I’m surprised that you didn’t pick up on the fearmongering overstatements and misrepresentations in that polemic. I’ll point out just 2:
But [quote=“IPPNW”]IPPNW is a non-partisan federation of national medical groups in 64 countries, representing tens of thousands of doctors, medical students, other health workers, and concerned citizens who share the common goal of creating a more peaceful and secure world freed from the threat of *nuclear annihilation.[/quote]
So it’s a federation of “medical groups”, not doctors, and its “global” size appears to be in the “tens of thousands” of people who are probably mostly not doctors at all.
UNSCEAR, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, published its deeply flawed report April 2. Its accompanying press release summed up its findings this way: “No discernible changes in future cancer rates and hereditary diseases are expected due to exposure to radiation as a result of the Fukushima nuclear accident.”
The word “discernable” is a crucial disclaimer here.
Cancer, and the inexorable increase in cancer cases in Japan and around the world, is mostly caused by toxic pollution, including radiation exposure according to the National Cancer Institute. But distinguishing a particular cancer case as having been caused by Fukushima rather than by other toxins, or combination of them, may be impossible — leading to UNSCEAR’s deceptive summation. As the IPPNW report says, “A cancer does not carry a label of origin…”[/quote]
“No discernable changes” means there’s no way to tease out what deaths/hereditary diseases are due to radiation: the increase, if any, is embedded in the statistical “noise”. (It’s well-known that heritable changes are very rare from radiation, which makes LaFarge’s mention of such changes as a plausible outcome a case of fearmongering)
And the NCI’s statement that cancers are “mostly caused by toxic pollution, including radiation” does not, as LaFarge tries to insinuate, mean that radiation is a significant cause in comparison to other sources of “toxic pollution” such as the extraction and combustion of fossil fuels. Where you have a lot of carcinogenic pollutants A and B, and a little of C, it’s very irresponsible in a human sense and definitely anti-scientific to attempt to focus attention on C. The only “deceptive summation” is LaFarge’s.
The two misrepresentations I’ve pointed out here were just the two I found immediately. I’m quite sure there are more.