Radiation: The Future Children of Fukushima

Radiation: The Future Children of Fukushima by Joe Giambrone
Global Research, May 3, 2011
“[A] woman in her fourth month of pregnancy was contaminated with 137Cs [radioactive cesium]…  The concentration of 137Cs in the mother (0.91 kBq/kg bw) was similar to that in her newborn child (0.97 kBq/kg bw) 1.” Children in Belarus, Ukraine and certain provinces of Russia tell us what to expect from a massive radiation contamination such as Japan is currently experiencing.  Radiation attacks the young to a harsher degree than it does adults, and yet we do know that it kills adults.  Radioactivity causes numerous illnesses including terminal cancers, and not just from a large initial dose but over time from absorbed emitting particles inside the body. A senior nuclear adviser to the Japanese Prime Minister, professor Toshiso Kosako resigned in protest from his government.  This as the Japanese government raised the level of permissible exposure to schoolchildren twenty fold, from 1mSv/year to 20mSv. The atomic power industry, it can be proved, has been an unprecedented catastrophe for mankind. One of the world’s leading experts on radionuclide contamination is Dr. Yury Bandashevsky based in Minsk, Belarus.  Near Chernobyl’s “ground zero” Bandazhevsky has published hundreds of scientific papers and has studied the radioactive contamination absorbed by children there for decades. The parents of northern Japan had best investigate Dr. Bandashevsky’s dietary recommendations.  He’s found that apple pectin helps remove radioactive cesium-137 from the body. However, food grown and animals grazed in contaminated regions will pass along radiation to human populations for centuries.  The Japanese reliance on fish will soon produce another shock to their nation as larger fish absorb more radioactive particles up the food chain. Dr. Bandashevsky has placed hard numbers on the dangers of internal contamination from radiation, “Chronic Cs-137 levels over 30 Bq/kg body weight is often associated with serious cardiovascular diseases 2.” For children with cesium 137 in excess of 50 Becquerels/kg body weight, “pathological disorders of the vital organs or systems will occur 3.”  These levels can produce grotesque malformations in newborn babies and increase the risk of spontaneous abortions. The U.S. Center for Disease Control (CDC) says, “Both 134Cs and 137Cs emit beta particles and gamma rays, which may ionize molecules within cells penetrated by these emissions and result in tissue damage and disruption of cellular function 4.” Expecting Japanese mothers should flee the north of Japan as quickly as possible.  Abandon the region for the sake of their children’s safety.  Fetuses are in imminent danger and are many times more vulnerable to radiation than are adults. How much radiation is Japan bathed in right now?  Nature magazine online reported that soil 40km northwest of the plant contained, “Cesium-137 levels of 163,000 becquerels per kilogram (Bq/kg) and iodine-131 levels of 1,170,000 Bq/kg, according to Japan’s science ministry 5.” Tellingly, the new official “exclusion zone” is only a 30km radius from the plant.  This means that those living atop the irradiated soil described above will not even be prompted to leave.  Most will not.  They will eventually return to life as usual.  Only the colorless, tasteless, odorless radioactive isotopes will poison their families ceaselessly for the rest of their lives.  Cesium, strontium, iodine and other radionuclides will continue to attack life forms in that contaminated environment despite any hollow assurances to the contrary. Plutonium, the most toxic substance on earth, has been detected at eight different monitoring stations in Korea. Radioactivity is a highly contested and controversial subject.  Vast caches of medical evidence are routinely ignored in the mainstream media.  At the nerve center of the controversy is the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), whose entire purpose is to promote the atomic power industry worldwide.  Many don’t know, but the IAEA has the authority on all health matters concerning radiation, both military and civil. The World Health Organization can simply be blocked – by the IAEA – from publishing its findings concerning radioactive disasters like Chernobyl.  This exact scenario occurred in 1995 under the tenure of WHO Director Dr. Hiroshi Nakajima 6. A Swiss documentary team discovered that Dr. Nakajima’s 1995 international conference of “700 experts and physicians” was prevented from publishing its findings on Chernobyl by the IAEA.  The 2004 Swiss film Nuclear Controversies documents this battle between doctors and scientists on the scene vs. the IAEA. Regarding the IAEA, Dr. Nakajima said, “for atomic affairs, military use and civil use, peaceful or civil use they have the authority.  They command 7.” The elephant in the room is that word “military,” and the desire of Western militaries to pummel other lands with “depleted uranium” (sic) munitions.  As NATO currently plasters Libya with uranium tipped bombs, it must deny that the uranium contamination will harm the civilian population there.  That admission alone would constitute a confession of war crimes, and so the fiction continues. Radiation attacks DNA and causes horrific malformations, sudden mortality, and diseases that persist for the rest of the person’s life. Several films have documented the radiation effects on the children of Chernobyl including the Academy Award winning Chernobyl Heart (2003).  This film shows harrowing images of deformed infants and numerous teenagers who suffer from thyroid cancers and other thyroid diseases.  Fewer than 20% of children in the nation of Belarus can be classified as “healthy,” according to official government studies. A Ukrainian study found that, “for each case of thyroid cancer there were 29 other thyroid pathologies8.” Dr. Bandashevsky found further health effects at even lower levels of cesium contamination.  For “children having 5 Bq/kg more than 80% are healthy, while having 11 Bq/kg only 35% of children are healthy 9.” Chernobyl Heart, The Battle of Chernobyl (2006) and Nuclear Controversies (2004) have been available streaming online for all to see.  The evidence that radiation destroys the lives of entire populations is irrefutable. Official United Nations studies have failed to reflect this reality on the ground.  What the UN has fallen back on as a rationale for its behavior is found in the 2008 UNSCEAR report on Chernobyl: “As discussed previously in the section on the attribution of effects to radiation exposure, because presently there are no biomarkers specific to radiation, it is not possible to state scientifically that radiation caused a particular cancer in an individual 10.” By their own logic it is also not possible to scientifically rule out that radiation caused the epidemic of cancers found in the highly contaminated regions.  But, that’s exactly what the UN has shamelessly done in a series of reports that deliberately under-count the deaths from the Chernobyl catastrophe. While the IAEA refuses to accept medical consequences of the radioactivity it promotes, it does acknowledge that radiation has spread from the crippled Fukushima plant.  Readings as high as 25 Megabecquerels per sq. meter iodine-131, and 3.7 Megabecquerels per sq. meter cesium-137 were reported “at distances of 25 to 58 km 11” from the still out of control plant.  These numbers should prompt massive evacuations at much greater distances than the official exclusion zone (read:uninhabitable zone) of 30km. Facing that reality would render a large chunk of Japan a wasteland with economic costs beyond calculation.  The numbers of refugees would surpass anything that the government could possibly manage.  The absolute insanity of atomic power would instantly become an unavoidable fact to the entire (sane) world. All exposures to radiation increase the risks of cancer, and there is no such thing as a “safe dose.” This is the determination of the National Academy of Sciences 12, the EPA 13, NRC 14, CDC 15etcetera.  Thus, when a population is exposed to any increase in radioactive particles, some percentage of people and animals will be adversely affected.  The exact number is difficult to determine, but estimates are made through extrapolation. Dr. Chris Busby has predicted “400,000” cases of cancer for the population within 200 kilometers of Fukushima 16.  That includes the suburbs of Tokyo.  Studies from Europe after Chernobyl were used in his calculations.  Cancers include thyroid, leukemia, pancreas, prostate, lung, skin, bone – every type of cancer that exists.  This is what radiation does to living organisms. The evidence is clear.  Children living  “in contaminated regions, in a radius of 250 – 300 km from Chernobyl show an increase in mutations 17.” From the years 1987 to 2004, “the incidence of brain tumors in children up to 3 years of age doubled and in infants it increased 7.5-fold 18.” Thousands of studies from Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and the surrounding countries were compiled in 2009 by Dr. Alexey Yablokov and Drs. Vassily and Alexey Nesterenko.  Chernobyl, Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment was published by the New York Academy of Sciences and cites 5,000 studies.  Forty percent of Europe was dosed with significant radiation.  Radioactivity spread across the northern hemisphere where it continues to affect human health to this day. The most contaminated provinces show human devastation directly correlated to radiation levels. Gomel province in Belarus had 90% healthy children in 1985, the year before the meltdown.  By 2000, “fewer than 10% of children were well 19.”  Effects were directly related to the levels of contamination, eliminating other possible factors. Rare deformities in infants increased radically.  Severe Congenital Malformations (CMs) “such as polydactyly, deformed internal organs, absent or deformed limbs, and retarded growth increased significantly in the contaminated districts… officially registered CMs increased 5.7-fold during the first 12 years after the catastrophe 20.” This is what the parents of Northern Japan should expect if they decide to stay.  This is what the promotion of high risk atomic power has bequeathed to the next generations of those who live near the contaminated zone. The IAEA’s methodology showed obvious holes in the counting of victims, post-Chernobyl.  Stillbirths aren’t counted at all.  The reality is that up to 2004, “the estimated total number of miscarriages and stillbirths in Ukraine as a result of Chernobyl was about 50,000 21.” Those are fifty thousand human deaths in the single nation of Ukraine that did not even merit a mention in the UN’s so-called “official death toll.” How many really died from Chernobyl’s meltdown? The Yablokov/Nesterenko book places the death toll at about one million. “Thus the overall mortality for the period from April 1986 to the end of 2004 from the Chernobyl catastrophe was estimated at 985,000 additional deaths. This estimate of the number of additional deaths is similar to those of Gofman (1994a) and Bertell (2006). 22“ Three independent studies arrived at similar findings. The atomic energy industry today across many nations displays a reckless disregard for human life bordering on Crimes Against Humanity.  The Rome Statute, employed by the International Criminal Court, added the following category to Crimes Against Humanity: (k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health. As all nuclear plants regularly and routinely discharge harmful radioactive particles, which all governments admit are unsafe, the case is pretty clear.  Nuclear power must be abolished while there is still enough uncontaminated arable farmland to sustain us. In a strictly moral sense, these reckless plants endanger millions of other people’s children, perhaps 12,000 human generations yet to be born 23.   Radioactive power generation places us in jeopardy at risk for catastrophic illnesses.  This is a gross deliberate violation of millions of people’s human rights. Plutonium remains a threat to future civilizations.  This reckless, uncontrolled release of radioactive isotopes has fouled the earth. The people of Japan should remember the people of Belarus.  Birth defects in children “whose mothers live in contaminated zones is twice as high as compared to those, whose mothers live in clean regions24.” Joe Giambrone is a filmmaker and author of Hell of a Deal: A Supernatural Satire. He edits thePolitical Film Blog. He be reached at: polfilmblog at gmail. Notes 1. World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer IARC, Monographs on the Evaluatiion of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Vol. 78 Ionizing Radiation Part 2: Some Internally Depostited Radionuclides, 2001, IARCPress, Lyon France, p. 343. 2. Yuri Bandazhevsky, Chronic Cs-137 incorporation in children ’s organs, 488 SWISS MED WKLY, 2003;133:488–490 · http://www.smw.ch (peer reviewed), Official journal of, the Swiss Society of Infectious disease the Swiss Society of Internal Medicine, Swiss Respiratory Society 3., 17., 24. The Chernobyl Catastrophe and Health Care, By Dr. Michel Fernex, Professor emeritus, Medical Faculty of Basel, F-68480 Biederthal, France. 4: Center for Disease Control Publication p157-c2, CESIUM, 2. RELEVANCE TO PUBLIC HEALTH, CDC website. 5. Nature Journal Online,  Radioactivity Spreads in Japan, March 29 2011, http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110329/full/471555a.html 6., 7. Nuclear Controversies, 2004, Swiss TV, Film by Wladimir Tchertkoff, Feldat Film Switzerland. 8. ,18., 19., 20., 21., 22.  Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment, Alexey V. Yablokov, Vassily B. Nesterenko, Alexey V. Nesterenko, 2009,Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol.1181. 9.  V.B. Nesterenko’s report at the International conference “Medical Consequences of the Chernobyl Catastrophe: results of 15-year researches”, June 4-8, 2001, Kiev, Ukraine. 10. SOURCES AND EFFECTS OF IONIZING RADIATION, United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation UNSCEAR 2008 Report to the General Assembly with Scientific Annexes, VOLUME II Annex D Health effects due to radiation from the Chernobyl accident 11. IAEA website, Fukushima Nuclear Accident Update Log, March 30, 2011, http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2011/fukushima300311.html 12. National Academy of Sciences, 2006, Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII Phase 2. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11340&page=1# 13. EPA website, Radiation Risks and Realities, “The more radiation dose a person receives, the greater the chance of developing cancer… Current evidence suggests that any exposure to radiation poses some risk, however, risks at very low exposure levels have not been definitively demonstrated.“ [“very low” not defined –JG] http://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/402-k-07-006.pdf 14. NRC website, Fact Sheet on Biological Effects of Radiation,  “This dose-response hypothesis suggests that any increase in dose, no matter how small, results in an incremental increase in risk.” http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/bio-effects-radiation.html 15. Center for Disease Control website, Prenatal Radiation Exposure: A Fact Sheet for Physicians, “However, the human embryo and fetus are particularly sensitive to ionizing radiation, and the health consequences of exposure can be severe, even at radiation doses too low to immediately affect the mother. Such consequences can include growth retardation, malformations, impaired brain function, and cancer.” 16. Dr. Chris Busby, Reuters, http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=S0H-mtsdsgg. 23. Al Jazeera, April 4, 2011, No safe levels’ of radiation in Japan by Dahr Jamail, quoting Dr. Kathleen Sullivan.

Public health fallout from Japanese quake (Canadian Medical Association Journal)

Public health fallout from Japanese quake
Lauren Vogel CMAJ
December 21, 2011

日本の震災が公衆衛生に及ぼした副次的影響
CMAJ　ローレン・ヴォーゲル
2011年12月21日

A “culture of coverup” and inadequate cleanup efforts have combined to leave Japanese people exposed to “unconscionable” health risks nine months after last year’s meltdown of nuclear reactors at the Fukushima Dai-ichi power plant, health experts say.

「隠蔽の文化」と不十分な除染が相まって、福島第一原発の原子炉メルトダウンから9ヶ月経った今、日本人は「人倫にもとる」健康リスクにさらされている、と専門家らは言う。

Although the Japanese government has declared the plant virtually stable, some experts are calling for evacuation of people from a wider area, which they say is contaminated with radioactive fallout.

福島原発は事実上安定していると日本政府が宣言しているものの、死の灰がより広い範囲を汚染しておりそこから人々を避難させるべきである、とする専門家もいる。

They’re also calling for the Japanese government to reinstate internationally-approved radiation exposure limits for members of the public and are slagging government officials for “extreme lack of transparent, timely and comprehensive communication.”

彼らはまた、国際的に承認された公衆の放射線被曝限度に戻すよう日本政府に求め、「透明でタイムリーで包括的な情報の伝達が極度に欠如している」、と酷評している。。

But temperatures inside the Fukushima power station’s three melted cores have achieved a “cold shutdown condition,” while the release of radioactive materials is “under control,” according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2011/coldshutdown.html). That means government may soon allow some of the more than 100 000 evacuees from the area around the plant to return to their homes. They were evacuated from the region after it was struck with an 8.9 magnitude earthquake and a tsunami last March 11.

しかし、福島原発の3つの溶けた炉心の温度は「冷温停止状態」を達成、放射性物質の漏洩も「制御されている」、と国際原子力機関（IAEA)は言う。これは、日本政府がまもなく原発周辺地域から避難した10万人以上の住民の一部の帰還を許すかもしれない、ということを意味する。住民は3月11日、マグニチュード８．９［実際は９．０に気象庁が訂正］の地震と津波が地域を襲ったあと、避難した。

Although the potential for further explosions with substantial releases of radioactivity into the atmosphere is certainly reduced, the plant is still badly damaged and leaking radiation, says Tilman Ruff, chair of the Medical Association for Prevention of Nuclear War, who visited the Fukushima prefecture in August. “There are major issues of contamination on the site. Aftershocks have been continuing and are expected to continue for many months, and some of those are quite large, potentially causing further damage to structures that are already unstable and weakened. And we know that there’s about 120 000 tons of highly contaminated water in the base of the plant, and there’s been significant and ongoing leakage into the ocean.”

これ以上の爆発で放射能の大気中への大量拡散が起こる可能性は確かに減少している。しかし、原発が激しく損傷しており放射能が漏出していることには変わりはない、とティルマン・ラフは言う。ラフは『核戦争防止医学協会（Medical Association for Prevention of Nuclear War）』の会長で、福島県を8月に訪れている。「現場の放射能汚染は大きな問題です。余震は続いており、今後何ヶ月も続くことが予想されていて、そのうちのいくつかは非常に大きく、既に不安定で弱った構造物に更にダメージを与える可能性もあります。原発の地階には約12万トンの高度汚染水が溜まっており、相当量の海への漏出が起きている。」

The full extent of contamination across the country is even less clear, says Ira Hefland, a member of the board of directors for Physicians for Social Responsibility. “We still don’t know exactly what radiation doses people were exposed to [in the immediate aftermath of the disaster] or what ongoing doses people are being exposed to. Most of the information we’re getting at this point is a series of contradictory statements where the government assures the people that everything’s okay and private citizens doing their own radiation monitoring come up with higher readings than the government says they should be finding.”

国土の汚染の程度は更に不明だ、と言うのは『社会的責任を果たすための医師団』の役員の一人、イラ・ヘフランド。「人々が［原発事故直後に］どれほどの被曝にさらされたのか、引き続いてどれくらいの被曝をしているのか、私たちには未だにはっきり分からないのです。現時点で得ている情報の大半は矛盾したもので、一方では政府が何も問題はない、と国民を安心させ、もう一方では市民が自分たちで放射線測定をして、政府が発表する数値より高い数値を計測している、という具合です。」

Japanese officials in Tokyo have documented elevated levels of cesium — a radioactive material with a half-life of 30 years that can cause leukemia and other cancers — more than 200 kilometres away from the plant, equal to the levels in the 20 kilometre exclusion zone, says Robert Gould, another member of the board of directors for Physicians for Social Responsibility.

福島原発から２００キロ以上離れた東京で、政府は高いレベルのセシウムを検出している、とロバート・グールドは言う。セシウムは半減期が30年の放射性物質で、白血病やその他のがんを引き起こす可能性がある。グールドも『社会的責任を果たすための医師団』の役員の一人だ。

International authorities have urged Japan to expand the exclusion zone around the plant to 80 kilometres but the government has instead opted to “define the problem out of existence” by raising the permissible level of radiation exposure for members of the public to 20 millisieverts per year, considerably higher than the international standard of one millisievert per year, Gould adds.

国際機関は日本政府に対して原発周辺の警戒区域を80キロに広げるよう勧告してきたが［アメリカ政府の避難勧告のことか？］、日本政府は逆に「問題は存在しないことにして」、一般公衆の年間被曝許容量を２０ミリシーベルトに引き上げた。これは、国際基準の年間1ミリシーベルトよりはるかに高い値である、とグールドは付け加える。

This “arbitrary increase” in the maximum permissible dose of radiation is an “unconscionable” failure of government, contends Ruff. “Subject a class of 30 children to 20 millisieverts of radiation for five years and you’re talking an increased risk of cancer to the order of about 1 in 30, which is completely unacceptable. I’m not aware of any other government in recent decades that’s been willing to accept such a high level of radiation-related risk for its population.”

放射線被曝最高許容量の「恣意的な引き上げ」は政府の「人倫にもとる」大失態だ、とラフは強く主張する。「一クラス30人の子供たちを年間２０ミリシーベルトの放射線に5年間さらすと、ガンのリスクが増加して30人のうち1人が発症することになる。これは全く受け入れられないものです。過去数十年、自国民に対するこのように高いレベルの放射線リスクを平気で受け入れた政府は他にないでしょう。」

Following the 1986 nuclear disaster at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in the Ukraine, “clear targets were set so that anybody anticipated to receive more than five millisieverts in a year were evacuated, no question,” Ruff explains. In areas with levels between one and five millisieverts, measures were taken to mitigate the risk of ingesting radioactive materials, including bans on local food consumption, and residents were offered the option of relocating. Exposures below one millisievert were still considered worth monitoring.

1986年ウクライナのチェルノブイリ原子力発電所の事故後、「明確な目標値が定められ、年間5ミリシーベルト以上被曝すると予想される人々全員を、有無を言わせず避難させた」、とラフは説明する。被曝レベルが1ミリから5ミリシーベルトの地域では、放射性物質を体内に取り込むリスクを少なくするため、地元で作った食物の消費を禁止を含めた数々の方策が取られ、住民は移住するオプションを与えられた。被曝量が1ミリシーベルト以下の場所でも、監視が必要とされた。

In comparison, the Japanese government has implemented a campaign to encourage the public to buy produce from the Fukushima area, Ruff added. “That response [in Chernobyl] 25 years ago in that much less technically sophisticated, much less open or democratic context, was, from a public health point of view, much more responsible than what’s being done in modern Japan this year.”

それに引き換え、日本政府がやったのは人々に福島の農作物を買うように勧めるキャンペーンだった、とラフは付け加える。「（チェルノブイリでの）25年前の対応は、現在よりずっと技術的にも進歩しておらず、開かれた、民主的な状態ではなかったにもかかわらず、現在の日本で行われているものよりも公衆衛生の観点から見るとずっとはるかに責任を持った［信頼できる］対応だった。」

Were Japan to impose similar strictures, officials would have to evacuate some 1800 square kilometres and impose restrictions on food produced in another 11 100 square kilometres, according to estimates of the contamination presented by Dr. Kozo Tatara for the Japan Public Health Association at the American Public Health Association’s 139th annual meeting and exposition in November in Washington, District of Columbia.

日本が［チェルノブイリの時のソ連政府と］同様の規制を掛けるなら、政府は約１８００平方キロの地域を避難地域として、さらに追加で1万１１００平方キロの地域で作られる食物に制限を掛けなくてはならなくなる、というのが、日本公衆衛生協会の多田羅浩三博士が11月にワシントンDCで開かれた米国公衆衛生協会の第１３９年次総会で発表した汚染推定の結果である。

“It’s very difficult to persuade people that the level [of exposure set by the government] is okay,” Tatara told delegates to the meeting. He declined requests for an interview.

「［政府の設定した被曝］レベルが大丈夫だ、と人々を説得するのは、大変に難しいのです」、と多田羅博士は代表団に語った。博士はインタビューの要請を断っている。

The Japanese government is essentially contending that the higher dose is “not dangerous,” explains Hefland. “However, since the accident, it’s become clear the Japanese government was lying through its teeth, doing everything it possible could to minimize public concern, even when that meant denying the public information needed to make informed decisions, and probably still is.”

日本政府が実質的に主張しているのは、高い線量は「危険ではない」ということだ、とヘフランドは説明する。「しかし、事故以来、日本政府は平気で嘘をつき、できるだけのことをして人々の懸念を最小限に抑えることに腐心し、そのためには人々が詳しい情報に基づく判断を下すために必要な情報すら出さなかった、ということがはっきりしました。おそらく今でも出していないでしょう。」

“It’s now clear they knew within a day or so there had been a meltdown at the plant, yet they didn’t disclose that for weeks, and only with great prodding from the outside,” Hefland adds. “And at the same moment he was assuring people there was no public health disaster, the Prime Minister now concedes that he thought Tokyo would have to be evacuated but was doing nothing to bring that about.”

「原発でメルトダウンが起きていたことを１、２日の内に政府が知っていたことは、今となってははっきりしています。しかし、政府はそれを数週間にわたって公表しなかった。それも、外部から圧力が掛かってようやく公表したのです」、とヘフランドは付け加える。「健康に被害が出るようなことはない、と人々に言っている同じ時に、東京の住民を避難させなくてはいけないかもしれないと思っていたが実行するべく動くことはしなかった、と首相は今になって認めている。」

Ruff similarly charges that the government has mismanaged the file and provided the public with misinformation. As an example, he cites early reports that stable iodine had been distributed to children and had worked effectively, when, “in fact, iodine wasn’t given to anyone.”

ラフも同様に、日本政府はファイルの管理を誤り、人々に誤った情報を出した、と批判する。その例としてラフが挙げるのは、安定ヨウ素剤が子供たちに配られ、効果的に作用した、という初期の報告。しかし、「実際にはヨウ素は誰にも与えられていなかったのです。」　［福島の三春町は唯一の例外です。］

Public distrust is at a level that communities have taken cleanup and monitoring efforts into their own hands as the government response to the crisis has been “woefully inadequate” and officials have been slow to respond to public reports of radioactive hotspots, Gould says. “That’s led to the cleanup of some affected areas, but there are also reports of people scattering contaminated soil willy-nilly in forests and areas surrounding those towns.”

政府への不信から、地域の人々は自ら除染や放射線モニターの仕事を行い、今回の危機に対する日本政府の反応は「嘆かわしいほどに不十分」であり、市民の放射能ホットスポットの報告にも対応が遅い、とグールドは言う。「報告から除染が行われた場所もあるが、一方で人々が汚染土を否応なしに山林や除染した町の周辺に捨てている、という報告もある。」

“In some places, you can see mounds of contaminated soil that have just been aggregated under blue tarps,” he adds.

「場所によっては、汚染土が青いシートに覆われて山と積まれている。」

Even with government assistance, there are limits to the decontamination that can be achieved, explains Hefland. “What do you do with the stuff? Do you scrape entire topsoil? How far down you have to go? And if you wash down the buildings, what do you do with the waste water?”

政府の援助があっても、除染には限りがある、とヘフランドは言う。「取り除いたものをどうするのか？表土を全部剥ぎ取るのか？どこまで取らなくてはいけないのか？建物を洗浄したら、その洗浄した後の水はどうするのか？”

As well, Ruff argues the government must examine the provision of compensation for voluntary evacuation from areas outside of the exclusion zone where there are high levels of radioactive contamination. Without such compensation, many families have no option but to stay, he says. “At this point, the single most important public health measure to minimize the health harm over the longterm is much wider evacuation.”

更に、政府は警戒地域以外で放射能汚染の高い地域から自主避難した人々に対する補償の条項を検討しなければならない、とラフは主張する。そのような補償なしには、多くの人々は留まる以外の選択肢がない、と言う。「現時点では、長期にわたる健康被害を最小限にするための一番大事な公衆衛生上の方策は、避難区域を広げることだ。」

The Japanese government did not respond to inquiries.

日本政府は［記事のための］問い合わせには応じなかった。

=================================

ちなみに、日本産婦人科医会の3月19日の公式発表が、GeorgeBowWowさんのブログに載っています。「３０キロ離れていれば安全、国からの情報は正確、１００ミリシーベルト以下は何の影響もない」と、カナダ医師会とは正反対。それでも同じ医者なんですねえ。

3 comments:
kintaman said…
Anonymous said…
本当に自国の政府が情けなくなります。また、原子力関係者および医者のなかに、自国民のことを心から考えている人いるのでしょうか。もちろん、一部の医者（東大児玉先生や京大小出先生のようにすばらしい人がいることも事実ですが）
日本が実は中国やソ連よりもひどい国だったと知ったことが今回の震災での収穫だなんて、悲しすぎます。

Radiation: The Future Children of Fukushima

Radiation: The Future Children of Fukushima by Joe Giambrone
Global Research, May 3, 2011
“[A] woman in her fourth month of pregnancy was contaminated with 137Cs [radioactive cesium]…  The concentration of 137Cs in the mother (0.91 kBq/kg bw) was similar to that in her newborn child (0.97 kBq/kg bw) 1.” Children in Belarus, Ukraine and certain provinces of Russia tell us what to expect from a massive radiation contamination such as Japan is currently experiencing.  Radiation attacks the young to a harsher degree than it does adults, and yet we do know that it kills adults.  Radioactivity causes numerous illnesses including terminal cancers, and not just from a large initial dose but over time from absorbed emitting particles inside the body. A senior nuclear adviser to the Japanese Prime Minister, professor Toshiso Kosako resigned in protest from his government.  This as the Japanese government raised the level of permissible exposure to schoolchildren twenty fold, from 1mSv/year to 20mSv. The atomic power industry, it can be proved, has been an unprecedented catastrophe for mankind. One of the world’s leading experts on radionuclide contamination is Dr. Yury Bandashevsky based in Minsk, Belarus.  Near Chernobyl’s “ground zero” Bandazhevsky has published hundreds of scientific papers and has studied the radioactive contamination absorbed by children there for decades. The parents of northern Japan had best investigate Dr. Bandashevsky’s dietary recommendations.  He’s found that apple pectin helps remove radioactive cesium-137 from the body. However, food grown and animals grazed in contaminated regions will pass along radiation to human populations for centuries. The Japanese reliance on fish will soon produce another shock to their nation as larger fish absorb more radioactive particles up the food chain. Dr. Bandashevsky has placed hard numbers on the dangers of internal contamination from radiation, “Chronic Cs-137 levels over 30 Bq/kg body weight is often associated with serious cardiovascular diseases 2.” For children with cesium 137 in excess of 50 Becquerels/kg body weight, “pathological disorders of the vital organs or systems will occur 3.”  These levels can produce grotesque malformations in newborn babies and increase the risk of spontaneous abortions. The U.S. Center for Disease Control (CDC) says, “Both 134Cs and 137Cs emit beta particles and gamma rays, which may ionize molecules within cells penetrated by these emissions and result in tissue damage and disruption of cellular function 4.” Expecting Japanese mothers should flee the north of Japan as quickly as possible.  Abandon the region for the sake of their children’s safety.  Fetuses are in imminent danger and are many times more vulnerable to radiation than are adults. How much radiation is Japan bathed in right now?  Nature magazine online reported that soil 40km northwest of the plant contained, “Cesium-137 levels of 163,000 becquerels per kilogram (Bq/kg) and iodine-131 levels of 1,170,000 Bq/kg, according to Japan’s science ministry 5.” Tellingly, the new official “exclusion zone” is only a 30km radius from the plant.  This means that those living atop the irradiated soil described above will not even be prompted to leave.  Most will not.  They will eventually return to life as usual.  Only the colorless, tasteless, odorless radioactive isotopes will poison their families ceaselessly for the rest of their lives.  Cesium, strontium, iodine and other radionuclides will continue to attack life forms in that contaminated environment despite any hollow assurances to the contrary. Plutonium, the most toxic substance on earth, has been detected at eight different monitoring stations in Korea. Radioactivity is a highly contested and controversial subject.  Vast caches of medical evidence are routinely ignored in the mainstream media.  At the nerve center of the controversy is the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), whose entire purpose is to promote the atomic power industry worldwide.  Many don’t know, but the IAEA has the authority on all health matters concerning radiation, both military and civil. The World Health Organization can simply be blocked – by the IAEA – from publishing its findings concerning radioactive disasters like Chernobyl.  This exact scenario occurred in 1995 under the tenure of WHO Director Dr. Hiroshi Nakajima 6. A Swiss documentary team discovered that Dr. Nakajima’s 1995 international conference of “700 experts and physicians” was prevented from publishing its findings on Chernobyl by the IAEA.  The 2004 Swiss film Nuclear Controversies documents this battle between doctors and scientists on the scene vs. the IAEA. Regarding the IAEA, Dr. Nakajima said, “for atomic affairs, military use and civil use, peaceful or civil use they have the authority. They command 7.” The elephant in the room is that word “military,” and the desire of Western militaries to pummel other lands with “depleted uranium” (sic) munitions.  As NATO currently plasters Libya with uranium tipped bombs, it must deny that the uranium contamination will harm the civilian population there.  That admission alone would constitute a confession of war crimes, and so the fiction continues. Radiation attacks DNA and causes horrific malformations, sudden mortality, and diseases that persist for the rest of the person’s life. Several films have documented the radiation effects on the children of Chernobyl including the Academy Award winning Chernobyl Heart (2003).  This film shows harrowing images of deformed infants and numerous teenagers who suffer from thyroid cancers and other thyroid diseases.  Fewer than 20% of children in the nation of Belarus can be classified as “healthy,” according to official government studies. A Ukrainian study found that, “for each case of thyroid cancer there were 29 other thyroid pathologies 8.” Dr. Bandashevsky found further health effects at even lower levels of cesium contamination.  For “children having 5 Bq/kg more than 80% are healthy, while having 11 Bq/kg only 35% of children are healthy 9.” Chernobyl Heart, The Battle of Chernobyl (2006) and Nuclear Controversies (2004) have been available streaming online for all to see.  The evidence that radiation destroys the lives of entire populations is irrefutable. Official United Nations studies have failed to reflect this reality on the ground.  What the UN has fallen back on as a rationale for its behavior is found in the 2008 UNSCEAR report on Chernobyl: “As discussed previously in the section on the attribution of effects to radiation exposure, because presently there are no biomarkers specific to radiation, it is not possible to state scientifically that radiation caused a particular cancer in an individual 10.” By their own logic it is also not possible to scientifically rule out that radiation caused the epidemic of cancers found in the highly contaminated regions.  But, that’s exactly what the UN has shamelessly done in a series of reports that deliberately under-count the deaths from the Chernobyl catastrophe. While the IAEA refuses to accept medical consequences of the radioactivity it promotes, it does acknowledge that radiation has spread from the crippled Fukushima plant.  Readings as high as 25 Megabecquerels per sq. meter iodine-131, and 3.7 Megabecquerels per sq. meter cesium-137 were reported “at distances of 25 to 58 km 11” from the still out of control plant.  These numbers should prompt massive evacuations at much greater distances than the official exclusion zone (read: uninhabitable zone) of 30km. Facing that reality would render a large chunk of Japan a wasteland with economic costs beyond calculation.  The numbers of refugees would surpass anything that the government could possibly manage.  The absolute insanity of atomic power would instantly become an unavoidable fact to the entire (sane) world. All exposures to radiation increase the risks of cancer, and there is no such thing as a “safe dose.”  This is the determination of the National Academy of Sciences 12, the EPA 13, NRC 14, CDC 15 etcetera.  Thus, when a population is exposed to any increase in radioactive particles, some percentage of people and animals will be adversely affected.  The exact number is difficult to determine, but estimates are made through extrapolation. Dr. Chris Busby has predicted “400,000” cases of cancer for the population within 200 kilometers of Fukushima 16.  That includes the suburbs of Tokyo.  Studies from Europe after Chernobyl were used in his calculations.  Cancers include thyroid, leukemia, pancreas, prostate, lung, skin, bone – every type of cancer that exists.  This is what radiation does to living organisms. The evidence is clear.  Children living  “in contaminated regions, in a radius of 250 – 300 km from Chernobyl show an increase in mutations 17.” From the years 1987 to 2004, “the incidence of brain tumors in children up to 3 years of age doubled and in infants it increased 7.5-fold 18.” Thousands of studies from Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and the surrounding countries were compiled in 2009 by Dr. Alexey Yablokov and Drs. Vassily and Alexey Nesterenko.  Chernobyl, Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment was published by the New York Academy of Sciences and cites 5,000 studies.  Forty percent of Europe was dosed with significant radiation.  Radioactivity spread across the northern hemisphere where it continues to affect human health to this day. The most contaminated provinces show human devastation directly correlated to radiation levels.  Gomel province in Belarus had 90% healthy children in 1985, the year before the meltdown.  By 2000, “fewer than 10% of children were well 19.”  Effects were directly related to the levels of contamination, eliminating other possible factors. Rare deformities in infants increased radically.  Severe Congenital Malformations (CMs) “such as polydactyly, deformed internal organs, absent or deformed limbs, and retarded growth increased significantly in the contaminated districts… officially registered CMs increased 5.7-fold during the first 12 years after the catastrophe 20.” This is what the parents of Northern Japan should expect if they decide to stay.  This is what the promotion of high risk atomic power has bequeathed to the next generations of those who live near the contaminated zone. The IAEA’s methodology showed obvious holes in the counting of victims, post-Chernobyl.  Stillbirths aren’t counted at all.  The reality is that up to 2004, “the estimated total number of miscarriages and stillbirths in Ukraine as a result of Chernobyl was about 50,000 21.” Those are fifty thousand human deaths in the single nation of Ukraine that did not even merit a mention in the UN’s so-called “official death toll.” How many really died from Chernobyl’s meltdown? The Yablokov/Nesterenko book places the death toll at about one million. “Thus the overall mortality for the period from April 1986 to the end of 2004 from the Chernobyl catastrophe was estimated at985,000 additional deaths. This estimate of the number of additional deaths is similar to those of Gofman (1994a) and Bertell (2006). 22“ Three independent studies arrived at similar findings. The atomic energy industry today across many nations displays a reckless disregard for human life bordering on Crimes Against Humanity.  The Rome Statute, employed by the International Criminal Court, added the following category to Crimes Against Humanity: (k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health. As all nuclear plants regularly and routinely discharge harmful radioactive particles, which all governments admit are unsafe, the case is pretty clear.  Nuclear power must be abolished while there is still enough uncontaminated arable farmland to sustain us. In a strictly moral sense, these reckless plants endanger millions of other people’s children, perhaps 12,000 human generations yet to be born 23.   Radioactive power generation places us in jeopardy at risk for catastrophic illnesses.  This is a gross deliberate violation of millions of people’s human rights. Plutonium remains a threat to future civilizations.  This reckless, uncontrolled release of radioactive isotopes has fouled the earth. The people of Japan should remember the people of Belarus.  Birth defects in children “whose mothers live in contaminated zones is twice as high as compared to those, whose mothers live in clean regions 24.” Joe Giambrone is a filmmaker and author of Hell of a Deal: A Supernatural Satire. He edits the Political Film Blog. He be reached at: polfilmblog at gmail. Notes 1. World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer IARC, Monographs on the Evaluatiion of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Vol. 78 Ionizing Radiation Part 2: Some Internally Depostited Radionuclides, 2001, IARCPress, Lyon France, p. 343. 2. Yuri Bandazhevsky, Chronic Cs-137 incorporation in children ’s organs, 488 SWISS MED WKLY, 2003;133:488–490 · http://www.smw.ch (peer reviewed), Official journal of, the Swiss Society of Infectious disease the Swiss Society of Internal Medicine, Swiss Respiratory Society 3., 17., 24. The Chernobyl Catastrophe and Health Care, By Dr. Michel Fernex, Professor emeritus, Medical Faculty of Basel, F-68480 Biederthal, France. 4: Center for Disease Control Publication p157-c2, CESIUM, 2. RELEVANCE TO PUBLIC HEALTH, CDC website. 5. Nature Journal Online,  Radioactivity Spreads in Japan, March 29 2011, http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110329/full/471555a.html 6., 7. Nuclear Controversies, 2004, Swiss TV, Film by Wladimir Tchertkoff, Feldat Film Switzerland. 8. ,18., 19., 20., 21., 22.  Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment, Alexey V. Yablokov, Vassily B. Nesterenko, Alexey V. Nesterenko, 2009,Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol.1181. 9.  V.B. Nesterenko’s report at the International conference “Medical Consequences of the Chernobyl Catastrophe: results of 15-year researches”, June 4-8, 2001, Kiev, Ukraine. 10. SOURCES AND EFFECTS OF IONIZING RADIATION, United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation UNSCEAR 2008 Report to the General Assembly with Scientific Annexes, VOLUME II Annex D Health effects due to radiation from the Chernobyl accident 11. IAEA website, Fukushima Nuclear Accident Update Log, March 30, 2011, http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2011/fukushima300311.html 12. National Academy of Sciences, 2006, Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII Phase 2. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11340&page=1# 13. EPA website, Radiation Risks and Realities, “The more radiation dose a person receives, the greater the chance of developing cancer… Current evidence suggests that any exposure to radiation poses some risk, however, risks at very low exposure levels have not been definitively demonstrated.“ [“very low” not defined –JG] http://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/402-k-07-006.pdf 14. NRC website, Fact Sheet on Biological Effects of Radiation,  “This dose-response hypothesis suggests that any increase in dose, no matter how small, results in an incremental increase in risk.” http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/bio-effects-radiation.html 15. Center for Disease Control website, Prenatal Radiation Exposure: A Fact Sheet for Physicians, “However, the human embryo and fetus are particularly sensitive to ionizing radiation, and the health consequences of exposure can be severe, even at radiation doses too low to immediately affect the mother. Such consequences can include growth retardation, malformations, impaired brain function, and cancer.” 16. Dr. Chris Busby, Reuters, http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=S0H-mtsdsgg. 23. Al Jazeera, April 4, 2011, No safe levels’ of radiation in Japan by Dahr Jamail, quoting Dr. Kathleen Sullivan.
Global Research Articles by Joe Giambrone

After Fukushima: Enough Is Enough

Published on Friday, December 2, 2011 by the New York Times

by Helen Caldicott

The nuclear power industry has been resurrected over the past decade by a lobbying campaign that has left many people believing it to be a clean, green, emission-free alternative to fossil fuels. These beliefs pose an extraordinary threat to global public health and encourage a major financial drain on national economies and taxpayers. The commitment to nuclear power as an environmentally safe energy source has also stifled the mass development of alternative technologies that are far cheaper, safer and almost emission free — the future for global energy.

Officials in protective gear check for signs of radiation on children who came from the evacuation area near the Fukushima Daini nuclear plant in Koriyama, March 13, 2011. (Reuters/Kim)When the Fukushima Daiichi reactors suffered meltdowns in March, literally in the backyard of an unsuspecting public, the stark reality that the risks of nuclear power far outweigh any benefits should have become clear to the world. As the old quip states, “Nuclear power is one hell of a way to boil water.”

Instead, the nuclear industry has used the disaster to increase its already extensive lobbying efforts. A few nations vowed to phase out nuclear energy after the disaster. But many others have remained steadfast in their commitment. That has left millions of innocent people unaware that they — all of us — may face a medical catastrophe beyond all proportions in the wake of Fukushima and through the continued widespread use of nuclear energy.

The world was warned of the dangers of nuclear accidents 25 years ago, when Chernobyl exploded and lofted radioactive poisons into the atmosphere. Those poisons “rained out,” creating hot spots over the Northern Hemisphere. Research by scientists in Eastern Europe, collected and published by the New York Academy of Sciences, estimates that 40 percent of the European land mass is now contaminated with cesium 137 and other radioactive poisons that will concentrate in food for hundreds to thousands of years. Wide areas of Asia — from Turkey to China — the United Arab Emirates, North Africa and North America are also contaminated. Nearly 200 million people remain exposed.

That research estimated that by now close to 1 million people have died of causes linked to the Chernobyl disaster. They perished from cancers, congenital deformities, immune deficiencies, infections, cardiovascular diseases, endocrine abnormalities and radiation-induced factors that increased infant mortality. Studies in Belarus found that in 2000, 14 years after the Chernobyl disaster, fewer than 20 percent of children were considered “practically healthy,” compared to 90 percent before Chernobyl. Now, Fukushima has been called the second-worst nuclear disaster after Chernobyl. Much is still uncertain about the long-term consequences. Fukushima may well be on par with or even far exceed Chernobyl in terms of the effects on public health, as new information becomes available. The crisis is ongoing; the plant remains unstable and radiation emissions continue into the air and water.

Recent monitoring by citizens groups, international organizations and the U.S. government have found dangerous hot spots in Tokyo and other areas. The Japanese government, meanwhile, in late September lifted evacuation advisories for some areas near the damaged plant — even though high levels of radiation remained. The government estimated that it will spend at least $13 billion to clean up contamination.

Many thousands of people continue to inhabit areas that are highly contaminated, particularly northwest of Fukushima. Radioactive elements have been deposited throughout northern Japan, found in tap water in Tokyo and concentrated in tea, beef, rice and other food. In one of the few studies on human contamination in the months following the accident, over half of the more than 1,000 children whose thyroids were monitored in Fukushima City were found to be contaminated with iodine 131 — condemning many to thyroid cancer years from now.

Children are innately sensitive to the carcinogenic effects of radiation, fetuses even more so. Like Chernobyl, the accident at Fukushima is of global proportions. Unusual levels of radiation have been discovered in British Columbia, along the West Coast and East Coast of the United States and in Europe, and heavy contamination has been found in oceanic waters.

Fukushima is classified as a grade 7 accident on the International Atomic Energy Agency scale — denoting “widespread health and environmental effects.” That is the same severity as Chernobyl, the only other grade 7 accident in history, but there is no higher number on the agency’s scale.

After the accident, lobbying groups touted improved safety at nuclear installations globally. In Japan, the Tokyo Electric Power Co. — which operates the Fukushima Daiichi reactors — and the government have sought to control the reporting of negative stories via telecom companies and Internet service providers.

In Britain, The Guardian reported that days after the tsunami, companies with interests in nuclear power — Areva, EDF Energy and Westinghouse — worked with the government to downplay the accident, fearing setbacks on plans for new nuclear power plants.

Nuclear power has always been the nefarious Trojan horse for the weapons industry, and effective publicity campaigns are a hallmark of both industries. The concept of nuclear electricity was conceived in the early 1950s as a way to make the public more comfortable with the U.S. development of nuclear weapons. “The atomic bomb will be accepted far more readily if at the same time atomic energy is being used for constructive ends,” a consultant to the Defense Department Psychological Strategy Board, Stefan Possony, suggested. The phrase “Atoms for Peace” was popularized by President Dwight Eisenhower in the early 1950s.

Nuclear power and nuclear weapons are one and the same technology. A 1,000 megawatt nuclear reactor generates 600 pounds or so of plutonium per year: An atomic bomb requires a fraction of that amount for fuel, and plutonium remains radioactive for 250,000 years. Therefore every country with a nuclear power plant also has a bomb factory with unlimited potential.The nuclear power industry sets an unforgivable precedent by exporting nuclear technology — bomb factories — to dozens of non-nuclear nations.

Why is nuclear power still viable, after we’ve witnessed catastrophic accidents, enormous financial outlays, weapons proliferation and nuclear-waste induced epidemics of cancers and genetic disease for generations to come? Simply put, many government and other officials believe the nuclear industry mantra: safe, clean and green. And the public is not educated on the issue.

There are some signs of change. Germany will phase out nuclear power by 2022. Italy and Switzerland have decided against it, and anti-nuclear advocates in Japan have gained traction. China remains cautious on nuclear power. Yet the nuclear enthusiasm of the U.S., Britain, Russia and Canada continues unabated. The industry, meanwhile, has promoted new modular and “advanced” reactors as better alternatives to traditional reactors. They are, however, subject to the very same risks — accidents, terrorist attacks, human error — as the traditional reactors. Many also create fissile material for bombs as well as the legacy of radioactive waste.

True green, clean, nearly emission-free solutions exist for providing energy. They lie in a combination of conservation and renewable energy sources, mainly wind, solar and geothermal, hydropower plants, and biomass from algae. A smart-grid could integrate consuming and producing devices, allowing flexible operation of household appliances. The problem of intermittent power can be solved by storing energy using available technologies.

Millions of jobs can be created by replacing nuclear power with nationally integrated, renewable energy systems. In the U.S. alone, the project could be paid for by the $180 billion currently allocated for nuclear weapons programs over the next decade. There would be no need for new weapons if the Russian and U.S. nuclear arsenals — 95 percent of the estimated 20,500 nuclear weapons globally — were abolished.

Nuclear advocates often paint those who oppose them as Luddites who are afraid of, or don’t understand, technology, or as hysterics who exaggerate the dangers of nuclear power.

One might recall the sustained attack over many decades by the tobacco industry upon the medical profession, a profession that revealed the grave health dangers induced by smoking.

Smoking, broadly speaking, only kills the smoker. Nuclear power bequeaths morbidity and mortality — epidemics of disease — to all future generations.

The millions of lives lost to smoking in the era before the health risks of cigarettes were widely exposed will be minuscule compared to the medical catastrophe we face through the continued use of nuclear power.

Let’s use this extraordinary moment to convince governments and others to move toward a nuclear-free world. Let’s prove that informed democracies will behave in a responsible fashion.

© 2011 Helen Caldicott

Nuke Map

→ Environment, Military, Tech, Top Stories

Map: The Nuclear Bombs in Your Backyard

Look up where in the United States the Pentagon keeps its atomic weaponry.

—By Adam Weinstein and Tasneem Raja

| Wed Nov. 9, 2011 3:00 AM PST

603

• http://platform.twitter.com/widgets/tweet_button.html#_=1322769348764&count=horizontal&id=twitter-widget-0&lang=en&original_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fmotherjones.com%2Fpolitics%2F2011%2F11%2Fmap-nuclear-bombs-power-weapons&related=davidcorndc%3AWashington%20editor%20of%20Mother%20Jones%20magazine%20and%20blogger%20at%20www.davidcorn.com%2Ckate_sheppard%3AEnvironmental%20reporter%20at%20Mother%20Jones.%2Cmacmcclelland%3AMother%20Jones%20human%20rights%20reporter.%20Strict-grammar%20lover.%20Burma-book-writer%20extraordinaire.%2Ckdrum%3APolitical%20blogger%20and%20writer%20for%20Mother%20Jones%20magazine.%2Cmojobluemarble%3AMother%20Jones%20environment%2C%20science%2C%20and%20health%20blog.&text=Map%3A%20The%20Nuclear%20Bombs%20in%20Your%20Backyard&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmotherjones.com%2Fpolitics%2F2011%2F11%2Fmap-nuclear-bombs-power-weapons&via=motherjones
• http://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?api_key=132888650146012&channel_url=https%3A%2F%2Fs-static.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fconnect%2Fxd_proxy.php%3Fversion%3D3%23cb%3Df24672ded8%26origin%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fmotherjones.com%252Ff1d3e3d25%26relation%3Dparent.parent%26transport%3Dpostmessage&extended_social_context=false&href=http%3A%2F%2Fmotherjones.com%2Fpolitics%2F2011%2F11%2Fmap-nuclear-bombs-power-weapons&layout=button_count&locale=en_US&node_type=link&sdk=joey&send=false&show_faces=false&width=90

Also see: An investigation into ourexpensive, expanding nuclear weapons complex and a look atsome of the wackiest (and worst) ideas for using atomic weapons..

The United States currently has 5,113 atomic warheads deployed in silos, bombers, and submarines, mostly in the continental US. That doesn’t include thousands of “zombies” being kept in reserve and a backlog of more than 3,000 warheads awaiting dismantlement. Meanwhile, we’re telling the world that we’re on the path to disarmament, even as we’re spending more on the nuclear weapons complex than we did during the Cold War.

Zoom in on the map below to find the warheads near you as well as the nuclear labs that maintain the stockpile and develop the next generation of atomic weaponry. (For reference, we’ve also included the locations of the nation’s civilian nuclear power plants.*)

Note: This map was made with 100% unclassified, public information. Even the military doesn’t hide where it keeps its missiles and bombers. See links to sourcing below.

View full screen map

 

 

http://batchgeo.com/map/a87855317fdfab0922206bca2dbd19b9

View Mother Jones: Nuke Facilities in the US in a full screen map

Sources: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and Federation of American Scientists (PDF), Office of the Deputy Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Matters, Nuclear Energy Institute

Correction: An earlier version of this map misplaced some nuclear power plants. We have updated the map.

• Will Your Block Survive the Nuclear Apocalypse?

  A new Google Maps mashup takes our nuclear weapons data to a whole new cold-sweat-inducing level.

• We’re Spending More on Nukes Than We Did During the Cold War?!

  Memo to budget supercommittee: If you’re looking for billions in savings, check out the the bloated nuclear weapons complex.

• 8 of the Wackiest (or Worst) Ideas for Nuclear Weapons

  Bomb-powered spaceships, mininukes, atomic excavation, and other bizarre uses for our nuclear arsenal.

• Report: World May Face New Nuclear Arms Race

  Russia and China are modernizing their arsenals—in part because of “dangerous and destabilising” new capabilities developed by the US.

Adam Weinstein is Mother Jones’ national security reporter. For more of his stories, click hereor follow him on Twitter. Get Adam Weinstein’s RSS feed.

Videos on Fukushima Nuclear Disaster

Please visit: http://globalethics.wordpress.com/2011/11/25/%E7%A6%8F%E5%B3%B6%E5%8E%9F%E7%99%BA%E4%BA%8B%E6%95%85%E3%83%93%E3%83%87%E3%82%AA%EF%BC%9Avideos-onfukushimanuclear-disaster/

Abolition 2000 Message: Nuclear Energy – Uncontrollable in Time and Space

Nuclear energy – uncontrollable in time and space

Abolition 2000 message on the nuclear crisis in Japan and around the world

Released on Tuesday 26^th April, the 25^th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor disaster

The challenge to meet increasing national and global energy demand, while at the same time reducing climate change emissions, has led a number of governments to turn to nuclear energy as a potential saviour. The Fukushima disaster should prompt us to stop, assess the real dangers and costs of nuclear energy, and make the necessary transition to the development of safe, clean, renewable energy sources.

The earthquake and tsunami in Japan devastated a whole region. Radioactive emissions from the damaged nuclear reactors are very serious, and have already contaminated food and water in Japan, prompting bans on food exports from four prefectures. The release of contaminated water into the Pacific ocean has caused growing international concern as the radiation continues to spread, beginning to impact human health and the environment on an even wider scale — across Japan and around the globe.

The Abolition 2000 Global Council expresses its concerns and support for everyone in Japan in the wake of the triple disaster of earthquake, tsunami and nuclear reactor damage.  We express our condolences for the many thousands who lost their lives, our sympathies for the more than 150,000 people injured or displaced, and our best wishes for the rescue, recovery and rebuilding efforts.

Whether or not the brave technicians in Fukushima are successful in containing the bulk of the radiation remaining in the six reactors, the lesson of Fukushima is clear: natural disasters and accidents will happen. If it can go wrong sooner or later it will go wrong. Murphy’s law and nuclear technology do not mix. Fukushima is not the first – and won’t be the last – nuclear disaster as long as countries continue to operate nuclear power facilities. Three Mile Island, Windscale/Sellafield and Chernobyl are other tragic examples of nuclear accidents which have had severe impacts on human health through radiation releases.  According to a 2005 study by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences National Research Council (BEIR VII – Phase 2), a preponderance of scientific evidence shows that even low doses of ionizing radiation are likely to pose some risk of adverse health effects.

In the case of Chernobyl, tens of thousands have died and millions have had their health severely affected by the accident. Alexei Yablokov from the Russian Academy of Sciences reports that, “Prior to 1985 more than 80% of children in the Chernobyl territories of Belarus, Ukraine, and European Russia were healthy; today fewer than 20% are well. In the heavily contaminated areas it is difficult to find one healthy child.” We will not know the full impact of Fukushima on human health and the environment for many years. As the crisis continues to unfold, further releases of radioactive materials will occur until the reactors are stabilized, and the possibility of additional problems leading to an even more catastrophic radiation release remains – which is why the disaster has been given a similar rating of seriousness as Chernobyl (category 7) and could lead to a similar permanent radioactive sacrifice zone in Japan.

Fukushima clearly showed the vulnerability of nuclear power plants to external attack, whether by an act of nature or a human act. The tsunami hit the external power source and destroyed the entire cooling system of the reactor complex.

Even without accidents, disasters or attacks, nuclear energy production releases harmful quantities of radiation at all stages of the nuclear fuel chain, including uranium mining, extraction, enrichment and transport, and routine nuclear power plant operation itself.

And no-one yet has found a solution to the storing of spent nuclear fuel, the radioactive waste byproduct of nuclear power production, which is highly dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years. Building nuclear reactors without knowing what to do with this radioactive waste is like building a house with no functioning toilet.

Just as alarming is the fact that every nuclear power program provides the potential to make nuclear bombs. France, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea all developed nuclear weapons from nuclear energy programs. There are serious concerns that other countries with nuclear energy programs could follow suit.

As far back as 1946, a US Secretary of State Committee on Atomic Energy concluded that, “The development of atomic energy for peaceful purposes and the development of atomic energy for bombs are much of their course interchangeable and interdependent.” The committee further concluded that “…there is no prospect of security against atomic warfare” in an international system where nations are “free to develop atomic energy but only pledged not to use it for bombs.”

Claims that nuclear energy is a viable economic choice do not withstand a reality check. The true cost has been hidden by extensive government subsidies, limits on liability for accidents, and pricing structures not including the costs for waste storage and nuclear power plant decommissioning. Add to this the huge costs incurred for compensation and clean-up after accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima. Even without these costs included, the price of nuclear energy per kilowatt hour is approximately twice that of natural gas and is unlikely to decrease. The costs of wind and solar, on the other hand, are now comparable with nuclear energy and rapidly falling as energy efficiency improves and economies of scale kick in (as more wind turbines and solar panels are produced, for example, the unit cost is reduced).

Equally false are claims that nuclear energy is carbon neutral and thus a desirable choice to halt and reverse climate change. It is true that the fission of enriched uranium in a nuclear reactor to generate energy produces no carbon emissions. However, every other step required to produce nuclear energy releases carbon into the atmosphere. These include uranium yellowcake mining, ore transport, ore crushing, uranium extraction, uranium enrichment, uranium oxide furnacing, uranium casing, nuclear power plant construction and decommissioning.

J.W. Storm van Leeuwen and P. Smith (“Nuclear Power : the energy balance“) calculate that with high quality ores, the CO2 produced by the full nuclear life cycle is about one half to one third of an equivalent sized gas-fired power station. For low quality ores (less than 0.02% of U3O8 per tonne of ore), the CO2 produced by the full nuclear life cycle is equal to that produced by the equivalent gas-fired power station.

In addition, nuclear power plants take years to build and consume billions of dollars in research and development costs and subsidies. If these funds were applied instead to development of renewable energy technologies, this would enable a much faster, safer and sustainable replacement of fossil fuels. It would also enable the development of energy sources suitable to the needs of communities in developing countries – many of which are not part of national electricity grids and thus not served by centralized electricity generation but able to be served by local energy sources such as wind and solar.

The Abolition 2000 Global Council heralds the establishment of the International Renewable Energy Agency which can assist countries in meeting their energy needs through safe, sustainable and renewable energy sources without the need to resort to nuclear energy.

As noted in the 1995 Abolition 2000 Statement, “The inextricable link between the ‘peaceful’ and warlike uses of nuclear technologies and the threat to future generations inherent in creation and use of long-lived radioactive materials must be recognized. We must move toward reliance on clean, safe, renewable forms of energy production that do not provide the materials for weapons of mass destruction and do not poison the environment for thousands of centuries. The true ‘inalienable’ right is not to nuclear energy, but to life, liberty and security of person in a world free of nuclear weapons.”

In solidarity with the hundreds of thousands of victims and survivors of the nuclear energy and weapons industries we call for an end to nuclear energy and weapons – the human and environmental impact of both being uncontrollable in time and space.

——————————————————————–

For further information about Abolition 2000 and our activities see www.abolition2000.org or contact:

Manuel Padilla                                                                        Alyn Ware or Mayra Gomez (A2000 Coordinating Committee Members)

Abolition 2000 Global Office                                                           Abolition 2000 Aotearoa-New Zealand

C/- Pax Christi                                                                         PO Box 24-429, Manners Street

1225 Otis St. NE, Washington, DC 20017, USA                                  Wellington, Aotearoa-New Zealand
Phone: +1 202-635-2757 ext 118                                                      Phone: +64 4 496-9629

Fax: 202-832-9494                                                                  Fax +64 4 496-9599
manuel@paxchristiusa.org                                                               alyn@lcnp.org  or mayra@pnnd.org