Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘KiKK’

妊娠中の日本人女性の避難すぐ

ippnw01

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

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

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

When speaking of the dangers of nuclear power plants, most people think of incidents in which radioactivity is released, or they think of large reactor accidents such as Windscale, Chernobyl and Harrisburg. It is less known, though, that everyday normal operations of nuclear facilities and their “tolerable emissions” already are a threat.
The closer children live to a nuclear power plant, the higher is their risk of developing cancer. The until now most elaborate study on this issue from 2007 (LINK & SUMMARY) verified that without doubt. But it had no consequences: Instead, supporters of nuclear power strive to conceal the proven link between cancer and nuclear power plants.
In this issue, its grave results and discussions about them are described.

_Do children who grow up near a nuclear power plant have a higher rate of cancer than other children?
Yes, definitely. The cancer risk increases the closer the infant to a nuclear power plant lives. Thus children who are raised up to five kilometers of a German nuclear power plant, have a by 60 percent increased risk of getting cancer. Their risk of developing leukemia (blood cancer), is even increased by 120 percent – more than twice as high compared to children who do not live near a nuclear power plant. Leukemia is among the cancers that are particularly easily induced by radiation (1). Even at a distance of 50 kilometers from a nuclear power plant the risk of developing cancer in children is increased. The results of the epidemiological investigation are actually highly significant at close range. That is, the proven clustering of cancer cases around nuclear power plants can not be explained by simple “coincidence”. 1980 to 2003 121 to 275 infants across the country only fell ill with cancer, because they lived close to a nuclear power plant.

ippnw02

_What is this study that proved increased Cancer risk?
The so-called KiKK study. The acronym stands for “Epidemiological Study of Childhood Cancer in the Vicinity of Nuclear Power Plants “(2). It has been commissioned in March 2003, by the Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS), a subordinate to the Federal Environment Ministry Authority. The German Childhood Cancer Registry at the Institute for Medical Biometry, Epidemiology and Computer science (IMBEI), University of Mainz, has carried out the study and was scientifically monitored by an external panel of experts from twelve physicians, pidemiologists, physicists and statisticians. The study was published in December 2007. It is the world’s most sophisticated, most accurate and most comprehensive investigation on the topic.

_Was there even earlier evidence of increased cancer rates in the vicinity of nuclear power plants?
Yes. Already in 1978, publications on leukemia cases in children who lived in the main wind direction of the NPP Lingen (Ems) caused trouble. In the 1980s, studies in England showed that children, who live in the vicinity of nuclear installations, have an increased risk of developing leukemia.(3)(4) Also in the vicinity of the NPP Gundremmingen there was evidence of diseases and malformations of the extremities or the internal organs in newborns.
In the beginning of the 1990s, an unusual accumulation of cases of leukemia, a so-called “cluster” in the vicinity of the NPP Krümmel in Geesthacht at the river Elbe caused a heated debate. A study of the Mainz Institute for Medical Statistics and Documentation (IMSD) from 1992, using data from 1980 to 1990, has failed to indicate an increase in childhood cancer rates within the 15-kilometer radius around nuclear plants, but showed a significant increase in incidence of leukemia in small children under five years within the proximity of five kilometers.(5) In a second study of the IMSD, the so-called Michaelis-study published in 1997 with data from 1980 to 1995, that result was not alleged any longer.(6) Only until the study of 1998 by the Munich based physicist Dr. Alfred Körblein who reanalysed Michaelis’ data showed again an increase by 54-percent in children under five years and an increased incidence of leukemia by 76 percent within the five kilometer area (7) Following public pressure from the Ulm initiative doctors (“Ulmer Ärzteinitiative”) and other South German initiatives – including 10 000 letters of protest by citizens – and the IPPNW the Federal Office for Radiation Protection comissioned in 2001 a methodologically sophisticated study, which later became the KiKK study.

_What questions should the survey answer?
The panel of external experts and the Federal Office for Radiation protection decided on three questions that the KiKK study should answer: Do cancers in children under five occur more frequently in the vicinity of nuclear power plants than anywhere else? If yes: Does the risk increase with proximity to the nuclear power plants (“negative distance trend”)? Are there influencing factors that are able to explain the results of the investigation?

_What were the precise characteristics of the population under study?
What did the study attempt to learn?
All administrative districts located within the 50-kilometer radius of all of Germany’s nuclear power plant sites(15). were studied*, including 21 operating nuclear reactors.
* NPP Lingen and NPP Emsland were regarded as one location, due to their great proximity.

ippnw03

Chart:
Rate of cancer among children attributable to living close to nuclear power plants 1980 – 2003
dark gray: from; light gray: until – Less than 5 – less than 10 – less than 20 – less than 30 – less than 40 – less than 50 km distance to the next nuclear power plant

Because conclusions have greater statistical power the larger the data base, researchers chose an extended study period: 24 years, from 1980 to 2003.
The Mainz Children’s Cancer Registry registered nationwide all newly diagnosed cancers in children since 1980, eliminating bias of reporting from
multiple regional registries.1,592 new cancer cases cancer, 593 of them from leukemia, were found in the study group of children < age 5. A case-control study, the question needed to be answered as to how many cases might be expected due to chance alone. The control group must be carefully selected. In this case the control group were children
A case-control study is more complex. Hence, the study population from which “cases” were tallied were the children in the 5 km. from a nuclear plant in the same districts.

The control group included a total of 4,735 children. For every ill and every healthy child, the researchers determined the distance between housing and exhaust chimney of the nuclear power plant accurate to 25 meters. This distance served as an approximation (“surrogate”) for the expected radioactivity in the area of the dwelling – because it is simply not possible to measure radioactivity precisely in approximately 6,327 dwellings directly around the clock and for years or even to determine it retrospectively.

_ What are the answers the study gives to the three questions?
Yes, children under five years of age who live in the vicinity of nuclear power plants do have a higher rate of cancer than anywhere else.
Yes, the risk of disease increases with proximity to the nuclear power plants (“negative distance trend”).
No, apart from the distance between home and nuclear power plant, no other factors were found that could explain the outcome of the investigation, despite extensive search. Thus, there was and is no doubt that the radioactive emissions from nuclear power plants cause the increased cancer rate and particularly the greatly increased incidence of leukemia in young children.

_ Why did the study only investigate the cancer of small children?
Infants are much more sensitive to radiation than adults. Therefore it is more likely one can find “execss cases” in childhood cancer and leukemia given a limited sample size.
There are several reasons for this:
First, a child is steadily increasing weight and size, as it grows from embryo to adulthood; the younger it is the more quickly it grows. Therefore, cells of an embryo, fetus, infant, infant divide significantly more frequently than those of a child, teenager or even adult. Dividing cells(mitosis) are much more susceptible to radiation than cells in recovery phase.
Secondly, the ability to identify (“surveillance”) and eliminate “defective” cellsis not fully developed in childhood. the human embryo is programed for rapid growth. Without this cellular repair mechanism at its disposal, stem cells, such as those that are caused by radioactive exposure, may br induced to continue to divide beyond the programmed point when they might normally be turned off in normal fetal development. This could, and does sometimes, lead to cancer or leukemia, or other birth defects.
Third, a growing child absorbs more matter than it releases – in contrast to an adult. Its body accepts radioactive substances in food, drink and air more avidly.

Particularly dangerous are radioactive cesium and strontium, which emit for a very long time and remain in muscles or bones.
Fourth, children have their whole lives ahead of them. In some radiation-induced diseases, it takes a long time, until they can be detected, sometimes 20 or even 30 years. Children have more than (older) adults this dubious opportunity, to live until the end of this latency period.

ippnw02

_ Can the results of the investigation also transferred to young people and adults?
Certainly not one to one, because children are, as said above, clearly more sensitive to radiation than adults. Disease clusters in older children, adolescents and adults who are living close nuclear power plants are by no means out of question . On the contrary: In the vicinity of the Fermi Reactor in Michigan / USA and the Vermont Yankee reactor in Vermont / USA, for example, health authorities reported recently a general increase in cancer rates.(8), (9) Also a meta-analysis of several studies in the U.S. showed elevated leukemia rates in the vicinity of nuclear power plants in patients up to 25 years.(10)

_ Cancer can have many causes. Why should radiation from nuclear power plants be responsible for the diseases of children?
The Mainz experts in the KiKK study evaluated about 20 factors that can trigger cancer. The control group andante study group were ‘matched” so as to be the same with regard to: the socio-economic situation of the families of diseased and the control children, exposure to pesticides, tobacco smoke and other toxins, immune diseases, and exposure to radiation other than than the nuclear reactors may be present. Therefore, these “confounders” could not, explain the striking clustering of childhood cancer around nuclear power plants explain – except for the nuclear power plant near the place of residence. Furthermore, the incidence of cancer increased with proximity to nuclear plants. Also incidence decreased with distance from the reactor (“negative distance trend “), a strong indication that the cancer risk has something to do with nuclear power emissions. And what other cause, if not radiation should be eligible for the cancer in question? The sight of the cooling towers, perhaps? In addition, the increase of leukemia (blood cancer), which is known to be inducible by radiation exposure, among those in the vicinity of a nuclear plant is particularly strong evidence.

murder-money

_ Radiation from the nuclear power plant? Are they not very tight?
No, they are not. Every nuclear plant is already emitting radioactive substances into air and water during the so-called normal operation – quite legally. In the case of nuclear power plants this comprises among others tritium (H-3, heavy hydrogen), radioactive carbon (C-14), strontium (Sr-90), iodine (I-131), cesium (Cs-137), plutonium (Pu-239), radioactive noble gases such as krypton (Kr-85), argon (Ar-41) and xenon (Xe-133). Most of these isotopes emit beta particles, which are high-energy electrons and which are, despite being of small range, very dangerous after absorption into the body (incorporation) through respiration, food and beverages. The aforementioned isotopes have very different half-lives between 5.2 days (Xe-133) and 24 110 years (Pu-239). A nuclear power plant in Germany is usually allowed to emit every years as much as a quadrillion (1015) becquerels of radioactive noble gases, 30 billion (3.10^10) becquerels of radioactive particles and approximately 10 billion (10^10) becquerels of radioactive iodine-131 into the air.(11)
In this context particular attention should be paid to tritium and strontium. Tritium is a beta emitter with a half-life of 12.3 years. Nuclear power plants and other nuclear facilities emit it in large quantities over their chimney and its wastewater into the environment. It combines readily with oxygen to “severe water “(HTO). Plants, animals and humans are not able to distinguish tritium from normal hydrogen and heavy water. This means that tritium and water that contains tritium are absorbed as normal hydrogen and normal water are absorbed and used in all parts of the body. Tritium is thus built into all organs and even right into the genes where beta particles – despite their relatively short range – are close enough to radiation sensitive structures to lead to diseases and genetic defects.(12)
Strontium-90, a beta emitter with a half-life of 28.8 years, is indeed released in much smaller quantities to the environment than tritium. However, there is no reason for an all-clear, because strontium is considered to be calcium by the body and therefore incorporated into bones and teeth – especially in children whose bones and teeth are still growing.
Strontium-90 particles which are located close to the bone marrow send their beta particles over years and decades into the bone marrow, where the formation of blood takes place. Even small amounts of strontium-90 are therefore one of the most dangerous triggers for childhood leukemia.

reactor-kill-basics

_ What is the benchmark, how much is a nuclear power plant allowed to emit?
According to radiation protection regulation nuclear facilities may not strain <expose> the general population with<to><strain with replace with expose to> more than a maximum of 0.6 millisievert per year (0.3 millisievert through the air plus 0.3 millisievert through sewage. This is often misleadingly called a “30-millirem-concept”, using the unit millirem which was used in the past). In order to estimate the dose of a nuclear power plant that causes (measurable) stress, operators of the facility and the licensing authorities calculate the effects of emissions on fictional local residents, the (a) so-called “reference man”. Hereby a number of more or less well-founded assumptions and realistic models are used – from dilution and spread of the exhaust gases to the living, dining and drinking habits of “reference man”. Which is, by the way, always a young, healthy, adult male.

PEACEFUL MURDER

PEACEFUL MURDER

_ Is the radiation exposure from a nuclear power plant reportedly very low. Can she still many additional cancers explain?
All official information on radiation exposure from nuclear facilities <are> based on computer models and assumptions. How much radiation the residents actually gotten <received> a nuclear plant, <is less clear> No one knows. For the conspicuous accumulation (clustering) of cancer in children around nuclear power plants there are a whole series of (many) possible explanations: 13.14 The actual emissions from the nuclear reactors could be higher than the mostly random and / or nuclides and certain limited types of radiation measurements to believe. (One reason for underestimating dose received may be that routine measurements are obtained from further out from the nuclear power plant operators themselves made while supervisors only occasional control measurements.) conduct
The computational models that allow the dilution and dispersion nuclides of the votes in the simulated environment of the NPP be, may be wrong., and miscalculate the actual radiation exposure of people in the vicinity of nuclear facilities.
Conventional assumptions may be in error , regarding inclusion and retention of radionuclides in exposed plants, animals and humans. If so, the hypotheses concerning the impact of these these nuclides upon the body may also be in error. Biological effects in the body of nuclides are probably undervalued. Tritium is disregarded by the radiation protection authorities, casually understated it seems, at least strongly unterschätzt. We have far to go to have reliable dose-ressponse relationships, relating to most nuclides and nuclide daughters. Special cases are iodine and strontium, which have affinity for the thyroid an done respectively. It is hazardous science to extrapolate from this special case data. The ideas about what dose of radiation to which Damage leads (“dose-response relationship”), could incorrectly be as above (page 15) as described for strontium. Certain population groups, especially children, are extremely radiosensitive. Limits and model calculations take no account of it so far.

food-fetus-radiation1

_ What kind of reaction did it for publication
the study?

Given the controversial results of the study was the stir in large domestic and foreign. The authors of the study were were obviously scared of their own courage.
In a kind Dementia they recanted their own findings  and wrote: “Due to the current state of the radiation biology and radiation epidemiology, Causal relationships from onizing radiation emissions from German nuclear power plants generally are easily misinterpreted, either in measuring disease associations or in identifying safe exposures or safe proximities. “Munich radiation biologist Edmund Lengfelder considers the current approach “the constituent elements of Forgery or fraud in science “erfüllt.1
Authors argue nuclear plant emissions are thousands of times too low, and to prove the observed cancer rates on the basis of the environment would need to be significantly increased, and suspect “still unknown Factors “,” selection mechanisms “and statistical Coincidence. This in the face of clear and highly statistically significant study results, they provide rather fatuous and far-fetched explanations. Nevertheless, nuclear power supporters attacked the argument.
Authors also admit there was “neither measured nor modeled” data on radiation exposure in children. This may be irrelevant. Scientists had the Mainz Cancer Registry available. Study planning chose the distance between residence and nuclear dose. About their research projects then she wrote: “With the help of a distance law can with an approximate size of the surrogate dose-response Relationship to be estimated. “15

The outside panel of experts reviewing the study trivialized the interpretation of the results immediately in re: relationship between radiation exposure Nuclear power plants and cancer, stating that “because of the particularly high Radiation risk to small children and insufficient emissions data from power reactors (…) an relationship could not be excluded.

In regards to “several epidemiological Causality criteria for such a relationship. “16 The physician and epidemiologist at the University of Greifswald, Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Hoffmann, a member of the external expert panel ruled: “I know few epidemiological studies that have as clear Findings as these. “17 The Federal Office for Radiation Protection, Commissioned recognizes that “due to the significant dependence the risk of the distance to the sites of Reactors ” there are a”t least indications” of possible correlations “.18
The Federal Environment Ministry, however, saw no reason to tighten existing limits upon residence in proximity to German nuclear power plants as a radiation protection measure, and suggests that radiation exposure from a nuclear power plant may not be sufficient explanation for the established leukemia cases rate.
“19

_ What conclusions can we draw from the study?
IPPNW calls not “allowed emissions” from the nuclear plant, to the alleged exposure of a healthy man (“Reference man”) to orient, but in the embryo. A healthy young man with intact cellular repair mechanisms can probably tolerate more radioactivity than a woman and even as a child, not to mention a whole embryo. It is therefore high time that the “reference man” gets replaced by a “reference embryo “ 9, 20

Because embryos can be already damaged by very low radiation doses, it would hardly be technically possible, to reduce the nuclear power plant emissions to the extent that an embryo is not actually at risk. Therefore, the nuclear power plants will be shut down immediately. Everywhere.
Our children are more important than nuclear power plants to maturity. Furthermore, the emissions from nuclear facilities, as long as these still in operation, are continuously measured by the supervisory authorities and are not reviewed by the self instead of talking small about the results of the study, the population in the vicinity of nuclear power plants should be elucidated about the increased Risk by officials. Finally, advocates the IPPNW for a sick child in the nuclear environment Shift the burden of proof: It is not the parents should have to prove that the condition of their child caused by the nuclear power plant was, but the nuclear power plant operators would have to prove that their Nuclear power plant is not the cause of the disease.

_ I live near a nuclear power plant. Should I move? Not every child living near a nuclear plant gets Leukemia. The absolute incidence figures per year, and nuclear are not very large. Panic is not appropriate. We think it is but essential that pregnant women and parents of young children the increased risk are informed so that their living and life decisions can make responsible. The CEO of EnBW, E. ON, RWE and Vattenfall in any case, it was by the way, all live far away from their nuclear power plants.

_ Conclusion
The most extensive, elaborate and careful investigation on cancer near nuclear power plants has a long harbored suspicions confirmed scientifically threaten nuclear reactors already in the normal everyday operation of the health our children. There is no doubt that the radioactive Emissions from nuclear power plants are linked with the exceptionally high Cancer and particularly leukemia rates in young children within an area of up to 50 kilometers. Those who do not want to see the truth have their eyes shut tight.
There is some evidence that the radioactive emissions and effluents of nuclear power plants not only work as demonstrated, har embryos and small children but also adolescents and Adults. More scandalous is that the supervisory authorities yet refuse to draw the conclusions from the results into their own commissioned study, and instead of the obvious connection between Cancer and nuclear power continue to deny. No wonder: If the limit values for radioactive emissions are defined that any risk to unborn children and even less could can be excluded, no more nuclear power plant operation would remain. Rather than haggle for longer maturities and new nuclear capacity, It would be really the task of parliamentarians and Rulers,to protect the people against the dangers of nuclear power, moreover, for 50 years, the cancelation of the Atomic Energy Act. It is our responsibility for future generations that the energy production by nuclear fission is put immediately to end.
Thanks to the persistent, decades-long commitment of citizens and citizens that the KiKK study was made famous. Critical scholars and doctors had to ensure by their publication to ensure that the explosive results were not returnes under the carpet. And only political pressure will ensure that Limits are tightened and nuclear power plants are shut down. We all have our own contributions. Nuclear power plants threaten even in normal operation, the health.

_ What to do?
If you believe the arguments in this brochure, disseminate them further. It is important that many people actively involved in the debate about nuclear power. Because the energy companies have well-equipped public relations departments to to place their claims in the public and parliamentarians take by lobbying for their point of view. No nuclear power produces no radioactive emissions. Change Your current provider, you switch to a real Green electricity provider. So that you personally get out of nuclear out and give you a receipt for the energy companies their actions, that does hurt them. Vote with your consumer also from which energy you want! Convince even more people from the exchange! Environmental and consumer groups and anti-nuclear initiatives have joined forces with the campaign to “make nuclear phase-yourself” help to provide for change. Under
www.atomausstieg-selber-machen.de are independent green electricity provider recommended.From where they can You can easily switch to green power. If you want to do more, get involved in the actions of. broadcasted (more at www.ausgestrahlt.de) that play They organize themselves in a local anti-nuclear group, a
Event on the topic (speakers conveyed the IPPNW) or mingle, as readers with a brief, in the public debate on the energy supply of tomorrow.
Everyone can contribute something.

SOURCES:
Verzeichnis der Quellen
1 Lengfelder E.: Krebs bei Kindern in der Umgebung von Atomkraftwerken / KiKKStudie
(Kritische Analyse KiKK-Wiss-Betrug-Strabi-Le-0802) Strahlenbiologisches Institut der Ludwig-Maximilian-Universität München, 2.2008.
2 Kaatsch P, Spix C, Schmiedel S, Schulze-Rath R, Mergenthaler A, Blettner M: Epidemiologische Studie zu Kinderkrebs in der Umgebung von Kernkraftwerken. Im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit und des Bundesamtes für Strahlenschutz, 2007.
3 Beral V.: Cancer near Nuclear Installations, The Lancet 1, 556, 1987.
4 Cook-Mozaffari PJ, Vincent T, Forman D, Ashwood FL, Alderson M.: Cancer incidence and mortality in the vicinity of nuclear installations, England and Wales, 1959-
1980, Stud. Med.
Popu. Subj. 51, London, H.M. State Office 1987.
5 Keller B, Haaf G, Kaatsch P, Michaelis J: Untersuchungen zur Häufigkeit von Krebserkrankungen im Kindesalter in der Umgebung westdeutscher kerntechnischer Anlagen 1980-1990. IMSD Technischer Bericht. Mainz: Institut für Medizinische Statistik und Dokumentation der Universität Mainz, 1992.
6 Kaletsch U, Meinert R, Miesner A, Hoisl M, Kaatsch P, Michaelis J: Epidemiologische Studien zum Auftreten von Leukämieerkrankungen bei Kindern in Deutschland.
Bonn: Der Bundesminister für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit, 1997.
7 Körblein A, Hoffmann W: Childhood Cancer in the Vicinity of German Nuclear Power
Plants. Medicine and Global Survival, Vol. 6, 18, 1999.
8 Melzer EJ: Cancer questions grow around Fermi nuclear plant. The Michigan Messenger 17.02.09.
9 Mangano JJ: Radioactive Contamination from Vermont Yankee and Potential Risks to Local Health. Radiation and Public Health Project 2008.
10 Baker PJ, Hoel DG: Meta-analysis of standardized incidence and mortality rates of childhood leukaemia in proximity to nuclear facilities, European Journal of Cancer Care 16, 355, 2007.
11 Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit (Hg.): Umweltradioaktivität und Strahlenbelastung. Jahresbericht 2007, Dezember 2008.
12 Fairlie, I: Tritium – The Overlooked Nuclear Hazard. The Ecologist, Vol. 22, No. 5, A1 178, 1992.
13 Fairlie I: New evidence of childhood leukaemias near nuclear power stations.
Medicine, Conflict and Survival 24:3, 219, 2008.
14 Schmitz-Feuerhake I: Das Dosisargument. Diskussionsbeitrag zur KiKK-Studie, 2008.
15 Schulze-Rath R, Kaatsch P, Schmiedel S, Spix C, Blettner M: Krebs bei Kindern in der Umgebung von Kernkraftwerken: Bericht zu einer laufenden Studie. Umweltmedizin in Forschung und Praxis 11, Nr. 1, 20, 2006.
16 Greiser E, Jöckel KH, Hoffmann W: Stellungnahme des externen Expertengremiums des BfS zur KiKK-Studie. Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz, Frankfurt/M, 12.2007.
17 Hoffmann W: (Interview) Kinderkrebs um Atomkraftwerke. IPPNW aktuell 18/08, Berlin.
18 König W: BfS und DKKR stellen sich gemeinsam hinter die Ergebnisse der Kinderkrebsstudie.
BfS-Pressemitteilung 014/07 vom 19.12.2007.
19 Pressemitteilung BMU vom 09.10.2008.
20 Makhijani A: The Use of Reference Man in Radiation Protection Standards and Guidance with Recommendations for Change.
Institute for Energy and Environmental Research 2008.

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

妊娠中の日本人女性の避難すぐ

drosdova-chernobyl

55th IAEA General Conference http://www-ns.iaea.org/meetings/gc-2011.asp

IAEA Nuclear Safety and Security Programme – Monday 19 September – Friday 23 September 2011

First there was the anti human pro nuclear Fukushima Symposium: http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2011/09/10/this-years-911-will-be-japans-2nd-fukushima-warning/

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.

According to the WHO: a patient who survived cancer five years counts as cured: http://mondediplo.com/2008/04/14who quote ” ending studies after 10 years thereby excluding long term morbidity and mortality; qualifying five year survival as “cure”, only considering cancer” According to the IPPNW the Latency of strontium 90 and cesium-137 is 20 – 25 years. Cancer can be triggered by low-level radiation, but needs up to 40 years or more to develop. The burden of proof is always on the victim. It may be a deliberate causation of diseases: http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2011/04/16/world-health-organisation-ignores-all-fukushima-and-chernobyl-children-geneva-april-26th-2011/

The BIMODAL effect of low radiation on health – proven by Burlakova 1996, ignored by science and IAEA, today’s science ONLY looks for LINEAR dose effects. They use the model of HIGH radiation (acute syndrome) on LOW radiation effects (cancer, diseases, mutation – …) – result: ALL radiation victims are and latency in general ignored! Please share: http://www.life-upgrade.com/DATA/BurlakovaChernobyl-Belarus.pdf

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

Teratological effects and mutations through radiation – ignored by IAEA, OECD, ICRP, UNSCEAR, SCIENCE – proven by Étienne Wolff in the 1930ies: http://books.google.com/books/about/Th%C3%A8ses_pr%C3%A9sent%C3%A9es_%C3%A0_la_Facult%C3%A9_des.html?id=MQvwcQAACAAJ and: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,862623,00.html and: http://www.ijdb.ehu.es/web/paper.php?doi=041944cg&a=f

Discovered by Abraham Petkau, 1972, Whitshell at the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (web).

His study: http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdf/10.1139/v71-196

He discovered:

that 26 RAD per Minute (fast radiation rate) need a total dose of 3500 RAD to harm a cell membrane.

with 0,001 RAD per Minute (slow dose) only 0,7 RAD are needed to harm a cell membrane.

The Mechanism behind it:

The production of free radicals of Oxygen (O² with a negative electric charge) caused by ionising effect of the radiation.

The free radicals caused by the slow dose (0,001) are sparsely distributed radicals do have a higher chance to reach the cell membranes.

Why:

The free radicals of the fast radiation rate (26) are tight together and so they react faster with each other.

The low electric charge of the cell membranes attract the free radicals in the early state of the reaction (minor total dose).

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/

Health Physicist and Nuclear Consultant Question the Role of ICRP, IAEA and WHO at Upcoming Fukushima: http://fukushima.greenaction-japan.org/2011/09/10/health-physicist-and-nuclear-consultant-question-the-role-of-icrp-iaea-and-who-at-upcoming-fukushima-symposium/

Fukushima Citizens Challenge Symposium on Radiation and Health Risks – Hold Press Conference at Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Japan: http://fukushima.greenaction-japan.org/2011/09/09/materials-distributed-or-referred-to-at-the-fccj-press-conference/

They said 100 Milli Sievert per Year is safe (equivalent of 250 mammograms FOR CHILDREN!). At the moment 20 Milli Sievert per Year are legal. A french lab requires a reduction from 20 to 10 mSv per year: http://www.tdg.ch/actu/monde/fukushima-chiffres-enfants-contamines-doivent-revus-hausse-2011-09-07 – more: http://www.acro.eu.org/youkoso.html And: “…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. Prolonged incorporation of radioisotope in the organism more than 30 Bq/kg is very undesirable, because could lead to the serious consequences: structural and metabolic alterations, energetic deficit, impairment of their functions, death, cell’s poison, cardiomyopathy, cardiac rhythm disturbance, and contraction function of myocardium, spasm of peripheral vessels – Page 26: http://www.chernobyl-today.org/images/stories/Bandajevski_2001_Radiocaesium_and_heart.pdf

Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology says 3.8 microsieverts per hour or o.k., that’s more than 33 millisieverts (mSv) per year. For children, kindergartens, nursery, primary and junior high schools. Radiation and how it destroys Health is NOT the problem. Murder is not the problem. The problem is: The economy is loosing money: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/14/us-japan-nuclear-idUSTRE77B1RL20110814

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 Info by http://www.facebook.com/americaiminvisa

CHERNOBYL: “…Not until 2016, at the earliest, will be known the full number of those likely to develop serious medical conditions” because of delayed reactions to radiation exposure – QUOTE former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan: http://www.ratical.org/radiation/Chernobyl/042500.html

Radiation particles, directly hit the protoplasm and not the nucleus. they leave behind damage, which is only noticeable when these cells divide again. So instabilities occur in the chromosomes, the genes and genetic information. Instabilities that are not visible in the first, but especially in the second and third generation increase disease susceptibility: http://www.independentwho.info/Presse_ecrite/09_05_27_Salzburger_DE.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xL3MiDEtrA At Minute 11:21: The Government wants the people to return to Fukushima! Like it happened in Chernobyl areas in Belarus: http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2011/07/24/japan-goes-the-same-way-as-belarus-dictatorship-a-deep-insight/

Internal irradiation happens when radioactive material is ingested into the body (…) Inhaling even the tiniest particle, that’s the danger. making comparisons with X-rays and CT scans has no meaning. Because you can breathe in radioactive material… http://www.independentwho.info/Presse_ecrite/11_03_28_TakashiHirose_EN.pdf

But the most scientific and ehtic dose limit for MAN MADE radiation is ZERO- because of the human embryo:

All recommendations for radiation emssion out of atomic power plants are based on a healthy mature 34 / 35 year old human.

This is called REFERENCE MAN

But what happens if you do not take a mature human as a default for limit values.

What if you choose a HUMAN EMBRYO

The answer is ZERO. This is called REFERENCE EMBRYO.

No One Escapes Harm: The Essential Story of In-Utero Irradiation http://ratical.org/radiation/CNR/No1Escapes.html

Confirmation that Ionizing Radiation Can Induce Genomic Instability: What is Genomic Instability: http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/GenomicInst.html

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

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.

Teratological effects and mutations through radiation – ignored by IAEA, OECD, ICRP, UNSCEAR, SCIENCE – proven by Étienne Wolff in the 1930ies: http://books.google.com/books/about/Th%C3%A8ses_pr%C3%A9sent%C3%A9es_%C3%A0_la_Facult%C3%A9_des.html?id=MQvwcQAACAAJ and: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,862623,00.html and: http://www.ijdb.ehu.es/web/paper.php?doi=041944cg&a=f

Insects and their fast mutagenic “reaction” on low radiation are some kind of early warning system for us humans: Irradiated Insects in Japan: http://www.freeml.com/bl/8694840/25149/ normal insects soon only in the laboratory: http://www.wissenskunst.ch/en/tschernobyl.htm Great book about mutagentic impact on insects worldwide: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/3908247314/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thtefi-21&linkCode=as2&camp=1634&creative=6738&creativeASIN=3908247314 Reduced abundance of insects and spiders linked to radiation at Chernobyl: http://cricket.biol.sc.edu/chernobyl/papers/moller-mousseau-biol-letters-09.pdf please have a look at this beautiful book – in english: http://radionucleide.free.fr/Stresseurs/fulltext_punaise.pdf and in german: http://www.sensigns.ch/db/daten/dokumente/Heteroptera_Deutsch.pdf

More about IAEA and WHO on: http://www.independentwho.info / http://www.independentwho.info/Presse_ecrite/11_03_28_TakashiHirose_EN.pdf

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

“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

In contrast:

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: nyagu@vent.kiev.ua http://www.rri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/NSRG/reports/kr79/kr79pdf/Nyagu.pdf HEALTH OF SURVIVORS IN UKRAINE IN 25-YEARS
DYNAMICS AFTER THE CHERNOBYL CATASTROPHE : http://www.tschernobylkongress.de/fileadmin/user_upload/pdfs/nyagu.pdf

In 1985, a year before the disaster, 200 cases of malformations were recorded. In 2000, over 800 cases, however, despite a substantial decline in births: currently 14 to 15 000 births / year, against 28 to 30 000 before the Chernobyl disaster! http://www.dissident-media.org/infonucleaire/trait_25_26.html

New Book Concludes – Chernobyl death toll: 985,000, mostly from cancer – by Prof. Karl Grossman: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20908

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

How does the IAEA think? Well, since the 1950ies science only looks for linear dose-effect correlation, when studying Low-Dose Radiation effects on health. – SOURCE: http://www.strahlentelex.de/Yablokov%20Chernobyl%20book.pdf

The IAEA is unscientific and unethic. They ignore the bimodal effect of low radiation.

“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

Swiss Childhood Cancer Cancer and Nuclear Power Plants in Switzerland (as usual attacked by physicists BUT confirmed by physicians: the IPPNW – peace nobel prize 1985): http://www.canupis.ch/index.php?id=studydesign

german kikk http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2007/12/17/german-kikk-study-higher-cancer-risc-next-to-atomic-power-plants-unofficial-belarussian-children-cancer-data/

This is in contrast to the lies of the IAEA, WHO, UNSCEAR, ICRP and OECD: “Chernobyl to the déjà dix. Impact radiologique et sanitaire. OCDE Paris, November 1995″ This report however was prepared by a French team of experts led by Dr. Henri Métiver by the French Institute for Radiation Protection and Safety (IPSN) today IRSN. It basically says: “Very extensive medical studies have shown that to the influence of radiation no anomaly in the field of health can be attributed.” and: “In consequence, the Chernobyl accident will be not considered as a significant accident.”: European OECD ignoring Chernobyl birth defects, sickness and deaths – quote “There are no clear trends in data for birth anomalies in Belarus or Ukraine”: http://www.oecd-nea.org/rp/chernobyl/chernobyl-1995.pdf

Chernobyl: Development failures in the NEWBORN: http://www.life-upgrade.com/DATA/Lazyuk-ChernobylBelarus.pdf  According to Michel Fernex (former WHO, Switzerland) The IAEA said in 1996: “Because there was no register in Belarus for malformations BEFORE Chernobyl, there are no abnormalities.” A LIE, not logic, unethic and unsicentific.

Results of Long-term Genetic Monitoring of Animal Populations Chronically
Irradiated in the Radiocontaminated Areas http://www.rri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/NSRG/reports/kr21/kr21pdf/Goncharova.pdf

Incidence of Obligatory Registered Malformations in Belarus for 1982 to 1995 (per 1000 neonates) PAGE 3: http://www.rri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/NSRG/reports/kr21/kr21pdf/Lazjuk.pdf

Social Aspects of the Chernobyl Activity in Belarus http://www.rri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/NSRG/reports/kr21/kr21pdf/Malko3.pdf

About the World Health Organisation and the International Atomic Energy Association and their dirty game: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xd1g3c_day-after-day_news#from=embed

The IAEA promotes the causes of cancer (atomic industry) and battles cancer at the same time: http://cancer.iaea.org/newsstory.asp?id=94

To conduct epidemiological research to determine differences and similarities (like increased infant mortality) you have to compare irradiated people and control groups. However, because radiation by Fukushima and Chernobyl is everywhere, there will soon no longer a control group. The artificial radiation becomes morbid and fatal normality.  Childhood cancer and low radiation emissions from atomic power plants: http://www.strahlentelex.de/FairlieJEnvironScienceHealth2010.pdf

Tritium H³ – according to IAEA and NRC: “No problem” (http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/grndwtr-contam-tritium.html) Mewissen at IAEA (!) symposium 1979 and BotAS 1984: “unusual cancer after 25 generations”: http://books.google.de/books?id=3gUAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA56&lpg=PA56#v=onepage&q=mewissen%20fo-cuses%20on%2025&f=false “But tritium can be deadly (…) However tritium behaves chemically and biochemically like ordinary hydrogen. When ingested, it can incorporate itself into all forms of body cells, including those of the reproductive system…” Source: http://ratical.org/radiation/KillingOurOwn/KOO10.html Here is the 1984 Tritium Warning: http://books.google.de/books?id=3gUAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA56&lpg=PA56#v=onepage&q&f=false

Nuclear energy is the art of killing cleanly and slowly, but to cover up the evidence. Potassium is confused with cesium. Strontium is confused with calcium, radio-iodine with iodine, tritium with hydrogen. Nuclear energy was invented with this in mind I suppose. First there was the atomic bomb, which kills acute. But nuclear energy turned out to be more profitable and less noticeable. More grotesque it was labeled as the “peaceful atom”. No one has so much power. When a military is planning a war, then they calculate civilian victims, so-called collateral damage. The Invisible War by nuclear reactors works well. In order to achieve objectives (profit, power, sterility of the people), our children are the collateral damage. One thinks about us. The nuclear fission in an Atomic plant or an Abomb is a permanent accident, because a) atoms are extra split, by “human hands” b) lethal fission products are created, most of which (Pu, Sr90, Cs137, I131) did not exist before the atomic age. Atomic Industry is the biggest mass murderer of all time. It’s slow. Peaceful. Clean. For endless generations. Even after the half-lifes are gone. Programmed in DNA.


The international radiation community supported the
Soviet authorities in their attempts to play down the
radiological consequences of the Chernobyl accident
for a long time. – PAGE 11: http://www.rri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/NSRG/reports/kr21/kr21pdf/Malko1.pdf

1986 is like 2011: Alla Yaroshinskaya “The big lie – The secret Chernobyl documents”: http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2006-04-21-yaroshinskaya-en.html “Chernobyl is a word we would all like to erase from our memory,” said UN secretary general Kofi Annan in a foreword to the report. “But,” he added, “more than 7 million of our fellow human beings do not have the luxury of forgetting. They are still suffering, every day, as a result of what happened.” The exact number of Chernobyl victims may never be known, he said, but 3 million children require treatment and “many will die prematurely” – in contrast, W.H.O. plays down Chernobyl: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/index.html REASON: http://mondediplo.com/2008/04/14who

And they are working on NEW weapons, which also kill peaceful and clean. Without smell, color, taste, noise: It seems that the so highly praised TRANSMUTATION is an instrument to revive the dangerous Plutonium fast breeder reactors – MOX – also at Fukushima: http://www.inr.kit.edu/english/264.php Partners of the project: http://www.nurisp.eu/www/nurisp/index.php?art=37

Read Full Post »

妊娠中の日本人女性の避難すぐ

http://www.chernobylcongress.org/fileadmin/user_upload/pdfs/Baverstock_How_the_UN_works.pdf

http://www.chernobylcongress.org/fileadmin/user_upload/pdfs/nyagu.pdf

http://www.chernobylcongress.org/fileadmin/user_upload/pdfs/Koerblein_sexratio.pdf

The World Health Organisation is gagged by the Atomic Energy Association IAEA with the contract WHA 12-40 from 1959.This is the reason why WHO and IAEA ignore all Fukushima and Chernobyl victims. End this scandal! Come to Geneva, on April 26th to protest – along with scientists, politicians, doctors and victims and liquidators: http://www.independentwho.info or http://www.tekknorg.wordpress.com or http://www.bag-tschernobyl.net

Video made by me

PART 1:

PART 2:

PART 3:

Keith Baverstock, PhD, a graduate of London University, led the Radiation Protection Programme at the World Health Organisation’s Regional Office for Europe from 1991 to 2003. His critical views of the management and conduct of the Committee, particularly in its failure to make proper use of science and its lack of adherence to the Code of Conduct in Public Life, resulted in his dismissal – more information: http://www.chernobylcongress.org/speakers/artikel/2cc0de2cee21dc8506748b53a7d…

WATCH THESE VIDEOS of HELEN CALDICOTT:

“Helen Caldicott has been my inspiration to speak out.” quotation Meryl Streep

PART 1

PART 2

PART 3

Dr. Helen Caldicott from http://www.beyondnuclear.org speaks about the fight against atomic bombs and atomic power, about her fight against atomic bomb tests. She has 19 honorary degrees, and got the Gandhi Prize. This is her speech during the IPPNW Chernobyl / Fukushima congress, from April 8th till 10th 2011. After the speech, I gave her a copy of my movie “The Time blurs the Truth” – about Chernobyl and Belarus.

More: http://www.tschernobylkongress.de/fileadmin/user_upload/pdfs/Baverstock_How_the_UN_works.pdf

Angelina Nyagu on Chernobyl Children part1 – April 9th, 2011, Berlin:

HERE IS HERE STUDY http://www.chernobylcongress.org/fileadmin/user_upload/pdfs/nyagu.pdf

Keith Baverstock said, that U.N. / IAEA / WHO ignore all russian studies, or all in russian language written studies. Such as the one by Prof. Jablokov, he shows in his study, that 1000,000 people died, the IAEA and WHO say for 25 years: 32 people died.

Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment

More about this scandal:

World Health Organisation ignores all Fukushima and Chernobyl children – Geneva April 26th 2011

Life-Upgrade.com

Read Full Post »

妊娠中の日本人女性の避難すぐ

Video made by me

PART 1

PART 2

PART 3

Dr. Helen Caldicott from http://www.beyondnuclear.org speaks about the fight against atomic bombs and atomic power, about her fight against atomic bomb tests. She has 19 honorary degrees, and got the Gandhi Prize. This is her speech during the IPPNW Chernobyl / Fukushima congress, from April 8th till 10th 2011. After the speech, I gave her a copy of my movie “The Time blurs the Truth” – about Chernobyl and Belarus.

LEARN HOW ATOMIC INDUSTRY WORKS:

World Health Organisation ignores all Fukushima and Chernobyl children – Geneva April 26th 2011

Come to Geneva on APRIL 26th 2011: Be part: Chernobyl Peace tour through Europe April 2011

FOR THE FUTURE!

Life-Upgrade.com

Read Full Post »

Japanese people hear it from Fukshima day One: “Panic and fear of radiation is much worse than radiation itself


This statement is used by the IAEA for Chernobyl victims.

The IAEA ignores cancer, leukemia, diabetes, trisomy 21, all kinds of illness, all kinds of cancer in connection with radiation, especially low radiation.

The IAEA calls it “Radiophobia”.

The present and future victims are perceived as a disturbance to the atomic industry, to the japanese government, to the companies running atomic plants. They are going to end it.

Since the foundation of the IAEA their purpose is: To serve and protect the atomic industry in these five countries: USA, Russia, China, France, Britain.

They also monopolized public health during and after atomic accidents, by the gag contract WHA 12-40 between them and the WHO (1959). SOURCE

Learn more about the International Atomic Energy Association:

The IAEA, WHO and TEPCO should be a case for the International Criminal Courts

Fukushima and Three Mile Island USA: strategic misinterpretation by the IAEA

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 »

妊娠中の日本人女性の避難すぐ

So far had a radioactivity of cesium-134 and cesium-137 have been allowed by a maximum of 600 becquerels per kilogram. Since last weekend the EU limit for food from affected areas in Japan, however, was significantly increased.

Consumer organization FoodWatch (web)and the Environment Institute Munich announced in a joint statement, that:

For example, should fish oil or spices to their previous value to twenty times higher than what corresponds to 12 500 becquerels per kilogram.

The appropriate Emergency Ordinance 297/2011 was on entered into force on March 27th 2011.

Safety standards for Japanese food has been decreased

German Federal Minister of Consumer Aigner contains important information to the public.

This is an act against the health of the people. This is not democratic.

THE E.U. TOOK IT partly BACK: http://www.foodwatch.de/kampagnen__themen/radioaktivitaet/nachrichten/kommissionsentscheidung/index_ger.html
reason: Massive protest of consumer organisations! JAPAN, you can do it also!

http://www.bmelv.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/2011/072-EU-Schutzmassnahmen-Japan.html

history says: Atomic accidents lead to higher radiation limits – which stay flexible. Flexible for incrasing the limit:

The ICRP - another profiteer of the atomic industry – made the recommendations for radiation protection norms, which were accepted by all countries, and which justified the set of regulations of the IAEA. Interesting isn’t it? Here is one:
ICRP said, the tritium emission (from atomic power plants) in water should be 40.000 Bq.

In 1990 they said: Lets make 7000 Bq/ litre.

This was proved by ACES (Comitee for environmental standards, Canada). They said: change the 7000 Bq (Because of cancer danger).

They also said: Lower it to 100 Bq in five years until you get 20 Bq / Litre.

Life-Upgrade.com

Read Full Post »

妊娠中の日本人女性の避難すぐ

News from April 13th 2011: Fukushima is now INES 7 – like Chernobyl. The IAEA doesn’t want that. Read here why.

The IAEA organizes propaganda conferences each year. Only those who are recommended by their country’s atomic authority are permitted to participate. Nuclear issues which are subject to criticism are excluded.
The World Health Organization (WHO) also organizes annual conferences. However, WHO is gagged by the IAEA (per Agreement WHA 12-40 of 1959) and is prohibited from independently issuing statements regarding the health effects of atomic accidents.
This means the IAEA’s engineers and physicists are given the legal right to make statements about the health impacts of atomic accidents at the same time medical doctors from the World Health Organization are legally prohibited from doing so. The IAEA’s physicists issue official statements about the biological effects of exposure to radiation or radioactive contamination; they are permitted to assess the impact of accidental exposure or releases of radioactive contamination on human health.

The IAEA has a history of denying that the following health impacts occurred as a result of exposure to radiation and radioactive contaminants: damage to the immune system, stillbirths, thyroid cancer in children, brain damage, mental retardation, trisomy 21, diabetes, fetal abnormalities, disabled children, and all kinds of cancer, illness.
Many of these illnesses occur months, years or decades after initial or continued exposure and therefore, the IAEA and WHO artificially reduce the casualty count by including only those injuries received in the first minutes, hours, days following a nuclear accident.

The proposal to bring TEPCO before the International Criminal Court (ICC) was made by German politician, Stefan Wenzel on April 9th, 2011, during the IPPNW congress in Berlin. Watch his impressive speech here (beginning at 4:08 Min.):


He also brought the following proposal to dissolve the secret relationship between the IAEA and WHO before the “Bundestag”, a federal legislative body in Germany.

http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2011/05/19/german-greens-cancel-secret-gag-agreement-between-iaea-and-w-h-o/

The UN General Assembly adopted the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court on July 17, 1998. On July 1, 2002 the statute came into force. “The International Criminal Court is a permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.” (Wikipedia, 03/25/2011) Thus far, the ICC has not accepted criminal or civil cases involving the destruction of natural resources and environmental terrorism. The establishment of its authority to do so is long overdue.
In relation to the ongoing accident at Fukushima, responsible officials from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the World Health Organization (WHO), the operating company (TEPCO) and Japanese nuclear power regulators should be brought before the International Criminal Court and held accountable for their actions.
Failure to aid in tens of thousands of cases and threats to natural resources hundreds of thousands if not millions of people is a Felony.
The behavior of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the World Health Organization (WHO) following the reactor accident of Fukushima is a scandal. WHO has made public statements trivializing the emergency and ceding all of its responsibilities to the IAEA, citing the treaty of 1957. “What is WHO’s role in nuclear emergencies? Answer by WHO: “Within the United Nations system, the IAEA is the lead agency for coordination of international response to radiation events.” (World Health Organization, Japan Nuclear Concerns, FAQ, 14 March 2011, Geneva)
The IAEA – an organization whose Board of Governors is dominated by and comprised almost entirely of nuclear industry members, holds fast to its opinion that Fukushima should be assessed at Level 5 on the International Rating scale for significant events in nuclear facilities (INES).
The quantity of radioactive Iodine-131 released is a central indicator for the evaluation of nuclear accidents on the INES scale. The release of more than “a few 10 ^ 16 Bq of iodine 131” is classified as a level 7 catastrophic accident this (INES) scale.
Apparently, the IAEA, TEPCO and the Japanese government officials in charge have not clearly stated how much radioactive material has been released throughout the unfolding of the Fukushima disaster. According to estimates by the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO), comprised of 60 monitoring stations world-wide under the auspices of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the first three days of the Fukushima accident alone released about 3.8 x 10 ^ 17 Bq of radioactive Iodine-131. That is about 100 times the official inventory. The Fukushima disaster has also released significant amounts of several other radionuclides which have not even been measured.
Due to these figures, the Fukushima accident would have been legitimately classified as INES level 7 a long time ago. Greenpeace is now in the process of conducting its own analysis.
The behavior of WHO and the IAEA is therefore an unprecedented scandal. An inappropriately small evacuation zone is estimated to have resulted in the needless exposure of pregnant women, children, and other adults to excessive levels of radiation and radioactive contamination beyond 250mSv, the limit set for the recognition of work related cancer among Japanese nuclear power plant employees. Radiation biology assumes that if 10,000 people were exposed to a dose of 1 Sv, then 500 deaths are expected to occur as a result of their exposure (ICRP60) 500-1200 (BEIRV) 580-1740 (RERF), 2400 (Köhler). The ICRP – another profiteer of the atomic industry – made the recommendations for radiation protection standards, which were accepted by all countries and which were used o justify IAEA regulations. Interesting isn’t it?


Here is one:
ICRP set the original safety standard for tritium emission (from atomic power plants) in water at 40,000 Bq/litre.
In 1990 the ICRP said: Let’s lower the safety standard for tritium to 7000 Bq/ litre.
The new 7000 Bq/litre limit was approved by ACES (Committee for Environmental Standards, Canada). They agreed to change the safety limit to 7000 Bq/litre because of the cancer risk.
The ICRP later said: Let’s lower the safety standard to 100 Bq/litre every five years until we get down to 20 Bq /litre.
I think there is a big difference between ‘safety’ limits of 40,000 Bq/litre and 20 Bq/litre!
Said another way, if 40,000Bq/litre was safe, why would they ever lower the limit to 20 Bq/litre?

(thanks to Tadema for help)

 

Fukushima and Three Mile Island USA: strategic misinterpretation by the IAEA

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 »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 80 other followers