Posts Tagged ‘UNESCO’


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 »

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


Read Full Post »


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!


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.


Read Full Post »


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.


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


Read Full Post »


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

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

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

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

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

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

Of these, the following doses are deducted:

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

The background radiation.

Moreover, the fallout from Chinese nuclear tests.

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

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

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

Japanese officals and WHO ignore irradiated Japanese Children

IAEA and ICRP – Licence to Kill – ALARA principle

Fukushima: The IAEA strategy

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

25 Years with FUKUSHIMA

Atomic Industry – Licence to Kill


Read Full Post »


Conference papers of the IAEA meeting in 1996:

On page 575:

Doubling of the background radiation reduces cancer risk by 25%.

So does the increase in background radiation mean that 30 million lives are saved, rather than arising cancer deaths by 120,000? (quote Dr. Vladimir Iakimets – Institute for System Analysis, Russian Academy of Sciences)

On February 9th 1996 the meeting of Russian Academy of Radiation Protection RCRP took place.


“Contaminated areas are only inhabited villages and cities, not lakes, forests and agricultural land. “
“Introduction average acceptable dose by accident: Greater than 0.1 Sv per year.”
“Dual-zone strategy: a radiation control zone. An exclusion zone control – about 1 Sv / year.”
Means: a transition between yesterday and tomorrow is possible. And: Due to lack of comparable data a high level of uncertainty among the population real data for recorded doses are non-existent.
RCRP has abolished Privileges and allowances.
Federal law for radiation protection is subsequently amended. The 57,000 km ² were reduced to a very small area where the dose to the public is at least 0,1 Sv per year.

The following is from Dr. Katsumi Furitsu (this is a report about Fukushima, by her), Research Committee of the atomic bomb victims at Hannan Chuo Hospital, Osaka, Japan:

Report of the International Komietees the IAEA in 1991: The international Chernobyl project, assess the effects on health and the environment and evaluation of radiation protection measures. Presentation 1991, in Vienna. Chairman of the Committee, Dr Itsuzo Shigematsu – also chairman of the Researching the effects of radiation -> RERF (web) in Hiroshima Institute.
He set up the limit of the dose for the resettlement and maximum values ​​for contaminated food.


Source: ICRP: Protection of the Public in the Event of Major Radiation Accidents: Principles and Planing – ICRP Publication 40th Annuals of the ICRP, 14, no. 2. 1984
ICRP: Principles for intervention of Protection of the Public in a Radiological Emergency. ICRP Publication 63rd 1993

The IAEA has criticized the RCRP, they should apply the ICRP guidelines. This means that people relocating is unnecessary if the level of individual radiation mSv in the first year after an accident does not exceed 500. (ICRP 1984)
If this dose is short, there are acute Radiations symptoms.
500 mSv are also equivalent of 1.7 km distance to Ground Zero in Hiroshima.
Nov. 1992: The ICRP INCREASED the dose for the evacuation in 1Sv – the equivalent to 1.3 km to the Hiroshima Ground Zero.

This means the continuation of nuclear power, even if people die.

1992: increased occupational radiation ICRP recommends to 0.05 Sv / year.
IAEA and WHO deny leukemia in hand together with radiation.

WHY: IAEA and ICRP – the ALARP Principle

The OECD published the following report:

Chernobyl to the déjà dix. Impact radiologique et sanitaire. OCDE Paris, November 1995. The report is edited by Dr. Peter Waight (Canada), headed by an editorial committee chaired by Dr. Henri Métiver (France) and written by: Dr. H. Métiver (IPSN, France), Dr. P. Jacob (GSF, Germany), Dr. G. Suskewitsch (WHO, Geneva), Heinz Brunner (NAC, Switzerland), MCViktorsson (SKI, Sweden), Dr. B. Bennet (UNSCEAR, Vienna), Dr. R. Hance (FAO / IAEA , Vienna), p. Kumasawa (JAERI, Japan), Dr. S. Kusumi (Japan), Dr. A. Bouville (NCI, USA), Dr. J. Sinaeve (Eu. Brussels), Dr. OPIliari (OECD / ARN, Paris) and Dr. E. Lazo (OCDE / AEN, Paris)

This report was cited especially by Professor Lee (an expert of UNESCO) at St. Andrews University in Scotland during the IAEA conference 1996. The report should prove that the radiation does not cause adverse health effects. This report 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 (web) is written.

Excerpt page 61

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.

Or take this one:

An Assessment by the NEA Committee on Radiation Protection and Public Health
November 1995


On page 43 it reads “There are no clear trends in data for birth anomalies in Belarus or Ukraine (Li93, Bo94). Two
epidemiological studies in Norway concluded that no serious gross changes as to pregnancy outcome were
observed (Ir91), and that no birth defects known to be associated with radiation exposure were detected (Li92).
In Austria, no significant changes in the incidence of birth defects or spontaneous abortion rates which could be
attributed to the Chernobyl accident were detected (Ha92a).”

A simple lie. Have a look at this:


And this in contrast:

1000.000 people can die because of Chernobyl – according to Prof. V. Nesterenko (Liquidator and atomic physicist):

Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment

is now partially online (p. 1 – 145 of 327):


Read Full Post »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 80 other followers