A photo reply to Toru Kikuchi, Fukushima vs global average bomb fallout

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/national/news/20110413p2a00m0na009000c.html
Quote
The Mainichi Daily News
13 April 2011

In its announcement, the Japanese government said that 370,000 to 630,000 terabecquerels of radiation are estimated to have been released from the Fukushima plant. Regarding that amount, Toru Kikuchi, general director of the Japan Association on Radiological Protection in Medicine, said that “compared to contamination caused by atmospheric nuclear weapon tests conducted by the United States and the Soviet Union since the 1950s, the amount of radiation is very small.” End quote

Ok, Mr Kikuchi, there were only 12 bombs dropped in Australia. 12 x12 kgs of plutonium fission. How many tons of fission material are you speaking for at Fukushima? Several hundred tonne? I’m talking a total 144 kgs of residual fuel and fission product, and seeing as you raise the issue, here’s some photos re that 144 kgs. Deposited on behalf of the Western Alliance on Australila.

The following still frames are taken from the film “The British Atomic Trials at Maralinga 1956 (Operation Buffalo) A War Office Production Crown Copyright Approved June 1957 C4794.” Newsreel footage in common circulation inside Australia present day.

After monitoring the bomb site some hours after the detonation of the bomb, the stills show the monitoring and decontamination of Australian nuclear troops:

b
radiation monitoring for external contamination for presence of radionuclide on trooper
b
as above
b
as above
b
as above

b
decontamination shower and scrub down (external only – not possible to scrub down internal organs)
b
re-monitoring after shower. If still contaminated, shower again and again readings “acceptable”.
b
The “Health Physics Lab” for other procedures. Perhaps including blood tests. Not often conducted.
Records subsequently “lost” in any event.
Of this cohort the following has been found:

I
n regard to Australia’s Nuclear Veterans, the “Mortality and Cancer
Incidence Main Findings” document of the Australian Participants in British
Nuclear Tests in Australia Study, June 2006, states the following:
“The cancer incidence study showed an overall increase in the number of
cancers in test participants, similar to that found in the mortality study. The
number of cancer cases found among participants was 2456, which was 23%
higher than expected. A significant increase in both the number of deaths and
the number of cases was found for (figures in brackets show increase in
mortality and incidence):
• all cancers (18% and 23%)
• cancers of the lip, oral cavity and pharynx (50% and 41%)
• lung cancer (20% and 28%)
• colorectal cancer (24% and 16%)
prostate • cancer (26% and 22%).
The number of cancer cases (but not the number of deaths) was also
significantly greater in test participants for the following cancers (figures in
brackets show increase in incidence):
• oesophageal cancer (48%)
• melanoma (40%)
• all leukaemias (43%)
all leukaemias except chronic lymphatic leukaemia (61%).
Other findings included:
• of the 26 mesothelioma cases in test participants, 16 occurred in RAN
personnel, which was nearly three times the number expected
in RAAF personnel, there was nearly double the expected number of deaths
from melanoma, and cases of melanoma were increased by two–thirds.
The increases in cancer rates do not appear to have been caused by
exposure to radiation.” [27]
Full texts available at:
http://www.dva.gov.au/aboutDVA/publications/health_research/nuclear_test/P
ages/index.aspx

Only a complete idiot or an industry hack would accept that nuclear veterans suffering a gross increase in cancers compared to non nuclear veterans where the only significant difference was their participation on the event which made them a cohort (exposure to radionuclides and other forms of dose delivery from raw fission process in the air) is not the cause of the increased cancers.

So Mr. Toru Kikuchi, general director of the Japan Association on Radiological Protection in Medicine, what are you saying to the people of world in the context of the Fukushima hotspots and to the civilian veterans of them in 2011?

Can you see a significant difference in the photos below to the photos above sir?

Fukushima 2011

b

n

n

I can’t myself see a conceptual difference. The 2011 exposure cohort was not subject to initial weapon burst, but were exposed to obvious radionuclide contamination. That much is now admitted. We still await the full radionuclide list. I see two cohorts of veterans being monitored. One lot in 1956 and the other lot in 2011. The 1956 lot were a bit more organised. Perhaps Japan should have practiced more for the inevitable.

I do not think the similarities will end there. Beware people of Japan, a head radiation honcho just attempted to dilute your actual local hotspots over the entire surface of the planet. I don’t think averages apply to individual internal contamination in any case.

How the general director of the Japan Association on Radiological Protection in Medicine say such things to his own people and to the nuclear veterans of the world who have suffered, as have their children, so much for so long in the face of official ignorance. The honourable Director is a Bombadier in Charge of Public Health. If I were Japanese I’d demand his sacking.
But that’s just my opinion. But Mr Mr Kikuchi, you are glared at from across the globe. God owns the copyright to the photos of the truth. Don’t forget it.

History clearly shows that in relation to nuclear technology of any kind in any era in any circumstance in any population, authorities lie about the health impacts. I do not observe Japan to be any different in this regard in comparison to the authorities who first proposed the impact of nuclear weapons tests could be averaged over the entire surface of the planet, ignoring the bleedingly obvious fact of local hotspots. This is why it took from 1957 until 1994 to even consider the clean up the Maralinga nuclear test site. In the intervening years, 22 kgs of plutonium from the Taranaki test area had blown in the wind across the land. Even now that is a prohibited zone for living and hunting for the Aboriginal people. 1957-1994 = 37 years. What will Fukushima Prefecture look like in 37 years if officials are not forthright?

If Japan insists on creating nuclear veterans out of its civil population, and treating the people as such, all it has to do now is to forget where it put the relevant dose records (such as such documents are (or not) in all such event in recorded history) and with each passing year deny the bleeding obvious consequences with a more and more determined deliberate blindness. Oh yea, and gain a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

One Response to “A photo reply to Toru Kikuchi, Fukushima vs global average bomb fallout”

  1. STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH PUBLIC HEALTH LAW ARTICLE 35 – PRACTICE OF RADIOLOGIC TECHNOLOGY « Paul Langley's Nuclear History Blog Says:

    […] My response to all this is here: https://nuclearhistory.wordpress.com/2011/04/15/a-photo-reply-to-toru-kikuchi-fukushima-vs-global-ave… […]

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: