Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘ICRP’

妊娠中の日本人女性の避難すぐ

Source: Pro Nuclear ICRP International Commission on Radiation Protection – linked to IAEA and Industry. Founded 1928. One year after Nobel Prize Winner Muller proved the transmutation of the gene by radiation.

SCANS:

ICRP-Scan02 ICRP-Scan01

1927 Herman J Mueller discovered in 1927 (!) the following: ARTIFICIAL TRANSMUTATION OF THE GENE by radiation – he got the The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1946:

http://www.esp.org/foundations/genetics/classical/holdings/m/hjm-1927a.pdf

It was repeated by Fukushima`s butterflies, in 2011: http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2012/08/17/fukushimas-butterflies-known-since-1927/

1928 the ICRP was founded. No coincidence: http://www.icrp.org/publication.asp?id=1928%20Recommendations

cosmosTEPCO

ICRP has confirmed in 1966 that natural radiation is harmful! ICRP Publication Number 8 from 1966 on page 60. in relation to the health damage caused by natural radiation for the bulk of the world’s population is a risk of sixth order (1 to 10 dead per million per rad / gray) in a few areas with high natural background radiation the risk fifth order. 10 to 100 dead per million and rad (gray). and in 1977 the ICRP publication number 26 said, that, in this sense, regional differences of the natural radiation are so regarded, that the corresponding differences include the damage. and in the ’80s the natural radiation was simply doubled. and in 2011 it became the twentyfold in japan: 20 mSv/a. Natural radiation is used as an excuse to increase artificial radiation with radionuclides from reactors.

They call that radiation-protection!

nuclear-food

Internal Dose for japanese Infants: 1 SIEVERT per year: http://www.strahlentelex.de/RadiationRisk_EU_042011_engl.pdf

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

1971: the discoverer of plutonium and president of the USAEC Glenn Theodore Seaborg resigns – at the same time the ICRP reduced the additional maximum dose near reactors for the public from 500 mrem/annual (5 mSv/a) to 5 mrem/annual (0,05 mSv/a).

the USAEC “protects” health and advertises nuclear industry at the same time, later renamed in AEC, then renamed in NRC.

Source NRC (USAEC / AEC before): http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/32111590/seaborg-resigns-from-aec

Source (ICRP 5 mSv/a): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2596042/pdf/yjbm00117-0064.pdf

! no coincidence !

Dose-Limit

Thanks to Prof. Ernest Sternglass and his studies about infant mortality near reactors;: http://www.ratical.org/radiation/inetSeries/ejs1192.html

And, in 1991, the ICRP lowered the standard from 5 mSv /a to 1 mSv/a: “For occupational exposure in planned exposure situations the Commission now recommends an equivalent dose limit for the lens of the eye of 20 mSv in a year, averaged over defined periods of 5 years, with no single year exceeding 50 mSv.” page 1:  Source: http://www.icrp.org/docs/ICRP%20Statement%20on%20Tissue%20Reactions.pdf

And in 2011, the japanese government increased it for infants, students, mature, unborn, to: 20 mSv/a

A 2000 PERCENT INCREASE.

Source: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/japanese-ire-over-radiation-limit-for-kids/story-e6frf7jx-1226061484710

20 mSv mean: below, but still high: 555,000 becquerel per m² contamination (from 1995 Belarus National Report):

17 milli Sievert per year mean: 16,000 – 32,000 additional cancer deaths AND 150,000 – 1,5 million deaths by genetic diseases: http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/PP/app1.html by John W. Gofman, Ph.D., M.D and Arthur R. Tamplin, Ph.D. quote “If we use the most optimistic Russell mouse genetic data, and even if we give full credit for slow delivery of radiation, we reach the conclusion that 100,000 extra genetic deaths per year would occur for the allowable average exposure of 170 millirads to the population. This can hardly be construed as an “optimistic” outlook, or a “safe” dose of radiation.”

http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2011/03/19/effect-of-cesium-and-strontium-on-japanese-children-japanese-officals-irresponsible/

NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST in SLOW MOTION.

“…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.

food

Professor Yuri Bandazhevsky, a pathologist, Rector of the Medical Institute of Gomel, on the ingestion of radio caesium includes – he said: “Clinical checks on children between 1996 and 1999 show that at levels greater than 50Bq/kg there are pathological changes in vital organs and systems – cardiovascular, nervous, endocrine, immune, reproductive, digestive excretory and eyes. Caesium concentrations in the placenta reveal a relationship with nervous system defects in the foetus. The health condition of the population is a disaster but being a physician myself I cannot accept it as hopeless. With all my faith in God and life I appeal to anyone who can influence it: do your best to improve the situation. There is nothing more precious on this planet than life. And we should do everything possible to protect it.” http://www.spokesmanbooks.com/Spokesman/PDF/91Gifford.pdf

Until 1990 ICRP said it is not necessary to evacuate people, as long as the radiation does not exceed 500 mSv.: http://books.google.de/books?id=Ber3ENERfGwC&pg=PA343&lpg=PA343&dq=ICRP+40++500mSv&source=bl&ots=IaOqT2MqK2&sig=l3l0MYGe_nKkaXxvFZxkkG8hP5M&hl=de&ei=gc81TpqyI4PfsgajxLG5Ag&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CE0Q6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=ot%20exceed%20500%20mSv.%20The%20ICRP&f=false

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

Clause 12 of the 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

“European Parliament hears criticisms of radiation protection standards, but don’t publish findings” Brussels 1998: page 35 for example: Childhood leukemia caused by normal reactor operation: http://www.llrc.org/health/subtopic/stoaabstracts.pdf

 

Read Full Post »

妊娠中の日本人女性の避難すぐ

ETHOS-CEPN

インフォメーション: http://savekidsjapan.blogspot.jp/

http://independentwho.org/en/2014/02/05/chernobyl-model-fukushima/

Read Full Post »

妊娠中の日本人女性の避難すぐ

tepco-holocaust

Furitsu

Dr. Katsumi Furitsu, born 1959, holds a PhD on medical genetics and radiation biology of the Osaka University.

8th post about the Chernobyl Fukushima Symposium with REAL independent experts, from March 4th – 7th 2014, Germany:

Documentation: http://www.chernobylcongress.org/documentation-arnoldshain.html

more about  her: http://www.chernobylcongress.org/speakers/artikel/b15e8810beda2864301f9d0a42d951c1/katsumi-furitsu.html

Program: http://www.chernobylcongress.org/filead

Katsumi Furitsu, born 1959, holds a PhD on medical genetics and radiation biology of the Osaka University, Japan and at present works in the department of genetics at the Hyogo College of Medicine.  Furitsu has been a member of IPPNW Japan since 2005. She got involved in peace and anti-nuclear-movement as a student activist in 1980 and continues the activities up to the present date as a member of “Campaign Against Radiation Exposure” and “Wakasa Solidarity Network” based in Osaka.

From 1986 to 2000, Furitsu was a member of the “Investigation committee of A-bomb survivors of Hannan Chuo Hospital” in Osaka. The committee carried out a questionnaire survey of 1200 A-bomb survivors regarding their health, living and mental situation.

She is one of the founders and executive members of the “Chernobyl Relief Group of Kansai” based in Osaka and visits Chernobyl affected areas in Belarus every year for exchange and cooperation with local people.

In 1992, Katsumi Furitsu was one of the witnesses at the “World Uranium Hearing” in Salzburg and gave testimony at the Permanent People’s Tribunal, Session on Chernobyl in Vienna in 1996.

Since 2004 Furitsu has been a member of the steering committee and science team of the “International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons” (ICBUW)

She visited several areas affected by the impacts of the “nuclear chain”, including uranium mine sites in the indigenous people’s land in the Southwest of the US, down-wind area of Nevada test site and Hanford nuclear facilities, as well as a former French nuclear test site in Algeria. Together with her colleagues, she is still struggling to do what she can do for the radiation victims in cooperation with the victims and to achieve a “nuclear free future”. SOURCE: http://www.chernobylcongress.org/speakers/artikel/b15e8810beda2864301f9d0a42d951c1/katsumi-furitsu.html

Read Full Post »

妊娠中の日本人女性の避難すぐ

EDIT 2014: 80 km distance to Fukushima: “40 micro sv / hr = 350 Millisievert per year, that is 145 times the average annual external dose limit, It is even more than 3 times the Dr. Evil Yamashita Dose limit of 100 mSv. comparison: 500 mSv were are also equivalent of 1,7 km distance to Ground Zero after the Hiroshima bomb explosion. I think this area is irradiated with more than 3,000,000 becquerel of various radionuclides (Sr90, Cs137, Pu241) per square meter. Even pro nuclear ICRP standard suggest evacuation.” https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10200465957291378&set=vb.1830343586&type=2&theater

Two years earlier: Japan goes the same way as Belarus: Dictatorship – a deep insight

The new IAEA Killer Agenda: http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/2012/prn201234.html

IAEA invites people to come back to Fukushima. Wth kind support of the local and national authorities, the World Health Organisation, and the Fukushima Medical University. Irradiated ares will become cheap Land. Very attractive.

This IAEA program means: Resettlement of people in irradiated areas, “overcoming” the situation by ignoring the situation, Rehabilitation means: Restoration. NOT of the people, but of the IRRADIATED land, into “normality”. Radiation is forced ON the people, INTO the people, by calling it normality, and encouraging the people to come back. This program is fed by the IAEA annual budget of over 300 millon EUR and by the nuclear industry: http://www.iaea.org/About/budget.html

The same was done with CORE / ETHOS in Belarus: NO evacuation, but resettlement: CORE – a Chernobyl aid program that kills

They calculate cheap. Here is an example: The ICRP says the cost per person, and “rem” (1 rem = 10 mSv) is 10 to 250 US dollars. (ICRP publication 22 1973) BEIR 1972 page 69 / 70: Created by the National Academy of Sciences: suffering is “converted” in dollars. In the 1970ies the annual health care costs per capita in the U.S. estimated at $ 400 lump sum for medical expenses, based on $ 80 billion for medical expenses in 1970 (200 million citizens). Mr. Lederberg (BEIR) said that when allowed 1.7 mSv per year (mSv for nuclear workers 50 / a) is increased in 30 years, the total level of disease in the U.S.increases by 0.5 to 5%. 10 mSv increase 0.1 to 1%. In 30 years (one generation) causes $ 12,000 per head (30 x $ 400). 10 mSv per generation would result in 10-120 dollars costs (0.1 to 1% of 12,000 dollars): http://www.icrp.org/publication.asp?id=ICRP+Publication+22

“The UN Rapporteur Anand Grover criticizes the use of “cost-benefit analysis” made by the Japanese authorities (following the ICRP recommendations) since such analysis does not respect the fundamental right to health of individuals.”

MORE: http://independentwho.org/en/2013/06/22/grover-stunning-report/

New York Times October 16, 1990: President Bush set up a 100 million dollar fund to compensate victims of the nuclear weapons program. “Less expensive than paying injury and liability claims directed by the courts” http://www.nytimes.com/1990/10/16/us/us-fund-set-up-to-pay-civilians-injured-by-atomic-arms-program.html GENETIC EFFECTS not taken into account

24 years later: http://mainichi.jp/…/news/20140104p2a00m0na005000c.html TEPCO wants MONEY from VICTIMS!

8 years later: http://www.rri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/NSRG/en/Novosti.html#Yr0011 LIQUIDATORS, fire & forget!

11 years before: http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2013/03/27/dr-bertell-on-tmi-radiation-chernobyl-iaea/#jp-carousel-4201 Three Mile Island Victims unheard!

This excludes ALL genetic effects, all cancerours effects, EVERYTHING is excluded, except Radiophobia:

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

fear-rad

“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

Japan becomes a dictatorship, as Belarus: Japan approves new state secrecy bill to combat leaks http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25102915

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.

Protection against Fear, not against Radiation!
Contract between IAEA and Fukushima Medical Universitys (“Dr” Yamashita)
“…the IAEA will endeavour to organize conferences, seminars and workshops, in cooperation with the University, with the aim of enhancing public awareness of radiological effects on human health and addressing the issue of “radiation fear” and post-traumatic stress disorders in the Fukushima population…”
http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/energy/fukushima_2012/pdfs/fukushima_iaea_en_06.pdf

BEIR 1972 still assumed it will come to more than 6.2 deaths per 100 people when irradiated with 1 sievert, the same panel twenty years later, already figured at 12.4 cancer deaths. ICRP has confirmed in 1966 that natural radiation is harmful! ICRP Publication Number 8 from 1966 on page 60. in relation to the health damage caused by natural radiation for the bulk of the world’s population is a risk of sixth order (1 to 10 dead per million per rad / gray) in a few areas with high natural background radiation the risk fifth order. 10 to 100 dead per million and rad (gray). and in 1977 the ICRP publication number 26 said, that, in this sense, regional differences of the natural radiation are so regarded, that the corresponding differences include the damage. and in the ’80s the natural radiation was simply doubled. and in 2011 it became the twentyfold in japan: 20 mSv/a. Natural radiation is used as an excuse to increase artificial radiation with radionuclide-antagonists.

They call that radiation-protection!

1971: the discoverer of plutonium and president of the USAEC (“protects” health and advertises nuclear industry at the same time, later AEC, then NRC) Glenn Theodore Seaborg resigns – at the same time the ICRP reduced the the additional maximum dose near reactors for the public from 500 mrem/annual (5 mSv/a) to 5 mrem/annual (0,05 mSv/a). Thanks to Prof. Ernest Sternglass and his studies about infant mortality near reactors;: http://www.ratical.org/radiation/inetSeries/ejs1192.html

This means: Poeple, come back! We, as IAEA tell you (with the kind support of W.H.O.) and WE protect you against the Truth. Isn’t that a finde and murderous deal? All under the eyes of the world. THIS a dictatorship. And Japan became Belarus.

100 mSv lie: http://www.strahlentelex.de/The_100_Millisievert_Threshold_Lie_Statement_German_GSS.pdf

World Health Organisation ignores health of irradiated people: http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2012/05/27/margaret-chan-versus-world-health-organisation/

Lukashenka wants to repopulate Chernobyl Chernobyl’s Zone “quickly” http://charter97.org/en/news/2009/4/26/17680/

JAPAN! BEWARE OF IAEA AND CORE! Do not accept Dose Limits, because you can not accept gun shots on children!

Read Full Post »

妊娠中の日本人女性の避難すぐ

“In the report which it submitted to the WHO in 1958, the study group on the mental health issues raised by the use of atomic energy stated that the most satisfactory solution for the future peaceful use of atomic energy would be for a new generation that had learned to accept ignorance and uncertainty as a fact of life to emerge.”

“Is the Commission not concerned at this flagrant collusion between two international institutions, with WHO reports being subjected to censure by the IAEA, which is intrinsically pro-nuclear?
“Is it not alarmed at the implications which the compromises clearly made by the WHO have for the objectivity and accuracy of EU studies carried out in preparation for its programme and action in the field of nuclear energy and related diseases (brought about by the use of depleted uranium in Iraq and the FYR or the effects ofChernobylin Eastern Europe)?”
“Given this affront to the transparency and independence of the WHO, which is borne out by the fact that it took ten years to organise on its own a conference on the Chernobyl disaster and then failed to publish the report of the proceedings, should the Commission not denounce the collusion brought about by some provisions of the agreement?” SOURCE: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2003:161E:0127:0128:EN:PDF
0251 0246 0388 0390 071
“In June 2007 Gregory Hartl, World Health Organisation (WHO) spokesman for Sustainable Development and Healthy Environments, claimed that the proceedings of the international conference held in Geneva in 1995 on the health consequences of the Chernobyl disaster had been duly published. This was not so. And the proceedings of the Kiev conference in 2001 have never been published either. Challenged by journalists a few months later, the WHO repeated the claim, providing references to a collection of abstracts for the Kiev conference and just 12 articles (out of hundreds) submitted to the Geneva conference.”
“For the nuclear lobby, any research indicating harm from ionising radiation represents a commercial threat that must at all costs be averted. Research on damage to the human genome (one of the most serious consequences of the contamination) was not part of the international project requested of the WHO in 1991 by the health ministers of Ukraine, Belarus and the Russian Federation. Yet dental caries was made a research priority. And although these countries had addressed their research request to the WHO, it was the IAEA which planned the project.” SOURCE: http://mondediplo.com/2008/04/14who
“According to the ICRP in 1991, just 5 mSv to the testes could cause damage to offspring – yet this dose was permitted yearly to members of the public, and ten times more was permitted to nuclear workers, in all countries prior to 1990. It continues today to be permitted yearly for nuclear workers in most countries.” SOURCE: http://iicph.org/victims_of_the_nuclear_age

How the UN works: “know thine enemy” or at least who it is. SOURCE: http://www.chernobylcongress.org/fileadmin/user_upload/pdfs/Baverstock_How_the_UN_works.pdf

“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. ”SOURCE: http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/Others/inf20.shtml#note_c

1957: World Health Organisation Report: Effect of Radiation on Human Heredity http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/1948-60/9241560231_%28part1%29.pdf

1959; World Health Organisation Report: Effect of Radiation on Human Heredity: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/trs/WHO_TRS_166.pdf

Read Full Post »

妊娠中の日本人女性の避難すぐ

“The Rapporteur criticizes the use of “cost-benefit analysis” made by the Japanese authorities (following the ICRP recommendations) since such analysis does not respect the fundamental right to health of individuals.”

MORE: http://independentwho.org/en/2013/06/22/grover-stunning-report/

100 mSv lie: http://www.strahlentelex.de/The_100_Millisievert_Threshold_Lie_Statement_German_GSS.pdf

World Health Organisation ignores health of irradiated people: http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2012/05/27/margaret-chan-versus-world-health-organisation/

this is the ICRP (pro nuclear commission) risk assessment (http://www.icrp.org/publication.asp?id=ICRP+Publication+22) on page 14/15 they say The commission discussed the application of risk assessments to estimate the actual cases of disease that can result from a given radiation exposure of individuals or populations (…) One way to improve the usefulness of risk estimates, is to express them as damage measurement in monetary terms… Several authors have already performed such calculations and indicate the cost per person, and “rem” (1 rem = 10 mSv) to 10 to 250 US dollars. (ICRP publication 22 1973)

BEIR 1972 page 69 / 70: Created by the National Academy of Sciences: suffering is “converted” in dollars. In the 1970ies the annual health care costs per capita in the U.S. estimated at $ 400 lump sum for medical expenses, based on $ 80 billion for medical expenses in 1970 (200 million citizens). Mr. Lederberg (BEIR) said that when allowed 1.7 mSv per year (mSv for nuclear workers 50 / a) is increased in 30 years, the total level of disease in the U.S.increases by 0.5 to 5%. 10 mSv increase 0.1 to 1%. In 30 years (one generation) causes $ 12,000 per head (30 x $ 400). 10 mSv per generation would result in 10-120 dollars costs (0.1 to 1% of 12,000 dollars).

How much does a cancer drug? 10.000, $ 20.000? Genetic defects are not considered.

BEIR 1972 still assumed it will come to more than 6.2 deaths per 100 people when irradiated with 1 sievert, the same panel twenty years later, already figured at 12.4 cancer deaths. ICRP has confirmed in 1966 that natural radiation is harmful! ICRP Publication Number 8 from 1966 on page 60. in relation to the health damage caused by natural radiation for the bulk of the world’s population is a risk of sixth order (1 to 10 dead per million per rad / gray) in a few areas with high natural background radiation the risk fifth order. 10 to 100 dead per million and rad (gray). and in 1977 the ICRP publication number 26 said, that, in this sense, regional differences of the natural radiation are so regarded, that the corresponding differences include the damage. and in the ’80s the natural radiation was simply doubled. and in 2011 it became the twentyfold in japan: 20 mSv/a. Natural radiation is used as an excuse to increase artificial radiation with radionuclide-antagonists.

They call that radiation-protection!

1971: the discoverer of plutonium and president of the USAEC (“protects” health and advertises nuclear industry at the same time, later AEC, then NRC) Glenn Theodore Seaborg resigns – at the same time the ICRP reduced the the additional maximum dose near reactors for the public from 500 mrem/annual (5 mSv/a) to 5 mrem/annual (0,05 mSv/a). Thanks to Prof. Ernest Sternglass and his studies about infant mortality near reactors;: http://www.ratical.org/radiation/inetSeries/ejs1192.html

MORE about IAEA, ICRP, BEIR, UNSCEAR – the nuclear hitman: http://www.ratical.org/radiation/Chernobyl/

Read Full Post »

妊娠中の日本人女性の避難すぐ

This is the cancerous structure & influence of the NUCLEAR INDUSTRY inside of the UNITED NATIONS:

UN-cancer

2012 IAEA annual budget:  € 331 million – enough to buy the United Nations.

How the UN works: “know thine enemy” or at least who it is: http://www.chernobylcongress.org/fileadmin/user_upload/pdfs/Baverstock_How_the_UN_works.pdf

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

This is the reason why UN sees no rise in cancer due to Fukushima: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/31/us-japan-fukushima-un-idUSBRE94U0KR20130531

VERSUS:

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

No immediate Danger: http://www.ratical.org/radiation/inetSeries/NID.html

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

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

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

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

4) The malignant cells degenerate and there is cancer.

It is now clear: Any radiation poses a risk especially for children who are extremely radiosensitive: http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2013/04/22/atoms-for-peaceful-murder/

These BANKS support the NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST: http://www.nuclearbanks.org

And they cover up the fact, that Chernobyl lost it’s whole Core, by paying for the new USELESS sarcophagus: Nearly no fuel left in Chernobyl 4 reactor – footage, interviews, starting at 07:55: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgCydo5Y2sA&feature=related IAEA lies to us since 1986.

MORE: http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2011/11/12/the-atomic-reactor-explosions-of-fukushima-and-chernobyl/

IAEA, UNCESCO, IRSN, ICRP: Playing down radiation in Fukushima and Chernobyl is scientifically valid: http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2011/03/22/iaea-uncesco-icrp-playing-down-radiation-in-fukushima-and-chernobyl-is-scientifically-valid/

VERSUS: Natural Radiation already damaging:

“The renowned British biologist, J.B.S. Haldane, suggested in 1948 that perpetual exposure to natural background radiation might account for most of humanity’s accumulated burden of inherited afflictions”: http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/Asleep@Wheel.html#Part2 

“Natural background radiation is the mutagen which accounts for 25% or more of those cases of Irregularly Inherited Afflictions which occur because of inherited predisposition.” http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/Asleep@Wheel.html#Part2

different areas in New York State , 1956: Increased natural radioactivity of the soil by uranium, thorium. Increased mortality of newborns and developmental defects. 20 to 40 percent higher. One percent per mrad (0.00001 Gray): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1372765/?tool=pmcentrez

More: http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2012/09/02/radiation-larger-effect-of-small-doses/

ICRP has confirmed in 1966 that natural radiation is harmful! ICRP Publication Number 8 from 1966 on page 60. in relation to the health damage caused by natural radiation for the bulk of the world’s population is a risk of sixth order (1 to 10 dead per million per rad / gray) in a few areas with high natural background radiation the risk fifth order. 10 to 100 dead per million and rad (gray). and in 1977 the ICRP publication number 26 said, that, in this sense, regional differences of the natural radiation are so regarded, that the corresponding differences include the damage. and in the ’80s the natural radiation was simply doubled. and in 2011 it became the twentyfold in japan: 20 mSv/a: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/japanese-ire-over-radiation-limit-for-kids/story-e6frf7jx-1226061484710

UN Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, Mr. Anand Grover: Country Visit to Japan, 15 to 26 November 2012
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=12831&LangI

Versus:

Until 1990 ICRP said it is not necessary to evacuate people, as long as the radiation does not exceed 500 mSv.: http://books.google.de/books?id=Ber3ENERfGwC&pg=PA343&lpg=PA343&dq=ICRP+40++500mSv&source=bl&ots=IaOqT2MqK2&sig=l3l0MYGe_nKkaXxvFZxkkG8hP5M&hl=de&ei=gc81TpqyI4PfsgajxLG5Ag&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CE0Q6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=ot%20exceed%20500%20mSv.%20The%20ICRP&f=false

WHO: Covering Up Chernobyl: http://mondediplo.com/2008/04/14who

German IPPNW (PSR) Doctors: “40,000 to 80,000 new cancers”: http://www.focus.de/gesundheit/ratgeber/krebs/news/schreckliche-folgen-von-fukushima-aerzte-befuerchten-zehntausende-krebsfaelle-mehr_aid_937053.html

“Thyroid Abnormalities are Precancerous Condition”

“Tens of thousands of cases of cancer” 

“Expect more than 100,000 cancer cases”

4,300 missing children

“Thyroid cysts and nodes with in more than 55,000 children alone in Fukushima prefecture (only one of the 47 islands)”

“42 percent of children in the prefecture have thyroid abnormalities”

“infant mortality increased by about 4 percent.”

The German IPPNW (nobel peace price 1985) attacks the World Health Organisation (complicity with IAEA since 1959): http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2012/05/27/margaret-chan-versus-world-health-organisation/

Three German Sources:

1) http://www.taz.de/Atomkatastrophe-Fukushima/!112316/

2) http://www.n-tv.de/politik/Zehntausende-Krebsfaelle-zu-erwarten-article10248721.html

3) http://www.ippnw.de/startseite/artikel/5c295cd947/gesundheitliche-folgen-von-fukushima-2.html

WHO downplayed health effects of nuclear crisis on Fukushima residents : German physician: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2012/12/16/national/who-downplayed-health-effects-of-nuclear-crisis-on-fukushima-residents-german-physician/#.UToaJGeJ07o

legasov-chernobyl

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

IPPNW Fukushima Info ENGLISH: http://www.fukushima-disaster.de/deutsche-information/super-gau.html

IPPNW Fukushima Info JAPANESE: http://www.fukushima-disaster.de/information-in-english/maximum-credible-accident.html

IPPNW Fukushima Info GERMAM: http://www.fukushima-disaster.de/deutsche-information/super-gau.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

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

by former independentwho.org website:

NEW VERSION: http://independentwho.org/en/who-and-aiea-aggreement/

History and Structure of the UN

The Treaty of Versailles signed in 1919 set up the League of Nations, an international organisation whose aim was to keep the peace in Europe after the First World War. The objectives of the LoN included: disarmament; the prevention of war through the principle of collective security; the resolution of conflicts by negotiation and by an improvement in the quality of life world wide. Benito Mussolini said : “The League of Nations is very effective when the sparrows cry, but not at all when the eagles attack.
After some considerable successes and a few failures in the 1920’s, the League of Nations proved unequal to the task of preventing the aggression of the Axis powers in the 1930’s. The start of the Second World War showed that the LoN had failed in its primary objective which had been to avoid a new world war. The United Nations Organisation replaced it at the end of the War and inherited from it a number of agencies and organisations.

21st August 1944 The opening of the Dumbarton Oaks Conference, bringing together the United States, China, The United Kingdom and the USSR.
25th April 1945 Conference in San Francisco bringing together 51 nations with the aim of establishing a charter for the United Nations.
26th June 1945 The United Nations Charter is signed by 51 nations.
24th October 1945 The United Nations Charter is ratified by 51 nations.      OFFICIAL BIRTH OF THE UN
22nd July 1946 Creation of WHO.
10th December 1948 The UN adopts the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
July 1957 Creation of the IAEA.
28th May 1959 Signing of the Agreement WHA 12-40 between WHO and IAEA.

The UN is divided into 7 organisations, of which two are of interest to us, the Economic and Social Council and the Security Council. The “Economic and Social Council” oversees ALL the United Nations agencies with the exception of the “IAEA”. In fact, the IAEA is the only agency that reports directly to the “Security Council” which is made up of representatives of 15 countries, of which 5 are permanent members of the Council : the United States, the Untied Kingdom, the Russian Federation, China and France. These 5 nations are all nuclear powers, both civil and military, and almost all are exporters of nuclear technology.
The 10 remaining members (or countries) have a mandate which lasts for 2 years.
The influence of these 5 permanent members of the Security Council on policy making within the IAEA is enormous and ongoing. With no counterbalancing power, it is almost impossible to claim that the IAEA has an objective view of the nuclear industry and the consequences of its use.

On 28th May 1959, the IAEA (not yet two years old !) and WHO signed an agreement referred to as “WHA 12-40” which, though it might, on paper, appear balanced and reciprocal, in practice, puts WHO in a subordinate position to the IAEA.

The IAEA wants the people make believe, that the main effect of the atomic catastrophe is psychological. This is made in these steps:

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

- Tell the people, that Fukushima is not as bad as Chernobyl, and, Chernobyl was a small accident (50 deaths acc. to WHO, 125,000 deaths acc. to Ukrainian health minisry 1993).

- Make the people believe, that any other statement is panic and unobjective (The IAEA uses the word “Radiophobia” for Chernobyl)

- The IAEA recognizes the disease in highly contaminated areas as not in connection with the contamination.

- Make sure that there are no independent measurements, only measurements by the atomic power plant operator, it is also important NOT to show radiation measurements during the TV weather forecasts.

- Make sure that there are no organized measurements at all, for each region, each plant, each city – especially not in the media. Or do reconstrucion on the basis of official data, which are often too low.

- Advise the officals with authentic language

- Advise the government to install a 30 km No Enter Zone – invented and used during the atomic weapon test in the U.S. – but 30 km is not enough for an atomic reactor accident.

- Refuse cancer studies like the german KiKK study as unscientific

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

with kind regards,

Jan Hemmer

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 80 other followers