back to radiation | rat haus | Index | Search | tree


Radioactivity and the Systematic Falsification of Nuclear Risk


Contents
radiation and health
what is actually going on here?
conflict of interest:
health versus nuclear industry promotion


“The subordination of the WHO to IAEA is a key part of the systematic falsification of nuclear risk which has been under way ever since Hiroshima. The agreement creates an unacceptable conflict of interest in which the UN organisation concerned with promoting our health has been made subservient to those whose main interest is the expansion of nuclear power. Dissolving the WHO-IAEA agreement is a necessary first step to restoring the WHO's independence to research the true health impacts of ionising radiation and publish its findings.”
Dr. Chris Busby, quoted in “Toxic link: the WHO and the IAEA”
by Oliver Tickell, guardian.co.uk, 28 May 2009


radiation and health



A few facts about radiation and health,
by BeyondNuclear.org, 24 Mar 2011


No Immediate Danger? Prognosis for a Radioactive Earth,
talk given by Dr Rosalie Bertell, published in Women and Sustainable Development: a report from Women's forum in Bergen, Norway, 14-15 May 1990


Nuclear Radiation and its Biological Effects,
Part I from No Immediate Danger, Prognosis for a Radioactive Earth,
by Dr Rosalie Bertell, The Book Publishing Company, 1985.


The Free-Radical Fallacy about Ionizing Radiation:
Demonstration That a Popular Claim Is Senseless
by John W. Gofman, M.D., Ph.D., Committee for Nuclear Responsibility, September 1997


"Asleep at the Wheel":
The Special Menace of Inherited Afflictions from Ionizing Radiation
by John W. Gofman, M.D., Ph.D. and Egan O'Connor, Executive Director, Committee for Nuclear Responsibility, Fall 1998



          The fact, so seldom explained by radiation enthusiasts and so often stressed in our publications, is that extra exposure of a population to low-dose radiation creates only a small RISK per individual, but it creates a real RATE (not a “maybe”) of fatal radiation-induced cancer for the POPULATION.
          For example: In 1990, the government-sponsored BEIR Report (p.172) estimated that if the population received an extra 100 milli-rems of dose every year (approximately equivalent to doubling the natural “background” rate), the dose-increment would induce extra cancer fatality in one out of every 400 people per lifetime (details available in Gofman 1995, Pt.3). Per newborn individual, the extra lifetime RISK would be 1 chance in 400—perhaps a “negligible” personal risk in some people's opinion. The same estimate translates into a lifetime RATE of 650,000 extra fatal radiation-induced cancers for a population of 260 million persons (USA). Our own 1990 estimate (Gofman 1990, Table 16-C) is about 7.6 times higher: 4,940,000 extra fatal cancers—1 person in every 53. . . .
          In our own view, it is quite possible that a permanent doubling of the “background” dose of ionizing radiation, worldwide, would very gradually double mankind's burden of inherited afflictions—from mental handicaps to predispositions to emotional disorders, cardio-vascular diseases, cancers, immune-system disorders, and so forth. Such a doubling would be the greatest imaginable crime against humanity.




what is really going on here?



Onkalo - Into Eternity
Complete, annotated transcript of Maria Gilardin's introduction to the film
broadcast on TUC Radio, 12 July 2011



The Journey Our Nuclear Waste Must Make: Into Eternity
Complete, annotated transcript of the interview with film-maker Michael Madsen,
Director of Into Eternity, conducted by Dr. Helen Caldicott
If You Love This Planet, 15 July 2011



Fukushima Into Eternity statement by Michael Madsen, March 2012



Plutonium Life Span






conflict of interest:
health versus nuclear industry promotion



Toxic link: the WHO and the IAEA
A 50-year-old agreement with the IAEA has effectively gagged the WHO
from telling the truth about the health risks of radiation
by Oliver Tickell, guardian.co.uk, 28 May 2009


Science with a Skew:
The Nuclear Power Industry After Chernobyl and Fukushima
by Gayle Greene, The Asia-Pacific Journal, 2 January 2012


Nuclear Reactor Catastrophe in Japan
– An Open Letter To The World's Environmental Ministers,
C.G.Weeramantry, Weeramantry International Centre for Peace Education and Research, Sri Lanka, 14 March 2011


How nuclear apologists mislead the world over radiation,
George Monbiot and others at best misinform
and at worst distort evidence of the dangers of atomic energy
by Helen Caldicott, guardian.co.uk, 11 April 2011


Nuclear Disaster and Obama’s Disastrous Response,
by Karl Grossman, CommonDreams.org, 31 March 2011


Japan's New Hibakusha and the Collapse of the Nuclear Power "Safety Myth",
by Japan Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms, 17 March 2011


A world in denial of nuclear risks,
World leaders push for nuclear proliferation,
despite a past plagued with nuclear-related disasters
by Danny Schechter, Al Jazeera English, 23 March 2011


Fukushima. If the health consequences of Chernobyl had been known...,
by Independence for WHO, 22 March 2011


The Hippocratic Vigils
by Independence for WHO, maintained since 26 April 2007



U.S. Nuclear Power Plants - Playing with the Poison Fire
“On a radioactive planet all plans for the future will become meaningless.”
—Claus Biegert, Initiator of The World Uranium Hearing, 1992


What Next for the WHO and IAEA? Chernobyl, 25 Years Later
By Dr. Janette D. Sherman, MD, Counterpunch, 4 March 2011


Chernobyl: An Unbelievable Failure to Help,
by Dr Rosalie Bertell, International Journal of Health Services, March 2008



“For the past 23 years it has been clear that there is a danger greater than nuclear weapons concealed within nuclear power. Emissions from this one reactor exceeded a hundredfold the radioactive contamination of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. No citizen of any country can be assured that he or she can be protected from radioactive contamination. One nuclear reactor can pollute half the globe. Chernobyl fallout covered the entire Northern Hemisphere.”
—Introduction, page 1, Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment, by Alexey V. Yablokov, Vassily B. Nesterenko, Alexey V. Nesterenko, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Volume 1181, December 2009, 335 Pages.
“1945-1998” by Isao Hashimoto
A Time-Lapse Map of Every Nuclear Explosion Since 1945
Multimedia artwork
“2053” – This is the number of nuclear explosions conducted in various parts of the globe.*
Profile of the artist: Isao HASHIMOTO
Born in Kumamoto prefecture, Japan in 1959.
Worked for 17 years in financial industry as a foreign exchange dealer. Studied at Department of Arts, Policy and Management of Musashino Art University, Tokyo.
Currently working for Lalique Museum, Hakone, Japan as a curator.
Created artwork series expressing, in the artist's view, “the fear and the folly of nuclear weapons”:
  1. “1945-1998” © 2003
  2. “Overkilled” (2007)
  3. “The Names of The Experiments” (2006)
About "1945-1998" © 2003
“This piece of work is a bird's eye view of the history by scaling down a month length of time into one second. No letter is used for equal messaging to all viewers without language barrier. The blinking light, sound and the numbers on the world map show when, where and how many experiments each country has conducted. I created this work for the means of an interface to the people who are yet to know of the extremely grave, but present problem of the world.”
Contact the artist:
Should you have any query regarding this artwork, please contact: hashi123ping@amy.hi-ho.nepong.jp

* The number excludes both tests by North Korea (October 2006 and May 2009).

Mirrored from source: http://www.ctbto.org/specials/1945-1998-by-isao-hashimoto/



“I’d like to point out something about the Japanese perception . . . that Japan has no choice but to go the nuclear path. This has been thoroughly inculcated into the Japanese mind. But in fact, what has happened is that people have not been given an opportunity to think about different ways of meeting energy needs. And I think as long as you focus on provision of very large amounts of power and ever-increasing amounts of power, as we saw in [IAEA Director General Yukiya] Amano’s [4 April 2011] speech, then you’ll inevitably find yourself being attracted to nuclear power. Whether or not that’s the best solution, it’s still a mindset. But if you start looking instead at the demand side and thinking of the most efficient ways to deliver the same energy services and putting the incentives in a different way—the incentives are now directed towards maximizing sales of electricity, but instead, if you put the incentives towards the most efficient provision of energy services, then all sorts of different possibilities open up, and you can drastically reduce your energy demand. . . .
        If you listen carefully to Yukiya Amano’s speech, it was all premised on the assumption that there was an ever-increasing demand for energy. And I think it’s just common sense that we cannot have an ever-increasing supply of energy. So, unless you start to look at the physical limits of our planet and think you’re doing things differently, then you’re not going to come up with a solution. What we are pushing for now is to try and convince the people of Japan that there is another way and get through—break through the indoctrination they’ve received over the last 30, 40 years.”
—Philip White, International Liaison Officer at the Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center based in Tokyo, Japan, speaking on DemocracyNow, “U.N. Nuclear Watchdog Says It Will Continue to Push for New Nuclear Power Plants
Despite Growing Global Nuclear Concern,” 5 Apr 2011





back to radiation | rat haus | Index | Search | tree