Replies

Actually, there is very little more at link, just as there is very little in the excerpt.

The ONLY child with symptoms mentioned is the one child in your excerpt, who had a nosebleed, according to her mother, for 3 weeks in April, so the mother brought her to the clinic in June, and she had no symptoms in may.

I presume some kids must have had the other symptoms mentioned by the doctor, but there is no evidence of that in the article. The doctor is quoted as saying he has no indication there is any radiation illness. He was recommending blood tests to see if there was radiation poisoning.

The clinic was run by “The Bridge to Chernobyl”, which kind of sounds like a group not supportive of nuclear energy.

Then there were “worried parents” quoted. And measurements of radiation at the site: “I [the reporter of the story] used the radiation monitoring device over the low bush near the place where this event was being held. It measured 2.33 microsieverts/hour.”.

Then some “scary” sounding numbers that aren’t scary at all: “If you live one year in a place with 1.3 microsievert/hour radiation, the cumulative radiation will exceed 11 millisieverts. [And that’s only the external exposure.]”

That’s about one full-body CT scan. Natural background average is about 3 mv, so it’s 3 times the average, but within the range of natural background.

“The clinic was run by “The Bridge to Chernobyl”, which kind of sounds like a group not supportive of nuclear energy.”

People who have contended with the resulting disease and suffering due to Chernobyl - and the official denials that this suffering and disease exist- are not likely to be supportive of nuclear energy. For example, Soviet officials made it illegal to report deaths due to radiation during the first 3 years following the disaster. That kind of deception no doubt offended the ethics of physicians. I don’t believe that discredits this organization - the physician said tests were needed - he didn’t stampeded in any particular direction. No, what I have found throughout the Chernobyl disaster and the Fukushima disaster is that nuclear apologists lack credibility. Pediatricians dealing with a mother who has two children with nose bleeds (her 2 year old son had nosebleeds too) saying seasonal allergies, following the nuclear disaster, without testing white blood count might fall under ‘lacks credibility’ in my book too. 50 families attended the clinic.

The ‘one-full body’ CAT scan thing. You used the lower of two numbers - not the one actually recorded low over a bush (kid height?) and apparently chose to ignore the text [and that’s only external exposure]. The kids have been eating and drinking local milk and other foods. Their total internal plus external exposure is unknown - the readings on playgrounds and lawns may be higher. With this clinic - parents will get answers that Japanese officials, and apparently the pediatrician, are not interested in pursuing. I hope it turns out fine - but that’s not an assumption I’d make given the information coming out of Japan detecting excessive radiation in tea leaves 300km from the site.

The ONLY child with symptoms mentioned is the one child in your excerpt, who had a nosebleed, according to her mother, for 3 weeks in April,...

Wrong. Your responses would be more coherent if you actually read the entire article.

The mother said their doctor told her it was just a seasonal allergy from pollen. Her other child, 2-year-old son, had nosebleed from end of April to May.