Geneva, Aprl 26th 2016, infront of the World Health Organisation. Signs and action during the hippocratic vigil: http://www.independentwho.org
“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
qualifying five year survival as “cure”, only considering cancer” – World Health Organisation; http://mondediplo.com/2008/04/14who
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:
“By mid 1998 first draft of the Guidelines was circulating between IAEA and WHO at the management level.“
“Although there had been a clear agreement between the two organisations at
the management level and the work had taken place openly the IAEA withdrew
at that stage strongly advising that the whole issue should either be dropped or
revised. The issue was the proposal to lower the action level for implementation
from 100mGy to 10mGy dose to the thyroid’s of children.”
“Managerial level of IAEA refuses to endorse the report and refuses to endorse the report but WHO publishes Guidelines in 1999 but IAEA describes them as “DRAFT” and WHO Geneva agrees”
SOURCE: Dr. Keith Baverstock
From: “Le Monde diplomatique, March 14th 2008, by Alison Katz):
– The Protocols of the UN Chernobyl Conference in 1995 were never made public.
– Until 2008, By 2008, W.H.O. spokesman Gregory Haertl claimed the opposite – this is his contact data:
– Only summaries of the protocols have been published, 12 of a few hundreds.
– Every study, every statement or action by the WHO, if in connection with radioactivity and health, must be authorized by the IAEA
– The IAEA has no mandate for this. The IAEA has no mandate for reactor safety or human health.
– The IAEA is not contracted by the UN to organize relief efforts for nuclear accidents.
– 1991: Rather than examine genetic defects due to Chernobyl, the WHO examined Caries in the Chernobyl affected countries
– Behind the IAEA is the military-industrial complex
The IAEA is the spokesman of the five permanent members of the U.N.: China, USA, France, England, Russia – all atomic weapons countries. All with VETOs infront of the U.N. Vetos against all Chernobyl studies.
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?
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
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.
From this day on all information policy by the media, the ministeries, the universites and commissions is directly affected by that. We’ve seen it happening with Chernobyl and in Japan.
“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
From our 2011 visit at the U.N. in Geneva, Q & A with World Health Organisation: