Latest Breaking News

bananas

(27,509 posts) Tue Mar 12, 2013, 06:19 AM Mar 2013

Activists fault WHO report on Fukushima radiation

Source: Agence France-Presse

Activist physicians on Monday accused the World Health Organisation of downplaying the health impact of nuclear fallout from the Fukushima nuclear disaster.

In a New York symposium marking the two-year anniversary of the Fukushima nuclear plant meltdown in Japan, the physicians took issue with WHO's conclusion in a recent report that it did not expect a significant surge in cancer in Japan or elsewhere due to radiation leaks.

"It's a report that was meant to reassure people who, almost certainly, many will develop leukemia and cancer," said Helen Caldicott, a prominent anti-nuclear activist whose foundation, the Helen Caldicott Foundation, co-sponsored the symposium, along with Physicians for Social Responsibility.

"What is going to happen is there will be a high incidence of cancer and leukemia and genetic disease," due to the leaks, she said.

<snip>

Read more: http://news.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Asia/Story/A1Story20130312-407962.html

12 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Activists fault WHO report on Fukushima radiation (Original Post) bananas Mar 2013 OP

Pop quiz time: FDA is to Monsanto as WHO is to (fill in the blank) JohnyCanuck Mar 2013 #1

K&R proverbialwisdom Mar 2013 #3

You actually kicked that ignorant bullshit? Why? Buzz Clik Mar 2013 #4

Excluding the post's snark, I understand the historical facts are accurate. proverbialwisdom Mar 2013 #7

IAEA was a huge opponent of the war in Iraq. Buzz Clik Mar 2013 #5

Complexity requires nuance. I have yet to encounter any person or group I agree with 100%. proverbialwisdom Mar 2013 #6

It does not take long to recognize the pro nuclear shills here, I have found. dixiegrrrrl Mar 2013 #9

Your way of thinking makes as much sense as the following: JohnyCanuck Mar 2013 #8

Fatcats' money must be protected. another_liberal Mar 2013 #2

The Symposium site is supposed to have archive soon of the 2 day event. dixiegrrrrl Mar 2013 #10

Japanese Nuclear Engineering Prof describes the scale of the Fukushima nuclear disaster (video) JohnyCanuck Mar 2013 #11

Informative post, thank you. nt proverbialwisdom Mar 2013 #12

JohnyCanuck

(9,922 posts)

1. Pop quiz time: FDA is to Monsanto as WHO is to (fill in the blank)

Reply to bananas (Original post)

Tue Mar 12, 2013, 06:59 AM

Mar 2013

Answer: IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency.

Just like the FDA places the profits of Monsanto and other agro-industry, mega-corporations over the health of the public, by allowing Monsanto and others to take over the seed supply with their patented, GMO shite and use the public as their guinea pigs, likewise it looks very much like the WHO has been co-opted into supporting the IAEA in promoting the financial health of the nuclear power industry over the health and well being of the public at large.

Toxic link: the WHO and the IAEA
A 50-year-old agreement with the IAEA has effectively gagged the WHO from telling the truth about the health risks of radiation

Fifty years ago, on 28 May 1959, the World Health Organisation's assembly voted into force an obscure but important agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency – the United Nations "Atoms for Peace" organisation, founded just two years before in 1957. The effect of this agreement has been to give the IAEA an effective veto on any actions by the WHO that relate in any way to nuclear power – and so prevent the WHO from playing its proper role in investigating and warning of the dangers of nuclear radiation on human health.

The WHO's objective is to promote "the attainment by all peoples of the highest possible level of health", while the IAEA's mission is to "accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world". Although best known for its work to restrict nuclear proliferation, the IAEA's main role has been to promote the interests of the nuclear power industry worldwide, and it has used the agreement to suppress the growing body of scientific information on the real health risks of nuclear radiation.

Under the agreement, whenever either organisation wants to do anything in which the other may have an interest, it "shall consult the other with a view to adjusting the matter by mutual agreement". The two agencies must "keep each other fully informed concerning all projected activities and all programs of work which may be of interest to both parties". And in the realm of statistics – a key area in the epidemiology of nuclear risk – the two undertake "to consult with each other on the most efficient use of information, resources, and technical personnel in the field of statistics and in regard to all statistical projects dealing with matters of common interest".

The language appears to be evenhanded, but the effect has been one-sided. For example, investigations into the health impacts of the Chernobyl nuclear accident in Ukraine on 26 April 1986 have been effectively taken over by IAEA and dissenting information has been suppressed. The health effects of the accident were the subject of two major conferences, in Geneva in 1995, and in Kiev in 2001. But the full proceedings of those conferences remain unpublished – despite claims to the contrary by a senior WHO spokesman reported in Le Monde Diplomatique.

More at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/28/who-nuclear-power-chernobyl

proverbialwisdom

(4,959 posts)

3. K&R

Reply to JohnyCanuck (Reply #1)

Tue Mar 12, 2013, 10:11 AM

Mar 2013

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)

4. You actually kicked that ignorant bullshit? Why?

Reply to proverbialwisdom (Reply #3)

Tue Mar 12, 2013, 10:13 AM

Mar 2013

proverbialwisdom

(4,959 posts)

7. Excluding the post's snark, I understand the historical facts are accurate.

Reply to Buzz Clik (Reply #4)

Tue Mar 12, 2013, 10:42 AM

Mar 2013

See: http://www.google.com/search?q=who+iaea+conflicts+interest&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari

As for the aside about Monsanto, see:

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_27143.cfm

Five Ways the FDA Has Failed Consumers on Genetically Engineered Foods
By Zack Kaldveer
Mrch 11, 2013

Reposted here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022481499

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)

5. IAEA was a huge opponent of the war in Iraq.

Reply to JohnyCanuck (Reply #1)

Tue Mar 12, 2013, 10:16 AM

Mar 2013

They had boots on the ground, doing inspections, and demonstrating the lies of the Bush administration in their claims of weapons of mass destruction.

And you post this seething pile of shit?

Only at DU....

proverbialwisdom

(4,959 posts)

6. Complexity requires nuance. I have yet to encounter any person or group I agree with 100%.

Reply to Buzz Clik (Reply #5)

Tue Mar 12, 2013, 10:38 AM

Mar 2013

I strongly support Senator Cornyn's advocacy for Aaron Swartz and the 2013 Protect Act signed into law recently by President Obama. Does that imply Cornyn's views and mine are congruent on all issues? Ludicrous.

IAEA good on Iraq, awful on Chernobyl and Fukushima according to multiple experts I've read in the aftermath of 3/11/11.

dixiegrrrrl

(60,010 posts)

9. It does not take long to recognize the pro nuclear shills here, I have found.

Reply to proverbialwisdom (Reply #6)

Tue Mar 12, 2013, 07:10 PM

Mar 2013

The name calling, insults, swearing, and fact free responses are a big clue.

JohnyCanuck

(9,922 posts)

8. Your way of thinking makes as much sense as the following:

Reply to Buzz Clik (Reply #5)

Tue Mar 12, 2013, 02:44 PM

Mar 2013

A cop arrests someone attempting to burglarize a house and gets some accolades in the press, a pat on the back by the police chief and a hearty thank you for a job well done from the relieved home owner. A few weeks later the police dept. internal affairs gets asked to investigate the same cop because reports have surfaced that he has been taking bribes from a local drug kingpin to tun a blind eye to drug trafficking occurring on his beat. Internal affairs immediately closes the file on the charges of bribery without followup or investigation, assuming that because , as everyone knows, the cop stopped a B&E in progress, he therefore could not possibly be taking bribes to ignore drug trafficking.

A big conflict of interest in the International Atomic Energy Agency

snip

Can you begin to see the conflicts of interest here? An organisation charged with promoting nuclear power around the world also controls nuclear safety and health standards. It’s like expecting a tobacco company to prevent lung cancer.

And it gets worse. The IAEA holds a veto over World Health Organization (WHO) programs related to radiation and nuclear power. This has undermined WHO’s ability to respond properly to disasters like the one at Fukushima. The IAEA has vetoed WHO conferences on radiation and health. Independent research has been under-funded and critical scientists ostracized.

Through the dominance of the IAEA and the nuclear industry, the health effects of radiation have been misrepresented and underestimated. As a result, the WHO is unable to provide independent advice and assessments of nuclear accidents in order to protect people at risk.

Which brings us back to Fukushima. The IAEA might like to think it is independent but it is far from it. The way it communicates its message is designed to serve the interests of the nuclear industry and governments not people’s health or the environment. In the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster, the IAEA channelled all its information through the Japanese government who could then, if it chose, to delay or downplay it.

http://nuclear-news.net/2011/06/04/a-big-conflict-of-interest-in-the-international-atomic-energy-agency/

another_liberal

(8,821 posts)

2. Fatcats' money must be protected.

Reply to bananas (Original post)

Tue Mar 12, 2013, 07:23 AM

Mar 2013

There are many very wealthy individuals who have a great deal of money invested in nuclear power companies. That fatcat money must be protected, even if a few thousands of people do die of avoidable cancer in the process.

dixiegrrrrl

(60,010 posts)

10. The Symposium site is supposed to have archive soon of the 2 day event.

Reply to bananas (Original post)

Tue Mar 12, 2013, 07:11 PM

Mar 2013

Again, I thank you for posting the original notice of the Symposium....

JohnyCanuck

(9,922 posts)

11. Japanese Nuclear Engineering Prof describes the scale of the Fukushima nuclear disaster (video)

Reply to bananas (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 07:22 AM

Mar 2013

At 6:15 in the video (Japanese with English subtitles):

The cesium-137 that was released into the atmosphere by Units 1 through 3 was 168 times that of the Hiroshima bomb, according to the Japanese government report to the IAEA, an international organization which promotes nuclear power.

I myself believe this is probably an underestimate, and two or three times that amount, that is, 400 to 500 times the amount of cesium-137 of the Hiroshima atomic bomb has already been dispersed into the atmosphere.

Hiroaki Koide, Master of Science in Nuclear Engineering, Assistant Professor at the Kyoto University Research Institute, Nuclear Waste Management & Safety Expert

Helen Caldicott Foundation
"Symposium"
The Medical and Ecological Consequences of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident
Co-Sponsored by Physicians for Social Responsibility
March 11th & 12th, 2013
New York City

proverbialwisdom

(4,959 posts)

12. Informative post, thank you. nt

Reply to JohnyCanuck (Reply #11)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 07:53 PM

Mar 2013

Reply to this discussion