Posts Tagged ‘nuklear’


Independent journalist Mari Takenouchi needs OUR HELP. She is now under obverservation by some nuclear offices and agents. Virtual and in real life.

Blogs, People, Students, Journalists, Lawyers, Doctors STAND UP!

The following people attack Civil Society:

JosephYoiko (probably fake name) https://twitter.com/JosephYoiko

Ryoko Ando (pro nuclear ETHOS leader, cooperation with french nuclear industry): http://togetter.com/li/670760



BACKGROUND; http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2014/05/20/iaea-cepn-edf-cogema-areva-and-irsn-bully-mari-takenouchi-and-yury-bandazhevsky-and-sacrifice-japan-and-belarus/

Mari Takenouchi, a Japanese journalist is under criminal accusation by Fukushima ETHOS leaders – who work FOR the nuclear holocaust industry, AGAINST people, but fake it as humanitarian aid.

“ETHOS and CORE, who must take their share of the responsibility. (Translator’s note: CEPN is the Centre d’étude sur l’Evaluation de la Protection dans le domaine Nucléaire ; Mutadis, ETHOS and CORE are all offshoots of the French nuclear industry, financed either through Electricité de France or the Autorité de Sureté Nucléaire.)

The same fate awaits the Japanese people and their children living in areas contaminated by the Fukushima disaster because the same strategy is being put in place in Japan with the same players, the same pseudo-scientific justifications and under the aegis of the same authorities.”: http://independentwho.org/en/2014/02/05/chernobyl-model-fukushima/

@Nii_Motoharu attacks Mari Takenochi


@JosephYoiko attacks Mari Takenouchi


Latest (quote):

To Asahi Newspaper朝日新聞殿:貴社の写真から冷泉明彦@Joseph Yoikoが竹野内の住所を特定し仲間内で拡散しています!

不起訴ですが、私を犯罪者とみなす起訴猶予! 拡散続けて下さい。英文記事と和訳「ツイートで刑事告訴?」Please keep sharing though I got unindicted. “How could a single tweet land Takenouchi in Jail?” http://savekidsjapan.blogspot.jp/2014/05/please-disseminate-this-article-along.html

More on her website:



Read Full Post »



The funeral of the founder of the fund “For The Children of Chernobyl” Belarus – Prof. Dr. Gennady Grushevoy. Your work, friend, will never rest in peace. Your Work, philosophy, help has germinated.

Today died the Founder of the Fund “For the Children of Chernobyl” Belarus. Prof. Dr. Gennady Grushevoy.
Thanks to you, the world learned about Chernobyl.
Thanks to you, many lives could be saved.
Thanks to you, an ethical “chain reaction” arose.
Of help, of Hope, of Future.
Your work marvels enemies and friends.
I remember our conversations.
And how they changed my spirit, my actions radically.
Your words were like knives that never sting, but sharpen the view.
On behalf of all the children of Chernobyl and Fukushima!
On behalf of all 2 million people who got Help from you and your wife!
Infinitely many friends mourn you. Because YOU are ONE of US!
For the Children!




“since 1989 more than 300,000 young Belarusians were able to improve their health in a clean place thanks to Gennady Grushevoy’s “Fund for the Children of Chernobyl” http://www.svaboda.org/content/article/25245635.html

“One of the organizers and active participants of the Belarusian Popular Front “Revival” (1988). Chairman of the Board of the Belarusian Charitable Fund ” Children of Chernobyl ” ( 1989 ) . Member of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Belarus , a member of the Belarusian Popular Front (1990-1995) , member of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Belarus of the 13th convocation . Chairman of the Belarusian Christian Democratic Party ( since 1996). Coordinator of the Assembly of Democratic NGOs of Belarus (1997). Organizer Youth Christian Social Union , 71 self-help groups , youth social network central ” Workshop of the Future” in different regions of Belarus ( 1997 ) , co-chair of the civil committee “Choice – 2001 ” ( 2000 ) . Member of the Coordinating Council of the International Peace Bureau (Geneva ) . Was judged as one of the organizers of the first ” Chernobyl Way ” ( 30.09.1989 ) . Coordinated the work of the First Assembly of Peoples of Chernobyl (25 – twenty-sixth eleventh 1989) in Minsk. Under his leadership fund ” Children of Chernobyl ” during his work has helped more than 2 million people in Belarus. Awarded annual prizes Norwegian Rafto Foundation for his work in the direction of protection of human rights (1999). Gennady Pear is the author of more than 200 works on philosophy and political science.” http://charter97.org/ru/news/2014/1/28/85129/

PHOTOS: http://www.svaboda.org/content/article/25245108.html

The testament of Prof. Dr. Gennady Grushevoy was published.
“When nearly five years ago, I learned that I had leukemia – a violation of the structure of DNA – I told myself I was lucky in my life, because I’m dead on with life than fighting. But I will not give up by any chance Chernobyl. My ight which started April 26, 1986, at which ‘m the last 27 years on. I am with those who worked after / a Chernobyl . My “departure” is the logical conclusion of my life. Such care was given to me by God and destiny. And I take it as a soldier in the war, because it is better to die in the attack at the front than at the “rear” of malaria.

Perhaps this fate convinces someone that Belarus has no future if the Chernobyl consequences are ignored. You can not hope to flee this tragedy or hide or escape. That is why the government should engage in a serious way concerning Chernobyl. Only then will the nation has any hope of salvation. At one time I fought for the post-Chernobyl Belarus. Today, half of Europe is fighting for me. Europeans give me the drugs that I could not give belarusian patients. And with this advance I should work on full …”

HIS NGO AND WIFE (rare footage):




Read Full Post »


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


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


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


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


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 »


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

Action & Text by independentwho.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> “it is recognized by the World Health Organization that the International Atomic Energy Agency has the primary responsibility for encouraging, assisting and coordinating research and development and practical application of atomic energy for peaceful uses throughout the world without prejudice to the right of the World Health Organization to concern itself with promoting, developing, assisting and coordinating international health work, including research, in all its aspects.http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/Others/inf20.shtml#note_c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jan Hemmer

Read Full Post »


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

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

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

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

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

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

TEPCO / IAEA’s Cover Up (CTBTO):



Jan Hemmer

Read Full Post »


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

日本語翻訳 マイクの問題

Alexei Yablokov (Russia) Doctor of Biological Sciences, advisor to the Russian Academy of Sciences, coauthor of Chernobyl Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment published by New York Academy of Sciences: http://stopnuclearpoweruk.net/sites/default/files/Yablokov%20Chernobyl%20book.pdf

It is possible to reveal the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster by comparing changes in health of the population living in territories that have received different additional radioactive loads due to the Catastrophe. This comparison is much more accurate than that based on average levels of radiation (effective dose), calculated with an impermissible lack of precision under the method used by the ICRP and UNSCEAR for a “conventional” subject (which gives reduced estimates of the real irradiation).

While the consequences of the additional release into the atmosphere of many dozens of radionuclides (including longlived) of a total radioactivity of about 10 ExaBq (having mostly fallen outside the former USSR) will be felt for many generations, more than ten thousand studies have been published in the 25 years since the disaster in different countries (mostly in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus). Taken together all these publications make it possible to brush a broad panorama of changes in health of population groups who received additional radiation from Chernobyl.

Among of the main effects of the Chernobyl disaster is to be found in the increase of ilnesses’ incidence and prevalence:

• circulatory organs;
• endocrine system;
• immune system;
• urinogenital system;
• mioskeletal system;
• central nervous system and psyche;
• the eye structure;
• increase in congenital malformations;
• increase in cancers;
• accelerated aging;
• increased frequency of mutations;
• change in the secondary sex ratio.

During the 17 years after the Catastrophe, the total mortality in the territories of Belarus, Ukraine and Russia contaminated by Cs137 on the level ≥ 40 kBq/m2 have arised up to 4 % (273,000 people against 9,000 predicted by the IAEA and WHO through 2056). Cautious extrapolation suggests that mortality worldwide due to Chernobyl.

> More: http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2011/09/10/this-years-911-will-be-japans-2nd-fukushima-warning/


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

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

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

One of the methodological error of traditional approaches to determining the scope of Radiation risk is the exclusive use of data on cancer mortality, although it is not the most important cause of mortality after the Chernobyl accident, in radioactively contaminated territories. Another methodological error of UNSСEAR approach is a complete disregard of the Increase in perinatal mortality rate after the disaster that after the Chernobyl Accident in the many highly radioactively contaminated areas in Belarus (Petrova et al. 1997, Korblein, 2002, 2006), Ukraine (Dzykovich et al., 2004), Russia (Balewa, et al., 2001), Germany (Schreb, Incited, 2000, Korblein, Kuchenkoff, 1997, Schreb et al., 2000), Poland (Korblein, 2003, 2006) and UK (Bentham, 1999, Busby, 1995) showed. Since the time of the nuclear weapons tests in the atmosphere is known that the radioactive Contamination, an increase of prenatal mortality rate (stillbirths and Miscarriages) and infant mortality rate (Sternglass, 1972; White, 1992;. Playford et al, 1992; Overview here Busby, 1995; Yablokov, 2002, Durakovic, 2003) causes In the period 1987-88 is a well-documented increase in infant mortality in the leaves radioactive contaminated areas of Ukraine (Grodzinsky, 1999; Omelianetz, Klementjew, 2001, Dubowaja, 2010), Russia (Fetisow, 1999; Hworostenko, 1999; Komogortseva, 2001, Utka et al. 2005, ZYB et al., 2006) and Germany (Korblein, 2006 notice) was found. After the Chernobyl Accident increased infant mortality affects even the entire demographic Statistics of a number of countries. In the more contaminated areas of Ukraine and Russia an increased Overall mortality observed. (The most recent 1995;. Omelianets et al, 2001; Оmelianets, Klement’ev, 2001, Grodzinsky, 1999;. Golubchikov et al, 2002, Kaschirina, 2005; Sergeeva et al. 2005; Dubowaja, 2010, Kaschirina, 2005; Sergeewa et al, 2005;. Fetisow, 1999; Sukalska et al. 2004 and many others).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I leave the details of the bills and put aside just before the results: Total number of excess deaths in these six radioactively contaminated areas was 60 400. This corresponds to 3.75% of total mortality of the population during the examined 15 years (from 1990 to 2004.) or 37 of every 1,000 people. Conversion to at all levels of ≥ 1 Ci / km ² contaminated areas within the former Soviet Union (and taking into account the mortality of liquidators and evacuees from these areas after 1986) could all of the additional mortality rate in Ukraine, Belarus and in the European part of Russia in the period 1990-2004 by the Chernobyl accident was caused, amounted to around 240 000 cases. In Europe, outside the areas affected by radioactive releases from the Ukraine, Belarus and the European part of Russia could be the additional “Chernobyl” – Mortality in areas with a level of contamination Cesium137> 1.08 Ci / km ² (> 40 kBq / m) in the period 1990 to 2004 a number of 185 000 cases, represent, and in the areas with a higher population density and a contamination level of

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

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

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

The “balance” – method for determining the number of victims of the Chernobyl accident, which during the last years has developed rapidly and is still evolving, it looks advantageous- Especially in comparison with that used with the calculation of the radiation risk “Dose” method, which is based on unreliable estimates of radiation dose. The “Balance” – method is not ideal because it is the formation of average values of

demographic characteristics and an assessment of the radiation rate in the observed Areas needed. The undoubted advantage of the “Balance” method when compared with the “dose” Method, however, is that it makes no less verifiable assumptions. In the analysis of the mortality situation in the Chernobyl radionuclides on by one level of ≥ 1 Ci / km ² (40 kBq / m) contaminated areas in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine has been found that the overall mortality rate here is around 4% higher than in the relatively “clean” neighboring areas. In the other, huge sections of the northern Hemisphere, which were affected by the Chernobyl fallout is weaker, the number of additional Low mortality, no doubt, but given the large amount of people affected they certainly still essential. The rough estimation of the total possible number of Chernobyl victims in the period of the last 25 years is about 1.44 million cases (under Consideration of prenatal deaths – 1.6 million cases). This confirms the known Statement: The Chernobyl accident is the biggest technological catastrophe in Human history.

German source: http://www.tschernobylkongress.de/fileadmin/user_upload/pdfs/jablokov_opferzahlen_tschernobyl.pdf

Jan Hemmer

Read Full Post »


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

Communication by: Dr. Michel Fernex (Switzerland), Professor Emeritus of the Faculty of Medicine, Basel, former WHO consultant:

What should WHO have done after Chernobyl?” asked Dr Nabarro, Acting DirectorGeneral of the World Health Organization in 2002. He received an immediate reply: Convene a “Scientific Working
Group on “Ionizing Radiation and Genetics” similar to the one in 1956 but add the words “and Genomic Instability”.

It was in response to this question, that the World Health Organization convened a study group in Geneva in 1956, composed of Nobel prize winner in genetics, Professor Muller, and other luminaries of international repute in the field…Together, these scientists reminded us that «the genome is the most valuable treasure of human kind. It determines the life of our descendants and the harmonious development of the future generations. As experts we confirm that the health of future generations is threatened by the expansion of the nuclear industry and the growth of the quantity of radioactive sources. We also consider the fact of appearance of new mutations observed in people to be fatal for them and for their descendants».

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

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

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

More about WHO / IAEA: http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2012/05/27/margaret-chan-versus-world-health-organisation/

Radiation Protection: http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/mother-how-much-radiation-%E3%81%8A%E6%AF%8D%E3%81%95%E3%82%93%EF%BC%81%E3%81%A9%E3%81%AE%E3%81%8F%E3%82%89%E3%81%84%E3%81%AE%E6%94%BE%E5%B0%84%E7%B7%9A%EF%BC%9F-2/

Genomic Instability: http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2012/05/28/food-safety-peaceful-extinction/

Our Genome is Eternity!
Jan Hemmer

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 80 other followers