- #141
Jim Lagerfeld
- 42
- 0
Thanks for your considered response Gary, for us in Japan this debate is much more personal.
Regarding the Shizuoka Tea, I'm wondering if you have access to the full story, as I tend to look at that particular example as another reason not to believe that the random testing and voluntary suspensions are as effective as they could be.
If you read these translated articles in reverse order you'll get a reasonably full picture http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/search/label/Shizuoka, but in short radiation was first detected in fresh tea but the growers and the governor conspired to exclude the final product from further testing to 'avoid confusion'. An organic home delivery company in Tokyo commissioned independent tests and proved that the final shipped product from some regions was indeed contaminated. The Governor relented and ordered further testing, however the delay had meant that most of the first harvest had already shipped, hence the contaminated tea getting seized at the French airport.
Regarding 'blanket statements', the only one I've been hearing - and I've lost count - is the 'contamination levels will not effect human health' 「健康に影響はない.」line. This is at best mistaken and at worst misleading, as the LNT (Linear Non-Threshold) hypothesis reminds us that there is no 'threshold'. In fact 65 teachers at Tokyo University petitioned their own school to stop making those 'no health impact' claims, as they viewed it as scientifically dishonest given that they have a campus at Kashiwa, another area on the Tokyo border with contamination in the order of 100 kBq/m2.
http://sites.google.com/site/utokyoradiation/home/request
Personally, I'd much rather see the 'no risk to health' myth put to bed so everyone can focus on better minimizing the risk. On a side note, I think the 11% increase in relative risk per 100 kBq/m2 compares to roughly 2300% for smokers vs non-smokers, so I'm staying in Tokyo but cutting down on smokes!
Regarding the Shizuoka Tea, I'm wondering if you have access to the full story, as I tend to look at that particular example as another reason not to believe that the random testing and voluntary suspensions are as effective as they could be.
If you read these translated articles in reverse order you'll get a reasonably full picture http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/search/label/Shizuoka, but in short radiation was first detected in fresh tea but the growers and the governor conspired to exclude the final product from further testing to 'avoid confusion'. An organic home delivery company in Tokyo commissioned independent tests and proved that the final shipped product from some regions was indeed contaminated. The Governor relented and ordered further testing, however the delay had meant that most of the first harvest had already shipped, hence the contaminated tea getting seized at the French airport.
Regarding 'blanket statements', the only one I've been hearing - and I've lost count - is the 'contamination levels will not effect human health' 「健康に影響はない.」line. This is at best mistaken and at worst misleading, as the LNT (Linear Non-Threshold) hypothesis reminds us that there is no 'threshold'. In fact 65 teachers at Tokyo University petitioned their own school to stop making those 'no health impact' claims, as they viewed it as scientifically dishonest given that they have a campus at Kashiwa, another area on the Tokyo border with contamination in the order of 100 kBq/m2.
http://sites.google.com/site/utokyoradiation/home/request
Personally, I'd much rather see the 'no risk to health' myth put to bed so everyone can focus on better minimizing the risk. On a side note, I think the 11% increase in relative risk per 100 kBq/m2 compares to roughly 2300% for smokers vs non-smokers, so I'm staying in Tokyo but cutting down on smokes!