Welcome to those who think the Fukushima accident is harmless. Please introduce yourself!

I interviewed with the Japan Times, who then published the following article: 'Flyjin' feel vindicated, worry for those left in Japan

The other day I noticed a spike in traffic to this site from the following page:
Japan Times Interviews 2 “Flyjin” / Ignorance, Fear, and Paranoia Abound

Seeing what appeared to be misrepresentations of my views, I contacted the author and the following emails were exchanged:

Date: Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 9:48 PM
From: Ivan Stout ivan.stout@gmail.com
To: japanprobe@gmail.com

Dear James (Editor-in-Chief),

I need to inform you that your recent post regarding my interview with the Japan Times seems to contain "mischaracterizations" of both myself and the other interviewee. I understand your policy for not giving "equal value" to the arguments of "Idiots, bigots, fearmongers, and liars," but surely you have a "due process" before passing such judgement. Accordingly, I would like the opportunity to discuss some of the points you bring up in your post.

My only condition is that we discuss this on level ground. You know my identity. Let me know yours so that we can have a discussion where both sides have some level of accountability (Different ways to do this . . . Perhaps we can connect through Linkedin). If the comments under your post are any indication, a little bit of anonymity goes a long way into degrading the quality of public discourse . . .
Let us have a meaningful discussion on this so that we can mutually better understand each other's views.

Respectfully,
Ivan Stout

Date:  Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 10:00 PM
From: JapanProbe japanprobe@gmail.com
To: Ivan Stout ivan.stout@gmail.com

Ivan:

You reached out to the media and made yourself a public figure,
opening yourself up to criticism from blogs.

I won't give you my personal details, sorry.  I've received enough
death threats from anti-nuclear people to know that such a thing would
be a huge mistake.   Bloggers have a right to be anonymous.

If you want discussion, do so in the comments section of the blog
post. (Or via your wife's blog)

Date: Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 11:41 PM
From: Ivan Stout ivan.stout@gmail.com
To: JapanProbe <japanprobe@gmail.com>

James,

I have no objection against public criticism. However, I do believe anonymity lacks credibility and leads to frivolous dialogue that only increases the noise to signal ratio on a given topic. I also believe this issue is important enough to have meaningful discussion, which is why I have chosen against anonymity for myself. This is also why I would like to debate with others who can take full responsibility for their own comments (something not possible under a state of anonymity).

Again, I am not arguing against your right to stay anonymous. I am just saying it is hard to take the arguments from someone looking through a peep-hole seriously. If the best you can do is to criticize from a dark room, then I will have to go somewhere else for a more meaningful debate. You cannot offer me any meaningful insight because I have no context to measure your comments against.

Just a word of advice . . . I hope you do not regret at some point never having a discussion of substance because you were always too afraid to truly stand up for what you believed in. I may be subject to the savage treatment of the anonymous mob but the mere fact that I make my comments under my own name lends my views more credibility than all the Anons and generic "James"'s on the Internet put together. If you also had the same level of conviction in your own views, I would assume establishing that level of credibility would be equally important to you. The alternative is to assume your post is merely another frivolous rant in search of ad traffic at the expense of meaningful debate on a truly important topic. If this is the case, then you are doing both sides of the debate a disservice. Please do your own moral conscience a favor and keep your frivolous comments to the frivolous topics.

Have a nice anonymous life. . .
Sincerely,
Ivan Stout

Date: Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 12:00 AM
From: JapanProbe japanprobe@gmail.com
To: Ivan Stout <ivan.stout@gmail.com>

Ivan:

As I eat some vegetables from Tohoku, I remember what Jake Adelstein wrote to me this morning, "In general it's always bad to give out any private information. It's the message not messenger at issue."

Stop with the bullshit about me being the one that is "afraid."  Stand
up and address your critics in public.

-James

And with that last response, my frustrations towards those who try to minimize the impact of this ongoing accident is pretty well covered. Namely:

1. They never want to have a fair debate on an equal playing field where both parties are accountable for their statements (i.e. their identities are BOTH known). 
2. Despite their views, they show no indication of trying to capitalize on the situation in any significant way (other than cheap vegetables . . .).   

The second item really frustrates me. I have spent a significant portion of my life studying about free markets and have acquired a special appreciation for the beauty in how they work. Free markets THRIVE on opposing views. You simply  would not have any transactions without difference of opinion. If everyone thought the price of an asset was going to decrease in the future, who in their right mind would buy that asset? Yet this is exactly what economically is happening in the areas around Fukushima. Real estate assets that were going for over a 20% premium before the accident have been unable to sell a year later at a 20% discount. Such a broken market indicates a vacuum of opposing views on the future value.

So why are those folks that are so smarter than everyone else not gobbling up land at the great discounts caused by "irrational paranoia?" Where are the JREITs exclusively investing in "contaminated" areas? Where is the "smart money" going after the irrational 40% discounted to pre-accident value assets? Despite the government's assurances and the online anonymous ranting, there is very little economic evidence supporting the view that the contamination is harmless when looking at asset values. Consequently, it is hard for me to accept at face value those who play down the situation because the market does not appear to reflect consistent risk taking by such a segment. I could make assumptions about why this disconnect might exist, but I would much rather discuss this directly than add to the flood of presumptuous guesses on the Internet on what someone might be thinking.

"Stand up and address your critics in public." Fair enough, we have made this challenge on this blog in the past without any takers. Please, ANYONE (unfortunately anonymous "James" is not feeling up to it . . .), introduce yourself so that we can have a worthwhile public discussion on this matter, rather than yelling out insults from behind the apron strings of anonymity. This is an important enough issue that deserves credible public debate, not the rants of an anonymous mob. . .