Tokyo Woman's Medical University Hospital put out a sign refusing exposure checkups

Original Text from Olive!News 06.07.2012 http://www.olivenews.net/news_30/newsdisp.php?n=128269

The sign shown right is hanged up at Tokyo Woman's Medical University Hospital

According to a journalist who interviewed a nurse in charge of the consultation desk of the hospital, the hospital staffs were told (by the national government) not to provide exposure checkups. "We only can tell the people who visit the hospital to consult local healthcare centers. We can't provide any unexpected exposure checkups. That's also something to do with the state policy."

However, the fact that such a sign is put out at a general hospital in Shinjuku-District means there are some people who are exposed to radiation in the Greater Tokyo Area. From what she said, it's clear that the national governments intends to provide exposure checkups only in the state-run hospitals. 

A few cases of thyroid cancer have been observed among the evacuees from Fukushima or in the contaminated areas such as Saitama. The association with radiation exposure can't be denied. 

For example, 2012 March 9, at a trial to decide whether applicants would be acknowledged as suffering illness caused by A-bomb radiation, Osaka district court issued the following decision about radiation-induced cardiac infarction: When the various findings based upon studies taken together, including the studies of Radiation Effects Research Foundation, and a significant association is recognized between cardiac infarction and radiation exposure, it is reasonable to think there is no certain threshold value. 

The requirements to be acknowledged as suffering illness caused by A-bomb radiation: 
1. Those who didn't be exposed to radiation at the time of bombing but have probability of internal exposure. 
2. Those who were diagnosed with some diseases suspected of being linked to radiation exposure.
3. Those who were exposed at an early age.
4. The radiation doses estimated by the then criteria should be mere indicators. 
And the court decided that it's required to give due consideration to the probability of external or internal exposure, by examining the condition an applicant was exposed to radiation, behavioral records, activities and the symptoms produced after the bombing. 

In fact, the court decided it's reasonable to think there is no threshold value for internal exposure. 

Also, the court ruled that the criteria (that had been used) evaluate a relationship between disease and radiation with an uniform way based upon a distance from the hypocenter and the age at the time of bombing for each symptom and gender, while ignoring the individual differences of the victims, conditions at the time of bombing, and differences of the life afterward, so the criteria is arbitrary and unreason, therefore, it can't be scientifically-valid. 

A 2008 decision by the Supreme Court stated the defendants claimed that DS86 is approved worldwide therefore has no issue, as it is employed as world standard by ICRP, however, ICRP once used and recommended T65D as a criteria to determine risks, which was later found to be seriously defective, therefore, it is not reasonable to overestimate DS86, as ICRP has adopted it only because there is no other possible evaluation system than DS86 at present and it has suitable rationality. That's the present court decision on scientific evaluation of ICRP. The court also pointed out the contingency of the probability of causation. 

In fact, the decision is based on the notion that the probability of internal exposure can't be denied even though the justice finds the epidemiology conducted by ICRP or Radiation Effects Research Foundation appropriate. For the same reason, Olive!News introduces the views of ICRP, Radiation Effects Research Foundation and John Gofman when it is about risk evaluation. 

When a nuclear disaster happens, it's proper to evaluate risk using the published epidemiology, however, it's required to take due consideration to proclaim safety based on the evaluation, as attributable risk of internal exposure can't be eliminated. 

Also, as for the article no.6 of Laws Concerning the Prevention from Radiation Hazards, 100 mSV/y of allowable exposure level, which ICRP proclaimed safety, is not valid. That was proved by the reality in Chernobyl. It's evident that quoting ICRP as if it were scientifically-valid is wrong, as the state keep losing the cases (of A-bomb victims) 20 times in a row, and no specialist comes to the defense any more. 

While the courts urge the relationship between illness and radiation exposure should be evaluated on each individual case, the nation have evaluated risks using automatic system. That's equal to deny the probability of morbidity, which has been criticized in several trials. According to the law of Japan, it's the judicial organs but not the administration that possesses jurisdiction. Not only they caused this time's man-made disaster, but also direct the hospitals not to provide exposure checkups, which is not reasonable at all. 

The present decision is that "There is no threshold value for internal exposure", therefore, the central or local governments have no right to spread radiation based upon the unreasonable evaluation. 

Courtesy: Olive!News

0 件のコメント: