Nuclear Meltdown Watch

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Nuclear Meltdown Watch

Postby eyeno » Mon Apr 11, 2011 8:22 pm

crikkett wrote:
eyeno wrote:And Socrata. The stunning tool to create that needed transparency for government agencies and its stunning revelations of the released data The first 11 entries, the highest ranking ones most likely too since they are more recent, are missing for som reason.
Socrata social data calculator


May have been only temporary, or perhaps you're running something to block the sites serving up the data (peerblock or some other security software?)



It is a long running pattern of censorship by the EPA. I have been watching the EPA Radnet system since the earthquake. You can read a little about it here http://stretchingminds.wordpress.com/20 ... ed-states/
and you can also go over to alexander higgins blog from time, and handy place to observe a little bit of radnet, and watch them start and stop the monitors and manipulate the data.
User avatar
eyeno
 
Posts: 1878
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Nuclear Meltdown Watch

Postby justdrew » Mon Apr 11, 2011 8:23 pm

By 1964 there were 1.5 million mobile phone users in the US
User avatar
justdrew
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: unknown
Blog: View Blog (11)

Re: Nuclear Meltdown Watch

Postby semiconscious » Mon Apr 11, 2011 8:27 pm

Jeff wrote:I don't know that any mood-altering world event has altered my mood like this one. And that's saying something.


japan, culturally, has been my 'home away from home' for the last dozen years or more. it's opened my eyes, & my mind, to many unique & wonderful things. my feeble attempt to say thanks for some of what it's given me is here...

for me, this's had the impact of a physical injury. it hurts...
User avatar
semiconscious
 
Posts: 54
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 5:03 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Nuclear Meltdown Watch

Postby eyeno » Mon Apr 11, 2011 8:28 pm

I don't know that any mood-altering world event has altered my mood like this one. And that's saying something.



Ditto. This one chewed me up a little. Like you that's saying something for me because I am fairly de-sensitized to a lot of this these days. I think de-sensitization to some degree is a necessary shield for me.


StarmanSkye wrote:Jeff wrote:

"I don't know that any mood-altering world event has altered my mood like this one. And that's saying something."

*****
Oh MaN, that's sayin it alright! I haven't stepped far-back enough to put it in perspective, but nothing else really grabs or HAS grabbed my attention as much as this does. It feels like a major paradigm-shifting game-changer with dire, long-lasting implications that have only begun to be percieved, in small & tiny parts, just around the vague knife-edged boundaries on the edge of nightmares and reality. Premonitions of awful forebodings, not the really troublesome stuff just yet. It totally freaks me out. A movie I'd rather not even know has been made. Like a nuclear war gone awry, the biggest ever terror dirty-nuke brought to life by the 'good things' people at GE.



Yes. And one of the worst aspects is it's invisibility. It creeps silently, mimics many other maladies, and humanity will never be told the true cause of it's misery.
User avatar
eyeno
 
Posts: 1878
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Nuclear Meltdown Watch

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Apr 11, 2011 9:01 pm

It's a level 7
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Nuclear Meltdown Watch

Postby undead » Mon Apr 11, 2011 9:16 pm

seemslikeadream wrote:It's a level 7


I guess it's too much to ask them to create level 8, even though it is obviously a lot worse. Maybe a new color coded radiation alert scale to be disseminated through facebook and twitter?
┌∩┐(◕_◕)┌∩┐
User avatar
undead
 
Posts: 997
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 1:23 am
Location: Doumbekistan
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: Nuclear Meltdown Watch

Postby eyeno » Mon Apr 11, 2011 10:56 pm

It appears as if NILU will stop providing radioactivity forecasts. They are providing the data say they through a division named FLEXPART. I looked at flex part but it would not work for me.

I found this government pdf but I lost the url. It refers to this http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/gaw/gaw_home_en.html as possible source of information, or not, I have not waded through it.

http://gaw.empa.ch/gawsis/



WMO/IOC/UNEP/ICSU
GLOBAL CLIMATE OBSERVING SYSTEM
______________
GCOS/WCRP
ATMOSPHERIC OBSERVATION PANEL FOR CLIMATE
SIXTEENTH SESSION
GENEVA, SWITZERLAND, 7 – 11 FEBRUARY 2011
AOPC-XVI
Doc. 7.3
(21.I.2011)
(Rev 1)
-------
Item 7.3
Status of a global observing network for aerosols
(Submitted by L.A. Barrie and S. Nickovic on behalf of GAW Aerosol SAG, chair J. Ogren)
Summary and Purpose of Document
To inform the panel of:
i.
progress since April 2009 in developing the components of an Integrated Global Aerosols Observing System (IGAOS) coordinated internationally within the framework of WMO-GAW;
ii.
planned activities in the next year.
ACTION PROPOSED
1. The Panel welcomed the progress made by WMO-GAW and the international community in coordinating global aerosol observations for climate. It noted three GAW aerosol meetings in 2010 at WMO Geneva, namely the GAW Aerosol LIDAR Observation Network (GALION) Workshop, 20-23 noon Sept.; the GAW Aerosol SAG meeting, 23noon-24 Sept.; and the IAGOS annual meeting, 29 Sept to 1 Oct, and recommended that the GCOS Secretariat provide appropriate support.
AOPC-XVI, Doc. 7.3, p. 2
Status of a global observing network for aerosols
1.
Following the IGACO strategy report suggestion (WMO TD. No. 1235; GAW report No. 159) that WMO should take a lead in implementing recommendations, the WMO-GAW programme was assigned, by the Fifteenth WMO Congress, the role of leading the implementation of IGACO and hence, an integrated global network for aerosols. The WMO-GAW Strategic Plan for 2008-2015 (WMO TD. No. 1384; GAW Report No. 172) assigns this task specifically to the Scientific Advisory Group for Aerosols (SAG-Aerosols) (http://www.wmo.int/gaw). The components of an Integrated Global Aerosol Observing System (IGAOS) are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 Components of an integrated global aerosol observing system that is being implemented by the WMO-GAW programme. It is a system that fulfils many societal needs including those related to weather, climate, health and environment. Since aerosols are an essential climate variable, IAGOS is evolving as an important system of GCOS. It involves many players internationally including WMO, satellite agencies, European research infrastructure programmes, environmental agencies and, most importantly, national research and monitoring efforts.
The SAG-Aerosols is focussing on observational components and quality assurance/calibration and validation and data archival for climate research purposes. This document reports progress and implementation plans of relevance to climate.
2.
World Data Centres. Metadata related to aerosol measurements within GAW and its contributing networks is hosted by the GAW Station Information System (GAWSIS), while the data are archived by the World Data Centre for Aerosols (WDCA). WMO and the SAG-Aerosols are pleased to announce that as of January 2010 the WDCA was transferred through an MOU from JRC-ISPRA to NILU. The NILU effort is led by Kjetil Torseth and Marcus Fiebig, the latter having joined the SAG-Aerosols in conjunction with the transfer. The JRC-ISPRA is thanked for maintaining the centre for the past 15 years; the JRC manager and aerosol expert Julian Wilson will remain on the SAG.

AOPC-XVI, Doc. 7.3, p. 3
WMO-GAW and the SAG-Aerosols are pleased to announce the creation in July 2009 through an MOU between WMO and DLR of a WMO World Data Centre for Satellite observations (WDC-RSAT) at the German Aerospace Laboratory (DLR) in Oberpfaffenhoffen, Bavaria Germany. Aerosols are one focus of the centre which will develop for users a one-stop shop access portal to all satellite aerosol observations held by various data centres around the world. The SAG-Aerosols recommended that WDC RSAT engage in a close cooperation with other existing data centers for satellite observations. The WDC-RSAT leader is Michael Bittner and the WDC-RSAT aerosol leader and expert on the SAG-Aerosols is Thomas Holzer-Popp. A WMO-GAW endorsed workshop will be organized by WDC-RSAT at DLR in early 2011 to coordinate with users and major satellite aerosol archives in the world, such as ICAREWMO-GAW and its SAG-Aerosols are also pleased to announce the creation of a WMO World Data Centre for Satellite observations (WDC-RSAT) at the German Aerospace Laboratory (DLR) in Oberpfaffenhoffen, Germany.
3.
Global surface-based remote sensing of aerosol column properties with sun-photometry. The main focus of these measurements is the determination of aerosol optical depth (AOD) at different solar spectral wavelengths. While AOD is an optical measure for aerosol load, its spectral dependence allows fractional association of AOD to larger (radii >0.5μm) and smaller (radii <0.5μm) aerosol sizes. Coordination of observations of AOD and related variables (e.g. Ångström exponent, fine mode fraction) is progressing well.
A sub-group of the GAW SAG-Aerosols has been assisting in discussions between several major networks that were identified at a workshop on “A Global Surface-Based Network for Long Term Observations of Column Aerosol Optical Properties” in March 2004 hosted by the GAW World Optical Depth Research and Calibration Centre, PMOD (GAW Report # 162) or by the SAG-Aerosols later. These networks operate surface-based sun-tracking sun-photometers and some deliver data within 3-6 hours. They consist of: AERONET (NASA-Goddard based), GAWPFR (Davos-based), SKYNET (University of Tokyo-based) and an Australian Bureau of Meteorology regional network (B. Forgan). An additional AERONET-like network in China called CARSNET is also to be added. The AERONET infrastructure has proven to be extremely powerful to the user community, and from a user's perspective, coordination of existing networks for measuring aerosol column properties with those sampling complementary data (e.g. aerosol vertical profiles, in-situ samples or cloud properties) are highly desirable.

The SAG-Aerosols in April 2009 agreed that the metadata for all contributing AOD stations should be registered in GAWSIS, and that GAWSIS and WDCA should develop an interface page that will introduce this network to prospective users by describing the networks and their data bases, showing a global map of sites and noting the importance of AOD as a component of the integrated global aerosol observing system (Fig. 1). Discussions are underway between AERONET, SKYNET, and GAWSIS to exchange metadata. WDCA will host GAWPFR and Australian BOM AOD data and point to the data centres of AERONET and SKYNET.
A third international Filter Radiometer Comparison was held from 27 September to 15 October 2010 at Davos with the aim to establish traceability of AOD observations to the WORCC standards according to recommendation 6 of CIMO XIX session.

Discussions are ongoing with the EU GEMS/MACC projects to test the added value of using AOD observations from 100-150 locations around the world in models that currently assimilate only satellite aerosol observations in near real time or in reanalysis mode. Here, of added interest are sky radiance measurements by AERONET and SKYNET, which are used to infer column aerosol properties such as size-distribution and absorption AOD.
AOPC-XVI, Doc. 7.3, p. 4
4.
Aerosol LIDAR vertical profiling International coordination of a largely research-based consortium of regional networks is being done by the GAW Aerosol LIDAR Observing Network (GALION), whose implementation plan was the outcome of a workshop in Hamburg in 2006 kindly hosted by leaders of the European EARLINET project (WMO TD No. 1443 GAW Report No. 178). The specific objective of GALION is to provide the vertical component of this distribution through advanced laser remote sensing in a network of ground-based stations globally distributed. The aerosol properties to be observed will include the identification of aerosol layers, profiles of directly measured optical properties (backscatter and extinction coefficients at selected wavelengths, lidar ratio, Ångström exponents, particle depolarization ratios) and indirectly inferred properties (e.g., profiles of light-absorption and single-scattering albedo), aerosol type (e.g. dust, maritime, fire smoke, urban haze), and microphysical properties (e.g., volume and surface concentrations, size distribution parameters, refractive index). Observations will be made with sufficient coverage, resolution, and accuracy to establish a comprehensive aerosol climatology, to evaluate model performance, to assist and complement space-borne observations, and to provide input to forecast models of "chemical weather". Good progress has been made, including inclusion of GALION in GAWSIS as a GAW Contributing Network, and WMO-GAW hosted the 2nd GALION workshop, 20-23 September in Geneva, organized by Dr. Gelsomina Pappalardo and Prof. Raymond Hoff of the SAG-Aerosols. Ways to standardize and enhance the usefulness of GALION products were the focus.

5.
Surface In Situ Aerosol Observations: There is a growing number of stations globally that conform to the “WMO/GAW Aerosol Measurement Procedures Guidelines and Recommendations” established by the SAG-Aerosols in 2004 (WMO TD No. 1178; GAW report #153). Standard operating procedures for measurements of aerosol mass, light scattering, and light absorption are currently being finalized and will be published as GAW reports. New high mountain GAW observatories measuring aerosols have been announced for Bolivia and Mexico. The European EU-FP7 projects EUSAAR and its successor ACTRIS are providing a test-bed for development of future GAW procedures and guidelines, as well as developing fully integrated observations at 10 major sites and 10 developing sites in Europe. For instance, standardization of methods to measure elemental carbon and organic carbon in aerosols is being tested and compared with North American standards. In the next five years the ACTRIS project will produce recommendations for measuring aerosol chemical properties using the emerging technology of mass spectrometry. All of this activity is connected with the European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme (EMEP) including data management that is conducted for EUSAAR/ACTRIS by NILU.

Another benefit of the transfer of WDCA to NILU, and of the cooperation between GAW and EUSAAR/ACTRIS, is development of the capability of providing in-situ aerosol data in near-real-time to forecast models. Currently, light scattering data from 10 GAW and EUSAAR/ACTRIS stations are available at WDCA with less than three hours delay. That number is expected to grow to around 30 within the next year, with a comparable number of stations providing NRT light absorption data.
6.
Commercial aircraft aerosol observations: The European EC infrastructure project IAGOS, which developed an aerosol package for regular flights on Airbus aircraft operated by Lufthansa and other European airlines, is nearing completion. The transmission of near-real time data is being arranged with AMDAR in cooperation with the Observations Department of WMO. Also, aerosols are measured on two flights per month by a comprehensive gas and aerosol package flown on a Lufthansa commercial aircraft from Frankfurt to distant parts of the world under CARIBIC, a project that is part of IAGOS. L. Barrie of WMO chairs the advisory group of IAGOS. He and Geir Braathen jointly represent WMO in an IAGOS sub-activity on international liaison. The annual meeting of IAGOS was hosted by WMO-GAW in Geneva from 29 Sept to 1 October 2010.
AOPC-XVI, Doc. 7.3, p. 5
7.
Satellite Observations:
GAW Aerosols SAG members are involved in advising ESA on how to implement measurements of aerosols for climate in the future.

Also, the WMO Sand and Dust Warning Advisory and Assessment System (SDS-WAS) is a particularly strong user sector for IGAOS through its need for observations in prediction and assessment (http://wmo.int/sdswas ). There are currently approximately thirteen forecast/analysis modelling groups coordinated under two nodes; one for Northern Africa, Europe and Middle East served by the Barcelona super-computing centre and one for Asia served by the China Meteorological Administration in Beijing. An ESA/WMO Expert Consultation Meeting For Development of Satellite Products Relevant to Sand and Dust Storm Prediction and Assessment was held in Barcelona, Spain September 8-9, 2009. Twenty-seven experts from the sand and dust community (BSC, WMO), meteorological organizations (CMA, UKMO), ground-based community (AEMet, UMBC), satellite retrieval (DLR, FMI, Harvard U., KNMI, NASA, NILU, U. Lille), and modelling communities (BSC, ECMWF, LSCE, NASA, TNO, UKMO) participated in the meeting. Topical sessions were followed by a discussion leading to the formulation of requirements for satellite products in support of SDS-WAS. In turn, this has resulted in a 1 MEuro call for proposal for an ESA/DUE project to develop satellite products for sand and dust aerosols (see http://dup.esrin.esa.it/news/news191.asp).
8.

Planned coordination activities The GAW SAG-Aerosols met 23-24 September 2010 in Geneva following the GALION workshop (see parag. 3 and 4 above). They discussed all aspects of an Integrated Global Aerosol Observations System (Fig.1) led by WMO-GAW and in particular, the development of an implementation plan. The GCOS AOPC will play an important role in reviewing this plan and in advising and assisting in implementation tasks.

A third international Filter Radiometer Comparison was held from 27 September to 15 October 2010 at Davos Switzerland for establishing traceability of AOD observations to the WORCC standards according to recommendation 6 of the WMO CIMO XIX session.
User avatar
eyeno
 
Posts: 1878
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Nuclear Meltdown Watch

Postby eyeno » Tue Apr 12, 2011 12:10 am

User avatar
eyeno
 
Posts: 1878
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Nuclear Meltdown Watch

Postby crikkett » Tue Apr 12, 2011 12:58 am

Who's "they"? I'm not hearing a peep in Silicon Valley.

Nordic wrote:Living here in California I'm getting 8 to 10 times the radiation that they're getting in France, where they're telling people to stay away from tap water, leafy veggies, grass fed beef, creamy cheeses, and fresh milk.

I eat all of those things. So do my kids.

Great. What the fuck are we supposed to do, huh?

crikkett
 
Posts: 2206
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 12:03 pm
Blog: View Blog (5)

Re: Nuclear Meltdown Watch

Postby Nordic » Tue Apr 12, 2011 1:02 am

crikkett wrote:Who's "they"? I'm not hearing a peep in Silicon Valley.



It was this, posted upthread by Ninakat:

http://www.euractiv.com/en/health/radia ... ews-503947

Read it. You sorta really need to, everybody does.
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
Nordic
 
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Re: Nuclear Meltdown Watch

Postby 8bitagent » Tue Apr 12, 2011 2:05 am

Yeah right when you think the Japan nuclear story went away in the news cycle, like all of you I just saw the news about them raising it to Chernobyl levels...with the caveat that it could get much, much worse
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42542906/ns ... iapacific/

TOKYO — The Japanese government's nuclear safety agency raised the crisis level of the Fukushima Dai-ichi power plant accident from 5 to 7, the worst on the international scale and on par with the Chernobyl accident 25 years ago.


The emission of radioactive substances from the stricken plant is about 10 percent of the amount that had been detected at Chernobyl, the agency said on Tuesday.

However, an official at Tokyo Electric and Power (TEPCO) said later Tuesday that they are concerned that the radiation leakage could eventually exceed the 1986 disaster.

"The radiation leak has not stopped completely and our concern is that it could eventually exceed Chernobyl," a TEPCO official told reporters.
Story: Chernobyl tours offered 25 years after blast

The Kyodo news agency said the agency estimated the amount of radioactive material released from the reactors in northern Japan reached a maximum of 10,000 terabequerels per hour at one point for several hours, which would classify the incident as a major accident, according to the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (INES).


So we went from "talk of Chernobyl levels is paranoia fear mongering hype, its maybe on par with three mile island" to "not only has it reached Chernobyl levels, it could exceed that"
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12244
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Nuclear Meltdown Watch

Postby Peachtree Pam » Tue Apr 12, 2011 7:34 am

Fire seen at Fukushima nuclear plant; flames no longer visible
Mon Apr 11, 7:53 pm ET

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110411/wl_ ... es_1/print

(Reuters) – A fire broke out at Japan's crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, operator Tokyo Electric and Power (TEPCO) said on Tuesday, although flames and smoke were no longer visible.

A worker saw fire at a building near the No.4 reactor at around 6:38 a.m. (5:38 a.m. EST) and a fire fighting unit of the Self Defense Forces was sent to fight the blaze, a TEPCO spokesman said.

"Flames and smoke are no longer visible but we are awaiting further details regarding whether the fire has been extinguished completely," he said.

Japan has been battling to bring under control the plant damaged severely by last month's devastating earthquake and tsunami.

(Reporting by Shinichi Saoshiro)
Peachtree Pam
 
Posts: 950
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 9:46 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Nuclear Meltdown Watch

Postby crikkett » Tue Apr 12, 2011 7:40 am

semiconscious wrote:for me, this's had the impact of a physical injury. it hurts...

I'm sorry.
Image
crikkett
 
Posts: 2206
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 12:03 pm
Blog: View Blog (5)

Re: Nuclear Meltdown Watch

Postby wintler2 » Tue Apr 12, 2011 9:42 am

How nuclear apologists mislead the world over radiation
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... -radiation
George Monbiot and others at best misinform and at worst distort evidence of the dangers of atomic energy

Helen Caldicott
guardian.co.uk, Monday 11 April 2011 12.10 BST


Soon after the Fukushima accident last month, I stated publicly that a nuclear event of this size and catastrophic potential could present a medical problem of very large dimensions. Events have proven this observation to be true despite the nuclear industry's campaign about the "minimal" health effects of so-called low-level radiation. That billions of its dollars are at stake if the Fukushima event causes the "nuclear renaissance" to slow down appears to be evident from the industry's attacks on its critics, even in the face of an unresolved and escalating disaster at the reactor complex at Fukushima.

Proponents of nuclear power – including George Monbiot, who has had a mysterious road-to-Damascus conversion to its supposedly benign effects – accuse me and others who call attention to the potential serious medical consequences of the accident of "cherry-picking" data and overstating the health effects of radiation from the radioactive fuel in the destroyed reactors and their cooling pools. Yet by reassuring the public that things aren't too bad, Monbiot and others at best misinform, and at worst misrepresent or distort, the scientific evidence of the harmful effects of radiation exposure – and they play a predictable shoot-the-messenger game in the process.

To wit:

1) Mr Monbiot, who is a journalist not a scientist, appears unaware of the difference between external and internal radiation

Let me educate him.

The former is what populations were exposed to when the atomic bombs were detonated over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945; their profound and on-going medical effects are well documented. [1]

Internal radiation, on the other hand, emanates from radioactive elements which enter the body by inhalation, ingestion, or skin absorption. Hazardous radionuclides such as iodine-131, caesium 137, and other isotopes currently being released in the sea and air around Fukushima bio-concentrate at each step of various food chains (for example into algae, crustaceans, small fish, bigger fish, then humans; or soil, grass, cow's meat and milk, then humans). [2] After they enter the body, these elements – called internal emitters – migrate to specific organs such as the thyroid, liver, bone, and brain, where they continuously irradiate small volumes of cells with high doses of alpha, beta and/or gamma radiation, and over many years, can induce uncontrolled cell replication – that is, cancer. Further, many of the nuclides remain radioactive in the environment for generations, and ultimately will cause increased incidences of cancer and genetic diseases over time.

The grave effects of internal emitters are of the most profound concern at Fukushima. It is inaccurate and misleading to use the term "acceptable levels of external radiation" in assessing internal radiation exposures. To do so, as Monbiot has done, is to propagate inaccuracies and to mislead the public worldwide (not to mention other journalists) who are seeking the truth about radiation's hazards.

2) Nuclear industry proponents often assert that low doses of radiation (eg below 100mSV) produce no ill effects and are therefore safe. But , as the US National Academy of Sciences BEIR VII report has concluded, no dose of radiation is safe, however small, including background radiation; exposure is cumulative and adds to an individual's risk of developing cancer.

3) Now let's turn to Chernobyl. Various seemingly reputable groups have issued differing reports on the morbidity and mortalities resulting from the 1986 radiation catastrophe. The World Health Organisation (WHO) in 2005 issued a report attributing only 43 human deaths directly to the Chernobyl disaster and estimating an additional 4,000 fatal cancers. In contrast, the 2009 report, "Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment", published by the New York Academy of Sciences, comes to a very different conclusion. The three scientist authors – Alexey V Yablokov, Vassily B. Nesterenko, and Alexey V Nesterenko – provide in its pages a translated synthesis and compilation of hundreds of scientific articles on the effects of the Chernobyl disaster that have appeared in Slavic language publications over the past 20 years. They estimate the number of deaths attributable to the Chernobyl meltdown at about 980,000.

Monbiot dismisses the report as worthless, but to do so – to ignore and denigrate an entire body of literature, collectively hundreds of studies that provide evidence of large and significant impacts on human health and the environment – is arrogant and irresponsible. Scientists can and should argue over such things, for example, as confidence intervals around individual estimates (which signal the reliability of estimates), but to consign out of hand the entire report into a metaphorical dustbin is shameful.

Further, as Prof Dimitro Godzinsky, of the Ukranian National Academy of Sciences, states in his introduction to the report: "Against this background of such persuasive data some defenders of atomic energy look specious as they deny the obvious negative effects of radiation upon populations. In fact, their reactions include almost complete refusal to fund medical and biological studies, even liquidating government bodies that were in charge of the 'affairs of Chernobyl'. Under pressure from the nuclear lobby, officials have also diverted scientific personnel away from studying the problems caused by Chernobyl."

4) Monbiot expresses surprise that a UN-affiliated body such as WHOmight be under the influence of the nuclear power industry, causing its reporting on nuclear power matters to be biased. And yet that is precisely the case.

In the early days of nuclear power, WHO issued forthright statements on radiation risks such as its 1956 warning: "Genetic heritage is the most precious property for human beings. It determines the lives of our progeny, health and harmonious development of future generations. As experts, we affirm that the health of future generations is threatened by increasing development of the atomic industry and sources of radiation … We also believe that new mutations that occur in humans are harmful to them and their offspring."

After 1959, WHO made no more statements on health and radioactivity. What happened? On 28 May 1959, at the 12th World Health Assembly, WHO drew up an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); clause 12.40 of this agreement says: "Whenever either organisation [the WHO or the IAEA] proposes to initiate a programme or activity on a subject in which the other organisation has or may have a substantial interest, the first party shall consult the other with a view to adjusting the matter by mutual agreement." In other words, the WHO grants the right of prior approval over any research it might undertake or report on to the IAEA – a group that many people, including journalists, think is a neutral watchdog, but which is, in fact, an advocate for the nuclear power industry. The IAEA's founding papers state: "The agency shall seek to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity through the world."

Monbiot appears ignorant about the WHO's subjugation to the IAEA, yet this is widely known within the scientific radiation community. But it is clearly not the only matter on which he is ignorant after his apparent three-day perusal of the vast body of scientific information on radiation and radioactivity. As we have seen, he and other nuclear industry apologists sow confusion about radiation risks, and, in my view, in much the same way that the tobacco industry did in previous decades about the risks of smoking. Despite their claims, it is they, not the "anti-nuclear movement" who are "misleading the world about the impacts of radiation on human health."

• Helen Caldicott is president of the Helen Caldicott Foundation for a Nuclear-Free Planet and the author of Nuclear Power is Not the Answer

[1] See, for example, WJ Schull, Effects of Atomic Radiation: A Half-Century of Studies from Hiroshima and Nagasaki (New York: Wiley-Lis, 1995) and DE Thompson, K Mabuchi, E Ron, M Soda, M Tokunaga, S Ochikubo, S Sugimoto, T Ikeda, M Terasaki, S Izumi et al. "Cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors, Part I: Solid tumors, 1958-1987" in Radiat Res 137:S17-S67 (1994).

[2] This process is called bioaccumulation and comes in two subtypes as well, bioconcentration and biomagnification. For more information see: J.U. Clark and V.A. McFarland, Assessing Bioaccumulation in Aquatic Organisms Exposed to Contaminated Sediments, Miscellaneous Paper D-91-2 (1991), Environmental Laboratory, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS and H.A. Vanderplog, D.C. Parzyck, W.H. Wilcox, J.R. Kercher, and S.V. Kaye, Bioaccumulation Factors for Radionuclides in Freshwater Biota, ORNL-5002 (1975), Environmental Sciences Division Publication, Number 783, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2011

"Wintler2, you are a disgusting example of a human being, the worst kind in existence on God's Earth. This is not just my personal judgement.." BenD

Research question: are all god botherers authoritarians?
User avatar
wintler2
 
Posts: 2884
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 3:43 am
Location: Inland SE Aus.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Nuclear Meltdown Watch

Postby seemslikeadream » Tue Apr 12, 2011 10:00 am

Japan Tsunami Fukushima Nuclear Disaster 1/2 - Leuren Moret - PDX 9/11 Truth

Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 158 guests