してください。

     ▲このページのTOPへ      ★阿修羅♪ > 原発・フッ素9掲示板

 
▲上へ       
★阿修羅♪  
この板投稿一覧