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 cover-ups of all time.
First stop I found this article by Dr. Busby on the Fukushima Radiation Risks: http://www.thepowerhour.com/news4/busby_radiation.htm
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 form the Fukushima Catastrophe is now reaching centers 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we keep hearing 'experts' say that ''the radiation levels are safe' " It is because they are basing the risk on an old outdated and wrong model.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 It is an entirely outdated model and has been falsified over and over again but these scientific results are suppressed.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 cover-up.
The European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR) ( http://www.euradcom.org/
) 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. http://www.euradcom.org/2011/ecrr2010.pdf
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 http://vimeo.com/15382750
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: http://www.euradcom.org/2009/lesvostranscript.htm
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?
- Advertisement -
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. 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
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...
|The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.