RADIOACTIVE PLANET: Fukushima Media Fallout
By Scott Albright
RADIOACTIVE . . .
RADIOACTIVE
. . . RADIOACTIVE
Medical doctor Marc Siegel tells
us in his book False Alarm, The Truth
About the Epidemic of Fear that people
can fall ill and social problems escalate
when the media present news events in
a way which generate fear and anxiety.1
He says it is important to remember that
there will always be terrible things
happening all over the world, and that
when the media report on these things
the audience needs to be aware that
there is likely no reason to immediately
start worrying about them. Siegel
explains that this constant worrying can
have very damaging consequences for
individuals and society at large. I agree
with Siegel completely, and think he
provides plenty of evidence in his book
to show why this is true, but what he fails
to also explain is how a lack of reporting
on these terrible things can also be just
as a damaging, and even more so in
cases where reporting can help aid in
protection or prevention against those
terrible things. Nor does he mention that
when there is such a failure of reporting,
or when there is an abundance of
misreporting and contradictory reports,
that mass fear-based reaction, as well as
non-action, can also occur. In the case of
the media’s reporting on the nuclear
meltdown at Fukushima Daichi we have
seen a mix of all these types of reporting,
or lack thereof, which has utterly
confused the public as how to best react
to such an event.
The Fukushima Daichi nuclear
plant triple meltdown, which occurred
after a 9.0 earthquake and massive
tsunami hit the Honshu coast and
knocked out power at the plant March
11, 2011, has unleashed a torrent of
media activity which continues to debate
the severity of the accident to this day.
On one end of the debate there are
reports of increased thyroidism as far
away as the west coast of the United
States, lesions in polar bears in Alaska,
predictions of dramatic increases in
cancer rates worldwide, bans of fish
imports from Japan in South Korea and
e l s e w h e re , i n c re a s e d d e a t h a n d
[40]
destruction of sea life, and suicides,
tumors, and lawsuits - all stemming from
the Fukushima nuclear disaster. On the
other end of the reporting the media are
telling us the government and so-called
experts say the consequences from the
Fukushima drift and fallout are nothing to
worry about. They say all the radiation
and heavy metals from Fukushima found
in kelp, tuna, milk, and other sources of
nutrients for humans and animals is so
minimal that it will have no effect on our
health or environment. They say the
levels are too low to make any
difference, and we should just keep on
eating that tuna and probably forget the
whole mess that is still going on over
there all together, so we can focus on
more important issues, like fighting a war
in Syria or talking about some celebrity’s
wedding.
So what should the public do
when there are such contradictory
reports, particularly when both sides of
the reporting are citing nuclear experts,
scientists, and eye witnesses who all
sound like they know what they are
talking about? What I did was study,
study, study. I read as many of the media
reports I could find about the situation. I
studied EPA reports, left-wing and
alternative online media, conservative
news media, foreign media, bloggers,
FDA reports, TEPCO press releases,
books and articles about other nuclear
disasters, tests, industrial accidents, and
leaks such as those at Chernobyl, Three
Mile Island, Diablo Canyon, WIPP, the
Trinity Test site, and the Nevada and
Pacific nuclear testing grounds. I looked
over military documents, read books
about the media’s handling of these
events, and looked around in my own
environment and compared my \