ホーム > 福島県放射線リスク管理アドバイザー Dr. 山下 資料 > (考)長崎大学・山下氏らの贈与と返礼の交換取引

(考)長崎大学・山下氏らの贈与と返礼の交換取引

***書きかけ途中*** 6.13

1.直感と感情
私は見えないものを見るための最初のアプローチとして直感とを大事にしている。福島県・放射線リスク管理アドバーザーに就任したての山下氏の記者会見(英語プレゼン(USTREAM))を初めて見たときになんとも言えない感覚を得たのを覚えている。無礼な言葉尻が印象的で、また山下氏の無意識に内在する冷たくて乾いたネガティブな何かを感じ取ったからだ。それがきっかけとなり「わたしが山下氏を信用しない10の理由」というポストを書いたのだが、先の6月2日、中国新聞の「福島からの避難者ら4割が内部被曝 長崎大病院調」(=Backup Done) 報道を見てこれには国際的な互酬のストーリーがあるのではないかと考えた。

2.最初の疑問点:
√ なぜ長崎大学・山下氏は、科学者の原則を無視しての狂った講演(※注①)に総力を注ぐのか? (動機)
√ 山下氏は週刊誌で政府からの金銭を一切受けていないと公言している。ならば長崎大学はこの貢献によって何を得られるのか?
√ 日本政府はパニックの終息をなぜ長崎大学に依頼したのか? なぜ他の大学ではないのか?何故で長崎大学でないと駄目なのか?
√ かかわる互酬関係者は一体誰と誰なのか?またそれぞれのつながりは何か?
√ 長崎大学の山下氏らの倫理を逸脱した講演について、内外医療関係者特に野党政治家たちは、なぜ静観しているのか?或いはなぜ私には静観しているように見えるのか? (国会議事録CHECK!6.10 19:52)
√ 日本政府は飯舘村の汚染がチェルノブイリに匹敵することを認め計画的避難地域に指定した。しかしながら、3月31日、IAEAは福島・飯舘村の避難勧告を 日本政府に要請しながらも、4月2日の追加測定で放射性物質が避難基準下回ったとして、すんなり引き上げてしまった。このとき私は途轍もない違和感を感じた。IAEAのこのブレは一体何だったのだろうか?

√ なぜIAEAはお甘いお点の 6.01 IAEA調査団暫定的報告書 (※注②) を提出したのか?何か関係はあるのか?
 – – – – –
注 記
– – – – –
(注①)
√  奇妙かつ異常な講演  : 福島県民に被曝を推奨する内容 =
安全・怖くない・心配ない・チェルノブイリと違う
マスク不要
20マイクロシーベルト問題が出るようになってからは非人倫的講演内容に変化し、「国の言う事を聞くのが国民の義務」などと執拗に戦時教育下を思わせるような精神論を強調するような異常性が際立つようにになっている。
√  異常な講演内容の例  : 「ユニティ・デザインのブログ」 、「二本松市三保市長インタビュー」、「講演用ビラ
(※注②)
(ア)避難や被曝防護等の政府対応を過大評価
(イ)津波による天災事故であることを強調(=地震による鉄塔倒壊人災事故を黙殺

3.仮説
仮説: 関係機関の間に「被曝者基礎データ」などの贈与と返礼の交換取引があるのではないか

以下柄谷氏の「世界史の構造」交換様式論にのっとって考えてみる。
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
交換様式 TypeA (互酬)
√ 長崎大学からの贈与 = ①パニックの終息(被曝を推奨する講演)、②被曝者データ解析
 政府からの返礼税金収奪者)= ①被曝した国民という基礎データ(税金搾取される側)、 ②研究費などその他長崎大学へ(国民から収奪した税金から

交換様式 TypeA再び
√ IAEAからの贈与     = 甘いお点の報告書
√ 日本政府からの返礼 = 長崎大学の被曝者人体研究基礎データ
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

4.関係者のマクロなつながりと関係性
(a)欧IAEA + (b)WHO
(c)NRC(+米)
(d)日本 + (e)長崎大学
(b)WHO + (e)長崎大学
※注:IAEA天野事務局長外務省出身。 IAEAの暫定報告書をの日英訳をなぜ経済産業省ではなく外務省がしているのか?

5.関係者が保有する資産??の整理
(a) IAEA(+欧)  :  ①原発マネジメント力世界から認められた名目上第三者機関的役割、②核技術技術提供、③原発覇権
(b) WHO    :
(c) NRC(+米) :  ①原発覇権、②技術提供
(d) 日本政府  : ①原発事故、②被ばくした或いは被ばくを恐れる国民
(e) 長崎大学  : ①被爆医療研究

6.取引の流れ
(d) ⇔ (e)
(d) ⇔ (a) +(b)

7.長崎大学の福島関係者メンバー・プロフィール

〇山下氏

  • 内分泌学を専攻し基礎と臨床
  • 1991年チェルノブイリ原発事故後の国際医療協力
  • 95年セミパラチンスク核実験場周辺への 医療協力
  • 2000年から5年間JICAセミパラチンスク地域医療改善計画を主導
  • 2005年から2年間WHOジュネ-ブ本部放射線プログラム専門科学官

現在

  • 長崎大学大学院医歯薬学総合研究科原爆後障害医療研究施設教授
  • 附属病院永井隆記念国際ヒバクシャ医療センター長
  • 福島県知事の要請で、福島県放射線健康リスク管理アドバイザー

〇高村昇氏 / 教授

  • 現在の専門分野 : 分子疫学、国際放射線保健学、公衆衛生学、内分泌学、内科
  • 専門研究テーマ : (1) 国際ヒバクシャ医療協力、(2) 遺伝子診断と変異遺伝子解析、(3) 生活習慣病の分子疫学
  • 福島県放射線健康リスク管理アドバイザー

〇松田尚樹氏  / 分野長・教授

  • 先導生命科学研究支援センター教授(アイソトープリソース開発分野長
  • 中国新聞記事の人物
3人のつながり
12. 緊急被ばく医療国内外連携ネットワーク推進プロジェクト
山下 俊一 原研 分子診断学研究分野 教授
松田 尚樹 先導生命科学研究支援センター 放射線生物・防御学分野 教授
高村 昇 原研 放射線疫学研究分野 教授

7.報道

〇6月2日
ソース元: 中国新聞

– – – – – – – – (全文転載) – – – – – – – – –
http://www.chugoku-np.co.jp/News/Sp201106020066.html
福島からの避難者ら4割が内部被曝 長崎大病院調べ
福島第1原発事故を受け、救援活動などで現地入りした人や、現地から長崎県に避難している人たちを長崎大病院(長崎市)などが調べたところ、約4割が内部被曝(ひばく)していることが分かった。原発作業員以外の体内放射能の測定結果が明らかになるのは初めて。健康影響は考えなくていいレベルという。同大の研究グループは5日、広島市中区で開かれる「原子爆弾後障害研究会」で報告する。

同大病院は3月14日から、福島県に派遣された大学や長崎県職員のほか被災地からの避難者を対象に、ホールボディーカウンター(全身測定装置)を使って体内放射能を検査している。同月末までに検査を受けた計87人を分析したところ、通常は検出されない放射性ヨウ素131を34人(39%)から、セシウム137を22人(25%)から検出した。

ヨウ素は体重1キロ当たり平均8・2ベクレル、セシウムは同12・5ベクレルだった。人間(成人)の体内には通常でも、放射性物質のカリウム40が50~70ベクレル存在することから、健康影響はないと考えられるという。

研究グループに参加した長崎大先導生命科学研究支援センターの松田尚樹教授は「ヨウ素やセシウムの値は予想の範囲内だった。呼吸を通じて取り込んだものが大半ではないか」とみる。4月以降に福島県内に入り、測定を受けた人の検出量はゼロに近づいているという。

松田教授は「早期の内部被曝結果がデータとして現れた。原発
– – – – – – –  (転載終了)- – – – – –

〇5月20日
ソース元: Science

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6032/908.full
– – – – – – – – (全文転載) – – – – – – – – –
Science 20 May 2011:
Vol. 332 no. 6032 pp. 908-910
DOI: 10.1126/science.332.6032.908

Fukushima Revives The Low-Dose Debate

Dennis Normile

The general public avoided exposure to high levels of radioactivity, but questions linger about the long-term effects of contamination.


Hot job. Technicians check radiation hourly in a gravel lot in Fukushima City. Exposure has dropped but remains 35 times above background.
PHOTO CREDIT: D. NORMILE/SCIENCE; GRAPH SOURCE: FUKUSHIMA PREFECTURE

FUKUSHIMA, JAPAN—At 5 p.m. sharp, Mitsuru Itou watches as a technician steps inside a quartet of orange traffic cones and black-and-yellow traffic bars marking a “keep out” area in a gravel lot. Holding a radiation meter at his waist, the technician waits for the instrument to stabilize. Then every 30 seconds for the next 2½ minutes he recites the count. Itou, a supervisor with the Public Health and Welfare Office of Fukushima Prefecture, correctly predicts that the readings will average 1.6 microsieverts per hour. “That’s what [the radiation] has come down to for some time now,” he says. The results are phoned in to a disaster center, which posts them to its Web site. This ritual is repeated every hour at seven locations across the prefecture to track environmental radiation from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, 63 kilometers southeast of Fukushima city. The measured levels range from two to 1000 times normal background radiation—and residents, officials, and scientists wonder what that may mean for public health.

The magnitude-9.0 earthquake and tsunami on 11 March knocked out nuclear fuel cooling systems at the power plant. In the days that followed, overheating triggered hydrogen explosions that spewed radioisotopes into the air. Radiation spiked 4 days after the first explosion, according to measurements here and at other ground-monitoring sites hastily set up after the earthquake. Since then, radiation levels have ebbed as short-lived radionuclides, such as iodine-131 with a half-life of 8 days, decay into stable isotopes.

Across Fukushima and neighboring prefectures, small amounts of cesium-134 and cesium-137, isotopes with half-lives of 2 and 30 years respectively, lie on the ground. Cleanup workers have stripped contaminated topsoil from some schoolyards, and remediation or permanent evacuation is likely for the worst areas. But for much of the prefecture, “we’re stuck, there are no practical countermeasures,” says Hisashi Katayose, a Fukushima official in charge of radiation monitoring.

As a result, several thousand of Fukushima’s 2 million residents have been thrust into the middle of a vigorous scientific debate about the health effects of long-term exposure to low levels of radiation. “We’re all guinea pigs,” says Akira Watanabe, a meteorologist who is vice president of Fukushima University here. A central question is whether there’s a threshold below which radiation has no ill effect. “Dose threshold is a very contentious issue in the radiation community,” says radiation epidemiologist Roy Shore, research head at the Radiation Effects Research Foundation in Hiroshima. Some researchers believe even unavoidable background radiation can be a factor in causing cancer. Others argue that tiny doses of radiation are not harmful. Some scientists even claim that low doses, by stimulating DNA repair, make you healthier—an effect known as hormesis.

Studies in Fukushima could help clarify the picture. But getting answers will not be easy. Radiation exposure levels for most people were elevated so minutely above background that it may be impossible to tease out carcinogenic effects from other risk factors, such as smoking or diet. “In order to detect an elevation in risk, one needs to study much larger numbers of people,” Shore says, especially given that 40% of all Japanese develop cancer.

That has experts wondering whether and how to carry out such studies. “It is difficult to say at this point, especially since the crisis is not over,” says Shunichi Yamashita, a radiation health expert at Nagasaki University who is advising the Fukushima prefectural government. Forging ahead with a population study, as daunting as it may be, could nevertheless have a scientific payoff. “If you do the study and don’t find anything, that should be an important message,” says Dale Preston, a biostatistician specializing in radiation health effects at Hirosoft International in Eureka, California.

Where to draw the line?

Perhaps the sole point on which scientists agree is that radiation damages DNA in ways that can cause cancer many years after exposure. When radioisotopes lodge in certain organs—such as iodine-131 in the thyroid gland—the constant bombardment of surrounding tissue can overwhelm repair mechanisms and trigger cancer.

The clearest insights come from decades of follow up on survivors of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These studies have linked an acute dose of 100 millisieverts (mSv) of radiation—16 times the amount that an individual receives on average from all sources over the course of a year—to a 1.05 times increase in the chance of developing some form of cancer. Children with similar exposures appeared to have a higher risk of developing cancer later. These risks scaled linearly as exposures increased.

But the health effects of chronic low-level radiation exposure over years or decades are far from clear. Several large cohort studies of medical x-ray technicians and nuclear industry workers suggest a slight increase in cancer risk at exposures below 100 mSv, Shore says. To err on the safe side, most radiation protection agencies follow the linear no-threshold model, which posits that risk diminishes with decreasing exposure but that any increase above background poses a cancer risk. Extrapolating from this model to estimate health effects in a population “is not wise because of the uncertainties,” Shore says.

Opportunities to narrow uncertainties have been missed. In the aftermath of the Soviet Union’s April 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident, which spewed radionuclides over a swath of Europe, “there was no continuity, no overarching panel looking at how science should be done,” says Ronald Chesser, a radiation biologist at Texas Tech University in Lubbock. The subsequent Soviet collapse, scarce funding, imprecise dosimetry, and difficulties tracking people over the years have limited the number of studies and their reliability, he says. The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) concluded in a 2008 report that over 6000 cases of thyroid cancer in young people could be linked to Chernobyl but that evidence for other cancers was inconclusive. To resolve outstanding questions, on 26 April the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France, asked the international community to support a Chernobyl Health Effects Research Foundation to conduct life-span studies, similar to those following A-bomb survivors in Japan.

Animal studies have yielded conflicting data. Laboratory experiments on animals indicate that as doses decrease, less and less damage escapes DNA-repair mechanisms, says Yoshihisa Matsumoto, a radiation biologist at the Tokyo Institute of Technology. “There must be some threshold below which the damage is completely repaired,” he says. Chesser says some of his group’s studies of mice exposed to radioactivity around Chernobyl hint at hormesis: Small exposures over 10 to 45 days, they found, appeared to temper damage from an acute radiation dose delivered in the lab later. He thinks the reaction to low doses could be quite complex. “There’s not going to be a uniform response of all biological functions to low levels of radiation,” Chesser predicts.

Patchy contamination

Japan’s experience tracking A-bomb survivors, an early start gathering data on environmental exposures in Fukushima, and a family registry system that tracks virtually all individuals all offer “great advantages” in devising more definitive low-dose studies, says Preston, who believes such a study would be well worth the cost. “I think we will learn something important,” he says.

The 800 or so workers who have helped bring the Fukushima reactors under control will be included in an ongoing study of nuclear industry workers by the Tokyo-based Radiation Effects Association. Many workers are getting higher doses in weeks than they would have received on the job over a year. Fukushima residents facing higher than background exposure can blame an unfortunate shift in the prevailing winds. Just after the 11 March disaster, much of the radioactive contamination from the reactor complex was swept out to sea. But on 15 March, a counterclockwise wind carried contamination back over the prefecture, Watanabe says. “And then it rained.”

Authorities are keeping a close vigil on the patchy contamination. In addition to the sampling by Fukushima Prefecture, the education ministry is monitoring radiation levels nationwide, including at 100 locations in the prefecture. A team from Fukushima University recently mapped radiation levels at 370 spots in the prefecture and, using weather balloons, confirmed that atmospheric radiation levels have dropped to near background levels.

That broad-brush impression of radioactive contamination of the landscape isn’t sufficient for population studies. Shore says it will be important to reconstruct exposures to identify a cohort with the highest exposures. Researchers also need to ascertain where people were during the peak exposure period and where they obtained food and drinking water. Any robust study would also include detailed medical histories and information on smoking habits, diet, and possible exposure to other toxicants, as well as matched controls with little or no exposure. That information “would make possible an informed long-term cohort study,” Shore says.

View larger version:
In this page In a new window
Aloft. Fukushima University’s Akira Watanabe is leading an effort to map radiation in the air and on the ground.
CREDIT: D. NORMILE/SCIENCE
Estimating individual doses from environmental data is neither easy nor precise. An alternative technique was developed by a team led by David Brenner, a radiation biophysicist at Columbia University Medical Center in New York City, to plan a response to a radiation release by terrorists. The method rapidly screens blood samples for fragments of DNA and DNA-repair complexes; exposures are calculated based on the number of fragments.

Scientists hope a respected entity will organize a high-quality research plan involving all levels of government. Fukushima Medical University is bidding for that role. A spokesperson has confirmed that the university will establish a research initiative with support from radiation health experts at Nagasaki and Hiroshima universities. Details may be released next month.

Some researchers doubt that any study in Fukushima, no matter how well devised, will reveal much. The radiation exposure of the general population “is too small to give a statistically significant increase in stochastic effects such as cancer,” argues Ohtsura Niwa, professor emeritus of radiation biology at Kyoto University. But even negative data would complement UNSCEAR’s conclusions on Chernobyl, Niwa says, “and, in this sense, have global implications.” As for the linear no-threshold model, Preston says, “I don’t think anything [done in Fukushima] is going to resolve that debate.”

One real effect of the radioactive contamination is the gnawing fear—groundless or not—that low levels of radiation could harm their children. For that reason alone, Yamashita says, “a center or some sort of system to support long-term health follow-ups is definitely necessary.”
– – – – – – –  (転載終了)- – – – – –

広告
  1. まだコメントはありません。
  1. No trackbacks yet.

コメントを残す

以下に詳細を記入するか、アイコンをクリックしてログインしてください。

WordPress.com ロゴ

WordPress.com アカウントを使ってコメントしています。 ログアウト / 変更 )

Twitter 画像

Twitter アカウントを使ってコメントしています。 ログアウト / 変更 )

Facebook の写真

Facebook アカウントを使ってコメントしています。 ログアウト / 変更 )

Google+ フォト

Google+ アカウントを使ってコメントしています。 ログアウト / 変更 )

%s と連携中

%d人のブロガーが「いいね」をつけました。