Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Henny penny
Make sure to read to the end because the story gets more amazing as it goes along! Even the most skeptical will be shocked by this story and outraged! This is by a mainstream German station, for those who wonder. Perhaps good investigative journalism is why they and their neighbor Switzerland are phasing out nuclear.

From the German 3 Sat “Nano” program first broadcast on October 1, 2013 and uploaded onto the IPPNW Germany Youtube channel with English subtitles on November 1, 2013 (below):

Narrator: “While contaminated water flows into the ocean near Fukushima and experts anticipate that the removal of the three melted fuel cores would not be finished for at least 40 years … Wolfgang Weiss the representative of the German UNSCEAR delegation (UNSCEAR is the UN Scientific Committee on the effects of Atomic Radiation” announced: “Statistically, we do not see any direct risks or health effects for the Japanese public due to Fukushima”.

Narrator: “Regrettably, no one at UNSCEAR wanted to talk to us, apparently for good reasons:
[41 sec] Dr. Alex Rosen, German IPPNW: ‘We are very critical of the UNSCEAR report, due to be released in October, of which we have a draft copy, because we see it as an attempt to downplay the effects of Fukushima.’ The physician Dr. Alex Rosen has been studying the health effects of radiation on children and future generations for a long time and is a board member of the German section of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. [1.14 ] Dr. Rosen: ‘Despite better knowledge, the Japanese government refused to distribute stable iodine tablets to children in order to avoid mass panic. We know that children who are exposed to radioactive iodine have a greater risk of developing thyroid cancer. And we already have a higher number of thyroid cancers in children than expected.”
Narrator: “Mass screening of the children of Fukushima Prefecture revealed a high number of thyroid abnormalities. ‘Mass screening just detects more cases’ is the official explanation. So can all these cases be explained by mere statistics?”

[1.50] “According to Dr. Rosen, the UNSCEAR report is based on several faulty assumptions: ‘For example they insist that the fetus, the unborn child, has the same level of vulnerability to radiation as a small child. This however, goes against basic radiation biology. Of course the unborn child has a much higher sensitivity to radiation. The high rate of tissue growth and mitosis leads to more pronounced effects of radiation and more
mutations.”

[2 min 18 sec]
Narrator: “We meet the epidemiologist, Dr. Wolfgang Hoffman of the University of Greifswald. As an expert, he also has doubts about the UNSCEAR report and draws parallels to past cover-ups, such as the case of Chernobyl:
Dr. Hoffman: “To make a prognosis about future developments at this point is not serious science especially when the report says that there will be no risk. This is obviously not the case. There will certainly be a higher cancer incidence.

Narrator: “Dr. Hoffman knows the possible consequences of the UNSCEAR report: Critics can be accused of raising panic and potential compensation lawsuits can be prevented in advance.”

Dr. Hoffman: “We should not underestimate the tremendous pressure that is being exerted on this committee from various sides. And, of course, critically thinking experts would never have a chance of being named to this committee in the first place.
[3 min 17 sec]
Dr. Alex Rosen: “Many of the UNSCEAR members have had careers in nuclear agencies and regulatory bodies in various countries, in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), an organization who sees its purpose as the worldwide promotion of nuclear energy, or even in nuclear energy companies that make their money building and operating nuclear power plants
[3 min 42 sec]
Narrator: “So have we let the foxes guard the henhouse? Or are German physicians simply smarter than 72 International experts who stand behind the report unanimously?”
[3 min 53 sec]
“But apparently the support was not as unanimous as it may seem. We discover a news story that the Belgian delegations initially refused to sign the report. So was there an internal conflict within UNSCEAR?”
[On the video is shown part of a news article in French by rtbf info July 2013: “The Belgian Delegation is Indignant”: “The consequences of Fukushima are being minimized. Discussions are continuing within UNSCEAR, the UN organization charged with evaluating the consequences of nuclear catastrophes and radiation. The committee prepared a report submitted for discussion to experts from different countries during a recent meeting in Vienna. A report which incited the indignation of the Belgium delegation: ‘Everything seems created and written, say the members, to minimize the consequences of the Fukushima catastrophe“.]
Video continues: [4 min 4 sec]
Narrator: “We pose this question to the head of the Belgian delegation Dr. Hans Vanmarcke, but he declined to provide us with information. So instead we contact the journalist responsible for the article by video conference.”
[4 min 18 sec]
Marc Molitor, Belgian TV:
“Members of the delegation told me that the report was written in such a way as to downplay the consequences of the catastrophe. And that they acted as if the experiences and studies of Chernobyl simply did not exist. They fought over this.”
[4 min 41 sec]
Narrator: “This goes very well together with another fact; a large part of the data on which the report is based came from the World Health Organization (WHO). A 50 year old gag order by the IAEA prevents the WHO from unrestricted reporting on radiation related health risks.”
[5 min]
Dr. Alex Rosen: “There is no department in the WHO that deals with the health effects of radiation. On this topic, the WHO relies solely on the knowledge and expertise of the IAEA.”
[5 min 13]
Narrator: “However such a department did exist in the past: The British radiation biologist Keith Baverstock directed a team of WHO researchers investigating radiation risks. In 2001 the department was closed without a reason and Baverstock, who is currently doing research in Finland, was removed. We are able to contact him through a video call.”
[5 min 32]
Dr. Keith Baverstock, Finland: “The IAEA was not very happy with the findings of my program. It was, if I may say so, not controlled by the WHO headquarters in Geneva, as our office was independent and free standing. Generally speaking the WHO had little control over what we published and I think they were unhappy about that.”
[5 min 59]
Narrator: “Prevented research?
Experts with conflicts of interest? Downplaying of the catastrophe?
Just like Chernobyl. Apparently the lessons were not learned.
Or…there was no will to do so
” (original 3sat report by Rene Kirschy-Th. Hauer; subtitles probably from IPPNWGermany; we added bold for emphasis)

Although the transcription is our own, we must give credit to http://nuclear-news.net for making us and so many others aware of this video.

From the Keith Baverstock web site:
“…My primary research interest is in how the cell is regulated. This work is stimulated by the relatively recent uncovering of the property of ionising radiation to induce instability in the genome and the related effect, the so called bystander effect, in which a cell experiencing damage inflicted by ionising radiation affects surrounding cells, which then exhibit effects similar to the genomic instability. These are examples of epigenetic effects.

I also have longstanding interests in the effects of low doses of radiation, the toxicity of depleted uranium and the consequences of nuclear accidents, including the Chernobyl and now Fukushima, accidents.” http://www.kbaverstock.org (emphasis added)

More from Dr. Baverstock:
“Why this column?
Posted by baversto at 11:20, January 11 2012.
Over 40 years of professional involvement in assessing the risks to health of exposure to ionising radiation I have never seen a time when there was not a threat of political interference in the science, but until comparatively recently the science has for the most part prevailed and, indeed, it mostly prevails today. However, the past few years has seen a marked decline in the quality of the debate on these issues and this increases the risk of subjugation of the science to political objectives. In part, the problem stems from a lack of independent expertise in the subject and this has to an almost complete polarisation into pro- and anti- nuclear lobbies. Those organisations that once fostered independent expertise, in the UK the Medical Research Council and globally the World Health Organisation, have, to a large extent, withdrawn from the battle field. I will use this column to post, on an occasional basis, some thoughts on this subject. The first post concerns an Oxford scientist who claims that the dose limit of the public is set at a value 1000 times lower (more restrictive) than it need be on health grounds.http://www.kbaverstock.org/page10.html (bold added)