Posts Tagged ‘UNSCEAR’




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 »

The Civil Society of Japan VERSUS criminal World Health Organisation


by Human Rights Now:

Japanese civil society requests that the reports of the United Nations Scientific Committee on Fukushima be revised

Anand Grover, Esq., UN Special Rapporteur on the right to health, criticizes UNSCEAR report on Fukushima

Dr. Tilman Ruff (IPPNW) & Japanese NGOs re:UNSCEAR report on Fukushima (Tokyo)11/6/2013

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

After WHO, the IAEA takes UNICEF and FAO as hostage

Japanese officals and WHO ignore irradiated Japanese Children

Margaret Chan VERSUS World Health Organisation

Read Full Post »


“The Rapporteur criticizes the use of “cost-benefit analysis” made by the Japanese authorities (following the ICRP recommendations) since such analysis does not respect the fundamental right to health of individuals.”

MORE: http://independentwho.org/en/2013/06/22/grover-stunning-report/

100 mSv lie: http://www.strahlentelex.de/The_100_Millisievert_Threshold_Lie_Statement_German_GSS.pdf

World Health Organisation ignores health of irradiated people: https://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2012/05/27/margaret-chan-versus-world-health-organisation/

this is the ICRP (pro nuclear commission) risk assessment (http://www.icrp.org/publication.asp?id=ICRP+Publication+22) on page 14/15 they say The commission discussed the application of risk assessments to estimate the actual cases of disease that can result from a given radiation exposure of individuals or populations (…) One way to improve the usefulness of risk estimates, is to express them as damage measurement in monetary terms… Several authors have already performed such calculations and indicate the cost per person, and “rem” (1 rem = 10 mSv) to 10 to 250 US dollars. (ICRP publication 22 1973)

BEIR 1972 page 69 / 70: Created by the National Academy of Sciences: suffering is “converted” in dollars. In the 1970ies the annual health care costs per capita in the U.S. estimated at $ 400 lump sum for medical expenses, based on $ 80 billion for medical expenses in 1970 (200 million citizens). Mr. Lederberg (BEIR) said that when allowed 1.7 mSv per year (mSv for nuclear workers 50 / a) is increased in 30 years, the total level of disease in the U.S.increases by 0.5 to 5%. 10 mSv increase 0.1 to 1%. In 30 years (one generation) causes $ 12,000 per head (30 x $ 400). 10 mSv per generation would result in 10-120 dollars costs (0.1 to 1% of 12,000 dollars).

How much does a cancer drug? 10.000, $ 20.000? Genetic defects are not considered.

BEIR 1972 still assumed it will come to more than 6.2 deaths per 100 people when irradiated with 1 sievert, the same panel twenty years later, already figured at 12.4 cancer deaths. 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 radionuclide-antagonists.

They call that radiation-protection!

1971: the discoverer of plutonium and president of the USAEC (“protects” health and advertises nuclear industry at the same time, later AEC, then NRC) Glenn Theodore Seaborg resigns – at the same time the ICRP reduced the the additional maximum dose near reactors for the public from 500 mrem/annual (5 mSv/a) to 5 mrem/annual (0,05 mSv/a). Thanks to Prof. Ernest Sternglass and his studies about infant mortality near reactors;: http://www.ratical.org/radiation/inetSeries/ejs1192.html

MORE about IAEA, ICRP, BEIR, UNSCEAR – the nuclear hitman: http://www.ratical.org/radiation/Chernobyl/

Read Full Post »



Prepare yourself with this ultimate summary:

PDF LINK: http://www.foejapan.org/energy/evt/pdf/121214_y.pdf

in japanese & english!

The Inadequacy of the Official Concept of Radiation Safety
Alexey Yablokov
Russian Academy of Science, Moscow

The ICRP/UNSCEAR concept of radiation safety was originally developed for
the purposes of protecting military forces from nuclear weapons and protection of
nuclear personnel.
ICRP/UNSCEAR の放射線安全概念は、元々は核兵器から兵士を保護す

The establishment of acceptable (“safe”) levels of anthropogenic radiation
(individual effective equivalent dose of 1 mSv/person/year)
is not based on reliable data.
The main criterion of radiation safety on the battle field was the ability of men to continue
battle for next several hours after a N-explosion.
Radiation protection of nuclear personnel is easier because just a few radionuclides must be
controlled in the workplace.

The existing dose concept is not efficient for providing radiation safety of
the general public from chronic low irradiation from many radionuclides,
like those around Chernobyl or Fukushima.

Final conclusion:
The ICRP/ UNSCEAR model of radiation safety (dose concept)
contradicts the growing volume of data concerning
measured real negative consequences of chronic low irradiation.
ICRP/ UNSCEAR の放射線安全モデル(放射線量の概念)は、

I want, that my readers LEARN!

Jan Hemmer

Read Full Post »


> BEIR III admits Petkau Effect: If gamma radiation comes from EXTERNAL, it starts protective action of the enzyme. When irradiated from the INSIDE with beta radiation of tritium, there is no protective effect: page 469 – 469 http://iopscience.iop.org/0260-2814/1/2/002/

MEANS: The lower and slower a dose is, the less it is recognized by the body. So, it causes more damage, tha high and fast doses from outside. This means: ALL REACTOR CHIMNEY EMISSIONS: https://tekknorg.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/ge-ari2.jpg

“The renowned British biologist, J.B.S. Haldane, suggested in 1948 that perpetual exposure to natural background radiation might account for most of humanity’s accumulated burden of inherited afflictions”: http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/Asleep@Wheel.html#Part2 

“Natural background radiation is the mutagen which accounts for 25% or more of those cases of Irregularly Inherited Afflictions which occur because of inherited predisposition.” http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/Asleep@Wheel.html#Part2

Oxidization in YOUR DNA: http://moribin.blog114.fc2.com/blog-entry-1700.html

LOW RADIATION becomes HIGH RADIATION when ingested with food – Low Doses of Radiation – Objective Laws of their Action and Risk: http://life-upgrade.com/DATA/BurlakovaChernobyl-Belarus.pdf

= Internal Emitters are 10 to 100 times more dangerous than their external equivalent: https://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2012/06/17/nuclear-cancer-industry/

+ Children’s Mitosis even accelerates this damage, because their cells divide faster than in adults, copying the damage to the next cells, having NO TIME to repair. Faster metabolism does not help.

IAEA, WHO, UNSCEAR, ICRP even BEIR see no difference between INTERNAL and EXTERNAL radiation – this is the reason for fraud dose limits and ultimatively ATOMIC DARWINISM

Genomic Instability is caused by Internal Emitters in the body, from irradiated food, by man made nuclear fission.

RADIATION > FREE RADICAL > CELL DAMAGE > TISSUE DAMAGE > DISEASE http://www.nuclearreader.info/chapter4.html

Hiroshima & Nagsaki: Birth of a killer dose limit Agenda (T65D study 1950): https://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2012/08/10/hiroshima-nagsaki-birth-of-a-killer-dose-limit-agenda-t65d-study-1950/


> Hanford USA: Extremely elevated cancer incidence in staff despite lower radiation exposure: At that time, the 20-fold reduction of the dose limit was requested: By all means the officials have tried to refute the work. It was said the amounts of radiation had been measured incorrectly. It is nevertheless argued that  such employees are monitored precisely! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/422389

> Portsmouth dockyard workers who repair nuclear submarines: 5.6 times higher rate of leukemia in 1978: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2878%2990741-9/abstract

> different areas in New York State , 1956: Increased natural radioactivity of the soil by uranium, thorium. Increased mortality of newborns and developmental defects. 20 to 40 percent higher. One percent per mrad (0.00001 Gray): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1372765/?tool=pmcentrez

> Close relationship between stillbirths with visible deformities and the intensity of cosmic radiation. 1960: 1.8 malformations per 1000 births at the equator. About 50 degrees north latitude: 5 malformations per 1000 births. Explainable by Petkau Effect. With the effects of radiation on the nucleus (hereditary), the greatly increased number of stillbirths would have been unable to explain: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/13844093

> In many cases, increased chromosomal abnormalities in the blood of people living on thorium-containing Monozite sandy soil. Residents and workers were examined. Ten-fold increase of lead 212 in the air (beta rays) increased chromosomal defects from 0.9 to 2 percent. Another ten-fold increase in lead 212 concentration increased defects by 0.57 percent. Means: A larger effect of smaller doses: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1762904/

> 1984, New Scientist: Internal studies of the DOE Department of Energy: Workers of twelve different nuclear plants. Nine of the studies found up to 50% higher leukemia rates, above average: lung cancer, lymphoma, brain cancer, malignant tumors of the digestive organs. Common diseases of the respiratory system were more frequent. 2,529 workers were examined in plants of the DOE. All workers had received more than 50 mSv per year. The cancer rate was three times higher: http://books.google.de/books?id=YIAzHckpZswC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3#v=onepage&q&f=false

>”When the headaches began, Gabel took aspirin and kept working. When he suffered a seizure and lost consciousness, doctors found the malignant brain tumor. When he was dying, Don Gabel tried to warn everyone about Rocky Flats… nine years after Don Gabel died in the first proven case of radiation-caused cancer at Rocky Flats.” http://books.google.de/books?id=YIAzHckpZswC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3#v=onepage&q&f=false and Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDjVbY85fuc

> If Oxygen in cells is replaced by nitrogen, the dose must be many times increased to destroy of the membranes. Thus, the damaging role of oxygen is demonstrated (free radicals: O negative): http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/m74-049

> Even pro nuclear BEIR III 1980 report shows: The protection of the membrane is possible by enzymes and substances. These bind free radicals. This is indirect evidence for the oxidation of the membranes in living Systems: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/201/4359/875.short

> The lower the concentration of strontium-90 in rat bone, the greater the damage to the bone marrow: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/5748432 “the dose rates are too low to reduce the ‘requisite’ repair levels” PAGE 4 http://www.solarsplendor.com/Nuclear%20Research/Biological%20low-dose%20radiation%20effects.pdf

> human blood cells of radiologists and X-ray technicians (Universtity of California): For rubidium cell membranes were more permeable – So, more damage, than regular staff. The largest increase of the damage was at the lowest total doses. Percentage: A hundred times larger. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4683533

> With a high dose rate of 1900 rad (19 Gray) per minute – with nuclear explosions – is the total dose of 2000 Rad (20 Gray) needed to damage cell membranes of blood: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3572559?uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21101160429691

> Rats inhaled plutonium dust – Doubling dose for cancer was only 180 mrad (1.8 milli Gray). According to conservative ICRP and IAEA guidelines, it would have amounted to 395 rad – 3.95 Gray! But it was only 1,8 milli Gray! ICRP’s estimates has been miscalculated to the 190-fold! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4358363

> Hamsters: Larger effect of small doses: Polonium 210 was applied to their lungs: The largest increase of cancer cases arose at the lowest total radiation dose (see Petkau, Chelack, Stokke, Scott Sanders – all above): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/639040

> Hamsters: 15 times more lung cancer by Polonium 210 in samll units over 15 weeks, than a TOTAL dose of the same amount at once: Mac Candy R.B. et al “Exp. Lung Cancer” Springer Verlag, 1974, p. 485 (http://books.google.de/books?id=kkxzmBwKt78C&pg=PA208&lpg=PA208&dq=Mac+Candy+R.B.+et+al+%22Exp.+Lung+Cancer%22+Springer+Verlag,+1974&source=bl&ots=szKH-CV3in&sig=kaT6Wsm9k2-RlwSWYJVdEscr_UU&hl=de#v=onepage&q=Mac%20Candy%20R.B.%20et%20al%20%22Exp.%20Lung%20Cancer%22%20Springer%20Verlag%2C%201974&f=false)

ONLY 7 (seven!) mSv destroy cell membranes if you use a dose rate of 0,01 mSv per minute. IF YOU use a dose rate of 260 (!) mSv per minute you have to wait until 35,000 (35 thousand!) mSv are reached! This is 5,000 times more energy! Although the first dose is low and slow This means: Slow and low doses are (over the years) MORE DANGEROUS than high doses!

Erythrocytes / Tradescantia and bone marrow cells are destroyed and mutate by slow and low doses: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-1-4615-8972-3_7 / http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jyd74e00/pdf;jsessionid=8A62A199CCC3408148BD21A7212E566C.tobacco03

The rise of non-leukemia cancers in the 20th century: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1567333/bin/envhper00395-0049-a.jpg

“It is important to study the effect of low-level irradiation at the population level /in an exposed human population the number of people whose blood cells do not give an adaptive response to subsequent exposures has increased / it was shown that 15 generations of cells irradiated with the doses 10 to 50 cGy (100 to 500 milli Gray) “remember” the irradiation and respond to external stimuli differently than the control.” PAGE 60 http://life-upgrade.com/DATA/chernobylebook.pdf

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

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.  http://www.rri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/NSRG/reports/kr21/kr21pdf/Burlakova.pdf

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.

An excpert from the movie “Nuclear Controversis” by Wladimir Tchertkoff: http://vimeo.com/33724891

Fernex – Don’t you think that during 15 years, the majority of Caesium is internal?

Gentner (UNSCEAR)– No. It’s not internal. Are you talking about the external exposure that people receive?

Fernex – I am speaking of the internal one, which they receive through food in very large population.

Gentner (UNSCEAR)– I refuse to think that whether a radiation dose is internal or external, what counts is the dose received by whatever mechanism and to prey on people’s consciousness to say that somehow, because it’s internal, it’s worse, doesn’t do service to the people.

Fernex – There are cardiac diseases found in humans, found in children which may lead to sudden death.

Gentner (UNSCEAR)– OK, we know these complications, these things are arising. But to simply say that these things have occurred following the accident, and to infer from that a blind acceptance that they are radiation related, doesn’t allow the public health authorities of these countries to serve their people.

Fernex – There are doses related in children.

Gentner (UNSCEAR)– I have not seen any information on that.

Fernex – There are universities in Belarus which have been working on this topic for nine years. And you never had any interest to what they did? http://vivretchernobyl.blogspot.de/2008/06/w-tchertkof-nuclear-controversies.html

If the food you EAT contains 1 becquerel of let’s say Cesium 137 – it’s not safe. You eat many times a day, many days a week, a month, a year, a whole LIFE. And the Full Decay Time of Cesium 137 is 300 years -> 10 HUMAN GENERATIONS – and it’s coming from every reactor, each second. That’s what we are talking about, if we say “the food is safe, it’s below the limit” – it means YOU EAT and YOU STORE it in your BODY. Becquerel after Becquerel. ALL THE TIME. After years you have hundreds and thousands of Becquerel in your body. This is not known, because Whole Body Counters for Internal Radionuclide Measurments are not as common as CT or X-Ray machines.

Cesium 137 decays into Barium – blocking the Receptors. And it sends out Gamma + Beta, destroying 100% on the cellular level. 1 becquerel = 100 % damage. ALWAYS.Mitosis: The cell in the child is damaged: Cell wants to repair, can’t, because it divides to fast (Children grow), so we have 2 damaged cells, and so on, and so on -> Cancer latency of children is very very short. But as always Doctors, Health Organisations and Authorities and even Parents blame everything else. The Atomic Industry gets away. More cancer = More profit.

“Recently, in a concerted effort to raise the permissible levels of radiation for workers and the public, members of the Heath Physics Society have been actively promoting their theory of Hormesis, namely, that low dose exposures to radiation induce “beneficial” effects such as longevity, robustness, radio-resistance and increased growth. The use of the term “beneficial” implies a judgment, not a scientific fact. Experiments backing these hypotheses have been difficult to reproduce and definitions of “beneficial” have been controversial and appear very subjective. Claims of low dose hormesis have frequently been based on high dose observations, and the only mechanisms offered for these effects has been speculation on repair overshoot at the cellular and genome level. Cell growth as “hormetic” is the most troubling claim, since illicit growth stimulation signifies catastrophe for biological organisms.” FROM http://www.ccnr.org/radiation_standards.html

BIMODAL: “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

with kind regards,

Jan Hemmer

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 71 other followers