Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Checherov’

not until 2016, at the earliest, will we know the full number of those likely to develop serious medical conditions.” former Secretary-General Kofi Annan http://www.un.org/ha/chernobyl/docs/sgsm7778.htm

Yury Bandazhevsky said that Chernobyl began and is not over: http://www.king5.com/news/nation-now/exiled-scientist-chernobyl-is-not-finished-it-has-only-just-begun/138546166targe

this is the inside of central hall of Chernobyl reactor 4. Below is the 2,000 tons lid, which was blown aside. still there today. Below the lid is the (empty) reactor vault.vzryv_na_chetvertom_bloke

妊娠中の日本人女性の避難すぐ

chernobyl-nuclear-explosion12

In this article you will learn things never heard before. They sound absurd, crazy. But these things have official sources. Partly even of the nuclear industry itself.

You, reader deserve the truth. I think you are someone who believes the following, as do 99 % of all people: Chernobyl 4 exploded 1986. It was a meltdown. It irradiated parts of Europe and the World. You probably know that a new sarcophagus is being built right now in Ukraine. A Shell as big as the statue of liberty above and around the ruin. Liquidators were there, connstructing the first sarcophagus in 1986. You probably believe people died, how many you don’t know. And now it’s 30 years since then.That’s what you know, what you believe.

Are you ready? For one of the biggest lies in human history, along with the lies of TEPCO Japan. And IAEA. And UNSCEAR.

unscear-chernobyl
All say: Meltdown. A meltdown is a theoretical assumption. It helps to keep evacuation and compensation small. Because Meltdown means: Only 2 – 5 percent of the radioactive inventory / the core, escaped the reactor. It is a theory. It helps the industry to survive.

Here are facts with Sources next to them / below.

  1. The core of almost all reactors worldwide consists of Uranium Oxide (UO²). Chernobyl was a double core, seperated hydrauligcally. Making this thing 190 tons heavy. This data is from NRC. It says, each Kg consisted of 2 % Unraium 235 enrichment – which can be used for bombs. Reactors use it to become critical, or to operate – in other words. Did you know that? For example each german reactor is a so called MOX reactor. The number of MOX reactors worldwide increase. Sometimes they are fed with weapons plutonium. But this is only wishy washy. They consume it to become critical. But each reactor produces 250 kg Plutonium per year and unit, worldwide. If plutonium enriched or Uranium 235 enriched. Ok, so there were 450 Kg Plutonium in Chernobyl – from the beginning there were 450 kg Uranium 235. Do you know how much Plutonium was used for Nagasaki and how much Uranium 235 was used for Hiroshima? Answer: 64 Kg Uranium 235 for Hiroshima and 6,2 Kg Plutonium for Nagasaki. Your average reactor contains a lot of bombs in its core, Chernobyl even 100% more. It contains the radioactivity of 1,000 Hiroshima bombs, or 15 billion curie (Source: NIRS). Its “only” enriched, but reactors are nothing else than decelerated nuclear bombs.

Sources: http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0716/ML071690245.pdf and: http://life-upgrade.com/DATA/Artikel%20zu%20Tschernobyl%20in%20Nuclear%20Technology%20Vol%2090.pdf

chernobyl-nuclear-explosion29

chernobyl-nuclear-explosion28

2. The plutonium isotopes in different reactor types (Chernobyl is RBMK):

chernobyl-nuclear-explosion31

chernobyl-nuclear-explosion25

chernobyl-nuclear-explosion26

3. Let’s make a shortcut: What happened at Cherobyl 4?

I quote in all points this study, published by Nuclear Technology paper, in 1990: http://life-upgrade.com/DATA/Artikel%20zu%20Tschernobyl%20in%20Nuclear%20Technology%20Vol%2090.pdf

The Chernobyl Core was 190 tons of Uranium Oxide UO².

Each Kg consisted of 2,4 g of Uranium 235. To make the reactor work. This is the situation in each reactor worldwide. To get it run, beginning of life fuel needs this. After a certain period there is Plutonium in the reactor. For Chernobyl it makes 450 Kg Pu239 all together in both halves of the Core.

Ca. 250 Kg Pu239 in normal reactors. With smaller cores. The core was split in two halves, together 10 m length. An electromechanical experiment was started.

Purpose: Could a tripped generator maintain the electrical feed to the main circulation pumps during generator coast down?

Reactivity was reduced.

Security System was blocked, so was the >automatic< scram.

Both turbo generators were shut down.

The behaviour of Chernobyl is similiar to Fast Breeder Reactors (Sodium / lead cooled), also in terms of void coefficient.

The loss of pumping power induced by the experiment caused a rapid fail in pressure, so the water began to boil, at the bottom of the reactor and even at the inlet of the water! The reactor was unstable.

The crew pushed the button of the Emergency Protection System:

The water lies between the moderator (graphite) and the fuel. It captures thermal neutrons. It is more like a neutron shield than an additional moderator. The energy once stored in the fuel was transferred to the coolant.

It continued to boil and saturate and steam and water met very hot surfaces:

So the first explosion occurred and set the reactor dry – this can be described as steam / hydrogen explosion, BUT that was not was the reactor destroyed. Not, what the reactor lid has thrown aside, not what destroyed the reactor hall.

The first explosion had an energy of 200 Gigajoules. All water was expelled from the reactor. All fuel channels became dry. And Water was pushed back into the inlet and the steam drum seperators.

A DRY reactor heats up 100°C (180°F) evey 0,1 seconds! At the same time nuclear reactions take place, NEUTRONS – just below the speed of light. No chance for Reactor Emergency Systems:

100Degrees-All_0_1-Seconds

chernobyl-nuclear-explosion06

A dry reactor heats up 100°C every 0,1 seconds.

The Doppler Effect was saturated. Phase transition was faster than the heating. NO MELTDOWN.

You would need “only” 50 Gigajoules to boil all that water.

Xenon build up. The reactor poisoned itself. But that was not the main cause for the next events:

The Void Coefficient increased. More than 5 $. This is higher than the total antireactivity of the Doppler effect.

A final supercritical state was achieved – This is nothing else than a nuclear Explosion / reaction of the Reactor Type. This principle is known since the first graphite gas cooled reactors were build.

chernobyl-nuclear-explosion10

chernobyl-nuclear-explosion20

NRC official: http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0716/ML071690245.pdf 

Fuel Disaggregation requires very high energy: More than 250 Gigajoules.

The crew pushed the Scram Button AZ5. Control rods moved it. They needed 10 seconds, which took much too long. Only a small number of them reached the core.

chernobyl-nuclear-explosion42-2

2 seconds later the Nuclear Explosion / Reaction occurred. This one was 1,000 Gigajoules = 1 Terrajoule. This is the equivalent of 200 – 300 Tons of TNT, or just the yield of a U.S. nuclear W54 warhead.

chernobyl-summary

This nuclear warhead existed and was actually tested. It`s yield: 250 Tons TNT, or, in other words: 1,12 Terrajoule. Exactly the amount of Energy Chernobyl`s two explosions had (one setting the core dry, the other destroying it):

LINK of the 250 tons (0,25 kilotons TNT) Warhead: http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-26.html

The U.S. NUREG-1250 report, the official U.S. analyses says in Figure 4.3: 1,400 calories energy were deposited into each gram of reactor fuel UO². That is exactly the 1 Terrajoule: http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0716/ML071690245.pdf

The fuel was damaged. Each explosion took 1 second.

It included Shock Waves, Cladding rupture, Fuel fragmentation, Phase transition, and as an eye witness said, a blue flash.

The fuel can become vaporized (official NRC data):

chernobyl-nuclear-explosion21

chernobyl-nuclear-explosion22

chernobyl-nuclear-explosion23

chernobyl-nuclear-explosion24

If 65 % of the fuel is smeared that means the reactor is prompt supercritical = Nuclear explosion / reaction. This is called bigger than 1 $.

The total power of the reactor at the time of its destruction was 47,000 % over normal.

This all happened in 1 second.

Fast neutron reactions happen 1,000 times faster than any chemical or physical reaction.

A steam explosion was not possible anymore. At high temperatures steam ionizes into hydrogen and oxygen. Both do not explode at temperatures above 2,000 / 2,100°C:

Reaching 4,000 – 5,000°C these temperatures were no longer chemical, they were nuclear. Officials tell us: “Chernobyl was a hydrogen / steam explosion” – maybe the first one. But with the heating up, it became too hot for these kind of explosions. Don Arnott (below) said: At these temperatures steam ionizes and dissociates into the gases oxygen and hydrogen. These detonating gases do not explode above 2,000 / 2,100 °C.

chernobyl-nuclear-explosion13

ram-cherno

The phase transition Uranium Oxide core flew like a turbo jet engine into the air, ca. 20 – 30 m above the central hall and exploded in a nuclear explosion of the reactor type. The temperatures reached at this moment: 40,000°C.

chernobyl-nuclear-explosion43

But the Temperature of the Chernobyl nuclear explosion was 100,000 times lower (10,000,000%) than the nuclear explosion of the bomb type.

chernobyl-nuclear-explosion33

“Two different models of the nuclear explosions are known. According to, the core of the Chernobyl reactor transformed to a turbo-jet solid-phase engine after a very short initial overheating of fuel. It flied like a missile from the reactor vault to the central reactor hall by the hydrodynamic forces of gas-phase streams flushing down from the fuel channels. Then it exploded as an atomic bomb in the spaceof the central hall.” source: http://www.rri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/NSRG/reports/kr79/kr79pdf/Malko1.pdfchernobyl-nuclear-explosion34

No water has enough thermal conductivity for that.

This exceeds every safety system human can design and build.

The not welded lid has a weight of 2,000 tons. It was superheated during the explosion and neutron activity. It was seen from the helicopter crew and IAEA as well as soviet officials misinterpreted it as fuel in melting process. Steel glows cherry red at Temperatures 770°C to 800°C and yellow at Temperatures 1,150°C to 1,250°C.

The paint is also still there. It survive a max. Temp. of 300°C.

The thermal observation showed no melting process and no graphite fire.

29438

chernobyl-nuclear-explosion34b

chernobyl4

IAEA says 96% of the fuel is still in the reactor. But it is not.

In September 1986 126 tons of graphite and 26 tons of fuel were removed from roofs at Chernobyl plant site.

If much Boron is used in western reactors, similar over moderated situations can happen.

Western reactors avoid explosions, via cooking and steaming the reactor cores and letting the aerolized inventory fly through the safety relief valves (SRVs). It`s like a pressure cooker.

NUREG 1250 also speaks of “aerolized” fuel particles after phase transition, on page 6-7.

The industry simply avoids the term “nuclear explosion in a reactor” and simply calls it: “prompt critical excursion.” That`s all.

chernobyl-nuclear-explosion35

chernobyl-nuclear-explosion36

chernobyl-nuclear-explosion37

“an average operating nuclear power reactor will have approximately 16 billion curies in its reactor core. This is the equivalent long-lived radioactivity of at least 1,000 Hiroshima bombs.” http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/routineradioactivereleases.htm

chernobyl-nuclear-explosion39

Vladimir M. Chernousenko, Scientific Director of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences  Institute of Physics in Kiev’s Task Force for the  Rectification of the Consequences of the Chernobyl Accident- HE SAID:

“Radiation emission was no less that 80% of the core (with a total of 192 tons), which amounted to 6.4 x 10^9 Ci (Ci = Curie = 37,000,000,000 becquerel) If we divide the figure by the population of the whole earth (4.6 x 10^9 people) then we get 1 Ci per person.”

http://www.ratical.org/radiation/Chernobyl/ChernobylIftI.html

“15m³ of radioactive substances emitted from Block 4 at this time could be diluted in 15 x 5 x 10,000,000,000,000 km³ if water, In 100 years 15,000 km³ would be needed. In 1,000 years 15 km³ would be the required amount. For comparsion: the total outflow of the world`s rivers is 36,380 km³.” Dilution is just another word for retransmission. More radiation for everyone.

970449913

The Temperature reached more than 2,000°C degrees – reaching 47,000 % POWER!

chernobyl-nuclear-explosion01

A steam explosion can not develop 1,2 Terrajoule. Steam explosion’s Maxium -> 50 Gigajoules. But the explosion lifted the 2,000 tons lid away, and then even destroyed the reactor hall! How powerful is that. Only a maximum of 10 to 50 Gigajoule of Energy are possible by a Steam explosion in Chernobyl – it was the water expelled from Reactor 4:

no-hydrogen1

Source: http://books.google.de/books?id=vgwAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA65#v=onepage&q&f=false

Other sources say: H. van Dam. says: “900 Gigajoules”: http://iopscience.iop.org/0034-4885/55/11/003

chernobyl-nuclear-explosion09

checherov-imanaka

image from: http://www.rri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/NSRG/seminar/IS/Imanaka20120627.pdf

chernobyl-nuclear-explosion11

chernobyl-nuclear-explosion03

Yes: 1,400 Cal/gm (calories per gram) are 1,1 Terrajoules = equivalent of 0,2 – 0,3 Kilotons TNT.

There was not enough water, power in water, to create so a high energy explosion, for the 2nd one. This was nuclear.

W54 nuclear warhead is the energy yield equivalent of Chernobyl explosion (0,2 – 0,3 KT TNT):

NRC: http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0716/ML071690245.pdf 

chernobyl-nuclear-explosion02

Footage from the inside of Reactor 4:

There is this interview with a scientist who was with russian Checherov in reactor 4:

Source: http://www.taz.de/!82695/

Here they can be seen: Walking around the empty reactor:

wwwsouzchernobylorg

AN Kiselev, Chernobyl, 1986, block 3: “Power of gamma radiation from a channel, lying on the roof of the third block measured by Zherdev was 2 Sievert per Hour (the limit of the measuring range of the instrument DP-5V ) at a distance of three meters” / “we had to work in an environment where radiation levels could exceed the 10 Sievert per Hour and even higher” / “As soon as the rotary drill bit to the fuel clusters, fuel chips along with the water got into the room , and immediately dramatically increased gamma-ray background” / “Biological protection of the camera has been redesigned in accordance with the requirements of radiation safety.” / “On the tube sites were about 15-20 tons of fuel. On the roof lay the whole fuel assemblies. Approximate weight of 300-350 kg each. The rate per person was calculated by removing 50 kg of graphite or 10-15 kg pieces of fuel rod.” / “the total amount of fuel in the lava-like clusters is within 20 % of the entire nuclear fuel that the reactor had at the time of the accident.”

“Checherov analyzed all the reports and minutes of the Integrated expedition with measurements and calculations. The analysis estimated the amount of fuel made on the basis of thermal measurements showed that this estimate was based on assumptions that do not reflect the real picture of the thermal situation in unit 4, and secondly, were based on experiments that are not based on reliable measurements, and voluntarist declarations of expenditure thermal parameters experimentally recorded variations of which varies in the range of up to two orders of magnitude.” / “The maximum thickness of the fuel accumulation , measured on the spot and recorded on the film is 0.5 meters , and if you increase the thickness of the layer 8 times, then this cluster should have a thickness of 4 meters.” / “At the time of the accident in the reactor core were 1,659 fuel channels withg 190,257 kilograms of uranium or its kg Uranium Oxide (UO2).”

“where, how much and in what state the nuclear fuel ?” / “Our reports of fuel found in the Unit 4 was several times smaller, but the debate as to why such differences exist and where the truth is – was not gebated in this symposium” / “regardless of the fact that the reactor vault is empty and you can not see this amount of fuel and the amount of such fuel just could not fit in the observed areas, those who were there and personally saw it with their own eyes the empty space – you can not convince the others that there are not huge amount of fuel as declared by those who have not been there ” / ” it turns out that the minimum found fuel is 53 % of the fuel, and if we accept the second version, you still have to find the 91%!http://www.souzchernobyl.org/?section=31&id=563

We are fooled by IAEA and soviet agencies since 1986!

b) What you see here in this video is NOT the fuel melting, because it was thrown completely out by a force of 1,2 terrajule (0,2 – 0,3 KT TNT)  and it is NOT graphite fire, there was none according to a heat photo scanner Checherov used shortly after the explosions. What you see  is the 2,000 tons reactor lid, that was thrown aside and is GLOWING because of HEAT, it was so hot, that it turned from Red (770 – 800°C) into Yellow (1150 – 1250°C). The helicopter crew did not survive. Interivew with above Infos: Constantine Checherov – Senior Researcher of the Kurchatov Institute – one of the first people who visited the reactor hall after the explosion. He does not believe that the explosion of Chernobyl in ’86 exploded was hydrogen. It was a nuclear
explosion scattered hundreds of tons of radioactive fuel around the station: http://www.novayagazeta.ru/society/6095.html

This is from an article of Mr. Kiselev, who was with Checherov INSIDE Chernobyl 4 where the fuel WAS, many many times. “The most significant work in its results was the work of the neutron research laboratory in the past year by VI Morozov. They compiled and analyzed its neutron measurements, which were carried out in the 4th block of Chernobyl nuclear power plant within a few years and determined the concentration of uranium dioxide in more than hundred samples of lava-like fuel-containing masses… After the publication of the work, where on the basis of direct measurements determined the amount of lava-like fuel-containing material (and the results of radiochemical and neutron research) determined the concentration of uranium dioxide in the samples of these masses: the number of detected nuclear fuel in the fourth block does not exceed 20% of all fuel… Research continued: 1991 results were: 23 +/- 7 tons of uranium dioxide – then 1992 research results reduced it to 11,6 +/- 1.9 tons, and direct measurements gave the result of 3,75 +/- 0.6 tons… All reports are published in separate editions, and the magazine “Atomic Energy” published several articles on the subject. The scientific community did not react to it.. the reactor pit is empty, and in under-reactor premises can not be seen such quantities of fuel, and such fuel volumes simply could not fit in the observed areas, and those who were there and personally saw with their own eyes the empty space are impossible to convince that there are huge amounts of fuel, which is proclaimed by those who have not been there… There is a total absence of an active zone in the reactor pit (!)… ”
http://www.souzchernobyl.org/?section=31&id=563

chernobyl-nuke

Info from Interview with Checherov: http://www.novayagazeta.ru/society/6095.html

4. So, why a new sarcophagus? Chernobyl as you have read released so much radioactivity as a whole nuclear war. This is where it went down:

belarus-cloud-plane

unscear-chernobyl

Chernobyl irradiated the whole European Continent – even pro nuclear UNSCEAR clearly admits that (although their numbers are from the textbook). http://www.unscear.org/docs/JfigXI.pdf

To understand the principle of the nuclear explosion of the reactor, and unmask probably the biggest lie in technological history of human history, just have a look at this:

– Chernobyl was a nuclear explosion

No containment can keep such a explosion

– The weight of the reactor lid was 2,000 tons (NOT 1,000!) – important for energy calculation later below

– A containment would increase the yield of the explosion (pressure!)

– This principle is as old as the principle of man made nuclear fission:

From the book “History of the British nuclear industry” by Margaret Gowing, “Britain and Atomic Energy”, on page 382 the former  U.S. water-cooled graphite reactor at Hanford is described: “To be built in view of the risks of an accident, the reactor is at an isolated location. Because water absorbs neutrons, and when the water flow is interrupted and the control rods do not occur immediately in action, the water evaporates in the cooling system and can no longer absorb the neutrons . These neutrons were therefore available to increase the fission rate in the reactor, which is super critical with power. The temperature rises, the fuel evaporated and the radioactivity is spreading widely. “

On page 385 we find the position:
“The gas cooling is to avoid the risk of severe supercritical state …”

mgowing-d

mgowing-c

mgowing-a

mgowing-b

What is supercritical?

The knowledge of the danger of an atomic explosion that can occur in a water-cooled graphite-gas reactor, is as old as the principle of the reactor itself.

Safety Assessment Principle 152 requires ‘The containment should adequately contain such radioactive matter as may be released into it as a result of any fault in the reactor.’ Clearly if nuclear explosions are possible a licence should not be granted. LAST PAGE: http://www.spokesmanbooks.com/Spokesman/PDF/91Gifford.pdf

The number of fissions and the energy released quickly escalate, and if the process is unchecked, the result is a violent explosion. Reactions that multiply in this fashion are called chain reactions.” Quote from: http://wps.prenhall.com/wps/media/objects/3313/3392670/blb2107.html

The critical mass in a reactor (even on a pro nucler site): “After pushing the AZ-5 button the emergency protection system added, according to calculations, about a ß of positive reactivity and created a local critical mass in the lower part of the core – resulting in a sharp increase of power there (see Figure 3) and the coming into play of the positive power coefficient of reactivity. The power in the lower part of the core rose to the level at which the fuel exploded and got dispersed.” quote Anatoly Dyatlov, former deputy engineer for operations at Chernobyl: http://www.neimagazine.com/features/featurehow-it-was-an-operator-s-perspective/

Chernobyl was build by ROSATOM – the ones who build a new reactor in Chernobyl irradiated Belarus, the ones who helped Iran with their nuclear reactors, and probably delievered Polonium 210 to kill Litvenenko in London.

The new sarcophagus is built to contain this dangerous truth. The truth that Chernobyl was emptied by a nuclear explosion (of the reactor type, not bomb type).

Who finances this new project? The “nuclear” bank:

Who supervises it? Former IAEA General Secretary Hans Blix. He said in 1986 in Le Monde: “A yearly Chernobyl is acceptable for the world…”

Chernobyl needs no sarcophagus, not today and not in 1986, because it was and is EMPTY. The establishment of a sarcophagus was crazy, senseless and deadly – But right now, they build the 2nd one. A new Containment for a dangerous truth.

The liquidators have not liquidated Chernobyl. The liquidators have liquidated themselves.

800,000 worked in the area. On site, as doctors, workers… but they worked in the Chernobyl Core – which was scattered everywhere. In microparticles. This means: Soviet officials evacuated 130,000 civilans, but sent 800,000 into the irradiated areas!

Valery Legasov probably knew. BUT:

“Valery A. Legasov” – who was the first russian official who spoke about Chernobyl to the IAEA in 1986, and committed suicide. Before his death he made an audiotape, with untold facts about the Chernobyl explosion. Here are the abstracts of his tapes: “About the accident at Chernobyl” by Academician VA Legasov (text from the 4 cassettes) – in russian: http://www.life-upgrade.com/DATA/Legasov_V._Ob_Avarii_Na_Chernobiylsk.pdf

His 5 hours long speech at the IAEA 1996 meeting about Chernobyl was ignored: http://books.google.de/books?id=S-SsDtZG5WgC&pg=PA51&dq=new+scientist+valery+legasov&hl=de&ei=Lx_MTuu-BMaEOqb9uKYP&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

He knew about the insanity of sending liquidators to Chernobyl – he could not convince the IAEA and soviet officials. And decades later, Checherov – also from the same institute, indrectly supported the Legasov.

img_4ee5bbb6f2103

chernobyl-nuclear-explosion30

Some say a quake caused the Chernobyl catastrophe. But is the quake maybe the result of the  explosion – expressed as seismic data? Here is the seismis data from 1986, by soviet sources: http://www.rri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/NSRG/reports/kr139/pdf/karpan.pdf

seismic011

seismic021

seismic041

seismic031

Again the summary, from 1996 IPPNW PSR papers, Vienna:

chernobyl-nuclear-explosion15

chernobyl-nuclear-explosion16

chernobyl-nuclear-explosion17

chernobyl-nuclear-explosion18

chernobyl-nuclear-explosion19

by peace researcher NZ:

chernobyl-nuclear-explosion04

This is the NECK SHOT for the nuclear industry. But we failed, because we were blinded by the Meltdown Lie. And we are again blinded by TEPCO and IAEA. They have three empty reactors in Fukushima. They have no evidence where the fuel is. But call it Meltdown.

30 years dear readers. One human generation. One irradiated earth.

Often officials as former soviet Agencies, IAEA, NRC, UNSCEAR, tell the lie of a “hydrogen” or “steam” explosion. That is a lie. It comes from the textbook. Because otherwise reactors would get no licence to be built. They have to keep their inventory inside at all cost. The nuclear textbook is a template and experts push reality through it. The Officials lie about the temperature, or the weight of the reactor lid, or any other data, at least one of them. To downplay the nature of the explosion. But the reactor hall is no more. A fact. Plus the 2,000 tons reactor lid.

50 million Chernobyl curies? IAEA? “The pro-nuclear Time magazine reported in 1989 that perhaps “one billion or more” curies were released, rather than the 50 to 80 million estimated by Russian authorities.” Source: http://www.ratical.org/radiation/Chernobyl/Chernobyl@10p2.html

All radiation maps, doses, emissions are from the text book – not from reality. 50 million curie are: 1,850,000,000,000,000,000 Becquerel (1.85e+18) released by CHERNOBYL. A lie!

There is nearly NOTHING left in the Chernobyl 4 reactor! This is proven! 

Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois: 9 Billion Curie

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California: 4,5 Billion Curie

Source: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6393/is_n3_v12/ai_n28692892/

1,85 1,85 1,85 1,85 1,85 1,85… Just remember this number ONE point EIGHT FIVE and the 50

let’s look at the Boiling Water Manual from GE, also for Fukushima:

page 73:

ge-ari1

and page 76:

ge-ari2

Each reactor releases 50 micro curie of radioactive gases: which is 1,850,000 becquerel PER SECOND!

There is the 50 and the 1,85 again!

It’s all from the textbook!

It’s not the reality!

Can you control atoms?

>>>> A normal reactor releases 1,850,000 becquerel per second. Multiply it with x 10 = 18,500,000 becquerel – these are also the offical MAXIMUM LEVELS of radionuclide activity in the exclusion Chernobyl zone in Belarus (from the 1995 Belarus NATIONAL Report):

Again the 1,85 !

daily dose at a 1000 Curie per km² area, for example near Chernobyl reactor 4 with 37 mio becquerel per m² (map) is something like 10 mSv PER DAY – while normal is 1 – 2 mSv per year

They press reality into their simulation models. Especially Chernobyl. The 50 Mio Curie are used to conceal the fact, that ALL Inventory was thrown out in 1986, thats more than 5 billion curie, not 50 million. But they use the textbook to conceal it, in order to prove that even during an explosion a reactor safe. And now these madmen build a 2nd sarcophagus around and EMPTY reactor, to even underline the 30 years old lie!

More than a million people died because of Chernobyl:

n contrast (by Alexey Jablokov, co-author of the 1000,000 Chernobyl Deaths-Study: http://www.strahlentelex.de/Yablokov%20Chernobyl%20book.pdf ):

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

The UNCEAR 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.

My part: Infant Mortality Changes Following the Three Mile Island Accident,” from 1980: http://atomichistory.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/sternglass_infantmortalitytmi.pdf quote “The discrepancy in infant deaths between the two sources for the period of April 1 through June 30, 1979, had been two; from October 1 through December 31 it had also been two. For eighty-eight to surface between July 1 and September 30, precisely in the controversial summer months after the TMI accident, seemed unlikely.”

My part: Quote: “The victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and patients treated with X-rays because of such dubious indications as thymus hyperplasia demonstrate the exceptionally high sensitivity of children. However, the important discovery of Stewart and coworkers in 1958 , an enhancement of childhood leukaemia following diagnostic X-ray pictures during pregnancy, listed as historic milestone by Mossman also, has provoked a deep controversy. Their findings were an impressive support of the postulated linear non-threshold relationship for leukaemia” SOURCE Page 2: http://www.staff.uni-marburg.de/~kunih/all-doc/doserele.pdf

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. (Table 1):

CHERNOBYL DEATHS :

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.

5. The DAMAGE TO HUMANS by CHERNOBYL:

Dr. Rosalie Bertell, “People died at Three Mile Island / Killing Our Own”: http://www.ratical.org/radiation/KillingOurOwn/KOO14.htm

written by Dr. Bertell also: http://www.ratical.org/radiation/Chernobyl/CaUFtH.html

and: http://exacteditions.theecologist.org/read/ecologist/vol-29-no-7-november-1999-5368/29/2/

Chernobyl: The Accident and it’s implications for other Nuclear Reactors

Speakers are:

> Dr. Sergij Mirnyi, Engineer, Physico-Chemist, Liquidator (http://www.mirnyi.arwis.com/)

> Prof. Vesily Nesterenko, Physicist, founder BELRAD institute, liquidator (http://www.belrad-institute.org/)

> Commander Robert Green, former Royal navy (http://hildamurrell.org/)

> Prof. Yuli Andreev, Physicist, liquidator (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/15/us-japan-nuclear-chernobyl-idUSTRE72E5MV20110315)

> Dr. Wolfgang Kromp, Physicist, Nuclear advisor to Austrian Federal Chancellor (http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/index.html?http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/459/4556.html)

CLICK TO ENLARGE:

Chernobyl and the Human Rights of the Victims (ALARA, ICRP, IAEA):

Reactors – build by nuclear military-industrial complex
Dose Limits – invented by nuclear military-industrial complex
Compensation rules – designed by nuclear military-industrial complex

belarus-cloud-plane

Speakers are:

Dr. Irina Grushevaya, Foundation for The Children of Chernobyl, Minsk (https://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2011/11/11/belarusian-fund-for-the-children-of-chernobyl-gets-european-award/)

Dr. Yuri Pankratz, Foundation for The Children of Chernobyl, Minsk (http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/17737-1)

Prof. Galina Drozdova, Russian People’s Friendship University, Moscow (http://www.friends-partners.org/oldfriends/welling/drozdova.html)

Prof. Larisa Skuratovskaya, Institute of General Pathology and Pathopsychology, Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, Moscow (http://www.imow.org/community/directory/user/index?id=18306)

Prof. Peter Welsh, Member of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna (http://chernobyl.iatp.by/n1/Koerb_en.htm)

Prof. Hari Sharma, Nuclear Chemistry, University of Waterloo, Canada, International Medical Commission on Chernobyl (http://iicph.org/du_update_1_3)

CLICK TO ENLARGE:

Chernobyl: Evidence of Genetic or Teratogenic Damage to Environment and Humans:

Speakers are:

Ms. Cornelia Hesse-Hornegger, scientific illustrator specialising in Zoology (http://www.wissenskunst.ch/uk/aktuelles/contemporary/)

Ms. Solange Fernex, former Member of the European Parliament (http://www.nuclear-free.com/english/fernex.htm)

Dr. Sanghamitra Gadekar, International Medical Commission on Chernobyl (http://www.ptne.org/depositions/Surendra%20Gadekar.pdf)

CLICK TO ENLARGE:

Chernobyl “compressed several thousand years of evolution into a decade” – New York Times 1996 http://www.nytimes.com/1996/05/07/science/chernobyl-s-voles-live-but-mutations-surge.html

Fukushima’s Butterflies – known since 1927: https://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2012/08/17/fukushimas-butterflies-known-since-1927/

Insects and their fast mutagenic “reaction” on low radiation are some kind of early warning system for us humans: Irradiated Insects in Japan: http://www.freeml.com/bl/8694840/25149/

normal insects soon only in the laboratory: http://www.wissenskunst.ch/en/tschernobyl.htm

Great book about mutagentic impact on insects worldwide: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/3908247314/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thtefi-21&linkCode=as2&camp=1634&creative=6738&creativeASIN=3908247314

Reduced abundance of insects and spiders linked to radiation at Chernobyl: http://cricket.biol.sc.edu/chernobyl/papers/moller-mousseau-biol-letters-09.pdf please have a look at this beautiful book

in english: http://radionucleide.free.fr/Stresseurs/fulltext_punaise.pdf

and in german: http://www.sensigns.ch/db/daten/dokumente/Heteroptera_Deutsch.pdf

MOVIE: Chernobyl Children: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvNR8VtVJpU

MOVIE: Adi Roche, Chernobyl Children: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YUA4Bvfu9w

Chernobyl Data: Dr. A.Okeanov: https://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2011/09/25/chernobyl-data-dr-a-okeanov-ministery-of-health-belarus-morbidity-rate-among-children-and-teens/

Chernobyl: Development failures in the NEWBORN: http://www.life-upgrade.com/DATA/Lazyuk-ChernobylBelarus.pdf  According to Michel Fernex (former WHO, Switzerland) The IAEA said in 1996: “Because there was no register in Belarus for malformations BEFORE Chernobyl, there are no abnormalities.” A LIE, not logic, unethic and unsicentific.

Results of Long-term Genetic Monitoring of Animal Populations Chronically
Irradiated in the Radiocontaminated Areas http://www.rri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/NSRG/reports/kr21/kr21pdf/Goncharova.pdf

Health State of Belarusian Children Suffering from the Chernobyl Accident: Sixteen Years after the Catastrophe: http://www.rri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/NSRG/reports/kr79/kr79pdf/Arynchyn.pdf

Incidence of Obligatory Registered Malformations in Belarus for 1982 to 1995 (per 1000 neonates) PAGE 3: http://www.rri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/NSRG/reports/kr21/kr21pdf/Lazjuk.pdf

UN-cancer

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.

“…the IAEA will endeavour to organize conferences, seminars and workshops, in cooperation with the University, with the aim of enhancing public awareness of radiological effects on human health and addressing the issue of “radiation fear” and post-traumatic stress disorders in the Fukushima population…”

http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/energy/fukushima_2012/pdfs/fukushima_iaea_en_06.pdf

Direct Damage To People attributable to Chernobyl

Speakers are:

Prof. Elena Burlakova, Semenov Institute of Chemical Physics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow (http://archive.nbuv.gov.ua/portal/chem_biol/chemistry/2010_2/14.pdf)

Prof. Yvetta Kogarko, Semenov Institute of Chemical Physics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow (http://books.google.de/books?id=9aVUTgKDNYEC&pg=PA323&lpg=PA323)

Prof. Irina Pelevina, Semenov Institute of Chemical Physics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow

Prof. Ludmilla Kryzhanovskaya, Chief of the Department, Kiev Institute of Social and Forensic Psychiatry (http://medical-diss.com/medicina/mediko-sotsialnye-osnovy-zabolevaemosti-invalidnosti-i-sovershenstvovanie-sistemy-sotsialnoy-zaschity-invalidov-vsledstvi)

Prof. Leonid Titov, Director of the Belarusian Research Institute for Epidemiology, Immunology and Microbiology, Minsk (http://nasb.gov.by/eng/members/correspondents/titov.php)

Prof. Nika Gres, Research Institute of Radiation Medicine, Minsk (http://www.rri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/NSRG/reports/kr79/kr79pdf/Arynchyn.pdf)

Prof. Jay Gould, President of the Radiation and Public Health Project, New York (USA) (http://www.radiation.org/reading/ and http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/19/nyregion/19gould.html?_r=0)

Prof. Inge Schmitz-Feuerhake, Institute for Medical Physics, University of Bremen, Germany (http://www.chernobylcongress.org/speakers/artikel/228ec3fb555cefc5a28d030951e8f385/prof-dr-rer-nat-inge-schmitz-feu-1.html)

Dr. Andreas Nidecker, Medical Radiologist, Past-President of IPPNW Switzerland, International Medical Commission on Chernobyl, Basel (https://www.facebook.com/andreas.nidecker)

Prof. Sushima Acquilla, Epidemiological Department, University of Newscastle-on-Tyne, UK (http://www.fph.org.uk/working_abroad)

Click to Enlarge:

The BIMODAL effect of low radiation on health – proven by Burlakova 1996, ignored by science and IAEA, today’s science ONLY looks for LINEAR dose effects. They use the model of HIGH radiation (acute syndrome) on LOW radiation effects (cancer, diseases, mutation – …) – result: ALL radiation victims are and latency in general ignored! Please share: http://www.life-upgrade.com/DATA/BurlakovaChernobyl-Belarus.pdf

The IAEA is unscientific and unethic. They ignore the bimodal effect of low radiation.

“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

NUCLEAR WITNESSES, INSIDERS SPEAK OUT: DR. ERNEST J. STERNGLASS, PHYSICIST  http://www.ratical.org/radiation/inetSeries/nwEJS.html

Prof. Gould explains How Radiation Kills Infants

Click to Enlarge:

In the late 70s, there were in Wisconsin / USA seven nuclear power plants without incident. The mortality of infants of lower weight (less than 2500 grams) was examined: If the officially published emission rates of the nuclear power plants increased from year to year (Source: Government of the United States), also the mortality of underweight babies was increased. http://books.google.de/books?id=Rdgo5cXrO94C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=Small%20babies%20die%20near%20nuclear%20plants&f=false

“According to the ICRP in 1991, just 5 mSv to the testes could cause damage to offspring – yet this dose was permitted yearly to members of the public, and ten times more was permitted to nuclear workers, in all countries prior to 1990. It continues today to be permitted yearly for nuclear workers in most countries.” http://iicph.org/victims_of_the_nuclear_age

“Possible scale of lost or impaired children after Chernobyl in all of Europe and the part of Asia coveredMissing Children: 2,5 Million.” PAGE 34 http://www.ratical.org/radiation/Chernobyl/RIGEinEuroandCNPPc.pdf

“Children receive the highest doses, because the dose coefficients, in a 3 year old child, are 5 times higher than in adults.“ Vassily Nesterenko: https://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2012/04/14/children-radiation-maps-2/

“the human infant while nursing may attain higher body bur dens of radiocesium than would be the case for somewhat older children.”: http://radionucleide.free.fr/Stresseurs/419.pdf

“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: http://www.chernobylcongress.org/fileadmin/user_upload/pdfs/Baverstock_How_the_UN_works.pdf

Congenital Malformation and Stillbirth in Germany and Europe Before and

After the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant Accident: http://www.helmholtz-muenchen.de/ibb/homepage/hagen.scherb/CongenMalfStillb_0.pdf

European stillbirth proportions before

“After Chernobyl, infant mortality rates in Sweden, Finland and Norway increased by a significant 15.8 percent compared to the trend for the period 1976 to 2006. Alfred Körblein calculated that for the period 1987 to 1992 an additional 1,209 (95% confidence interval: 875 to 1,556) infants had died.”

“From the period of atmospheric nuclear weapons testing it is known that the infant mortality parameter is sensitive to radioactivity. It therefore comes as no surprise that there are now numerous studies showing that infant mortality is not only higher in the vicinity of Chernobyl, but also further away – in Europe. In the textbooks there is nothing to be found on this yet, but it is to be found in a number of different journals.”

“n 1986 in Berlin, an unusual increase of infant mortality was observed. Compared to 1985, infant mortality in Berlin rose in 1986 from 10.6 to12.5 per 1,000 live births in the first year of life. The mortality rate of non-German infants increased over-proportionally from 9.6 auf 14.3 per thousand. The mortality rate even increased between the end of the first week and the end of the first year of life by 26 percent. There had previously been a decrease in infant mortality”

“Ever since discovering the mutagenicity of ionising radiation in animal experiments, damaging radiation genetic effects in humans have also been repeatedly considered and examined. The ICRP, however, is of the opinion that teratogenic damage (stillbirths, infant mortality, severe malformation) does not occur below a dose of 100 mSV. Since the mean dose for Germany in 1986-7 was only 0.2 mSV, according to ICRP opinion there can’t have been an increase in teratogenic damage. On the other hand, there are numerous studies from Germany, Europe and the three countries in the Chernobyl region that show that there was indeed an increase in teratogenic damage, contrary to expectations on the part of these scientists.”

Source: http://www.ratical.org/radiation/Chernobyl/HEofC25yrsAC.html

“Energy mix and a weapon strategy inseparably involve human consequences in terms of increased incidence of leukaemia, other cancers, neonatal and infant mortality, mental retardation, congenital malformations, genetic diseases and general health problems.” Source: http://www.ratical.org/radiation/inetSeries/RB89.html

Alfred Koerblein: Fukushima & Chernobyl: http://www.alfred-koerblein.de/indexengl.htm

SOURCE: http://www.chernobylcongress.org/fileadmin/user_upload/pdfs/nyagu.pdf

Stochastic effects and children:
There is statistical health damage caused by the so-called low-level radiation (above ZERO up to 500mSv.) That is not assigned to any particular people, but occur in a defined population. This issue is the subject of thousands of studies all over the world since the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, and I will discuss in detail below with reference to examples. Factors such as age, gender, health, immune system, nutrition, social situation and the duration of exposure of the radioactivity influence the onset of cancer and other diseases. Until the Chernobyl disaster, the biological effects in the body of the
radioactive isotopes have been undervalued.

It is now clear: Any radiation poses a risk especially for children who are extremely radiosensitive.

1) A child is constantly increasing in weight and size, it grows from the intrauterine embryo to adult, the younger, the faster. Therefore, the cells divide much more frequently than an adult. Cells in the division phase (mitosis) are more vulnerable to radiation than cells in the resting phase.

2) The ability of the body to recognize “defective” cells and to  eliminate them develops during childhood. An embryo has not yet this ability. Therefore  “defective” cells can multiply unimpeded and later lead to cancer or heritable diseases.

3) A child that grows must hold more substances than emiting them, more than an adult. The body of a child takes in more radioactive substances in food, drink and air we breathe than adults. Especially dangerous are 137 and Cs-134 and 137 and Sr-90 – deposited in the muscles or in the bone (see below).

4) Children have their whole lives ahead of them. Some diseases caused by radiation take a long time to occur (latency): 20 or even 30 years. Children are more likely than older adults to reach the dubious chance to see the end of this latency. In the human body there are about 200 different cell types, each has a different function.

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.

The effect of 4 isotopes of iodine -131, Strontium-90, Tritium (H-3) and cesium – 134 / 137 on the human body I will now show more detail, not without pointing out the most toxic isotope, plutonium (Pu-239), that triggers in micrograms cancer. It is produced in each reactor in the fission of uranium, about 250kg per year and reactor. 

“In some areas where congenital diabetes had not been seen at all before the catastrophe, there were occurrences afterward and the number of cases has increased since 1986 (Marples, 1996).” PAGE 99: http://stopnuclearpoweruk.net/sites/default/files/Yablokov%20Chernobyl%20book.pdf

“Children are more endangered than adults, because their cells divide themselves constantly. Because they grow, they need permanent energy and have to deal with the impairment of their cells. With children, ailments will start earlier, one to four years afterwards, such as in the case of Chernobyl. Adults have a latency period for Cesium of 20-25 years. It is a slow death, adults who survived 25 years become ill now. The children got sick much earlier and often died.” http://fukushima-diary.com/2011/11/slow-death/ 

translation of “slow death” by Hohlie Hohltaube: http://vogelgarten.blogspot.com/2011/10/das-leise-sterben.html

Endocrinologists from the Heinrich-Heine-University in Düsseldorf and the Belarussian endocrine advice centre in Minsk cooperated on an investigation into the development of diabetes amongst children and young adults in Belarus. Over a lengthy period, 1980 to 2002, the incidence rate (new illness accumulation per annum) of diabetes mellitus Type1 – diabetes with insulin deficiency, mainly amongst young adults – was observed in two areas of Belarus that had been contaminated to very different degrees. Data from the highly contaminated Gomel area was compared with that of the comparatively slightly contaminated area of Minsk, during the periods 1980-1986 and 1987-2002. A total of 643 patients from the Gomel area and 302 patients from the Minsk area were involved in the analysis. In the years 1980-1986 (before Chernobyl) there was no significant difference between the incidence rates in Gomel and Minsk. In contrast to this, for the years following Chernobyl (1987-2002), there was evidence of a significant difference (p<0.001) in the incidence rates of both areas. The authors also discovered that the incidence rate in the Minsk area before and after Chernobyl was not significantly different, but it was in the highly contaminated Gomel area (p<0.05), where annually about twice as many children and young adults developed diabetes mellitus Type 1 after Chernobyl, as compared to the years before Chernobyl. The highest mean incidence rate was registered in the Gomel area in 1998″ http://www.ratical.org/radiation/Chernobyl/HEofC25yrsAC.html

Radiation is not life-friendly. It is a hostile factor. Life has prevailed against this hostile factor. The natural radiation. The beta radiation of strontium has a range of 1 millimeter. No matter where it is installed, it reaches the stem cells with its beta radiation. From the stem cells, everything is made. So the stem cells are bombarded constantly. What are the symptoms? We received the following reports by the children of Chernobyl: Chernobyl AIDS. Symptoms of anemia with decreased number of red blood cells. A therapy resitant anemia.

Vitamins and iron will not help. The ongoing hemorrhage, the bleeding e.g. from the nose. Decreased number of platelets, which are indeed involved in blood clotting. The immune system of children. They are always sick, every little infection “throws them around”. They constantly have colds, infections. And low white blood cells in the blood. This is easily explained: With a Bone marrow suppression: The bone marrow – due to the constant bombardment – and especially because of the accumulation of strontium – lost the ability to compensate.

Radioactivity means selective delivery of energy. On the molecules in our body. They are tiny pinholes in the shortest possible time. But with full force. We are constantly exposed to such radiation damage each second. Every second. Permanenent.And life could not exist and the information of Life could not be passed on, if we have not developed effective repair mechanisms. But the repair mechanisms are very complex and it takes time. The shorter the life cycle of a cell, the less time remains for the repair. This explains why children with rapidly growing tissue, with rapidly dividing cells – are particularly sensitive to radiation. Mitosis.

Here I present with the permission of vice director Mr. Babenko of BELRAD, the Children radiation maps of Belarus (below). First, some background on the data: We see here 17 regions of Belarus:

Irradiated areas and relatively “CLEAN” areas. Children have Cesium in their bodies, no matter if they live in “clean” or irradiated areas. This is one important fact these maps show. Why is that? The average irradiated soil in Belarus is: 1 – 40 Curie per square kilometer (= 37,000 – 1,480,000 becquerel per m²) of radionuclides, such as Cesium 137, Strontium 90, Americium 241 and other radionuclides. It reaches also 160 Curie per km², although it is 40 on official maps, but reaches 18,500,000 becquerel per m² in some places. Here is more info: https://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2012/03/04/japanese-children-cancer-outlook-children-need-absolutely-clean-food/ Here is a list of the radionuclides: http://life-upgrade.com/DATA/Primary%20Radionuclides.gif

A brief introduction:

The Chernobyl Radiation Monitoring System in Belarus today: direct PDF link http://www.ec-sage.net/members/paper2%20V.Nesterenko.ppt (on a pro nuclear website)

BELRAD ベラルーシ 市民の放射線計測協会 – May 12th 2012

The circles on the region graphic mostly show GREEN and YELLOW. Green means: Children have 0 – 20 Becquerel of Cesium 137 per body kilogram (2,20 pounds or 35,20 ounzes). Yellow means: Children have 20 – 100 Becquerel of Cesium 137 per body kilogram.
Whole Body Counters: They give you an average of the WHOLE burden in your body of radioactive atoms (Cesium 137 for example) in Speed (Becquerel) per body Kilogram (bq/kg). BUT: It is a WHOLE and NOT a PARTIAL BODY or PARTIAL ORGAN SCANNER. There is a tiny flash each time energy is given out by the radioactive atoms in your children (in the crystals of the device). It appears below a chair in which your child sits. This flash is “translated” into / via a program / computer into Becquerel per Kg. The device is shielded with lead against background radiation. And it is NOT invasive, not dangerous for you and your child. This means: a) If you have 20 Bq / Kg Cesium 137, you can have 10 or 100 times more Cesium 137 in your heart and / or cardio vascular system, because Cesium mimics potassium. And b) a child takes in even 3 to 5 times more substances, among them of course radioactive atoms. The fast metabolism does not help, and the mitosis even accelerates the damage.

Lessons from Belarus to Japan: 555 kBq per m² (15 Curie per km²) to 1,480 kBq per m² (40 Curie per km²) cause 50 – 60 milli Sievert per year for the people living there – according to Belaraus National Report 1995 [the year when Belarus stopped aid for irradiated areas with 1 – 5 Curie km² (37 kBq per m² – 185 kBq per m²)]. Exclusion Zones start at 18,500 kBq (18,500,000!!!) per m² of Cs-137, 455 kBq per m² of Sr-90 and 150 kBq per m² of Pu-239. Very very high tolerance levels, if we take into account, that Bandashevsy proved, that 20 Bq – 50 Bq of Cs-137 per Kg of the body (not kilo Bq! normal Bq!) are already letal for children! 1995: the level of air contamination exceeded by 10 and more times the pre-accident data even for “clean” places, like Minsk.

The river sediments of Dneeper, Sozh and Pripjat, Neman, Zapadnay and Divina increased Cs-137 by 80%. This is only official state data. It reached also backwaters: The Sr-90 activity varies from 2,2 – 66,0 up to 407 – 4,215 Bq/Kg). Alpha-radionuclides density in riverbed sediments is higher than in river waters: Pu238 from 0,005 – 9,10 Bg/Kg; Pu-239-240 from 0,13 – 28,13 Bq/Kg; Am-241 from 0,07 – 16,2 Bq/Kg. In the 90ies the levels fro Cs-137 and Sr-90 exceed pre-accidental levels in ground water 20 – 30 times and in underground waters 10 times and more. Chernobyl turned the soil into a collector where accumulation and prolonged retention of long-living radionculides occur.

Today contaminated soil functions as the main source, which delivers various components of radionuclides into the biosphere. At at distance of 150 – 200 km to Chernobyl: Gomel in Belarus: 2,271 kBq/m² (61 Curie per km²) and Mogilev (146 Curie per km²) can be found. In Bragin (Gomel) Cs-137 contamination is 174 kBq per m² up to 2,523 kBq per m². Radionuclides are distributed into forest photosynthesis: this is the growth line for Cs-137: wood < branches < needles < forest litter. For the living soil cover the line is as follows: herbaceous plants < lichens 555 kBq per m² / > 15 Curie per km²): 16159,70. Thyroid cancer morbidity of the children of Gomel area in 1994 (i.p. 100,000 children): Total in Belarus: 3,20 – Total in Gomel area: 12,00 – Contaminated area (> 555 kBq per m² / > 15 Curie per km²): 77,50. Tumour morbidity of the children in Gomel area in 1994 (i.p. 100,000 chidren): Total in Belarus: 101,10 – Total in Gomel area: 154,90 – Contaminated area (> 555 kBq per m² / > 15 Curie per km²): 245,40. Malignant tumour morbidity of the Children of Gomel area in 1994: Total in Belarus: 13,80 – Total in Gomel area: 27,10 – Contaminated area (> 555 kBq per m² / > 15 Curie per km²): 103,30.

Impact on human health in Belarus: http://tschernobyl-initiative.welcomes-you.com/dokumente/belarus/pdf/band3_s8_23.pdf

Official radiation maps of Belarus (too low): http://www.rbic.by/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=256&Itemid=86

How Belarus makes Chernobyl zones attractive, which are irradiated with 40 Curie per km² (1,480,000 Becquerel per m² – gives 50 – 60 mSv/year only by living there): http://www.kostukovichi.mogilev-region.by/en/news/region

“Schoolchildren in contaminated areas received radiologically clean food free of charge in school canteens and spent a month in a sanatorium, in a clean environment, each year. For reasons of economy the annual sanatorium stay has been shortened, and communities in some contaminated areas have been classified as “clean”, thus ending the supply of clean food from the state. ” PDF: http://www.ratical.org/radiation/radioactivity/ChronicCs137iico.pdf Radio-Cesium helps dying. Masked by “ordinary” causes of death.

Cesium 137 and Children
Cardiac insufficiency in 18% of children with less than 5 becquerel per kg
65% in children with 11 to 26 becquerels per kg
87% in children with 74 becquerels per kg
http://www.smw.ch/docs/pdf200x/2004/49/smw-10219.pdf

MORE of the CHILDREN RADIATION MAPS: https://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2012/04/14/children-radiation-maps-2/

Chernobyl no longer allowed in Belarus: http://spring96.org/en/news/76869

1,000 villages suddenly clean – no longer irradiated – by official decree: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/6492342/ns/us_news-environment/t/chernobyl-neighbors-ignoring-long-term-risk#.VTfJzOHy0uc

chernobyl-clock

Read Full Post »

妊娠中の日本人女性の避難すぐ

why do TEPCO‘s detectors work in a 20 KM distance FROM FUKUSHIMA, while CTBTO detectors 200 KM FROM FUKUSHIMA went out of work, because radiation was so high?

Since March 2011 they cover up the true radiation by posting ONLY and ONLY air measurements in μSv / h. At the same time they know exactly, that Radionuclides are stored in the soil and reach the thousandth and hundreds of thousandth times the radiation of the air. One year and no progress.

????????????????????

Fukushima was INES 7 after 3 days: Who measures Xenon? Iodine? Cesium?

Two stations of the CTBTO network, Okinawa and Takasaki, are located in Japan, but 133Xe (XENON) measurements are made only at Takasaki. However, the Takasaki noble gas detections were, for an extended period of time, reaching the dynamic range of the system, meaning that measurements were so high that they became unreliable. Regarding the 137Cs (CESIUM) measurements at Takasaki, there was another problem: http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/12/2313/2012/acp-12-2313-2012.pdf

During the first passage of the plume at this station, radioactivity entered the interior of the building. This resulted in a serious contamination, meaning that 137Cs shows up continuously in the measurements since the initial event, even when it is completely absent in the ambient air.

THIS IS THE NETWORK: http://www.ctbto.org/map/#ims

and the only info we get: http://www.ctbto.org/press-centre/highlights/2011/fukushima-related-measurements-by-the-ctbto/fukushima-related-measurements-by-the-ctbto-page-2/

Both stations are part of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) – The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) foresees a global ban of all nuclear explosions. To verify compliance with the CTBT, a global International Monitoring System (IMS) with four different measurement technologies is currently built up, namely for seismic (170 stations), hydroacoustic (11 stations), infrasound (80 stations) and radionuclide (80 stations) monitoring. 60 particulate monitoring stations are currently delivering data to the International Data Centre of the Preparatory Commission for the CTBTO in Vienna.

Where also the IAEA sits!

And they are covering up NEARLY ALL CTBTO RESULTS:

Source: https://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2011/05/12/w-h-o-secretary-general-chan-admits-for-the-first-time-in-52-years-radiation-is-always-dangerous/ and: http://www.taz.de/!70237/

The World Health Organisation WHO has to date the results of measurement to Fukushima under wraps, the WHO and the IAEA regularly receives from the international authority to monitor agreements on nuclear weapons test ban (CTBTO). The world’s 60 monitoring stations of the CTBTO to register around the clock, the radioactivity in the atmosphere.

The “Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics (ZAMG) in Vienna, which also has access to the measurement results of the CTBT0, presented at the end of fixed March with a significantly higher leakage of radioactivity from Fukushima, when the Japanese authorities – based on their data, the WHO and the IAEA – publicly announced. General Secretary Chan of the WHO said the WHO would publish CTBTO measurement data  “only if it’s dangerous values.” If that was the case, they decide “alone”.

At the same time admitted the Director-General, that the WHO is “no expert on radiation,” and that the WHO “on this issue today almost at all has not within the jurisdiction more.” The Department of Radiobiology at the Geneva WHO headquarters was closed two years ago under pressure from private and public donors. Earlier, the deputy head of the department with the attempt to impose lower limits for WHO Iodine intake failed on objections by the IAEA and France: http://www.chernobylcongress.org/fileadmin/user_upload/pdfs/Baverstock_How_the_UN_works.pdf

DO SOMETHING!

Sign this petition:

I hereby demand that the results of the analyses conducted to measure the airborne radioactivity by the global network (TICEN) be made public, ENTIRELY AND WITHOUT ANY FURTHER DELAY:

english: http://petitions.criirad.org/?For-a-total-transparency-on-the

請願: http://petitions.criirad.org/?%E8%AB%8B%E9%A1%98%E6%9B%B8,34

française http://petitions.criirad.org/?-Petitions-

now, continuing with quotes from http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/11/28319/2011/acpd-11-28319-2011.pdf :

The CTBTO stations are all equipped with high-volume aerosol samplers. (…) As part of CTBT treaty monitoring, half of the radionuclide stations shall additionally be equipped with xenon detectors. FLEXPART is also the model operationally used at CTBTO for atmospheric backtracking and at the Austrian Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics for emergency response as well as CTBT verification purposes.

COURT!

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.

Calculations based on models used by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) show that dietary intake of the maximum amount of radioactive contamination permitted in the EU and Japan would lead to at least roughly 150,000 fatalities in Germany each year. Other calculation models reach vastly higher figures. If the entire German population were to eat foods exposing individuals to only 5 percent of the contamination currently allowed in food imports from Japan, at least 7,700 fatalities could be expected; this figure doesn’t even include the secondary consequences of a wide range of greatly varying diseases and genetic disorders.

http://foodwatch.de/foodwatch/content/e10/e42688/e44884/e44993/CalculatedFatalitiesfromRadiation_Reportfoodwatch-IPPNW2011-09-20_ger.pdf

and: https://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2011/09/25/european-union-kills-legallly-150000-people-each-year-with-irradiated-food-in-germany/

Source: https://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2011/03/26/the-iaea-who-and-tepco-should-be-a-case-for-the-international-criminal-courts/

Official CTBTO data: http://www.ctbto.org/typo3temp/pics/722d00f0c5.jpg Chernobyl is a SINGLE REACTOR – compared to more than 2000 (!) Atomic bomb tests. Compare the released Radioactivity – unbelievable! A single Reactor – unbelievable.

On PDF Page 59 of TEPCO Fax document 1-8 we find: 4 x 10 mSv (per hour? I think so) at a distance of 0,28 km: http://www.scribd.com/doc/88568685/%E7%A6%8F%E5%B3%B6%E7%AC%AC%E4%B8%80%E5%8E%9F%E7%99%BA%E4%BA%8B%E6%95%85%E7%9B%B4%E5%BE%8C%E3%81%8B%E3%82%89%E3%81%AE%E7%8F%BE%E5%A0%B4%E3%81%A8%E6%94%BF%E5%BA%9C%E3%81%AE%E3%82%84%E3%82%8A%E5%8F%96%E3%82%8AFAX1-8 – which is exactly the the 40 mSv/h mentioned in this NRC correspondence on PDF page 15 (“There was a media report of a 40-rem dose measured somewhere near the plant.”): http://www.houseoffoust.com/fukushima/NRCFOIA/ML12052A106.pdf in my view, this speaks for brutal high radiation, if we take into account, that the air even weakens the concentration. This is 4 times the daily dose at a 1000 Curie per km² area, for example near Chernobyl reactor 4 / hot sport, with 37 mio becquerel per m² (map): http://life-upgrade.com/DATA/Chernobyl-map.jpg and I _think_ this speaks for the lost inventory of containment and inventory. Because it is also reactor fuel, that is all over there (494 Kg of Plutonium 239 was in the burnup fuel): Page 6 right top: http://life-upgrade.com/DATA/Artikel%20zu%20Tschernobyl%20in%20Nuclear%20Technology%20Vol%2090.pdf According to KAWATA Toumio, Fellow of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization of Japan (NUMO), all reactor inventory of Fukushima Reactor 2 was released on March 14th 2011, 6:22 pm: http://www.strahlentelex.de/Stx_11_588_S01-02.pdf

SOURCE: http://fukushima-diary.com/2012/04/emergency-correspondence-between-jp-gov-and-tepco-right-after-311/

===

“Example 7.Major release of activity following criticality accident and fire — Level 7

Event description

“Design weaknesses and a poorly planned and conducted test led to a reactor going supercritical. Attempts were made to shut the reactor down but an energy spike occurred, and some of the fuel rods began to fracture, placing fragments of the fuel rods in line with the control rod columns. The rods became stuck after being inserted only one-third of the way, and were therefore unable to stop the reaction. The reactor power increased to around 30 GW, which was ten times the normal operational output. The fuel rods began to melt, and the steam pressure rapidly increased, causing a large steam explosion. Generated steam traveled vertically along the rod channels in the reactor, displacing and destroying the reactor lid, rupturing the coolant tubes and then blowing a hole in the roof. After part of the roof blew off, the inrush of oxygen, combined with the extremely high temperature of the reactor fuel and graphite moderator, sparked a graphite fire. This fire was a significant contributor to the spread of radioactive material and the contamination of outlying areas.

The total release of radioactive material was about 14 million TBq, which included 1.8 million TBq of 131I, 85 000 TBq of 137Cs and other caesium radioisotopes, 10 000 TBq of 90Sr and a number of other significant isotopes.”

FROM IAEA: page 28 INES Manual: http://www.criirad.org/actualites/dossier2011/japon_bis/pdf/ines_iaea_complet.pdf

(https://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/the-money-machine-atomic-power-67-e-per-kwh/) about CHERNOBYL:

“I want now to the second Sarcophagus come to speak, because it does not serve to disguise a dangerous ruin, but for the concealment of dangerous lies. Since there are a lot of inconsistencies. Worldwide, for example, the version that 95 percent of the nuclear fuel still in there, and it posed a threat for Ukraine and for the whole of Western Europe. Tschetscherow has refuted this claim and it clearly goes from less than 10 percent that are still in there. He was commissioned in 2001 by the Kurchatov Institute, a research report related to the second Sarcophagus. He has investigated room by room, measured, photographed, core samples taken and has made its research report. He got a high distinction for it and the report ended up in a drawer forever! It interferes with the business.”

“Checherow and I went inside the destroyed reactor in Unit IV, as he is there crowled everywhere, even on the bottom of the reactor – accompanied by a small film crew.”

Footage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zP5neBujiFU&feature=related

“And that he has worked in the surveying of the lower part there for five hours. He said there were only 200 tons, 20 tons, perhaps, but realistically is 10 tons. In the other case they would have been so dead as a doornail. When we were in there, that was an uneasy feeling for me. The sound of the instruments, no light, you had to watch where you step on this climb and you never knew whether or not the same as a concrete chunk falls down from above. There are a thousand different rooms accessible in these ruins, heavily damaged. At the bottom of the reactor pot, I’d say of them that some debris that have fallen down from the upper chamber. We climbed over it since. Under it’s even different rooms in which at some points even these elephants ‘feet’ to see the molten material. Checherow has shown us all and the movie people have taken it.”

“In the reactor pot was nothing. It’s all been thrown out with tremendous force into a short and violent explosion, which was so strong that it has lifted the 2,000-ton concrete lid. So the energy source is nuclear energy have been clearly and the explosion was a nuclear explosion! The Western world – where is yes, nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons which are completely different – wants to admit it, because otherwise would clarify that a nuclear power plant with a nuclear explosion can destroy itself. But in the textbook, there is a nuclear power plant can not. But it can.”

Checherov said there is no radioactive fuel left in the reactor and that a nuclear explosion took place at the reactor, which vaporized the fuel at a temperature of 40000°C (72032°F) Source: http://www.springerlink.com/content/5tr8g6u3v5acxa4r/

How a NUCLEAR Explosion is possible in a reactor: https://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2011/11/12/the-atomic-reactor-explosions-of-fukushima-and-chernobyl/

If the nuclear industry acknowledges that a nuclear explosion is possible in a reactor, they create their own grave. Only by the atomic explosion it was possible that Chernobyl destroyed itself and has thrown out ALL reactor fuel.

Who pays for CTBTO: http://www.ctbto.org/fileadmin/user_upload/treasury/16Dec2011_Member_States__payments.pdf

On PDF Page 59 of TEPCO document 1-8 we find: 4 x 10 mSv (per hour? I think so) at a distance of 0,28 km: http://www.scribd.com/doc/88568685/%E7%A6%8F%E5%B3%B6%E7%AC%AC%E4%B8%80%E5%8E%9F%E7%99%BA%E4%BA%8B%E6%95%85%E7%9B%B4%E5%BE%8C%E3%81%8B%E3%82%89%E3%81%AE%E7%8F%BE%E5%A0%B4%E3%81%A8%E6%94%BF%E5%BA%9C%E3%81%AE%E3%82%84%E3%82%8A%E5%8F%96%E3%82%8AFAX1-8 – which is exactly the the 40 mSv/h mentioned in this NRC correspondence on PDF page 15 (“There was a media report of a 40-rem dose measured somewhere near the plant.”): http://www.houseoffoust.com/fukushima/NRCFOIA/ML12052A106.pdf in my view, this speaks for brutal high radiation, if we take into account, that the air even weakens the concentration. This is 4 times the daily dose at a 1000 Curie per km² area, for example near Chernobyl reactor 4 / hot sport, with 37 mio becquerel per m² (map): http://life-upgrade.com/DATA/Chernobyl-map.jpg and I _think_ this speaks for the lost inventory of containment and inventory. Because it is also reactor fuel, that is all over there (494 Kg of Plutonium 239 was in the burnup fuel): Page 6 right top: http://life-upgrade.com/DATA/Artikel%20zu%20Tschernobyl%20in%20Nuclear%20Technology%20Vol%2090.pdf
According to KAWATA Toumio, Fellow of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization of Japan (NUMO), all reactor inventory of Fukushima Reactor 2 was released on March 14th 2011, 6:22 pm: http://www.strahlentelex.de/Stx_11_588_S01-02.pdf

with kind regards,

Jan Hemmer

Read Full Post »

妊娠中の日本人女性の避難すぐ

Iouli Andreev http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUB1BE8FNlM#t=2m10s

The possibility of an atomic explosion in an atomic reactor is well hidden and ignored by common science, mostly servants and getting direct feed from the atomic industry.

Dear Readers: There is a mightier power than an earthquake. It’s called “nuclear explosion”. And it can happen in each reactor. No reactor withstands this. If the burst protection of a reactor can not include an explosion in a reactor, then this contradicts the construction specifications. No reactor should have been built. So, every operating license is an illusion and illegal. Therefore, the nuclear explosion in a reactor  is denied by the nuclear industry, so that the reactors be allowed to continue and can be built.

From the book “History of the British nuclear industry” by Margaret Gowing, “Britain and Atomic Energy”, on page 382 the former  U.S. water-cooled graphite reactor at Hanford is described:
“To be built in view of the risks of an accident, the reactor is at an isolated location. Because water absorbs neutrons, and when the water flow is interrupted and the control rods do not occur immediately in action, the water evaporates in the cooling system and can no longer absorb the neutrons . These neutrons were therefore available to increase the fission rate in the reactor, which is super critical with power. The temperature rises, the fuel evaporated and the radioactivity is spreading widely. “

On page 385 we find the position:
“The gas cooling is to avoid the risk of severe supercritical state …”

So the knowledge of the danger of a atomic explosion that can occur in a water-cooled graphite-gas reactor, is as old as the principle of the reactor itself.

Safety Assessment Principle 152 requires ‘The containment should adequately contain such radioactive matter as may be released into it as a result of any fault in the reactor.’ Clearly if nuclear explosions are possible a licence should not be granted. LAST PAGE: http://www.spokesmanbooks.com/Spokesman/PDF/91Gifford.pdf

# Would the people be aware that the Chernobyl explosion was an atomic explosion, it would attract the public to make a link between civilian and military atomic energy, which credibility and image of the nuclear industry would put an irreparable blow

# An atomic explosion in a reactor can rule out the provisions contrary to nuclear safety. Consequently, reactors should be shut down.

Once the atomic bomb explodes, it is gone. Once an atomic reactor explodes, it’s emitting radiation for eternity.

Forgotten: The 1975 version of Fukushima and Chernobyl in Leningrad: Meltdown and 1.5 million Curie of activity got into the environment. Tons of liquid radioactive waste were discharged into the Baltic Sea by the Leningrad Nuclear Power Plant (RBMK type like CHERNOBYL): http://www.greenworld.org.ru/?q=ang_lnpp1_main – two RBMK 1000 Chernobyl reactors are still running! Planned Shutdown: 2018 & 2020.

by Sergej Mirnyi, (http://www.mirnyi.arwis.com/) Engineer, chemist, liquidator at IPPNW congress Vienna 1996: http://wilpfinternational.org/publications/Tchernobyl_consequences.pdf – page 23: The picture of the contamination by nuclear tests over Nevada looked like an octopus. The image of the radiation on the reactor at Chernobyl Unit IV looked like a Radioactive Mount Everest, the top of the concentrated area around the reactor was around, from its center was a long, thin trace, a second was wide and covered the entire eastern Belarus.
Nuclear explosions caused the Chernobyl disaster – page 22: http://www.scribd.com/doc/33726185/Peace-Researcher-Vol2-Issue09-June-1996

From Fukushima-Diary.com: Yellow light was seen when reactor 3 exploded: http://fukushima-diary.com/2011/11/yellow-light-was-seen-when-reactor-3-exploded/#comment-28709

and: http://enenews.com/breaking-officials-investigating-meltdowns-question-whether-nuclear-explosions-destroyed-fukushima-reactors-tepco-not-in-a-position-to-comment

7 reports of nuclear fuel rod pieces being ejected from Fukushima reactors and/or spent fuel pools http://enenews.com/pieces-nuclear-fuel-ejected

Japanese Engineer: “There Was a Nuclear Explosion in Reactor 3 in Addition to a Hydrogen Explosion”.

Arnie Gundersen, C.Busby are not alone. The knowledge about the atomic explosion in an atomic reactor is as old as the principle of the atomic reactor itself.

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.

Chernobyl and Fukushima were atomic explosions:

Cobalt 60 was detected in Kashiwa shi of Chiba. It proves reactor 3 had an atomic explosion, and it proves gov / tepco are still hiding most important facts.It’s very natural to think there may be way more things concealed: http://10401.blog.fc2.com/blog-entry-88.htm (now taken offline). But they also found Cobalt 60 in seafood: http://www.scribd.com/doc/65128490/GreenPeace-Fukushima-Seafood-Results

Chernobyl too, but this is IGNORED by today’s science: https://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2011/03/16/fukushima-chernobyl-unofficial-data/

pay attention to PDF Page 7: Comparison of radioactive contamination between Chernobyl and Fukushima by Imanaka T.Research Reactor Institute, Kyoto University June 27, 2012 http://www.rri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/NSRG/seminar/IS/Imanaka20120627.pdf

Dr. Chris Busby Believes Fukushima Was A Nuclear Explosion : http://www.rense.com/general93/chrisbsy.htm (link now correct)

AND: University of Innsbruck says Chernobyl was primarily caused by a NUCLEAR EXPLOSION – Page 1, left: translation: “… the one Nuclear explosion, and finally a meltdown followed by “: http://physik.uibk.ac.at/physik4/tschernobyl/2-Der_Unfall.pdf AND: “Some specialists are sure that after the steam explosion a nuclear explosion similar to an atomic bomb explosion occurred in the core of the 4th Unit .
It’s power had to be much higher than power of the steam explosion. The conclusion of the authors is based on experimental findings established by studying of activities of isotopes 133Xe and 133Xem in the air that existed in the first days after the Chernobyl accident. Their study was carried out in the city Cherepovets that is about 1,000 km in north direction from the Chernobyl NPP.
The authors could find that the ratio of activities of these isotopes is the same as in the case of nuclear explosion.” SOURCE: http://www.rri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/NSRG/reports/kr79/kr79pdf/Malko1.pdf

I suspect nearly every analysis on the Chernobyl explosions to be downplayed. nearly every analysis talks about: 2,000°C temperature increase of the fuel. why? because if they stay at 2,000°c then they can remain their false statement of a “hydrogen-and / or steam-explosion”. the experts and scientist learned all their life, that 2,000°C is the maximum of fuel / melting / temperature increase during a reactor accident. But it is not true: reactors like the NERVA (Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application) – a NASA / NRC joint venture, can develop more than that: quote “Continuously measured the in-pile thermal Fuel Compounds conductivity of high-density UO2 fuel at temperatures up to 2,200 degrees Celsius.” from: http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4533/Plum%20Brook%20Complete.pdf this sounds like this russian analysis that described the chernobyl reactor core as a rocket: “Two different models of the nuclear explosions are known. According to, the core of the Chernobyl reactor transformed to a turbo-jet solid-phase engine after a very short initial overheating of fuel. It flied like a missile from the reactor vault to the central reactor hall by the hydrodynamic forces of gas-phase streams flushing down from the fuel channels. Then it exploded as an atomic bomb in the spaceof the central hall.” source: http://www.rri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/NSRG/reports/kr79/kr79pdf/Malko1.pdf leading to: http://nuclearhistory.wordpress.com/2011/09/05/mikhail-malko-national-academy-of-sciences-of-belarus-nuke-explosion-at-chernobyl/

Normal reactor inventory: http://www.life-upgrade.com/DATA/inventory-reactor-beznau2.jpg

By Prof. Pflugbeil (https://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/the-money-machine-atomic-power-67-e-per-kwh/) about CHERNOBYL:

“I want now to the second Sarcophagus come to speak, because it does not serve to disguise a dangerous ruin, but for the concealment of dangerous lies. Since there are a lot of inconsistencies. Worldwide, for example, the version that 95 percent of the nuclear fuel still in there, and it posed a threat for Ukraine and for the whole of Western Europe. Tschetscherow has refuted this claim and it clearly goes from less than 10 percent that are still in there. He was commissioned in 2001 by the Kurchatov Institute, a research report related to the second Sarcophagus. He has investigated room by room, measured, photographed, core samples taken and has made its research report. He got a high distinction for it and the report ended up in a drawer forever! It interferes with the business.”

“Checherow and I went inside the destroyed reactor in Unit IV, as he is there crowled everywhere, even on the bottom of the reactor – accompanied by a small film crew.”

Footage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zP5neBujiFU&feature=related

“And that he has worked in the surveying of the lower part there for five hours. He said there were only 200 tons, 20 tons, perhaps, but realistically is 10 tons. In the other case they would have been so dead as a doornail. When we were in there, that was an uneasy feeling for me. The sound of the instruments, no light, you had to watch where you step on this climb and you never knew whether or not the same as a concrete chunk falls down from above. There are a thousand different rooms accessible in these ruins, heavily damaged. At the bottom of the reactor pot, I’d say of them that some debris that have fallen down from the upper chamber. We climbed over it since. Under it’s even different rooms in which at some points even these elephants ‘feet’ to see the molten material. Checherow has shown us all and the movie people have taken it.”

“In the reactor pot was nothing. It’s all been thrown out with tremendous force into a short and violent explosion, which was so strong that it has lifted the 2,000-ton concrete lid. So the energy source is nuclear energy have been clearly and the explosion was a nuclear explosion! The Western world – where is yes, nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons which are completely different – wants to admit it, because otherwise would clarify that a nuclear power plant with a nuclear explosion can destroy itself. But in the textbook, there is a nuclear power plant can not. But it can.”

Checherov said there is no radioactive fuel left in the reactor and that a nuclear explosion took place at the reactor, which vaporized the fuel at a temperature of 40000°C (72032°F) Source: http://www.springerlink.com/content/5tr8g6u3v5acxa4r/

PLEASE CLICK AT THESE TWO FILES:

Chernobyl was like a W-54Warhead: http://books.google.de/books?id=I3_oaypyhB8C&pg=PA165&lpg=PA165&dq=US+warhead+W54&source=bl&ots=7NtOL9qyMA&sig=p0dXQQuITX9ltmYMsyXqwEmWGi8&hl=de&ei=9q3QTrq8OOTk4QS3-c1T&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CG4Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=US%20warhead%20W54&f=false / http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/W54falcon.jpg

http://www.life-upgrade.com/DATA/ReactorNuclearExplosion.pdf

More in: “Martinez Val, Jose M., Aragones, Jose M., Mingues, Emilio, Perlado, Jose M., Velarade, Guillermio. An Analysis of the Physical Causes of the Chernobyl Accident. Nuclear Technology. Vol. 90, June 1990, pp.371 – 378.”: http://life-upgrade.com/DATA/Artikel%20zu%20Tschernobyl%20in%20Nuclear%20Technology%20Vol%2090.pdf PLUS: on PAGE 6 it reads : 2,6 g of Pu239 / Kg reactor fuel – makes 494 Kg of Plutonium 239 in the Chernobyl core, which was ejected during 2nd explosion. Compare Hiroshima bomb: little bit more than 6 Kg Plutonium 239.

SAME SITUATION AS IN CHERNOBYL IN EVERY FAST BREEDER!

http://www.life-upgrade.com/DATA/fast-breeder.pdf

Excerpt: Chernobyl explosion released 1,200 Gigajoules: http://books.google.de/books?id=pAsAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA61&dq=1200+gigajoules&hl=de&ei=oiLMTsfSNJGyhAfXh5ivDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=1200%20gigajoules&f=false <- ATOMIC EXPLOSION. Steam explosion: Maxium -> 50 Gigajoules. More: http://books.google.de/books?id=vgwAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA65#v=onepage&q&f=false

Also mentioned in the 1987 released paper by NRC “NUREG 1250”: http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0716/ML071690245.pdf

H. van Dam. says: “900 Gigajoules”: http://iopscience.iop.org/0034-4885/55/11/003

Chernobyl: NO HYDROGEN NO CHEMICAL EXPLOSION – it was too Hot!: http://books.google.de/books?id=QGlMb5wXs5sC&pg=PA174#v=onepage&q=arnott&f=false

4000 – 5000 ° K: http://books.google.de/books?id=oEqd0IeAhccC&pg=PA6&hl=de&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=3#v=snippet&q=4000&f=false

Explosion yield of Chernobyl 0,2 – 0,3 KiloTons. Model of the Destruction of the Reactor in the No. 4 Unit of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant – by Kiselev, A. N. | Checherov, K. P.: http://discover-decouvrir.cisti-icist.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/dcvr/ctrl?action=shwart&aix=8&aid=2485630

Jack Harris Central Electricity Generating Board nuclear metallurgist acceptsof his colleague Ross Hesketh’s view of nuclear explosion in Chernobyl: Page7  http://www.spokesmanbooks.com/Spokesman/PDF/91Gifford.pdf More about Ross Hesketh: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/ross-hesketh-549777.html

AN Kiselev, Chernobyl, 196, block 3: “Power of gamma radiation from a channel, lying on the roof of the third block measured by Zherdev was 2 Sievert per Hour (the limit of the measuring range of the instrument DP-5V ) at a distance of three meters” / “we had to work in an environment where radiation levels could exceed the 10 Sievert per Hour and even higher” / “As soon as the rotary drill bit to the fuel clusters, fuel chips along with the water got into the room , and immediately dramatically increased gamma-ray background” / “Biological protection of the camera has been redesigned in accordance with the requirements of radiation safety.” / “On the tube sites were about 15-20 tons of fuel. On the roof lay the whole fuel assemblies. Approximate weight of 300-350 kg each. The rate per person was calculated by removing 50 kg of graphite or 10-15 kg pieces of fuel rod.” / “the total amount of fuel in the lava-like clusters is within 20 % of the entire nuclear fuel that the reactor had at the time of the accident.” / “Checherov analyzed all the reports and minutes of the Integrated expedition with measurements and calculations. The analysis estimates the amount of fuel made on the basis of thermal measurements showed that this estimate was based, first on assumptions that do not reflect the real picture of the thermal situation in unit 4, and secondly, were based on experiments that are not based on reliable measurements, and voluntarist declarations of expenditure thermal parameters experimentally recorded variations of which varies in the range of up to two orders of magnitude.” / “The maximum thickness of the fuel accumulation , measured on the spot and recorded on the film is 0.5 meters , and if you increase the thickness of the layer 8 times, then this cluster should have a thickness of 4 meters.” / “At the time of the accident in the reactor core were 1,659 fuel channels withg 190,257 kilograms of uranium or its kg dioxide (UO2).” / “where, how much and in what state the nuclear fuel ?” / “Our reports of fuel found in the premises of Unit 4 was several times smaller, but the debate as to why such differences exist and where the truth is – was not gebated in this symposium” / “regardless of the fact that the reactor vault is empty and you can not see this amount of fuel and the amount of such fuel just could not fit in the observed areas, those who were there and personally saw it with their own eyes the empty space – you can not convince the others that there are not huge amount of fuel as declared by those who have not been there ” / ” it turns out that the minimum found fuel is 53 % of the fuel, and if we accept the second version, you still have to find the 91%!” / “People who worked there were from some other world view , spirituality , always ready to help and work with redoubled energy.” / “Honor the memory of the departed early in the life of heroic fighters.” http://www.souzchernobyl.org/?section=31&id=563

Commander Robert Green, at IPPNW Chernobyl congress 1996 in Vienna (from Hinkley Point hearing report 1990): starting at page 29: http://wilpfinternational.org/publications/Tchernobyl_consequences.pdf

Robert Green’s aunt was murdered: http://www.hildamurrell.org While she was on her way preparing to present her paper  An Ordinary Citizen’s View of Radioactive Waste Management 

She was advised by Don Arnott: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2000/jan/13/guardianobituaries – a nuclear physicist who refused on principle to join Britain’s atom bomb programme. He said, Chernobyl was a nuclear explosion of the reactor type!

What a connection! Why was she murdered?

The same today in Japan: Anti nuclear town councilor died in undetermined manner

The atomic industrial-military complex fears the TRUTH!

How to Cover Up a loss of reactor fuel or any other dangerous material: The atomic industry uses the term “MUF (Material Unaccounted For)” – JAEA says, that 0,7 kg of Plutonium are legally missing in 2010 – page 6: http://www.aec.go.jp/jicst/NC/iinkai/teirei/siryo2011/siryo36/110920e.pdf

Chernobyl was a nuclear explosion in the yield of about 0.3 kilotons (there are nuclear weapons which are below this yield). Nothing, no architecture in the world could stand up to this. That the nuclear industry can not rule out a nuclear explosion in a reactor contradicts the regulations for nuclear safety. Consequently, all reactors should be shut down.

“Safety Assessment Principle 152 requires ‘The containment should adequately contain such radioactive matter as may be released into it as a result of any fault in the reactor.’ Clearly if nuclear explosions are possible a licence should not be granted.” LAST PAGE: http://www.spokesmanbooks.com/Spokesman/PDF/91Gifford.pdf

The knowledge of the danger of a nuclear explosion in a water-cooled reactor type is so old as the principle of the reactor itself

“Valery A. Legasov” – who was the first russian official who spoke about Chernobyl to the IAEA in 1986, and committed suicide. Before his death he made an audiotape, with untold facts about the Chernobyl explosion. Here are the abstracts of his tapes: “About the accident at Chernobyl” by Academician VA Legasov (text from the 4 cassettes) – in russian: http://www.life-upgrade.com/DATA/Legasov_V._Ob_Avarii_Na_Chernobiylsk.pdf

His 5 hours long speech at the IAEA 1996 meeting about Cherbobyl was ignored: http://books.google.de/books?id=S-SsDtZG5WgC&pg=PA51&dq=new+scientist+valery+legasov&hl=de&ei=Lx_MTuu-BMaEOqb9uKYP&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

The RBMK reactor at Chernobyl has prevented that the explosion was bigger, which would have made western reactors, because the total closure under pressure, the force of the explosion would have increased. The weight of the lid which was blown up was 2000 tons (was not welded). In England, at least one scenario exists for a nuclear explosion in a gas-cooled Reactor. Would be known in the public that the Chernobyl explosion was a nuclear explosion, the public would draw a connection between civilian and military nuclear energy, which would damage irreparable the credibility and image of the nuclear industry.

Continue reading until PDF page 33, where liquidator and physicist Youli Andreev speaks, he has seen the Fuel , which was destroyed from the inside out. This is the evidence for an atomic explosion in Chernobyl. Starting at page 33 http://wilpfinternational.org/publications/Tchernobyl_consequences.pdf

Here is what he has to say about the IAEA: “IAEA is a FAKE organisation”: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/15/us-japan-nuclear-chernobyl-idUSTRE72E5MV20110315

This is him: http://books.google.de/books?id=xAwAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA48&dq=Yuri+Andreev&hl=de&ei=y7nKToPJM8mM4gSMp-Rl&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Yuri%20Andreev&f=false

and Page 33, by Ross Hesketh and Jury Andrejev: Unit IV reactor had a design flaw that was already known in 1983: When lifting the control rods one would risk an extremely dangerous situation: the reactor could explode due to the emergency protection. Before the accident, the staff of Unit IV had sent a letter to the leadership of the Soviet nuclear industry: The potential accident was described. But the management told the personnel is not the possibility of a nuclear explosion in the reactor, although the Designers were aware exactly. This situation exists in every large Industrial plant in the world.

On December 1984 (2 years before the explosions), Chernobyl reactor IV went critical. Reactor IV went into operation in 1983. http://guacfund.org/nss-folder/sharedpublications/NM724.pdf

Hanford in USA: There is a similar, gas-graphite reactor – producing  mainly plutonium, which is their main purpose.

That is the problem of Western reactors: The control rods are made of a material -> Silver-indium-cadmium. If something goes wrong, the control rods to melt first. it is likely that you will lose the control rods rather than the core.

Possibilité qu’une explosion nucléaire ait eu lieu à FUKUSHIMA:
Extrait des entretiens entre HATOYAMA ex premier-ministre du Japon et TAIRA, député.
(L’article complet est paru dans le magazine NATURE le 14 décembre (en ligne) et le 15 décembre (version papier)Volume:480, Pages: 313–314)”Another question that must be answered is what caused the explosions at the site. They were initially reported as being caused by the ignition of hydrogen generated by a high-temperature chemical reaction between the alloy covering the fuel rods and the vapour in the core. But, again, this has not been settled. Other possibilities include a nuclear explosion, or the ignition of other gases.Knowing whether a nuclear explosion took place is essential for predicting how much radioactivity might have been released, what it would have consisted of and how far it would have spread, as well as the state of the spent-fuel rods stored in a pool in unit 3. Two observations suggest that this is plausible. First, some metals heavier than uranium have been detected tens of kilometres from the plant. Second, the steel frame on top of the unit-3 reactor building is twisted, apparently as a result of melting.“Solutions for the Fukushima nuclear disaster must be based on the worst-case scenario.”Japan’s Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) reported finding heavy metals such as curium-242 up to 3 kilometres from the reactor site and plutonium-238 up to 45 kilometres away. These isotopes are deadly poisons if ingested, causing internal exposure to radiation. Because 242Cm has a short half-life (about 163 days), and because the concentrations of 238Pu around the plant were much higher than usual, MEXT concluded that these radionuclides were not fallout from past nuclear tests in the atmosphere, so must have come from the Fukushima reactor. If so, they suggest that broken spent-fuel rods might be scattered around the site — a considerable hazard.Such elements are too heavy to have been borne in a plume, like the lighter caesium and iodine, so they must have been blown out with great force. Whether a hydrogen explosion would have been powerful enough to scatter heavy metals that far remains unclear. And a hydrogen explosion should not have generated enough heat to melt steel. Initially, TEPCO claimed that the explosion in unit 3 generated white smoke; on re-examination, the smoke was black, and therefore unlikely to have been caused by a pure hydrogen explosion. So a nuclear explosion is a possibility. Whether other explosive gases were present on the site would be equally important to establish.”
—-

Most important after atomic bomb attack: Masks, measuring in Micro / Milli / Sievert.

Important while reactor catastrophe: Measuring in Becquerel – often forgotten, instead people refer to Sievert.

while sievert may decrease, becquerel increase, because our organism is programmed to absorb and store things.

What:
> STATUS REPORT OF THE IIASA PROJECT ON ENERGY SYSTEMS 1975
http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Admin/PUB/Documents/RR-76-001.pdf

Quote P.17:
> “The next logical step is to embed residual risks in a spectrum of natural risks such as earthquakes, lightning, and the like…”

Who said this:
> Wolf Härtele, 1976, in JAPAN

Who is this:
> Swabian pastor’s son, Physicist, advocate of fast breeder technology and preferred disciple of Carl Friedrich von Weizsacker

My Source:
> Book: The Atomic State – by Robert Jungk

> Häfele impressed with this risk philosohpy also the Church and Society of the World Council of Churches, which took his arguments for the debate book “Facing Up to Nuclear Power”:
http://www.amazon.de/Facing-Nuclear-Power-Contribution-Potentialities/dp/0715203401

The end of the fast breeder program:
http://www.chernobylcongress.org/fileadmin/user_upload/pdfs/Baverstock_How_the_UN_works.pdf
> In about 1980 Gian-Carlo Pinchera, an Italian nuclear physicist, showed that fast reactors were inherently unsafe. That single conference paper led to the almost total abandonment of the fast breeder programme. (…) he warned “beware the dying kick of the nuclear advocates.” This is what we see today but maybe they are not dying!  quote by Keith Baverstock

The masters : Giancarlo Pinchera

Chemistry engineer, communist, he specialized in nuclear engineering in the USA , frequenting the Los Alamos laboratories which closed their doors to him in the middle of the Cold War.
Between 1965 and 75, he worked as a researcher at Cnen, the newly instituted National Committee for Nuclear Energy.
During these years he is in charge of security at the Casaccia Research center, at Superphénix project in France, and becomes responsible for Energy matters at PCI [probably Italian Communist Party].
He gets to know ecology litterature, from the Club de Rome reports to texts by Barry Commoner et Amory Lovins. Then arrise his first doubts about nuclear energy, with his thoughts about risks and costs linked to the atom policy and about the recurring Italian inefficiency. Then he drops his positions favorable to nuclear energy, which becomes one of the most discredited environmental techniques in Italy and abroad, until his death on 9/2/1995. Source PAGE 49: http://www.life-upgrade.com/DATA/Superphenix-GianCarlo-Pinchera.pdf

What:
> STATUS REPORT OF THE IIASA PROJECT ON ENERGY SYSTEMS 1975
http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Admin/PUB/Documents/RR-76-001.pdf

Quote P.17:
> “The next logical step is to embed residual risks in a spectrum of natural risks such as earthquakes, lightning, and the like…”

Who said this:
> Wolf Härtele, 1976, in JAPAN

Who is this:
> Swabian pastor’s son, Physicist, advocate of fast breeder technology and preferred disciple of Carl Friedrich von Weizsacker

My Source:
> Book: The Atomic State – by Robert Jungk

> Häfele impressed with this risk philosohpy also the Church and Society of the World Council of Churches, which took his arguments for the debate book “Facing Up to Nuclear Power”:
http://www.amazon.de/Facing-Nuclear-Power-Contribution-Potentialities/dp/0715203401

The end of the fast breeder program:
http://www.chernobylcongress.org/fileadmin/user_upload/pdfs/Baverstock_How_the_UN_works.pdf
> In about 1980 Gian-Carlo Pinchera, an Italian nuclear physicist, showed that fast reactors were inherently unsafe. That single conference paper led to the almost total abandonment of the fast breeder programme. (…) he warned “beware the dying kick of the nuclear advocates.” This is what we see today but maybe they are not dying!  quote by Keith Baverstock.

translation byVéronique Gallais The masters : Giancarlo Pinchera

Chemistry engineer, communist, he specialized in nuclear engineering in the USA , frequenting the Los Alamos laboratories which closed their doors to him in the middle of the Cold War.
Between 1965 and 75, he worked as a researcher at Cnen, the newly instituted National Committee for Nuclear Energy.
During these years he is in charge of security at the Casaccia Research center, at Superphénix project in France, and becomes responsible for Energy matters at PCI [probably Italian Communist Party].
He gets to know ecology litterature, from the Club de Rome reports to texts by Barry Commoner et Amory Lovins. Then arrise his first doubts about nuclear energy, with his thoughts about risks and costs linked to the atom policy and about the recurring Italian inefficiency. Then he drops his positions favorable to nuclear energy, which becomes one of the most discredited environmental techniques in Italy and abroad, until his death on 9/2/1995.

Source: http://www.life-upgrade.com/DATA/Superphenix-GianCarlo-Pinchera.pdf PAGE 49

Fast breeder reactors are the least safe: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/opinion/columnists/swaminathan-s-a-aiyar/fast-breeder-reactors-are-the-least-safe/articleshow/7798202.cms?intenttarget=no

MONJU fast breeder sodium accident MOVIE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiSqW6pFuR8

If they want to cool down a “Sodium Fast Breeder Reactor” they sould NOT use Water as in Fukushima: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqDWbknpiVk This is why fast breeder reactors are inherently UNSAFE

More of Häfele: “Technischer und wirtschaftlicher Stand sowie Aussichten der Kernenergie in der Kraftwirtschaft der BRD” http://bibliothek.fzk.de/zb/kfk-berichte/KFK1430.pdf PAGE 50:

translation:

“In the early American development of fast breeders (1945 – 1959) considerations reactor neutrons with short lifetime (10 ^ 7 sec) played  a large role (Bethe, Fermi, Teller), because with such rapid neutron lifetime, steep reactor excursions are possible, then because of its steepness in Principle for the release of large quantities suitable for mechanical destruction are likely”

“The set configuration of a fast reactor cores of principle neutron-physical reasons, not the configuration of highest criticality. Rather, a down or molten core, a core, whose center is emptied of sodium
is to be well above critical. Then it could lead to the release of large amounts of energy, which of course come from the negative double coefficient itself clearly.

MORE: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0017931069901148

AND: http://bibliothek.fzk.de/zb/kfk-berichte/KFK1020.pdf page 59: “Boiling of the coolant in the sodium-cooled fast reactions”

> Failure of the fuel rods by
Over temperature (melting of the shell) after 0.3 to 0.5 sec

> After drying out no earlier than about 3 sec (at the largest point
Power density occurs), a fuel melting.  (…) Destruction of the fuel assembly structure can be expected if
power is not switched (ie after about 1 to 2 sec).

> In a boiling fuel vapor bubbles occur on individual,
their volume with a fundamental frequency of about 2 to 3 Hz oscillates.

> The maximum of the bladder volume is nearly the entire fuel assembly with
Steam filled.

> Few tenths of a second after drying of the residual film is at the
Dry the spot Shell wall temperature heated up to failure point.

Life-Upgrade.com

Read Full Post »