Posts Tagged ‘ICRP’


It’s a Set up. Clever, brilliant, murderous intent.

What’s wrong with ETHOS Fukushima and their nuclear daddies:


What’s wrong with the World Health Organisation and the IAEA:


Read Full Post »


Diagnoses of cancers were identified from the Swiss Childhood Cancer Registry. A two-fold higher risk for leukaemia and brain tumours was seen among children exposed to dose rates of ≥200 nSv/h compared to those exposed to .” http://www.ispm.ch/index.php?id=377&no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=1585

CSRP Japan: http://csrp.jp/posts/2190

-> 100 nano Sievert per hour = 0,1 micro Sievert per hour = 0,8 milli Sievert per year <-

JAPANESE TRANSLATION LINK: スイスで低線量被曝と小児ガンのリスク研究 大きな反響

This correspons perfectly to “Childhood Leukemia and Cancers Near German Nuclear Reactors” – World’s biggest 20 years Study – the KiKK Study: http://doris.bfs.de/jspui/bitstream/urn:nbn:de:0221-20100317939/4/BfS_2007_KiKK-Studie.pdf

Increase of Children leukemia around Nuclear Reactors!

ENGLISH: http://alfred-koerblein.de/cancer/english/index.htm and: http://alfred-koerblein.de/cancer/english/index.htm

Swiss Childhood Cancer Cancer and Nuclear Power Plants in Switzerland (as usual attacked by physicists BUT confirmed by physicians: the IPPNW – peace nobel prize 1985): http://www.canupis.ch/index.php?id=studydesign

20 Milli Sievert per year are allowed in Japan! http://www.ratical.org/radiation/Fukushima/FradAlarmsDrs.html

We call Victims of the Atomic Age simply “Cancer patients”. Where are our Geneticists, physicians, oncologists? Are they in a vegetative state?



qualifying five year survival as “cure”, only considering cancer” – World Health Organisation; http://mondediplo.com/2008/04/14who

The main way in which the “radiation protection industry” has succeeded in hugely underrating the ill-health caused by nuclear power is by insisting on a group of extremely restrictive definitions as to what qualifies as a radiation-caused illness statistic. For example, under IAEA’s criteria:

>    If a radiation-caused cancer is not fatal, it is not counted in the IAEA’s figures

>    If a cancer is initiated by another carcenogen, but accelerated or promoted by exposure to radiation, it is not counted.

>    If an auto-immune disease or any non-cancer is caused by radiation, it is not counted.

>    Radiation-damaged embryos or foetuses which result in miscarriage or stillbirth do not count

>    A congenitally blind, deaf or malformed child whose illnesses are are radiation-related are not included in the figures because this is not genetic damage, but rather is teratogenic, and will not be passed on later to the child’s offspring.

>    Causing the genetic predisposition to breast cancer or heart disease does not count since it is not a “serious genetic disease” in the Mendelian sense.

>    Even if radiation causes a fatal cancer or serious genetic disease in a live born infant, it is discounted if the estimated radiation dose is below 100 mSv [mSv= millisievert, a measurement of radiation exposure. One hundred millsievert is the equivalent in radiation of about 100 X-Rays].

>    Even if radiation causes a lung cancer, it does not count if the person smokes — in fact whenever there is a possibility of another cause, radiation cannot be blamed.

>    If all else fails, it is possible to claim that radiation below some designated dose does not cause cancer, and then average over the whole body the radiation dose which has actually been received by one part of the body or even organ, as for instance when radio-iodine concentrates in the thyroid. This arbitrary dilution of the dose will ensure that the 100 mSv cut-off point is nowhere near reached. It is a technique used to dismiss the sickness of Gulf War veterans who inhaled small particles of ceramic uranium which stayed in their lungs for more than two years, and in their bodies for more than eight years, irradiating and damaging cells in a particular part of the body.

quote by Dr. Rosalia Bertell, November 1999 issue of The Ecologist, pp. 408-411: http://ratical.org/radiation/NAvictims.html

Read Full Post »



Worldwide more boys are born – impact on demographic change?

The Study:

Total female mortality during pregnancy exceeds total male mortality. The unbiased sex ratio at conception, the increase in the sex ratio during the first trimester, and total mortality during pregnancy being greater for females are fundamental insights into early human development.”

Quote form new study of PNAS – accepted Feb 2015: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/03/27/1416546112.abstract

“The most important consideration is the generally accepted value judgment that early embryonic losses are of little personal or social concern.” Dr R. Mole, 1979, a member of ICRP – The international committee which makes the dose limits WORLDWIDE ignores LIFE. http://bjr.birjournals.org/content/52/614/89

“Unexpected” findings suggest bomb tests, plant accidents boosted male births.”: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/06/110602-millions-fewer-girls-nuclear-radiation-births-science/

 “The gender gap in 1987 – 2007 (Chernobyl gender gap) corresponds to approximately 440 000 theoretical missing female births when only the female sex was affected. If also male births were affected at a ratio of male: female = 3:10, is the gender gap by about 790 000 (180 000 +610 000) male + female births” PAGE 32 http://www.tschernobylkongress.de/fileadmin/user_upload/pdfs/ScherbVoigt_fehlbildungen_fehlende_geburten.pdf

Dr, Scherb, Institute of Biomathematics and Biometry Germany: “The relative risks for stillbirth and preliminary malformations are 0,5 – 2 % per 1000 becquerel of Cesium 137 in m² soil.” Page 33http://www.tschernobylkongress.de/fileadmin/user_upload/pdfs/ScherbVoigt_fehlbildungen_fehlende_geburten.pdf


Older News, but still up to date:

Millions Fewer Girls Born: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/06/110602-millions-fewer-girls-nuclear-radiation-births-science/

In December 2011, 9 months after Fukushima, there is also a significant deficit in the number of live births in Japan. A similar decline in birth numbers was found in February 1987 in southern Bavaria, the German region most affected by Chernobyl fallout. In Japan as well as Bavaria, the effect is limited to a single month.” http://www.strahlentelex.de/Infant_mortality_in_Japan_after_Fukushima.pdf

more: http://alfred-koerblein.de/indexengl.htm

Perinatal mortality in Germany following the Chernobyl accident: http://www.alfred-koerblein.de/chernobyl/downloads/KoKu1997.pdf and: 福島原発事故後の日本における乳児死亡率 Infant mortality in Japan

“Possible scale of lost or impaired children after Chernobyl in all of Europe and the part of Asia covered – Missing Children: 2,5 Million.” PAGE 34 http://life-upgrade.com/DATA/RIGEinEuroandCNPPc.pdf

NY TIMES 1996: “Inherited Damage Is Found In Chernobyl Area Children: changes in DNA in sperm and eggs. Such mutations are passed on from generation to generation.” http://www.nytimes.com/1996/04/25/world/inherited-damage-is-found-in-chernobyl-area-children.html

“Increased sex ratio in Bavaria: after Chernobyl and in the vicinity of NPPs – epidemiological findings”:



http://www.odwac.gov.on.ca/standards_review/tritium/Tritium_Radiation_Risks_Additional_Note_for_ODWAC_Fairlie.pdf – quote:Background radiation is also the primary reason why women aged over ~40 are
advised not to have children. This is because their stocks of ova have been exposed since birth to 40 or so years’ background radiation and have thereby been damaged to such an extent that an unacceptable proportion, when fertilised, results in congenital malformations, spontaneous abortions or stillbirths. Many scientists also consider that background radiation is the prime factor in the ageing process, and is ultimately the reason why we are not immortal. PAGE 5

Juri Dubrova created children DNA fingerprints and compared their data with the DNA profile of British children who had lived on non irradiated region. The results of the study: the higher the soil contamination by cesium-137, the higher the mutation rate in a genomic fragment:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC378537/

Published in 1990 by Martin Gardner and Eve Roman, a study in which they examined the fathers of children with leukemia. They found: These fathers worked at Sellafield before “making” children and were exposed to radiation. The higher their dose was, the greater the risk was for their children to develop leukemia. Maximum: 5 mSv per year (Japan 20 mSv per year) repost: http://www.jstor.org/pss/29718787

Louise Parker in 1999 published a paper in which she examined primarily stillbirth in the “radiation workers” who work in a nuclear plant. She registered 9,208 births – among them were 130 stillbirths. The result of Parker’s study is appalling: When “producers” were irradiated 24 percent more stillbirths occured than of non-irradiated. (repost) http://www.lancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2899%2904138-0/abstract

Isn`t Immigration not a great method to mask the demographic change?
And isn`t demographic change not a great word to mask Infertility, impotence, abortions, miscarriages, stillbirths, syndromes?
And do these causes not have something to do, with the nuclear energy?
With the nuclear age?
Are the germ cells not among if not THE most sensitive cells?
Aren`t the fastest computers used for future probes?
A Modern crystal ball for the future fascism.
We are the actors. One act is one generation.
The Play is called Atomic Darwinism.
The model is evolution.


Read Full Post »


The nuclear Industry knows from ICRP 1966, publication 8, that the maximum death rate due to natural radiation is 100 deaths in 1,000,000 people. So, they use THIS RATIO as base for their term “SAFE”. Every radiation that kills 100 people in 1,000,000 is SAFE. This is the official allowed death rate. Tolerated by your officials, experts, health authorities, national nuclear bodies and politicians. This is the base for dose limits. This is why they compare man made radiation with natural radiation. As an excuse. FACT.


from: https://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2014/08/11/natural-radiation-is-deadly/




“… there is no amount of radiation so small that it has no ill effects at all on anybody. There is actually no such thing as a minimum permissible dose. Perhaps we are talking about only a very small number of individual tragedies – the number of atomic age children with cancer, the new victims of leukemia, the damage to skin tissues here and reproductive systems there – perhaps these are too small to measure with statistics. But they nevertheless loom very large indeed in human and moral terms.
Radiation, in its simplest terms – figuratively, literally and chemically – is poison. Nuclear explosions in the atmosphere are slowly but progressively poisoning our air, our earth, our water and our food. And it falls, let us remember, on both sides of the Iron Curtain, on all peoples of all lands, regardless of their political ideology, their way of life, their religion or the color of their skin. Beneath this bombardment of radiation which man has created, all men are indeed equal.”
~~~~~~~ John F. Kennedy (US President, Jan ’61 – Nov ’63) 1960

Quote from: http://www.jfklibrary.org/Research/Research-Aids/JFK-Speeches/Milwaukee-WI_19600402-Wisconsin-Assoc-of-Student-Councils.aspx

This president was the last president who understood this.

Can we?

thanks Marushka France.


Read Full Post »


Source: Pro Nuclear ICRP International Commission on Radiation Protection – linked to IAEA and Industry. Founded 1928. One year after Nobel Prize Winner Muller proved the transmutation of the gene by radiation.


ICRP-Scan02 ICRP-Scan01

1927 Herman J Mueller discovered in 1927 (!) the following: ARTIFICIAL TRANSMUTATION OF THE GENE by radiation – he got the The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1946:


It was repeated by Fukushima`s butterflies, in 2011: https://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2012/08/17/fukushimas-butterflies-known-since-1927/

1928 the ICRP was founded. No coincidence: http://www.icrp.org/publication.asp?id=1928%20Recommendations


ICRP has confirmed in 1966 that natural radiation is harmful! ICRP Publication Number 8 from 1966 on page 60. in relation to the health damage caused by natural radiation for the bulk of the world’s population is a risk of sixth order (1 to 10 dead per million per rad / gray) in a few areas with high natural background radiation the risk fifth order. 10 to 100 dead per million and rad (gray). and in 1977 the ICRP publication number 26 said, that, in this sense, regional differences of the natural radiation are so regarded, that the corresponding differences include the damage. and in the ’80s the natural radiation was simply doubled. and in 2011 it became the twentyfold in japan: 20 mSv/a. Natural radiation is used as an excuse to increase artificial radiation with radionuclides from reactors.

They call that radiation-protection!


Internal Dose for japanese Infants: 1 SIEVERT per year: http://www.strahlentelex.de/RadiationRisk_EU_042011_engl.pdf

“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

1971: the discoverer of plutonium and president of the USAEC Glenn Theodore Seaborg resigns – at the same time the ICRP reduced the additional maximum dose near reactors for the public from 500 mrem/annual (5 mSv/a) to 5 mrem/annual (0,05 mSv/a).

the USAEC “protects” health and advertises nuclear industry at the same time, later renamed in AEC, then renamed in NRC.

Source NRC (USAEC / AEC before): http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/32111590/seaborg-resigns-from-aec

Source (ICRP 5 mSv/a): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2596042/pdf/yjbm00117-0064.pdf

! no coincidence !


Thanks to Prof. Ernest Sternglass and his studies about infant mortality near reactors;: http://www.ratical.org/radiation/inetSeries/ejs1192.html

And, in 1991, the ICRP lowered the standard from 5 mSv /a to 1 mSv/a: “For occupational exposure in planned exposure situations the Commission now recommends an equivalent dose limit for the lens of the eye of 20 mSv in a year, averaged over defined periods of 5 years, with no single year exceeding 50 mSv.” page 1:  Source: http://www.icrp.org/docs/ICRP%20Statement%20on%20Tissue%20Reactions.pdf

And in 2011, the japanese government increased it for infants, students, mature, unborn, to: 20 mSv/a


Source: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/japanese-ire-over-radiation-limit-for-kids/story-e6frf7jx-1226061484710

20 mSv mean: below, but still high: 555,000 becquerel per m² contamination (from 1995 Belarus National Report):

17 milli Sievert per year mean: 16,000 – 32,000 additional cancer deaths AND 150,000 – 1,5 million deaths by genetic diseases: http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/PP/app1.html by John W. Gofman, Ph.D., M.D and Arthur R. Tamplin, Ph.D. quote “If we use the most optimistic Russell mouse genetic data, and even if we give full credit for slow delivery of radiation, we reach the conclusion that 100,000 extra genetic deaths per year would occur for the allowable average exposure of 170 millirads to the population. This can hardly be construed as an “optimistic” outlook, or a “safe” dose of radiation.”



“…To provide an adequate safety standard the dose limit of 1 mSv/y have to be reduced to 0.02 mSv/y or 20 µSv/y.”Page 9: http://www.staff.uni-marburg.de/~kunih/all-doc/stoakuni.pdf by Dr. Horst Kuni, Nuclear Medicine, University Professor.


Professor Yuri Bandazhevsky, a pathologist, Rector of the Medical Institute of Gomel, on the ingestion of radio caesium includes – he said: “Clinical checks on children between 1996 and 1999 show that at levels greater than 50Bq/kg there are pathological changes in vital organs and systems – cardiovascular, nervous, endocrine, immune, reproductive, digestive excretory and eyes. Caesium concentrations in the placenta reveal a relationship with nervous system defects in the foetus. The health condition of the population is a disaster but being a physician myself I cannot accept it as hopeless. With all my faith in God and life I appeal to anyone who can influence it: do your best to improve the situation. There is nothing more precious on this planet than life. And we should do everything possible to protect it.” http://www.spokesmanbooks.com/Spokesman/PDF/91Gifford.pdf

Until 1990 ICRP said it is not necessary to evacuate people, as long as the radiation does not exceed 500 mSv.: http://books.google.de/books?id=Ber3ENERfGwC&pg=PA343&lpg=PA343&dq=ICRP+40++500mSv&source=bl&ots=IaOqT2MqK2&sig=l3l0MYGe_nKkaXxvFZxkkG8hP5M&hl=de&ei=gc81TpqyI4PfsgajxLG5Ag&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CE0Q6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=ot%20exceed%20500%20mSv.%20The%20ICRP&f=false

IAEA subsequently took its radiation protection recommendations directly from ICRP (rather than WHO), therefore persons from the Commission who also sit on UNSCEAR both make the rules and judge their adequacy: http://www.ratical.org/radiation/Chernobyl/CaUFtH.html

Clause 12 of the Executive conclusion of the Recommendation of the European Committee for radiation risks declares: “…Total maximal permitted dose from all human-caused sources should not exceed 0.1 mSv for population and 5 mSv for personnel”. This publication is declared by the European Committee for radiation risks as “regulating”. It is only common sense that we should follow the recommendations given in this publication by the scientists from Canada, Norway, Great Britain, Denmark, Switzerland, the USA, Ireland, Sweden, Germany, France, India, Belarus, Finland and Russia. page 16 http://independentwho.org/media/Documents_IW/Forum_Radioprotection_English_Abstracts_IW_2012.pdf

“European Parliament hears criticisms of radiation protection standards, but don’t publish findings” Brussels 1998: page 35 for example: Childhood leukemia caused by normal reactor operation: http://www.llrc.org/health/subtopic/stoaabstracts.pdf


Read Full Post »



インフォメーション: http://savekidsjapan.blogspot.jp/


Read Full Post »




Dr. Katsumi Furitsu, born 1959, holds a PhD on medical genetics and radiation biology of the Osaka University.

8th post about the Chernobyl Fukushima Symposium with REAL independent experts, from March 4th – 7th 2014, Germany:

Documentation: http://www.chernobylcongress.org/documentation-arnoldshain.html

more about  her: http://www.chernobylcongress.org/speakers/artikel/b15e8810beda2864301f9d0a42d951c1/katsumi-furitsu.html

Program: http://www.chernobylcongress.org/filead

Katsumi Furitsu, born 1959, holds a PhD on medical genetics and radiation biology of the Osaka University, Japan and at present works in the department of genetics at the Hyogo College of Medicine.  Furitsu has been a member of IPPNW Japan since 2005. She got involved in peace and anti-nuclear-movement as a student activist in 1980 and continues the activities up to the present date as a member of “Campaign Against Radiation Exposure” and “Wakasa Solidarity Network” based in Osaka.

From 1986 to 2000, Furitsu was a member of the “Investigation committee of A-bomb survivors of Hannan Chuo Hospital” in Osaka. The committee carried out a questionnaire survey of 1200 A-bomb survivors regarding their health, living and mental situation.

She is one of the founders and executive members of the “Chernobyl Relief Group of Kansai” based in Osaka and visits Chernobyl affected areas in Belarus every year for exchange and cooperation with local people.

In 1992, Katsumi Furitsu was one of the witnesses at the “World Uranium Hearing” in Salzburg and gave testimony at the Permanent People’s Tribunal, Session on Chernobyl in Vienna in 1996.

Since 2004 Furitsu has been a member of the steering committee and science team of the “International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons” (ICBUW)

She visited several areas affected by the impacts of the “nuclear chain”, including uranium mine sites in the indigenous people’s land in the Southwest of the US, down-wind area of Nevada test site and Hanford nuclear facilities, as well as a former French nuclear test site in Algeria. Together with her colleagues, she is still struggling to do what she can do for the radiation victims in cooperation with the victims and to achieve a “nuclear free future”. SOURCE: http://www.chernobylcongress.org/speakers/artikel/b15e8810beda2864301f9d0a42d951c1/katsumi-furitsu.html

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 100 other followers