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 32 (32 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Stats   12 comments

OpEdNews Op Eds

The UN Cover Up of Ionizing Radiation Health FX

By (about the author)     Permalink
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 9   News 4   Well Said 3  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H1 4/3/11

Become a Fan
  (2 fans)
I watched this video click here earlier today on Russian TV in which Dr.Chris Busby, British scientist and expert on the health effects of ionizing radiation, says that what is most similar between Fukushima and Chernobyl is how much we are being lied to about the seriousness of the consequences. He actually said that Fukushima may be worse because of the high population in the area.  Sadly, I spent the rest of the day learning about one of the most evil and horrific scientific and political coverups of all time.

First stop I found this article by Dr. Busby on the Fukushima Radiation Risks. In it he says that an independent european group of scientists working on the The Low Level Radiation Campaign  (http://www.llrc.org) predict that 

Radioactivity from the Fukushima Catastrophe is now reaching centres of population like Tokyo and will appear in the USA. Authorities are downplaying the risk on the basis of absorbed dose levels using the dose coefficients of the International Commission on Radiological Protection the ICRP. These dose coefficients and the ICRP radiation risk model is unsafe for this purpose.   17,000 cancers will be caused by Fukushima within the 200 km contamination zone by 2061.  

So why do we keep hearing 'experts' say that ''the radiation levels are safe' " It is because they are basing the risk on an old outdated and wrong model. It is the ICRP http://www.icrp.org/ ) risk model that the UN and its organizations such as IAEA and UNSCEAR uses to determine the risk due to low level radiation.  The ICRP risk model was developed after the Hiroshima nuclear blast and includes exposures and dosages due only to EXTERNAL gamma radiation, not any INTERNAL RADIATION!! It is an entirely outdated model and has been falsified over and over again but these scientific results are suppressed. So. every time you see a chart that shows the health consequences of radiation doses, they are all WRONG because they are based on the ICRP model which is what IAEA and every agency at the UN uses and as well as text book, every reporter and every educator, including me. Up until today. I will no longer perpetuate the lies and coverup. 

The European Commitee on Radiation Risk (ECRR) has developed and tested a new risk model that is based on internal absorption and exposure to radiation. Their model correlates higher cancer rates due to low dosages that are 100x greater than the ICRP model. They have made their study available online free due to Fukushima. 
Here is what Dr. Busby says about the different models: 

Take the dose which is published by the authorities. Multiply it by 600. This is the approximate ECRR dose for the mixture of internal radionuclides released from Fukushima. Then multiply this number by 0.1. This is the ECRR 2010 cancer risk.


Most of this is clearly explained in this video  which took place in Stockholm, 22nd April 2009. The recently resigned Scientific Secretary of the ICRP, Dr Jack Valentin  concedes to Dr. Chris Busby,  that the ICRP model can not be used to predict the health effects of exposures and that for certain internal exposures it is underestimates the risk by up to two orders of magnitude (100 times).  He also said that as he was no longer employed by ICRP he could agree that the ICRP and the United Nations committee on radiation protection (UNSCEAR) had been wrong in not examining the evidence from the Chernobyl accident, and other evidence outlined below, which shows large errors in the ICRP risk model.  Transcript of the video: here.

The UN's report on the health consequences of Chernobyl  from UNSCEAR is  here. It is full of lies: 31 workers dead, 2000 children from leukemia. What is astounding to learn is that the IAEA only counts deaths that have been verified by Los Alamos and its equivalent in France - two nuclear bomb makers!!  This is madness. Did you know that? 

The independent European Group published a study you can download for free and the New York Academy of Science published a study based on Russian science research that claims that some 985,000 people died, mainly of cancer, as a result of the Chernobyl accident. That is between when the accident occurred in 1986 and 2004. More deaths, it projects, will follow.
Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment 

you can read on google books or here is a review.

Another VERY important video to watch is "Nuclear Controversies" a film made by acclaimed Swiss journalist  Wladimir Tchertkoff  in which he shows scientists debating the science at the UN regarding the health consequences of the Chernobyl accident.


If you are a self proclaimed 'realist' or 'rationalist' you may not like this video because it does show sick children. 

a Russian 14 year old, sick, because of exposure to Chernobyl Radioactive exposure (screen capture from movie, below.)



Many of  you all think that this somehow disqualifies an argument, if there is anything emotional or human about it. So get over it. We are all human. Buck up and watch the Russian scientists rage at the UN liars. THey know the consequences. Their families are dying. And Russian scientists are jailed for publishing their scientific studies that dispute the political line. It doesn't make them irrational. It makes them passionate. And there is a huge real difference. 

Why is this information suppressed? Why do these agencies keep using the ICRP model when it is clearly false and underestimates risk? I think it is partly due to greed and technology worship. We want to believe that technology and science can save us. We are in a nuclear quagmire. And who is going to pay to clean up the radioactive mess around the world? We are in a nuclear quagmire and we have no idea how to get out of it. So underestimate the risk and keep going business as usual. 

And let us never overlook that GE, who pays no taxes, built the Fukushima reactor and 23 'sister' reactors in the US. Are they liable for any of this? No. You can see here if there is one near you.  click here

 

www.scientainment.com

Lynda Williams is a physics educator, political activist and science entertainer. As The Physics Chanteuse, Lynda has entertained scientists around the world and her work has been featured in the New York Times and People Magazine. She also is an (more...)
 

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)

The UN Cover Up of Ionizing Radiation Health FX

The UN Cover Up of Ionizing Radiation Health FX

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  
12 people are discussing this page, with 12 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

I just don't trust the spokespeople saying that t... by Rob Kall on Sunday, Apr 3, 2011 at 10:49:50 AM
Rob, thank you for great reporters. I am at a loss... by Tim Fromla on Sunday, Apr 3, 2011 at 9:18:37 PM
A minor detail, but one which allows "truth" in di... by sometimes blinded on Sunday, Apr 3, 2011 at 11:08:51 AM
I have a question about the range of radioactivity... by Betsy Whitfill on Sunday, Apr 3, 2011 at 1:04:01 PM
I have a Geiger counter, which hasn't spotted any ... by Clark on Tuesday, Apr 5, 2011 at 12:07:05 PM
We must fight on. BBC:Viewpoint: We should stop r... by Joe Giambrone on Sunday, Apr 3, 2011 at 1:47:43 PM
try Kelp tablets?... by Archie on Sunday, Apr 3, 2011 at 2:42:00 PM
Thank you for this article.Everyone seems to want ... by Ariel Monserrat on Sunday, Apr 3, 2011 at 4:13:07 PM
Don't worry, be happy. Ann "The Vulture" Coulter s... by Dennis Etler on Sunday, Apr 3, 2011 at 8:26:14 PM
milk. Do I believe the talking heads that we're sa... by Michael Shaw on Monday, Apr 4, 2011 at 12:06:06 AM
It is so difficult to get decent information on th... by Michael Collins on Monday, Apr 4, 2011 at 1:11:22 AM
power plants, illegal wars, the theft of our homes... by Mark Adams JD/MBA on Tuesday, Apr 5, 2011 at 6:42:54 PM