Archive for March, 2011


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 »


More about Köhnlein: Nussbaum R. H. & Köhnlein W.: health consequences of exposure to ionizing radiation from external and internal sources: Challenges to radiation protection standards and biomedical research. Medicine and Global Survival Dec. 1995 Vol.2, No 4, pp 198-213.

The official website of the Radiation Effects Research Foundation JAPAN
IAEA and ICRP – Licence to Kill – ALARA principle

Read Full Post »


not only rain and waves, fish also. A 2nd catastrophe for Japan.

national meteorological and geophysical services in Austria LIVE MAP Cesium 137 release

Radiation Chart (probably down played and manipulated)

TEPCO radiation measurements – updated (probably down played and manipulated)

Quake and Radiation graphs

Readings at Monitoring Post out of 20 Km Zone of Fukushima Dai-ichi NPP (probably down played and manipulated)


Technical Briefing of nuclear safety aspects of the situation in Japan

Quake tracker Map Japan

Casualties (probably down played and manipulated)


Read Full Post »



If a reactor next to you crashes, what will happen? Who is going to compensate you? No reactor is insured.

There is something, it is called ALARA

In the beginning the ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) principle was turned against the atomic industry. It said, that radiation exposure has to be held as low as possible, that means as low as rasonably achievable. But hydrogen bombs cause much radiation.

The ICRP Info HERE turned around this principle (after the first hydrogen bomb explosion in 1952) – so that the ALARA principle is now working FOR the atomic industry, even if a reactor crashes next to you. ICRP said, that ALARA does not refer to accidents. Basically this means:

When an accident happens (an atomic reactor crash, for example) the whole point of Status Quo is that the people are contaminated with radiation.

It was also renamed, it’s new name is “ALARP” (Source)

It simply doesn’t help the victims anymore, it helps the atomic industry and it’s profiteers: IAEA and ICRP

So, the atomic industry is spoken free, even during atomic accidents.

By the ALARA principle you have to prove that the money you are going to spent to lower the radiation exposure does advance peoples health. This was told the IAEA by the ICRP and so the IAEA told this all atomic agencies in the world. Funny thing, IAEA is not responsible for peoples health. And the IAEA does have a gag contract with the WHO since the 1950ies which does the WHO not allow to publish other numbers concerning radiation desease and death numbers, than those validated by the IAEA. And the IAEA ignores the link between desease / death and high / low radiation. Although it is proven.

Evidence HERE

Since 1929 genetic and cancer creating effects of radioactivity are known.
In 1946 Hermann J. Mueller got for his experiments the nobelprice:

So, more atomic power plants means: Less sorrow for the operators and the industry – if something happens. Now it’s understandable why money-printers / atomic power plants are not assured.

Do you know the ICRP? See HERE

They were originally founded in 1954. While their foundation was going on, an atmosphere of secrecy because of the atomic weapons and the secrecy of reasons of national safety were around them.

1954 ICRP was an organisation of 13 male members.  Till 1990 the first woman came to them…

They made the recommendations for radiation protection norms, which were accepted by all countries, and which (very important!) 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. And now the crazy progress of the ICRP: In 1990 they said: Lets make 7000 Bq/ litre. This was proved by ACES (Comitee for environmental standards). They said: Wrong housenumber, change the 7000 (Because of cancer danger). They also said: Lower it to 100 Bq in five years until you get 20 Bq / Litre.

I think its a big difference between 40.000 and 20, don’t you?

That’s why we should never tolerate a number for low radiation emission from atomic power plants.

But the IAEA uses them in a very cruel way, since the Chernobyl reactor explosion in 1986. If you read through a paper from 1990 (called “Document Nr. 60 1990), written by the ICRP you find the description

“temporary radiation effect”.

Effects which they did not find heavy enough in order that the effected people can be compensated. And today? Have a look at his HERE

ICRP totally gave up tp IAEA. IAEA is doing ICRP work today. And more: IAEA is selling the “peacefull atomic energy theory” worldwide. Although peaceful atomic reactos do develop low radiation (whose effects IAEA does try to deny) and weapon-ready Plutonium. It’s a BIG money game they are playing for decades and which will end hopefully soon (Uranium range: 60 years and below).

ICRP is NOT the organisation (in my opinion) which is in charge to protect the workers of the atomic industry. The ICRP does make down-the-lines and brings economic “imperative” into account. ICRP is not the advocator for radiation protection. Are there ICRP members who do have an apprenticeship in public health or industrial medicine?

ICRP members are profiteers of the atomic industry, just like the IAEA. Don’t expect to them to make radiation safety for YOU. This is an evidence that our modern society seems to have big problems.

There is also an other link, it’s called Principle of Subtantial Equivalentread about it HERE

IAEA is responsible for everything nuclear. It’s as if we choose the MAFIA as our Police to control the crimes.

Feeling safer – anyone?


Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 71 other followers