La telefonata di Celentano ad Annozero: SI ai referendum

La telefonata di Adriano Celentano ad Annozero: SI ai referendum

Preoccupanti intenzioni di modernizzare le bombe in Germania

Preoccupanti intenzioni di modernizzare le bombe in Germania

La Voce della Russia, 29.05.2011,


Il governo americano intende modernizzare le vecchie armi nucleari dislocate in Europa. Secondo Spiegel on-line si tratta delle bombe B-61 attualmente depositate presso la base aerea di Buchel. I lavori per trasformare le bombe esistenti nella nuova versione dovrebbero iniziare l’anno prossimo. Questi propositi hanno suscitato perplessita’ nel governo tedesco il cui ministro degli esteri, Guido Westerwelle esige il ritiro di tutte le bombe nucleari americane dal territorio nazionale.

Fukushima: How Many Chernobyls Is It?

65Share

satallite image

Dr Scampa’s Lethal Doses Count Increases Dramatically

by Bob Nichols

VeteransToday

(San Francisco) – The world’s second big nuclear disaster occurred at Chernobyl Reactor No. 4 in the Ukraine on Apr 26, 1986. Simply tagged as “Chernobyl,” it is what the next big and well known nuke disaster, after the American Three Mile Island, on March 28, 1979 came to be called. “Chernobyl” ejected 30% of one 192-ton, three-month old reactor core. That’s 57.6 radioactive tons thrown into the air by fire and explosions.

Startling NHK Image of Japanese Television

The tiny radioactive and burning smoke particles have traveled around the world many times since 1979, killing an estimated one million people to date from radiation caused illnesses and cancers. This is according to Editor Dr Janette Sherman’s exhaustive and widely acclaimed book on 5,000 Chernobyl scientific papers recently published by the New York Academy of Sciences [1].

Fukushima Daiichi Equals 50 Plus Chernobyls

As Dr. Michio Kaku, a world renowned CUNY theoretical physicist pointed out on CNN March 18, 2011, Chernobyl involved one reactor and only 57.6 Tons of the reactor core went into the atmosphere. In dramatic contrast, the Fukushima Daiichi disaster immediately involved six reactors and IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency, a UN Agency) documented 2,800 Tons of highly radioactive old reactor cores.

Dr Michio Kaku, theoretical physicist FavStocks

Simple division tells us there are at least 48.6 Chernobyls in the burning old reactor cores pumping fiery isotopes into the Earth’s atmosphere. It is no stretch to say Fukushima Daiichi’s six reactors and the dry holding pools for old reactor cores are equal to more than 50 Chernobyl disasters.

Further clarification is needed, of course, and it is being worked out now by independent physicists. Note that the lethality of radioactive reactor cores goes up the first 250,000 years they are out of the reactor – not down.

Looking at the current Japanese meltdown as more than 50 Chernobyls is just the start. In addition, the fate of the four nearby reactors at Fukushima Daini is as yet unknown by the outside world. Working at the nearby reactors, only 10 km (6 miles away) is a quick, painful death sentence. They are inside the mandatory evacuation zone.

This much is known. All radioactive exposures are cumulative for each human, animal and plant. What’s more, mutated genetic codes are passed on to offspring forever. This means all Japanese and all Northern Hemisphere inhabitants are suffering internal radioactive contamination from Fukushima Daiichi reactors already.

Fukushima Equals 3,000 Billion Lethal Doses

Dr Paolo Scampa, a widely know EU Physicist, single handedly popularized the easily understood Lethal Doses concept. “Lethal Doses” is a world wide, well understood idea that strips Physics bare and offers a brilliant, understandable explanation for all the physics gobbledygook Intelligence agencies and their respective governments use to disguise the brutal truths of the Fukushima Daiichi Disaster.

Fukushima from 21,000 ft TKY

Three thousand billion (3,000,000,000,000) Lethal Doses of Radiation means there are 429 Lethal Doses chasing each and every one of us on the planet, to put it in a nutshell. This is up from about 70 Billion Lethal Doses March 23, 2011. It is getting worse everyday without any intervention by the US and the other nuclear powers.

VeteransToday calls on the world’s nuclear powers to intervene sooner rather than later. It is up to the world’s only remaining Super Power, the United States, to get the Japan Reactor Disaster Intervention meeting officially underway.

The Fukushima Kill

The Fukushima Kill, already underway world wide, will certainly dwarf that of Chernobyl. All US Super Power President Obama’s delay does is increase the numbers of The Kill. That is a clear Choice. We call on President Obama to re-visit that Choice.

Further, the Genetic and DNA changing aspects of the radioactivity now in the air, spreading worldwide within a year, will spawn a grotesque new assortment of radiation-degraded mutants; both human and of other life forms.

USS Nautilus in 1955 surfacing www nautilus571 Website US Navy (converted) (converted) (converted)

Many of these creatures in the animal world will not survive long outside the womb, if carried to term. What’s more, future Human Genetic Mutants of ever-lower intelligence and greater, more grotesque physical deformities are the genetic legacy of Humanity forevermore. That is the new starting point for any rational and reality-based national or foreign policy.

What We Know Now about Fukushima

Here is what is known more than 75 days after six reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Reactor Plant started a disastrous and lethal nuclear meltdown on March 11, 2011.

- March 11, 14:46, a One Million Kiloton Earthquake measuring 9.0 on the Richter Scale hammered Japan off-shore near the six Japanese reactors. The reactors attempted to shut down automatically when electronic sensors detected the earthquake. The huge earthquake dropped the reactors three feet, moved Japan 8 inches to the West and altered the tilt of the Axis of planet Earth.

- March 11, about 15:30, the giant Earthquake caused a tsunami up to 30 meters (98.4 Ft) high washed away all the fuel tanks for the reactors Emergency Generators and all the reactors’ outside electrical feeds. This was the Death Blow to the reactors.

The six Fukushima Daiichi reactors were dead in the water and their fate sealed. Without an external source of electricity for the water pumps and hot reactors, they are just so much radioactive scrap iron – good for nothing. The internal temperature of the reactors started climbing immediately.

- March 11, about 18:00, only two and a half hours later, multiple reactor cores started melting down as the reactors internal temperatures skyrocketed to the melting point of uranium and beyond – a measured 1,718 Deg C (3,124.4 Deg F) past the melting point.

Uranium melts at 1,132.2 Deg C (2,069.9 Deg F.) The internal reactor temperatures reached at least 2,850 Deg C, (5,162 Deg F.) The millions of 1 mm Uranium fuel pellets in the reactors and in the core pools had no defense at all without the powerful water pumps and billions of gallons of cooling water against those temperatures.

The Uranium pellets simply melted forming a white hot lava-like radioactive uranium isotope blob that was and probably still is super heated by the power of the uranium atom itself. The highly radioactive blob then burned through the graphite seals of the General Electric Mark 1 Reactor Control Rods at the bottom of the American submarine based reactor design of US Navy Admiral Hyman Rickover, now deceased.

General Electric copied the US Government financed Navy nuclear reactor design for many commercial nuclear reactors. The Radioactive Blobs trickled out of hundreds of control rod holes instead of melting together to form a single giant, highly radioactive, burning lava blob like that of Chernobyl.

The Solution, Then and Now, has Changed

World famous theoretical physicist Dr. Michio Kaku caught the world’s attention on a March 18, 2011 CNN broadcast when he suggested the Prime Minister of Japan immediately choose the “Chernobyl Option” for the Fukushima Daiichi General Electric reactors.

Kaku said the Japanese PM should order the Japanese Air Self Defense Force to bomb the reactors into submission with boron, sand, water and concrete like the Red Army did to kill the out-of-control Chernobyl reactor on orders of USSR President Gorbachev. Boron absorbs neutrons, the radioactive heart of the reactors.

The time for Dr. Kaku’s “Chernobyl Option” has passed. Multiple explosions destroyed the reactors and the swimming pools holding old reactor cores weeks ago. Hundreds to thousands of tons of burning highly radioactive reactor cores are scattered all over the Fukushima Daiichi site. The reactors are releasing as much as a Tepco (Tokyo Electric Power Company) measured 10 Quintillion (10,000 Trillion Bq) radioactive counts per second of deadly radioactive smoke particles into the Earth’s atmosphere.

The invisible, killing Radioactive Smoke is already all over the Northern Hemisphere and everyone in it – each and every one – is radiologically contaminated. The scope of Dr. Kaku’s once brilliant former solution is unfortunately, now too small and ineffective.

Generally speaking, most Radiation cannot escape into the atmosphere if it is covered by water. Honshu, Japan is an island and the Pacific Ocean is conveniently located nearby.

US President Barack Obama, Official Portrait US Gov

Subsidence charges from multiple nuclear weapons buried by drilling rigs 500 ft (152.4 meters) below and inland of the string of six reactors must be engineered to slide the reactors into the sea. This method works best if there is igneous or volcanic rock behind the subsidence charges, to “bounce” the blast and pressure wave from and “push” the trashed reactors area of the beachfront into the sea.

Specially equipped submarines can then pick up the pieces of reactor cores from under water. The surface of the ocean blocks the escape of radiation. The submarines must work fast to limit killing more of the Earth’s Oceans.

Veterans Today calls on President Obama to authorize the disposal of the six reactors at sea and the collection of the deadly radioactive metals with submarines. We conclude there are no other options left.

The “Do Nothing Option”

The “Do Nothing Option” allows the deaths and maiming of many millions of people to rapidly proceed. Doing nothing, by default, allows the Fukushima Kill to ruthlessly continue unabated. Doing nothing is also not acceptable from a practical standpoint; because, Japan does not own the nuclear weapons to use themselves.

Nuke the reactors at Fukushima Daiichi right into the sea, Mr. President.

Sources and Notes:
It is 76 days since the Fukushima Daiichi Disaster:
From and including: Friday, March 11, 2011
To and including: Tuesday, May 24, 2011
It is 75 days from the start date to the end date, end date included
Or 2 months, 14 days including the end date.

Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and Nature, written by A. V. Yablokov, V. B. Nesterenko and A. V. Nesterenko, published by the New York Academy of Sciences in December 2009, translated and edited into a book by Dr. Janette Sherman. Dr. Sherman’s Website. http://janettesherman.com/about/
From Dr Sherman’s website: http://janettesherman.com/books/
“This is a collection of papers translated from the Russian with some revised and updated contributions. Written by leading authorities from Eastern Europe, the volume outlines the history of the health and environmental consequences of the Chernobyl disaster. Although there has been discussion of the impact of nuclear accidents and Chernobyl in particular, never before has there been a comprehensive presentation of all the available information concerning the health and environmental effects of the low dose radioactive contaminants, especially those emitted from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. Official discussions from the International Atomic Energy Agency and associated United Nations’ agencies (e.g. the Chernobyl Forum reports) have largely downplayed or ignored many of the findings reported in the Eastern European scientific literature and consequently have erred by not including these assessments.”
To Order Click Here

“Meltdowns also likely occurred at No. 2, No. 3 reactors of Fukushima plant,” Asahi, Japanese newspaper, May 18, 2011,
Picture of The Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant seen from about 38 kilometers west of the facility and at an altitude of 7,300 meters (Eiji Hori)

Press Release (May 15,2011), “The Reactor Core Status of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station Unit 1,” TEPCO (The Tokyo Electric Power Company. http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11051509-e.html
Attachment:Tokyo Electric Power Company: Reactor Core Status of Fukushima
Daiichi Nuclear Power Station Unit 1 (PDF 92.6KB)

“Power company says smoke spotted at another Japanese nuclear plant,” March 30, 2011, By the CNN Wire Staff, http://articles.cnn.com/2011-03-30/world/japan.daini_1_nuclear-power-plant-turbine-building-cooling-system?_s=PM:WORLD
Ecological Development Biology: Intergrating Epigenetics, Medicine and Evolution Scott F. Gilbert and David Epel, December 2008, 459 pages, 182 illustrations, Sinauer

Comparing Chernobyl and Fukushima

What Price the Fukushima Meltdown? Comparing Chernobyl and Fukushima

Matthew Penney and Mark Selden, The Asia-Pacific Journal

On April 12, 2011 the Japanese government officially announced that the severity of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster had reached level 7, the highest on the International Nuclear Event Scale. Before Fukushima, the only level 7 case was the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, whose 25^th anniversary was marked on April 26. Two and a half months after the 3.11 catastrophe, the first to affect multiple reactors, TEPCO and the Japanese government continue to struggle to bring the reactors at Fukushima Daiichi under control. TEPCO estimates that the problems could be solved in six to nine months now appearing extraordinarily optimistic and plans have been announced to close nuclear power plants deemed of particularly high risk such as the Hamaoka facility.

Fukushima explosion

Following the upgrade to level 7, Japan’s Prime Minister’s Office released a statement comparing Fukushima and Chernobyl. (Source)

The Japanese government argues that apart from children who contracted thyroid cancer from drinking contaminated milk, there have been no health effects among ordinary citizens as a result of Chernobyl radiation. Is this really the case? Given the Japanese government’s precautions against thyroid cancer in children, is there reason to believe that the Fukushima accident will take no lives except those exposed to the highest dangers in the plant clean-up? (Source)

On April 15, Kyodo, Japan’s major news service, ran an English language piece by Russian scientist Alexey V. Yablokov (source). Yablokov’s stern warnings about the threat of even low levels of radiation had been ignored by the major media but were reported in Japanese in the Nishi Nippon Shimbun. (Source)

The English only Kyodo piece, however, ties Yablokov’s extensive Chernobyl research with the unfolding Fukushima crisis. Under the headline “How to minimize consequences of the Fukushima catastrophe,” Yablokov observed that

The analysis of the health impact of radioactive land contamination by the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, made by Professor Chris Busby (the European Committee of Radiation Risk) based on official Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology data, has shown that over the next 50 years it would be possible to have around 400,000 additional cancer patients within a 200-kilometer radius of the plant.

This number can be lower and can be even higher, depending on strategies to minimize the consequences. Underestimation is more dangerous for the people and for the country than overestimation.

Based on the Chernobyl experience, he made the following recommendations:

1. Enlarge the exclusion zone [from 20 kilometers] to at least about a 50-km radius of the plant;

2. Distribute detailed instructions on effective ways to protect the health of individuals while avoiding the additional contamination of food. Organize regular measurements of all people by individual dose counters (for overall radionuclides) at least once a week. Distribute radioprotectors and decontaminants (substances which provide the body protection against harmful effects of radiation) of radionuclides. . .

3. Develop recommendations for safe agriculture on the contaminated territories: reprocessing of milk, decontamination of meat, turning agriculture into production of technical cultures (e.g. biofuels etc.). Such ''radionuclide-resistant'' agriculture will be costly (it may be up to 30-40 percent compared with conventional agriculture) and needs to be subsidized;

4. It is necessary to urgently improve existing medical centers -- and possibly create new ones -- to deal with the immediate and long-term consequences of the irradiated peoples (including medical-genetic consultations on the basis of chromosome analysis etc.);

5. The most effective way to help organize post-Fukushima life in the contaminated territories (from Chernobyl lessons) is to create a special powerful interagency state body (ministry or committee) to handle the problems of contaminated territories during the first most complicated years.

Yablokov is one of the primary architects of the 2006 Greenpeace report “The Chernobyl Catastrophe: Consequences on Human Health” and an extensive 2010 follow-up study Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment published by the New York Academy of Sciences, which makes the startling claim that 985,000 deaths can be attributed to the 1986 disaster.

This claim is startling because it differs so dramatically from a 600 page 2005 study by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the WHO, and the UN Development Programme, which claimed that fewer than 50 deaths can be attributed directly to Chernobyl and fewer than 4000 likely from Chernobyl-related cancers in the future. Indeed, the two works continue to frame much of the public controversy, with little progress toward resolution. Attempts to assess the consequences of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster remain the subject of fierce debate over widely different estimates in both the scientific and policy communities. In the months since the Fukushima disaster, scores of reports have uncritically passed on the results of the IAEA/WHO or the Yablokov study published by the New York Academy of Sciences without seriously engaging the conflicting conclusions or moving the debate forward. Here we present the major findings of major studies across the divide that may help to clarify the likely outcomes of the Fukushima disaster. (1, 2)

Yablokov and colleagues assessed thousands of studies of the localities and people affected by the Chernobyl disaster in Russian and other Eastern European languages. They argue that these studies have been ignored by the Anglophone scientific community.

Critics, such as the British science journalist George Monbiot, have criticized Yablokov and his colleagues for attributing any increase in cancer occurrence in regions affected by Chernobyl to the radiation released in the disaster. Emphasizing the multiplicity of factors that may affect cancer rates, Monbiot states, for example, that none of the hardest hit areas subjected to Chernobyl radiation,show as dramatic a cancer increase in the 1986-2000 period as does Japan. The impact of Chernobyl radiation in Japan was negligible, yet the cancer rate there has nearly doubled since the disaster. In the wake of the Fukushima disaster, at a time when many have moved to reject the nuclear power option, Monbiot announced that he had abandoned his former criticism to embrace nuclear power as a responsible component of a green energy policy.

Japanese government statistics in fact show large increases in screening rates for cancer during this period and this is one possible explanation for the increase in the number of cases reported. (1, 2, 3, 4)

Monty Charles of the School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Birmingham, reviewed Yablokov’s work in the journal Radiation Protection Dosimetry (Volume 141, Issue 1, 2010, pp. 101-104) and found the statistical conclusions far from clear and even contradictory:

Numerous facts and figures are given with a range of references but with little explanation and little critical evaluation. Apparently related tables, figures and statements, which refer to particular publications often disagree with one another. The section on oncological diseases (cancer) was of most interest to me. A section abstract indicated that on the basis of doses from ¹³¹I and¹³⁷Cs; a comparison of cancer mortality in the heavily and less contaminated territories; and pre- and post-Chernobyl cancer levels, the predicted radiation-related cancer deaths in Europe would be 212 000–245 000 and 19 000 in the remainder of the world. I could not however find any specific discussion within the section to support these numbers. The section ends with an endorsement of the work of Malko who has estimated 10 000–40 000 additional deaths from thyroid cancer, 40 000–120 000 deaths from the other malignant tumours and 5000–14 000 deaths from leukaemia—a total of 55 000–174 000 deaths from 1986 to 2056 in the whole of Europe, including Belarus, Ukraine and Russia. These numbers confusingly, do not agree with a table (6.21) from the same author. The final section on overall mortality contains a table (7.11), which includes an estimate of 212 000 additional deaths in highly contaminated regions of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine. This figure is for the period of 1990–2004, and is based on an assumption that 3.8–4.0% of all deaths in the contaminated territories being due to the Chernobyl accident. One is left unsure about the meaning of many of these numbers and which is preferred.

If his work has been subject to trenchant critiques, Yablokov has offered a few of his own concerning the WHO/IAEA study discussed above. Yablokov’s work forms a major part of a document, “Health Effects of Chernobyl: 25 Years after the Reactor Catastrophe”, released by the German Affiliate of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War on the occasion of an international conference on Chernobyl held in Berlin between April 8 - 10, 2011. (Source)

The report contains a devastating critique of the low WHO and IAEA Chernobyl death toll estimates:

Note on the unreliability of official data published by WHO and IAEA

At the “Chernobyl Forum of the United Nations” organised in September 2005 by the International Atomic Energy Agency and the World Health Organisation, the presentation of the results of work on the effects of Chernobyl showed serious inconsistencies. For example: the press release of the WHO and IAEA stated that in the future, at most, 4000 surplus fatalities due to cancer and leukaemia amongst the most severely affected groups of people might be expected. In the WHO report on which this was based however, the actual number of deaths is given as 8,930. These deaths were not mentioned in any newspaper articles. When one examines the source quoted in the WHO report, one arrives at a number betwen 10,000 and 25,000 additional fatalities due to cancer and leukaemia.

Given this it can be rationally concluded that the official statements of the IAEA and the WHO have manipulated their own data. Their representation of the effects of Chernobyl has little to do with reality.

The report continues:

S. Pflugbeil pointed out already in 2005 that there were discrepancies between press releases, the WHO report and the source quoted in it (Cardis et al.). Up until now neither the Chernobyl Forum, IAEA nor the WHO have deemed it necessary to let the public know that, on the basis of their own analysis, a two to five-fold higher number of deaths due to cancer and leukaemia are to be expected as the figures they have published.

Even in 2011 – some 5 years on - no official UN organisation has as yet corrected these figures. The latest UNSCEAR publication on the health effects of Chernobyl does not take into account any of the numerous results of research into the effects of Chernobyl from the three countries affected. Only one figure – that of 6,000 cases of thyroid cancer among children and juveniles, and leukaemia and cataracts in liquidators – was included in their recent information to the media. Thus, in 2011 the UNSCEAR committee declared: On the basis of studies carried out during the last 20 years, as well as of previous UNSCEAR reports, UNSCEAR has come to the conclusion that the large majority of the population has no reason to fear that serious health risks will arise from the Chernobyl accident. The only exception applies to those exposed to radioiodine during childhood or youth and to liquidators who were exposed to a high dose of radiation and therefore had to reckon with a higher radiation induced risk.

Even if Yablokov’s estimates for Chernobyl deaths are high, the WHO and IAEA numbers are almost certainly too low.

One area of continuing debate is the fate of the “liquidators” at Chernobyl. A major difference between Fukushima and Chernobyl is government handling of the aftermath. While the Japanese government can be criticized for the speed of evacuation and the limited evacuation radius, the seriousness of the issues was immediately recognized and efforts made to send people away from the stricken plant. In the case of Chernobyl, even as the state suppressed information about the catastrophe, between 600,000 and 1,000,000 people termed “liquidators” were sent to the most heavily irradiated zone to work to contain the effects of the meltdown, many with limited protection and unaware of the risks.

Some research, such as the article “Thyroid Cancer among ‘Liquidators’ of the Chernobyl Accident” published in the British Journal of Radiology (70, 1997, pp. 937-941), suggests relatively limited health effects (fewer than 50 cases of thyroid cancer in a group of over 150,000 liquidators followed in the study). (Source)

The article “Chernobyl Liquidators – The People and the Doses”, published by the International Radiation Protection Association, likewise concludes that across the majority of the liquidator group, “The health consequences from these radiation doses are too small to be identifiable in any epidemiological study, which does not target specific sub-groups with potentially higher exposure.” (Source)

Support groups for liquidators, however, claim that 25,000 have died and over 70,000 are disabled. (Source)

The issue cannot be limited to fatalities. The German Affiliate of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War “Health Effects of Chernobyl” report presents extensive evidence of widespread crippling disability among liquidators. As in the case of the Chernobyl death toll, the plight of liquidators is a hotly contested topic with radically different figures emerging from different quarters.

Some commentators have presented data that suggests a way out of the deadlock over the health and death consequences of Chernobyl. Peter Karamoskos, a Nuclear Radiologist and public representative on the Radiation Health Committee of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency argues in “Do we know the Chernobyl death toll?” that despite uncertainties about the numbers, “The weight of scientific opinion holds that there is no threshold below which ionising radiation poses no risk and that the risk is proportional to the dose: the "linear no-threshold" (LNT) model.”

Drawing on the 2006 report of the Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionising Radiation (BEIR) of the US National Academy of Sciences. Karamoskos points out: “The … view that low-level radiation is harmless, is restricted to a small number of scientists whose voice is greatly amplified by the nuclear industry (in much the same way as corporate greenhouse polluters amplify the voices of climate science sceptics).”

He continues:

There is general agreement that about 50 people died in the immediate aftermath of the Chernobyl accident. Beyond that, studies generally don't indicate a significant increase in cancer incidence in populations exposed to Chernobyl fallout. Nor would anyone expect them to because of the data gaps and methodological problems mentioned above, and because the main part of the problem concerns the exposure of millions of people to very low doses of radiation from Chernobyl fallout.
For a few marginal scientists and nuclear industry spruikers, that's the end of the matter - the statistical evidence is lacking and thus the death toll from Chernobyl was just 50. Full stop. But for those of us who prefer mainstream science, we can still arrive at a scientifically defensible estimate of the Chernobyl death toll by using estimates of the total radiation exposure, and multiplying by a standard risk estimate.
The International Atomic Energy Agency estimates a total collective dose of 600,000 Sieverts over 50 years from Chernobyl fallout. A standard risk estimate from the International Commission on Radiological Protection is 0.05 fatal cancers per Sievert. Multiply those figures and we get an estimated 30,000 fatal cancers.
A number of studies apply that basic method - based on collective radiation doses and risk estimates - and come up with estimates of the death toll varying from 9000 (in the most contaminated parts of the former Soviet Union) to 93,000 deaths (across Europe).
Those are the credible estimates of the likely eventual death toll from Chernobyl. Claims that the death toll was just 50 should be rejected as dishonest spin from the nuclear industry and some of its most strident and scientifically-illiterate supporters.

Karamaskos then turns to Fukushima, observing that

Nuclear industry spruikers will insist that no-one is at risk from low-level radiation exposure from Fukushima. The rest of us will need to wait some months or years before we have a plausible estimate of total human radiation exposure upon which to base an estimate of the death toll. To date, radiation releases from Fukushima are estimated by the Japanese government to be 10 per cent of the total Chernobyl release.
Needless to say, the view that low-level radiation is harmless is completely at odds with the current situation in Japan - the 20 km evacuation zone around the Fukushima nuclear plant, restrictions on food and water consumption in Japan and restrictions on the importation of food from Japan. (Source)

A joint survey conducted by the Japanese and U.S. governments has produced a detailed map of ground surface radioactive contamination within an 80-kilometer radius of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.

Yablokov’s Chernobyl research and the dire prediction of as many as 400,000 radiation-related cancers in the Fukushima region if wider evacuation is not considered, deserves consideration, scrutiny, and debate as the Japanese government deals with radiation releases from Fukushima Daiichi. The same is true of alternative methodologies, particularly as the “linear no-threshold model” described by Peter Karamoskos. Despite recent efforts to evacuate people from high radiation areas outside of the 20 km evacuation zone, however, Japanese newspapers reported on April 20 that at the same time, the Japanese government had increased the permissible hourly radiation dose at schools in Fukushima Prefecture to 3.8 microsieverts. The Mainichi describes this as “a level that would see students absorb the internationally recognized maximum of 20 millisieverts per year.” See “Save the Children: Radiation Exposure of Fukushima Students,” link.

What are the risks of such doses? Thomas L. Slovis of the Society for Pediatric Radiology writes in Pediatr Radiol (2002:32:225-227)

… the risk of cancer from radiation is 5% per sievert… That’s an average number; but an average is almost meaningless. If you are a mature, late middle-aged individual, it is maybe 1% per sievert. But if you are a child, it is maybe 15% per sievert, with a clear gender difference too at these early ages. So children are very, very sensitive compared to adults." For an adult the acceptable risk for any activity for emergency workers is 50 mSv. For a child the equivalent risk is (50 mSv /250 mSv)*66 mSv=13 mSv. The standard suggested by Japan for children is twice this value. The change in standard to 20 mSv corresponds to a change to 0.3% risk in cancer later on in life.

Uncertainty about the long-term health effects of even low levels of radiation was further highlighted by David J. Brenner in the April 5 issue of Nature. (Source)

In recent weeks, the issue of radiation and the 300,000 children of Fukushima has moved to the center of debate in assessing Japanese government handling of the Fukushima meltdown, even as the seriousness of radiation issues has grown with the belated disclosure by TEPCO of the multiple disasters experienced at the outset, and still far from under control, in Fukushima Daiichi.

On April 28, Kosako Toshiso, a radiation specialist at Tokyo University, resigned his position as Special Advisor to the Cabinet. Kosako had earlier gained notoriety for his role in helping to deny the extension of benefits to some radiation victims of the atomic bombs in a 2003 court case. After Fukushima, however, Kosako made an impassioned and courageous stand against what he saw as a government taking the potential health effects of long-term radiation exposure too lightly. In a press conference, Kosako castigated the Kan cabinet for its decision to increase permissible radiation exposure for Fukushima children:

At times of emergency, we cannot do without exceptions to standard rules and we are indeed capable of setting them up, but in any case, international common sense ought to be respected. It is wrong to forcibly push through conclusions that happen to be convenient only for the administrative authorities but which are utterly unacceptable by international standards. Such conclusions are bound to draw criticism from the international community.

This time, upon discussing the acceptable level of radiation exposure for playgrounds in primary schools in Fukushima, they have calculated, guided and determined a level of "3.8μSv per hour" on the basis of "20mSv per year". It is completely wrong to use such a standard for schools that are going to run a normal school curriculum, in which case a standard similar to usual radiation protection measurement (1mSv per year, or even in exceptional cases, 5mSv) ought to be applied, and not the one used in cases of exceptional or urgent circumstances (for two to three days, or at the most, one to two weeks). It is not impossible to use a standard, perhaps for a few months, of 10mSv per year at the maximum, if the public is rightly notified of the necessity of taking caution, and also if special measures are to be taken. But normally it is better to avoid such a thing. We have to note that it is very rare even among occupationally exposed persons (84,000 in total) to be exposed to radiation of 20mSv per year. I cannot possibly accept such a level to be applied to babies, infants and primary school students, not only from my scholarly viewpoint but also from my humanistic beliefs.

You rarely come across a level of 10mSv per year on the covering soil if you measure the leftover soil at a disposal site in any uranium mine (it would be about a few mSv per year at the most), so one needs to have utmost caution when using such a level. Therefore, I strongly protest the decision to use the standard of 20mSv per year for school playgrounds, and ask for revision.

(Translation by Tanaka Izumi) Complete translation available here.

On April 29, the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War appealed to the Japanese government to recognize the risk that students of Fukushima would be exposed to, citing widely accepted scientific principles for radiation effects:

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences BEIR VII report estimates that each 1 mSv of radiation is associated with an increased risk of solid cancer (cancers other than leukemia) of about 1 in 10,000; an increased risk of leukemia of about 1 in 100,000; and a 1 in 17,500 increased risk of dying from cancer. But a critical factor is that not everyone faces the same level of risk. For infants (under 1 year of age) the radiation-related cancer risk is 3 to 4 times higher than for adults; and female infants are twice as susceptible as male infants.

Text available online.

On May 12, the Japan Medical Association, in the wake of the Kosako resignation, criticized government indifference to the exposure of Fukushima children to radiation. (Source)

The Mainichi also reports protests from various corners.

Indeed, coverage has spread to corners of the mass media hardly known for political critique. Journalist Hirokawa Ryuichi, known for his coverage of the plight of Palestinian children, Unit 731, and Chernobyl, takes on the 20mSv issue in the May 26 issue of Josei Seven (Women’s Seven), a weekly known mostly for paparazzi-style star stalking, but now including more political criticism as mothers nationwide consider the implications of the government’s 20mSv for children decision. (Source)

Hirokawa argues that while the Soviet government may have been irresponsible in its initial approach to the Chernobyl radiation release, it undertook a massive effort to evacuate children from Kiev, 120 kilometers away from the crisis zone, between May and September 1986. Fukushima City is just over 50 kilometers away from Fukushima Daiichi. At the currently approved 20mSv, Hirokawa points out, Japanese children could be exposed to four times the radiation of children in Ukraine in 1986. He writes, “… an hourly rate of 3.8 microsieverts is a number not all that different from readings at the dead ruins of Pripyat. I don’t want to imagine Japanese children running and playing in this ruined shell of a city.” Pripyat, built originally to house Chernobyl workers, is the abandoned city at the heart of Ukraine’s “Zone of Alienation”.

While comparisons between Chernobyl and Fukushima abound, there are many who point to the contrasts. In the latest issue of the Journal of Radiological Protection, radiation, Professor Richard Wakeford of the University of Manchester’s Dalton Nuclear Institute points out flaws in the International Nuclear Event Scale, "Since Level 7 is the highest rating on INES there can be no distinction between the Fukushima and Chernobyl accidents, leading many to proclaim the Fukushima accident as 'another Chernobyl', which it is not….” He asserts that as of early April, Fukushima had released but one tenth of the amount of radiation expelled in the Chernobyl disaster and praises Japan’s official response,

“Given the difficult background circumstances pertaining in Fukushima Prefecture as problems mounted at the Fukushima Dai-ichi NPS, the organisational abilities of the Japanese authorities in dealing with the evacuation, monitoring and protection of the public has to be admired. In particular, the heroic efforts of the emergency workers, battling under conditions that were often atrocious, should not pass without respect and praise. I for one bow to their courage.” (Source)

We have, likewise, noted important differences in the handling of the disasters at Chernobyl and Fukushima. Yet it is important to note that Wakeford’s praise ignores the most important revelations of TEPCO’s and the Japanese governments cover-ups and recklessness, as in its decisions to expose Fukushima children to 20 mSv of radiation on a long-term basis.

As the nature of the Fukushima crisis relative to Chernobyl continues to be contested, the important issue of radiation exposure of Fukushima school children remains at the center of public debate. To date, the Japanese government has failed to respond effectively to critics of policies that pose long-term risks to the nation’s children.

Matthew Penney is an Assistant Professor at Concordia University in Montreal and a Japan Focus associate. He is currently conducting research on popular representations of war in Japan. He can be contacted at penneym@hotmail.com.

Mark Selden is a coordinator of the Asia-Pacific Journal and Senior Research Associate in the East Asia Program at Cornell University. His recent books include Chinese Society: Change, Conflict and Resistance; China, East Asia and the Global Economy: Regional and historical perspectives, The Resurgence of East Asia: 500, 150 and 50 Year Perspectives, and War and State Terrorism: The United States, Japan, and the Asia-Pacific in the Long Twentieth Century. His homepage is www.markselden.info.

Recommended citation: Matthew Penney and Mark Selden, What Price the Fukushima Meltdown? Comparing Chernobyl and Fukushima, The Asia-Pacific Journal Vol 9, Issue 21 No 3, May 23, 2011.

URANIO - Lo Scandalo della Francia Contaminata

3000 milliards de doses létales

AIPRI, domenica 22 maggio 2011

3000 milliards de doses létales potentielles.

Sans attendre les dix ans que prendront le prochain rapport de l’Onu, l’AIPRI anticipe son second inventaire des produits de fission et d’activation des 6 réacteurs de Fukushima d’une puissance globale de 4696 Mwé. L’AIPRI, rappelant que quasiment tous les carburants « actifs » et « éteints » sont là en probable fusion, considère qu’au moins 8 tonnes de matière ont été fissionnées à Fukushima dans les 577 tonnes de combustible utilisées. Ceci signifie qu’au moins 13,8 kg de matière ont été fissionnés par tonne de carburant pour un burnup putatif moyen d’environ 13 GwJ/t. Dans cette hypothèse, les 6 cœurs « actifs » de Fukushima contiennent 80% des produits de fission et d’activation engendrés par les explosions atomiques atmosphériques de fission. Fukushima, en outre, dispose de 3 fois plus de carburant que Tchernobyl et 4 fois plus de produits de fission. Si l’on tient maintenant compte de l’ensemble « coeurs » -577 tonnes- + le carburant « éteint » -2800 tonnes- Fukushima c’est 8 fois plus de produit de fission et d’activation que l’ensemble des essais atmosphériques de fission et 39 fois plus que Tchernobyl. En terme de doses létales potentielles par inhalation (multiplier les Bq de chaque élément par le facteur de dose et diviser le tout par 5), calculées avec les facteurs de doses OFFICIELS les plus bas fournis par l’AIEA, celles-ci correspondent au chiffre apocalyptique de plus de 3000 milliards de doses létales potentielles dont un pourcentage indéfini est déjà équitablement réparti dans l’hémisphère nord. Sachant cela, et très inquiète pour la santé des élites dont aucun garde du corps ne sait hélas protéger les poumons, l’AIPRI lance un appel pour résoudre cette question stochastique. Combien de banquiers, savants, politiciens, propagandistes nucléaristes de tout poil subiront-ils un cancer radiologique induit avant dix ans ?


http://meteoclimato.pagesperso-orange.fr/Radiameters.htm

Summary of Detected Radioactive Materials on Soil: A Call for Physical Examination on Internal Exposure in Wide Area

Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) Systems http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/teachers/03.pdf

Plutonium Contamination of Japanese Rice

Media Silent About Plutonium Contamination of Japanese Rice
http://globaltechfirm.com/mediasilentaboutcontamination.html

The Japanese Business Press reported on May 14 that a rice field more than 50 kilometers away from the Fukushima nuclear plant has tested for high levels of deadly plutonium. A “certain food manufacturing company” conducted the independent test that reported data different from data the Japanese government released, according to a translation of the news article.

Video of smoke rising from Fukushima nuclear reactor, images of damage Fukushima results “The total area contaminated with radiation from the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant is estimated at about 800 square kilometers, or about 40 percent the size of Tokyo, according to a radiation map created by the science ministry and U.S. Department of Energy,” reports Asahi. “The report uses the same level of contamination (555,000 becquerels or higher of cesium-137) that was used to issue compulsory evacuation orders in the Chernobyl nuclear accident in 1986.” It is not likely the corporate media missed the news. Asahi has alliances with the International Herald Tribune, which is owned by the New York Times. According to the map above, about 800 square kilometers are contaminated with accumulated cesium-137 of 600,000 becquerels or higher per square meter. The corporate media outside of Japan did not mention the test or the increased radiation affecting the staple crop. Since the start of the disaster, the corporate media has parroted statements from TEPCO and the Japanese government in its coverage of the worst nuclear catastrophe since Chernobyl. In addition, the corporate media has all but ignored extremely high levels of nuclear radioactive contamination recently detected in Japan. “The latest joint US and Japan survey shows extremely high levels of nuclear radioactive contamination, with radiation levels higher than Chernobyl evacuation limits, now span over 800 kilometers in Japan,” writes Alexander Higgins. Share on Tumblr

À la centrale de Fukushima Daiichi, les dégâts sont pires que prévu

France24, 18/05/2011

- Énergie nucléaire - Japon - Séisme au Japon

À la centrale de Fukushima Daiichi, les dégâts sont pires que prévu

L'opérateur Tepco a reconnu le 12 mai que le cœur des réacteurs 1, 2 et 3 de la centrale de Fukushima Daiichi avait fondu quelques heures seulement après le tsunami. Une révélation des plus inquiétantes pour certains experts du nucléaire.

Par Charlotte BOITIAUX (texte)

Les médias français n’en parlent presque plus et pourtant, les conséquences de la catastrophe nucléaire de Fukushima Daiichi s’aggravent de jour en jour. L'opérateur japonais Tepco, en charge de la centrale nucléaire de Fukushima, a déclaré le 12 mai que le combustible nucléaire des réacteurs 1, 2 et 3 avait vraisemblablement fondu, faute d'avoir été immergé dans l'eau durant plusieurs heures après la catastrophe du 11 mars.

D’après ces déclarations, qui ont fait suite à de nouvelles mesures effectuées sur le site, le phénomène se serait produit après que le refroidissement du réacteur a été coupé par le tsunami. Les barres de combustible, totalement ou partiellement fondues, auraient suinté vers le fond de la cuve. Cette dernière n’aurait pas résisté et se serait alors fissurée.

"Un pic de cancers dans les années à venir"

FRANCE 24 JAPON Radiations nucléaires : quels risques pour la santé ?

L’annonce de Tepco, intervenue 69 jours après la catastrophe, passe mal auprès des experts. "La situation est beaucoup plus grave que ce que Tepco et l'agence de sécurité nucléaire japonaise ne l'ont laissée paraître", déclare Harry Bernas, directeur de recherche au CNRS. "Des mesures - encore incomplètes - publiées ces jours-ci- prouvent qu'en perçant leurs barrières de sécurité, des éléments hautement radioactifs se sont non seulement échappés dans l'air et l'océan, mais ont également pollué les nappes phréatiques", s’inquiète le chercheur. "Reste à savoir maintenant à quel degré de gravité nous sommes confrontés".

L’irradiation quotidienne et permanente émanant des réacteurs de Fukushima va inexorablement contaminer les sols japonais et surtout, remonter dans la chaîne alimentaire via les produits de la mer, consommés massivement par la population nippone. "Il est évident qu'un pic de cancers va se déclencher dans les années à venir dans la région autour de Fukushima", explique Stéphane Lhomme, le président de l'Observatoire du nucléaire.

Selon Sophia Majnoni, chargée de campagne nucléaire pour Greenpeace France, l’ampleur de la catastrophe était pourtant prévisible. "Il était évident que les cœurs avaient fondu après être restés plusieurs heures sans être refroidis. Tepco n’a simplement pas voulu dire la vérité en étant sous les feux des médias", explique-t-elle. "J’hésite entre les mots ‘malhonnêteté’ et ‘incompétence’ à leur égard".

"Des délais qui n’ont aucun sens"

De son côté, Tepco se veut le plus rassurant possible. Aucun changement n’est prévu dans leur calendrier de sortie de crise présenté le 24 avril. "Nos objectifs ne changent pas", a assuré Sakae Muto, le directeur général adjoint de Tepco lors d’une conférence de presse, la semaine dernière.

Cliquez pour agrandir l'image

Les travaux mis en place par l’opérateur se poursuivent donc comme prévu et Tepco continue de tabler sur la réduction des fuites radioactives d’ici à juillet et sur une stabilisation de la température des réacteurs d’ici à janvier 2012.

Un avis contredit par Harry Bernas. Pour lui, "ces délais n’ont aucun sens (…), les réacteurs numéro 1 et 2 sont de véritables passoires. L'eau de refroidissement les traverse. Plus de cent cinquante mille tonnes de cette eau devenue très radioactive devra être évacuée et traitée rapidement. La situation reste instable. Au total, il faudra plusieurs décennies avant de mettre un terme à cette catastrophe", conclut-il.

TEPCO Admits Full Meltdown

Greenpeace - May 16, 2011

Greenpeace today criticised TEPCO and the Japanese government for continuing to downplay the seriousness of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear crisis. Yesterday TEPCO admitted that a partial meltdown of the reactor 1 core at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant had occurred a mere five hours after the tragic March 11 earthquake and tsunami, followed by a full meltdown within 16 hours.

zoom

Radiation Measurement on Rainbow Warrior

Sakyo Noda of Greenpeace Japan gets checked by Ike Teuling - Greenpeace radiation safety adviser - for radiation contamination on his protective clothing suit after taking part in collecting sea water and seaweed samples to monitor radiation levels off the coast of Japan. Jeremy Sutton-Hibbert / Greenpeace

TEPCO's admission clearly shows that there are significant risks to the marine ecosystem along the Fukushima coast in Japan.

At the time of the incident, temperatures reached 2,800°C, melted fuel dropped and accumulated at the bottom of the reactor pressure vessel. The vessel was then breached, causing radiation to leak from the core and spread via cooling water to the ground and ocean.

“That it has taken TEPCO more than two months to confirm that a full meltdown took place at Fukushima demonstrates the nuclear industry’s utter failure to deal with the severity of the crisis or the risks involved in nuclear power,” said Jan Beránek, Greenpeace International Nuclear Campaign Leader.

“TEPCO should have known that water pumped into reactor vessel 1 would become highly contaminated — it is appalling that company did not do more to prevent massive volumes of
contaminated water being released into the ocean, spreading long-lived radioactive contamination along Japan’s East coast.”

“The nuclear industry has claimed situations like Fukushima could not arise with this type of reactor, due to lessons learned in the past. It has taken far too long for Japan’s authorities to admit that they were wrong,” said Beránek.

“This has major implications to all previous assumptions about nuclear safety, and it is clear that the public should not put their faith in the nuclear industry to protect their health and safety.”

“TEPCO must immediately make public any other information about the state of the other reactors at Fukushima.”

No data or analysis has been provided on the meltdowns that have probably taken place in units 2 and 3. Those two reactors are significantly larger than unit 1 and contain almost double amount of nuclear material.

Salute

Uranio: sotto sequestro tutto il poligono di Quirra

BlitzQuotidiano.it

NUORO – I dodicimila ettari del Poligono militare di Quirra e di Capo San Lorenzo, il piu' vasto d'Europa, sono stati posti sotto sequestro dal gip del Tribunale di Lanusei, Paola Murru, che ha ravvisato il reato di disastro ambientale. La Procura, contestualmente, ha messo i sigilli anche su sorgenti e pozzi presenti nell'area della base perche' l'acqua avrebbe subito contaminazioni da nano-particelle a causa delle ripetute esplosioni di ordigni durante le esercitazioni e i test svoltisi in questi anni. E' l'ultimo sviluppo dell'inchiesta – la prima penale in Sardegna – aperta dal procuratore Domenico Fiordalisi per accertare la presenza di uranio impoverito ed eventuali connessioni con le morti per tumore e le malformazioni registrate sugli animali, in particolare un agnello nato con due teste e sul quale sono state trovate tracce di elementi radioattivi. Il decreto di sequestro preventivo firmato oggi dal gip, che autorizza solo le attivita' militari disposte dal ministero della Difesa, porta come immediata conseguenza l'interdizione di ogni attivita' agropastorale all'interno dell'area, a cominciare dal pascolo del bestiame. Immediata la protesta di Coldiretti: ''E' un sopruso – dicono i vertici dell'associazione – che avra' effetti devastanti. Oltre 10mila capi di bestiame non potranno piu' pascolare in quella zona''. Ma secondo il giudice esistono le prove per affermare che le esercitazioni hanno provocato gravi danni alla salute degli uomini e degli animali. Da questo presupposto parte l'inchiesta di Fiordalisi, che ha disposto il sequestro probatorio di tutte le sorgenti, canali, pozzi e condutture che si allacciano all'acquedotto che alimenta il comune di Villaputzu e la frazione di Quirra: c'e' assoluta certezza, ha spiegato il procuratore, che l'agnello con due teste e' nato all'interno del perimetro di Quirra, di conseguenza anche l'acqua potrebbe aver subito contaminazioni di nano-particelle provenienti dalle esplosioni del munizionamento. E la stessa acqua finita nella rete potabile sarebbe la causa anche di alcuni tumori registrati tra gli abitanti di Villaputzu e Quirra. Sfogliando il decreto del gip, che riprende documenti e testimonianze acquisiti dalla Procura, emerge chiaramente che il 25 ottobre 1988 nel Poligono fu sparato un missile con una testata da guerra all'uranio impoverito, che tra i rifiuti interrati ci sono sostanze con cadmio, piombo, antimonio e napalm e che tra gli animali malformati ci sono capi con sei zampe, con gli occhi dietro le orecchie e, appunto, a due teste. Un altro filone di indagine riguarda le morti sospette. La Procura ha disposto la riesumazione di una ventina di salme tra pastori e militari: su tre corpi sono gia' state completate le autopsie e i tessuti prelevati vengono analizzati in un laboratorio specializzato per verificare la presenza di particelle Alfa, emesse dall'uranio impoverito. L'inchiesta ha portato sinora all'iscrizione nel registro degli indagati di tre persone: Tobia Santacroce, 66 anni, generale in pensione, ex comandante dell'Ufficio inquadramento, accusato di disastro ambientale colposo e omicidio volontario doloso; e due chimici, Gilberto Nobile, 60 anni, di Vercelli, e Gabriella Fasciani, di 48, di Torino, indagati per falso ideologico in atto pubblico: avrebbero attestato la non anomalia di particelle metalliche presenti nei polmoni e negli organi di ovini da loro analizzati. Il sequestro e' ''una svolta importante che puo' finalmente portare all'individuazione della verita' sull'uso dell'uranio impoverito nelle esercitazioni militari'', dice Angelo Bonelli, presidente dei Verdi, mentre Falco Accame, presidente dell'Anavafaf, un' associazione che assiste i familiari delle vittime arruolate nelle Forze armate, parla di un provvedimento ''salutare, che se fosse stato adottato 30 o 40 anni fa avrebbe evitato molte vittime''. La Coldiretti, invece, definisce l'iniziativa giudiziaria ''un sopruso che avra' effetti devastanti sul tessuto agropastorale dell'intero territorio'', perche' ''66 allevatori riceveranno l'ordinanza di sgombero per oltre 10mila capi di bestiame''. Per il Governo, il ministro degli Esteri, Franco Frattini, oggi a Cagliari, ha detto che la posizione ''e' quella del ministro la Russa''. Il quale, solo due giorni fa, dopo aver sottolineato che la Difesa ''ha dato la massima collaborazione alla magistratura'', ha dichiarato che e' interesse delle stesse Forze armate tutelare la salute dei propri militari e dei civili.

12 maggio 2011 | 22:20

Banking on the next Fukushima

Banking on the next Fukushima

India, May 11 2011 | Greenpeace International

Two months after the devastating earthquake and tsunami struck Japan our thoughts are with those who have lost loved ones, those who face an uncertain future and those who are still unable to return home because of the deadly contamination from the still leaking and still precarious nuclear complex at Fukushima.

The ongoing Fukushima nuclear catastrophe stands as a stark warning to those who live in the shadow of other nuclear reactors around the world. It stands also as a reminder of the inherent risk of nuclear power: a technology so complex and so dangerous that it will always be prone to the impact of natural disaster, technical failure and human error.

Nuclear power is a technology that comes complete with its own disaster scale: the International Nuclear Events Scale or INES. Fukushima having suffered the twin onslaught of earthquake and tsunami registered seven on that scale, the highest possible, yet it is not the worst case scenario. It can't be. There is still much more radioactivity held inside the wrecked reactors than has been leaked into the environment. There is still no guarantee that the reactors have been brought under control. The future for those living in the area remains fraught with danger, uncertainty and risk.

One thing is certain, though! No one would build a reactor in a high risk earthquake zone on a coast now. Not after Fukushima. Would they? No one would take the risk?

Regulators would not approve it. Citizens would fiercely oppose it. Banks and markets would not be prepared to take the risk; they would not be prepared to pay for it. Would they? Apparently, yes! Two of the world's biggest banks, HSBC and BNP Paribas, are doing just that, they are involved in funding a massive nuclear development at Jaitapur on India's earthquake prone coast in Maharastra State. If completed according to plan, it will be the world's biggest nuclear power facility.

Long before the Fukushima disaster, local people expressed their opposition, they have protested the construction and pointed out the inherent dangers and technical threats posed by the planned French European Pressurised Reactors. They pointed out that nowhere in the world has the problem of how to isolate deadly nuclear waste from the environment been solved. Jaitapur is no exception - there is no plan, period. Nor is there any money being set aside to pay for radioactive waste management. Thousands of people have been unjustly arrested in protest. More than 2,400 families will lose their livelihoods if the plans continue, yet only 154 have so far accepted compensation.

Despite this and in the face of Fukushima the Indian government is determined to continue, to let the French company Areva build the reactors. It will not listen to reason nor pay attention to the reality of earthquakes in the region: in the last two decades alone it has suffered three earthquakes above 5 points on the Richter scale. In 1993 the region suffered a quake measuring 6.3 which left some 9,000 people dead.

I have witnessed first hand the legacy of the nuclear industry. Last month I travelled to Chernobyl and met with local people who - 25 years later - still live with that nuclear disaster every day. I have had the honour of standing alongside the people of the Wendland in Germany who continue to lead a mass movement against a planned nuclear waste storage site that threatens their livelihoods and homes. And along with the rest of the world I have witnessed the most extreme cost of nuclear energy - the disaster at Fukushima and the heart-wrenching consequences for the people affected.

Today, I have written to the heads of BNP Paribas and HSBC reminding them of the need to act responsibly and reminding them of the reality surrounding these already questionable nuclear investments. I am urging people everywhere to take a stand against future Fukushima's and join me in warning these banks against the risks of investing in nuclear power. Instead we need banks like HSBC and BNP Paribas to invest in clean and safe renewable energy sources rather than bank on the next Fukushima. No money, no reactors, no danger.

Kumi Naidoo

Greenpeace International Executive Director

link(s)

• http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/nuclear/stop-radioactive-investment/Help-stop-the-next-Fukushima-disaster/
• http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/nuclear/stop-radioactive-investment/Help-stop-the-next-Fukushima-disaster/Phone-the-banks/

contact

Jan Haverkamp, Greenpeace International, Belgium
Jan Beranek, Greenpeace International, Netherland

Urgenza di creare un tribunale speciale internazionale

Avv. Alfonso Luigi Marra
Centro Direzionale G1, 80143 Napoli www.marra.it – alfonsoluigi@marra.it

Doc n. 186, 4.5.11
200.000 invii via mail. Inviato per posta ai magistrati NA, RO, MI, FI, SA, Corte Cost., Cass., TAR Campania e Lazio, Consiglio di Stato, Corte dei conti, CSM.

Urgenza di creare un tribunale speciale internazionale e istituire la pena di morte per chi realizza o occulta cose particolarmente dannose o rischiose per l’ambiente.

Urgente necessità – affinché emerga tutto quanto vi è di pericoloso nel mondo – di istituire un rapidissimo tribunale speciale internazionale per i crimini ambientali prevedendo fino alla pena di morte per chi realizza o occulta cose rischiose per l’umanità o per contesti di persone. Motivi per i quali, oltre alla stampa e a ogni altra forza, anche la magistratura, il resto dell’apparato burocratico, e la sinistra, lavorano in favore del potere bancario, cioè del signoraggio, e quindi per l’annientamento del pianeta attra-verso il nucleare, l’involuzione climatica e la devastazione ambientale, che appunto sono frutti del signoraggio, così come lo sono l’inflazione e le tasse. Illecito mosaico tra 4 cruciali norme incostituzionali e decenni di sentenze filo\bancarie quale esempio di lettura al contrario, da parte della politica e della magistratura, di quel principio di cui art. 41 della Costituzione nella universale violazione del quale è la ragione dell’attuale rovina del mondo. Proposta di una legge che – mediante la semplice disciplina dell’assegnazione automatica delle cause e delle indagini ai giudici e ai PM – spezzi l’aggregazionismo politico\opportunistico dei magistrati e l’uso anomalo della giustizia.


Benché contrario alla pena di morte, già nel 1990, scrissi che «..quasi solleciterei un’eccezione per i delitti contro il pianeta». Oggi invece la considero un’urgente necessità, perché la Terra è zeppa di cose che possono annientarci, tra cui le 442 centrali atomiche, sicché urge indurre a parlare chi tace, consente o concorre a occultarle o occultarne i pericoli, come fanno chissà quanti nel mondo e rispetto a quali mostruosità. Poiché poi quello che è mancato è stato il controllo giudiziario, scrivo dei motivi per i quali anche la magistratura ha interpretato il fondamentale art. 41 della Costituzione come se vi leggesse che l’iniziativa economica privata «può svolgersi» (anziché «non può svolgersi») in contrasto con l’utilità sociale, nonché dei motivi per i quali, l’apparato burocratico – una piramide di cui la magistratura è il vertice – e la sinistra, sono anch’essi strenui difensori della criminalità bancaria, che è la radice di ogni male: male consistente nella subordinazione dell’uomo alle logiche produttive anziché delle logiche produttive all’uomo, che è poi la mia definizione di consumismo. Un’affermazione che voglio illustrare usando quale esempio quattro leggi illegittime e qualche decennio di giurisprudenza filo\bancaria nell’applicarle per dimostrare come, per causare i più tremendi disastri, non occorre essere demoniaci, ma basta l’adesione di massa a una pseudo-cultura politica e giudiziaria che, in nome di un modello di sviluppo idiota e delinquenziale, ha ignorato l’art. 41 consentendo di tutto all’economia vigente: dalle frodi alimentari al crimine dell’energia atomica ‘sotto controllo’. È insomma un ingenuo chi dice che la magistratura, il resto della burocrazia e la sinistra sono stataliste, perché sono invece i gendarmi di un ‘liberismo’ occulto e depravato. Magistratura e polizie che infatti ‘badano’ sì allo Stato, ma solo perché è anch’esso un ‘prodotto’ di proprietà delle banche, finanziarie, multinazionali ecc., al cui servizio lavorano. Un ‘prodotto’, anzi uno strumento, molto speciale, la cui prima funzione è rastrellare le tasse. Tasse che sono penalmente illecite perché servono solo a comprare dalle banche centrali (che come è ormai noto sono private perché di proprietà delle banche private) le banconote che stampano al costo della carta e dell’inchiostro, e che lo Stato potrebbe stamparsi ovviamente da sé. Da sé e senza mai causare alcuna svalutazione, perché la svalutazione dipende dalla produzione dei soldi da parte delle banche, che sono giuridicamente dei falsari (vedida www.marra.it).Senza contare l’altro bel lavoro della ‘giustizia’ e dell’apparato: perseguitare – quali evasori o riciclatori – coloro che si ribellano alle loro ricche padrone: cose che spiegano anche il filo\fiscalismo e filo\ bancarismo della sinistra. La sinistra cioè, istupidita com’è da decenni di asservimento ai poteri che finge di contrastare, crede che le fasce sociali che lavotano abbiano bisogno delle tasse, e perciò – idiozia delle idiozie – sostiene il crimine del signoraggio bancario (senza il quale delle tasse non occorrerebbero) per far sì che le si possa riscuotere. Le si possa riscuotere (si badi – tra politica, magistratura e informazione – in mano a che asini siamo) per poter così comprare, lo ribadisco, con denaro ‘inverato’ (il denaro già circolante) il denaro da ‘inverare’: il denaro cioè che le banche centrali stampano a costo zero e vendono poi agli Stati al valore facciale facendoselo pagare con i buoni del tesoro (rinvio di nuovo a www.marra.it).Non mi capite? E’ logico: ..visto che vi siete fatti mettere il prosciutto sugli occhi in cambio di qualche soldo e qualche vantaggio. La vostra ancorché non generalizzata tuttavia endemica corruzione non è cioè il male peggiore, perché il male peggiore è il vortice di stupidità in cui vi hanno spinti lavandovi il cervello con l’idea che il problema sia la mafia, la camorra, la ‘ndrangheta e le infinite altre forme di delinquenza convenzionale, che sono poi frutto della sconfitta sociale. Vortice di stupidità che vi fa scambiare per ‘liberismo’ i crimini di chi domina la società. Stupidità indottavi alimentando in voi l’opportunismo e la pavidità per farvi disinteressare del modo delittuoso in cui si svolgono certi fenomeni commerciali, industriali, mediatici, energetici, ..vincenti, a causa dei quali ora tutti, compresi voi e i vostri cari, respireremo le aure radioattive. Cose costruite pian piano attraverso un quotidiano fatto di mille e mille violazioni dell’art. 41 della C. come quelle che sto per sottoporvi, in materia bancaria, in tema di anatocismo, accredito tardivo della valuta, decreti ingiuntivi e loro esecutività e, da ultimo, decorrenza della prescrizione. Norme e sentenza che ho scelto, non solo perché sono emblematiche di quello che fate d’abitudine dinanzi al signoraggio: il crimine dei crimini, ma anche per cercare di far entrare in queste vostre menti chiuse in che modo, gesto dopo gesto, fate passare le logiche che ci sovrastano, e forse ci uccideranno. Perché vedrete che non basterà evitare le verdure a foglia larga e il latte fresco per sfuggire alla sciagura causataci dai vostri padroni con il vostro aiuto. Signoraggio primario e secondario per non processare il quale voi giudici asserite di non avere giurisdizione sulle politiche economiche degli Stati, fingendo di non capire che le politiche economiche non c’entrano un fico, perché la Banca d’Italia e la BCE, attraverso il signoraggio, commettono crimini gravissimi, e i crimini cadono nella vostra giurisdizione. Fingete anche di non capire che sconfiggere la criminalità bancaria significa iniziare il percorso per sconfiggere il male, perché sono le banche il mostro che è dietro le centrali nucleari, dietro le migliaia di atomiche sparate nei decenni, dietro i quantitativi spaventosi di scorie nucleari che non si sa dove mettere, dietro la trasformazione in veleni graduali dei cibi, dietro l’involuzione climatica, dietro l’uso dell’informazione come mezzo di formazione del pensiero di massa, e dietro il malessere sociale. Esempi, quelli che sto per sottoporvi, né grandiosi né satanici ma solo miseri: giusto giusto insomma al vostro livello. Il primo, quanto alle quattro leggi illegittime che la magistratura si guarda bene dal censurare, riguarda l’anatocismo che, secondo i parlamentari che eleggono gli italiani diviene legittimo ove venga praticato sia all’attivo che al passivo: un insulto alla società perché non si vede che parità possa esserci con tassi attivo tipo 0,3% e passivi effettivi magari del 10%. La seconda, quella in tema di accredito tardivo dei versamenti e dei bonifici, perché se Tizio dà a Caio un assegno di 1.000 euro il 1.1.11, e Caio lo versa mezz’ora dopo, a Tizio stornano i 1.000 euro subito, e a Caio glieli accreditano dopo diciamo 3 giorni, sicché il sistema bancario ruba 3 giorni di interesse, perché i soldi sono di Tizio fino al 1.1.11 e di Caio dal 1.1.11. La terza, in tema di decreti ingiuntivi. È infatti già illegittimo e grave che a delle organizzazioni criminali come le banche si riconosca la possibilità di ottenere dei decreti ingiuntivi semplicemente in base a un numero in fondo a un estratto conto; ma quel che è assurdo è che si continui a farlo anche oggi, riconoscendo per di più, spesso, l’immediata esecutività: oggi, intendo dire, che è pacifico per giurisprudenza consolidata che tutte le voci del presunto debito sono in tutto o in parte illegittime, sicché è nota a priori l’erroneità del saldo: una giurisprudenza che l’avvocatura è riuscita a strappare dalle unghie della magistratura dopo uno sforzo che – quanto a me – dura dal 1980. La quarta, che riguarda la decorrenza della prescrizione dei diritti dall’annotazione in conto corrente, e non più dalla chiusura del conto: un gesto da volgari lobbisti filo\bancari e un’idiozia per molte ragioni, alcune delle quali sono quelle descritte dalle Sezioni Unite (imprescrittibilità dell’azione di nullità, mancanza nell’annotazione sia degli elementi costitutivi del credito che del carattere di pagamento, unicità del rapporto di conto corrente ecc.), ma l’altra, quella fondamentale, da tutti taciuta, è l’impossibilità, finché durano i rapporti con le banche, di eccepire alcunché, pena l’estraniazione dall’intero circuito economico. Una condizione incostituzionale che continua a sussistere anche dopo la chiusura di questo o quel singolo conto tant’è che – nel mentre il legislatore e i giudici fingono di non capirlo – le cause contro le banche le fanno solo coloro che sono già stati estromessi dal sistema bancario o ne sono usciti per ‘fine attività’. Senza contare che le ‘norme interpretative’ sono legittime quando vi sia incertezza, non quando servano a crearla calando sulla giurisprudenza consolidata e sulla certezza dei diritti e delle aspettative come un tornado. Quattro norme circa la cui illegittimità sto scrivendo, in collaborazione con gli avvocati Ginaldo Cucinella e Maria Benedetti, il ricorso formale per sollevare la questione di costituzionalità, che sarà poi scaricabile da www.marra.it. Quattro norme e chissà quante centinaia di migliaia, forse milioni, di sentenze che, osservate con ‘occhi che vedono’, si rivelano nell’insieme quali espressioni della profonda devianza della cultura politica e giudizia-ria. Una devianza che è stata via via introitata come ‘corretta’ visione della giustizia, sicché le violazioni imposte dai poteri sono divenute la regola. La stessa logica ‘vincente’ dalla quale l’apparato scientifico planetario si è fatto imporre la bontà delle centrali atomiche. Un’imposizione che inizia dalla scuola, fino all’informazione e, in generale, alla struttura di tutta la trama dei rapporti umani vigenti. Detto altrimenti, siamo di fronte all’essere divenute cultura dominante quella serie di forme di pochezza e opportunismo che le banche hanno iniettato nelle vene della collettività pagandola o punendola con un po’ di benessere in più o in meno. Una volgare logica di carote e bastoni rivolta a ottenere alla fine una generale abdicazione culturale, che spiega poi la tragicomica sicumera di chiunque, in un tale regime, sia riuscito aottenere un qualche riconoscimento. Ciò detto, lo strumento più facile e meno contestabile per norma-lizzare la giustizia è una legge che disciplini l’assegnazione automatica delle indagini e delle cause ai giudici o ai PM. E’ chiaro infatti che se qualcuno ha il potere di scegliere il tuo giudice o il tuo PM, ha anche il potere di predeterminare l’esito delle tue indagini o della tua causa mediante l’assegnarle a uno piuttosto che a un altro. Un potere che è poi il nucleo intorno al quale si formano, nella spartizione delle cause rilevanti, le ‘aggregazioni’ giudiziarie. Naturalmente la magistratura obietterà che esistono già i metodi di assegnazione automatica delle cause, ma è falso, perché sono metodi decisi e gestiti dai giudici, e di fatto incontrollati e incontrollabili, per cui sono automatiche solo le assegnazioni delle cause che non interessano a nessuno, mentre è proprio sulla spartizione delle indaginio delle cause di rilievo che si basa l’organizzazione della magistratura come lobby.

Alfonso Luigi Marra

I FISICI..
I fisici non sono venduti all’imprenditoria, ne sono invece i figli, perché essa li ha generati, allevati, e ora li nutre. Ovviamente talis pater…
Solo i figli di un padre tanto depravato infatti possono ‘non sapere’ che quella della «necessità degli equilibri atomici» è in realtà una pseudocultura lanciata dall’industria, che le centrali diverrebbero tante da non poterle più contare, figurarsi poi controllare, che le fonti alternative non esistono solo perché non le hanno costruite e che il risparmio non lo hanno voluto perché se no finirebbe la società dell’automobile, dei consumi…
1985/1986

Non ricordo bene i fatti e le date, ma I FISICI.. (che pubblicai in Cucciolino nel 1987) e altri scritti (uno dei quali contro Rubbia, allora ‘nuclearista’), facevano parte del volantino con il quale feci fallire il congresso appunto dei fisici organizzato a Roma per far omologare dagli ‘scienziati’ il progetto delle centrali atomiche, che il potere bancario e l’imprenditoria non erano riusciti a far passare utilizzando i politici. Il congresso, che doveva durare quattro giorni, non arrivò neppure a concludersi, benché poi siano riusciti a riempire di centrali il resto del mondo. Non so ora con quanti noccioli fusi o esplosi dovremo fare i conti, ma se vogliamo fare il possibile perché la fiaccola della civiltà umana non si spenga, bisogna finisca subito l’era dello strategismo e inizi l’era dell’intelligenza intesa come capacità di svilupparsi passando attraverso lo sviluppo degli altri, poiché, a questo livello di metodo nell’esercizio del pensiero, è inutile avere degli obiettivi, perché non possono essere raggiunti.
ALM