妊娠中の日本人女性の避難すぐ
As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) was replaced by: As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP): To satisfy the ALARP principle, measures necessary to reduce risk must be taken until or unless the cost of those measures, whether money, time or trouble is disproportionate to the reduction in risk.” PAGE 170 – by UK Departement of Energy & Climatechange – QUOTE:
basically: Money over Health – a licence to kill. In the beginning the ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) principle was turned against the atomic industry. It said, that radiation exposure has to be held as low as possible, that means as low as rasonably achievable. But hydrogen bombs cause much radiation.The ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection) turned around this principle (after the first hydrogen bomb explosion in 1954) – so that the ALARA principle is now working FOR the atomic industry, even if a reactor crashes next to you. ICRP said, that ALARA does not refer to accidents. Basically this means:
When an accident happens (an atomic reactor crash, for example) the whole point of Status Quo is that the people are contaminated with radiation.
They can irradiate you and do not compensate you – and if they do, they do it with your money. No reactor is assured, mind you.
Used in Belarus (Most Chernobyl affected country in the world) and Japan (Fukushima).
EXELON nuclear (US company) talking about ALARA: http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/meeting-energy-demand/consents-planning/nps2011/1925-appl-of-sust-of-revised-draft-en6.pdf
Remember: This is the only VALID and OFFICIAL angenda for compensation during an atomic accident!
regards,
BIER VII slide presentation – an American Committee with support of EPA, NRC and DOE (Environmental Protection Agency, Nuclear Regulatory Comm and Depart of Energy) actually emphasizes raising the level of mSv of exposure. Reason? “Stakes $millions v health” Their entire study is limited to only what greatly minimizes cancer risk, which is unreasonably low at 1 in 100, and even specifies that women 37.5% more likely than men to get cancer (50% deaths), that little girls are doubly at risk over little boys, and still they minimize cancer and death over money, profit. They also agree there is no threshold in which radiation can be called safe, does not carry risk and damage. They also fail to mention or include any data about Chernobyl. Nothing about the myriad diseases, disabilities and genetic damage that we know is directly linked to exposure and the more exposure, especially internal, the higher the damage. This argument, that up to 100mSv ‘make you feel safe but you are not really safe’ has been used by Dr. Yamashita in Japan (i think I have the spelling right). He also has said that if one has a pleasant attitude, radiation will not harm one. To me, this is a Crime against Humanity.
[...] – To relieve TEPCO: The burden of proof is imposed on the victims rather than on the polluter of the contamination: http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2011/07/18/nuclear-energy-has-the-scientific-licence-to-kill-for-money… [...]