Clinician talks, Tepco’s announcement about Yoshida chief is a lie

Following up this article ..Fukushima chief steps down due to illness


Dr. Inoue ,the president of Setagaya Inoue clinic talks Tepco’s announcement about former Fukushima plant chief Yoshida is a lie.

Mr.Yoshida resigned to be diagnosed to be esophagus cancer. Tepco explained it can not have anything to do with radiation because esophagus cancer has incubating period for 5~10 years as the opinion of National Institute of Radiological Sciences.

However, “incubating period” is the term for disease caused by bacteria or virus. Professional clinician does not use the term of incubating period for cancer, Dr. Inoue talks.








  1. Typical obfuscation of the truth by shady ministers of Western medicine. The lie is not from Tepco, in this case, but from Dr. Inoue. You do not put a timer on cancer and say it only comes about in this length of time. With variation in dose, and variation in a person’s pre-radiation state of health, and other factors like age, obviously cancer can come earlier (especially in Fukushima, where people have been showered and inundated with radiation day-in, day-out, for 10 months now).

    Doctors use this kind of bad logic to misdiagnose patients all the time, by putting diseases in narrowly-defined boxes so that they don’t have to think outside that box and acknowledge complexity, reality, and the ability for patients to know their own bodies.

    How can they stand to spew such nonsense and not burst out laughing or mess up their “script”? And they expect people to take them seriously while they tell us black is white.

  2. I’m so sorry! I made a mistake, saying Dr. Inoue was lying, because I misunderstood! It is _TEPCO_ who lied, saying that Mr. Yoshida cannot possibly have esophageal cancer.

  3. Researchers have been failing to make outcome connections to internal radiation exposure since at least the 50’s, skewing their estimation of the time frame in which diseases show up.

    Look at this:

    “Consultation on the Application by Augean South Limited under the Radioactive
    Substances Act 1993 to Dispose of Radioactive Waste at East Northants Resource
    Management Facility, Stamford Road, Kings Cliffe, Northamptonshire.

    Response from Richard Bramhall, Low Level Radiation Campaign, The Knoll,
    Montpellier Park, Llandrindod Wells, Powys LD1 5LW

    “4. Failings of the Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF)

    It is widely accepted that the A-bomb survivors’ data are an unsatisfactory basis for
    estimating the effects of internal contamination.21,22, 23,24, 25. As early as 1953, data were available to falsify assumptions that there is a 7-year time lag between exposure and the onset of leukaemia, that there was no fallout or residual radiation at Hiroshima and Nagasaki and that there were no heritable defects in those who were exposed 26 and hence to falsify a risk model based on those assumptions. (Interestingly, the “Atomic Bomb Injuries” data were cited by the BMJ in 1955. 27) Since the controls were as contaminated as the study group it has been possible to reanalyze RERF data to show whether there are health effects in the controls attributable to fallout.28, 29. On the basis of such an analysis it has been proposed that “The effects of internal exposure […] are more severe than those of external exposure.” 30 Busby has shown 31 that UNSCEAR reported high leukaemia rates in the Hiroshima controls relative to all Japan. 32 Sternglass attributed to fallout the dramatic increase in cancer rates in children which was recorded all over Japan between three and five years after the A-bombings. 33 Padmanabhan’s analysis of RERF data reveals disturbances of sex ratio in live births.34″

    Source #26 above leads us to the following page on the Low-Level Radiation Campaign site:
    “Real data from the Hiroshima A-Bomb show that American studies drew false conclusions

    Japanese data from 1953 falsify the basis of conventional radiation risk modelling

    For decades past, radiation risk modelling has been based mainly on the American-funded “Life-Span Studies” (LSS) of people who survived being in the open when American A-bombs exploded at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. (These LSS studies continue to this day.)

    […T]hree dogmas have become embedded in the conventional view of radiation risk and, in 2010, are still used to dismiss evidence of health effects that do not conform with that view.” (Dogmas are listed in the above paragraph from Bramhall in the Augean report.)

    I believe when LLRC says “falsify”, they mean that their real data rendered the RERF/LSS data as determined to be false.

    So TEPCO is using old thinking of the type found in flawed American-sponsored research, done after they bombed your own people, to deny more Japanese people proper recognition for their radiation-caused diseases.

    More about the eye-opening book describing the Japanese studies:
    “It was prepared by an impressive list of Japanese doctors and professors of pathology, surgery, and physiology collectively describing themselves as “The Japanese Preparatory Committee for Le Congrès Mondial des Médecins pour l’Étude des conditions Actuelles de Vie”. This Congress took place in Vienna in June 1953 and the Japanese experts’ report was presented by its editor-in-chief, Dr Nobio Kusano.”

    The site has a link to select scans from that book.

    “In these pages we see that, contrary to the Radiation Effects Research Foundation’s propaganda, leukaemia incidence began to rise immediately after the exposures – that is, it was beginning to be diagnosable within months of the bombings. Contrary to the propaganda, we see evidence of heritable damage in children born after the bombing. Contrary to the propaganda, we see evidence of areas of radioactivity due to fallout.

    This page is posted in January 2010, shortly after we found a copy of the report in the papers left by the late Dr. Don Arnott. Rumaging on the internet to see why we hadn’t heard of it before, we came across this article by an American university lecturer. Like us, he stumbled across Dr. Kusano’s book in 1959 and used it in teaching students about the effects of nuclear bombs from then on.
    We also found that the British Medical Journal mentioned the book in 1955, which makes it all the harder to see why the RERF’s misrepresentation has been allowed to stand all these years.”

    So the real data has been used to teach students about radiation effects, but some nuclear industry interests still continue spouting the old lies. From looking through the scanned pages of the book, I found that the first case of leukemia was diagnosed in a 19-year-old male 3 months after the bombing (and he died in 5 days). 3 months! It definitely does not take 5 to 10 years to develop cancer, and Fukushima is like many Hiroshimas, no? Of course people are falling ill so quickly. An honest look at the data would have predicted this.

    There were also many cases of cataracts from survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (1000 or 1100 m away from the hypocenter), as early as 40 days after the 1945 bombing. It says they usually fell ill with it after several months or 1 to 2 years, however. The excerpts discuss disturbance in physical and mental development in children, as well. In addition, of 205 children between ages of 4 1/2 and 5 who were in utero during the bombings, 8 of the 27 malformation cases found had head sizes below that of even average 1-year-olds.

    The liars, and traitors of the Japanese people (and the others in the world who are affected) may be able to fool themselves, but they cannot fool the rest of us.

  4. From the original post here: “Tepco explained it can not have anything to do with radiation because esophagus cancer has incubating period for 5~10 years as the opinion of National Institute of Radiological Sciences.”

    Who is this “National Institute of Radiological Sciences”, that thinks they know Mr. Yoshida’s cancer isn’t from radiation? Here are some clues that may shed some light on this organization.
    “National Institute of Radiological Sciences (NIRS) is the only institution in Japan dedicated to comprehensive scientific research for radiation and health. Experts of many fields collaborate in research and development to enhance the levels of radiological sciences. NIRS has started its second five-year-term project as an independent administrative institution in April, 2006, focusing on two major scientific fields; 1) radiation-related life science research, and 2) radiation safety and emergency medical services for radiation exposure. This plan forms the basis of our efforts to contribute to the scientific and technical advancement as well as to the public health. The life science research includes heavy charged particle therapy for cancer treatment, assessment of radiation effects for radiotherapy, and molecular imaging for early diagnosis and treatment planning. In order to achieve these missions, NIRS promotes the scientific research and provides the opportunity of education and training for students, researchers and technical staff.”

    So they are all about science and public health? We know they are contributing to the radiation therapy science for all the people now and soon sickened by radiation and all its propagated lies, yes? And if they are the “only” institution in Japan researching radiation and health, then that is a bit worrying.

    Just who do they work with?
    “Cooperation with international organizations is one of the NIRS’s distinctive features. NIRS sends delegates as committee members to the Scientific Committee of the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) and the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) to make proposals and endure its commitment to the development of international standards for radiation protection. Our international cooperation also includes sending experts to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the Organization of Economic Cooperation and the Development/Nuclear Energy Agency (OECD/NEA), the Regional Cooperation Agreement (RCA) and the Forum for Nuclear Cooperation in Asia (FNCA), and holding international conferences with these organizations.”

    ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection ), as Dr. Chris Busby has discussed on his site (, “is the source of official radiation risk estimates used by governments and regulators world-wide. The science on which ICRP bases its advice is invalid for certain types of exposure – those involving radioactivity inside the human body, especially where the elements become bound in body tissue and even more especially where they have a chemical affinity with DNA, like Uranium and Strontium which mimic calcium.

    […] Officially, and according to supporters of nuclear power and radioactive weaponry, the scientific shortcomings of ICRP’s position are acceptable because there is no epidemiological evidence that risk estimates based on ICRP are out of line with reality. This is why these people put so much energy into denying the health effects of Chernobyl. It’s also why it is vital to track the fallout from Fukushima and its long-term effects on public health.”

    According to Dr. Busby, ICRP’s advice is not to be followed after accidents. “At LLRC’s request, Professor Chris Busby put this question to ICRP’s retiring Scientific Secretary in a public meeting in April 2009. The answer was No ”
    “CB: Yes, I agree. I have a question here that I was asked to put to you. It is ‘Can the ICRP model be used by Governments to predict the consequences of a nuclear accident, in terms of cancer yield?’

    JV: Basically no, because the uncertainties we are talking about would be too large; one order of magnitude. You are talking about two orders, but even at the one order I am talking about it’s not useful for that sort of prognosis. […]

    CB: […] When you build new nuclear power stations, or [consider] any nuclear policy, you need to know what would happen if something went wrong. You need some kind of model, and at the moment they are using your ICRP model. [..]”

    As far as the IAEA, we know about their nuclear-promoting mission, as Low-Level Radiation Campaign pointed to via a quote by Dr. Helen Caldicott: “The Agency shall seek to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world.”
    ( – Article II)

    NIRS also is involved with UNSCEAR (UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation), and its once-president Dr. Yasuhito Sasaki served as UNSCEAR in 2004-2005.

    They also work with IAEA in the following capacities: They work on Coordinated Research Projects (CRP’s) with them. They are a designated IAEA Collaborating Center, in which they “continue to promote studies of low-dose radiation effects, which has been one of the institute’s primary research areas since its foundation”. Really? Low-dose? But they don’t even recognize illness at high dose from employees at a facility having a full-out nuclear meltdown? Are you kidding me, NIRS? It gets better: they expect their research to “contribute to formulating rational standards and regulations regarding radiation protection.”

    “Rational standards”? Methinks I heard that term somewhere as a euphemism for “relaxed standards”. Something to look into.

    Interesting some of their international affiliations in the field of research, including partnering with the renowned Mayo Clinic of Rochester. I sure hope the Mayo Clinic doesn’t share their cavalier attitude towards radiation victims!

    Science? What science? What? You want the world to take you seriously, NIRS? TEPCO, you too? Because you’re so great at “science” and knowing what’s best for people, right?

  5. I forgot to add this bit to the above comments about the NIRC, regarding ICRP.

    LLRC put it nicely with: “An accessible account of how ICRP decided to scrap the science.”

    “the story of how the bogus concept of absorbed dose was foisted on the world in order to protect the A-bomb,
    with an Epilogue showing that this Cold War agenda has subverted the science of radiation protection ever since. ”

    This is hopeful, however: “The good news is that growing numbers of scientists are recognising that ICRP is in error. These include Jack Valentin, the man who recently retired as ICRP’s Scientific Secretary – see this link to the ECCR. ” Jack Valentin is the “ICRP’s retiring Scientific Secretary” quoted in the above transcript excerpt of him discussing with Dr. Busby whether ICRP’s model should be used after nuclear accidents.

    I should add that Dr. Busby is the Scientific Secretary of the European Commission on Radiation Risk (

Comments are closed.

About this site

This website updates the latest news about the Fukushima nuclear plant and also archives the past news from 2011. Because it's always updated and added live, articles, categories and the tags are not necessarily fitted in the latest format.
I am the writer of this website. About page remains in 2014. This is because my memory about 311 was clearer than now, 2023, and I think it can have a historical value. Now I'm living in Romania with 3 cats as an independent data scientist.
Actually, nothing has progressed in the plant since 2011. We still don't even know what is going on inside. They must keep cooling the crippled reactors by water, but additionally groundwater keeps flowing into the reactor buildings from the broken parts. This is why highly contaminated water is always produced more than it can circulate. Tepco is planning to officially discharge this water to the Pacific but Tritium is still remaining in it. They dilute this with seawater so that it is legally safe, but scientifically the same amount of radioactive tritium is contained. They say it is safe to discharge, but none of them have drunk it.


January 2012