日本語に翻訳したものの英語原文。

Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 03:18:54 +0900
Subject: Re: Mr Gilles Heriard-Dubreuil

He [Mr Uesugi] wrote an article of Aarhus Convention in Japanese.
http://www.zakzak.co.jp/society/domestic/news/20120313/dms1203130814001-n1.htm

The English translation should be:
=== from here
"This February, I [Mr Takashi Uesugi] was invited, as a representative
of Japan, to Aarhus Conference of European Commission and French nuclear
regulation authority, which took place in Luxenberg, Europe. I just
told them the reality of Fukushima."
...
"According to them [European people], "The people of Japan may be least
informed." (a direct quote of Mr Gilles Heriard-Dubreuil, the
representative of Mustadis (sic).)
=== to here

(This "Mustadis" must be a misspelling of Mutadis.)

I think you know Mr Gilles Heriard-Dubreuil of Mutadis very well, since
he was involved in the ETHOS in Bragin. My questions to Mr
Heriard-Dubreuil are following:

=== questions from here
1. Did Mr Heriard-Dubreil actually talk to Mr Uesugi on that occasion at
the conference in Luxenberg?

2. If yes, did he really tell Mr Uesugi what is quoted above: "the
people of Japan may be least informed"? If so, in what context?

3. If yes, did he give the journalist the permission to publish his quote?

4. Did he talk to Mr Uesugi in English? Or was there an interpreter?
=== questions ends here.

Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 10:47:21 +0100
Subject: Re: Mr Gilles Heriard-Dubreuil
From: Gilles HERIARD DUBREUIL

I confirm the actual participation of Mr. Uesugi in the Aarhus Convention
and Nuclear (ACN) European Round Table held in Luxembourg on 15-16
February 2012.

After then conference, Mr. Uesugi interviewed myself as well as a
representative of ANCCLI (Monique Sené). This interview was realized in
English without translators and was registered in video.

It was a short interview in the aftermath of the conference. I had no
possibility to check my wording but must say that I did not ask for it.

However the meaning of the quote you bring remains unclear for me
"According to them [European people], "The people of Japan may be least
informed."

1) Does it mean that the people of Japan are not currently well informed ?
2) Does it mean that the Japanese people should not be informed ?

Let me first say that I support none of those two assertion !

Should it be the first (factual) meaning, I do not have any mean to give a
kind of assessment of the current situation in Japan so my purpose is by
no mean to give a kind of evaluation.

Should be the second meaning, my purpose is on the contrary to support any
claim of the people of Japan for access to information and participation
in the post-accident decision making. This statement is at the hart of the
ETHOS project I have initiated with colleagues in Belarus in 1996.

Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 13:22:21 +0200
Subject: Re: Mr Gilles Heriard-Dubreuil
From: Gilles HERIARD DUBREUIL

Now regarding the identification of "Mr. G", I do not think I am the
person that Mr. Uesugi refers to, since "Mr. G" mentions informations on
TEPCO that I am not aware of.

From: XXXXXXX XXXX
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 07:31:39 +0900
Subject: Re: Mr Gilles Heriard-Dubreuil
To: Gilles HERIARD DUBREUIL

Dear　Gilles HERIARD DUBREUIL

Hello,my name is XXXXXXX XXXX
I am writing on behalf of Takashi Uesugi because he is extremely busy for now.
I am a staff of his office.

As you mentioned he recorded video of that interview, he said he will
check again.
As soon as he checked, I will let you know.

Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 10:28:48 +0900
To: Gilles HERIARD DUBREUIL
Subject: Re: Mr Gilles Heriard-Dubreuil

Dear Mr Gilles HERIARD DUBREUIL:

During these four days, Mr Uesugi added a new article to his blog. It
was about his fake article. Since he had time to write excuses, if he
has not responded to you, I think it is because he thought it is not
worth doing it.
http://www.uesugitakashi.com/?p=1231 (in Japanese)
This was the article from which the fake quotes were deleted (in Japanese).
http://www.zakzak.co.jp/society/domestic/news/20120314/dms1203140854005-n1.htm

Here are the translation of excerpts of his blog article. I am going to
add my responses below. One of the reasons why I decided to publish our
communication is that he is quite disingenuous in this article.

===from here: translation of Mr Uesugi's blog===
"Fabrication of comments of WSJ writers"
This is my mistake that I am ashamed of. There is no excuse for this.
The mistake was made because of mixing of my memos and simple shuffling
of my memory. The editors of the paper explained the situation to the
two WSJ writers, and as a result, they apologized to them, and told them
a correction will be published. These were done on the same day WSJ
contacted us.

"Spreading lies by exaggerating the ambient dose to 1.8 Sv/h in front of
the city hall of Kohriyama city."
No. I measured the ambient radiation using the same detector on Feb 11
[2012]. I published the result by cell phone photo, but I chose a
slightly lower number among the values detected, because I thought it is
wise not to exaggerate. This was confirmed by Mr Takehiro Shimada, a
journalist, who came with me. I initially did not make his name public,
but since he game me the permission, I disclose his name here.

"Exaggerating the reports by claiming that Fukushima is a place no one
can live in."
No. My claim is about parts of Fukushima prefecture. I have been and
am insisting that decontamination of some parts [of Fukushima] in highly
contaminated areas is impossible. This is true based on what happened
in Chernobyl. I have never claimed that all areas of Fukushima are
inhabitable.

All of my opinions are communicated to the editors. During this time,
except WSJ, no one contacted us and asked "questions."
=== end here===

My comments are:

1) Regarding the fabrication of WSJ quotes. It is absolutely his
responsibility, as he says. Since he has no excuse, nothing to back up
his fake quotes, I have to call him a fabricator. This was the start of
my suspicion that he is not simply wrong, but he fabricates quotes.

2) Regarding 1.8 µSv/h. In the original article, Mr Uesugi was
explaining the discrepancy between his and the official value, 0.6
µSv/h, as:
http://www.zakzak.co.jp/society/domestic/news/20120314/dms1203140854005-n1.htm
(in Japanese)
==begin translation
"It is because the people from the city hall washes the ground with
water right before the official measurement, then they publish the
numbers. It is natural that there is a difference [between the official
value and Mr Uesugi's]," revealed a local reporter.
==end translation

No one has witnessed this mysterious washing.

(Come to think of it. This is again a direct quote. Now I think this
could be another fabrication, which I did not notice before.)

Actually, I found the photo of this 1.8 µSv/h Mr Uesugi tweeted on Feb 11.
http://twitpic.com/8ibumj
As you can see, Mr Uesugi was measuring the ambient dose right above a
ditch, where cesium is known to be concentrated by weathering. Values
of ditches are not representatives of ambient dose of the area. The
official spot for measurement is a parking lot in front of the city
hall, not over a ditch. This is the reason of discrepancy.

We learned this ditch trick because Mr Yasumi Iwakami, Mr Taro Yamamoto,
and Green Peace Japan abused the same trick numerous times before. What
I cannot believe is that Mr Uesugi is still using this old trick, which
people stopped using months ago. Moreover, Mr Uesugi chose a different
place for measurement and blame the people of Kohriyama for the
difference, using a direct "quote." I have to admit this approach is
very creative and original.

When the people of Kohriyama challenged Mr Uesugi's "washing" claim, he
simply ignored the question, and replied by naming the local reporter,
whom he "quoted." People did not call him a demagogue because he
measures dose over a ditch. It is because he creates vile fantasy
against the people of Kohriyama and Fukushima.

3) Regarding "Fukushima is no place to live in". Actually, the title of
the fake article used to be "The truth about radioactive contamination

• • No one can live in Fukushima and Kohriyama" which was based on the

direct quotes of WSJ writers. When the quotes were retracted, the title
was changed because otherwise there will be nothing left of the title.
Mr Uesugi is defending something irrelevant, probably because his
position is indefensible.

4) Regarding who contacted Mr Uesugi about his "issues." You and I both
know you contacted him. Twice. You and I both know I tweeted him in both
English and Japanese so that every one can see. Six times. I do not
know why he tells a lie so obvious to both you and me.