The Genetic Killer – Ionising Radiation
Christopher Busby exposes the fallacy behind the current accepted model of exposure hazard adopted by governments and the nuclear industry since the ‘50s and which he will be challenging in a major legal case in London in June on behalf of nuclear test veterans. This is one of the rare times that I publish someone else’s work to the IMVA.
March saw the publication, in the influential scientific journal Environmental Health and Toxicology, of a landmark analysis of the effects of internal radioactive contamination on the genetic integrity of life.
My German colleagues and I used published data from Chernobyl effects in Europe to dismiss the radiation risk model that is currently employed by governments to limit discharges and exposures.1 This is the model of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), which bases its analysis on a different scenario to the fallout from Chernobyl: the survivors of the Hiroshima…
View original post 2,164 more words
Interactive Map of Cesium in Japan by citizen’s monitoring project.
As you may see the contamination is well spread all along the eastern coast of Japan, the highest contamination found of course in the Fukushima prefecture.
But also numerous hot spots are found in the two prefectures above Fukushima prefecture, the Iwate and Miyagi prefectures, and also near Tokyo in the Ibaraki, Saitama, Kanagawa and Chiba prefectures.
The contamination is concentrated in the two eastern regions of Japan: the Tohoku region in the north-east, and the Kanto region in the east. It is less pronounced once you leave the eastern part of Japan going towards the central regions of nearby Chubu and distant Kansai.
Australia’s new Environment Minister “Mr Coal (and Nuclear)” – Josh Frydenberg
For environmentalists, climate scientists, and any Australian who wants the Great Barrier Reef to outlive them, there’s good news and there’s bad news.
The good news is that Greg Hunt is no longer the Environment Minister, stripped of the title and bumped across to the position of Industry, Innovation, and Science, as part of Malcolm Turnbull’s first post-election Cabinet reshuffle.
The bad news is the name of the man who will replace him.
Josh Frydenberg, formerly the Minister for Resources, Energy and Northern Australia, is set to take over the portfolio, which has ominously been extended to include both environment and energy.
Frydenberg has been a major advocate for coal, and has echoed Tony Abbott’s belief that the mineral is “good for humanity”. In an interview with Andrew Bolt last year, Frydenberg said “I certainly believe in the moral case that Tony Abbott and others have put that our coal, our gas, our energy supplies do lift people out of energy poverty, and that’s going to be an important theme of my term in this role.”
In the interview Bolt described the Minister as the “new Mr Coal”.
During the conversation the soon-to-be Environment Minister parroted Hunt’s defence of the government’s Direct Action climate change policy, and rehashed the claim that Adani’s planned mine in the Galilee basin would create 10,000 jobs – despite the fact Adani’s own expert witness quoted a far lower number to a Queensland court.
Frydenberg has also been an at times bizarrely enthusiastic advocate for mining, describing resource development as an iconic Australian endeavor.
“Resources is to the Australian economy what the baggy green is to Australian sport: totemic; iconic; indispensable to our national story and synonymous with our national identity,” he said in February 2016.
And he’s not the only one with a curious relationship to coal and the climate who has found himself newly in charge of a portfolio relevant to both. Replacing Frydenberg as Minister for Resources is Senator Matt Canavan, who has said the science on climate change is becoming “less certain”……….
“Mr Frydenberg has repeatedly showed himself to be unfit for office. From spruiking the benefits of coal and gas to blocking the price on pollution and saying no to investing in clean energy, he has consistently put the big polluters ahead of the people he was elected to represent,” 350.org Australia Campaigns Director Charlie Wood said at the time.
Turnbull’s selection of Frydenberg appears to confirm the Prime Minister’s adapted willingness to back off on strong climate action, an issue which helped end his first stint as Liberal leader. https://newmatilda.com/2016/07/18/malcolm-turnbull-just-made-mr-coal-his-environment-minister/
UK’s new Prime Minister Teresa May firmly supports nuclear weapons
Theresa May would authorise nuclear strike causing mass loss of life Asked in Trident debate if she would approve attack that could kill 100,000 people, PM answers with a decisive ‘yes’, Guardian, Rowena Mason, Anushka Asthana, and Rajeev Syal, 19 July 16. Theresa May has said she would be willing to authorise a nuclear strike killing 100,000 people as she made the case for replacing Britain’s Trident submarines ahead of a House of Commons vote on the matter.
The prime minister answered decisively when challenged by the Scottish National party about whether she would ever approve a nuclear hit causing mass loss of life.
Intervening in her opening speech, the SNP MP George Kerevan asked: “Is she personally prepared to authorise a nuclear strike that can kill a hundred thousand innocent men, women and children?”
May responded: “Yes. And I have to say to the honourable gentleman the whole point of a deterrent is that our enemies need to know that we would be prepared to use it, unlike some suggestions that we could have a deterrent but not actually be willing to use it, which seem to come from the Labour party frontbench.”
Her statement was met by gasps from some MPs on the opposition benches, as the chamber debated whether or not to renew Trident.
Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, responded to May by making the case for nuclear disarmament, pointing out that the party’s pro-Trident position was under review.
He has given his MPs a free vote during Labour’s ongoing defence review, which the Guardian understands involves at least five options ranging from complete replacement to disarmament by the 2030s. The three other options are reduced patrols and fewer submarines, missiles carried by aircraft, and adapted submarines to carry both conventional and nuclear warheads.
Speaking in the Commons, Corbyn said there were currently 40 warheads, which are each eight times as powerful at the atomic bomb that killed 140,000 people at Hiroshima in Japan in 1945.
“What is the threat we are facing that one million people’s deaths would actually deter?” he said, adding it did not stop Islamic State, Saddam Hussein’s atrocities, war crimes in the Balkans or genocide in Rwanda.
“I make it clear today I would not take a decision that kills millions of innocent people,” Corbyn told MPs. “I do not believe the threat of mass murder is a legitimate way to deal with international relations.”
May said it would be a “dereliction of duty” to give up Britain’s nuclear deterrent and pledged to keep to the Nato target of spending 2% of national income on defence while she is prime minister.
Addressing the idea of downgrading the deterrent to a cheaper option, she said: “I am not prepared to settle for something that does not do the job.”……https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/18/theresa-may-takes-aim-at-jeremy-corbyn-over-trident-renewal
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 