The Statements of Dr Yamashita made prior to the Fukushima Diiachi Disaster, 2011

“Mainly for the people less than twenty-years-old, if they are exposed to excessive radiation between 10 to 100mSV, the risk of carcinogenesis is undeniable” Yamashita, quoted in ”The Light and Dark Side of Radiation: The Strategy of WHO”, The Journal of Japan Physicians Association, Vol.23 No.5, 2009.

“the lowest doses of X-rays for which reasonably reliable evidence of increased cancer risk exists range from 10 to 50mGy” N. Ghtobi, M. Morishita, A. Ohtsuru, S. Yamashita (2005). “Evidence-based guidelines needed on the use of CT scanning in Japan”JMAJ 48 (9): pp. 451-457

These statements directly contradict the statements Dr Yamashita has repeatedly made to the people living in radiation contamination areas of Japan, the people of Japan and the people of the world. The source of the above is

Further Dr Yamashita identified the latent period of Thyroid Cancer in 2007 as follows:

Nat Clin Pract Endocrinol Metab. 2007 May;3(5):422-9.
Mechanisms of Disease: molecular genetics of childhood thyroid cancers.
Yamashita S, Saenko V.

Department of Molecular Medicine, Atomic Bomb Disease Institute, Nagasaki University, Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Japan.
There was a broad range of latency periods in children who developed thyroid cancer; some periods were less than 5 years.

This statement is in much closer agreement with myriad qualified observations of the latent period of childhood thyroid cancer. The statement of 2007 however directly contradicts the view given by Dr Yamashita since March 2011. From the time of the disaster the doctor has been rigid in his claimed view that childhood thyroid cancer does not occur until five years after exposure.

Prior to March 2011 Dr Yamashita’s statements regarding both risk and dose and latent periods agreed with responsible, qualified, world medical evidence, findings and conclusions as published in peer reviewed journals.

Since the Fukushima Diiachi disaster Dr Yamashita’s public statements directly contradict his own and qualified world opinion.

Further, the evidence of health impacts from Chernobyl fallout in Japan (see previous post) directly contradict Dr Yamashita.

“Mr 100 mSv” was “Mr 10 mSv” prior to March 2011. However, Dr Yamashita knows that medical ethics mandates 1. Medical need via diagnosis 2. An expected benefit 3. Informed consent on the part of the patient before any medical treatment can be administered.

As there is no expected medical benefit, no medical need, no informed consent, then exposure doses imposed by nuclear pollution are unlike medical treatments and diagnostic tests.

Fallout from nuclear industry is not like a CT at all. Any attempt to justify the imposition of radiation from nuclear fallout on the basis of medicine is ethically unsound. In 1995 the US Presidential Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments concluded in its Final Report that such imposition of dose breached the provisions of the Nuremberg Protocols.
(McFaden, 1995). If there is no consent, if the ethical requirements which define medicine are absent, then men who impose dose are not acting in the interests of medicine and hence breach their oaths.

The ethical situation regarding the deliberate imposition of dose without any expectation of medical benefit and imposed by doctors and other purported medical personnel is explained by the Chair of ACHRE here:”> “Reflection on the Ethics of Biomedical research
By Ruth R, Faden”

%d bloggers like this: