baverstock By Masakazu Honda / Asahi Shimbun / December 2, 2014 /A British scientist who studied the health effects of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster panned a United Nations report that virtually dismissed the possibility of higher cancer rates caused by the 2011 Fukushima nuclear crisis.

Keith Baverstock (pictured), 73, made the comments during a visit to Tokyo at the invitation of a citizens group related to the Fukushima disaster.

In response to questions from The Asahi Shimbun, Baverstock said a report released in April by the U.N. Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) was “not qualified to be called ‘scientific’” because it lacked transparency and independent verification. He added that the committee should be disbanded.

The U.N. report said any increase in overall cancer rates among residents of Fukushima Prefecture due to fallout from the accident was unlikely.

However, Baverstock, former head of the radiation-protection program at the World Health Organization’s Regional Office for Europe, said radiation levels shown in the report were enough to cause a spike in cancer rates.

For example, the report said nearly 10,000 workers at the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant were exposed to radiation levels exceeding 10 millisieverts over about 18 months following the outbreak of the crisis in March 2011.

Baverstock said such an exposure level was enough to cause an increase in cancer among about 50 of the workers.

After studying the health effects from the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, Baverstock was the first to point out an increase in thyroid cancer among residents of areas hit by radioactive fallout.

He also questioned UNSCEAR’s neutrality, given that members are nominated by nations that have a vested interest in nuclear power. He noted that such nations provide funds to the committee.

Baverstock also suggested a conflict of interest, as committee members are not required to disclose their history working in the nuclear industry or sign pledges stating that no conflict of interest exists in evaluating radiation risks.

Baverstock said that when he was working for the WHO, he felt constant pressure from the International Atomic Energy Agency, a major promoter of nuclear power. He also questioned why it took more than three years for UNSCEAR to release its Fukushima report.

Referring to what he called inside information, Baverstock raised the possibility that the delay was caused by criticism about the report’s conclusion and the influence of other U.N. agencies, such as the IAEA.

BELOW: Keith Baverstock: “2013 UNSCEAR Report on Fukushima: A Critical Appraisal”


h/t: User – Anonymously Concerned

Did you like this? Share it:
By Broc West| 5 Comments | Featured, News


  1. Kyodo News censored Finnish doctor’s criticism of Fukushima report by UNSCEAR / “UNSCEAR should be dissolved”

    Excerpt – It is not known why Kyodo News censored those most important parts of the press conference.

    Comment – Probably damage control by the Kyodo News. Keep the public as little informed as humanly possible about the toxic reality of Fukushima.

    Link –

  2. The “linear hypothesis” is used to estimate the number of excess cancers due to radiation exposure in addition to the expected 20% that occur without excess radiation. The data for this hypothesis comes from studies of Japanese exposed to radiation from the atomic bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. The hypothesis is debated for low excess exposure since the statistical significance of the data is not high due to the normally occurring cancers. For higher doses, it should work. So this is what is used absent any other human testing.

    Given 10000 workers with exposure of 0.01 sievert = 1 rem each, the total exposure to the population is 10000 rem. There is one excess cancer predicted for each 2500 rem according to the linear hypothesis. In this case that would be 4 excess cancers, not 50. Since the dose is low Baverstock may be assuming a much higher rate than the strict linear hypothesis assumes. Usually the debate is that there is a threshold, where a certain minimum dose obtains before any excess cancers occur. This is opposite the direction Baverstock assumes.

    Government may decide that 4 excess cancers is negligible compared to the normally expected 2000, which is fine, unless you are one of the four.

    • Excellent presentation however ihave seen reports saying potential exposure rates were 10 rems and possibly higher. Calculate that expisure rate., and thats just Cesium

  3. I can’t technically comment more about Fukushima’s effect on the cancer, but it has been proved that Fukushima has toxic signs and this fact can not be denied.

  4. The Japanese government is covering up the absolute devastation f ukashima is doing to the world . EVERY nuclear facilitity has on its arsenal 16 billion curies an aquivelant of 1000 Hiroshima bombs and the 3 reactors were 100% meltdown .Chernobyl was only a 30% meltdown and Europe is still so radiated Germany’s cows glow in the dark. LOOK up Dr Helen Caldicott she is amazing she has written 4 books on Nuclear power and to have some understanding of isotopes Uranium 238 has a half life of 4. 5 billion yrs there are 100 different isotopes used in a nuclear facility .Cesium 135 half life 2. 3 million yrs and the list goes on The pacific is just insane 400 million barrels of heavy water is running into the sea .Plus the reactors are so radiated still no one can even get close to the reactors theyll die in ten minutes there fkn lying through there noses The reactor melted through the coar and is spewing 600 thousand bequels per liter per hour into TH atmosphere as we speak suit up welcome to he’ll up grade your body and detox every day for the rest of your life

Post a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *