Archive for the ‘IPPNW’ Category


From the CRMS website:

市民科学者国際会議 アーカイブ映像










市民・科学者国際会議: http://www.crms-jpn.com/art/140.html

The International Conference of Citizens and Scientists: Radiation
Health Risks and Thorough Examination of the “International
Expert Symposium in Fukushima — Radiation and Health Risks”

National Olympics Memorial Youth Center, on October 12, 2011

VIDEO: http://en.crms-jpn.com/art/143.html / http://iwakamiyasumi.com/ustream-schedule/ustream2 / http://iwakamiyasumi.com/ustream-schedule/ustream4

Source: http://fr.crms-jpn.com/doc/The%20International%20Conference%20of%20Citizens%20and%20Scientists.pdf / http://en.crms-jpn.com/art/143.html

quote: “In the symposium, “scientific findings” showing low radiation doses are safe were presented in order to “address concerns with the effects of radiation” among the general public, while the “Conclusion and Recommendations” presented at the end offered no proposals or advices to minimize exposure and reduce possible disabilities. All this reminds us of what the IAEA and other UN organizations did with the International Chernobyl Project and the Chernobyl Forum about the health effect of the Chernobyl nuclear accident. The International Chernobyl Project concluded in 1991″

More: http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2011/05/12/w-h-o-secretary-general-chan-admits-for-the-first-time-in-52-years-radiation-is-always-dangerous/ AND: http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2011/09/18/the-atomic-devil-strikes-again-iaea-general-conference-2011-sept-19th-23rd/

and: “E. Cardis at IARC showed that cancers can significantly increase by low dose exposure, based on epidemiological results on the potential effects of external radiation exposure on cohorts of some 200 thousand workers
in the nuclear industry in 15 countries. Referring to these results, the European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR) objected to the ICRP risk model for underestimating “low dose internal exposure.” Meanwhile, Belarus and Ukraine epidemiological studies, which have been ignored so far by the international organizations, have reported non-cancerous lateonset disorders due to low dose exposure. They are starting to see the light of day these
years, with the publications like “Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment” (New York Academy of Sciences, 2009) and “Health Effects of Chernobyl 20 years after the reactor catastrophe” (German Affiliate of IPPNW, 2010).”

DOCUMENT: http://www.strahlentelex.de/Yablokov%20Chernobyl%20book.pdf

Background: IAEA / WHO Fukushima Symposium is Japan’s 9/11: http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2011/09/10/this-years-911-will-be-japans-2nd-fukushima-warning/

quote: “The IAEA with it’s partners the atomic industry and military are thinking, that the public opinion is now weak enough, to blast a propaganda symposium into it and all media, along with strong pro nuclear advocats and criminals against humanity WITH: The International Expert Symposium in Fukushima - Radiation and Health Risks - September 11-12, 2011, Fukushima Medical University Their goal: Blaming the victim !”

Please support CRMS & CRIIRAD: http://en.crms-jpn.com/index.html

Or: http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2011/08/16/donate-for-independent-radiation-measurements-in-japan-crms-project-47/

From a child in the future: “What are old persons?”


Read Full Post »


ONE radiograph during pregnancy: 20 % increase for cancer probability before the child is 10 years old. Two radiographs during pregnancy: 28 %. Three: 70 %. FOUR:…. 100 PERCENT. There is NO SAFE LEVEL OF RADIATION EXPOSURE: http://books.google.de/books?id=aAoAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&dq=cancer+stewart+xray+1970+radiographs&source=bl&ots=UGZYt0TZGo&sig=ENE9wYZjjNs3Rh2XyptdZwP3Ucw&hl=de&ei=7545Tu6iF8aAOsLrvbMG&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

No One Escapes Harm: The Essential Story of In-Utero Irradiation http://ratical.org/radiation/CNR/No1Escapes.html

The X-rays and Health Project (XaHP): http://www.x-raysandhealth.org/

THE PETKAU EFFECT: http://www.nuclearreader.info/chapter3.html

PET / CT scanner. These are systems that simultaneously do (X-ray) computer tomography (CT) and positron emission tomography (PET) of a whole person. The PET is a nuclear medicine three-dimensional method in which positron emitters are used – mostly fluorine-18 – with a half-life of 1.8 hours (or full decay time of 18 hrs). For a single whole-body examination while the effective dose climbs to 10 millisieverts (mSv) for CT alone to 25 mSv. The organ doses are correspondingly: bone marrow 29 mSv, 27 mSv lung, ovary 33 mSv, 36 mSv intestine, stomach 29 mSv. For comparison, the threshold for the population at a nuclear power plant is 0.3 mSv (effective) per year for occupationally Exposed 20 mSv per year: http://www.strahlentelex.de/MedizinischeStrahlenbelastung.htm

radioactive iron Fe-59 given to 820 pregnant women (between 10th and 35th pregnancy week). The women knew nothing about it. Result: High malignancy rates in offspring: Acute lymphatic leukemia, synovial sarcoma, lymphosarcoma, primary liver carcinoma. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/radiation/dir/mstreet/commeet/pm04/pl4brf/pl4brd.txt

BEIR? ICRP? IAEA? SAFE LEVELS? Here are your facts, by a former NRC scientists and whistleblower: http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/GreenDereg.html

K.Z. Morgan (former ICRP chairman) “there is no dose of radiatoon so low that the risk of malignancy is zero” QUOTE page 30, right, although the ICRP claimed the opposite until 1960http://books.google.de/books?id=aAoAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&dq=cancer+and+low+level+ionizing+radiation+morgan+k.z.&source=bl&ots=UGZYt-R5El&sig=u136wezO8Tvy5YZE-bfJhYjB-AQ&hl=de&ei=GHM5TtXrOoTKswbx4vUY&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=there%20is%20no%20dose%20of%20radiatoon%20so%20low%20that%20the%20risk%20of%20malignancy%20is%20zero&f=false

Karl Morgan “There is no safe level of exposure and there is no dose of radiation so low that the risk of a malignancy is zero”:  http://books.google.de/books?id=9-8EkIhxeK0C&pg=PA18&lpg=PA18&dq=%E2%80%9CThere+is+no+safe+level+of+exposure+and+there+is+no+dose+of+radiation+so+low+that+the+risk+of+a+malignancy+is+zero%E2%80%9D&source=bl&ots=GZXG5ZVK0i&sig=vVvf-pFUOPAPISPaBR5IWmVzlV8&sa=X&ei=AnUyUIq4L6Ss0QWtzoDgDA&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%E2%80%9CThere%20is%20no%20safe%20level%20of%20exposure%20and%20there%20is%20no%20dose%20of%20radiation%20so%20low%20that%20the%20risk%20of%20a%20malignancy%20is%20zero%E2%80%9D&f=false

more: http://books.google.de/books?id=QunaUpeENl4C&printsec=frontcover&hl=de&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

“As Alice Stewart mentioned in her talk, there are two categories of human illness that everyone agrees can be caused by exposure to atomic radiation even at very low levels. They are (1) cancers of all kinds, and also (2) genetic mutations — which can be caused right down to the lowest levels of radiation exposure. Most scientists believe that these harmful effects are linearly related to the dose, so that if the dose is doubled, the number of cancers and genetic defects will also be doubled, and if the dose is cut in half, only half as many cancers and genetic defects will be seen. It is important to realize that if a damaging dose is spread out among a very large population, so that each individual receives only a very small portion of the total dose, the number of cancers and genetic defects is in no way diminished. Thus, in the case of radioactive pollution, dilution is no solution at all.” http://www.ratical.org/radiation/WorldUraniumHearing/AliceStewart.html#MUTATE

“According to the ICRP in 1991, just 5 mSv to the testes could cause damage to offspring – yet this dose was permitted yearly to members of the public, and ten times more was permitted to nuclear workers, in all countries prior to 1990. It continues today to be permitted yearly for nuclear workers in most countries.” http://iicph.org/victims_of_the_nuclear_age

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection) protects atomic industry NOT human health: Until 1990 ICRP said it is not necessary to evacuate people, as long as the radiation does not exceed 500 mSv. Then they lowered it from 100 mSv to 20 milli sievert (2000 percent increase for children) which Japan implemented. Which is an equivalent of 50 mammograms: http://books.google.de/books?id=Ber3ENERfGwC&pg=PA343&lpg=PA343&dq=ICRP+40++500mSv&source=bl&ots=IaOqT2MqK2&sig=l3l0MYGe_nKkaXxvFZxkkG8hP5M&hl=de&ei=gc81TpqyI4PfsgajxLG5Ag&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CE0Q6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=ot%20exceed%20500%20mSv.%20The%20ICRP&f=false

NOW we know, there is only one tolerance limit: ZERO – the Reference Embryo: http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2011/03/11/atomic-alert-in-japan/

ICRP versus ECRR: http://www.euradcom.org/2009/lesvostranscript.htm

and: http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2011/07/15/less-girls-are-born-because-of-nuclear-power-global-population-growth-control/

The excess cancer risk from obstetric X-ray examination was directly related to the fetal dose: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2870%2991782-4/abstract

5 mGy – 50 mGy = 5000% Leukemia increase for children: http://cel.webofknowledge.com/InboundService.do?SID=Q2kiGlBbfFgNPfKfkLo&product=CEL&UT=A1972N025000001&SrcApp=CR&Init=Yes&action=retrieve&customersID=Highwire&Func=Frame&SrcAuth=Highwire&IsProductCode=Yes&mode=FullRecord

The dosage given for diagnostic radiography is carciogenic at any rate for the foetus: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2009217/?page=9



Read Full Post »


quote from http://www.radiation.org/index​.html:

Radioactive Strontium-90 (Sr-90) is one of these elements, and one of the deadliest. The chemical structure of Sr-90 is so similar to that of calcium that the body gets fooled and deposits Sr-90 in the bones and teeth where it remains, continually emitting cancer-causing radiation. The Federal Government (U.S.) no longer measures strontium intake in baby teeth:

More: http://www.radiation.org/projects/tooth_fairy.html

RPHP is a nonprofit educational and scientific organization

Strontium 90 was created by humans / atomic age / is created by every atomic reactor on the plant. IT DID NOT EXIT BEFORE THE ATOMIC AGE. So everyone saying, that background radiaiton is the same as man made radiation lies! In a very criminal way – or is un-informed.

“The NRC does not require environmental measurements of Strontium-90, one of the most toxic radioactive chemicals emitted by nuclear reactors. The NRC, electric utilities, and public health departments have never measured levels of Strontium-90 or any other radioactive chemical in bodies of persons living near nuclear reactors.” source: http://www.radiation.org/spotlight/nrc_comments.html

More about Strontium 90 / Cesium 137 and Children:

The cesium is biological similar to the potassium and the human body can not distinguish between the good potassium and cesium. The body takes it on the breath and the food. You can not protect yourself. After intake, the cesium builds self into the body cells and destroys the energy balance of cells. It does not matter whether it consists of the liver, kidney or brain cells involved. These infected cell dies, after she pulls even before their neighbors suffer. (…)  The adults at that time have survived 25 years and are now ill. In about 4 years we’re going to see the same with japanese children. Quiet Death: http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2011/03/19/effect-of-cesium-and-strontium-on-japanese-children-japanese-officals-irresponsible/

Cesium NOW in Tokio’s groundwater: Quiet Death for Children: http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2011/07/04/cesium-now-in-tokios-groundwater-quiet-death-for-children/

Japan has increased radiation limits for Children 20 times – Quiet Death! http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2011/05/24/warning-japan-has-increased-radiation-limits-for-children-20-times-quiet-death/


Read Full Post »




“By mid 1998 first draft of the Guidelines was circulating between IAEA and WHO at the management level.

“Although there had been a clear agreement between the two organisations at
the management level and the work had taken place openly the IAEA withdrew
at that stage strongly advising that the whole issue should either be dropped or
revised. The issue was the proposal to lower the action level for implementation
from 100mGy to 10mGy dose to the thyroid’s of children.”

“Managerial level of IAEA refuses to endorse the report and refuses to endorse the report but WHO publishes Guidelines in 1999 but IAEA describes them as “DRAFT” and WHO Geneva agrees”



The WHO published it:




Radio-Iodine: http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/HanfToChern.html

quote by Dr. Rosalia Bertell, November 1999 issue of The Ecologist, pp. 408-411: http://ratical.org/radiation/NAvictims.html

The main way in which the “radiation protection industry” has succeeded in hugely underrating the ill-health caused by nuclear power is by insisting on a group of extremely restrictive definitions as to what qualifies as a radiation-caused illness statistic. For example, under IAEA’s criteria:

>    If a radiation-caused cancer is not fatal, it is not counted in the IAEA’s figures

>    If a cancer is initiated by another carcenogen, but accelerated or promoted by exposure to radiation, it is not counted.

>    If an auto-immune disease or any non-cancer is caused by radiation, it is not counted.

>    Radiation-damaged embryos or foetuses which result in miscarriage or stillbirth do not count

>    A congenitally blind, deaf or malformed child whose illnesses are are radiation-related are not included in the figures because this is not genetic damage, but rather is teratogenic, and will not be passed on later to the child’s offspring.

>    Causing the genetic predisposition to breast cancer or heart disease does not count since it is not a “serious genetic disease” in the Mendelian sense.

>    Even if radiation causes a fatal cancer or serious genetic disease in a live born infant, it is discounted if the estimated radiation dose is below 100 mSv [mSv= millisievert, a measurement of radiation exposure. One hundred millsievert is the equivalent in radiation of about 100 X-Rays].

>    Even if radiation causes a lung cancer, it does not count if the person smokes — in fact whenever there is a possibility of another cause, radiation cannot be blamed.

>    If all else fails, it is possible to claim that radiation below some designated dose does not cause cancer, and then average over the whole body the radiation dose which has actually been received by one part of the body or even organ, as for instance when radio-iodine concentrates in the thyroid. This arbitrary dilution of the dose will ensure that the 100 mSv cut-off point is nowhere near reached. It is a technique used to dismiss the sickness of Gulf War veterans who inhaled small particles of ceramic uranium which stayed in their lungs for more than two years, and in their bodies for more than eight years, irradiating and damaging cells in a particular part of the body.



Read Full Post »


One link: http://www.ratical.org/radiation/

massive information overload.



Read Full Post »

Older Posts »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 71 other followers