I used the quoted material on this forum. It was not presented as a paraphrase by the people quoting it here, and otherwise referencing it here. I did not paraphrase it, myself.
Actually, you cherry picked a portion of it, and presented it out of context.
I claim that the word "therefore" is an explicit indicator of the undertaking of inference, and "no major impact on human health" is an explicit claim of safety.
You're still trying to play that game?
Okay let's see what they said:
"...The density detected in the plutonium is equivalent to the density in the soil under normal environmental conditions and therefore poses no major impact on human health," TEPCO said..."
The key clause you're contesting is "therefore poses no major impact on human health", the word that defines the range of possible outcomes in that sentence is 'major'.
Here's why this is important.
Generally, there's several ways of dividing up toxicity - you're asserting that if it's not major then it must be none, which is blatantly wrong (another false dichotomy).
Chinese medicine recognises major toxicity, minor toxicity, an non toxicity, in fact most
herbal medicine seems to.
US federal regulations recognize 4 grades of toxicity (Highly, moderately, Slightly and Not), and the UNGHS recognizes 4 or 5 categories (I can't recall which, off the top of my head). Chinese herbalism grades the toxicity according to symptoms, the UNGHS, and US federal Regs grade the toxicity according to some measure of the dose required to produce an effect. These can be further be subdivided into 'acute toxicity' and 'chronic toxicity' where cirrohsis of the liver caused by alcoholism is an example of chronic toxicity, and death by cyanide poisoning is an example of acute toxicity,
What all of this means is that if they had wanted to imply that it was completely safe, as you're asserting then they would have said "therefore poses no impact on human health" or "therefore poses no major or minor impact on human health". However, they didn't. They only explicitly ruled out major health effects, not minor ones. For example - you're not going to get radiation poisoning from the soil by standing on it in bare feet, but you might eventually have a depressed white bloodcell count is you inhale enough of it for long enough.
They are neither implicitly, nor explicitly claiming there are no health effects from this soil.
I claim that language was intended to reassure, based on a false framing of the levels found as "normal environmental conditions". That phrase, "normal environmental conditions", had nothing to do with any "distinctions", and none of my argument depends on any "distinctions" as far as I can see. What are you talking about?
And yet, in the context of a post cold war, post atmospheric nuke testing world, the levels found on the site are within the range of normal levels observed around the world.
This invalid inversion of the direction of logical implication is the central logical fallacy of the denialists and apologists here - in the nuclear issue, the earthquake matter, the entire collection of threads around Fukushima and most other forum issues intersecting political and scientific matters.
Pure, unadulterated bullshit.
And there you go again, incorrectly categorizing statements made by people.
You people simply refuse to read and follow arguments. It's an odd, and central, problem - an inability? one would assume that as an essential skill of the expertise involved. It's almost as if we were dealing with a marketing or PR team, engaged in rhetorical spin.
Bullshit.
