Posts Tagged ‘food’


Parents, Teachers, Students must unite and measure Radioactive Atoms IN the FOOD and IN the BODY. Independent and ALL the time. Never trust officials and official measurements. Avoid them and radiation at all cost. Unite and buy Beta Gamma Activity Monitors. HOW? Ask: CRMS Japan and / or BELRAD Belarus. This work can be involved in the biology and physics or in home economics in order to create an awareness in the school. The opportunity must be free, 24hrs open, and for everyone. Expect to be called “panic makers” by officials. They instead let the radiation fly into the body of you, via dose limits.


Radio-cesium and strontium are the most widely “common” spread and damaging radioactive atoms from nuclear reactors, nuclear bombs, nuclear disasters.  They are atoms, so they know no boundaries. This is not part of their job. They are smaller than any border. Also they are smaller than any physical protection, especially if they are IN the body. For example, the placenta does not protect against them per se. They are active for 10 generations (Strontium 90 – 285 years, Cesium 137 – 301 years). Radio-Cesium is water soluable. So it spreads extremely fast in the environment. Both are transported over long distances. With food chain, wind, soil, biodiversity, YOU. The wetter the soil, the more cesium. All plants that grow in moist soil can be affected with it. Typical cesium collectors are fungi, moss, vegetables, grass, lichens, berries (including cranberry).
Plant -> man
Animals -> plants -> Milk -> man
Algae -> Fish -> man
Animals and plants do not care about the scale of the nuclear disaster. They can not read warning signs. We should. Food is the main source of radioactive atoms into the organism, into the body of your child. Everything above zero is destructive. External radiation can be measured with Geiger counters. Internal radiation from radioactive atoms in the body is too weak to be measured with Geiger counters, but strong enough to destroy. A 1,3 billionths of a gram of Cesium 137 (4,000 becquerel) creates a load of 100 Becquerel per Kg in the body of a 40 Kg heavy child.
Particularly dangerous: Game, mushrooms, blueberries.
In Belarus, all limits were exceeded by 80 to 100 %. Milk carries not only Stronium 90 but also Cesium 137. Milk is a big danger for children. It can lead to sudden deterioration of health. Confused with childhood diseases.  To measure food it needs special equipment. The food is chopped, portioned, and sealed in a lead container. The container measures only the food, which is shielded by the lead of background radiation.
It is not enough for people in irradiated environments, if only external radiation is measured in milli Sievert per year.

90% is internal radiation in the body.
About Whole Body Counters: They give you an average of the WHOLE burden in your body of radioactive atoms (Cesium 137 for example) in Speed (Becquerel) per body Kilogram (bq/kg). BUT: It is a WHOLE and NOT a PARTIAL BODY or PARTIAL ORGAN SCANNER. There is a tiny flash each time energy is given out by the radioactive atoms in your children (in the crystals of the device). It appears below a chair in which your child sits. This flash is “translated” into / via a program / computer into Becquerel per Kg. The device is shielded with lead against background radiation. And it is NOT invasive, not dangerous for you and your child. This means: a) If you have 20 Bq / Kg Cesium 137, you can have 10 or 100 times more Cesium 137 in your heart and / or cardio vascular system, because Cesium mimics potassium. And b) a child takes in even 3 to 5 times more substances, among them of course radioactive atoms. The fast metabolism does not help, and the mitosis even accelerates the damage. Youri Bandazhevsky (Belarus), anatomical pathologist, President of the Center for Analysis and Coordination “Ecology and Health”. From the syndrome of chronic incorporation of long lived radionuclides (SLIR) to the creation of programmes and radioprotection policies for populations  said: “cesium is easy to accumulate in the heart” “50 Becquerel break your heart rhythm at 20 to 30 becquerel per kilogram of body weight” (CHILDREN!) “if, during pregnancy, there is more than 200 becquerel per kilogram of cesium in the placenta it can lead to sudden death of the child”: http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2012/05/13/%E3%83%A6%E3%83%BC%E3%83%AA%E3%83%BC%E3%83%BB%E3%83%90%E3%83%B3%E3%83%80%E3%82%B8%E3%82%A7%E3%83%95%E3%82%B9%E3%82%AD%E3%83%BC-cesium-137-and-children-may-12th-2012/
Cesium 137 and Children
Cardiac insufficiency in 18% of children with less than 5 becquerel per kg
65% in children with 11 to 26 becquerels per kg
87% in children with 74 becquerels per kg
All belarusian children have heart problems: http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2012/04/14/children-radiation-maps-2/
People living in an area with 1 million becquerels per square meter they get their reasonable dose in 35 years. In a 10 million becquerels per square meter area in less than 4 years. Radioactivity. Each additional radioactivity which we are exposed to harms our bodies. The natural radioactivity with which we are surrounded. Life arose in a radiation environment.  Radiation is not life-friendly. It is a hostile factor. Life has prevailed against this hostile factor. The natural radiation. The beta radiation of strontium has a range of 1 millimeter. No matter where it is installed, it reaches the stem cells with its beta radiation. From the stem cells, everything is made. So the stem cells are bombarded constantly. What are the symptoms? We received the following reports of Chernobyl, in the late 80ies: Chernobyl AIDS. Symptoms of anemia with decreased number of red blood cells. A therapy resitant anemia. Vitamins and iron will not help. The ongoing hemorrhage, the bleeding e.g. from the nose. Decreased number of platelets, which are indeed involved in blood clotting. The immune system of children. They are always sick, every little infection “throws them around”. They constantly have colds, infections. And low white blood cells in the blood. This is easily explained: With a Bone marrow suppression: The bone marrow – due to the constant bombardment – and especially because of the accumulation of strontium – lost the ability to compensate.Radioactivity means selective delivery of energy. On the molecules in our body. They are tiny pinholes in the shortest possible time. But with full force. We are constantly exposed to such radiation damage each second. Every second. Permanenent.And life could not exist and the information of Life could not be passed on, if we have not developed effective repair mechanisms. But the repair mechanisms are very complex and it takes time. The shorter the life cycle of a cell, the less time remains for the repair. This explains why children with rapidly growing tissue, with rapidly dividing cells – are particularly sensitive to radiation. Mitosis.#
It is often forgotten that rays also damage the retina and the vitreous body of the eye.

Stochastic effects and children:
There is statistical health damage caused by the so-called low-level radiation (above ZERO up to 500mSv.) That is not assigned to any particular people, but occur in a defined population. This issue is the subject of thousands of studies all over the world since the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, and I will discuss in detail below with reference to examples. Factors such as age, gender, health, immune system, nutrition, social situation and the duration of exposure of the radioactivity influence the onset of cancer and other diseases. Until the Chernobyl disaster, the biological effects in the body of the
radioactive isotopes have been undervalued.

It is now clear: Any radiation poses a risk especially for children who are extremely radiosensitive.

1) A child is constantly increasing in weight and size, it grows from the intrauterine embryo to adult, the younger, the faster. Therefore, the cells divide much more frequently than an adult. Cells in the division phase (mitosis) are more vulnerable to radiation than cells in the resting phase.

2) The ability of the body to recognize “defective” cells and to  eliminate them develops during childhood. An embryo has not yet this ability. Therefore  “defective” cells can multiply unimpeded and later lead to cancer or heritable diseases.

3) A child that grows must hold more substances than emiting them, more than an adult. The body of a child takes in more radioactive substances in food, drink and air we breathe than adults. Especially dangerous are 137 and Cs-134 and 137 and Sr-90 – deposited in the muscles or in the bone (see below).

4) Children have their whole lives ahead of them. Some diseases caused by radiation take a long time to occur (latency): 20 or even 30 years. Children are more likely than older adults to reach the dubious chance to see the end of this latency. In the human body there are about 200 different cell types, each has a different function.

Basically, each cell can respond to injury with four responses:

1) The damage is so severe that the cell dies.

2) The cell can repair the damage (in children see above).

3) The cell loses its ability to produce certain substances, such as in the pancreas gland which can not produce insulin anymore (increase of diabetes in Belarus among children and adults) or other digestive juices during the growth, of the thyroid hormones.

4) The malignant cells degenerate and there is cancer.

It is now clear: Any radiation poses a risk especially for children who are extremely radiosensitive.

The effect of 4 isotopes of iodine -131, Strontium-90, Tritium (H-3) and cesium – 134 / 137 on the human body I will now show more detail, not without pointing out the most toxic isotope, plutonium (Pu-239), that triggers in micrograms cancer. It is produced in each reactor in the fission of uranium, about 250kg per year and reactor.

Iodine – 131

Half-life of 8-9 days, but the full decay time means it is located in the area about 3 months. It is a gas and can be transported hundreds of kilometers in the clouds, where it then falls as rain. In normal operation of reactors 10,000,000,000 becquerel escape per year allowed – and per reactor! Bythe disasters at Chernobyl and Fukushima huge amounts were set free and were absorbed by the body through the breath and the food. In particular, the thyroid gland needs much iodine for the preparation of growth hormone. The child’s growing body needs very much and can not distinguish between the radioactive isotope and the normal iodine. Radio-Iodine emits beta and gamma rays in the tissue, and damages the organ.
As in the first years of Chernobyl no ultrasound examinations were performed because opf the absence of equipment – there is no information about the early damage in the thyroid. In the Fukushima Prefecture live 360 ,000 children and adolescents aged 0-18 years. Approximately 60,000 were previously studied. In over 40% nodes and cysts were found.
Normally, these changes are not seen until adulthood. They do not belong to young thyroid glands. They are the expression of a diffuse injury. What will happen can only be seen in follow-up examinations (see above). By Chernobyl 4,000 children in Belarus dveloped thyroid cancer, throughout the Soviet Union probably 7,000 children developed thyroid cancer, which practically did not occur until 1986 in children. On my first visit to Minsk in 1990, I saw in a clinic children of all ages, even very small, which went through surgery and were already in a rehabilitation clinic. But also chronic thyroid inflammation and Hypothyroidism /  Hyperthyroidism occur and must be regularly examined and treated so that a Child can thrive. Meanwhile, the thyroid cancer also occurs in adults (see latency) and we can see thyroid gland dysfunctionagain and again in children from Belarus.

Strontium – 90 and Tritium, H-3

Tritium is a beta emitter with a half-life of 12.3 years. Nuclear power plants in normal operation emit it in large quantities over their chimney and their waste into water, into the environment. It combines with oxygen to “heavy water” (HTO). Again, plants, animals or the human body, can not differ between Tritium and H²O. It is absorbed into the body, and even built into the genes, where the beta particles – are close enough to radiosensitive structures to cause diseases and genetic defects – despite the low range. Strontium-90., a beta-emitter with a half life of 28.8 years (full decay time 288 years), is leaving reactors to the environment in much smaller quantities as tritium or cesium. Since it is held by the body for calcium, it is also incorporated into the teeth and the bone (http://www.radiation.org/projects/tooth_fairy.html). Beta particles radiate the whole life time in the bone marrow into highly sensitive ares where hematopoiesis takes place. Even small amounts of Sr-90 are therefore the most dangerous triggers for leukemia (blood cancer) in children. The bone marrow also contains the stem cells of the red blood cells. They are damaged, and cause anemia, with negative consequences for the welfare of the children. The immune bodies are formed in the bone marrow. This ability is reduced or no longer available and the result is what you can call “Chernobyl AIDS”, a weakened immune system. Minor infection widen into bronchitis or pneumonia. It also seems that after vaccination not enough Antibodies are fomed. Bone cancer in children – used to be very rare – is also caused by the built in Strontium-90.. In the summer, belarusian children of last year, we saw massive caries. In my opinion also be the result of built in Strontium-90.

“It is well known that radiation can cause mutations in bacteria and viruses. Andrei Sakharov, the famous Russian physicist, described in his 1992 Memoirs that even at low levels radiation could increase mutations of bacteria and viruses. His predictions, which were originally made in 1958, have come true and we are seeing new ailments such as Reye’s syndrome which first appeared in 1963, and Legionnaires’ disease, which is caused by a bacteria that was not threatening prior to 1976. AIDS may be related to a mutated virus combined with a weakened immunity in a generation born after the first nuclear weapons were detonated.”

„When the radiation from such isotopes as strontium-89 and 90 in the bone marrow mutates an existing virus that invades the T-cells of the immune system    and kills them in the process of replication, the stage is set for the complete collapse of the immune defenses and resulting death from opportunistic infections or cancer.” http://www.nuclearreader.info/chapter1.html

Cesium – 137
Half-life is about 30 years (full decay time 300 years), biological half-life of 50-150 days, in children it tends to be shorter. Cesium is excreted through the kidneys. The body uses it as potassium, which is located in each cell. Cesium sends beta and gamma radiation from the decay, and is absorbed by the body from the diet quickly and completely. In whole-body radiation measurements (Whold Body Counter Check-ups), the gamma radiation of cesium – 137 is measured in Bq / kg of body weight and measured before and after a recovery residence of children from Belarus a significant decrease of the Cesium can be seen: http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2012/04/14/children-radiation-maps-2/ Cesium  is the “leading isotope” by the disasters of Chernobyl and Fukushima. And where there is Cesium, of course, are also
many other isotopes. Since Cesium can occur in every cell, every organ is to be damaged. It comes to high concentrations in the muscles, and heart muscle where cells die or the blood supply by destroying the vessel walls no longer works. Strokes and heart attacks resulting in people in middle age. Renal failure, high blood pressure in childhood, liver injury and diffuse brain disorders are described. Children suffer from cataracts of the eyes, older people without cataracts are the exception. Also in the placenta cesium is concentrated and harms the growing child. Miscarriages, premature births, birth defects resulting with a large birth risk and developmental disorders. Each organ, especially the lungs and the gastrointestinal tract in women, can develop cancer, and it appears that the cancer caused by radioactive radiation is particularly aggressive and metastasizes quickly.

Genetic damage

In each nucleus a chromosome is set of all the genetic information, which is called the genome. Changes of this genetic information are called mutation. A mutation happens in egg or sperm cells, the embryo can not develop and die from it, or it comes to malformations. To date, over 3,000 genetic diseases are known. In the first year of Chernobyl statistically more children were born with Down syndrome (trisomy) as before and after (http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2012/06/17/nuclear-cancer-industry/)! From animal experiments it is known that all types of mutations can be caused by radiation! Since cesium-137 remains 300 years in the biological cycle, and occurs mostly with food and water always in the organism, the genetic damage is further increased with generation after generation, more and more people in their suffer from genetic mutations.


This is an example HOW to take steps in radiation protection (from Chernobyl irradiated Belarus / Ukraine) and it is done by civil society, NOT officials:

“We are concerned specifically with the syndrome of long-lived incorporated radionuclides (SLIR) because when caesium 137 enters the human body, it is incorporated into several vital organs and systems simultaneously. The consequence of this process is the inhibition of the cellular energy cycle, which causes metabolic disorders in the human body. Lowering the level of energy carriers leads to destructive changes and insufficient, restorative processes at the cellular and intracellular level. Research conducted at the Gomel State Medical Institute (1990-1999) showed that symptoms of the syndrome of long-lived radionuclides appeared in children when the concentration of Cs-137 in the body reached a level of 50 Bq / kg and above.
The most easily demonstrable problems, in terms of ability to function, arise in the cardiovascular, urinary, endocrine, reproductive, digestive, immune systems, and in the sight organs. Since pathological changes in these organs and systems occur at the same time, the condition is difficult to diagnose. For a correct diagnosis, a radiometric examination to determine the concentration of Cs-137 in the body, and a clinical examination in the laboratory of vital organs, need to be undertaken. In assessing the impact of radioactive caesium in the human body, we must take into consideration its ability to induce phenotypic alterations in the genetic apparatus, which, in our opinion, is at the root of these serious diseases. Official medicine does not recognise the syndrome of long-lived incorporated radionuclides as a manifestation of the impact of radioactive caesium affecting the entire organism, and consequently the medical assistance given to people, living in the areas contaminated by radioactive elements, is less effective.

The concept of the syndrome of incorporated radioactive elements forms the basis of the project submitted to the international community by the centre for coordination and analysis “Ecology and Health” under the title: “An integrated model of life in a radiocontaminated zone”. The project aims to create a system of effective measures to protect the population that continues to live in areas contaminated by radioactive substances. Even relatively small amounts of radioactive caesium incorporated into the body are recognized as harmful to human health. Bearing this in mind, the project provides a set of measures to prevent the entry of radioactive elements into the body. The project is being implemented in the Ivankov district of Kiev in Ukraine, located in the immediate vicinity of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. It includes:

1. Regular radiometric control of the population and of food products. The
identification of risk groups – groups of people who have radioactive
substances in the body;
2. The evaluation of key factors in the metabolism and in the state of the vital
organs of the children and adults in the risk group;

3. Provision of the necessary medical and preventive care for the population. To
do this, a specialist clinic with modern diagnostic technology needs to be set
up in the Ivankov district (or any other district anywhere in the world);

4. Individual correction of metabolic imbalance, caused by the prolonged
presence of Cs-137 in the body, through a planned diet;

5. Organization of uncontaminated food production (not containing radioactive
substances) for people with serious metabolic alterations resulting from
prolonged exposure to incorporated radioactive substances.

6. An important part of the project consists of informing the public about
collective and individual health protection measures that are necessary when
you live in an area contaminated by radioactive elements.

Evaluation of the Current Radiation Burden of Children Living in Regions Contaminated by the Chernobyl Accident – done by INDEPENDENT Belrad Insitute (I know them): http://irpa11.irpa.net/pdfs/7c8.pdf
You can even make radiation maps of your children: Belrad measured 400,000 children: http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2012/04/14/children-radiation-maps-2
The summary of the most  most extensive children’s measurement http://de.scribd.com/doc/15770206/NesterenkoBelrad
Phoswich Detectors in Partial body counter can measure internal emitters such as Americium 241 (decay prodcut of Plutonium 241), Uranium 235 and Plutonium 239, these are low-energy measurements. Measuring takes usually 35 Minutes. Costs: 400 – 500+ USD. http://bibliothek.fzk.de/zb/abstracts/7238.htm
Whole Body Counters can measure radionuclides in human bodies like Cesium 134 & 137, Strontium 90, potassium 40, Iodine 131, http://biophys.urcrm.ru/sich/index.html#Kozheurov
This is the form that parents receive. In which the get info how much is in their children: http://tekknorg.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/1belrad11.jpg
“Children receive the highest doses, because the dose coefficients, in a 3 year old child, are 5 times higher than in adults.“ Vassily Nesterenko: http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2012/04/14/children-radiation-maps-2/“the human infant while nursing may attain higher body bur dens of radiocesium than would be the case for somewhat older children.”: http://radionucleide.free.fr/Stresseurs/419.pdfThyroid Abnormalities are Precancerous Condition!

Read Full Post »


use it, copy it, share it.

Read Full Post »



Citizens’ Movement Fukushima-EVENT took place on Oct 15th 2013: http://www.mfj.gr.jp/agenda/2013/10/15/index_ja.php
Scientific and Medical Views on Health Effects of Exposure to Radiation

CONTENT: http://csrp.blog.fc2.com/?lang=en

PDF: http://www.mfj.gr.jp/agenda/_data/2013-10-15-16_Fukushima.pdf

LOCATION: http://www.mfj.gr.jp/index.php

FORMER LIVESTREAM: http://janic-fukushima.jp/static_html/csrp.html

Participants: CRIIRAD from France: http://www.criirad.org/english/presentation.html

CRMS: http://en.crms-jpn.org/

Pre-Event from 2012

The latest food measurements from Fukushima CRMS (citizens’ Movement) http://crms-fukushima.blogspot.jp/

They are the only reliable source in Japan, among other CIVIL SOCIETY NGOs and simple measurements done by cititzens.



What we really need is a genome analysis of all peoples. A ban for growing food near reactors (compensators for farmers from operators) and ultimately above the equator in nuclear states. A complete infinite energy for everyone: solar energy. The end of power and domination. The repeal of the linear dose response methodology. A ban on dose limits for food and water. A reliable express measurement method of all foods. For everyone, and for free. The reverence for life as the basis of all sciences. A nuclear priesthood, composed of citizens. Immediate withdrawal from nuclear energy. Stopping of Shipment of nuclear waste, all around the world. Keeping it in the country that made it.

Absurd: In part, it is this: The newer the studies and scientific evidence emerges, the more they move away from the truth and earlier provided evidence – and will lead to a distortion of reality, to a mere template into which the “experts” cram the reality. The observation has long given way to the design.

Are YOU aware, that there is NO LIMIT for radionuclides in soil?
This is the worldwide standard. Where EVERYTHING grows.
The same goes for sea.
How to decontaminate reality? First we must get rid of “dose limits” / accepting nuclear fission products

The trend of abortion because of disability or deformity increases.
Consequently, these children drop out of the statistics.
The result is, that there are fewer children born.
PLUS fewer children are born at the same time, because parents are sterile.

Tritium in Water.
Radioactive hydrogen.
In the water.
The biggest disaster!
The entire ecosystem of the world is killed from the bottom up!
Radioactive plankton can take up the 200,000th a radioactive substance.

The experts talk about radiation.

Where it is, how much is irradiated…

What is radiation?


Atoms are everywhere.

There are no clear boundaries, there are no limits at all.

Imagination is required, not arrogant expertise.

We can use Olympics to draw attention on Fukushima
The Civil Society in Japan can.

The main product of the nuclear industry is murder
and a little bit of electricity.


Read Full Post »


SITUATION in ALDI Supermarkets:


Belarusian example:

This is a small “village” in south central Belarus, it’s called “Good Will”: 15 Curie per km² (555,000 becquerel per m²) Chernobyl irradiated area “Dobra Wolya“  – this is the map (Strontium 90 & Cesium 137 & Americium 241): http://www.rbic.by/images/stories/articles/files/Luninetsky-Map.pdf (middle, the large spot): http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2012/04/21/good-will-is-irradiated/

BELARUS: At 15 curies per square kilometer from every square meter radiate 550,000 becquerel. For comparison: Before Chernobyl cesium load was about 1,000 becquerel per square meter as a result of above-ground nuclear weapons tests. 15 curies per square kilometer is not the maximum value: Hundreds of villages are contaminated with 60 or more Curie.  147 Curie in Tschudjany, in Nowojelna 390 Curie (this corresponds to 14.4 million becquerels per square meter). All these villages – a total of more than 500 – are still inhabited.  http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-13499932.html

Another example: “The two Belarusian villages Lumatschi and Tulgowitschi lie under a layer of plutonium, which emits at 5.4 curies. Plutonium” http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-13499932.html



Latest, independent Food measurements Strontium 90 & Cesium 137. Highest radiation in Minsk (center on map), although state says it’s clean. A lie. Official propaganda map: http://tekknorg.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/by-map-chernobyl.jpg?w=1000&h


Official BELARUSIAN radiation maps (from the textbook, and not real measurements): http://www.rbic.by/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=256&Itemid=86

“According to calculation models used by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), the European Union today accepts that current permissible value limits will lead to at least roughly 150,000 additional cancer deaths in Germany alone each year as a consequence of radiation exposure from food” http://www.foodwatch.org/en/what-we-do/topics/radiation/more-information/foodwatch-report-calculated-fatalities-from-radiation/

July 2013:

BY-CRIIRAD http://www.criirad.org/

Strontium 90 in Baby Food. Belarusian limit of Strontium 90 in milk was 3,7 becquerels per kilogram. Now, for the neighboring countries: 20 BECQUEREL per KG! http://euroradio.fm/stroncyy-u-dzicyachym-harchavanni-mytny-sayuz-dazvoliu-peravyshenne-u-13-razou

2013: Belarusian Potatoes: Strontium 90 -> 40,5 Becquerel per Kg.
Cesium 137 smaller than 4,28 Becquerel per Kg.


“The permissible limits currently set in the EU and Japan for radiation protection mean that the population is exposed to an unnecessarily high risk to health. If we assume that the population of Germany were to ingest food containing the current maximum limits of contamination permitted in the EU – equivalent to the limits applying to imports from Japan – children and adolescents would each be exposed to an annual effective dose of 68 millisieverts (mSv) and adults of 33 mSv. The German radiation protection legislation that governs the operation of nuclear power plants stipulates that the legally permissible limit of total exposure from all exposure pathways is 1 mSv per year for individuals. This means that if children and adolescents ingested the amount of radioactive contamination permitted by EU and Japanese regulations, they would be exposed to 68 times the German limit. Even if only 2 percent of the dietary intake were contaminated to permissible EU and Japanese limits, the annual effective dose would already be over the German limit of 1 mSv.

“Calculations based on models used by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) show that dietary intake of the maximum amount of radioactive contamination permitted in the EU and Japan would lead to at least roughly 150,000 fatalities in Germany each year. Other calculation models reach vastly higher figures. If the entire German population were to eat foods exposing individuals to only 5 percent of the contamination currently allowed in food imports from Japan, at least 7,700 fatalities could be expected; this figure doesn’t even include the secondary consequences of a wide range of greatly varying diseases and genetic disorders.”

Other countries have to some extent set much stricter limits and thereby done more to protect human health. Even the limits in Ukraine and Belarus are much stricter and have continuously tightened over the last few years. The permissible limit for cesium-137 in milk products in Ukraine and Belarus is 100 becquerels per kilogram (Bq/kg), whereas this value stands at 370 Bq/kg in the EU and 200 Bq/kg in Japan.”

Prolonged incorporation of radioisotope in the organism more than 30 Bq/kg is very undesirable, because could lead to the serious consequences: structural and metabolic alterations, energetic deficit, impairment of their functions, death, cell’s poison, cardiomyopathy, cardiac rhythm disturbance, and contraction function of myocardium, spasm of peripheral vessels – Page 26: http://www.chernobyl-today.org/images/stories/Bandajevski_2001_Radiocaesium_and_heart.pdf

Of the 248 children who are in the Belarusian village Bartolomewka at home, half suffering from chronic tonsillitis, epistaxis and resulting anemia, more frequent colds and general immune weakness. Physician assistants Suglob: “Even the eyesight deteriorates more and more.”

500 Bequerel per Kilogram – japanese limit IS MURDER. Why: we can rightly consider the Cesium-137 in relatively small doses (20-30 Bq/kg); a breach of the regulatory processes in the body: PAGE 2 – 3: http://chernobyl-today.org/images/stories/BANDAJEVSKI_UNSCEAR_-_REUTERS_Sept_22nd_2010_Eng_V2.pdf


Dose limits lead to enrichment


“cesium is easy to accumulate in the heart”

“50 Becquerel break your heart rhythm at 20 to 30 becquerel per kilogram of body weight” (CHILDREN!)

“if, during pregnancy, there is more than 200 becquerel per kilogram of cesium in the placenta it can lead to sudden death of the child”

more scientific info: http://www.chernobyl-today.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=55&Itemid=45&lang=en


In 1990, members of the Belarusian people’s demanded investigation of the circumstances of concealing information about the Chernobyl disaster. No results, further Coper Up, 1994 came Lukashenko into power and installed the dictatorship: Chernobyl forbidden by decree! http://www.svaboda.org/content/article/24266048.html
















polydactyly (6 toes on foot for example)BELARUS: Chernobyl induced: “Anencephaly, severe spina bifida cystica, cleft lips and/or palate, , reduction limb defects leading to disability, esophageal atresia, anorectal atresias, Down’s syndrome and multiple malformations are registered both in stillborns and in fetuses obtained through induced abortion after prenatal diagnostics. The results are presented in Table 2 for the 137Cs contaminated areas and for the control.” http://tekknorg.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/licencetokill05.gif

in contrast:

The European Union imports radioactive goods from areas with a maximum of 20 Milli Sievert per Year (official) AND MORE –  that’s an equivalent of 50 (!) mammograms! FOR CHILDREN. This is dangerous and irresponsible: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:080:0005:0008:DE:PDF


Chernobyl chanterelles for sale in 2011, by EDEKA, ALDI: http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2011/09/04/chernobyl-chanterelles-for-sale/

And 2013: http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/again-edeka-supermarkets-selling-nuclear-heart-killers/

All radiation maps, doses, emissions are from the text book – not from reality. http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/all-radiation-maps-doses-emissions-are-from-the-text-book-not-from-reality/

Latest example: http://fukushima-diary.com/2013/07/english-radiation-survey-map-shows-radiation-levels-by-taking-down-a-figure-one-place/


Radiation Is Always Dangerous, Says World Health Organization Director-General:  http://concernforhealth.org/radiation-is-always-da

Jan Hemmer

Read Full Post »


“According to its statutes, the IAEA (a UN agency which reports to the Security Council) is mandated to “to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world”. It is in fact a lobby, industrial and military, which should have no role to play in public health policymaking or research.” http://mondediplo.com/2008/04/14who


The real World War kills peaceful and in slow motion.

Not with big explosions. Or fire. Or bullets.

It kills with cancer, food, soil, air, genomic instability, atoms.

You can see it only in oncology wards or if you compare WHOLE Generations.

And if you look between the lines:

A) “Working together to prevent diseases caused by childhood malnutrition: WHO, UNICEF and IAEA consider joint technical cooperation activities”: http://www.iaea.org/technicalcooperation/Home/Highlights-Archive/Archive-2013/03152013-WHO-UNICEF.html

B) “IAEA and FAO work together”: http://www.fao.org/ag/magazine/0410sp.htm

C) http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2013/solidpartnership.html

300 year decay time Cesium 137 is used: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-89132003000300001

this is how Cesium 137 kills:

This is from Mr. Bandazhevsky, soon in Japan talking about Cesium 137: http://aoitoribunko.blog91.fc2.com/blog-entry-96.html

WHO is no longer funded by UN, but by sponsors (biotech, genetic engineering, nuclear industry)

IAEA annual budget: 330 million €.

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”.

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). IAEA and WHO say: “Panic and fear of radiation is much worse than radiation itself“ The IAEA is undermining the right of expression and legal justice.

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.

- Fake research, use faked research: Dr. Rosen (Vice director of the IAEA in 1996) said in 1996 that represent cases of cancer that occur, are a very small part of the millions of cancer cases that will occur anyway. The estimate of Dr. Rosen is a factor of 10 or more too low. Dr. Rosen replaces the number of children cancer illnesses  in the number of cancer illnesses in the elderly. (quote Prof. Michel Fernex, University of Basel, Switzerland)

Or: 25 Years with FUKUSHIMA

If no result is to be found: False initially selected indicators are used for example, when looking for cancer, choose death rather than disease rates. Dying from cancer takes time, the study must be published before the death occurs. You can also choose the wrong Pathology, and search for diabetes rather than stress. In the end statistically significant differences are not found, so it is difficult to demonstrate phenomena that may be unusual. So it is concluded that there is no relationship between the event and the pathology which was investigated. This way you can advocate nuclear power plants. (quote Prof. Michel Fernex, University of Basel, Switzerland)

- The IAEA denies damage such as leukaemia, which is caused by Chernobyl, so they can continue to talk about  “nuclear safety” to increase their own kind. (quote Dr. Katsumi Furitsu, Osaka Japan)

The main point of the contract between WHO and IAEO: No public information on health problems when could influence the development of nuclear industry.

The period of the symbols has to come to an end.
We must not confuse symbols with reality.
But we do, as we try to convince others.
The general view is that radiation causes cancer.
But somehow everyone thinks he or she is spared.
Bringing radiation and food in connection exists in no way in no thinking.
People accept cancer as a natural cause of death. “It is just us.”
Morals and ethics are missing in kindergartens, schools, universities and corporations, even in families.
I would say, start school projects “how to measure radionuclides in food, stuff, bodies” as a starting point.  I ask back: Where are schools doing this? Nowhere to be seen.

The latest from Ukraine: Heart problems with no end, solution ONLY with foreighn help / doctors:


it is recognized by the World Health Organization that the International Atomic Energy Agency has the primary responsibility for encouraging, assisting and coordinating research and development and practical application of atomic energy for peaceful uses throughout the world without prejudice to the right of the World Health Organization to concern itself with promoting, developing, assisting and coordinating international health work, including research, in all its aspects.http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2012/05/27/margaret-chan-versus-world-health-organisation/

Cs-134/137 detected from 15 of 15 tea leaves samples in Shizuoka prefecture | Fukushima Diary

[Express] “Heart abnormality found increasing in school medical examination”

Read Full Post »



The Food Chain Starts IN the Reactor:

Jan Hemmer

Read Full Post »



Nuclear power plants make children sick
Questions and answers about cancer risk around nuclear facilities

Original PDF File: http://www.ippnw.de/commonFiles/pdfs/Atomenergie/atomkraftwerke_machen_kinder_krank.pdf 

translation by: 巣三根 スサンネ  and: Jere Licciardello

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
the study?

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.

_ 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.

_ Conclusion
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.





Read Full Post »

Older Posts »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 80 other followers