John Dolva Posted May 29, 2011 Author Share Posted May 29, 2011 http://www.currentconcerns.ch/index.php?id=706 Childhood Cancer in the Vicinity of German Nuclear Power Plants Background and a short radiobiological evaluation of the data situation by Professor Dr med Dr hc Edmund Lengfelder, Institute of Radiobiology at the Ludwig Maximilians University, Munich* cc. At the end of November 2008, the Hippocratic Society Switzerland, www.hippokrates.ch, had an extraordinarily well attended meeting at the University Hospital of Zurich. The German childhood cancer study and risks of the nanotechnology were its controversial topics. The following article summarizes the first thematic part: Professor Edmund Lengfelder wrote down the focal points of his lecture for Current Concerns. The diagram shows the main result of the Childhood Cancer Study (KiKK). It proves that with an increasing proximity of the children’s homes to a nuclear power plant (distance in km), there is a steep increase in their risk of developing leukaemia under the age of 5. The increase concerns in particular the “radiotypical” disease leukaemia. According to the distance law, such a graph must be expected. Even at a distance of 50 km the normal numbers for childhood cancer cases (in the graph at 1.0) are not yet reached. (www.bfs.de/de/bfs/druck/Ufoplan/4334_KiKK_Teil1_T.pdf) After the occurrence of an unusual number of leukaemia cases in children in the vicinity of the nuclear plant Krümmel and the neighbouring research center Geesthacht in the east of Hamburg, scientific commissions and researchers were asking the question about the causes. On behalf of the Environment Minister Dr Töpfer, Professor Michaelis from the German Childhood Cancer Registry in Mainz investigated all German nuclear power station locations during the period between 1980 and 1990. As a result, the German population was informed in 1992 by the Ministry of the Environment that within a 15-km-zone around nuclear power stations no increase of cancer and leukaemia cases in children under 14 years could be determined. Control of the results by the members of the leukaemia commission of Schleswig-Holstein (active from 1992 to 2004) resulted however in the following findings (see figure 6): In the 5-km-zone, the number of leukaemia cases was significantly higher in children under 4 years. On the area of a 5 to 10 km periphery there were fewer cases, in the periphery of 10 to 15 km even fewer. In epidemiological cause studies, such a trend dependent on the distance is a clear indicator for the fact that there is a connection with an emitter of pollutants in the centre, whose concentration decreases by dilution with increasing distance. If significant numbers from the 5-km-zone are “diluted” with regard to the large area of a 15-km-zone, then the “absence” of an effect is not amazing. And it is a radiobiological fact that the dose causing the induction of leukaemias in children is the smaller the younger they are. The operators of the nuclear power stations, the Mainz Childhood Cancer Registry and the politicians of the Kohl administration did not see any effect and no connection with radioactive emissions from the atomic power plants. The increased radioactivity measured in the proximity of Krümmel/Geesthacht, found by some members of the commission, were either denied by these circles or simply attributed to the Chernobyl fallout. By demanding and urge of social circles, numerous physicians and a large number of adjacent residents around German nuclear power plants, the Childhood Cancer Registry in Mainz was assigned with a new study in 2004 by the German Ministry of the Environment. They were to carry out a particularly exact investigation on childhood cancer in children under 5 years in the proximity of German nuclear power stations. This current KiKK study (Childhood Cancer Study – case control study) includes an exact distance measurement of the children’s homes accurate to 20 m to the next nuclear power station (stack) and all conceivable measured variables (confounders such as x-rays, animal contact, household chemicals etc.) on the induction of cancer. Around each power station location 3 administrative districts were examined. A team of 12 experts was additionally concerned with the details of the planning of the study. In December 2007 the result of the Mainz Childhood Cancer Registry was publicly announced by its new head, Mrs Professor Blettner: “Our study confirms that in Germany a relationship is observable between the proximity of the home to the nearest nuclear power plant at the time of diagnosis and the risk of contracting cancer (respectively leukaemia) before the child’s fifth birthday […] The exposition to ionizing radiation was neither measured nor modelled. […] can […] the ionizing radiation emitted by German nuclear power plants in normal operation basically not be interpreted as a cause.” The statement of the authors in the KiKK study that the radiation exposure of the children was not modelled, in the meantime has turned out to be wrong. Because in 2006, they published the methodology of the KiKK study in a “Report on a Current Epidemiological Study”. Therein they explained in detail that because of the absence of individual data for the children’s radiation dose the individual distance of the home to the nuclear power plant is determined as a dose surrogate and with the help of the distance law a dose effect relationship can be assessed. However, after finding “unexpected” results, the authors now claimed in the KiKK study, that radiation was not the cause for the cancer and leukaemia cases in children. They simply suppressed the methodical principle specified before: The distance from the nuclear power plant as substitute parameter for the radiation exposure. This procedure in fact constitutes an act of falsification and/or fraud in science. The authors’ claim that the radiation emitted by nuclear power plants is far more than a thousand times smaller than the natural background radiation dose, is not substantiated by any own dose determinations and it is not convincing in view of the study’s results. The natural radiation dose contributes between 5 and 10% to the number of the annual cancer cases (425,000 in the year 2002). It is also interesting, how the limits of 0.3 mSv per year due to airborne releases and wastewater from nuclear plants were set, valid in Germany for the public. In the justification for these limits, the International Commission on Radiological Protection ICRP (1958) explains that these limits represent a considerable burden for the public by genetic damage. “However, they can be regarded as sustainable and justified regarding the advantages that can be expected by the application of nuclear energy.” In 1965 the ICRP determined a gonad dose of 5 rem as limit: “[…] grants a reasonable latitude for the expansion of the nuclear energy programs.” The German Atomic Commission, which set the still valid limits with reference to the ICRP, explained in 1969: “[…] that with still reasonable expenditure this radiation burden is inevitable.” The government appoints scientists as advisors to its radiation protection commission. Example: The chairman Professor Jacobi explained on television in 1987: “Those who die from cancer caused by Chernobyl, do not need to die from other causes, as we all must die.” Dr Kinzelmann, works doctor of the atomic power plant Neckarwestheim, answered the question of the controversial statements of scientists in the assessment of nuclear power at a public meeting in the summer of 1993 as follows: “I will always find a scientist with the ‹correct› results, if I pay enough.” Professor Hubert Markl, president of the Max Planck Society, comments on the increasing number of cases: “We cannot deny that in science – more frequent than the scientists prefer – there are lies and deception, not only negligent sloppiness, but really intentional fraud.” We can completely prove that with asbestos, passive smoking, Chernobyl consequences and other examples influential circles in politics and economics make use of “suitable” scientists, in order to play down obvious and severe health damage or to deny it and thus deceive the population. Thus, for mere economic advantages the suffering and death of numerous people is accepted with recklessness. • *Prof Dr med Dr hc Edmund Lengfelder Strahlenbiologisches Institut, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München Schillerstrasse 42, 80336 München Tel. +49 89 430 12 19, Fax +49 89 430 41 21 e-mail: Lengfelder@lrz.uni-muenchen.de Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted May 31, 2011 Author Share Posted May 31, 2011 http://www.google.com.au/url?url=http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201105300181.html&rct=j&sa=X&tbs=mbl%3A1&ei=AVDkTYfCMIbcvwO90-iIBw&ved=0CDgQsAcwBA&q=japan+nuclear&usg=AFQjCNHXquxe-qni6OGzlf7rMY33ZR5DSw&cad=rja ''Japan could face overseas lawsuits from nuclear crisis BY KYOHEI MATSUDA STAFF WRITER 2011/05/31 Print Share Article The anti-nuclear sentiment is strong in Germany where demonstrations, such as this one in September 2010, are a common sight. (Asahi Shimbun file photo) Japan faces the possibility of having to pay huge compensation to overseas victims of the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant because it has yet to sign any international convention that defines procedures for filing lawsuits for damages from a nuclear accident that extend beyond a nation's borders....'' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted June 1, 2011 Author Share Posted June 1, 2011 bbc: 1 June 2011 Last updated at 04:38 GMT Share this page Japan nuclear: UN says tsunami risk was underestimated The IAEA team is giving official form to worries about Japan's preparedness for nuclear shocks Continue reading the main story Japan quake Moment tsunami hit Fukushima Viewpoint: Tepco's options Japan sticks to nuclear deadline Mountains of debris A UN nuclear safety team on a visit to the country has said that Japan underestimated the risk of a tsunami hitting a nuclear power plant. However, the response to the nuclear disaster which followed the 11 March quake and tsunami was "exemplary". The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) team also said a "hardened" emergency response centre was needed. The UN team is studying how a number of meltdowns occurred at the Fukushima Daiichi plant on Japan's Pacific coast. The agency has compiled a report on the nuclear crisis which will be will be presented to an international meeting in Vienna on 20-24 June. The team was led by Britain's top nuclear safety official Mike Weightman and includes experts from France, Russia, China and the United States. It pointed out the key failure*, already admitted in Japan, to plan for the risk of waves crashing over the 5.7m (19 feet) wall and knocking out the plant's back-up generators. "The tsunami hazard for several sites was underestimated," the UN team's three-page summary report said. "Nuclear plant designers and operators should appropriately evaluate and provide protection against the risks of all natural hazards," it said. Continued monitoring of the health and safety of the health of workers and the general public was necessary, it added. The report also emphasised the importance of independent regulators in the nuclear industry. "The planned road map for recovery of the stricken reactors is important and acknowledged. It will need modification as new circumstances are uncovered and may be assisted by international cooperation," the summary said. Goshi Hosono, an aide to Prime Minister Naoto Kan, accepted the report and said the government would need to review its nuclear regulatory framework. The Fukushima nuclear plant, which was badly damaged by the tsunami, is still leaking radiation. oooooo ...what a load of nonsense. It's like shutting the gate after the horse has bolted. the key failure* is to have nuclear plants in the first place. dittto : ''the tsunami hazard...was underestimated'' ''the response was...''exemplary'' ' ...if MSM dis-information flow, the use of yakuza labour and sacrificing elderly and raising the legal limits of exposure, ignoring the wishes of the populace is exemplary, the agenda of this team from leading nuclear powers is exemplary. Exemplary behaviour of those who should know better. The Owners, CEO's, Funders, Lobbysts, of these always ticking time bombs, are the ones who should be sent in to clean things up...naked! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted June 3, 2011 Author Share Posted June 3, 2011 http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/03/japan-nuclear-water-idUSL3E7H30FC20110603 '' ... .'' We did not have a system in place to manage radiation risks as part of the early response, " said Goshi Hosono, an adviser to Prime Minister Naoto Kan. ...'' -well, golleee, how about that? They should definitely have a slap on the wrist for that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted June 6, 2011 Author Share Posted June 6, 2011 http://www.arirang.co.kr/News/News_View.asp?nseq=116746&code=Ne2&category=2 Highest Radiation Levels Detected at No. 1 Reactor at Fukushima Nuclear Plant The operator of Japan's crippled nuclear power plant says it has detected what is believed to be the highest level of radiation found in the air at the Fukushima Daiichi plant so far. Radiation of up to 4-thousand millisieverts per hour was detected in the building housing the No. 1 reactor at the plant. The radiation is so high now that any worker exposed to it would absorb the maximum permissible dose of 250 millisieverts in only about four minutes. TEPCO said there is no plan to place workers in that area of the plant and it will carefully monitor any developments Meanwhile, Japan's NHK reported on Sunday that trace amounts of plutonium were detected in soil samples some 1.7 kilometers away from the Fukushima nuclear facility. This is the first time plutonium has been found outside the power plant. JUN 06, 2011 Reporter : jenmoon@arirang.co.kr ooooooooo ''German nuclear move presages renewable energy future: envoy The Nation The Nation (Thailand) June 6, 2011 Country's plan to shut reactors will encourage other nations to shift focus to a different energy Nalin Viboonchart The Nation The renewable-energy industry is expected to grow worldwide as the price of crude oil increases continuously while the cost of renewable energy trends downwards on increased demand and doubts over the safety of nuclear power, said Stefan Duppel, minister-counsellor and deputy head of mission at the German Embassy in Bangkok. The German government last week announced the gradual shutdown of all nuclear power plants in the country by 2022. Duppel believes that this will not only accelerate German investment in renewable energy to substitute for nuclear power, but will also encourage other countries to shift their focus to this kind of energy. He said this was the appropriate time for the Thai government to think about whether it should raise its target for the proportion of electricity generated by renewable energy. The country is going in the right direction, since it has set that target at 20 per cent by 2020. However, that target was set before the accident at the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan. He said that although the current cost of renewable energy would increase consumers' electricity bills, its cost would decline in the near future thanks to increased demand. In Germany, for instance, the cost of wind-farm operations now is more competitive than other energy sources. Unlike renewable energy, conventional sources such as crude oil is likely to be more expensive in the future. Therefore investment in the renewable-energy business is more economic. Hence, to grow sustainably in the future, many countries will have to invest in renewable energy, he said. Duppel said Thailand should think carefully about constructing nuclear power plants. Although nuclear is claimed as the cleanest energy source, it is difficult to handle the risk if an accident happens. Moreover, the cost of storage of nuclear waste cannot be calculated realistically, as the plants have to store the waste fuel for more than a hundred years. Many countries may not recognise this cost, as they think only about today, not the long term. ...'' Copyright 2011 Nation Multimedia GroupAll Rights Reserved The Nation (Thailand) http://www.powergenworldwide.com/index/display/wire-news-display/1431090795.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted June 7, 2011 Author Share Posted June 7, 2011 http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20110607a2.html Tuesday, June 7, 2011 NISA doubles early fallout estimate Kyodo NISA on Monday more than doubled its estimate of the radioactive material ejected into the air in the early days of the Fukushima nuclear crisis to 770,000 terabecquerels. The nuclear safety agency also issued its own assessment of the cores in reactors 1, 2 and 3 at the Fukushima No. 1 power plant, assuming that all of them melted, and said it was possible the meltdowns in units 1 and 2 happened faster than the time frame estimated by Tokyo Electric Power Co. The assessment by the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency is expected to be reflected in Japan's report on the accident at a ministerial meeting being hosted by the International Atomic Energy Agency later this month. In April, Japan raised the severity level of the crisis to 7, the maximum on the International Nuclear Event Scale, putting it on par with the 1986 Chernobyl disaster. At the time, NISA believed that 370,000 terabecquerels of radioactive material had been ejected from reactors 1, 2 and 3. That was revised Monday after NISA found that more material escaped from reactor 2 than thought. Level 7 accidents correspond to the external release of material equal to tens of thousands of terabecquerels of radioactive iodine 131. One terabecquerel equals 1 trillion becquerels. NISA said the melted fuel in reactor 1 fell to the bottom of the pressure vessel and damaged it at about 8 p.m. on March 11, about five hours after the quake. In reactor 2, a similar event took place at about 10:50 p.m. March 14, it said. However, Tepco says the pressure vessel in reactor 1 was damaged on the morning of March 12, and the pressure vessel in reactor 2 in the early hours of March 16. A NISA official said the assessments vary due to different water injection assumptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted June 9, 2011 Author Share Posted June 9, 2011 Looks like Dr. Helen Caldicott was right all along... ''Japan: Nuclear fuel has melted through base'' ''New Scientist - Environment: Fukushima fallout greater than thought: Japan's nuclear safety agency has again... '' ''YouTube - Reportaje Montreal. JAPAN NUCLEAR CRISIS: THE DANGERS OF RADIATION. Dr. Helen Caldicott: ... '' ''Up To 50X Higher Radiation Than 1986 Chernobyl Evacuation Zone '' ''Japan may have no nuclear reactors running by next April - ministry | Reuters '' and the beat goes on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted June 9, 2011 Author Share Posted June 9, 2011 http://www.nuclearfreeplanet.org/articles/scientists-study-ocean-impacts-of-radioactive-contamination-from-japans-fukushima-nuclear-power-plant.html Scientists Study Ocean Impacts of Radioactive Contamination from Japan's Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Written By: Website Administrator 6-8-2011 Categorized in: Fukushima It is good to see that Woods Hole, one of the few institutions openly monitoring, has been joined by colleagues at Stony Brook University and elsewhere to perform a comprehensive study of ocean impact from the Fukushima disaster. This may be the largest release of radioactive material into the ocean ever. Japan's, and other nuclear nations like the U.S., initial claim that it would have little to no impact seemed impossible. Hopefully, this new attitude of cooperation will provide real data. More hopes that this data will be shared openly. Newswise l Stony Brook University 8 June, 2011 Scientists from Stony Brook University’s School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences (SoMAS) are joining colleagues from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, several other U.S. academic institutions and laboratories in Japan and Spain on the first international, multidisciplinary assessment of the levels and dispersion of radioactive substances in the Pacific Ocean off the damaged Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan. The research effort is funded by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation. “This project will address fundamental questions about the impact of this release of radiation to the ocean, and in the process enhance international collaboration and sharing of scientific data,” said Vicki Chandler, Chief Program Officer, Science at the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation. The shipboard research team, which includes scientists from labs in the U.S., Japan and Spain, began its work on June 4, 2011. It will collect water and biological samples and take ocean current measurements in an area 200 km x 200 km offshore of the plant and further offshore along the Kuroshio Current, a strong western boundary current akin to the Gulf Stream in the Atlantic, which could rapidly carry the radioactivity into the interior of the Pacific Ocean. Their work will build on efforts by Japanese scientists and lay the foundation for expanded international collaboration and long-term research of releases from the Fukushima plant. Read full text Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted June 10, 2011 Author Share Posted June 10, 2011 http://www.leakygate.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=240:fukushima-update&catid=103:bad-news&Itemid=126&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter Fukushima: Update PDF Print E-mail World News - Bad News Monday, 11 April 2011 03:17 Some experts believe Japan's nuclear disaster could become worse than Chernobyl Dahr Jamail Last Modified: 08 Apr 2011 15:37 - Aljazeera Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant that was heavily damaged by the tsunami from the massive March 11 magnitude 9.0 earthquake continues to spread extremely high levels of radiation into the ocean, ground, and air. Experts warn that the situation will take months to stabalise and a large area could remain uninhabitable [REUTERS] Experts warn that the situation will take months to stabalise and a large area could remain uninhabitable [REUTERS]Tokyo Electric Power (Tepco), the company that operates the plant, said on April 5 that radioactive iodine-131 readings taken from seawater near the water intake of the No. 2 reactor reached 7.5 million times the legal limit. The sample that yielded this reading was taken just before Tepco began releasing more than 11,000 tonnes of radioactive water into the sea. The radioactive water discharged into the Pacific has prompted experts to sound the alarm, as cesium, which has a much longer half-life than iodine, is expected to concentrate in the upper food chain."The situation is very concerning," Dr MV Ramana, a physicist specialising in issues of nuclear safety with the Programme on Science and Global Security at Princeton University told Al Jazeera, "They are finding it very difficult to stabilize the situation." Operators of the plant are no closer to regaining control of damaged reactors, as fuel rods remain overheated and high levels of radiation are being released. Until the plant's internal cooling system is reconnected, radiation will flow from the plant. Nuclear safety agency spokesman Hidehiko Nishiyama on April 3 offered the first sense of how long it might take to bring an end to the nuclear crisis. "It would take a few months until we finally get things under control and have a better idea about the future," said Nishiyama, "We'll face a crucial turning point within the next few months, but that is not the end."Ramana explained to Al Jazeera that he sees the current situation as being the "best case scenario," because "the wind has been largely over the ocean, there haven’t been any more major explosions, and none of the spent fuel areas have had a major fire." Worst case scenario"There could be a core that gets molten, and we could have an explosion," Ramana said of what he believes would be a worst-case scenario, "This isn't likely, but it is possible." Mary Olson is the director of the Southeast Office of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS), a group that describes itself as the information and networking center for citizens and environmental organisations concerned about nuclear power, radioactive waste, and radiation. Olson shares Ramana's concerns about the worst-case scenario. "The worst-case scenario is still out there, it could happen," Olson told Al Jazeera, "And that would be some kind of explosive force that mobilizes the fissile material on the site into a wider sphere." Olson, who is also an evolutionary biologist with a double major in Biology and History of Science, including studies of chemistry and biochemistry at Purdue University, expressed concern over the fact that in the aftermath of the Three Mile Island nuclear disaster in the United States, "All the contaminated material generated from that was released to our environment in a planned and 'regulated' way. It was dumped in rivers or boiled off into the atmosphere." Olson sees the same thing already happening now with the Fukushima disaster, and thinks the situation could eventually be worse than even the Chernobyl nuclear disaster that left some 200,000 people dead, according to a study from the environmental group Greenpeace. "All of those [Fukushima] reactors have been in a catastrophic level of radioactive release that exceeds Chernobyl," she said,."Two of these have exploded, No. 2 is in meltdown, and we believe it has gone back into criticality and that there is a nuclear chain reaction coming and going." She also pointed out that the fuel core in reactor No. 4 was offloaded for refueling at the time of the earthquake and tsunami, "So none of the fuel was in containment and was all in the pool and that's why it's gotten hotter faster and there has been very little attention to this. All of these are catastrophic in themselves. Having them in one place in one month is truly catastrophic." Permanent interdictionDr Ramana warned that it would likely take several months without any more setbacks before the crisis can be declared stable. "What we're seeing is a lot of the systems were taken out during the tsunami and explosions," he added, "The lack of power to circulate the water is a problem, so there aren’t going to be any quick fixes for these things."Olson also fears that if the core meltdowns get to the groundwater under the plant, "You have an explosive force that is like putting dynamite under the site. The problem is if you get this molten fuel into that water it could cause a steam explosion." "Since unit two is showing signs of fission happening, the chances of something more catastrophic happening at that site are increasing," Olson added, "People are acting like the worst is over, and that is just not understanding the real issues here as far as the radiological impacts." She also pointed out that the fuel pool in reactor No. 3 "is gone, according to recent photos. There is no fuel there. The reactor fuel pool in No. 3 is gone. Where did it go?" On Thursday, Japan's chief cabinet secretary Yukio Edano said the current 20-kilometer evacuation zone around the plant may need to be enlarged due to the original parameters having been established in relation to short-term exposure."Current evacuation orders apply to areas where people are in danger of having received 50 millisieverts [of cumulative exposure]. We are now looking into what to do with other areas where, with prolonged exposure, people may receive that amount," Edano said. A 50-millisievert amount is the exposure limit for a nuclear-plant worker for a full year."The regions the Japanese government has evacuated have been declared to be long-term, and these are regions of several hundred square kilometers and they are finding local hotspots that are further out," Ramana told Al Jazeera, "There is going to be an area around Fukushima that is going to be off-limits for human habitation for decades. The same thing happened with Chernobyl." Olson agrees, and believes the mandatory evacuation area needs to be increased."Two hundred thousand people are now out of their homes," she said, "But the government needs to enlarge the evacuation area. Much of that area, to the north and west will become permanent interdiction, meaning nobody will be going home. There will be a fairly large area where nobody will be going home." Taking 'safety' with a grain of saltRecently disclosed documents show US regulators doubt that some of the nation's nuclear power plants can withstand a disaster akin to Fukushima's. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) members have questioned back-up plans to maintain cooling systems in case main power sources fail, and a July 2010 memo assessing Exelon Corporation's Peach Bottom nuclear plant in Delta, Pennsylvania, concludes that contingency plans, "have really not been reviewed to ensure that they will work to mitigate severe accidents". A Union of Concerned Scientists statement by nuclear expert Edwin Lyman said, "While [regulators] and the nuclear industry have been reassuring Americans that there is nothing to worry about … it turns out that privately NRC senior analysts are not so sure." Possibly answering Olson's question about the missing fuel pool in Fukushima reactor No. 3, the document suggests that fragments of nuclear fuel from spent fuel pools above the reactors were blown "up to one mile from the units" during one of the plants earlier hydrogen explosions. This ejection of radioactive material could indicate far more extensive damage to the radioactive pools than has been previously disclosed. Ramana, the Princeton University physicist, is clear in what he believes needs to happen within the nuclear industry to correct these myriad and potentially catastrophic problems. "At the minimum you probably want to stop all nuclear construction until we get a much better understanding of what happened at Fukushima and what problems occurred," he said. "Even though the reactors shut down as they are designed to do, the problem was cooling water. In Chernobyl, it took years to really get a better understanding of what happened. Until that happens, all construction should be put on hold." Ramana points to another problem - that of building several reactors on the same site. "There are six reactors on the same site at Fukushima, and what happened was that all of them were affected by one common cause, the tsunami. We also saw that when there were hydrogen explosions in one reactor, that affected the spent fuel at another reactor, so we have cross-effecting problems. Then when one started getting out of control, it impeded emergency steps that needed to be taken at other reactors. So building multiple reactors at one site is a bad idea, and should be stopped." He said that previous accidents like Chernobyl and Three Mile Island have been dismissed by the nuclear industry. "Chernobyl was explained away due to Soviet operator errors and operators who had bad training, etc." he said, "So the argument for many years is that as long as we are using western built light water reactors we are perfectly safe.""Now, however," he added, "Fukushima blows that idea out of the water. We are going to be told that new reactors are safer and that has to be taken with a grain of salt." A nuclear ObamaThe Obama administration has proposed $36bn in federal loan guarantees to jump-start the construction of nuclear power plants in the USNuclear operator Exelon Corporation has been among Barack Obama's biggest campaign donors, and is one of the largest employers in Illinois where Obama was Senator. The company has donated over $269,000 to his political campaigns.Obama also appointed Exelon CEO John Rowe to his Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Energy Future.Illinois, where Obama began his political career, gets approximately half of its electricity from nuclear power, more than any other state. It currently has 10 operable reactors at six sites. The Quad-cities Nuclear Power Plant, located on the banks of the Mississippi River, is a GE Mark One plant, with the identical design and nearly the same age as the Fukushima reactors.Olson said that even with Japanese and US government so-called acceptable limits of radiation exposure, "we’re still getting excess cancer". She says it's too soon to say if the fallout from Fukushima will compare to cancers borne of the Chernobyl disaster, where two thirds of the excess cancers occurred outside of the Belorussia area."We are creating radioactive sacrifice zones on our planet," she said, "And these zones will persists for hundreds of thousands of years, and our genetics will be effected. Ionising radiation, especially when it is internalised in our bodies, randomizes DNA…so when cells are damaged, that is when cancer starts. And every single time radiation exposure occurs, there will be additional cancers." Olson also pointed out that there is likely little Tepco can do to prevent the Fukushima plant's radiation from being released into the environment. "All of that radioactive water they are holding will be diluted and released or evaporated into the air. The water is going off as radioactive steam or runoff, and all of that will end up in our environment because there is no place to put it. They treat it like dilution is the solution, but the more you spread it out the more human and animal tissue is exposed and the more cancer there is." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted June 10, 2011 Author Share Posted June 10, 2011 http://chukeisimin.info/611ww/ June 11 One Million People No-Nuke Action Complete Broadcasting Project Home June 11 One Million People No-Nuke Action Complete Broadcasting Project has begun. 2011/06/05 00:02 What is the “Complete Broadcasting Project”? On June 11th, it will be precisely 3 months since the disaster. There will be no-nuke demonstrations and gatherings throughout Japan. On that day, Independent Web Journal (IWJ) and OurPlanet-TV will hold a “6/11 Citizens Broadcast Action” with the support of citizen volunteers in various places around the country. Since the mass media doesn’t report them, we will show the citizen’s actions taking place on that day. We are presently putting together information on the events occurring across the country and are also seeking “citizen broadcasters” to participate in this action. We have already collected a large amount of information from around the country. On June 11th, through media like Ustream and Skype, we will broadcast both the various guests invited to speak at the main event in Tokyo, in addition to live footage from demonstrations occurring all across Japan. Would you too like to participate in this project? 1. The footage itself will be viewable at the below link. http://www.ustream.tv/channel/iwakamiyasumi Please comment as much as possible through Twitter etc. What you write will give courage to people living in Japan. 2. Please also send a message for June 11th using the box below. Please try out the new media and participate in our project. Continue reading June 11 One Million People No-Nuke Action Complete Broadcasting Project has begun. 1 Comment on June 11 One Million People No-Nuke Action Complete Broadcasting Project has begun. » 来る6月11日は、震災から３ヶ月の節目。全国で脱原発デモ・集会などのイベントが開催されます。 そこで、岩上安身率いる Independent Web Journal (IWJ) と 白石草率いる OurPlanet-TV を中心とし、レイバーネットTVと市民メディアセンター MediR の協力を得てつくる「中継市民ネットワーク611アクション」では、全国各地の中継市民ボランティアの手を借りて、多元ライブ中継を実現したいと考えています。... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted June 10, 2011 Author Share Posted June 10, 2011 http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2011/06/10/murakami-slams-japan%E2%80%99s-nuclear-choice/?mod=WSJBlog&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed June 10, 2011, 8:36 PM JST Murakami Slams Japan’s Nuclear Choice By Kenneth Maxwell When he’s good and ready, Haruki Murakami speaks his mind. Japanese writer Haruki Murakami speaks at a ceremony where he was awarded the XXIII Premi Internacional Catalunya prize in Barcelona. While many other figures in Japan’s arts firmament have already offered their opinions in the three months since disasters befell the country March 11, frequently criticizing the country’s reliance on nuclear power, its best-known living author kept his counsel. Until now. Accepting an international award given to people whose work helps ”develop cultural, scientific and human values worldwide” from Catalan authorities in Barcelona late Thursday, Mr. Murakami didn’t mince his words. Picking up the International Catalunya Prize (in Catalan), the author described the crisis at Fukushima Daiichi as the second nuclear blow Japan has suffered after the atomic bombings of World War II—and a self-inflicted blow at that, he said, one that should never have happened. “The accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant is the second major nuclear detriment that the Japanese people have experienced,” Mr. Murakami said, according to Kyodo News reports. “However, this time it was not a bomb being dropped upon us, but a mistake committed by our very own hands.” He donated the €80,000 ($117,000) prize accompanying the award to Tohoku relief efforts. Mr. Murakami said Japan, having experienced the trauma of radiation, should have turned away from nuclear power. “Yet, those who questioned nuclear power were marginalized as being ‘unrealistic dreamers’,” he said, according to Kyodo. The comments from the man often mentioned as a likely future winner of the Nobel Literature Prize are in line with those made by a number of prominent voices in the arts community. In the week after the disasters, the country’s last Nobel Literature Prize Winner, Kenzaburo Oe, said the country must not “betray the memory of the victims of Hiroshima.” In an interview with France’s Le Monde, he said Japan must face the consequences of using nuclear technology: “The people of Japan, who have been burned by the nuclear fire, must not think of nuclear energy in terms of industrial productivity, they must not try to devise a ‘recipe’ for economic growth from the tragic experience of Hiroshima.” Aside from his criticism of nuclear power, Mr. Murakami said he remains convinced of the ability of a people used to living in the shadow of natural disasters to rebuild and reinvent themselves. “We must not be afraid to dream,” he said, “We must be ‘unrealistic dreamers’ who charge forward taking bold steps.” –Anna Novick contributed to this post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted June 10, 2011 Author Share Posted June 10, 2011 (edited) http://www.democracy...worsens_citizen As Japan Nuclear Crisis Worsens Citizen-led Radiation Monitors Pressure Govt to Increase Evacuations Share50 Almost three months after the earthquake and tsunami that triggered a nuclear disaster in Japan, new radiation "hot spots" may require the evacuation of more areas further from the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power facility. Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency recently admitted for the first time that full nuclear meltdowns occurred at three of the plant's reactors, and more than doubled its estimate for the amount of radiation that leaked from the plant in the first week of the disaster in March. "What they failed to mention is that they discharged an(-d)d equally large amount into the ocean," says our guest Robert Alvarez, former senior policy adviser to the U.S. Secretary of Energy. "As [the radiation] goes up the food chain, it accumulates. By the time it reaches people who consume the food, the levels are higher than originally when they entered the environment." We also go to Tokyo to speak with Aileen Mioko Smith, Executive Director of the group Green Action. She says citizens (are) leading their own monitoring efforts and are calling for additional evacuations, especially for young children and pregnant women. Filed under Nuclear Power, Japan Disaster ed:(ed) Edited June 10, 2011 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted June 11, 2011 Author Share Posted June 11, 2011 (edited) --------------------- Mass anti-nuclear protests in Japan to mark 3-month anniversary of earthquake and tsunami washingtonpost.com ---------------------- http://www.energycentral.com/functional/news/news_detail.cfm?did=20332687 Experts: U.S. Nuclear Industry Was in Trouble Before Fukushima and Now is Stalled in Terms of New Growth WASHINGTON, June 9, 2011 /PRNewswire Only Limited Government-Guaranteed Reactors Already Underway Seen Possibly Advancing in the Short Term, As Low Gas Prices, Tighter Safety Regulation and Skyrocketing Reactor Costs Effectively Doom Further Industry Expansion. Even as Germany, Japan, Switzerland and other nations move to abandon existing and planned nuclear reactors, the United States is on a path to see at best only a small handful of already planned, government-backed reactor projects proceed, a group of experts said today. While reversals for the nuclear power industry overseas have attracted substantial media attention, relatively little focus has been paid to such developments in the U.S. as the mothballing of the South Texas Project in Texas (once a prime candidate for a federal loan guarantee), the Calvert Cliffs-3 reactor expansion in Maryland (another federal loan guarantee candidate despite major complications presented by foreign ownership issues), and the decision this week by the French industry leader Areva to halt production at a Virginia reactor component plant - a direct result of the turndown in the industry's prospects. The industry's situation is now such that even the controversial Obama Administration proposal for $36 billion in Treasury-backed loan guarantees for new reactors likely would be a case of throwing good money after bad, according to the experts. Peter Bradford, former member of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, former chair of the New York and Maine utility regulatory commissions, and currently adjunct professor at Vermont Law School on "Nuclear Power and Public Policy," said: "Even before Fukushima, events over the last two years had amply demonstrated that new nuclear power was a bad investment in the U.S. Cost estimates had continued to rise while those of alternatives fell. Wall Street rating agencies were uniformly skeptical. Constellation pulled out of Calvert Cliffs last October. Exelon did the same for its proposed Texas reactors, and did so in the context of a review of its low carbon options that showed new nuclear to be far more expensive than most of its other choices (see http://www.exeloncor...owe_AEI2011.pdf, pp. 11-13)." Bradford added: "Since Fukushima, NRG has pulled the plug on South Texas and the County of Fresno in California has reconsidered its support for new nuclear units there. If the past is any guide, there will soon appear stories about how the U.S. nuclear renaissance was well underway before being stalled by the one-of-a-kind nuclear accident at Fukushima. Just as we are often wrongly told that the first nuclear construction wave in the U.S. ended because of the accident at Three Mile Island, industry spokespeople will use Fukushima to obscure the fact that new nuclear has been priced out of the market in the U.S. for many years. Under these circumstances, adding additional exposure to American taxpayers in the form of nuclear loan guarantees can't be justified." Paul Fremont, managing director of equity research, Jefferies & Company, Inc., said: "The estimated cost of building a new nuclear plant varies widely from $4,500 per KW estimated by NRG for its cancelled project in Texas to $6,350 per KW estimated by Southern Company for its project in Georgia. Today, nuclear represents the highest cost option to construct compared to traditional technologies including coal at an estimated cost of $2,000-$3,000 per KW and gas combined cycle units at $950 per KW. According to Jefferies analysis, the best economic alternative for new build today is gas based on forward prices ranging from $4.40 expected in 2011 to $6.00 in 2015." Fremont added: "In March 2010, Jefferies published a report on nuclear new build titled 'Sympathy for the Devil' arguing that absent U.S. government subsidies, gas prices would need to be $8.50 per MCF or higher to earn reasonable (10 percent) returns on new nuclear investment. Including all of the government subsidies such as a loan guarantee, production tax credits available for the first eight years of operation and accelerated depreciation, the price of gas would need to be $6.66 per thousand cubic feet (MCF) to earn a 10 percent return. If the forward prices for gas are correct, it makes more sense to invest in a new gas plant rather than nuclear new build even factoring in current subsidies available from the U.S. government." S. David Freeman, engineer, and former head of both the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, said: "The energy policy debate in America was woefully incomplete until the nuclear disaster occurred in Japan. The public wasn't informed that nuclear power plants hold awesome radioactive threats that cause cancer, threats that are here and now, and very real. The federal government and the nuclear lobby are advancing these radioactive factories as a clean and safe solution to climate change. The push for a revival of nuclear power gives new meaning to the old phrase 'pick your poison.' The nuclear crowd is urging that we replace carbon dioxide with plutonium. We must learn the fundamental lesson from the Fukushima disaster that it is time to turn away from this extraordinarily dangerous technology." EDITOR'S NOTE: A streaming audio replay of the news event will be available on the Web at http://www.nuclearbailout.org as of 5 p.m. EDT on June 9, 2011. SOURCE Peter Bradford, Paul Fremont and S. David Freeman edit format Edited June 11, 2011 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted June 13, 2011 Author Share Posted June 13, 2011 Italy turning out for a two-day long referendum to end nuclear power in a trend embraced by environmentalists Part of: Nuclear meltdown in Japan , Nuclear energy , Renewable energy Environmental groups unfurl banners urging Italians to vote down the reinvigoration of Italy's long mothballed nuclear power program. Greenpeace Related articles Swiss parliament cements decision to go non-nuclear in landslide vote, paving the way for renewables(09/06-2011) Japan’s new radiation release measurements show earlier estimates too low by nearly half(07/06-2011) Germany to shut down nuclear power by 2022 as fears of Fukushima repeats rise(30/05-2011) Swiss government votes to phase out nuclear power in response to Fukushima disaster(25/05-2011) Faulty hydrogen vents at Fukushima Daiichi spell trouble for US nuclear plants as well(18/05-2011) TEPCO officials confirm meltdown in Fukushima reactor No 1 while water levels uncontrollably rise and thousands more evacuate(17/05-2011) Reversing earlier remarks, Japan halts new nuclear reactor construction and is poised to emphasise alternative energy(11/05-2011) Workers at Fukushima Daiichi reaching maximum exposure as culture of regulator and industry collusion is revealed(02/05-2011) A quarter of a century after Chenobyl, what have we learned, and how quickly can we bring nuclear power to its knees? (26/04-2011) Initial probe shows American reactors are as vulnerable as Fukushima’s while industry cash impedes government ordered overhauls(30/03-2011) Fukushima spent fuel crisis: What exactly are the risks — and will Russia heed the lesson?(22/03-2011) Italy began to vote Sunday on a two day referendum considering several issues, the most important of which is whether the country will reinvigorate it’s nuclear power program, which was abandoned in the wake of Chernobyl in 1987. Charles Digges, 12/06-2011 Should the referendum – whose polls close on Monday at 3pm Central European Times – succeed, Italy will become the third European country to rule out a future lighted by nuclear power since the Fukushima Daiichi disaster began on March 11. Germany this week passed a bill to shut down all of its nuclear reactors by 2022, and the Swiss Parliament, in a landslide vote, agreeing with the government, voted to shut down that country’s nuclear reactors by 2034. Even German engineering giant Siemens – one of Europe’s preeminent nuclear power plant builders – announced it would be backing out of the nuclear business. Germany and Switzerland opt for renewables Nuclear power plays an enormous role in the energy mix of both Germany and Switzerland – 40 percent in Switzerland – and both the Germans and the Swiss say they intended to make up the difference with renewable energy development. But Italy has for the last 20 years been the only major European Union country with no nuclear power program, relying instead on oil and other energy source imports. Not the first referendum to stop nuclear in Italy Nuclear power was stopped in Italy by a previous public referendum in 1987 that halted nuclear power development – including an almost completed plant at Montalto di Castro, north of Rome – for five years. But the referendum proved to have more political staying power than that, and forays into developing nuclear power were anathema until Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi came to power with an agenda to restore Italy’s nuclear energy program by 2014. His government has said that nuclear power is vital to providing 20 percent of Italy’s energy. But the disaster at the Fukushima plant, which was crippled by the tsunami and earthquake that hit northern Japan in March, has changed the debate entirely. Big business opponents of stopping nuclear power in Italy have chalked the referendum up to "nuclear-phobia." But the Fukushima disaster has show there's more to it than that. Scientists with the administration of US President Dwight Eisehower, who originally forwarded the idea of an international uranium fuel bank - estimated that full scale nuclear meltdowns would only occur once every 15,000 years. Japan has recently confirmed that full meltdowns took place at Fukushima Daiichi's reactors No 1, 2 and 3 during the first week of the crisis. Environmentalists predict nuclear defeat Now Salvatore Barbera, from the campaign group Greenpeace, says people have seen the dangers and will reject nuclear energy in the referendum. "This is an old technology, it's dangerous as we saw in Fukushima," he said. "It's dangerous when it's operating, it's dangerous when you have nuclear waste (that) no-one in the world knows how to deal with it, and now it's also expensive." The leader of the Greens in the European Parliament, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, has called on Italians to vote against nuclear power, saying that a success on this issue would be "an important signal" to the rest of Europe, Agency France Presse reported. A 50 percent turnout for the referendum is required for its results to be binding, and the Berlusconi government is hoping it will be difficult to reach the required numbers at polling stations, especially on a holiday weekend, press agencies reported. Berlusconi, directly or indirectly, controls six of Italy's seven main television channels and news bulletins had scarcely mentioned the vote, despite nuclear power being an issue that stirs passionate feelings, until a few days ago when the country's media watchdog stepped in, the Guardian reported. By the times the polls closed sunday at 7pm local time, 30 percent of voters had turned out, leaving hope that Monday would see another 20 percent. Other issues at hand for Berlusconi The referendum ballot also contains a question on whether to strip the deeply unpopular Berlusconi, 74 – who is a defendant in four ongoing trials involving alleged bribery, fraud and having paid for sex with a 17-year-old girl – of his immunity from prosecution. But the nuclear question is bar far the biggest issue to Italians as they go to the referendum, and polls show a clear majority in favour of dumping nuclear power. Momentum killed by Fukushima It was only a year ago that the Berlusconi government ramped up its nuclear rejuvenation, and it did so with a vengeance. Objections to it were not tolerated. Deals and contracts were lined up with the French – Europe’s biggest nuclear vendor. When the tsuami hit Fukushima Daiichi, the Berlusconi government realized it could not continue business as usual and so announced a one-year hold on developing its nuclear industry. Meanwhile, it sought through the court system to ban the referendum currently taking place – a move that was struck down last week by the Corte Suprema di Cassazione. Greepeace’s Barbera said, too, that the year-long hiatus in developing Italy’s nuclear power capabilities was not nearly enough to address public fears. “Fukushima changed people's minds, but they already knew that other forms of renewable energy supplies were the only way forward," said Barbera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted June 13, 2011 Author Share Posted June 13, 2011 Dr Helen Caldicott, MD ← A Medical Problem of Vast Dimensions Nuclear apologists play shoot the messenger on radiation → How nuclear apologists mislead the world over radiation Posted on April 13, 2011 by Helen Caldicott Soon after the Fukushima accident last month, I stated publicly that a nuclear event of this size and catastrophic potential could present a medical problem of very large dimensions. Events have proven this observation to be true despite the nuclear industry’s campaign about the “minimal” health effects of so-called low-level radiation. That billions of its dollars are at stake if the Fukushima event causes the “nuclear renaissance” to slow down appears to be evident from the industry’s attacks on its critics, even in the face of an unresolved and escalating disaster at the reactor complex at Fukushima. Proponents of nuclear power – including George Monbiot, who has had a mysterious road-to-Damascus conversion to its supposedly benign effects – accuse me and others who call attention to the potential serious medical consequences of the accident of “cherry-picking” data and overstating the health effects of radiation from the radioactive fuel in the destroyed reactors and their cooling pools. Yet by reassuring the public that things aren’t too bad, Monbiot and others at best misinform, and at worst misrepresent or distort, the scientific evidence of the harmful effects of radiation exposure – and they play a predictable shoot-the-messenger game in the process. To wit: 1) Mr Monbiot, who is a journalist not a scientist, appears unaware of the difference between external and internal radiation Let me educate him. The former is what populations were exposed to when the atomic bombs were detonated over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945; their profound and on-going medical effects are well documented. [1] Internal radiation, on the other hand, emanates from radioactive elements which enter the body by inhalation, ingestion, or skin absorption. Hazardous radionuclides such as iodine-131, caesium 137, and other isotopes currently being released in the sea and air around Fukushima bio-concentrate at each step of various food chains (for example into algae, crustaceans, small fish, bigger fish, then humans; or soil, grass, cow’s meat and milk, then humans). [2] After they enter the body, these elements – called internal emitters – migrate to specific organs such as the thyroid, liver, bone, and brain, where they continuously irradiate small volumes of cells with high doses of alpha, beta and/or gamma radiation, and over many years, can induce uncontrolled cell replication – that is, cancer. Further, many of the nuclides remain radioactive in the environment for generations, and ultimately will cause increased incidences of cancer and genetic diseases over time. The grave effects of internal emitters are of the most profound concern at Fukushima. It is inaccurate and misleading to use the term “acceptable levels of external radiation” in assessing internal radiation exposures. To do so, as Monbiot has done, is to propagate inaccuracies and to mislead the public worldwide (not to mention other journalists) who are seeking the truth about radiation’s hazards. 2) Nuclear industry proponents often assert that low doses of radiation (eg below 100mSV) produce no ill effects and are therefore safe. But , as the US National Academy of Sciences BEIR VII report has concluded, no dose of radiation is safe, however small, including background radiation; exposure is cumulative and adds to an individual’s risk of developing cancer. 3) Now let’s turn to Chernobyl. Various seemingly reputable groups have issued differing reports on the morbidity and mortalities resulting from the 1986 radiation catastrophe. The World Health Organisation (WHO) in 2005 issued a report attributing only 43 human deaths directly to the Chernobyl disaster and estimating an additional 4,000 fatal cancers. In contrast, the 2009 report, “Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment”, published by the New York Academy of Sciences, comes to a very different conclusion. The three scientist authors – Alexey V Yablokov, Vassily B. Nesterenko, and Alexey V Nesterenko – provide in its pages a translated synthesis and compilation of hundreds of scientific articles on the effects of the Chernobyl disaster that have appeared in Slavic language publications over the past 20 years. They estimate the number of deaths attributable to the Chernobyl meltdown at about 980,000. Monbiot dismisses the report as worthless, but to do so – to ignore and denigrate an entire body of literature, collectively hundreds of studies that provide evidence of large and significant impacts on human health and the environment – is arrogant and irresponsible. Scientists can and should argue over such things, for example, as confidence intervals around individual estimates (which signal the reliability of estimates), but to consign out of hand the entire report into a metaphorical dustbin is shameful. Further, as Prof Dimitro Godzinsky, of the Ukranian National Academy of Sciences, states in his introduction to the report: “Against this background of such persuasive data some defenders of atomic energy look specious as they deny the obvious negative effects of radiation upon populations. In fact, their reactions include almost complete refusal to fund medical and biological studies, even liquidating government bodies that were in charge of the ‘affairs of Chernobyl’. Under pressure from the nuclear lobby, officials have also diverted scientific personnel away from studying the problems caused by Chernobyl.” 4) Monbiot expresses surprise that a UN-affiliated body such as WHOmight be under the influence of the nuclear power industry, causing its reporting on nuclear power matters to be biased. And yet that is precisely the case. In the early days of nuclear power, WHO issued forthright statements on radiation risks such as its 1956 warning: “Genetic heritage is the most precious property for human beings. It determines the lives of our progeny, health and harmonious development of future generations. As experts, we affirm that the health of future generations is threatened by increasing development of the atomic industry and sources of radiation … We also believe that new mutations that occur in humans are harmful to them and their offspring.” After 1959, WHO made no more statements on health and radioactivity. What happened? On 28 May 1959, at the 12th World Health Assembly, WHO drew up an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); clause 12.40 of this agreement says: “Whenever either organisation [the WHO or the IAEA] proposes to initiate a programme or activity on a subject in which the other organisation has or may have a substantial interest, the first party shall consult the other with a view to adjusting the matter by mutual agreement.” In other words, the WHO grants the right of prior approval over any research it might undertake or report on to the IAEA – a group that many people, including journalists, think is a neutral watchdog, but which is, in fact, an advocate for the nuclear power industry. The IAEA’s founding papers state: “The agency shall seek to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity through the world.” Monbiot appears ignorant about the WHO’s subjugation to the IAEA, yet this is widely known within the scientific radiation community. But it is clearly not the only matter on which he is ignorant after his apparent three-day perusal of the vast body of scientific information on radiation and radioactivity. As we have seen, he and other nuclear industry apologists sow confusion about radiation risks, and, in my view, in much the same way that the tobacco industry did in previous decades about the risks of smoking. Despite their claims, it is they, not the “anti-nuclear movement” who are “misleading the world about the impacts of radiation on human health.” • Helen Caldicott is president of the Helen Caldicott Foundation for a Nuclear-Free Planet and the author of Nuclear Power is Not the Answer [1] See, for example, WJ Schull, Effects of Atomic Radiation: A Half-Century of Studies from Hiroshima and Nagasaki (New York: Wiley-Lis, 1995) and DE Thompson, K Mabuchi, E Ron, M Soda, M Tokunaga, S Ochikubo, S Sugimoto, T Ikeda, M Terasaki, S Izumi et al. “Cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors, Part I: Solid tumors, 1958-1987″ in Radiat Res 137:S17-S67 (1994). [2] This process is called bioaccumulation and comes in two subtypes as well, bioconcentration and biomagnification. For more information see: J.U. Clark and V.A. McFarland, Assessing Bioaccumulation in Aquatic Organisms Exposed to Contaminated Sediments, Miscellaneous Paper D-91-2 (1991), Environmental Laboratory, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS and H.A. Vanderplog, D.C. Parzyck, W.H. Wilcox, J.R. Kercher, and S.V. Kaye, Bioaccumulation Factors for Radionuclides in Freshwater Biota, ORNL-5002 (1975), Environmental Sciences Division Publication, Number 783, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. This entry was posted in Articles. Bookmark the permalink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now