Posts Tagged ‘Reference Embryo’



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 »


Video made by me




Dr. Helen Caldicott from http://www.beyondnuclear.org speaks about the fight against atomic bombs and atomic power, about her fight against atomic bomb tests. She has 19 honorary degrees, and got the Gandhi Prize. This is her speech during the IPPNW Chernobyl / Fukushima congress, from April 8th till 10th 2011. After the speech, I gave her a copy of my movie “The Time blurs the Truth” – about Chernobyl and Belarus.


World Health Organisation ignores all Fukushima and Chernobyl children – Geneva April 26th 2011

Come to Geneva on APRIL 26th 2011: Be part: Chernobyl Peace tour through Europe April 2011



Read Full Post »

Japanese people hear it from Fukshima day One: “Panic and fear of radiation is much worse than radiation itself

This statement is used by the IAEA for Chernobyl victims.

The IAEA ignores cancer, leukemia, diabetes, trisomy 21, all kinds of illness, all kinds of cancer in connection with radiation, especially low radiation.

The IAEA calls it “Radiophobia”.

The present and future victims are perceived as a disturbance to the atomic industry, to the japanese government, to the companies running atomic plants. They are going to end it.

Since the foundation of the IAEA their purpose is: To serve and protect the atomic industry in these five countries: USA, Russia, China, France, Britain.

They also monopolized public health during and after atomic accidents, by the gag contract WHA 12-40 between them and the WHO (1959). SOURCE

Learn more about the International Atomic Energy Association:

The IAEA, WHO and TEPCO should be a case for the International Criminal Courts

Fukushima and Three Mile Island USA: strategic misinterpretation by the IAEA

Japanese officals and WHO ignore irradiated Japanese Children

IAEA and ICRP – Licence to Kill – ALARA principle

Fukushima: The IAEA strategy

Japan: Additional 252,500 Cancer Cases and Risk for pregnant women

25 Years with FUKUSHIMA

Atomic Industry – Licence to Kill


Read Full Post »


So far had a radioactivity of cesium-134 and cesium-137 have been allowed by a maximum of 600 becquerels per kilogram. Since last weekend the EU limit for food from affected areas in Japan, however, was significantly increased.

Consumer organization FoodWatch (web)and the Environment Institute Munich announced in a joint statement, that:

For example, should fish oil or spices to their previous value to twenty times higher than what corresponds to 12 500 becquerels per kilogram.

The appropriate Emergency Ordinance 297/2011 was on entered into force on March 27th 2011.

Safety standards for Japanese food has been decreased

German Federal Minister of Consumer Aigner contains important information to the public.

This is an act against the health of the people. This is not democratic.

THE E.U. TOOK IT partly BACK: http://www.foodwatch.de/kampagnen__themen/radioaktivitaet/nachrichten/kommissionsentscheidung/index_ger.html
reason: Massive protest of consumer organisations! JAPAN, you can do it also!


history says: Atomic accidents lead to higher radiation limits – which stay flexible. Flexible for incrasing the limit:

The ICRP – another profiteer of the atomic industry – made the recommendations for radiation protection norms, which were accepted by all countries, and which justified the set of regulations of the IAEA. Interesting isn’t it? Here is one:
ICRP said, the tritium emission (from atomic power plants) in water should be 40.000 Bq.

In 1990 they said: Lets make 7000 Bq/ litre.

This was proved by ACES (Comitee for environmental standards, Canada). They said: change the 7000 Bq (Because of cancer danger).

They also said: Lower it to 100 Bq in five years until you get 20 Bq / Litre.


Read Full Post »


News from April 13th 2011: Fukushima is now INES 7 – like Chernobyl. The IAEA doesn’t want that. Read here why.

The IAEA organizes propaganda conferences each year. Only those who are recommended by their country’s atomic authority are permitted to participate. Nuclear issues which are subject to criticism are excluded.
The World Health Organization (WHO) also organizes annual conferences. However, WHO is gagged by the IAEA (per Agreement WHA 12-40 of 1959) and is prohibited from independently issuing statements regarding the health effects of atomic accidents.
This means the IAEA’s engineers and physicists are given the legal right to make statements about the health impacts of atomic accidents at the same time medical doctors from the World Health Organization are legally prohibited from doing so. The IAEA’s physicists issue official statements about the biological effects of exposure to radiation or radioactive contamination; they are permitted to assess the impact of accidental exposure or releases of radioactive contamination on human health.

The IAEA has a history of denying that the following health impacts occurred as a result of exposure to radiation and radioactive contaminants: damage to the immune system, stillbirths, thyroid cancer in children, brain damage, mental retardation, trisomy 21, diabetes, fetal abnormalities, disabled children, and all kinds of cancer, illness.
Many of these illnesses occur months, years or decades after initial or continued exposure and therefore, the IAEA and WHO artificially reduce the casualty count by including only those injuries received in the first minutes, hours, days following a nuclear accident.

The proposal to bring TEPCO before the International Criminal Court (ICC) was made by German politician, Stefan Wenzel on April 9th, 2011, during the IPPNW congress in Berlin. Watch his impressive speech here (beginning at 4:08 Min.):

He also brought the following proposal to dissolve the secret relationship between the IAEA and WHO before the “Bundestag”, a federal legislative body in Germany.


The UN General Assembly adopted the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court on July 17, 1998. On July 1, 2002 the statute came into force. “The International Criminal Court is a permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.” (Wikipedia, 03/25/2011) Thus far, the ICC has not accepted criminal or civil cases involving the destruction of natural resources and environmental terrorism. The establishment of its authority to do so is long overdue.
In relation to the ongoing accident at Fukushima, responsible officials from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the World Health Organization (WHO), the operating company (TEPCO) and Japanese nuclear power regulators should be brought before the International Criminal Court and held accountable for their actions.
Failure to aid in tens of thousands of cases and threats to natural resources hundreds of thousands if not millions of people is a Felony.
The behavior of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the World Health Organization (WHO) following the reactor accident of Fukushima is a scandal. WHO has made public statements trivializing the emergency and ceding all of its responsibilities to the IAEA, citing the treaty of 1957. “What is WHO’s role in nuclear emergencies? Answer by WHO: “Within the United Nations system, the IAEA is the lead agency for coordination of international response to radiation events.” (World Health Organization, Japan Nuclear Concerns, FAQ, 14 March 2011, Geneva)
The IAEA – an organization whose Board of Governors is dominated by and comprised almost entirely of nuclear industry members, holds fast to its opinion that Fukushima should be assessed at Level 5 on the International Rating scale for significant events in nuclear facilities (INES).
The quantity of radioactive Iodine-131 released is a central indicator for the evaluation of nuclear accidents on the INES scale. The release of more than “a few 10 ^ 16 Bq of iodine 131” is classified as a level 7 catastrophic accident this (INES) scale.
Apparently, the IAEA, TEPCO and the Japanese government officials in charge have not clearly stated how much radioactive material has been released throughout the unfolding of the Fukushima disaster. According to estimates by the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO), comprised of 60 monitoring stations world-wide under the auspices of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the first three days of the Fukushima accident alone released about 3.8 x 10 ^ 17 Bq of radioactive Iodine-131. That is about 100 times the official inventory. The Fukushima disaster has also released significant amounts of several other radionuclides which have not even been measured.
Due to these figures, the Fukushima accident would have been legitimately classified as INES level 7 a long time ago. Greenpeace is now in the process of conducting its own analysis.
The behavior of WHO and the IAEA is therefore an unprecedented scandal. An inappropriately small evacuation zone is estimated to have resulted in the needless exposure of pregnant women, children, and other adults to excessive levels of radiation and radioactive contamination beyond 250mSv, the limit set for the recognition of work related cancer among Japanese nuclear power plant employees. Radiation biology assumes that if 10,000 people were exposed to a dose of 1 Sv, then 500 deaths are expected to occur as a result of their exposure (ICRP60) 500-1200 (BEIRV) 580-1740 (RERF), 2400 (Köhler). The ICRP – another profiteer of the atomic industry – made the recommendations for radiation protection standards, which were accepted by all countries and which were used o justify IAEA regulations. Interesting isn’t it?

Here is one:
ICRP set the original safety standard for tritium emission (from atomic power plants) in water at 40,000 Bq/litre.
In 1990 the ICRP said: Let’s lower the safety standard for tritium to 7000 Bq/ litre.
The new 7000 Bq/litre limit was approved by ACES (Committee for Environmental Standards, Canada). They agreed to change the safety limit to 7000 Bq/litre because of the cancer risk.
The ICRP later said: Let’s lower the safety standard to 100 Bq/litre every five years until we get down to 20 Bq /litre.
I think there is a big difference between ‘safety’ limits of 40,000 Bq/litre and 20 Bq/litre!
Said another way, if 40,000Bq/litre was safe, why would they ever lower the limit to 20 Bq/litre?

(thanks to Tadema for help)


Fukushima and Three Mile Island USA: strategic misinterpretation by the IAEA

Japanese officals and WHO ignore irradiated Japanese Children

IAEA and ICRP – Licence to Kill – ALARA principle

Fukushima: The IAEA strategy

Japan: Additional 252,500 Cancer Cases and Risk for pregnant women

25 Years with FUKUSHIMA

Atomic Industry – Licence to Kill


Read Full Post »


At the time of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, scientists were busy trying to figure out how many people die from atomic bombs and are incapable of fighting.

It was not about still-born children, sick adults or children suffering. Recognized losses had to stay as small as possible. (quote Rosalie Bertell, Toronto, Kanda)

Atomic power plants are an invention of the military to produce plutonium. Electricity was a waste product.

The definition of an accident is similar to what is known in Harvard as “strategic misinterpretation“. Quote of IAEA and OCDE: ““In consequence, the Chernobyl accident will be not considered as a significant accident.SOURCE

The ICRP talked in 1990 in connection with Chernobyl about “temporary effects from radiation“. Therefor ICRP admits radiation damage. The IAEA denies this.
The  ICRP leaves the field of consequences for health caused by radiation to engineers and physicists . The WHO does the same (independentwho.info)

In the case of Three Mile Island, the definition of accident refers only to the first 7 days. Everything about it falls within the definition of decontamination. But the Latency for Cesium is 20 – 25 years for mature people / 4 years children

Of these, the following doses are deducted:

The dose people at work in atomic power plants would be exposed to in normal operation.

The background radiation.

Moreover, the fallout from Chinese nuclear tests.

Excluding these values​​, and only 7 days. This is fraud.

The IAEA is undermining the right of expression and legal justice:

The IAEA recognized the judicial process to Three Mile Iceland / Harrisburg only to experts, the methodology and results consistent with those of the other “colleagues”on the same subject. The IAEA describes itself as the “colleagues”. Consequently, 11 were excluded from 12 experts from the court hearing.

Japanese officals and WHO ignore irradiated Japanese Children

IAEA and ICRP – Licence to Kill – ALARA principle

Fukushima: The IAEA strategy

Japan: Additional 252,500 Cancer Cases and Risk for pregnant women

25 Years with FUKUSHIMA

Atomic Industry – Licence to Kill


Read Full Post »


Conference papers of the IAEA meeting in 1996:

On page 575:

Doubling of the background radiation reduces cancer risk by 25%.

So does the increase in background radiation mean that 30 million lives are saved, rather than arising cancer deaths by 120,000? (quote Dr. Vladimir Iakimets – Institute for System Analysis, Russian Academy of Sciences)

On February 9th 1996 the meeting of Russian Academy of Radiation Protection RCRP took place.


“Contaminated areas are only inhabited villages and cities, not lakes, forests and agricultural land. ”
“Introduction average acceptable dose by accident: Greater than 0.1 Sv per year.”
“Dual-zone strategy: a radiation control zone. An exclusion zone control – about 1 Sv / year.”
Means: a transition between yesterday and tomorrow is possible. And: Due to lack of comparable data a high level of uncertainty among the population real data for recorded doses are non-existent.
RCRP has abolished Privileges and allowances.
Federal law for radiation protection is subsequently amended. The 57,000 km ² were reduced to a very small area where the dose to the public is at least 0,1 Sv per year.

The following is from Dr. Katsumi Furitsu (this is a report about Fukushima, by her), Research Committee of the atomic bomb victims at Hannan Chuo Hospital, Osaka, Japan:

Report of the International Komietees the IAEA in 1991: The international Chernobyl project, assess the effects on health and the environment and evaluation of radiation protection measures. Presentation 1991, in Vienna. Chairman of the Committee, Dr Itsuzo Shigematsu – also chairman of the Researching the effects of radiation -> RERF (web) in Hiroshima Institute.
He set up the limit of the dose for the resettlement and maximum values ​​for contaminated food.


Source: ICRP: Protection of the Public in the Event of Major Radiation Accidents: Principles and Planing – ICRP Publication 40th Annuals of the ICRP, 14, no. 2. 1984
ICRP: Principles for intervention of Protection of the Public in a Radiological Emergency. ICRP Publication 63rd 1993

The IAEA has criticized the RCRP, they should apply the ICRP guidelines. This means that people relocating is unnecessary if the level of individual radiation mSv in the first year after an accident does not exceed 500. (ICRP 1984)
If this dose is short, there are acute Radiations symptoms.
500 mSv are also equivalent of 1.7 km distance to Ground Zero in Hiroshima.
Nov. 1992: The ICRP INCREASED the dose for the evacuation in 1Sv – the equivalent to 1.3 km to the Hiroshima Ground Zero.

This means the continuation of nuclear power, even if people die.

1992: increased occupational radiation ICRP recommends to 0.05 Sv / year.
IAEA and WHO deny leukemia in hand together with radiation.

WHY: IAEA and ICRP – the ALARP Principle

The OECD published the following report:

Chernobyl to the déjà dix. Impact radiologique et sanitaire. OCDE Paris, November 1995. The report is edited by Dr. Peter Waight (Canada), headed by an editorial committee chaired by Dr. Henri Métiver (France) and written by: Dr. H. Métiver (IPSN, France), Dr. P. Jacob (GSF, Germany), Dr. G. Suskewitsch (WHO, Geneva), Heinz Brunner (NAC, Switzerland), MCViktorsson (SKI, Sweden), Dr. B. Bennet (UNSCEAR, Vienna), Dr. R. Hance (FAO / IAEA , Vienna), p. Kumasawa (JAERI, Japan), Dr. S. Kusumi (Japan), Dr. A. Bouville (NCI, USA), Dr. J. Sinaeve (Eu. Brussels), Dr. OPIliari (OECD / ARN, Paris) and Dr. E. Lazo (OCDE / AEN, Paris)

This report was cited especially by Professor Lee (an expert of UNESCO) at St. Andrews University in Scotland during the IAEA conference 1996. The report should prove that the radiation does not cause adverse health effects. This report was prepared by a French team of experts led by Dr. Henri Métiver by the French Institute for Radiation Protection and Safety (IPSN) today IRSN (web) is written.

Excerpt page 61

Very extensive medical studies have shown that to the influence of radiation no anomaly in the field of health can be attributed.”
and: “In consequence, the Chernobyl accident will be not considered as a significant accident.

Or take this one:

An Assessment by the NEA Committee on Radiation Protection and Public Health
November 1995


On page 43 it reads “There are no clear trends in data for birth anomalies in Belarus or Ukraine (Li93, Bo94). Two
epidemiological studies in Norway concluded that no serious gross changes as to pregnancy outcome were
observed (Ir91), and that no birth defects known to be associated with radiation exposure were detected (Li92).
In Austria, no significant changes in the incidence of birth defects or spontaneous abortion rates which could be
attributed to the Chernobyl accident were detected (Ha92a).”

A simple lie. Have a look at this:


And this in contrast:

1000.000 people can die because of Chernobyl – according to Prof. V. Nesterenko (Liquidator and atomic physicist):

Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment

is now partially online (p. 1 – 145 of 327):


Read Full Post »

Older Posts »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 90 other followers