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)