Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 5 (5 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Stats   1 comment

Life Arts

The U.N. Would Never Lie to George Monbiot

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 2 of 3 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags  (less...) Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 3   Supported 2   Valuable 2  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H4 4/2/11

Become a Fan
  (18 fans)
In Monbiot's own newspaper, The Guardian from March 25th of 2006 (yes he worked there then):

"UN accused of ignoring 500,000 Chernobyl deaths

United Nations nuclear and health watchdogs have ignored evidence of deaths, cancers, mutations and other conditions after the Chernobyl accident, leading scientists and doctors have claimed in the run-up to the nuclear disaster's 20th anniversary next month."
(John Vidal)

"Leading scientists and researchers," George?  In 2006?  In your own newspaper? 

George, did you follow up with these "leading scientists and researchers?"  No, you could not have since you pretended to be so surprised by what Dr. Caldicott told you during your "debate."

The Guardian (2006) continues:

"An IAEA spokesman said he was confident the UN figures were correct. 'We have a wide scientific consensus of 100 leading scientists.'"

Wait a minute!  An "IAEA spokesman" is handling this supposed "consensus" of just 100 "leading scientists?"

I thought it was a health issue, not a promotion of nuclear energy worldwide issue. 

The IAEA flack tells The Guardian:

"If they have data that they think are excluded then they should send it."

Data that "they think" are excluded.  That's cute.

"'At least 500,000 people - perhaps more - have already died out of the 2 million people who were officially classed as victims of Chernobyl in Ukraine,' said Nikolai Omelyanets, deputy head of the National Commission for Radiation Protection in Ukraine. ... 'We have found that infant mortality increased 20% to 30% because of chronic exposure to radiation after the accident. All this information has been ignored by the IAEA and WHO. We sent it to them in March last year and again in June. They've not said why they haven't accepted it.'"
(Vidal)

So who are the true "leading" scientists, and who's got the real "consensus?" 


Dr. Janette Sherman who edited the translated 5,000 European studies said:

"On the 20th Anniversary of Chernobyl WHO and the IAEA published the Chernobyl Forum Report, mentioning only 350 sources, mainly from the English literature while in reality there are more than 30,000 publications and up to 170,000 sources that address the consequences of Chernobyl."
(Sherman, 2011)

Just how does the United Nations IAEA manage to ignore half a million to a million dead Eurasians?

It just so happens I've been going through some of the aforementioned excluded studies, and I found some interesting commentary pertaining to just that question.

"These findings indicate that the spectrum of developmental defects generated by incorporated radioactivity in humans may be much greater than derived by international radiation committees from the follow-up of Japanese A-bomb survivors. The findings are compatible with a particularly high radiosensitivity of the fetus... In contrast to this, the International Commission on Radiological Protection ICRP has postulated a threshold dose as high as 100 mSv in Publication 90 of 2003 for effects after prenatal exposure. They and other committees exclude radiation effects by Chernobyl fallout referring to the very low doses which were derived for the population."
(Wolfgang Hoffmann, Inge Schmitz-Feuerhake: Malformations, Perinatal Deaths and Childhood Morbidity after In Utero Exposure by Chernobyl Fallout. Observations in Europe and Turkey, Institut fur Community Medicine, Ernst-Moritz-Arndt Universität, Greifswald and Universität Bremen, Fachbereich Physik und Elektrotechnik (i.R.), 2006)

The "threshold dose" concept is used as the determinant of who is counted and who is not.  That's how the IAEA/WHO manipulates the data on Chernobyl and in-effect lies to the world on the horrors of radiation poisoning. 

Multiple official sources confirm that there is no safe dose of radiation, at all:

Environmental Protection Agency: "" any exposure to radiation poses some risk, i.e. there is no level below which we can say an exposure poses no risk."

Department of Energy:  "" the major effect is a very slight increase in cancer risk."

Nuclear Regulatory Commission: "any amount of radiation may pose some risk for causing cancer ... any increase in dose, no matter how small, results in an incremental increase in risk."

National Academy of Sciences: "... it is unlikely that a threshold exists for the induction of cancers ...."
(John LaForge: Dangerous Disinformation About Radiation, 2011)

It's not surprising that the UN is in favor of promoting nuclear power and glossing over its faults.  All the powerful nations are pro-nuclear.  It is these nations' governments who provide the "leading scientists" to write up the manipulated faux "consensus."

By the way, George Monbiot, cherry picking 100 experts (why not 99?  Or 101?) is not the definition of a "consensus."  I'm afraid I'm going to have to call that one out as a lie.  You don't get to redefine the language.

The real consensus comes out of Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and thereabouts:

"These results challenge the assumption of thresholds for genetic effects of low level ionizing radiation as well as the assumption of relatively high doubling doses for genetic effects as propagated by pertinent international commissions."
(Hagen Scherb: Statistical Analysis of Genetic Effects after the Chernobyl Disaster, GSF-National Research Center for Environment and Health, Institute of Biomathe-matics
and Biometry, Neuherberg/Munich, 2006)

"They showed that the existence of the effect at the low foetal doses which had been received defined an error in the current ICRP risk model for this kind of exposure of upwards of 100-fold.  ... The finding effectively falsifies the current radioprotection system for these kinds of internal exposures to fission products and suggests urgent reappraisal of the
nuclear site child leukaemia clusters..."
(Chris Busby: Infant Leukemia in Europe after Chernobyl and ist Significance for Radiation Protection. A meta-analysis of three countries including new data from the United Kingdom, University of Liverpool, Dept of Human Anatomy and Cell Biology, And Green Audit,
Aberystwyth, UK, 2006)

"Deteriorated radiation situation in Ukraine has adversely affected the brain tumor incidence in infants thereby leading to over 2.3 times growth of total patient population and 6.2 times growth in the number of patients under 1 year. "
(Yuri Orlov, Andrey Shaversky, V. Mykhalyuk: Intracranial Neoplasms in Infants of Ukraine. An Epidemiological Study, Institute of Neurosurgery named after acad. A.P.Romodanov, AMSU, Kiev, 2006)

"It should be noted that earlier made prognosis for thyroid cancer failed, and real picture has surpassed all expectations."
(A. E. Okeanov 1 , E. A. Sosnovskaya: Incidence of Malignant Tumors Among Different Groups of Belarusian Population Affected to the Chernobyl Accident, International State Environmental University, Minsk, Republic of Belarus and Republican Research-Practical Center of Radiation Medicine and Human Ecology, Gomel, Republic of Belarus, 2006)

"Thus, it was shown that small doses of radiation are statistically significant risk factors of malignant development."
(Emilia A. Diomina: Radiation Epidemiological Studies in a Group of Liquidators of the Chernobyl
Accident Consequences, R.E. Kavetsky Institute of Experimental Pathology, Oncology and Radiobiology of Na-tional
Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Kiev, 2006)

We hear a lot of chatter from pundits like Monbiot how we are surrounded by background radiation.  Have you once seen them distinguish between the radiation source outside the body vs. one emitting inside your body and jammed up against your cells and DNA? 

You don't hear them concede that pregnant women aren't allowed to receive x-rays either.  Their arguments tend to fall apart under scrutiny.

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3

 

http://politicalfilm.wordpress.com/

Political Film Blog Author of HELL OF A DEAL: A Supernatural Satire, a tale of Hollywood's accommodation with torture and militarism.

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Follow Me on Twitter

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Is This the Man Who "Radicalized" Dzhokhar Tsarnaev?

The U.N. Would Never Lie to George Monbiot

The Future Children of Fukushima

Genocide and the Native American Experience

Nuclear Nightmare Worsens

Do I trust Christopher Nolan or his Batman?

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
1 people are discussing this page, with 1 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

Link:http://counterpunch.org/giambrone04012011.htm... by Joe Giambrone on Saturday, Apr 2, 2011 at 8:56:56 AM