VIDEOS – part 1
Bandazhevsky recently was in Japan, his articles:
The Overview of independent nuclear science:
http://www.acsir.org/info.php?28 EN / JAP
VIDEOS – part 1
Bandazhevsky recently was in Japan, his articles:
The Overview of independent nuclear science:
http://www.acsir.org/info.php?28 EN / JAP
Posted in Uncategorized, tagged air, baby, Children, Dose limits, emissions, Fetus, food, ippnw, KiKK, low level radiation, nuclear, placenta, pregnant, psr, reactor on June 8, 2013 | Leave a Comment »
Nuclear power plants make children sick
Questions and answers about cancer risk around nuclear facilities.
When speaking of the dangers of nuclear power plants, most people think of incidents in which radioactivity is released, or they think of large reactor accidents such as Windscale, Chernobyl and Harrisburg. It is less known, though, that everyday normal operations of nuclear facilities and their “tolerable emissions” already are a threat.
The closer children live to a nuclear power plant, the higher is their risk of developing cancer. The until now most elaborate study on this issue from 2007 (LINK & SUMMARY) verified that without doubt. But it had no consequences: Instead, supporters of nuclear power strive to conceal the proven link between cancer and nuclear power plants.
In this issue, its grave results and discussions about them are described.
_Do children who grow up near a nuclear power plant have a higher rate of cancer than other children?
Yes, definitely. The cancer risk increases the closer the infant to a nuclear power plant lives. Thus children who are raised up to five kilometers of a German nuclear power plant, have a by 60 percent increased risk of getting cancer. Their risk of developing leukemia (blood cancer), is even increased by 120 percent – more than twice as high compared to children who do not live near a nuclear power plant. Leukemia is among the cancers that are particularly easily induced by radiation (1). Even at a distance of 50 kilometers from a nuclear power plant the risk of developing cancer in children is increased. The results of the epidemiological investigation are actually highly significant at close range. That is, the proven clustering of cancer cases around nuclear power plants can not be explained by simple “coincidence”. 1980 to 2003 121 to 275 infants across the country only fell ill with cancer, because they lived close to a nuclear power plant.
_What is this study that proved increased Cancer risk?
The so-called KiKK study. The acronym stands for “Epidemiological Study of Childhood Cancer in the Vicinity of Nuclear Power Plants “(2). It has been commissioned in March 2003, by the Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS), a subordinate to the Federal Environment Ministry Authority. The German Childhood Cancer Registry at the Institute for Medical Biometry, Epidemiology and Computer science (IMBEI), University of Mainz, has carried out the study and was scientifically monitored by an external panel of experts from twelve physicians, pidemiologists, physicists and statisticians. The study was published in December 2007. It is the world’s most sophisticated, most accurate and most comprehensive investigation on the topic.
_Was there even earlier evidence of increased cancer rates in the vicinity of nuclear power plants?
Yes. Already in 1978, publications on leukemia cases in children who lived in the main wind direction of the NPP Lingen (Ems) caused trouble. In the 1980s, studies in England showed that children, who live in the vicinity of nuclear installations, have an increased risk of developing leukemia.(3)(4) Also in the vicinity of the NPP Gundremmingen there was evidence of diseases and malformations of the extremities or the internal organs in newborns.
In the beginning of the 1990s, an unusual accumulation of cases of leukemia, a so-called “cluster” in the vicinity of the NPP Krümmel in Geesthacht at the river Elbe caused a heated debate. A study of the Mainz Institute for Medical Statistics and Documentation (IMSD) from 1992, using data from 1980 to 1990, has failed to indicate an increase in childhood cancer rates within the 15-kilometer radius around nuclear plants, but showed a significant increase in incidence of leukemia in small children under five years within the proximity of five kilometers.(5) In a second study of the IMSD, the so-called Michaelis-study published in 1997 with data from 1980 to 1995, that result was not alleged any longer.(6) Only until the study of 1998 by the Munich based physicist Dr. Alfred Körblein who reanalysed Michaelis’ data showed again an increase by 54-percent in children under five years and an increased incidence of leukemia by 76 percent within the five kilometer area (7) Following public pressure from the Ulm initiative doctors (“Ulmer Ärzteinitiative”) and other South German initiatives – including 10 000 letters of protest by citizens – and the IPPNW the Federal Office for Radiation Protection comissioned in 2001 a methodologically sophisticated study, which later became the KiKK study.
_What questions should the survey answer?
The panel of external experts and the Federal Office for Radiation protection decided on three questions that the KiKK study should answer: Do cancers in children under five occur more frequently in the vicinity of nuclear power plants than anywhere else? If yes: Does the risk increase with proximity to the nuclear power plants (“negative distance trend”)? Are there influencing factors that are able to explain the results of the investigation?
_What were the precise characteristics of the population under study?
What did the study attempt to learn?
All administrative districts located within the 50-kilometer radius of all of Germany’s nuclear power plant sites(15). were studied*, including 21 operating nuclear reactors.
* NPP Lingen and NPP Emsland were regarded as one location, due to their great proximity.
Rate of cancer among children attributable to living close to nuclear power plants 1980 – 2003
dark gray: from; light gray: until – Less than 5 – less than 10 – less than 20 – less than 30 – less than 40 – less than 50 km distance to the next nuclear power plant
Because conclusions have greater statistical power the larger the data base, researchers chose an extended study period: 24 years, from 1980 to 2003.
The Mainz Children’s Cancer Registry registered nationwide all newly diagnosed cancers in children since 1980, eliminating bias of reporting from
multiple regional registries.1,592 new cancer cases cancer, 593 of them from leukemia, were found in the study group of children < age 5. A case-control study, the question needed to be answered as to how many cases might be expected due to chance alone. The control group must be carefully selected. In this case the control group were children
A case-control study is more complex. Hence, the study population from which “cases” were tallied were the children in the 5 km. from a nuclear plant in the same districts.
The control group included a total of 4,735 children. For every ill and every healthy child, the researchers determined the distance between housing and exhaust chimney of the nuclear power plant accurate to 25 meters. This distance served as an approximation (“surrogate”) for the expected radioactivity in the area of the dwelling – because it is simply not possible to measure radioactivity precisely in approximately 6,327 dwellings directly around the clock and for years or even to determine it retrospectively.
_ What are the answers the study gives to the three questions?
Yes, children under five years of age who live in the vicinity of nuclear power plants do have a higher rate of cancer than anywhere else.
Yes, the risk of disease increases with proximity to the nuclear power plants (“negative distance trend”).
No, apart from the distance between home and nuclear power plant, no other factors were found that could explain the outcome of the investigation, despite extensive search. Thus, there was and is no doubt that the radioactive emissions from nuclear power plants cause the increased cancer rate and particularly the greatly increased incidence of leukemia in young children.
_ Why did the study only investigate the cancer of small children?
Infants are much more sensitive to radiation than adults. Therefore it is more likely one can find “execss cases” in childhood cancer and leukemia given a limited sample size.
There are several reasons for this:
First, a child is steadily increasing weight and size, as it grows from embryo to adulthood; the younger it is the more quickly it grows. Therefore, cells of an embryo, fetus, infant, infant divide significantly more frequently than those of a child, teenager or even adult. Dividing cells(mitosis) are much more susceptible to radiation than cells in recovery phase.
Secondly, the ability to identify (“surveillance”) and eliminate “defective” cellsis not fully developed in childhood. the human embryo is programed for rapid growth. Without this cellular repair mechanism at its disposal, stem cells, such as those that are caused by radioactive exposure, may br induced to continue to divide beyond the programmed point when they might normally be turned off in normal fetal development. This could, and does sometimes, lead to cancer or leukemia, or other birth defects.
Third, a growing child absorbs more matter than it releases – in contrast to an adult. Its body accepts radioactive substances in food, drink and air more avidly.
Particularly dangerous are radioactive cesium and strontium, which emit for a very long time and remain in muscles or bones.
Fourth, children have their whole lives ahead of them. In some radiation-induced diseases, it takes a long time, until they can be detected, sometimes 20 or even 30 years. Children have more than (older) adults this dubious opportunity, to live until the end of this latency period.
_ Can the results of the investigation also transferred to young people and adults?
Certainly not one to one, because children are, as said above, clearly more sensitive to radiation than adults. Disease clusters in older children, adolescents and adults who are living close nuclear power plants are by no means out of question . On the contrary: In the vicinity of the Fermi Reactor in Michigan / USA and the Vermont Yankee reactor in Vermont / USA, for example, health authorities reported recently a general increase in cancer rates.(8), (9) Also a meta-analysis of several studies in the U.S. showed elevated leukemia rates in the vicinity of nuclear power plants in patients up to 25 years.(10)
_ Cancer can have many causes. Why should radiation from nuclear power plants be responsible for the diseases of children?
The Mainz experts in the KiKK study evaluated about 20 factors that can trigger cancer. The control group andante study group were ‘matched” so as to be the same with regard to: the socio-economic situation of the families of diseased and the control children, exposure to pesticides, tobacco smoke and other toxins, immune diseases, and exposure to radiation other than than the nuclear reactors may be present. Therefore, these “confounders” could not, explain the striking clustering of childhood cancer around nuclear power plants explain – except for the nuclear power plant near the place of residence. Furthermore, the incidence of cancer increased with proximity to nuclear plants. Also incidence decreased with distance from the reactor (“negative distance trend “), a strong indication that the cancer risk has something to do with nuclear power emissions. And what other cause, if not radiation should be eligible for the cancer in question? The sight of the cooling towers, perhaps? In addition, the increase of leukemia (blood cancer), which is known to be inducible by radiation exposure, among those in the vicinity of a nuclear plant is particularly strong evidence.
_ Radiation from the nuclear power plant? Are they not very tight?
No, they are not. Every nuclear plant is already emitting radioactive substances into air and water during the so-called normal operation – quite legally. In the case of nuclear power plants this comprises among others tritium (H-3, heavy hydrogen), radioactive carbon (C-14), strontium (Sr-90), iodine (I-131), cesium (Cs-137), plutonium (Pu-239), radioactive noble gases such as krypton (Kr-85), argon (Ar-41) and xenon (Xe-133). Most of these isotopes emit beta particles, which are high-energy electrons and which are, despite being of small range, very dangerous after absorption into the body (incorporation) through respiration, food and beverages. The aforementioned isotopes have very different half-lives between 5.2 days (Xe-133) and 24 110 years (Pu-239). A nuclear power plant in Germany is usually allowed to emit every years as much as a quadrillion (1015) becquerels of radioactive noble gases, 30 billion (3.10^10) becquerels of radioactive particles and approximately 10 billion (10^10) becquerels of radioactive iodine-131 into the air.(11)
In this context particular attention should be paid to tritium and strontium. Tritium is a beta emitter with a half-life of 12.3 years. Nuclear power plants and other nuclear facilities emit it in large quantities over their chimney and its wastewater into the environment. It combines readily with oxygen to “severe water “(HTO). Plants, animals and humans are not able to distinguish tritium from normal hydrogen and heavy water. This means that tritium and water that contains tritium are absorbed as normal hydrogen and normal water are absorbed and used in all parts of the body. Tritium is thus built into all organs and even right into the genes where beta particles – despite their relatively short range – are close enough to radiation sensitive structures to lead to diseases and genetic defects.(12)
Strontium-90, a beta emitter with a half-life of 28.8 years, is indeed released in much smaller quantities to the environment than tritium. However, there is no reason for an all-clear, because strontium is considered to be calcium by the body and therefore incorporated into bones and teeth – especially in children whose bones and teeth are still growing.
Strontium-90 particles which are located close to the bone marrow send their beta particles over years and decades into the bone marrow, where the formation of blood takes place. Even small amounts of strontium-90 are therefore one of the most dangerous triggers for childhood leukemia.
_ What is the benchmark, how much is a nuclear power plant allowed to emit?
According to radiation protection regulation nuclear facilities may not strain <expose> the general population with<to><strain with replace with expose to> more than a maximum of 0.6 millisievert per year (0.3 millisievert through the air plus 0.3 millisievert through sewage. This is often misleadingly called a “30-millirem-concept”, using the unit millirem which was used in the past). In order to estimate the dose of a nuclear power plant that causes (measurable) stress, operators of the facility and the licensing authorities calculate the effects of emissions on fictional local residents, the (a) so-called “reference man”. Hereby a number of more or less well-founded assumptions and realistic models are used – from dilution and spread of the exhaust gases to the living, dining and drinking habits of “reference man”. Which is, by the way, always a young, healthy, adult male.
_ Is the radiation exposure from a nuclear power plant reportedly very low. Can she still many additional cancers explain?
All official information on radiation exposure from nuclear facilities <are> based on computer models and assumptions. How much radiation the residents actually gotten <received> a nuclear plant, <is less clear> No one knows. For the conspicuous accumulation (clustering) of cancer in children around nuclear power plants there are a whole series of (many) possible explanations: 13.14 The actual emissions from the nuclear reactors could be higher than the mostly random and / or nuclides and certain limited types of radiation measurements to believe. (One reason for underestimating dose received may be that routine measurements are obtained from further out from the nuclear power plant operators themselves made while supervisors only occasional control measurements.) conduct
The computational models that allow the dilution and dispersion nuclides of the votes in the simulated environment of the NPP be, may be wrong., and miscalculate the actual radiation exposure of people in the vicinity of nuclear facilities.
Conventional assumptions may be in error , regarding inclusion and retention of radionuclides in exposed plants, animals and humans. If so, the hypotheses concerning the impact of these these nuclides upon the body may also be in error. Biological effects in the body of nuclides are probably undervalued. Tritium is disregarded by the radiation protection authorities, casually understated it seems, at least strongly unterschätzt. We have far to go to have reliable dose-ressponse relationships, relating to most nuclides and nuclide daughters. Special cases are iodine and strontium, which have affinity for the thyroid an done respectively. It is hazardous science to extrapolate from this special case data. The ideas about what dose of radiation to which Damage leads (“dose-response relationship”), could incorrectly be as above (page 15) as described for strontium. Certain population groups, especially children, are extremely radiosensitive. Limits and model calculations take no account of it so far.
_ What kind of reaction did it for publication
Given the controversial results of the study was the stir in large domestic and foreign. The authors of the study were were obviously scared of their own courage.
In a kind Dementia they recanted their own findings and wrote: “Due to the current state of the radiation biology and radiation epidemiology, Causal relationships from onizing radiation emissions from German nuclear power plants generally are easily misinterpreted, either in measuring disease associations or in identifying safe exposures or safe proximities. “Munich radiation biologist Edmund Lengfelder considers the current approach “the constituent elements of Forgery or fraud in science “erfüllt.1
Authors argue nuclear plant emissions are thousands of times too low, and to prove the observed cancer rates on the basis of the environment would need to be significantly increased, and suspect “still unknown Factors “,” selection mechanisms “and statistical Coincidence. This in the face of clear and highly statistically significant study results, they provide rather fatuous and far-fetched explanations. Nevertheless, nuclear power supporters attacked the argument.
Authors also admit there was “neither measured nor modeled” data on radiation exposure in children. This may be irrelevant. Scientists had the Mainz Cancer Registry available. Study planning chose the distance between residence and nuclear dose. About their research projects then she wrote: “With the help of a distance law can with an approximate size of the surrogate dose-response Relationship to be estimated. “15
The outside panel of experts reviewing the study trivialized the interpretation of the results immediately in re: relationship between radiation exposure Nuclear power plants and cancer, stating that “because of the particularly high Radiation risk to small children and insufficient emissions data from power reactors (…) an relationship could not be excluded.
In regards to “several epidemiological Causality criteria for such a relationship. “16 The physician and epidemiologist at the University of Greifswald, Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Hoffmann, a member of the external expert panel ruled: “I know few epidemiological studies that have as clear Findings as these. “17 The Federal Office for Radiation Protection, Commissioned recognizes that “due to the significant dependence the risk of the distance to the sites of Reactors ” there are a”t least indications” of possible correlations “.18
The Federal Environment Ministry, however, saw no reason to tighten existing limits upon residence in proximity to German nuclear power plants as a radiation protection measure, and suggests that radiation exposure from a nuclear power plant may not be sufficient explanation for the established leukemia cases rate. “19
_ What conclusions can we draw from the study?
IPPNW calls not “allowed emissions” from the nuclear plant, to the alleged exposure of a healthy man (“Reference man”) to orient, but in the embryo. A healthy young man with intact cellular repair mechanisms can probably tolerate more radioactivity than a woman and even as a child, not to mention a whole embryo. It is therefore high time that the “reference man” gets replaced by a “reference embryo “ 9, 20
Because embryos can be already damaged by very low radiation doses, it would hardly be technically possible, to reduce the nuclear power plant emissions to the extent that an embryo is not actually at risk. Therefore, the nuclear power plants will be shut down immediately. Everywhere.
Our children are more important than nuclear power plants to maturity. Furthermore, the emissions from nuclear facilities, as long as these still in operation, are continuously measured by the supervisory authorities and are not reviewed by the self instead of talking small about the results of the study, the population in the vicinity of nuclear power plants should be elucidated about the increased Risk by officials. Finally, advocates the IPPNW for a sick child in the nuclear environment Shift the burden of proof: It is not the parents should have to prove that the condition of their child caused by the nuclear power plant was, but the nuclear power plant operators would have to prove that their Nuclear power plant is not the cause of the disease.
_ I live near a nuclear power plant. Should I move? Not every child living near a nuclear plant gets Leukemia. The absolute incidence figures per year, and nuclear are not very large. Panic is not appropriate. We think it is but essential that pregnant women and parents of young children the increased risk are informed so that their living and life decisions can make responsible. The CEO of EnBW, E. ON, RWE and Vattenfall in any case, it was by the way, all live far away from their nuclear power plants.
The most extensive, elaborate and careful investigation on cancer near nuclear power plants has a long harbored suspicions confirmed scientifically threaten nuclear reactors already in the normal everyday operation of the health our children. There is no doubt that the radioactive Emissions from nuclear power plants are linked with the exceptionally high Cancer and particularly leukemia rates in young children within an area of up to 50 kilometers. Those who do not want to see the truth have their eyes shut tight.
There is some evidence that the radioactive emissions and effluents of nuclear power plants not only work as demonstrated, har embryos and small children but also adolescents and Adults. More scandalous is that the supervisory authorities yet refuse to draw the conclusions from the results into their own commissioned study, and instead of the obvious connection between Cancer and nuclear power continue to deny. No wonder: If the limit values for radioactive emissions are defined that any risk to unborn children and even less could can be excluded, no more nuclear power plant operation would remain. Rather than haggle for longer maturities and new nuclear capacity, It would be really the task of parliamentarians and Rulers,to protect the people against the dangers of nuclear power, moreover, for 50 years, the cancelation of the Atomic Energy Act. It is our responsibility for future generations that the energy production by nuclear fission is put immediately to end.
Thanks to the persistent, decades-long commitment of citizens and citizens that the KiKK study was made famous. Critical scholars and doctors had to ensure by their publication to ensure that the explosive results were not returnes under the carpet. And only political pressure will ensure that Limits are tightened and nuclear power plants are shut down. We all have our own contributions. Nuclear power plants threaten even in normal operation, the health.
_ What to do?
If you believe the arguments in this brochure, disseminate them further. It is important that many people actively involved in the debate about nuclear power. Because the energy companies have well-equipped public relations departments to to place their claims in the public and parliamentarians take by lobbying for their point of view. No nuclear power produces no radioactive emissions. Change Your current provider, you switch to a real Green electricity provider. So that you personally get out of nuclear out and give you a receipt for the energy companies their actions, that does hurt them. Vote with your consumer also from which energy you want! Convince even more people from the exchange! Environmental and consumer groups and anti-nuclear initiatives have joined forces with the campaign to “make nuclear phase-yourself” help to provide for change. Under www.atomausstieg-selber-machen.de are independent green electricity provider recommended.From where they can You can easily switch to green power. If you want to do more, get involved in the actions of. broadcasted (more at www.ausgestrahlt.de) that play They organize themselves in a local anti-nuclear group, a
Event on the topic (speakers conveyed the IPPNW) or mingle, as readers with a brief, in the public debate on the energy supply of tomorrow.
Everyone can contribute something.
Verzeichnis der Quellen
1 Lengfelder E.: Krebs bei Kindern in der Umgebung von Atomkraftwerken / KiKKStudie
(Kritische Analyse KiKK-Wiss-Betrug-Strabi-Le-0802) Strahlenbiologisches Institut der Ludwig-Maximilian-Universität München, 2.2008.
2 Kaatsch P, Spix C, Schmiedel S, Schulze-Rath R, Mergenthaler A, Blettner M: Epidemiologische Studie zu Kinderkrebs in der Umgebung von Kernkraftwerken. Im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit und des Bundesamtes für Strahlenschutz, 2007.
3 Beral V.: Cancer near Nuclear Installations, The Lancet 1, 556, 1987.
4 Cook-Mozaffari PJ, Vincent T, Forman D, Ashwood FL, Alderson M.: Cancer incidence and mortality in the vicinity of nuclear installations, England and Wales, 1959-
1980, Stud. Med. Popu. Subj. 51, London, H.M. State Office 1987.
5 Keller B, Haaf G, Kaatsch P, Michaelis J: Untersuchungen zur Häufigkeit von Krebserkrankungen im Kindesalter in der Umgebung westdeutscher kerntechnischer Anlagen 1980-1990. IMSD Technischer Bericht. Mainz: Institut für Medizinische Statistik und Dokumentation der Universität Mainz, 1992.
6 Kaletsch U, Meinert R, Miesner A, Hoisl M, Kaatsch P, Michaelis J: Epidemiologische Studien zum Auftreten von Leukämieerkrankungen bei Kindern in Deutschland.
Bonn: Der Bundesminister für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit, 1997.
7 Körblein A, Hoffmann W: Childhood Cancer in the Vicinity of German Nuclear Power
Plants. Medicine and Global Survival, Vol. 6, 18, 1999.
8 Melzer EJ: Cancer questions grow around Fermi nuclear plant. The Michigan Messenger 17.02.09.
9 Mangano JJ: Radioactive Contamination from Vermont Yankee and Potential Risks to Local Health. Radiation and Public Health Project 2008.
10 Baker PJ, Hoel DG: Meta-analysis of standardized incidence and mortality rates of childhood leukaemia in proximity to nuclear facilities, European Journal of Cancer Care 16, 355, 2007.
11 Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit (Hg.): Umweltradioaktivität und Strahlenbelastung. Jahresbericht 2007, Dezember 2008.
12 Fairlie, I: Tritium – The Overlooked Nuclear Hazard. The Ecologist, Vol. 22, No. 5, A1 178, 1992.
13 Fairlie I: New evidence of childhood leukaemias near nuclear power stations. Medicine, Conflict and Survival 24:3, 219, 2008.
14 Schmitz-Feuerhake I: Das Dosisargument. Diskussionsbeitrag zur KiKK-Studie, 2008.
15 Schulze-Rath R, Kaatsch P, Schmiedel S, Spix C, Blettner M: Krebs bei Kindern in der Umgebung von Kernkraftwerken: Bericht zu einer laufenden Studie. Umweltmedizin in Forschung und Praxis 11, Nr. 1, 20, 2006.
16 Greiser E, Jöckel KH, Hoffmann W: Stellungnahme des externen Expertengremiums des BfS zur KiKK-Studie. Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz, Frankfurt/M, 12.2007.
17 Hoffmann W: (Interview) Kinderkrebs um Atomkraftwerke. IPPNW aktuell 18/08, Berlin.
18 König W: BfS und DKKR stellen sich gemeinsam hinter die Ergebnisse der Kinderkrebsstudie. BfS-Pressemitteilung 014/07 vom 19.12.2007.
19 Pressemitteilung BMU vom 09.10.2008.
20 Makhijani A: The Use of Reference Man in Radiation Protection Standards and Guidance with Recommendations for Change. Institute for Energy and Environmental Research 2008.
Posted in Atom, Atomic power, nuclear, Radiation, tagged 1979, 3 Isle Island, Chernobyl, children babies, Embryo, Ernest J. Sternglass, Fallout, Fetus, Fukushima, health, IAEA, Infant Mortality, Japan, low radiation, NRC, nuclear, nuklear, reactor, reaktor, TMI, Tritium, UNSCEAR, US, USA on July 30, 2011 | 2 Comments »
Dr. Ernest J. Sternglass (born 1923, Berlin) is an emeritus professor at the University of Pittsburgh and Director of the Radiation and Public Health Project. He is an American physicist and author, best known for his controversial research on the health risks of low-level radiation from atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons and from nuclear power plants. This is his study “Infant Mortality Changes Following the Three Mile Island Accident,” from 1980: http://atomichistory.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/sternglass_infantmortalitytmi.pdf
Go on the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention http://wonder.cdc.gov/cmf-icd9.html click on: I Agree, do a search, 1979, 1980, PA / Pennsylvania…
11/92 interview with Dr. Ernest J. Sternglass, author of Secret Fallout: http://www.ratical.org/radiation/inetSeries/ejs1192.html
His book SECRET FALLOUT LOW-LEVEL RADIATION FROM HIROSHIMA
TO THREE-MILE ISLAND as a full PDF FILE: http://www.nucleardemolition.com/SF.pdf
and: sternglass fallout and sat scores evidence for cognitive damage during early infancy phi delta kappa april 1983 http://www.jstor.org/pss/20386800
No wonder the NRC staff did not want to let the public know that they knew exactly in which direction the most radioactive clouds had moved, since this information could then be used to tie any later localized rises in fetal deaths, infant mortality, and cancer to the radioactive gas clouds from Three Mile Island. SOURCE: http://www.ratical.org/radiation/SecretFallout/SFchp18.html
media bought by atomic industry: http://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/02/business/cbs-accepts-bid-by-westinghouse-5.4-billion-deal.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
quote: “But the firing of Gordon MacLeod hardly ended the controversy over the health impact of the accident and how it had been handled. In November, Ernest Sternglass charged that figures from the nearby Harrisburg and Holy Spirit hospitals indicated that infant deaths there had doubled from six during February through April of 1979 to twelve in May through July. Only one infant had died at the Harrisburg Hospital in May through July of 1978; seven had died there in those same three months following the accident. The statistics seemed tragically reminiscent of the era of nuclear bomb testing. The NRC, the state, and the utility had all claimed–as had the AEC after so many atomic explosions–that radiation releases had been too small to have more than a very marginal health impact, if any at all. Sternglass asserted the authorities had failed to account for the extreme sensitivities of fetuses in utero in claiming a very marginal health impact from the accident’s releases…” Ernest Sternglass, “Infant Mortality Changes Following the Three Mile Island Accident,” presented at the 5th World Congress of Engineers and Architects, Tel Aviv, Israel, 1980“
quote: “The charge that TMI had actually killed area infants provoked a storm of outrage from the government of Pennsylvania. The state responded–as it had at Shippingport six years earlier–that the official statistics Ernest Sternglass had used were, after all, inaccurate. Dr. George Tokuhata, director of the state’s Department of Epidemiological Research, said a “printing error” on the part of the U.S. Bureau of Vital Statistics had skewed the state’s infant-mortality figures. There were thus eighty-eight fewer infant deaths in Pennsylvania in the summer of 1979 than originally recorded.Sternglass, however, held his ground. Discrepancies between state and federal data are not uncommon. But this particular case seemed “suspicious.” The discrepancy in infant deaths between the two sources for the period of April 1 through June 30, 1979, had been two; from October 1 through December 31 it had also been two. For eighty-eight to surface between July 1 and September 30, precisely in the controversial summer months after the TMI accident, seemed unlikely.”
More about NRC: http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2011/07/15/us-n-r-c-says-tritium-is-normal-reason-for-children-leukemia/
Why low radiation (PETKAU EFFECT) is dangerous & how it works: http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2011/03/14/low-radiation-the-petkau-effect/
Posted in Uncategorized, tagged Atomic, BEIR VII, Belarus, Berteill, CERRIE, Chernobyl, compensation, Dictatorship, Embryo, Fötus, Fetus, Fukushima, health, IAEA, Ian Fairlie, ICRP, irradiated, Japan, Kinder, Lukaschenko, Lukashenko, Meltdown, Minsk, Nesterenko, nuclear, nuklear, Professor Tatsuhiko Kodama, TEPCO, Tiritium, Tokyo University, Tschernobyl, UNSCEAR, WHO, World Health Organisation on July 24, 2011 | 11 Comments »
It’s the first after Chernobyl.*
*quote: 2009, by Burkhard Homeyer, pastor & chairman “Fund for the Children of Chernobyl”, Germany, Belarus (http://www.bag-tschernobyl.net/wer-wir-sind.html)
Evacuation-Ready Zone to Be Abolished on September 30: http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2011/09/radiation-in-japan-evacuation-ready.html
Lukashenka wants to repopulate Chernobyl Chernobyl’s Zone “quickly” http://charter97.org/en/news/2009/4/26/17680/
The secret Agenda of Japan & IAEA is in full effect. Like in Belarus, where 72% of the Chernobyl fallout went down.
Principal Sawai of Yumoto Daini Middle School, Iwaki City, Fukushima: “The radiation problem is already finished,” he told the children and their parents. “You can go to school and go outside without any problem. You should not fear malicious gossip.” SOURCE: http://japanfocus.org/-Makiko-Segawa/3516
1996 said the belarusian president Lukashenko during a meeting of the IAEA: “We encourage people to come back. We will open the shops again and enable the people to return to their evacuated towns and villages.”
National statements were made by the President of Belarus, Mr. A. Lukashenko:
quote: “Lukashenko, as far as I understand, is doing it somewhat surreptitiously. It is not an open process. There are reports, for instance, of encouraging agriculture, redeveloping dairying and forestry operations, and encouraging people either to resettle or to move into contaminated areas.” – from (page 51): http://www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/pubs/OP295.pdf
BELARUS adopted a new program, that killed financial support for irradiated areas:
March 20, 1997:
President Lukashenko has ordered university graduates to teach in areas affected with high levels of radiation from Chernobyl: http://www.russianmeetingplace.com/forums/russia-ukraine-belarus-travel-news/topic.php/312-1.html
Lukashenko sends grads to contaminated areas: http://www.lindsayfincher.com/lukashenko-sends-grads-to-contaminated-areas.html
His statements of “overcoming Chernobyl” can be found from page 47 on, http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1001_web.pdf ONE DECADE AFTER
CHERNOBYL Summing up the Consequences of the Accident Proceedings of an International Conference Vienna, 8-12 April 1996
Angela Merkel IGNORES all data and Chernobyl studies, showing an increase in diseases, mutation, disbility, mortality and morbidity and so on. EVIDENCE: http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub1001_web.pdf ANGELA MERKEL said in 1996 at the IAEA meeting: page 51: “This week’s conference is an attempt to formulate a synthesis from the results of the meetings of the WHO in Geneva, the European Commission in Minsk and the International Forum on Nuclear Safety Aspects here in Vienna.(…) We must assess the epidemiological findings for other types of cancer, in particular with regard to leukaemia, which has always been thought to be the most sensitive indicator for exposure to radiation. There have not yet been any cases of leukaemia attributable to the disaster. What does this mean for the future? In this connection we will have to examine what this means for the development of other tumours or other health effects as the results of exposure to radiation.We think that we know that these effects on health are psychological consequences of the accident, the general uncertainty about the actual situation, as well as other stress factors, e.g. resettlement. This was associated with a disruption of social networks. Several hundred thousand people were evacuated or resettled, with enormous social implications. At the same time we can see an increase in the accumulation of specific diseases — not yet regarded as radiation induced — particularly among children.” SHE IGNORES 1000,000 ill Chernobyl children. (pure PR, with a foto of her in 1996 at the IAEA together, where also president Lukashenko of Belarus was and demanded Come back to irradiated areas, people!: http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull383/38304781423.pdf)
The 1996 IAEA Conference has a successor: The 2011 Fukushima Symposium: http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2011/09/10/this-years-911-will-be-japans-2nd-fukushima-warning/
Japan Forced School Children To Clean Radioactive Dirt From Swimming Pools: http://www.examiner.com/civil-rights-in-jersey-city/japan-forced-school-children-to-clean-radioactive-dirt-from-swimming-pools
CENSORSHIP is the only HELP radiation vicitims get.
Riot policemen against participants of “Chernobyl Way” in Minsk (Photo, video) http://charter97.org/en/news/2009/4/26/17678/
Livestream from Tokyo anti nuclear demonstrations and crackdown by Riot Police: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/kamatayusuke#utm_campaign=t.co&utm_source=7970606&utm_medium=social
Chernobyl’s Hostages: http://www.rri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/NSRG/en/Novosti.html#Yr9904 – quote “What could they do in that situation? They made the most simplest decision – to return to the contaminated zones. Why? Because it is at least a week guarantee that they will have Chernobyl’s compensations for those remaining. For example, people living in zones of eviction have the right to receive 50 rubles per month (today it is about 2 USD). People working in that zones have rights to receive 300 rubles per month (it is about 12 USD). Taking into account that the average salary in Novozubkovo is 290 rubles per month, it is not difficult to imagine how such little money is important for the people.” More: http://www.rri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/NSRG/en/Novosti.html
This is an example from Japan: http://fukushima-diary.com/2011/08/column-what-is-the-purpose-of-people-to-call-us-paranoid/
Japan could use the The daiyo kangoku justice system (http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/japan/report-2011) against whistleblowers and civil society. And Saiban-in (Lay Judge) System http://www.amnestyusa.org/research/reports/annual-report-japan-2011?page=2
Japanese government killing its own people in Fukushima – Offficals running away during public hearing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVuGwc9dlhQ
Anger in Japan Over Withheld Radiation Forecasts http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/09/world/asia/09japan.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all%3Fsrc%3Dtp
Japan’s throwaway workers: http://mg.co.za/article/2011-06-27-japans-throwaway-nuclear-workers/
This company http://www.adk.jp/ made a contract with Resources and Energy Agency for 70,000,000JPY to monitor internet.
Welcome to the battle field. (thanks to Sakurako for this information): This is how REAL (government made) radiation protection looks like: CENSORSHIP. This is all they do.
Japanese civil society: http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201107270451.html
Quote by Mariko Ichikawa, head of a consumer group from July 23rd 2011:
“Experts say there is no effect on health if you eat a small amount of meat with the current [low] level of contamination. It may be necessary to check all meat cows in Fukushima Prefecture, but is it necessary for the government to use a large amount of taxpayers’ money to buy the [contaminated] meat and burn it? We need more discussion”
“I want everyone to remember the BSE crisis in the US, when people trusted the domestic beef. “
Original japanese Source: http://mainichi.jp/select/opinion/closeup/news/20110723ddm003040079000c.html
We do not need more discussion. We need to understand, that radionuclides in food cause no immediate dangers, because of the latency of Cesium 137 and Strontium 90, for example.
BSE is not subtantial equivalent to radiation. One is radiation of radionuclides with a halflife (30 years, but 300 years biological) the other is a Brain disease epidemic (BSE).
The statement of Mariko Ichikawa is criminal.
Here is a cry for survival from Fukushima with english subtitles: http://www.universalsubtitles.org/ja/videos/o9gtNtWoaqpZ/
Need more background? Listen to one of the leading atomic scientsts on earth: http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2011/07/18/scientist-chris-busby-in-japan-reports/
One Japanese Citizen’s View of Fukushima Anarch: http://akiomatsumura.com/2011/07/one-japanese-citizens-view-of-fukushima-anarchy.html
DIARY of a Fukushima liquidator: http://yfrog.com/user/Happy20790/profile
Over 2,600 Meat Cows Suspected of Being Fed with Radioactive Rice Hay:
Original japanese Source: http://www.tokyo-np.co.jp/s/article/2011072301000673.html
High Level of Plutonium rumored to have been detected in rice paddies 50 km from Fukushima I:
Radioactive iodine found in breast milk of Japanese mothers:
Report from Japan: http://www.dianuke.org/mochizuki-ioris-report-from-japan-4/
Japan: Science VS Politicians: http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2011/07/part-2-professor-tatsuhiko-kodama-of.html
Cesium 137 in Japan’s food chain:
Herbs? Clay? Cure? That’s un ethic money making by esoteric people and business men.
Here is an article of the belarusian independent newspaper “Luninetz Progulka” – one of only 15 remaining independent in whole Belarus! This article speaks about the reduction of financial suppoert for irradiated areas and “ending Chernobyl” – it was a official decision by the government!
This is me and the deputy editor, in June 2011:
Read this: Since 2006, non-state Newspaper Inform-progulka Is prohibited for Sale at Newspaper Kiosk
quote “The almost absence of an independent press in Belarus leads to two central problems for the democratic opposition: on one hand their publicity and effectiveness is low and on the other hand, the state press is aggressively used as a propaganda tool against the independent press – and not just since the events following the presidential election.”: http://www.lphr.org/en/news/news-details/article/printmedien-in-belarus/
Will happen with newspapers in Japan also.
Japan officials are going to call radiation measurements illegal and that they are disturbing the industry. Health plays no role. They are adapting the IAEA ideology of Radiophobia: The fear of radiation is worse than the radiation. Civil Society with it’s Fukushima NGOs will become a threat to the poitical level and hunted down like in Belarus.
Dear Japan. Welcome to the Atomic State. A modern dictatorship. Where the Victims become the Offenders.
The health standard in Japan: 100 Millisieverts is o.k.
Original Japanese Source: http://www.asahi.com/special/10005/TKY201107210634.html
Japan launches PR drive for nuclear power: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8600981/Japan-launches-PR-drive-for-nuclear-power.html
over 1300 cattle suspected of radiation contamination shipped: http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/over-1300-cattle-suspected-of-radiation-contamination-shipped
Even 250 Millisievert are o.k.
Please be aware, that 100 mSv represent an equivalent of 200 mammograms!
Japan increased the dose limit for children by 2000 percent: Which is now 20 mSv / per year -> 50 mammograms for every child PER YEAR.
If they increase the dose limit, there will be nothing left to censor!
The devil is relying on the bible. By the way death penalty is in Japan as in Belarus.
Soon, Japan will struck of irradiated areas from the radiation map, just like Belarus did: http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2008/05/14/government-1000-villages-struck-off-from-being-contaminated/
THIS WILL HAPPEN IN JAPAN: Stopping compensation and support for irradiated areas:
And it will lead to: criminal humanitarian programs: http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2011/03/18/core-a-chernobyl-aid-program-that-kills/
“If we continue to treat them like victims, they feel like victims,” quote by Zoya I. Trafimchik, coordinator of the CORE programme
The costs of the atomic accident, tsnuami and earthquake are invaluable, because the full impact on human health is yet to come:
quote: “In about 4 years we’re going to see the same with japanese children.
The then children are already suffering much earlier – often with fatal consequences.
The cesium is present in the inheritance cells.
Precarious, is that the cesium implants in the ovaries and the eggs of women. Because renew their loans, they are damaged for life.
Although renewed in sperm, they also give more information to the injury during fertilization. Either, it can no longer be fathered children, or they get through father and mother misinformation in the future. The result you can not even imagine.
The authorities in Japan had long ago have put women and children in the south of the country. Why they did not is, in my view, totally incomprehensible. There will be massive leukemia. This cesium cloud is a disaster for the Japanese, and from all other radionuclides, we know nothing.
The body can not distinguish between Calcium and Strontium. If it is taken in through the food chain. It is built into the bones and teeth, shines there and hits the bone marrow, where sit the blood-forming organs: The stem cells that give rise to the red and white blood cells and platelets.
These cells are damaged by Strontium, and indeed a lifetime, because the strontium remains where it is: irradiating with short and beta radiation.”
Costs make pressure. Pressure destroys the democracy. No country in the world can pay for an atomic accident. Not a single reactor is assured, it’s simpy too expensive:
Human Health costs and nuclear energy:
Killing our own:
The Disaster of America’s Experience
with Atomic Radiation
Harvey Wasserman & Norman Solomon
the complete 1982 book: http://www.ratical.org/radiation/KillingOurOwn/
Belarus is transforming into a 2nd generation of some kind of Atomic State (Before: Chernobyl, Now: Reactor). Which means everyone who speaks against atomic power is an enemy of the state. New developments are under way: Belarusian officials detain over 450 after rally: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ht93_cpV6vNi4Z5PsSGCiTOtxLGQ?docId=e6806b5fd8b240bbae405d2bfd098e74&index=0
After leaving Areva, SIEMENS (web) cooperates with ROSATOM (web) – the russian concern, which started building the first Belarusian atomic reactor. Belarus is the most Chernobyl affected country in the world. Still more than 2 million people are living in contaminated areas there.
This is how the situation is Belarus is RIGHT NOW:
I wrote on March 15th 2011: http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2011/03/15/fukushima-the-iaea-strategy/
The IAEA wants the people make believe, that the main effect of the atomic catastrophe is psychological. This is made in these steps:
- Make the people believe, that because of background radiation every additional radiation is natural, normal, not bad (known as the principle of “substantial equivalence”)
- Tell the people, that Fukushima is not as bad as Chernobyl, and, Chernobyl was a small accident (50 deaths acc. to WHO, 125,000 deaths acc. to Ukrainian health minisry 1993).
- Make the people believe, that any other statement is panic and unobjective (The IAEA uses the word “Radiophobia” for Chernobyl)
- The IAEA recognizes the disease in highly contaminated areas as not in connection with the contamination.
- Make sure that there are no independent measurements, only measurements by the atomic power plant operator, it is also important NOT to show radiation measurements during the TV weather forecasts.
- Make sure that there are no organized measurements at all, for each region, each plant, each city – especially not in the media. Or do reconstrucion on the basis of official data, which are often too low.
- Advise the officals with authentic language
- Advise the government to install a 30 km No Enter Zone – invented and used during the atomic weapon test in the U.S. – but 30 km is not enough for an atomic reactor accident.
- Refuse cancer studies like the german KiKK study as unscientific
- Raise radiation limits for different groups of people, so that different values can be measured but each is normal, and below the limt
Prof. Hiroaki Koide concludes that if Tokyo has been contaminated this much, then ‘areas within Fukushima prefecture must be seriously contaminated’.
Japanese government wants to reduce evacuation zone:
Prime minister Kan traveled to Fukushima on Saturday July 16th to talk with local officials.
Minami Soma city is asking all the evacuees to come back to their land:
Russian activist released from Belarusian jail after protesting against the new belarusian reactor: http://www.anti-atom.ru/en/node/1301
When the kiss of the mother is deadly for the child:
The ICRP says “The cancer risk goes up by 0.5% with 100 millisieverts exposure.”
Well, that’s the ICRP: A direct servant of the atomic industry itsel. I qoute myself again: http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2011/03/22/iaea-uncesco-icrp-playing-down-radiation-in-fukushima-and-chernobyl-is-scientifically-valid/
Report of the International Komietees the IAEA in 1991: The international Chernobyl project, assess the effects on health and the environment and evaluation of radiation protection measures. Presentation 1991, in Vienna. Chairman of the Committee, Dr Itsuzo Shigematsu – also chairman of the Researching the effects of radiation -> RERF (web) in Hiroshima Institute.
He set up the limit of the dose for the resettlement and maximum values for contaminated food.
Source: ICRP: Protection of the Public in the Event of Major Radiation Accidents: Principles and Planing – ICRP Publication 40th Annuals of the ICRP, 14, no. 2. 1984
ICRP: Principles for intervention of Protection of the Public in a Radiological Emergency. ICRP Publication 63rd 1993
The IAEA has criticized the RCRP, they should apply the ICRP guidelines. This means that people relocating is unnecessary if the level of individual radiation mSv in the first year after an accident does not exceed 500. (ICRP 1984) If this dose is short, there are acute Radiations symptoms. 500 mSv are also equivalent of 1.7 km distance to Ground Zero in Hiroshima.
Nov. 1992: The ICRP INCREASED the dose for the evacuation in 1Sv – the equivalent to 1.3 km to the Hiroshima Ground Zero.
This means the continuation of nuclear power, even if people die.
1992: increased occupational radiation ICRP recommends to 0.05 Sv / year.
IAEA and WHO deny leukemia in connection with radiation.
1954 ICRP was an organisation of 13 male members. Till 1990 the first woman came to them…
They made the recommendations for radiation protection norms, which were accepted by all countries, and which (very important!) justified the set of regulations of the IAEA. Interesting isn’t it? Here is one:
ICRP said, the tritium emission (from atomic power plants) in water should be 40.000 Bq. And now the crazy progress of the ICRP: In 1990 they said: Lets make 7000 Bq/ litre. This was proved by ACES (Comitee for environmental standards). They said: Wrong housenumber, change the 7000 (Because of cancer danger). They also said: Lower it to 100 Bq in five years until you get 20 Bq / Litre.
I think its a big difference between 40.000 and 20, don’t you?
That’s why we should never tolerate a number for low radiation emission from atomic power plants.
But the IAEA uses them in a very cruel way, since the Chernobyl reactor explosion in 1986. If you read through a paper from 1990 (called “Document Nr. 60 1990), written by the ICRP you find the description
“temporary radiation effect”.
Effects which they did not find heavy enough in order that the effected people can be compensated.
Japanese people hear it from Fukshima day One: “Panic and fear of radiation is much worse than radiation itself“
This statement is used by the IAEA for Chernobyl victims.
The IAEA ignores cancer, leukemia, diabetes, trisomy 21, all kinds of illness, all kinds of cancer in connection with radiation, especially low radiation.
The IAEA calls it “Radiophobia”: http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/31/017/31017716.pdf – this is what Japan now uses for their anti radiation fear propaganda.
The present and future victims are perceived as a disturbance to the atomic industry, to the japanese government, to the companies running atomic plants. They are going to end it.
Since the foundation of the IAEA their purpose is: To serve and protect the atomic industry in these five countries: USA, Russia, China, France, Britain.
They also monopolized public health during and after atomic accidents, by the gag contract WHA 12-40 between them and the WHO (1959). SOURCE
ICRP totally gave up tp IAEA. IAEA is doing ICRP work today. And more: IAEA is selling the “peacefull atomic energy theory” worldwide. Although peaceful atomic reactos do develop low radiation (whose effects IAEA does try to deny) and weapon-ready Plutonium. It’s a BIG money game they are playing for decades and which will end hopefully soon (Uranium range: 60 years and below).
ICRP is NOT the organisation (in my opinion) which is in charge to protect the workers of the atomic industry. The ICRP does make down-the-lines and brings economic “imperative” into account. ICRP is not the advocator for radiation protection. Are there ICRP members who do have an apprenticeship in public health or industrial medicine?
More background: HOW MUCH RADIATION? http://www.ratical.org/radiation/KillingOurOwn/KOO12.html
ICRP members are profiteers of the atomic industry, just like the IAEA. Don’t expect to them to make radiation safety for YOU. This is an evidence that our modern society seems to have big problems.
Critique of ICRP structure and membership by Dr. Rosalie Bertel: http://ratical.org/radiation/inetSeries/wwc2_10.txt
“The Board (AECB Canada) relies heavily on the recommendations of international agencies and committees. Two of the most important of which are the ICRP and UNSCEAR.”
“The dominant expertise among ICRP membership between 1950 and 1985 was physicists, with one biophysicist (46.9% of the person years). “
“Clearly when practically all members are in the pay of their respective governments, ICRP cannot claim to be free of all bias, conflict of interest or government pressure.”
“Membership in ICRP appears to be made on the basis of occupational affiliation with national nuclear research (military or commercial) and regulatory agencies. It clearly provides a forum for dialogue on nuclear policies and standards among nations with a clear governmental standardize their “story” relative to the health trade off (risks) of their nuclear activities (benefits).”
“UNSCEAR, as all United Nations Agencies, is an organization of delegates sent by member governments. It does not make recommendations on radiological health and safety practices but serves primarily as an information gathering agency.
quotes by UNSCEAR from: http://ratical.org/radiation/CNR/NoSafeThresh.html / What Is Factually Wrong with This Belief: “Harm from Low-Dose Radiation Is Just Hypothetical — Not Proven”
“”The extent to which radiation-induced DNA damage may be correctly repaired at very low doses and very low dose rates is beyond the resolution of current experimental techniques. If DNA double-strand breaks are critical lesions determining a range of cellular responses, including perhaps neoplastic transformation, then it may be that wholly accurate cellular repair is unlikely even at the very low lesion abundance expected after low dose and low-dose-rate irradiation.”
“”It is highly unlikely that a dose threshold exists for the initial molecular damage to DNA, because a single track from any ionizing radiation has a finite probability of producing a sizable cluster of atomic damage directly in, or near, the DNA. Only if the resulting molecular damage, plus any additional associated damage from the same track, were always repaired with total efficiency could there be any possibility of a dose threshold for consequent cellular effects.”
“Biological effects are believed to arise predominantly from residual DNA changes that originate from radiation damage to chromosomal DNA. It is the repair response of the cell that determines its fate. The majority of damage is repaired, but it is the remaining unrepaired or misrepaired damage that is then considered responsible for cell killing, chromosomal aberrations, mutations, transformations and cancerous changes.”
“The BEIR Committees are heavily staffed with personnel from U.S. Government nuclear research laboratories such as Oak Ridge and Brookhaven, and with researchers from the atomic bomb research centers at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There is a greater breadth of expertise on the BEIR Committees than on ICRP and much more internal dissent. However, the Committee assumes an adversarial rather than scientific role. “
“The delegates to ICRP, UNSCEAR and BEIR chosen by their respective governments have both personal and national compelling reason for perpetuating their closed structure and secrecy.”
Why BEIR VII (Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation) plays in the hand of atomic industry – quote “they rely on data from Hiroshima and Nagasaki to assess for low dose exposure in humans. BEIR VII is assessing continuous or routine low doses, but data from Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not adequate predictors of the full range of health effects for various types of exposure…”
Excerpts from the book “No Immediate Danger, Prognosis for a Radioactive Earth, by Dr Rosalie Bertell ” (http://www.ratical.org/radiation/NRBE/NRBEtoc.html)
ICRP: More about Radiaton Protection Standards: http://www.ratical.org/radiation/NRBE/NRBE11.html
ICRP: Failure to Audit Health: http://www.ratical.org/radiation/NRBE/NRBE12.html
“Activists from Belarus and Germany arrested brutally at peaceful anti-nuclear action
Minsk, 25th April, 18.35 belarussian time. 6 activists from germany and 5 activists from Belarus, as well as one activist from Poland have been brutally arrested.
Around 40 activists have protested peacefully against the construction of the first nuclear power in Ostrovetz, Belarus. They held banners saying «Chernobyl, Fukushima — Ostrovets?» and «We are against nuclear power plants» and gave out leaflets. There were two flashmobs – the first lasted around 5 min.
However, the second flashmob was interrupted immediately. After around one minute two vehicles with civil police stopped, as well as a red prisoner’s transport. Peaceful protestors were thrown to the ground and arrested using brutal force.
Against all nuclear power installations! No newbuild of nuclear power plants — in Belarus or anywhere! Solidarity with political prisoners!
You think it’s only Japan and Belarus? Think again:
Tim DeChristopher’s Imprisonment: Our Call to Action! http://www.peacefuluprising.org/tim-dechristophers-imprisonment-our-call-to-action-20110726
France: Atomic Industry knows no freedom of speech: http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2011/07/12/france-atomic-industry-knows-no-freedom-of-speech-the-epr-junk-reactor/
5,000,000 Beq/L is a quote by Dr Ian Fairlie (UK) from the Committee Examining Radiation Risks of Internal Emitters founded by UK Government in 2001- made public by the IPPNW (nobel peace prize 1985) on Sept.16th 2010. It’s common science now and not conspiracy: http://www.ippnw2010.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Press/WOZ_37_S5.pdf
This is a statement of the pro nuclear IAEA “Significant activity of tritium is escaping into air by the way of the cooling towers” at: 4th Meeting WG7, 6 – 9 September 2010, Aix-en-Provence, France: http://www-ns.iaea.org/downloads/rw/projects/emras/emras-two/first-technical-meeting/fourth-working-group-meeting/working-group-presentations/workgroup7-presentations/presentation-4th-wg7-czech-npp.pdf
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.
war is going on.
It was made publicly known in 1953 when President Dwight D. Eisenhower declared war upon every citizen and human being with “The Peaceful Atom”. It was then further developed in 1954 with the first hydrogen bomb testing which changed the most important international program for radiation protection and compensation: THE ALARA PRINCIPLE: http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2011/03/21/iaea-and-icrp-the-alara-principle/, the h bomb testing is the successor to the Hiroshima / Nagasaki testing (!). The BASE for ALL RADIATION LIMITS is the T65D Study (Tentative Dose Estimate compiled in 1965): http://www.rerf.or.jp/glossary_e/t65d.htm For validation of this study the US even did an atomic test in Nevada: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/212/4497/900.extract
The indirect chemical damage to cell membranes in the low dose range is much more important than the direct effect of radiation on the nucleus with its genetic material. In the nucleus there appears to be much stronger repair mechanisms than in the cell membranes. This is consistent with the purposes of evolution: Increasingly higher development of life. First and foremost, namely the genes in the nucleus had greatly developed by repair mechanisms to be protected. Only then could the nature of the gene pool protect itself against the highly damaging properties of natural radiation, and thus maintain the relative stability of species over millions of years.
> Petkau A. Effects of 22 Na + on phospholipid membrane injury to irradiated erythrocytes. Radiation Research 1968, 34:335-346.
>Sternglass EJ. Implication of dose-rate dependent cell-membrane damage for the biological effets of medical and environmental radiation. Proceedings of the symposium on population exposures, Knoxville TN, October 21-23, 1974. (CONF-741 018)
But in contrast to the gene pool, individual members of populations (plants, animals, people) for the evolution are not so important to the contrary, her constant death and her replacement by reproduction is an important evolutionary process. The repair mechanisms in the cell membranes were needed, but weren’t so important, because you only caused diseases, but no genetic defects. And if one member of a population has fulfilled its evolutionary role of reproduction, sit is no longer needed, so a life extension beyond the reproductive age is also not absolutely necessary. This is for the survival of animals and plant species are not necessarily problematic, however, for human society. Each individual hopes to a long and healthy life, far beyond reproduction age. In addition, an adaptation to environmental toxic substances in humans is not possbile, because of the generational change phaes which are very long. But we add more radiation by atomic energy with it’s low radiation emission, accidents, catastrophes – which are peeks.