(Article changed on March 4, 2014 at 06:20)
With the third anniversary of the start of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear catastrophe coming next week, the attempted Giant Lie about the disaster continues--a suppression of information, an effort at dishonesty of historical dimensions.
It involves international entities, especially the International Atomic Energy Agency, national governmental bodies--led in Japan by its current prime minister, the powerful nuclear industry and a "nuclear establishment" of scientists and others with a vested interest in atomic energy.
Deception was integral to the push for nuclear power from its start. Indeed, I opened my first book on nuclear technology, Cover Up: What You Are Not Supposed to Know About Nuclear Power, with: "You have not been informed about nuclear power. You have not been told. And that has been done on purpose. Keeping the public in the dark was deemed necessary by the promoters of nuclear power if it was to succeed. Those in government, science and private industry who have been pushing nuclear power realized that if people were given the facts, if they knew the consequences of nuclear power, they would not stand for it."
Published in 1980, the book led to my giving many presentations on nuclear power at which I've often heard the comment that only when catastrophic nuclear accidents happened would people fully realize the deadliness of atomic energy.
Well, massive nuclear accidents have occurred--the 1986 Chernobyl disaster and the Fukushima catastrophe that began on March 11, 2011 and is ongoing with large discharges of radioactive poisons continuing to spew out into the environment.
Meanwhile, the posture of the nuclear promoters is denial--insisting the impacts of the Fukushima catastrophe are essentially non-existent. A massive nuclear accident has occurred and they would make believe it hasn't.
"Fukushima is an eerie replay of the denial and controversy that began with the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki," wrote Yale University Professor Emeritus Charles Perrow in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists last year. "This is the same nuclear denial that also greeted nuclear bomb tests, plutonium plant disasters at Windscale in northern England and Chelyabinsk in the Ural Mountains, and the nuclear power plant accidents at Three Mile Island in the United States and Chernobyl in what is now Ukraine." click here
The difference with Fukushima is the scale of disaster. With Fukushima were multiple meltdowns at the six-nuclear plant site. There's been continuing pollution of a major part of Japan, with radioactivity going into the air, carried by the winds to fall out around the world, and gigantic amounts of radioactivity going into the Pacific Ocean moving with the currents and carried by marine life that ingests the nuclear toxins.
Leading the Fukushima cover-up globally is the International Atomic Energy Agency, formed by the United Nations in 1957 with the mission to " seek to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world." http://www.iaea.org/About/statute.html#A1.2
Of the consequences of the Fukushima disaster, "To date no health effects have been reported in any person as a result of radiation exposure from the accident," declared the IAEA in 2011, a claim it holds to today. http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/fukushima/missionsummary010611.pdf
Working with the IAEA is the World Health Organization. WHO was captured on issues of radioactivity and nuclear power early on by IAEA. In 1959, the IAEA and WHO, also established by the UN, entered into an agreement--that continues to this day--providing that IAEA and WHO "act in clo se co-operation with each other" and " whenever either organization proposes to initiate a program or activity on a subject in which the other organization has or may have a substantial interest, the first party shall consult the other with a view to adjusting the matter by mutual agreement." click here
The IAEA-WHO deal has meant that "WHO cannot undertake any research, cannot disseminate any information, cannot come to the assistance of any population without the prior approval of the IAEA...WHO, in practice, in reality, is subservient to the IAEA within the United Nations family," explained Alison Katz who for 18 years worked for WHO, on Libbe HaLevy's "Nuclear Hotseat" podcast last year.
On nuclear issues "there has been a very high level, institutional and international cover-up which includes governments, national authorities, but also, regrettably the World Health Organization," said Katz on the program titled, "The WHO/IAEA--Unholy Alliance and Its Lies About Int'l Nuclear Health Stats." http://afaz.at/downloads/2013/2013_09_trscript_nucl_hotseat_katz_final.pdf
Katz is now with an organization called IndependentWHO which works for "the complete independence of the WHO from the nuclear lobby and in particular from its mouthpiece which is the International Atomic Energy Agency. We are demanding that independence," she said, "so that the WHO may fulfill its constitutional mandate in the area of radiation and health."