Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Harrisburg’

妊娠中の日本人女性の避難すぐ

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

INFO: http://www.nippon-foundation.or.jp/eng/news/fukushima-sympo.html

STREAM HERE: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/international-symposium-in-fukushima-radiation-and-health-risks

Their goal: Blaming the victim !

This year’s 9/11 will be Japan’s 2nd Fukushima: Quote form the site “…There will be a total of 30 participants representing 14 countries including Russia and the United States as well as from international organizations including the WHO and IAEA.”

The documents and abstracts of the Symposium – along with pro human scientific answers from CRIIRAD and CRMS can be found here: http://fr.crms-jpn.com/doc/ MORE: http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2011/08/16/donate-for-independent-radiation-measurements-in-japan-crms-project-47/

The symposium is the direct successor to the “Chernobyl forum” by the IAEA. 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 THIS WILL HAPPEN NOW in Fukushima dear readers!

IAEA ideology of Radiophobia (http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/page/4/): The fear of radiation is worse than the radiation. Civil Society with it’s Fukushima NGOs will become a threat to the poitical level and hunted down like in Belarus. Make the people believe, that any other statement is panic and unobjective (The IAEA uses the word “Radiophobia” for Chernobyl) The IAEA calls it “Radiophobia”: http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/31/017/31017716.pdf – this is what Japan now uses for their anti radiation fear propaganda. The present and future victims are perceived as a disturbance to the atomic industry, to the japanese government, to the companies running atomic plants. They are going to end it. “If we continue to treat them like victims, they feel like victims,” quote by Zoya I. Trafimchik, coordinator of the CORE programme: http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2011/03/18/core-a-chernobyl-aid-program-that-kills/
The Symposium is a successor of the IAEA 1996 Chernobyl conference: http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2011/07/24/japan-goes-the-same-way-as-belarus-dictatorship-a-deep-insight/

Open Letter of Inquiry to the Organizing Committee for the International Expert Symposium in Fukushima Radiation and Health Risks by CRMS

Angela Merkel IGNORES all data and Chernobyl studies, showing an increase in diseases, mutation, disbility, mortality and morbidity and so on. EVIDENCE: http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub1001_web.pdf ANGELA MERKEL said in 1996 at the IAEA meeting: page 51: “This week’s conference is an attempt to formulate a synthesis from the results of the meetings of the WHO in Geneva, the European Commission in Minsk and the International Forum on Nuclear Safety Aspects here in Vienna.(…) We must assess the epidemiological findings for other types of cancer, in particular with regard to leukaemia, which has always been thought to be the most sensitive indicator for exposure to radiation. There have not yet been any cases of leukaemia attributable to the disaster. What does this mean for the future? In this connection we will have to examine what this means for the development of other tumours or other health effects as the results of exposure to radiation.We think that we know that these effects on health are psychological consequences of the accident, the general uncertainty about the actual situation, as well as other stress factors, e.g. resettlement. This was associated with a disruption of social networks. Several hundred thousand people were evacuated or resettled, with enormous social implications. At the same time we can see an increase in the accumulation of specific diseases — not yet regarded as radiation induced — particularly among children.” SHE IGNORES 1000,000 ill Chernobyl children. (pure PR, with a foto of her in 1996 at the IAEA together, where also president Lukashenko of Belarus was and demanded Come back to irradiated areas, people!: http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull383/38304781423.pdf)

Remember, the IAEA is powerful, because they are SECURITY COUNCIL of the United Nations – not Social and Economic Council of the United Nations, like the W.H.O.  The member states of the IAEA are: Russia, USA, France, China, England – all VETO Powers and permanent members of the United Nations Security Council!

Live streaming of anti nuc demonstration in Tokyo. More than 20 people have been arrested.Police is trying to crash it by bringing right wing groups: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/kamatayusuke#utm_campaign=t.co&utm_source=7970606&utm_medium=social

denial of justice and absolute shame (french): http://www.sortirdunucleaire.org/actualites/communiques/affiche.php?aff=830

I think The aims of this symposium are:

- Fake science, fake ethic.

- To keep claims for compensation small and / or unjustified (long time effects of radiation are not accepted by IAEA and WHO, and so by the Health Ministry)

- The invention of trivialization of nuclear accidents (made in Germany, 1975):  http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2011/05/22/the-invention-of-trivialization-of-nuclear-accidents-made-in-germany-1975/

- Limitation of the policy of Decontamination

- How to re integrate irradiated areas into economy (people’s health do not count, not important) happened in Belarus before: http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2011/07/24/japan-goes-the-same-way-as-belarus-dictatorship-a-deep-insight/

“One also needs to recognise that practically all protection measures undertaken in the USSR after the accident at the Chernobyl NPP have failed, such as iodine prophylactics, ban on consumption of contaminated foodstuffs, decontamination of affected settlements, attempts to improve the life standards in the affected areas, etc. The same happened to the state financial support of the people from the affected territories because the inevitably arbitrary allocations have produced an opposite effect, i.e. feeling of inequality and jealousy.” – PAGE 4, left bottom: http://www.rri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/NSRG/reports/kr21/kr21pdf

- by increasing radiation limits for all people (infants, fetus, children, old people, everyone) you lower standards for food, air, land, water. So you can re-integrate the areas again.

- To force the Japanese population to accept on behalf of the economic efficiency unhealthy living conditions and contaminated food and contaminated water

- To relieve TEPCO: The burden of proof is imposed on the victims rather than on the polluter of the contamination: http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2011/07/18/nuclear-energy-has-the-scientific-licence-to-kill-for-money/

- Victims must therefore justify Decontamination

Intelligence and Brain Damage in Children Acutely Irradiated in Utero As a Result of the Chernobyl Accident – Department of Neurology, Institute for Clinical Radiology, Research Centre for Radiation Medicine of Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine, WHO Collaborative Centre: http://www.rri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/NSRG/reports/kr79/kr79pdf/Nyagu.pdf

- Make the people believe, that because of background radiation every additional radiation is natural, normal, not bad (known as the principle of “substantial equivalence”)

“Background radiation is also the primary reason why women aged over ~40 are advised not to have children. (…) Many scientists also consider that background radiation is the prime factor in the ageing process, and is ultimately the reason why we are not immortal”: PAGE 5 http://www.odwac.gov.on.ca/standards_review/tritium/Tritium_Radiation_Risks_Additional_Note_for_ODWAC_Fairlie.pdf

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

- Advise the officals with authentic language

- Refuse cancer studies like the german KiKK study as unscientific

- Raise radiation limits for different groups of people, so that different values ​​can be measured but each is normal, and below the limt

A fundamental human train it is, at first to hide something. Every little child who breaks something expensive, is trying to hide the pieces, to avoid being scolded. This principle can be found at every level. At every level, everyone wants to hold back information and downplay the whole thing, it’s a human principle funamentales.

In the case of Three Mile Island, the definition of accident refers only to the first 7 days. Everything about it falls within the definition of decontamination. But the Latency for Cesium is 20 – 25 years for mature people / 4 years children

Of these, the following doses are deducted:

The dose people at work in atomic power plants would be exposed to in normal operation.

The background radiation.

Moreover, the fallout from Chinese nuclear tests.

Excluding these values​​, and only 7 days. This is fraud.

from the co-author of the 1000,000 deaths Chernobyl study (Nesterenko, Jablkokov: www.strahlentelex.de/Yablokov%20Chernobyl%20book.pdf) Soon, Japan will struck of irradiated areas from the radiation map, just like Belarus did and stop compensation and support for irradiated areas & people: http://www.life-upgrade.com/DATA/NesterenkoChernobyl-Belarus.pdf

Excerpts from the Symposium (quote / source: http://fukushima-diary.com/2011/09/breaking-news-the-risk-of-internal-exposure-is-imaginary/ ):

9/11~12,International “Expert” symposium was held in Fukushima medical university.(Link)

“Mr.100mSv” Yamashita Shunichi attended this symposium as well.

In this symposium,they mentioned the risk of internal exposure and they stated like this below.(Page 1-3)

In addition to actual effects,imaginary impact has been enormous.Often exaggerated stories regarding effects of internal exposure was provided to general public to lead misunderstanding that the effect from internal exposure is much severer than that from external exposure.In the current radiation protection system,a dose from internal exposure is expressed as a committed dose,an integral over 50 years for adult and years until 70 years of age for children.The committed dose is added up with an external dose to give an effective dose.Once expressed as the effective dose,from the viewpoint of radiation protection,the effect is supposed to be the same no matter whether the exposure is external or internal.The experts on biological effects of radiation and radiation protection should provide precise information on the concept of internal exposure to the public.

The symposium is the direct successor to the “Chernobyl forum” by the IAEA. 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 THIS WILL HAPPEN NOW in Fukushima dear readers!

This ideology will be further developed during the UN Special meeting on Fukushima on Sept. 22dnd 2011: http://www.energy-net.org/blog/2011/09/17/un-special-meeting-on-fukushima-9-22/

On the basis of the resulting model, known as the LNT (Linear-No Threshold) model, collective dose equivalent is a good measure…” Why is this a good measure? Sternglass showed that there are 4 dose-response curves: http://books.google.de/books?id=XAcAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA29&lpg=PA29#v=onepage&q&f=false

Page 2: “Table 1 Incidence of 12 classes of disease among liquidators per 100 thousand people” – shows massive increase of diseases. Page 6 “relation between effects at low-intensive dosage and dose rate” and Page 11 “the PRESENCE of linear or linear-quadratic dependency IS NOT obligatory for the cases of diseases and deaths from malignant neoplasm at low doses”: http://www.rri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/NSRG/reports/kr21/kr21pdf/Burlakova.pdf

“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. ” http://www.rri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/NSRG/reports/kr21/kr21pdf/Burlakova.pdf 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.

Witness the arrogant discussion style at IAEA meetings, between IAEA pro nuclear advocats, Greenpeace members and scientists from Chernobyl irradiated countries – from page 183 on: http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1312_web.pdf quote “In a statement made on the occasion of the 15th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the United Nations, said that at least three million children in Belarus, Ukraine and the Russian Federation required medical treatment because of the Chernobyl accident and that not before 2016, at the earliest, would we know the full number of those
likely to develop serious medical conditions.” – ANSWER: “In my view, that statement of the Secretary General was unfounded and influenced by United Nations bodies which have played a less than positive role in connection with the Chernobyl accident, engaging in sensationalism…” More about the IAEA:

Mass murderes Symposium’s abstracts published: http://www.wna-symposium.org/abstracts.html London Sept. 14th – 16th.

The Codex Alimentarius Commission was created in 1963 by FAO and WHO to develop food standards, guidelines and related texts such as codes of practice under the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme. http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/index_en.jsp The Codex Alimentarius Commission at its 18th Session (Geneva 1989) adopted Guideline Levels for Radionuclides in Foods Following Accidental Nuclear Contamination. The Guideline Levels which are in this publication remain applicable for one year following a nuclear accident: http://www.criirad.org/actualites/dossiers2005/menacesradioactivesaliments/codexanglais1989.pdf

Graphic is from: http://www.rri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/NSRG/reports/kr21/kr21pdf/Lazjuk.pdf Genetic Consequences of the Chernobyl Accident for Belarus Republic – Register exists since 1982 – although the IAEA denies this!

Infants / Children in Japan are going to die because of Influenza and Pneumonia. This is how it works: Infant deaths increased by Three Mile Island: http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2011/07/30/infant-mortality-increased-by-three-mile-island-1979-ignored-by-iaea-w-h-o-nrc-media/ and:  http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2011/03/14/low-radiation-the-petkau-effect/

Low radiaton damages the immune system, then, Children die of ordinary illness. And no one gets the message, that low radiation is behind it, because at the same time effects of low radiation are ignored by the United Nations, governments, healht ministeries and common science. A deadly and clever “game”.

Insects are early warning signs for low radiation: JAPAN: http://www.freeml.com/bl/8694840/25149/ normal insects soon only in the laboratory: http://www.wissenskunst.ch/en/tschernobyl.htm

Download this book: http://radionucleide.free.fr/Stresseurs/fulltext_punaise.pdf

Here is the ugly truth: http://www.infiniteunknown.net/2011/06/16/prof-hiroaki-koide-of-kyoto-university-on-the-ugly-truth-about-the-nuclear-disasters-of-chernobyl-and-fukushima-video/

The IAEA is undermining the right of expression and legal justice:

The IAEA recognized the judicial process to Three Mile Island / Harrisburg only to experts, the methodology and results consistent with those of the other “colleagues”on the same subject. The IAEA describes itself as the “colleagues”. Consequently, 11 were excluded from 12 experts from the court hearing. More: http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2011/07/30/infant-mortality-increased-by-three-mile-island-1979-ignored-by-iaea-w-h-o-nrc-media/

My article is the counter attack against this symposium. More information on Chernobyl, IAEA and WHO: http://www.ratical.org/radiation/Chernobyl/HEofC25yrsAC.html

http://www.independentwho.info/Presse_ecrite/11_04_27_IPS_EN.pdf

http://www.independentwho.info/Documents/M_Fernex/ChernobylCatastrophe_Fernex_EN.pdf

Since 1959 the WHO is gagged by the IAEA: http://independentwho.info/WHA_12_40_EN.php?sous_menu=onu quote:

The constitution of the World Health Organisation (WHO),
states the following principles: “Healthy development of the child is of basic importance …” and “Informed opinion and active co-operation on the part of the public are of the utmost importance in the improvement of the health of the people …”

In Chapter 1, Article 1 – Objectives of WHO, it states :
“The objective of the World Health Organization shall be the attainment by all peoples
of the highest possible level of health”.

But on 28th May 1959,
,WHO signed Agreement WHA 12-40 with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
which prevents WHO taking any initiative or action to achieve its objectives:the preservation and the improvement of health.

Watch these documentaries (free & legal): http://videos.sortirdunucleaire.org/Wladimir-Tchertkoff-Documentaries

The Department of Radiobiology at the Geneva WHO headquarters was closed two years ago under pressure from private and public donors. 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’s Director General Margaret Chan admitted on May 4th 2011, that “the WHO is no expert on radiation,” and that the WHO “on this issue today almost at all has not the jurisdiction any more.”

Today in the WHO Geneva headquarters, there is only a single radiation biologist. Geneva is the WHO’s head quarter.

“There is no safe low levels of radiation, ” said WHO Director General Margaret Chan on May 4th during a short meeting scheduled with members of the critical “initiative for an independent WHO: http://www.independentwho.info more: http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2011/05/12/w-h-o-secretary-general-chan-admits-for-the-first-time-in-52-years-radiation-is-always-dangerous/

Another participant is CEPN: Centre d’étude sur l’Evaluation de la Protection dans le domaine Nucléaire, France is responsible for the  criminal CORE program in Belarus: http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2011/03/18/core-a-chernobyl-aid-program-that-kills/ CEPN was founded by the French Électricité de France (the mayor atomic power BIG player in the E.U.), French electricity association, and by CEA, the Comissariat for atomic power AREVA (former COGEMA). Not far away from IAEA.

The director of this symposium will be Dr. Shunichi Yamashita (aka Mr. 100mSv), will be the recipient of Asahi Cancer Award for his “contribution” to radiation medicine. He is one of the two advisors for Fukushima Prefecture after the accident to “educate” Fukushima residents on radiation safety. He repeatedly “educated” residents that radiation exposure dose of 100mSv is SAFE. Lots of parents in Japan are upset about this announcement: http://www.asahi.com/national/update/0831/TKY201108310495.html 100 Milli Sievert per year are an equivalent of 250 mammograms: http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/XHP/BreastCancer.html For Children! Infants! Info by http://www.facebook.com/americaiminvisa

In contrast:

“…To provide an adequate safety standard the dose limit of 1 mSv/y have to be reduced to 0.02 mSv/y or 20 µSv/y.”Page 9:  http://www.staff.uni-marburg.de/~kunih/all-doc/stoakuni.pdf by Dr. Horst Kuni, Nuclear Medicine, University Professor.

Scientific Downplaying and euphemism:

a) Our estimates suggest that a cumulative exposure of 100 mSv would lead to a 9.7% (1.4 to 19.7%) increased mortality from all cancers excluding leukaemia and a 5.9% (−2.9 to 17.0%) increased mortality from all cancers excluding leukaemia, lung, and pleura compared with background rates: http://www.bmj.com/content/331/7508/77.full?sid=ed1379eb-6c19-40da-ba21-8c9b05d9b9da

b) http://blogs.flinders.edu.au/flinders-news/2011/07/14/radiation-response-a-meltdown-in-reason/ – This is anti human science.

In contrast: Page 2: “Table 1 Incidence of 12 classes of disease among liquidators per 100 thousand people” – shows massive increase of diseases. Page 6 “relation between effects at low-intensive dosage and dose rate” and Page 11 “the PRESENCE of linear or linear-quadratic dependency IS NOT obligatory for the cases of diseases and deaths from malignant neoplasm at low doses”: http://www.rri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/NSRG/reports/kr21/kr21pdf/Burlakova.pdf

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

The historical anti-human cover-up of the WHOpowered by the International Adertising Agency for Atomic Energy IAEAhttp://mondediplo.com/2008/04/14who

The WHO has never shown independence in its decisions or actions: http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=55403

What does the WHO say about Chernobyl? Read here: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs303/en/index.html

Consumption: “Given the low radiation doses received by most people exposed to the Chernobyl accident, no effects on fertility, numbers of stillbirths, adverse pregnancy outcomes or delivery complications have been demonstrated nor are there expected to be any.”

In contrast (by Alexey Jablokov, co-author of the 1000,000 Chernobyl Deaths-Study: http://www.strahlentelex.de/Yablokov%20Chernobyl%20book.pdf ):

The UNSCEAR Committee for the Scientific Investigation of the effects of radiation United Nations has declared:

The UNCEAR committee has decided not to extrapolate the effects of Low-level radiation from the Chernobyl accident on the population on the basis of models extrapolate absolute terms, because these predictions are afflicted with unacceptable unreliability (UNSCEAR, 2011; 98, p.18).

This “unreliabilitydepends on both the methodological errors of the officially recognized system for the determination of radiation risk (eg: ECRR, 2003, 2010), as well as with the underestimation of the extent of the effects of the atomic bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined (eg: Bertell, 1985, Stewart, 1989)

One of the methodological error of traditional approaches to determining the scope of Radiation risk is the exclusive use of data on cancer mortality, although it is not the most important cause of mortality after the Chernobyl accident, in radioactively contaminated territories. Another methodological error of UNSСEAR approach is a complete disregard of the Increase in perinatal mortality rate after the disaster that after the Chernobyl Accident in the many highly radioactively contaminated areas in Belarus (Petrova et al. 1997, Korblein, 2002, 2006), Ukraine (Dzykovich et al., 2004), Russia (Balewa, et al., 2001), Germany (Schreb, Incited, 2000, Korblein, Kuchenkoff, 1997, Schreb et al., 2000), Poland (Korblein, 2003, 2006) and UK (Bentham, 1999, Busby, 1995) showed. Since the time of the nuclear weapons tests in the atmosphere is known that the radioactive Contamination, an increase of prenatal mortality rate (stillbirths and Miscarriages) and infant mortality rate (Sternglass, 1972; White, 1992;. Playford et al, 1992; Overview here Busby, 1995; Yablokov, 2002, Durakovic, 2003) causes: http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/low-radiation-kills-everything-trees-children-green-energy-peace-climate-democracy-mind-science/

My part: Infant Mortality Changes Following the Three Mile Island Accident,” from 1980: http://atomichistory.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/sternglass_infantmortalitytmi.pdf quote “The discrepancy in infant deaths between the two sources for the period of April 1 through June 30, 1979, had been two; from October 1 through December 31 it had also been two. For eighty-eight to surface between July 1 and September 30, precisely in the controversial summer months after the TMI accident, seemed unlikely.”

My part: Quote: “The victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and patients treated with X-rays because of such dubious indications as thymus hyperplasia demonstrate the exceptionally high sensitivity of children. However, the important discovery of Stewart and coworkers in 1958 , an enhancement of childhood leukaemia following diagnostic X-ray pictures during pregnancy, listed as historic milestone by Mossman also, has provoked a deep controversy. Their findings were an impressive support of the postulated linear non-threshold relationship for leukaemia” SOURCE Page 2: http://www.staff.uni-marburg.de/~kunih/all-doc/doserele.pdf

In the period 1987-88 is a well-documented increase in infant mortality in the leaves radioactive contaminated areas of Ukraine (Grodzinsky, 1999; Omelianetz, Klementjew, 2001, Dubowaja, 2010), Russia (Fetisow, 1999; Hworostenko, 1999; Komogortseva, 2001, Utka et al. 2005, ZYB et al., 2006) and Germany (Korblein, 2006 notice) was found. After the Chernobyl Accident increased infant mortality affects even the entire demographic Statistics of a number of countries. In the more contaminated areas of Ukraine and Russia an increased Overall mortality observed. (The most recent 1995;. Omelianets et al, 2001; Оmelianets, Klement’ev, 2001, Grodzinsky, 1999;. Golubchikov et al, 2002, Kaschirina, 2005; Sergeeva et al. 2005; Dubowaja, 2010, Kaschirina, 2005; Sergeewa et al, 2005;. Fetisow, 1999; Sukalska et al.
2004 and many others).

The methodological error of the epidemiological approach to determining the number of victims is based on the accounts of the radiation risk is that the estimation of the number of victims on the comparison of relatively well-documented mortality and morbidity rates (the number the sick and the dead carried out), while levels of radioactive  Load can not be accurately determined. Moreover, this approach to determine the Number of victims is not capable of the effects of low radiation dose precisely to record (which have added even the inventor of this approach): “The currently available Epidemiological data provide no basis for reasonable assurance to the radioactive contamination attributable morbidity and mortality in test groups from the To predict the population of the three republics and other European countries, with a average dose of less than 30 mSv were charged in the past 20 years. Any rise in [the morbidity and mortality among these groups] would be lower than the Emerging scientific measurability. “(UNSCEAR, 2011, (97), p. 18).

The methodological Defectiveness of the epidemiological approach leads to the large deviation of forecasts the numbers of victims. (Table 1):

CHERNOBYL DEATHS :

4,000 deaths (in 90 years. Belarus, Ukraine, European part Russia) according to IAEA / WHO – press paper Chernobyl forum 2005

8,930 deaths (in 90 years. Belarus, Ukraine, European part Russia) according to Chernobyl forum 2005

7,400 deaths (Whole world for 50 years) according to Anspaugh et al., 1988

30,000 deaths (Whole world for 50 years) according to Goldman, 1987

18,000 (8,000 – 32,000) deaths (Europe, 1986 – 2065  without Thyroid cancer) according to Cardis et al., 2006

30,000 – 60,000 deaths (Whole world. About the entire period) according to Fairley, Sumner,2006

117,000 (37,000 – 181,000) deaths (Whole world. in the period 1986 – 2056) according to Malko, 2010

317,000 – 475,000 (495,000 with Leukemia) deaths (Whole world. About the whole period. only radiocesium) according to Hofman,1994

899,000 – 1,786 000 deaths (Whole world. About the entire period. only radionuclides) according to Bertell,2006

Some estimates of the additional through by the ‘Chernobyl’ caused mortality Cancer, which made the epidemiological approach (“dose” method) were Based on the spread of the “dose” method estimates, which are set out in the table are more than 400 times higher than the usual scientific disagreement. You can with the Opinion of UNSCEAR agree that not a forecast of the number of victims work but with one caveat: This does not work only if the traditional “dose” – Method is applied.

For the estimation of the total number of victims is another method (the so-called “Balance” method) reliable. It consists of the data of the health status of Population of the radioactively contaminated areas with high data. To compare health status of the population from the “clean” areas. The basic source data consist of physical instrumental measurements of radioactive Contamination of an area and the incidence rate and mortality (morbidity and mortality) in this area.

The best example of this method is the Additional calculations on the “Chernobyl” accident declining mortality, Hudolej W. et al. (2006) in the six regions of Russia was performed. In these
Areas that were affected by the fallout from Chernobyl were the worst, 7.5 million People.

I leave the details of the bills and put aside just before the results: Total number of excess deaths in these six radioactively contaminated areas was 60 400. This corresponds to 3.75% of total mortality of the population during the examined 15 years (from 1990 to 2004.) or 37 of every 1,000 people. Conversion to at all levels of ≥ 1 Ci / km ² contaminated areas within the former Soviet Union (and taking into account the mortality of liquidators and evacuees from these areas after 1986) could all of the additional mortality rate in Ukraine, Belarus and in the European part of Russia in the period 1990-2004 by the Chernobyl accident was caused, amounted to around 240 000 cases.

In Europe, outside the areas affected by radioactive releases from the Ukraine, Belarus and the European part of Russia could be the additional “Chernobyl” – Mortality in areas with a level of contamination Cesium137> 1.08 Ci / km ² (> 40 kBq / m) in the period 1990 to 2004 a number of 185 000 cases, represent, and in the areas with a higher population density and a contamination level of <1 Ci / km ² (<40 kBq / m²) – around 227 000th Outside Europe, where around 20% of the radionuclides from Chernobyl have failed, resulting so an additional “Chernobyl” mortality in the period 1990-2004 of 330 000 Cases. In this way, the total incremental, “Chernobyl” in the mortality rates can 1990-2004 period all over the world to 1.034 million estimated cases.

To this figure should be even mortality within the first 3.5 years after the Disaster (May 1986 – 1989) and add the period 2006-2011. If it is suspected that the annual death rate for the first 3.5 years of the 1990-2004 period at about corresponded to (the infant mortality rate is higher, while the mortality of adults lower), adds even further 240 000 cases. If one assumes that the Mortality rate during 2005-2010 was about half (on the one hand, the population older and “collected” diseases are clear and the latent period of several Cancer is over, on the other hand, the level of chronic radiation decreases due to the decay of cesium-137 and strontium-90), there are again additional 170 000 cases.

In this way, the overall level of additional “Chernobyl” in the mortality rate Period of the first 25 years are estimated by the disaster: 1 034 000 + 240 000 + 170 000 = 1.444 million victims. But this figure also shows the entire “Chernobyl” mortality is not complete. It is known that the disaster to a sudden increase in prenatal mortality has done. The increase in the number of still-births and miscarriages can be divided into a number highly radioactively contaminated areas in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia to determine (Kulakov et al, 1993;. Buzhievskaya et al, 1995; Buldakov et al, 1996;. Golovko, Ishewski, 1996; Medvedeva et al, 2001; Lypik, 2004;. Serdjulk et al, 2004; Timchenko et al, 2006;. ZYB et al. 2006) (. Scherb et al, 2000; Scherb, Wiegel, 2010) as well as the phenomenon is in Bavaria, Croatia (Korblein, 2008), UK (Bentham, 1991, Busby 1995), Finland (Auvinen et al, 2001.) Italy (Semisa, 1988) and Norway (Ulstain et al., 1990) measurable. The calculation of the total Number of such cases is not entirely accurate, but might, according to the experts’ assessments about 170 000 cases estimated for whole Europe.

If we agree with the opinion of the nuclear society, in the UNSCEAR (2001) is expressed, and thus give up the tests, the exact number of victims of To predict the Chernobyl disaster, because we seem to inaccurate estimates, then comes the one thought prohibition. The other approach is to consider all arguments and vague estimates to clarify gradually. With regard to the scale of the disaster, the whole territory of
northern hemisphere and thus affected more than one billion people and has concerns, it clear that it is impossible to exactly the number of victims up to thousands or tens of thousands of people determine. But it seems important to determine the magnitude of the numbers: Some thousands (Which is unnoticeable in the overall mortality rate) or a few million (which is a Forcing a rethink in terms of nuclear technology would).

The “balance” – method for determining the number of victims of the Chernobyl accident, which during the last years has developed rapidly and is still evolving, it looks advantageous- Especially in comparison with that used with the calculation of the radiation risk “Dose” method, which is based on unreliable estimates of radiation dose. The “Balance” – method is not ideal because it is the formation of average values ​​of
demographic characteristics and an assessment of the radiation rate in the observed Areas needed. The undoubted advantage of the “Balance” method when compared with the “dose” Method, however, is that it makes no less verifiable assumptions. In the analysis of the mortality situation in the Chernobyl radionuclides on by one level of ≥ 1 Ci / km ² (40 kBq / m) contaminated areas in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine has been found that the overall mortality rate here is around 4% higher than in the relatively “clean” neighboring areas. In the other, huge sections of the northern Hemisphere, which were affected by the Chernobyl fallout is weaker, the number of additional Low mortality, no doubt, but given the large amount of people affected they certainly still essential. The rough estimation of the total possible number of Chernobyl victims in the period of the last 25 years is about 1.44 million cases (under Consideration of prenatal deaths – 1.6 million cases). This confirms the known Statement: The Chernobyl accident is the biggest technological catastrophe in Human history.

This is criminal. I personally confronted Dr. Neira of the WHO with the Iodine scandal from 1998, on Apr 26th 2011: http://www.tschernobylkongress.de/fileadmin/user_upload/pdfs/Baverstock_How_the_UN_works.pdf

Excerpt: “By mid 1998 first draft of the Guidelines was circulating between IAEA and WHO at the management level. Although there had been a clear agreement between the two organisations at
the management level and the work had taken place openly the IAEA withdrew at that stage strongly advising that the whole issue should either be dropped or revised. The issue was the proposal to lower the action level for implementation from 100mGy to 10mGy dose to the thyroid’s of children.” – PAGE 9 – and: “According to IAEA many of their Member States regarded the Guidelines as “scientifically flawed” in relation to the new action level. It finally emerged that France had objected on the grounds of cost and IAEA was acting in their interests.” – PAGE 10 – this is written by Dr. Keith Baverstock, Prior to 1991 Dr Baverstock was at the UK Medical Research Council’s Radiobiology Unit at Harwell (…) From 1998 to 2002 he set-up a dedicated project office in Helsinki for nuclear emergencies and public health and in 2002 he transferred to the WHO’s European Centre for Environment and Health located in Bonn where he was the Regional Advisor for Radiation and Public Health…” Source: http://www.chernobylcongress.org/speakers/artikel/2cc0de2cee21dc8506748b53a7d1e584/keith-baverstock.html

She denied it. I am not allowed to make my footage public. But here are some of my other clips:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I want to see the IAEA before the ICC. The International Criminal Court. For mass murderer, with weapons of mass destruction and it’s invisible war – you can not touch, feel, hear, smell, see.

But WE can change history. One year remaining: The 20th IPPNW World Congress will be held in Hiroshima, Japan Medical Student Congress: August 22 and 23 (Wednesday and Thursday) Main Congress: August 24 – 26 (Friday to Sunday) : http://ippnw2012.org/

The latest news: Six months after the explosions:

http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2011/09/09/six-months-the-nuclear-refugees/

http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2011/09/09/six-months-reflection-and-protest/

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904900904576554532325467622.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

With kind regards,

Life-Upgrade.com

Read Full Post »

妊娠中の日本人女性の避難すぐ

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

massive information overload.

regards,

Life-Upgrade.com

Read Full Post »

妊娠中の日本人女性の避難すぐ

The nuclear industry was established by the military
ICRP is created by the military and nuclear industries
The IAEA was created by the nuclear industry
IAEA member countries: China, Russia, USA, UK, France,
These five nuclear powers, have a veto at the UN
Against the truth
Low radiation
Chernobyl
Fukushima
Against children
Against future

原子力産業は、軍によって設立された
ICRPは、軍事や原子力産業によって作成される
IAEAは、原子力産業によって作成された
IAEAの加盟国:中国、ロシア、アメリカ、イギリス、フランス、
これらの5つの核大国は、国連で拒否権を持っている
真理に逆らって
低放射
チェルノブイリ
福島県
に逆らっての子供たち
に逆らって、将来

Depleted Uranium ammunition used in Iraq, Yugoslavia, Lybia, Afghanistan:

new weapon of mass destruction: NRC licences Depleted Uranium – / “mini-Hiroshima”

regards,

Life-Upgrade.com

Read Full Post »

妊娠中の日本人女性の避難すぐ

At the time of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, scientists were busy trying to figure out how many people die from atomic bombs and are incapable of fighting.

It was not about still-born children, sick adults or children suffering. Recognized losses had to stay as small as possible. (quote Rosalie Bertell, Toronto, Kanda)

Atomic power plants are an invention of the military to produce plutonium. Electricity was a waste product.

The definition of an accident is similar to what is known in Harvard as “strategic misinterpretation“. Quote of IAEA and OCDE: ““In consequence, the Chernobyl accident will be not considered as a significant accident.SOURCE

The ICRP talked in 1990 in connection with Chernobyl about “temporary effects from radiation“. Therefor ICRP admits radiation damage. The IAEA denies this.
The  ICRP leaves the field of consequences for health caused by radiation to engineers and physicists . The WHO does the same (independentwho.info)

In the case of Three Mile Island, the definition of accident refers only to the first 7 days. Everything about it falls within the definition of decontamination. But the Latency for Cesium is 20 – 25 years for mature people / 4 years children

Of these, the following doses are deducted:

The dose people at work in atomic power plants would be exposed to in normal operation.

The background radiation.

Moreover, the fallout from Chinese nuclear tests.

Excluding these values​​, and only 7 days. This is fraud.

The IAEA is undermining the right of expression and legal justice:

The IAEA recognized the judicial process to Three Mile Iceland / Harrisburg only to experts, the methodology and results consistent with those of the other “colleagues”on the same subject. The IAEA describes itself as the “colleagues”. Consequently, 11 were excluded from 12 experts from the court hearing.

Japanese officals and WHO ignore irradiated Japanese Children

IAEA and ICRP – Licence to Kill – ALARA principle

Fukushima: The IAEA strategy

Japan: Additional 252,500 Cancer Cases and Risk for pregnant women

25 Years with FUKUSHIMA

Atomic Industry – Licence to Kill

Life-Upgrade.com

Read Full Post »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 83 other followers