AP exclusive: japan scientists took utility money

[xchrom]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_JAPAN_RADIATION_RISK?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-12-06-06-22-44

TOKYO (AP) -- Influential Japanese scientists who help set national radiation exposure limits have for years had trips paid for by the country's nuclear plant operators to attend overseas meetings of the world's top academic group on radiation safety.

The potential conflict of interest is revealed in one sentence buried in a 600-page parliamentary investigation into last year's Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear power plant disaster and pointed out to The Associated Press by a medical doctor on the 10-person investigation panel.

Some of these same scientists have consistently given optimistic assessments about the health risks of radiation, interviews with the scientists and government documents show. Their pivotal role in setting policy after the March 2011 tsunami and ensuing nuclear meltdowns meant the difference between schoolchildren playing outside or indoors and families staying or evacuating.

One leading scientist, Ohtsura Niwa, acknowledged that the electricity industry pays for flights and hotels to go to meetings of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, and for overseas members visiting Japan. He denied that the funding influences his science, and stressed that he stands behind his view that continuing radiation worries about Fukushima are overblown.

[madaboutharry]

1. It probably goes beyond airfare and hotels.

[madokie]

2. If I was a betting man I'd bet on it

On a level playing field the nuclear power industry wouldn't exist, there or here

[FBaggins]

3. This is supposed to be a scandal?

People who influence national policy on radiation safety are getting input from the "world's top academic group on radiation safety" and this is a problem because of who paid for the trip?

If their decisions were out of step with the expert's opinions and instead favored the industry... you could ask whether money influenced that decision. But that isn't the case here.

It's also useful to note that there isn't some great controversy among experts in health physics. There's actually unanimity among scientists, academics, and professionals. The science is decades old and really hasn't changed.

Instead, just as with the issue of climate change, there is a solid consensus among those qualified to assess the situation and then there's a tiny number of wacky nut-cases who dissent (usually without any scientific ability at all). If anything, the subject of health physics involves more consensus than that of climate science.