Scientifically speaking, the main point of criticism to this report has to be the fact that the health risk assessment is based on dose assessments which are dubious, if not to say plain wrong. The source term estimates (the total emission of radioactive particles) used in the WHO report were significantly lower than those of independent research institutions and in some cases also lower than TEPCO’s own measurements. The exposure of the population living in the 20-km zone around the nuclear plant was omitted, even though this population may have been exposed to high levels of iodine-131 before and during the chaotic evacuations. The quantity and selection of food samples used in the calculations of the internal radiation dose were shown to be inadequate and in stark contrast to samples published by the Japanese authorities. Finally, and perhaps most crucially, the report was mainly composed by scientists working for organizations with stakes in the continued and profitable utilization of nuclear energy, casting doubts on the neutrality of the report’s findings. All of these detailed points of criticism can be found in the report by IPPNW Germany entitled “Analysis of WHO report on Fukushima catastrophe“, which is freely available online.4 No matter how expertly undertaken, a calculation of health risks can only be as exact as the assumptions that it is based on. An assessment that relies on data, whose validity has to be questioned on the grounds of lacking neutrality, selective sampling, distortion and omission of relevant facts, cannot be accepted by the scientific community as a basis on which to make health recommendations.
DOWNLOAD AND READ THE FULL REPORT :