A point with which I 100% agree with this report (I do not capitalize because in fact the report is a "Communiqué") is specifically this point:
WHO wrote:In addition to the direct impact on the health of the population, the report notes that the psychological impact could have consequences on health and well-being. According to experts, these aspects should not be overlooked in the context of global action.
It is indeed certain, that if the WHO made in the catastrophism while telling the truth, that could have consequences possibly worse than
low dose irradiation creating a subject of concern in populations at risk, and which can cause pathologies linked to the stress of the anxieties of subject who can be influenced.
But the WHO should nevertheless assume and say "off" the reality of the situation (at least for medical circles, I am not sure that this is done, having worked with them for almost 15 years ...!) On the other hand I noted that they take a luxury of precaution to minimize and hide the matter, like this:
WHO wrote:[...] no observable increase in cancer rates is expected compared to the reference rates [...]
According to what I said above, can be understood by the fact that there will be no increase since lost in the fog of the background noise of the statistics: this is what they are criticized for, it is to use this "background noise" to say that there is nothing ....!
WHO wrote:[...] notes however that the risk estimated for certain cancers increased in given categories of the population of [...]
Ah well ... there are still risks then? And as the fallout is such as spots on the skin of a leopard, this is a beautiful smoke that means nothing. These spots can just as easily be found in Fukushima prefecture as 500 km or 60 km in the playground of a school in Tokyo ... Rubbish! (We knew very well that the kids could no longer go to the school yards, but it's like for France, the cloud stopped at the prefecture of Fukushima and the school yards: get around nothing to see...)
In any case it will not have been the WHO which will have helped countries to get out of nuclear ....!
I also like this one:
WHO wrote:[...] "The main cause for concern mentioned in this report concerns certain risks of cancer linked to specific demographic areas and factors"[...]
yes, which ones? Or? When? How and why? Thank you .... next question ...!
WHO wrote:[...] "A breakdown of the data according to age, sex and proximity to the nuclear power plant indicates that the risk of cancer is increased for people located in the most contaminated areas. Outside of these ... no observable increase in the incidence of cancer is expected. " [...]
Morality, if I translate:
there is nothing, except when there is something. But when there is nothing, there is nothing!