>>119
津田論文についての現状を言えば、「津田論文に対しては賛否が両論している」としか言えません。
「津田は孤立している」、「津田を支持するものはいない」というのは明らかなミスリードですね。バカネコ君（きみ、英語読める？？）

Scientists are divided on Tsuda’s conclusions.
In the same Epidemiology issue, Scott Davis, professor at the Department of Epidemiology in the Seattle-based School of Public Health,
said the key limitation of Tsuda’s study is the lack of individual-level data to estimate actual radiation doses.

Davis agreed with the findings of the World Health Organization and UNSCEAR, or the United Nations Scientific Committee
on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, both of which have carried out reviews on Fukushima and predicted cancer rates will remain stable,
with no rises being discernable as radiation-caused.

David J. Brenner, professor of radiation biophysics at Columbia University Medical Center, took a different view.
While he agreed individual estimates on radiation doses are needed, he said in a telephone interview
that the higher thyroid cancer rate in Fukushima is “not due to screening. It’s real.”

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/9bd0b3e588634b908193939638126250/researcher-childrens-cancer-linked-fukushima-radiation … …