Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Geneva’

妊娠中の日本人女性の避難すぐ

WHO Report on Fukushima a Travesty: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/WHO_Report_on_Fukushima_a_Travesty.php

Action & Text by independentwho.org

“For five and a half years we have maintained a daily presence (the Hippocratic Vigil) outside the headquarters of the WHO in Geneva. The aim of the vigil is to denounce the lies and cover-up of this international organisation on the subject of the health consequences of radioactive pollution…”

ENGLISH: http://independentwho.org/en/2012/11/15/vigil-ministry-in-paris/

JAPANESE: http://independentwho.org/jp/2012/11/10/%E3%83%91%E3%83%AA%E5%8E%9A%E7%94%9F%E7%9C%81%E5%89%8D%E3%83%B4%E3%82%A3%E3%82%B8%E3%83%BC%EF%BC%88%E8%A6%8B%E5%BC%B5%E7%95%AA%EF%BC%89/

FRENCH: http://independentwho.org/fr/2012/11/09/vigie-ministere-sante-paris/

This report bears all the hallmarks of WHO’s subservience to the IAEA. It was not written by WHO personnel but by an International Expert Panel convened by the WHO. http://independentwho.org/en/2012/12/08/who-report-a-travesty/

More: Margaret Chan VERSUS World Health Organisation: http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2012/05/27/margaret-chan-versus-world-health-organisation/

WHO downplayed health effects of nuclear crisis on Fukushima residents – The Japan Times Online Dec 6th 2012:

>>> http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20121216a4.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+japantimes+%28The+Japan+Times%3A+All+Stories%29

> “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://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/Others/inf20.shtml#note_c

> Radiation Is Always Dangerous, Says World Health Organization Director-General:  http://concernforhealth.org/radiation-is-always-dangerous-says-world-health-organization-director-general/

CHERNOBYL – the greast Cover Up: http://mondediplo.com/2008/04/14who

“World Health Organisation experts played a role of advocates of the Soviet authorities which tried to play down by any means the scale of the Chernobyl accident and its radiological consequences”: http://www.rri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/NSRG/reports/1998/kr-21/Malko96-1.html

“experts of IAEA neglected protests of Belarussian and Ukrainian scientists insisting serious increase of child thyroid diseases around Chernobyl against the conclusion of the International Chernobyl Project that there was no health effect there. Five years later the same experts of IAEA had to recognize ′myth′ of thyroid diseases to be facts…” http://www.rri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/NSRG/reports/kr21/kr21pdf/Imanaka1.pdf

> “Up to 1,300 million people have been killed, maimed or diseased by nuclear power since its inception. The industry’s figures massively underestimate the real cost of nuclear power, in an attempt to hide its victims from the world.” http://exacteditions.theecologist.org/read/ecologist/vol-29-no-7-november-1999-5368/29/2/

> “We are constantly being told about a ‘permissible amount of radiation.’ Who permitted it? Who has any right to permit it?” Albert Schweitzer
http://icanw.org/1957

“The threshold level of 20 mSv/year is in contrast to the statutory legal limit imposed by the 1972 industrial safety regulation for the nuclear industry. For workers at a nuclear power plant, the maximum limit of exposure (in the controlled area) prescribed by law is 20 mSv/year (not exceeding 50 mSv/year) and a cumulative dose of 100 mSv in five years. The law prohibits the entry of ordinary citizens into the controlled area with radiation dose of 1.3 mSv/quarter and further prohibits workers to eat, drink or sleep in that area. It also prohibits pregnant women to be exposed to radiation dose in a controlled area of over 2mSv/year.

I would like to recall that in Chernobyl the threshold limit for obligatory resettlement was 5 mSv/year or above, apart from soil contamination levels. There are also a significant number of epidemiological studies, which indicate that cancer and other diseases could occur in low dose radiation below 100 mSv/year. According to these studies, there is no low threshold limit for the occurrence of diseases.” http://independentwho.org/en/2012/11/29/anand-grover-fukushima/

Brilliant Article about IAEA, WHO, Fukushima by Agnès Sinai in the latest Le Monde Diplomatique – german translation: http://www.taz.de/!107449/

Jan Hemmer

Read Full Post »

妊娠中の日本人女性の避難すぐ

My footage from Correction of History: Forum on Radioprotection May 12 – 13 Geneva by independent WHO.org

Matsui Eisuke (Japan) specialist in respiratory diseases and low dose radiation, Director, Medical Institute of Environment at Gifu. Abstracts here: page 12: http://independentwho.org/media/Documents_IW/Forum_Radioprotection_English_Abstracts_IW_2012.pdf

The accident of TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant caused serious harm. Vast areas have been contaminated with radiation, and the lives of a large number of people are threatened. The major effects of radiation from the accident are caused by internal exposure by inhaling or ingesting food and drink. In measuring the doses of exposure to radiation, the government and its professional advisors have relied mainly on gamma rays which are easy to detect. But, in terms of internal radiation exposure, beta and alpha rays have a far more serious effect than gamma rays. The government and TEPCO hardly measure such isotopes as beta emitting strontium90
or alpha emitting plutonium239.

They have been deliberately ignoring the characteristics of internal exposure. Behind this lie the nuclear strategies and nuclear power policies of the United States. Influenced by these policies, international organizations such as the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) were established. They have relied on the research by Radiation Effects Research Foundation which has been ignoring the effect of radiation exposures from fallouts of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Atomic bombs. With regard to the Fukushima accident they make such claims as “there is no statistically significant evidence to prove that the radiation doses under 100mSv cause diseases”,
and continue to cover up the real facts on the effects of exposure to radiation.

What is now needed is the promotion of truly scientific studies about the effects of radiation on the human body that are based on facts and actual radiation exposures including internal exposure, and not on policies that promote nuclear weapons and pronuclear power. This is an international issue and a task for all human kind. And it is now required that the effects of the Fukushima accident are to be dealt with scientifically and democratically from the viewpoint of citizens. This includes appropriate measures to protect food and drink from radiation contamination, compensation for the damage, and safeguards so that people can live and work without radiation exposure. The right of every citizen to live safely must be recognized. For this, we must establish the sovereignty of the people who are rightly provided with correct information about radiation exposure.

MORE: “a fourth new dosimetry, DS02, with refined shielding estimate, and changes both in the locations of the epicenters and the yield of the bombs. Studies based on the DS02 dosimetry will now replace all previous research findings. All atomic bomb research dating prior to 2002 is now inadmissible science.” http://ratical.org/radiation/Chernobyl/CaUFtH.html / “Hiroshima basis of risk model flawed because the study and control groups were not representative of a normal population.” / “ICRP basis of risk assessment is undemocratic and biased by the membership and historic provenance of the Committee” / “Hiroshima and all other bases of risk model unable to inform on risk from internal exposure due to averaging and other errors implicit in the units of exposure.” / “Hiroshima base of risk model did not include contribution from internal exposure from fallout or residual contamination as controls were exposed to fallout” / “Units of exposure themselves (Sieverts) contain inappropriate value judgments and are not physical units” Beginning @ PAGE 50: http://www.euradcom.org/2011/ecrr2010.pdf – and about RERF: http://www.facebook.com/notes/chernobyl-children-fukushima-children/the-criminality-of-japans-radiation-effects-researchers/214827511939220 / THE NEW COVER UP STUDY BY RERF: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22171960

TEPCO / IAEA’s Cover Up (CTBTO):

http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2012/05/28/iaea-conceales-ctbto-fukushima-data/

http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2012/02/25/100m%C2%B2-near-fukushima-plant-78-times-chernobyl-evac-zone/

Jan Hemmer

Read Full Post »

妊娠中の日本人女性の避難すぐ

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://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/Others/inf20.shtml#note_c

VERSUS:

Radiation Is Always Dangerous, Says World Health Organization Director-General:  http://concernforhealth.org/radiation-is-always-dangerous-says-world-health-organization-director-general/

BECAUSE of the IAEA-WHO CONTRACT, HERE ARE WHO’s CANCER CRITERIA:

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.

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

At the Chernobyl IAEA forum the term “Radiophobia” was invented and used: “What’s worse, the IAEA is going public these days with statements ridiculing the so called “radiophobia” of the population and calling for an end of aid programs, which, according to the IAEA report of 2005, only serve to instil a victim mentality in a totally healthy population – a claim not only cynical, but potentially dangerous for the health of the affected population.” Source: http://www.ippnw-students.org/chernobyl/coverup.html

“Presently the international organizations (WHO, IAEA) recognize as the main cause of increase of thyroid cancer in liquidators and children population after the accident their irradiation with radioactive iodine, I-131. The rest of diseases, they suppose, are provoked by psycho-emotional reactions..” (!!!…RADIOPHOBIA…!!!) There is no linear dose effect correlation, but “The bimodal dependence of effects on dose was revealed for all studied parameters. Namely, effects increased at low doses, reached maximum (for low doses), then decreased (in some cases the effect sign reversed) and thereafter increased with the increase of dosage”: http://www.rri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/NSRG/reports/kr21/kr21pdf/Burlakova.pdf IGNORED BY IAEA, UNSCEAR, ICRP, WHO

The IAEA advises atomic states, is the PR agency for the atomic miliatry and industry, reports to the security council and has the five VETO powers of the U.N. as members. They want to blame the radiation victims, because of their fear of radiation – called RADIOPHOBIA by the IAEA: 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. And the declining birth rates among belarusians under the age of 30 – declared by the IAEA with “Radiophobia”: http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/28/073/28073803.pdf – quote “2. PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACTS OF NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS : Soon after the discovery of ionizing radiation, it was realized that radiation could harmfully affect skin tissues, body organs and the human body as a whole beside the genetic effects. Lately after the drop of the first atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and also after Three-Miles-Island and Chernobyl accidents anew phenomenon described as RADIOPHOBIA have become apparent and widely spread..” PAGE 338.

“INTERNAL radionuclides are 10 to 100 times more damaging than the equivalent EXTERNALdose” Dr. Michel Fernex, former WHO employee

Appeal to the World Health Organisation – IPPNW Germany appeals to the World Health Organisation to substantially expand medical research on the health effects of the Fukushima nuclear disaster: http://www.fukushima-disaster.de/information-in-english/maximum-credible-accident.html

japanese: http://www.fukushima-disaster.de/information-in-japanese.html

FROM W.H.O.: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2012/wha65_closes_20120526/en/index.html “Dr Margaret Chan appointed to a second term as Director-General of the World Health Organization by the 65th World Health Assembly”

1959年のWHO-IAEA協定文書の翻訳 http://www.crms-jpn.com/art/112.html

Gregory Härtl – Team Leader, Communications for Global Alert and Response (GAR) World Health Organization: “Within the United Nations system, the IAEA is the lead agency for coordination of international response to radiation events.” 14 March 2011

Why our Children are killed and ignored: http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/Others/inf20.shtml#note_c

“World Health Organisation experts played a role of advocates of the Soviet authorities which tried to play down by any means the scale of the Chernobyl accident and its radiological consequences”: http://www.rri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/NSRG/reports/1998/kr-21/Malko96-1.html

the WHO released the paper “Preliminary Dose Estimation from the nuclear accident after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami”

here >>> http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/fukushima_dose_assessment/en/index.html

consumption >>> “It can be concluded that the estimated effective doses outside Japan from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident are below (and often far below) the dose levels regarded by the international radiological protection community as very small.”

The paper is not interested in INTERNAL EMITTERS and NOT in GENOMIC INSTABILITY and NOT in LATENCY. The paper / WHO makes ICRP the law maker, instead of WHO, who is / should be the authority on human health on earth: 

“UNSCEAR, in 1955 and IAEA, in 1957, were set up by the United Nations (UN) in response to the U.S. President Eisenhower’s Peaceful Energy talk at the UN, in 1953. The IAEA was mandated to perform two tasks — to assist countries in harnessing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and to carry out inspections to ensure that any assistance a country received from another was used exclusively for peaceful purposes and not diverted to developing any nuclear weapon. UNSCEAR was to report on the adequacy of the regulation of ionizing radiation and its effects on health. IAEA subsequently took its radiation protection recommendations directly from ICRP (rather than WHO), therefore persons from the Commission who also sit on UNSCEAR both make the rules and judge their adequacy.”

“Dr. Mettler, Jr., leading the Health Investigation after Chernobyl for IAEA in 1991, was subsequently appointed to the main Commission of ICRP, and also to the health effects evaluation committee of UNSCEAR. This is a major conflict of interest because of the agency mandates.”

From: http://ratical.org/radiation/Chernobyl/CaUFtH.html

“Executive conclusion of the Recommendation of the European Committee for radiation risks declares: “…Total maximal permitted dose from all human-caused sources should not exceed 0.1 mSv for population and 5 mSv for personnel”. This publication is declared by the European Committee for radiation risks as “regulating”. It is only common sense that we should follow the recommendations given in this publication by the scientists from Canada, Norway, Great Britain, Denmark, Switzerland, the USA, Ireland, Sweden, Germany, France, India, Belarus, Finland and Russia.” page 16 http://independentwho.org/media/Documents_IW/Forum_Radioprotection_English_Abstracts_IW_2012.pdf

2013: Cancer risk 70% higher for females in Fukushima area, says WHO: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/28/cancer-risk-fukushima-who

SHAME OF THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION!
Complicity! Crimes against humanity!
>>> Critical Analysis of the WHO’s health risk assessment of the
Fukushima nuclear catastrophe <<<
– The report is based on faulty assumptions!
– The report ignores the health risks for people outside of Fukushima!
– Continued radioactive emissions were not included in the assessment!
– The report ignores the increased radiosensitivity of the unborn child!
– Recent clinical findings were not taken into considerations!
– Non-cancer diseases are not included in the health risk calculations!
– The authors’ neutrality has to be doubted!
http://www.ippnw.de/commonFiles/pdfs/Atomenergie/Fukushima/WHO_Fukushima_Report2013_Criticism_en.pdf

WHOのフクシマ原発事故健康リスク評価に対する批判的分析!!!
報告書は間違った推定を基盤にしている
今回の報告書はWHOが2012年5月に公表した予備的線量推定iiをベースにしているが、この
推定は以下のいくつかの理由から独立系の研究者から激しく批判されたiii。
• 放射性物質の総放出量(ソースターム)を過小評価した
• 避難前、避難中における20キロメートル内地域に居住していた公衆の被曝を無視した
• 内部被曝線量の計算に使用された食品試料の量が不十分で、試料の選択が偏っていた
• 報告書の作成責任のある原子力科学者に不透明な利害関係があった
http://www.ippnw.de/commonFiles/pdfs/Atomenergie/Fukushima/WHO_Fukushima_Report2013_Criticism_jp.pdf

THE AGREEMENT WHA 12 – 40 between IAEA and WHO: http://independentwho.org/en/who-and-aiea-aggreement/ QUOTE:

“Since the signing of this agreement, WHO has shown no autonomy of action towards achieving its stated objectives in the field of radiation protection.

On the contrary it has shown its capacity for misinforming the public about the health consequences of radioactive contamination caused by the civil and military nuclear industries.

WHO waited five years before visiting those territories that had been heavily contaminated by the accident at Chernobyl. They gave no instructions for evacuation or for the provision of clean food to the affected populations.

WHO has kept hidden the health consequences of this catastrophe, especially by not publishing the proceedings of the 1995 and 2001 conferences.

WHO still estimates the number of deaths caused by Chernobyl at less than fifty and attributes the health problems of populations of Belarus, Ukraine and Russia to fear of radiation.

WHO does not recognise the validity of the work published in 2009 by the Academy of Sciences of New York which estimates the number of deaths caused by Chernobyl to be nearly one million.

With Fukushima, WHO has the same attitude as for Chernobyl.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) does not respect its constitution which lays down the following principle:

“Informed opinion and active cooperation from the public are of paramount importance for improving the health of people …”

In the first chapter, Article 1:

“The goal of the World Health Organization shall be the attainment by all peoples of the highest possible level of health.”

In chapter 2 – FUNCTIONS of WHO:

a) to act as the directing and co-ordinating Authority on International Health Work.”

“The WHO experts had also rejected any relation between radiation and the significant increase in the morbidity in many somatic diseases established in the affected areas of Belarus, Russia and the Ukraine soon after the accident. / the international radiation community practically played a role of an advocate of the USSR government that tried to play down the consequences of this accident from the very beginning.” http://www.rri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/NSRG/reports/1998/kr-21/Malko96-1.html

On May 4th 2011, the Secretary General of the WHO (Margeret Chan) admitted: “Radiation always dangerous”:

worlwide unique article of german newspaper TAZ, meeting with Margeret Chan >>> http://www.taz.de/!70237/

my translation >>>http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2011/05/12/w-h-o-secretary-general-chan-admits-for-the-first-time-in-52-years-radiation-is-always-dangerous/ QUOTE:

“Radiation always dangerous”

WHO Rollercoaster on Nuclear Radiation

Margaret Chan, Director-General of the World Health Organisation (WHO) distances herself from WHO’s previous position on evaluating nuclear risks. An increase in permissible levels for radiation exposure in Japan triggered this change.

“There is no such thing as a safe dose for low-level radiation” explained Margaret Chan, Director-General of the World Health Organisation, to members of the critical group “Independent WHO” in a spontaneous meeting with them. Up until now WHO has consistently stuck to the position agreed with the Internation Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which claims that ionising radiation is safe below a certain dose.

This about-face occurs just before the World Health Assembly is due to take place from May 16 to 24 where cooperation with IAEA is on the agenda. Chan was referring to incorporated radiactive particles like iodine 131, caesium 137, strontium 90 and other substances that are taken into the body through food, drink or breathing air with this statement.

These particles settle in the thyroid gland, bones and inner organs where they continue to radiate. Numerous studies by independent scientists have shown that such particles from the Chernobyl nuclear catastrophe in April 1986 are responsible for up to 95 % of all radiationinduced cancers and genetic mutation.

Up until now WHO has denied the existence of internal radiation. In all of its statements on potential health risks, only external ionising radiation were referred to, based on the first, and to date, only data taken in Hiroshima and Nagasaki after the nuclear bombings in 1945.

Fukushima data still under lock and key

Chan distanced herself also from previous WHO statements on the effects of Chernobyl. “I personally do not believe that the Chernobyl nuclear accident only caused 50 deaths” stated the WHO Director-General, according to notes taken at the meeting with the critic’s group. As agreed with IAEA, WHO has claimed officially that only 52 irradiated people died as a direct result of the Chernobyl catastrophe and up to 6000 more developed thyroid cancer.

These are the same figures that the UN Scientific Commission on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) quoted in their publication of February of this year. However, despite correcting previous positions, when referring to Fukushima Chan continues to insist that she has “fully exercised her responsibility … without being compromised by the 1959 agreement with IAEA in any way”. Chan defended the much-criticised fact that WHO has up until now held the measurement data on Fukushima under lock and key that it, and IAEA, regularly receives from CTBTO, an organisation set up to monitor the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

IAEA even houses CTBTO: http://www.ctbto.org/press-centre/press-releases/2011/ctbto-to-share-data-with-iaea-and-who/

Only one radiation expert left at WHO

CTBTO has 80 monitoring stations around the globe that constantly take measurements of ionising radiation in the atmosphere. The Central Office for Meteorology and Geodynamic (ZAMG) in Vienna also has access to CTBTO data and thereby established already by the end of March that radioactive emissions from Fukushima were much higher than those given by the Japanese authorities. Even so, WHO and IAEA have continued to publicly quote the Japanese figures. Chan stated that WHO would only publish the CTBTO data “if they were to indicate dangerous levels”.

CTBTO: http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2012/02/17/tepco-invents-fictitious-measurements-ctbto-data-covered-up/ and: http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2012/02/18/congratulations-ctbto-15-years-of-cover-up-by-iaea-and-w-h-o/

CTBTO DATA: http://www.bfs.de/en/ion/imis/animation.gif

This would be “her decision only”. At the same time, the Director-General added that she was “not an expert on nuclear radiation” and that “WHO has practically no more competence in this field”. The department on radiobiology at the WHO headquarters in Geneva was closed down two years ago under pressure from private and state funders. The deputy head of the department had previously attempted to get the WHO limits for iodine exposure lowered, without success, due to resistance from IAEA and France.

Today there is only one single radiobiologist at the WHO headquarters.

WHO cannot publish its findings

 Chan told the NGO “Independent WHO” that she would try to “find out what happened to the documents from the 2001 joint conference with IAEA on Chernobyl held in Kiev”. Until now WHO has claimed that these documents have already been published in their entirety.

In actual fact only a short summary of the proceedings was published. Out of 700 documents of the first WHO/IAEAjoint conference on Chernobyl in 1995, only 12 have been published. According to a TV interview with Hiroshi Nakashima, who was WHO Director-General at that time, this was due to IAEA intervention unter the terms of the agreement with WHO.

Toshisho Kosak, official nuclear adviser to the Japanese government , resigned from his post at the end of April and, in front of TV cameras, tearfully lamented the government decision on radiation limits. He criticised both the increase in exposure limits permitted for nuclear workers in Fukushima and the new annual limit of 20 milliSievert for schoolchildren in the vicinity of the nuclear power plant.

He complained that it was unacceptable, saying “as a scientist, I cannot condone this”. Professor Kosak had only just been given the position this March by Prime Minister Naoto Kan.

At the end of the day, concrete measures for action to protect the population remain in the hands of national governments. Nevertheless, WHO — founded in 1948 with 192 member states – is responsible for informing and educating people on public health issues. Observers are of the opinion that a withdrawal from the agreement with IAEA could therefore play a role in the coming World Health Assembly from May 16 to 24.

Author: Andreas Zumach

Translation: Xanthe Hall

Earlier, the deputy head of the department with the attempt to impose lower limits for WHO Iodine intake failed on objections by the IAEA and France: http://www.chernobylcongress.org/fileadmin/user_upload/pdfs/Baverstock_How_the_UN_works.pdf

WHO and IAEA cover up worldwide CTBTO data. They decide if radiation doses are dangerous or not. This contradicts Margaret Chan’s statement, that Radiation is ALWAYS dangerous”

The silent and forgotten scandal: http://chernobyl.undp.org/spanish/otherdoc/fund.htm No Money No Study No Victims (even this link is pure Cover Up “no increase in leukaemia”)

“The WHO Pilot Project «Brain Damage in Utero» International Advisory Board assumes that prenatal exposure to the Chernobyl disaster can give rise to a dysfunctional child, either because of organic damage to the developing brain or because of the disturbed psychosocial milieu.” http://www.rri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/NSRG/reports/kr79/kr79pdf/Nyagu.pdf

Chernobyl: the great cover-up http://mondediplo.com/2008/04/14who

F-68480 BIEDERTHAL, Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Michel Fernex

When reading the article of the Mainich Daily News, dealing with health problems after the nuclear accident of Fukushima, One may ask the question: which institution could advice the authorities for ta-king the best decisions to protect the population and reduce the suffering of the victims?

The responsibility of the direction of the factory starts with the errors in the planning and building of the power plant, the absence of information about the real damage which started with the earthquake, more than one hour before the rest of the wave of the tsunami making thousands of victims 100km from there. * The later errors lead to the delay to reduce and stop the contamination of the air, of the soils and water.

According to its constitution (1946) the World Health Organization (WHO) has to provide an adequate technical assistance in the field of medicine. Intervention in case of urgency, if required by governments, or just after acceptation of such interventions should furnish the best information, give pieces of advice and assistance concerning health. It has to form a well documented public opinion regarding health. None of these obligations were respected.

For historical reasons this did not happen. The WHO signed in 1959 with the newly created (1957) International Agency for Atomic Energy (IAEA) an Agreement (WHA 12.40) which ended the independence of the WHO to act in the field of nuclear industry. * More recent decisions confirm the take away of the activities of the WHO in the field of ionizing radiation. * It explains why the IAEA could intervene in Chernobyl and Fukushima, not the WHO.

The population ignore the statutes of the IAEA, which gives directives or contributes to make decisions after an atomic catastrophe such as Fukushima or Chernobyl. The IAEA before all, has to owe the wording of its statutes. The following lines of this IAEA document, is quoted in IAEA publications, for instance in the Proceedings of the International Conference on Chernobyl in Vienna, 8-12 April 1996. It says that the Agency has as principal objective “to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic industry to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world”.

In other words, this U.N. agency has before all to promote nuclear industries, and support such commercial projects. The IAEA has the highest position compared with other agencies in the hierarchy of the United Nations (UN), including the WHO, FAO, UNICEF and others being controlled by ECOSOP. Furthermore, the WHO from a legal point of view, is not independent or even absent in the field of health and ionizing radiations. The IAEA having to impose its goal, will not admit that severe diseases are due to radiation; this would slow down the spreading and the growth of the nuclear facilities in the world. The guidelines from this agency represent the defense of these commercial structures, but not a protection the population nor a help for victims.

For the national health authorities, the IAEA will be the wrong councilor in case of a nuclear catastrophe. Priority will be given to economical considerations, therefor the attempt to minimize or refute pathologies associated or provoked by artificial radiations will be denied. Wrong estimations may delay the evacuation of heavily irradiated communities.

Shocking and even less understandable in Fukushima, has been the absence of distribution of stable iodine to the whole population, and before all to children, who are more at risk. This prophylactic intervention is not expensive. It would have been efficient and, as shown in Poland by Keath Baverstock, such a campaign is very well tolerated, even if millions of children, who have the greatest need for such a protection, are included. One tablets has to be swallowed, if possible before the wind transporting radioactive iodine, mainly I-131, crosses over the region.

The Journal does not indicate that the first victims of the accident of Fukushima are and will be the children. This starts when the rapidly dividing cells of the embryo makes this stage of development 1000 times more susceptible than adults. Embryos may die, this would correspond to an early subclinical abortion. At birth, up to 5% of the girl babies have been missing the years after the explosion of Chernobyl, compared with the statistics of the years prior to 1986. The highest sex odds, with more than 5% of the female children missing were registered in Belarus and Russia, the countries with the highest radioactive fall-out. Missing girls at birth were also noticed in eastern Europe and Balkans after Chernobyl. Even in Germany there was still a significant deficit in girls at birth. However in France and Spain, with very little or localized radioactive fall-out, no changes of the historical sex odds were found. It shows that the deterioration of the sex odds is proportional to ionizing radiation.

The normal sex ratio, which is a sex odd, corresponds to about 1045 new-born males for 1000 newborn females. This ratio is more or less constant all over the world. There are other examples where the aggravation of the sex odds are increased, connected with increased radioactivity. For instance in the valley of Kerala with a back-ground radioactivity due to monazite, a thorium rich sand, with a six-time increased background activity, leads to a significant increase of congenital new dominant mutations, and Down’s syndrome, as well as an aggravation of the sex odds, compared with the neiboring valley with a normal background radiation. (Padmanabham).

In Chernobyl still-birth and perinatal mortality, as well as congenital defects were noticed. Cardiac defects are often detected much later. Irradiation of fetuses in utero may lead to a significant increase of leukaemia and cancers (brain tumors) as shown in the 50th by Alice Stewart.

In Chernobyl, the incidence of type 1 diabetes mellitus increased in children and especially in small children and infants, where the disease becomes evident due to the coma at entry. This is caused by defects of the immune system or a new mutation. *Usually, hereditary factors may be found in such cases; parents or grand-parents suffered from similar diseases. * In Chernobyl, type 1 diabetes mellitus is missing in the family. The Chernobyl diabetes mellitus of infants or small children appears to be a new disease.

In Belarus, it has been shown that the immune system was heavily affected after the accident. Therefore,

both the white blood cells and the gamma globulins must be studied with a prolonged follow-up in the population of Fukushima (See papers of Pr. Titov). The results should be compared with those of similar research performed in children populations far away from the radioactive fall-out. E.g.: a comparable region around Kobe or Kyoto).

When studying the immune system of irradiated children, attention should be payed to auto-antibodies, agains beta cells of Langerhans islets in the pancreas, and against thyroid cells. Hashimoto’s thyroiditis has the same etiology as type 1 diabetes mellitus. *Other endocrine glands, such as sex hormones producing cells, may be responsible for functional problems especially during puberty: delayed menstruations or even epidemics of male sterility as described in Ukraine. Allergic diseases may also increase in frequency among irradiated children populations. *Again, comparison with communities free of radioactive fall-out will be necessary.

The hypersensitivity of cells (lymphocyte cultures) of irradiated children, after a short X-ray irradiation of the cell culture, should also be studied in Fukushima, as it was done in Chernobyl children by Pr. Pelevina.The alteration of the immune system surely contributes to the increase of infectious diseases in infants and children of Chernobyl, even after years, if children still receive radio-contaminated food. The infections will have a more severe course, with complications and a tendency to become chronic, when compared with children of not radio-contaminated regions.

Ionizing radiation induces a genome instability, which is directly transmissible from generation to generation. This has to be studied and followed-up for generations, starting with the grand-parents now.

The incidence of thyroid cancer extremely rare in small children, may increase even before the fifth year of age; an age where normally only one case in one million small children suffers from this malignant disease. If irradiated in utero or soon after birth, the latency period for this cancer may be very short, and a rapidly invasive papillary cancer of the thyroid can develop in very young children. Chernobyl provoked several other thyroid diseases, such as goiter, thyroiditis and functional disorders. The other cancers have a longer latency period, up to 35 years. Cronberg in Sweden and Okeanov in Belarus found a clear trend for the increase of different cancers 10 years after Chernobyl, and a statistically highly significant increases of all common cancers after 20 years.

Irradiation of young adults leads to premature aging; the early occurrence of cancers being part of this phenomenon. *The increase of cancer was much more pronounced in younger, than in older liquidators of Chernobyl, with the same exposition to radiation. Okeanov showed further more that among liquidators, the duration of the exposition to radiation was a more important risk factor than the dose. (See Proceeding of an intentional conference, IAEA, Vienna, p279, 8-12 April 1996.). When studying problems of cancers, never chose the mortality as parameter, the mortality is declining year after year, but the incidence is growing, especially among irradiated subjects, and the mean age of occurrence may start 20 years too early. There, statistically significant differences may be found in ten to twenty years.

Blindness is also more frequent among young than among older liquidators. It is a degenerative disease of the retina, with microcirculatory disturbance, reaching after a few years the macula.

In Chernobyl the first cause of death due to radiation is not cancer, but cardiovascular diseases, hypertension, with cerebral and cardiac complications. Physicians may protect patients from these complications.

Years after Chernobyl, children with a high burden of Cs-137 in the organism are ill in 80% of the cases, and have often cardiac problems. Prior to Chernobyl and in regions of Belarus with minimal radioactive fallout, only 20% of the children can be considered as non healthy, as it was the case in Belarus before the catastrophe.

Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, and type 1 diabetes mellitus occur in infants at always younger ages. Other endocrine diseases, such as conditions due to anomalies of sex hormones may be responsible for functional problems especially in females during puberty, with delayed menstruations and sterility in male subject.

It is important that similar studies are undertaken in Fukushima, with always a possibly to compare the findings, with a group for comparison, in a similar environment, but no radioactive fall-out. The age, the sex distribution, the professions and standard of living and the density of population should be the same. Radiologically clean regions for comparison, could be selected around Kyoto or Kobe.

Measures to be taken to protect children are before all to prevent the uptake of radionuclides with drinks and food. Clean food and drinks must be given to all children, at home and in school canteens. Holidays in radiologically clean areas are also helpful.

Pectin reduces the uptake of radionuclides, Sr-90. Cs-137 and uranium derivatives. It also accelerates the elimination of radionuclides both with feces and urine. This food additive is Considered by the experts of the Research Laboratory of the European Commission in Ispra, Italy, as safe and efficient for this indication (Nesterenko V.I. & al. SMV 134: 24-27. 2004).

Contaminated children can also be protected with vitamin E and A, as well as carotenes, which act as antioxidants. Mothers should provide carrots, beet ruts and red fruits, containing such antioxidants to their children.

The external radiation dose is much less source of pathologies than internal dose due to incorporated radionuclides, which are chronically accumulated in given organs, Thymus, endocrine glands, spleen, surface of bones and heart. Bandazhevsky demonstrated after Chernobyl (SMW 2003; 133:p488-490) that nearly a two times higher concentrations of Cs-137 is measured at autopsy in organs from children, when compared with the concentration in the organs of adults from the same region. The highest concentrations were measured in the pancreas and the thymus of new-born babies and infants.

Dosimeters distributed to children should be replaced by whole body spectrometers periodically transported in schools for controls. This gives a measure of the Cs-137 load. If the values are above 20 Bq/kg bodyweight, pectin courses may be necessary, and the contaminated food must be replaced by absolutely clean food and clean drinks.

These reflections follow the article of the Mainich Daily News. It confirms that among adults no death related radiation occurred so far. The epidemiological and medical problems are to be studied and treated from birth to puberty by pediatricians, geneticists and immunologists, in irradiated communities. They will compare the present situation in Fukushima with that observed in not radio-contaminated comparable regions. *The cancers epidemic in adults has to be studied in 5 to 25 years from now.

Quote from Michel Fernex, former WHO employee:

“What should WHO have done after Chernobyl?” asked Dr Nabarro, Acting DirectorGeneral of the World Health Organization in 2002. He received an immediate reply: Convene a “Scientific Working Group on “Ionizing Radiation and Genetics” similar to the one in 1956 but add the words “and Genomic Instability”.
It was in response to this question, that the World Health Organization convened a study group in Geneva in 1956, composed of Nobel prize winner in genetics, Professor Muller, and other luminaries of international repute in the field…Together, these scientists reminded us that «the genome is the most valuable treasure of human kind. It determines the life of our descendants and the harmonious development of the future generations. As experts we confirm that the health of future generations is threatened by the expansion of the nuclear industry and the growth of the quantity of radioactive sources. We also consider the fact of appearance of new mutations observed in people to be fatal for them and for their descendants». Since then, a new area of research in genetics has opened up: genomic instability brought about, in particular, by radiation.

In 1986, the Minister of Health in the USSR, asked WHO for assistance for the victims of Chernobyl but WHO did not have the authority to respond to this request. It was therefore the IAEA, whose
mandate is the promotion of civil nuclear energy that set up the International Research Project, in which no mention was made of genetics. Instead, the IAEA gave higher priority to the problem of
dental caries and this became an area of investigation and research.

What genetic damage to the population has resulted from the accident at Fukushima? Is it already recorded in the cells of those workers who have exhausted themselves over the last year in the effort to
limit radioactive contamination of the environment? And what about people who inhaled the radioactive clouds and who ate contaminated food? Have the events of spring 2011 induced genomic
instability? And the children that have been born since, and those who are yet to be born, to mothers or fathers who were exposed to radiation. Have they been affected by the genomic instability of their
parents? Will the effects on them be worse?

What surprises researchers is that the genetic and especially perigenetic damage, responsible for genomic instability, to descendants is much more severe than the damage to parents, and it may get worse from generation to generation. What action should the authorities be taking? With the aid of geneticists, they should try to reduce the genetic damage that renewed contamination could exacerbate. They should reduce internal radiation from incorporated radionuclides that are 10 to 100 times more damaging than the equivalent external dose. They should provide uncontaminated food. In case of contamination, they should accelerate the elimination of the radionuclides with chelators such as pectin from algae, fruits and vegetables. They should help the body to fight the damage done by free radicals or peroxides induced by ionizing radiation by reinforcing the antioxidants in the body with vitamin A and E and by providing natural carotenoids contained in carrots, beetroot, and numerous coloured vegetables and fruit. Children should drink the milk of Jersey cows which is rich in
carotenoids and vitamin A.” http://independentwho.org/media/Documents_IW/Forum_Radioprotection_English_Abstracts_IW_2012.pdf

Even ICRP president admitted the same as WHO’s Margaret Chan:
“there is no dose of radiatoon so low that the risk of malignancy is zero”

AT: http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2011/08/03/safe-radiation-levels-never-get-your-facts-here/

Who Coverup article: http://www.rense.com/general95/whocoverup.html

“HOLOCAUST” versus “NOTHING HAPPENED” : http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/HoloVsNoProb.html

DO NOT TRUST IAEA AND WHO! http://www.independentwho.org

“The splitting of the atom has changed everything except our way of thinking, and thus we drift towards unparalleled catastrophe”. Albert Einstein http://www.icucec.org/files/art-chernobylrem.pdf

Jan Hemmer

Read Full Post »

妊娠中の日本人女性の避難すぐ

My footage from Correction of History: Forum on Radioprotection May 12 – 13 Geneva by independent WHO.org

Chris Busby on Radiation and Civil Society. Abstracts here: page 27: http://independentwho.org/media/Documents_IW/Forum_Radioprotection_English_Abstracts_IW_2012.pdf Dr. Christopher Busby (United Kingdom), British scientist, chemist and physicist specializing in adverse health effects of very low doses of ionizing radiation.

“In the 1990s in Britain and Europe there began to be increasing difficulty in obtaining official cancer incidence and mortality data for small areas. This followed and was probably related to the discovery by a TV company of a child leukaemia cluster near the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant, a discovery which began the investigation of the link between nuclear power and childhood cancer. In parallel, in the UK, and following an enquiry into the
Sellafield child leukemias in 1983 epidemiology began to focus on small area cancer statistics. In the UK a new agency was funded, the Small Area Health Statistics Unit, and Bayesian smoothing methods were developed to mathematically dismiss small area cancer clusters as being due to chance alone.

By the late 1990s all cancer registries in Europe had agreed to refuse to release small area data on the grounds of confidentiality, and so no independent epidemiological investigation of cancer rates near industrial or nuclear sites was possible. In order to get round this problem a method was developed employing data obtained directly from the public through interview and questionnaire, a similar approach to that historically used in third world countries or post-conflict situations where official registers are missing. Households in the study area are interviewed and fill out a questionnaire giving details of the sex and age of all residents in the house. The number of
cancers (or other illnesses) in the previous 10 years are also reported. This enables a Relative Risk and other statistics to be generated based on control populations. The method was piloted in Carlingford, Ireland in 2000, where it confirmed discoveries made in Wales of a sea coast effect on cancer.

It was next employed in Burnham on Sea downwind of the Hinkley Point nuclear power station where it confirmed results obtained in a separate mortality study of a doubling of breast cancer risk in the town and later employed in Wales by the HTV Company to look at cancer in Llan Ffestiniog downwind from the Trawsfynydd nuclear plant. Again high rates of breast cancer were found and a TV documentary was made. Most recently it was used in Fallujah, Iraq and reported in a scientific paper which has received considerable media attention.”

Jan Hemmer

Read Full Post »

妊娠中の日本人女性の避難すぐ

My footage from Correction of History: Forum on Radioprotection May 12 – 13 Geneva by independent WHO.org

CRMS measurement devices (ATOMTEX) http://crms-setagaya.jimdo.com/ http://crms-setagaya.jimdo.com/%E6%B8%AC%E5%AE%9A%E7%94%B3%E8%BE%BC%E6%9B%B8-pdf/ http://imeasure.cocolog-nifty.com/isotope/2011/09/atomtex-at1320a.html AND: http://utukushima.exblog.jp/i18/

Aya Marumori and Wataru Iwata (Japan) of the Japanese independent laboratory CRMS. Source: http://independentwho.org/media/Documents_IW/Forum_Radioprotection_English_Abstracts_IW_2012.pdf page 24

“Our government had not informed the risk, and the exact situation of Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant catastrophe. A lot of residents have been exposed without any warning since the beginning. Furthermore, it has been announcing “No effect on health from such a low dose, and no need to evacuate.” Our children have been and are forced to live in the contamination without any protection from exposure. They say “The problem is the stress to be afraid because of the illiteracy on the radioactivity,” which means the radiation doesn’t harm, but the Radiophobia will harm to the health is more dangerous. We couldn’t have been expressing
out loudly our concerns and anxiety…”

It is necessary for everyone to protect oneself from radioactivity and the one of the best way is to evacuate, but not everyone choose to do so. For the residents who chose or will choose to stay, need to make an effort on minimizing their exposure. Our action, measuring radioactivity by citizen, have begun from May last year. We have been measuring air dose, food and body. Also we have been holding “Child Health Consultation Meeting” with the cooperation of the Pediatricians from the outside of the prefecture, and distributing the notebooks called “Life Record Book” for parents to be able to estimate the personal exposure
dose. We have developed the system of measurements, understand the results, and then to make a decision by ourselves.

We cannot wait our children and babies to have a cancer and diseases from its risk. To those who promote nuclear power will not be able to protect the health of our children. In order to protect the children from low dose exposure, we are preparing the network of physicians, pediatricians and citizens who are independent from the benefit of nuclear power. The risk and benefit can never be optimized for all of our children and the future.”

More about CRMS: Donate for independent radiation measurements in Japan! CRMS / Project 47

and CRMS Fukushima Videos ワークショップの 動画 放射能

WHO and IAEA: 1959年のWHO-IAEA協定文書の翻訳 http://www.crms-jpn.com/art/112.html

ICRP and ECCR: PDF

CRMS JAPAN Whole Body Counter: http://www.crms-jpn.com/art/200.html

NEWS: CRMS Whole Body Counter Measurement times for June, now on the Website: http://www.crms-jpn.com/

Jan Hemmer

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 77 other followers