08/05/2012 Kunihiko Takeda . Chubu University. Cabinet Office Atomic Energy Commission
It does not become stress to protect a child (the great transformation of a policy and a report is expected).
"tdyno.223-(8:58).mp3"
After the Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster happens, the government, Fukushima Prefecture, Fukushima Medical College, mass media, and intellectuals unify. "if parents try to protect a child, stress will start.
Consistent concealment has been carried out from beginning to end because it is better to hide information."
The most important information was not released when protecting a child, if the result of the wind immediately after speediness and an accident, an air dose rate, re-scattering, contamination of foods, contamination of a schoolyard, and contamination by movement, contamination by a school event, the internal exposure from supply of food and a child's medical examination, etc. are original.
However, "protecting a child from danger" is the instinct in instinct for a living thing including などman, it does not become stress but "a child cannot be protected" becomes stress rather.
Any animals are desperate but they protects their child.
One year and an after [ an accident ] half have also passed, so please notice that it is a very special idea that it becomes stress.
.........
Probably, a "standard" must be decided in order for Fukushima Prefecture to begin "to tell parents about danger" with the government.
Although "external exposure and internal exposure are totaled by the law of old Japan and it is 1 1-mm", [ per year ] When it is difficult to protect this, responsibility is not put on the voluntary association of a foreign country like ICRP, but it opts for "contamination up to what millisievert" as Japan, and clarifies the plan "to be refuge when becoming more than it."
It is in the state where the government-related specialist dispatched to 1 mm, and Mr. Toshikazu Yamashita and Fukushima Prefecture by the law of Japan for one year will be said to be 100 mm for one year, it is too wide, and he has left the judgment to parents now.
If the government will have responsibility as 100 mm or less consistently for one year, it will also be one judgment, but The schoolyard of one-year 1 mm and an elementary school is as scattering as 1 mm per year under the radiation injury prevention rule which the standard of food was revised for one year in 20-mm October, and was revised by 1 mm and it only by internal exposure in October, 2011 for one year for the Minister of Health, Labour and Welfare.
"It is judgment of parents protecting a child" is unsuitable with this state.
Although a refuge standard is also 40,000 Bq per square meter legally, 1/3 of Fukushima Prefecture is over the standard of a law of Japan.
There is the government also about this at the time when a sure criterion of judgment is shown.
Contamination status is also already clear through one year and a half from the accident.
Moreover, it is [ "it is correctly in a student's position" ] calculable what contamination the student who went since [ accident ], for example, Fukushima, to the junior high school, and was playing the sport in the schoolyard became.
2 the one government indicates a standard to be also in order to carry out it to the reference from which parents protect a child, since contamination will continue 30 years or more from now on -- 3 to which the person already beyond a standard is evacuated -- the protection method of those who continue living in four contaminated zones which makes evacuation preparations of the person exceeding a standard will be shown from now on
is immediately considered to be required.
The specialist needs to become faithful to a job to a job sincerely faithfully in such making a standard or contamination calculation, without having any purposes other than the academic purpose.
It is because just it has "neither superstition nor social ostracism" and is just bright "technology establishment of a state."
It is also the responsibility of the government and parents that "it is a right of a cultural life at health" is provided in the Constitution of Japan, and protects a child's health.
Please protect a child's health from the front, without the direction of an instruction layer escaping from reality.
Therefore, I think that it should begin and should advance making a standard, contamination calculation, and the measure against future in parallel from thorough information disclosure as the first step.
A tax increase argument thinks from it that Ushiro may be sufficient.
That Section Chief Chubu Electric Power said, "It is satisfactory since the dead are not reported in the accident of Fukushima" has a cause also in continuing such an ambiguous state.
(July 24, Heisei 24)
Kunihiko Takeda
08/05/2012 武田邦彦. 中部大学 内閣府原子力委員会
子供を守ることはストレスにならない（政策と報道の大転換に期待する）
「tdyno.223-(8：58).mp3」
福島原発事故が起こって以後、政府、福島県、福島医大、マスコミ、識者は統一して「親が子供を守ろうとするとストレスがかかる。情報は隠した方が良い」ということで終始一貫隠蔽してきました。
スピーディー、事故直後の風向き、空間線量率、再飛散、食材の汚染、校庭の汚染と運動による被曝、学校行事での被曝、給食からの内部被曝、子供の健康診断の結果など、本来なら子供を守る上でもっとも重要な情報が公開されませんでした。
しかし、人間を含めた生物にとって「子供を危険から守る」というのは本能中の本能で、それがストレスになるのではなく、むしろ「子供を守ることができない」という方がストレスになります。
どんな動物でも必死で我が子を守ります。事故後１年半も経ったのですから、それがストレスになるというのはきわめて特殊な考えであることに気がついてください。
・・・・・・・・・
政府と福島県が「親に危険を知らせる」ということを始めるためには、「基準」を決めなければならないでしょう。これまでの日本の法律では「外部被曝と内部被曝を合計して１年１ミリ」ですが、これを守ることが難しい場合には、ＩＣＲＰのような外国の任意団体に責任をかぶせるのではなく、日本として「何ミリシーベルトまでの被曝」を決めて、「それ以上になる場合は避難」という方針をハッキリさせる。
今は、日本の法律で１年１ミリ、山下俊一さんや福島県に派遣された政府関係の専門家が１年１００ミリと言われ、あまりに幅が広く、その判断を親に任せているという状態です。
政府が一貫して１年１００ミリ以下として、責任を持つならそれも一つの判断ですが、食品の基準は内部被曝だけで１年１ミリ、小学校の校庭が１年２０ミリ、厚生労働大臣は１年１ミリ、それに２０１１年１０月に改正された放射線障害防止規則では１年１ミリとバラバラです。この状態で「子供を守るのは親の判断」というのは不適切です。
避難基準も、法規では１平方メートルあたり４万ベクレルですが、福島県の３分の１は日本の法律の基準を超えています。これについても政府は確たる判断基準を示す時期にあります。
すでに事故から１年半を経て、汚染状態も明確になっています。また事故以来、たとえば福島市で中学校に通い、校庭でスポーツをしていた生徒がどのぐらいの被曝になったかは「生徒の立場で正確に」計算することができます。
汚染は今後３０年以上は続くのですから、親が子供を守る参考にするためにも、
１）政府が基準を示す、
２）すでに基準を超えた人を退避させる、
３）今後、基準を超えそうな人の退避準備をする、
４）汚染地域に住み続ける人の防護方法を提示する、
などがすぐにでも必要と考えられます。
このような基準作りや被曝計算に当たって、専門家は職務に忠実に、学問的な目的以外の目的を持たずに誠心誠意、職務に忠実になってください。それこそが「迷信や村八分」などが無く、明るい「科学技術立国」だからです。
日本国憲法には「健康で文化的生活の権利」が定められていて、子供の健康を守るのは政府と親の責任でもあります。指導層の方が現実から逃避せずに正面から子供の健康を守ってください。
そのために第一歩として、徹底的な情報公開から始め、並行して基準作り、被曝計算、今後の対策を進めるべきと思います。増税議論はそれから後で良いと思います。中部電力課長が「福島の事故で死者が出ないから問題が無い」と発言したのは、このような曖昧な状態を続けていることにも原因があります。
（平成24年7月24日）
武田邦彦