Antinuclear

The politics of nuclear accidents

Fukushima cancer spike and nuclear industry denial Independent Australia, Graham Bates  5 December 2013,  “………It is beyond belief that politics and political correctness would have any place in masking or withholding help to humans after nuclear accidents and meltdowns. Yet, reports by Rosalie Bertell and others prove this beyond reasonable doubt.

Chernobyl – 1989

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (page 42 of the report) was invited to review the impacts of the Chernobyl disaster.

As Dr Bartell writes, they found there were no health problems able to be linked from Chernobyl:

‘In 1991 the IAEA reported that no health problems in the victims of Chernobyl could be linked to radiation! This 1991 report on health was chaired by Professor Fred Mettler, Jr., Director of the Medical Expert Group of the IAEA International Chernobyl Project. Dr. Mettler, Jr., MD, was Chair of the Department of Radiology, at the University of New Mexico, School of Medicine, Albuquerque, NM, USA.’

Chernobyl — 1990

Dr Baverstock reports to the British journal Nature about the WHO validating research done in Belarus and Ukraine documenting a 30 fold increase in thyroid cancer in radiation victims, completely discrediting the IAEA report of Dr Fred Mettler Jr.

Despite this, Dr Mettler Jr secured a position with the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). He was also chosen as the U.S. representative on the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation(UNSCEAR). Does this explain the strange silence and cover-up of the negligence acts where nothing was done to assist those exposed to the Chernobyl fallout. It also illustrates that only those “experts” who comply with the official line will be given rewards.

This chicanery continues to this day.

Bertell further explains that the ICRP has since broken its tie to the International Society of Radiology, and is now considered a self-appointed and self-perpetuating non-governmental organization of physicists, medical regulators of nuclear nations, radiologists and others who use radiation in their work. A person becomes a “member” of the ICRP by being proposed by a present member and accepted by the executive committee. No professional society, or even the WHO, can put a person on the ICRP main Commission.

‘When faced with recommending radiation protection standards, the newly formed IAEA turned to the ICRP rather than WHO for advice. No one seems to have questioned the selection of fatal cancer and serious genetic disease in live born offspring as inappropriately limited concerns for a major radiological disaster.

‘Imagine only being concerned about the deaths after the Seveso dioxin crisis, the Bhopal Union Carbide disaster, the Asian tsunami or the Katrina hurricane! This restriction was clearly inappropriate for thyroid cancer in the Chernobyl fallout area. According to the International Commission on Radiological Protection, only about 5% of thyroid cancers are fatal.’

This type of nuclear politics continues and thrives to this day.

Statements about radiation risks from these sources

Fukushima – 2012

There are claims that Fukushima radiation leaks are much less than those of Chernobyl.

For instance, an article by Eric Niiler on the website Live Science, states:

‘Experts in the U.S. say the amount of radiation that spewed from the crippled reactors was about 10 percent of what was released at the Chernobyl disaster in 1986. Still, they caution that the long-term health effects on both residents and workers are still mostly uncertain.’

Niiler also includes comments from Associated Press [AP], who also report that:

‘In Fukushima and nearby areas, outside the 20-kilometer evacuation zone, the annual exposure is 20 millisieverts in some places and as high as 50 in others, according to AP. Fifty millisieverts (or 5 REMs) is equivalent to the yearly occupational exposure limit for nuclear workers.

‘“It’s a low dose,” said Lewis Pepper, an occupational health physician at the Queens College of New York.”’

Fukushima – 2013

Reports about the low levels of radiation ejected via air or seawater appear to be supported by the UN World Health Organization (WHO).

According to the website, World Nuclear News [IA emphasis]:

‘In January, the World Health Organization (WHO) said that there is only a low risk to Japan’s population due to radioactivity released by the Fukushima accident. For the general population in wider Fukushima prefecture, across Japan and beyond, “the predicted risks are low and no observable increases in cancer rates above baseline rates are anticipated,” WHO said.’

This research, headed by Professor Ryugo Hayano of the University of Tokyo, studied the results of whole body scans carried out at Hirata Central Hospital in Fukushima prefecture between October 2011 and November 2012.

They further state that their research discovered:

‘Some 99% of residents of Fukushima prefecture and neighbouring Ibaraki have barely detectable levels of internal exposure to caesium-137, a group of Japanese researchers has found.
Of the remaining 1%, all showed levels well below the government-set limit.’

Conclusion

Research provided by nuclear engineer Arnie Gundersen, Prof Kaku, Prof Busby [part 1] and [part 2], Dr Caldicott and others completely refute these findings.

We now know that Soviet & International Officialdom minimised the 1986 Chernobyl catastrophe.

‘In a letter published in a British science journal, Dr. Vasily S. Kazakov of the Belarus Ministry of Health in Minsk and his colleagues say that the thyroid cancer rates in the region’s most heavily irradiated began to soar in 1990.

‘In Gomel, the most contaminated region studied, there used to be just one or two cases of thyroid children a year. But Kazakov and his colleagues found that there were 38 cases in 1991. In six regions of Belarus and the city of Minsk, the investigators found 131 cases of thyroid cancer in young children, some of whom were still in the womb when the Chernobyl accident occurred.’

Yet, despite such conclusive evidence, the Japanese government and radiation lobbyists continue with this Chernobyl-style ‘cover-up agenda’ at Fukushima to this day.

The Japanese and International Officialdom focus is to promote a ‘business-as-usual’ approach, as evidenced by them securing the 2020 Olympic Games for Tokyo.

TEPCO plans to decommission of the six Fukushima NPP reactors remove the tonnes of damaged spent fuel rods from the four leaking repositories, a hugely dangerous task that Arnie Gundersen says is beyond their expertise. We conclude this report by examining these plans and the dangers they pose to the Japanese people and, indeed, the world. http://www.independentaustralia.net/life/life-display/fukushima-cancer-spike-and-nuclear-industry-denial,5960

 

 

 

December 7, 2013 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized