For quite some time the disgraceful parroting of nuclear industry lies has been a part of the techno-geek alternative media. Particularly, "BoingBoing," and others, who fancy themselves as savvy bleeding-edge hipsters. They don't actually investigate the data they post, and simply link to outside sources uncritically. When challenged on this controversy, particularly the nuclear radiation and poisoning of vast numbers of people and vast areas of the world, the response has been to BAN the dissenting voices from contributing. I now have firsthand experience of this censorship.
What is the mindset of a techno-geek who sees every technological development as a good thing, despite many thousands of doctors and human casualties trying to warn him or her about it? They've been warned. I personally made sure the dissenting side was presented repeatedly. Since Fukushima I have made it a priority to tell the truth about radiation exposure and the real casualties from nuclear disasters, Chernobyl in particular.
I'm not sure how any rational person can look at the horrifically affected children of Belarus, and simply choose to ignore the great controversy that surrounds this defining issue of our age. It takes a special kind of cold, calculated detachment, something along the lines of a Josef Mengele, I would imagine.
Image from Academy Award winning Chernobyl Heart by Maryann DeLeo
(A forgotten victim of the age of nuclear madness / Image from Academy Award winning Chernobyl Heart)
Taking cues from the corrupt corporate media, which I needn't belabor, these so-called alternative sources fall in line and turn off their critical capacities on certain issues. Energy is a desperately important issue to all of us, and thus distorts people's critical faculties. They fall into line as good little cogs when this seems the more effective modus oprandi.
Rather than investigating the claims of bodies like the IAEA and WHO, highly politicized institutions, they simply accept as gospel what these bodies tell them. It's God's own truth, although the UN is, of course, controlled by the nuclear powers. These governments are pro-nuclear, and the people they send to do these studies are similarly inclined. The WHO itself has been corrupted -- ON THE RECORD -- which can easily be proven with WHO Director Hiroshi Nakajima's statements about IAEA censorship of his 1995 report on the Chernobyl disaster.
"Because the IAEA reports directly to the Security Council of the UN, and we all specialized agencies report to the Economic and Development Council. The organization which reports to the Security Council--not hierarchically, we are all equal--but for atomic affairs, military use and civil use, peaceful or civil use they have the authority. They command." -Dr. Hiroshi Nakajima, former head of UN World Health Organization
"In 1995 the Director General of WHO, Dr. Hiroshi Nakajima, tried to inform on Chernobyl by organizing in Geneva an international conference with 700 experts and physicians. This tentative was blocked. The International Agency for Atomic Energy blocked the proceedings which were never published. The truth on the consequences of Chernobyl would have been a disaster for the promotion of the atomic industry." -Nuclear Controversies, 2004, Swiss TV, Film by Wladimir Tchertkoff, Feldat Film Switzerland.
The report was never published. Is that not a significant enough red flag? We are cherry picking which WHO reports we get to champion. It is quite clear the body is compromised on this issue, and cannot be relied upon to tell the world the truth.
This structural issue with the IAEA in control of all international issues related to radiation stems back to the creation of these agencies. The IAEA's mission / goal is to promote nuclear energy worldwide. Thus this biased mission affects other UN bodies. Their only response to the nuclear issue is damage control, and not to reassess the feasibility or safety of the industry as a whole.
"The Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency, dated 23, October 1956, and subsequent amendments states the IAEA has as its objective "to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world." The 12th World Health Assembly clause No. 12.40 states: "whenever either organization proposes to initiate a programme 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," The document continues: The IAEA and the WHO "recognize that they may find it necessary to apply certain limitations for the safeguarding of confidential information furnished to them. They therefore agree that nothing in this agreement shall be construed as requiring either of them to furnish such information as would, in the judgment of the other party possessing the information to interfere with the orderly conduct of its operations." -Dr. Janet Sherman
Onto this latest "report" by the World Health Organization, reported yesterday by ABC News and today by BoingBoing.net. The Boingites go one step beyond reporting the news and add:
"These people will have an increased risk of leukemia, thyroid cancers, and cancer, in general. But the increase isn't as large as you might have feared." --Maggie Koerth-Baker, BoingBoing.net
Since they do inform us that there will be casualties, and that people have been poisoned against their wills by these nuclear meltdowns, this is meant to mitigate any concerns over the credibility or veracity of the study itself. The Boingers link to Time magazine, where the patently dishonest headline blares: "Meltdown: Despite the Fear, the Health Risks from the Fukushima Accident Are Minimal." Well there you have it. If the WHO and Time Magazine agree, then this must be the truth. Turn off brain, go back to video-gaming.
Time actually goes one better, with its reputation to maintain apparently and quite a history of experience in maintaining it. They quote Greenpeace, which disputes this WHO report:
"The WHO report shamelessly downplays the impact of early radioactive releases from the Fukushima disaster on people inside the 20-km evacuation zone who were not able to leave the area quickly. The WHO should have estimated the radiation exposure of these people to give a more accurate picture of the potential long-term impacts of Fukushima. The WHO report is clearly a political statement to protect the nuclear industry and not a scientific one with people's health in mind." --Dr. Rianne Teule, Greenpeace (Time)
But predictably, as soon as this quote is stated, Greenpeace is smeared by likening it to "climate skeptics." Thought you'd get honest debate? That, my friends, is an ad hominem attack.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).