Human Consequences of Nuclear Power Plants

The Human Consequences of the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant Accidents 

 http://japanfocus.org/-Eiichiro-Ochiai/4382/article.html

The Asia-Pacific Journal, Vol. 13, Issue. 38, No. 2, September 28, 2015

Eiichiro Ochiai

When a very strong earthquake (magnitude 9.0) hit the Pacific ocean side of the northeastern part of the main island of Japan on March 11^th (3.11) 2011, the accompanying huge tsunami wiped out many communities along the coast. Close to 20,000 people lost their lives, mainly due to the tsunami. Many who were stripped of their homes and livelihood continue to struggle to recover their ways of life.
One of the most disastrous results of the quake/tsunami was the devastation at the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant (Fk-1) of the Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO). The plant is known in Japan as Fk-1 (Fuku-ichi). It released an enormous amount of radioactive material. Its effects on living organisms have already begun to be felt in many ways, though it’s been only four and a half year[s]. It may, however, be premature to make a judgment as to the degree of disaster, in light of the fact that the after-effects of the Chernobyl accident of 1986 are still unfolding.
This article discusses some prominent features of the current situation (as of August 2015) in the aftermath of the Fk-1 accident.
The Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Accident
Four of the six reactors (units 1~4) on the premises of the Fk-1 plant experienced serious accidents including explosion, while the other two reactors (5 and 6) were not in operation and remained intact, as they are located slightly apart from the others.
Units 1~3 were operating at the time, but shut down automatically when the quake hit. The shutdown reactors need to be continuously cooled, because the fuel rods, though out of fission reaction, release great heat due to the nuclear decaying process of radioactive fission products. The quake caused substantial damage to the reactors, and the cooling systems of units 1~3 did not function properly due to both physical damage and human errors. As a result, the fuel rods in units 1~3 “melted down”.
Water added from outside for cooling purposes reacted with the hot rods to form hydrogen gas. The resulting hydrogen explosion in unit 1 stripped the roof on March 12th. Unit 2 showed no apparent damage, but released an enormous amount of radioactive material through holes created by the quake, mostly on March 15 and thereafter. The explosion at unit 3 on March 14 was most damaging. TEPCO insists that it was also a hydrogen explosion, but many observers offered different opinions, including one that it a small-scale nuclear fission explosion occurred. Unit 4 had no nuclear fuel rod in the reactor, though a large number of spent as well as new fuel rods were in its storage pool. It exploded also, its cause unknown, though TEPCO speculated that hydrogen gas entered from the adjacent unit 3, and exploded.
Release of Radioactive Material from Fk-1
A large amount of radioactive material was released as a result of the accidents. How did it happen? Leakage through cracks and holes made by the quake on some reactors, explosions, intentional vents to relieve pressure, and leakage of cooling water which is contaminated as a result of contact with the melt fuel rod debris.
The amount of radioactive material cannot be determined accurately, and can only be estimated by various means. TEPCO made an estimate of the released amounts of several tens of radioactive nuclides based on the readings of several monitoring posts placed on the premise ¹. The initial governmental data ² were based on these estimates. Some of the official data are presented in Table 1. The government’s assessment of the scale of the release from Fukushima, based on these data, was that the radiation release was relatively small compared to that of Chernobyl (April, 1986 in Ukraine), about one tenth to at most one third.
But these data accounted for only the release into the atmosphere. Radioactive materials were also released into the water systems surrounding the facilities, as well as directly into the ocean. When the amounts released into the water and the ocean were estimated ³, the total amounts released were re-calculated ⁴. They are shown in Table 1 along with the official data. The ratio of the amount released from Fukushima to that from Chernobyl ranges from 1.2 to 3.1 for the major nuclides, suggesting that the extent of radiation release from Fukushima was very likely more than that from Chernobyl; perhaps more than twice if all were taken account of.
Table 1. The amount of radioactive nuclides released from the Fk-1 accident (2011) compared with those released from the Chernobyl accident (1986)

nuclide	Quantity in reactors at Fukushima at the time of accidenta	The official released amount from Fukushimaa	Total amount released from Fukushimab	Total amount released from Chernobylc	Fukushimab over Chernobylc
Kr-85	8.37E+16		8.37E+16
Xe-133	1.20E+19	1.1E+19	1.20E+19	6.5E+18	1.85
I-131	6.01E+18	5.0E+17	2.08E+18	1.76E+18	1.18
Cs-134	7.19E+17	1.8E+16	1.65E+17	5.4E+16	3.06
Cs-137	7.00E+17	1.5E+16	1.59E+17	8.5E+16	1.87
Sr-89	5.93E+18	2.0E+15	7.31E+16	1.15E+17	0.636
Sr-90	5.22E+17	1.4E+14	8.49E+15	1.0E+16	0.849
Pu-238	1.47E+16	1.9E+9	1.91E+10	3.5E+13	0.00055
Pu-239	2.62E+15	3.2E+9	3.14E+9	3.0E+13	0.00011
H-3	3.40E+15

E+18 means 10¹⁸; a. ref ³, b. ref ⁴, c. ref. ⁵
Radioactive materials are still continuously coming out; and the data shown in the table do not take account of them. For example, Fig. 1 shows the radiation levels (Bq/L) of Cs-134, Cs-137, Sr-90, H-3 and all beta sources found in one of the drainage systems in the facility, which drained out into the ocean between April 2014 and Feb 2015 ⁶. The amounts leaked out through drainage systems are given in Table 2 ⁶. Substantial amounts continue to leak out. The main reason is that 300 tons of cooling water is being added daily to keep the fuel rod debris cold. That cooling water is immediately contaminated, and leaks out as a number of gaps/holes were created by the quake, though an effort has been made to contain and store it in tanks. Eventually TEPCO hopes to decontaminate the water collected, and return it to nature. How successfully decontamination procedures are being carried out is not known. There are other sources of water. One is subterranean water, which flows through the premises, particularly under the contaminated buildings. This has not yet been halted.

Fig. 1. Radioactivity of K-drain system in Fk-1 premises

Table 2 Leaked amount of radioactive material through drainage systems in Fk-1 premises

Are radioactive materials still leaking out into the atmosphere as well? No obvious phenomena, such as explosions, have been observed since March 2011, though sudden rises in temperature of the reactors have occurred occasionally. However, some signs of plumes are still often observed visually (as dense fog) as well as on the monitoring posts placed all over Fukushima prefecture and throughout Japan. Monitoring post data are daily posted on the internet ⁷. Occasionally sudden peaks (spikes) appear on a number of posts, near and far. If time sequences are carefully taken account of, it seems, they could show the flow of a plume. Such a plume flow was seen throughout Japan on April 14, 2015. Spike phenomena occurred on April 8/9 and May 16, 2015, as well. Fig. 2 shows an example of a spike phenomenon on April 9 in Iidate-mura 30 km northwest of Fk-1. This is not a complete record; it is only what this writer observed in periodic checks.

Fig. 2. Spikes observed in a monitoring post in Iidate-mura, Fukushima

Each time there are spikes on monitors, the government attributes such a phenomenon to a “malfunctioning monitor”, and shuts down such posts, until the readings return to normal (regular) levels. It is rather strange that a number of monitoring posts (all across Japan) go out of order simultaneously or rather in sequence. This phenomenon indicates that sudden releases of radiation are still happening occasionally, but how often, on what scale, and their causes are not known.
All these events suggest that the accidents are “far from contained”, and radioactive materials are still leaking out. In sum, the overall radioactive materials released from the Fk-1 accidents are already larger than that of Chernobyl and will increase further unless measures are taken to stop these leakages.
Distribution of Radiation Levels
How far and how widely the radioactive materials are dispersed, i.e., the radiation levels at various locations, are constantly monitored not only by officials as mentioned above, but also by civil activists. Unfortunately the official data may not be reliable, as many observers have noticed. Civil activists have compared the monitoring values with their own readings and found the monitor readings lower by as much as 50% at many locations. The structure of the monitor itself often prevents the true reading of radiation. It has been pointed out, for example, that a metal plate placed just under the measuring device shields radiation coming from below ⁸.
A monitor placed by the government reads the so-called spatial dose; i.e., the supposed external exposure dose at 1 meter above the ground. The radioactivity is measured in terms of Bq and, if equipped, the energy value of the radiation measures is combined to indicate the spatial dose value, expressed often in terms of μSv/hr. Most monitors can measure only γ-radiation, and many monitors as well as Geiger counter type instruments measure only cpm (counts per minute), convert it to Bq values, which are converted to Sv values assuming that radiation is due to cesium (Cs-137). Cs-137 has a relatively long half-life of 30 years and is produced in a significant quantity in the fission reaction. The spatial dose is due to many other nuclides such as strontium (Sr)-89/90, tritium (H-3) and iodine (I)-129/131, but the contribution from these and other nuclides is not taken account of, or rather is counted as Cs-137. It is a sort of measure of radiation level, but does not represent the true exposure dose. However, this value is commonly used in assessing the danger level due to radiation.
A few readings will be cited here to illustrate the typical radiation levels given by the government. Some readings at monitoring posts on March 31, 2015 were: 6~10.5 μSv/hr in Hutaba-cho where Fk-1 is located, 4~17 mSv/h in Okuma-cho, just south of Hutaba (several km from Fk-1) and 1.7~3.6 μSv/hr in Tomioka-cho, south of Okuma (i.e, 10 km south of Fk-1). These are readings in highly contaminated areas.
On April 14, 2015 when a plume seemed to have been released, several readings (except the spike, which was a sudden rise to twice or higher level) were: 0.03~0.04 μSv/hr in Hokkaido (northernmost island); 0.02~0.05 μSv/hr in Aomori; 0.02~0.05 μSv/hr in Iwate; 0.04~0.12 μSv/hr in Miyagi (just north of Fukushima); 0.14~0.30 μSv/hr in Soma city, Fukushima; 0.05~0.12 μSv/hr in Tochigi; 0.08~0.09 μSv/hr in Tokyo; 0.03~0.06 μSv/hr in Kyoto; 0.05~0.08 μSv/hr in Hiroshima; 0.04~0.06 μSv/hr in Fukuoka.
These are recorded on the monitoring posts, but many places are not covered by monitoring posts, where much higher radiation levels have been recorded; i.e., “hot spots”. Recently reported examples were: 1.23 μSv/hr in western Tokyo on July 23, 2.92 μSv/hr in Saitama on July 25, 4.8 μSv/hr in Iwaki (30 km south of Fk-1) on Aug. 2 ⁹.
Let’s assume that you are standing on a location where the monitoring post showed 0.1 μSv/hr throughout a whole year. Then, you will be exposed to 0.9 mSv/year (0.1 μSv/hr x 24 hrs x 365 days=876 mSv/year=0.9 mSv/y). The Japanese government calculates the dose per year by assuming that one would stay in open areas for 8 hrs and for the rest of the day in buildings, where the radiation level is assumed to be about 40% of the outside. This calculation would make the exposure dose significantly lower than the real value; in the example above, it would be 0.54 mSv/year. This assumption is arbitrary, indeed, the inside of a building has often been found to have radiation levels as high as that of the immediate outside.
The official exposure dose allowed is currently set as 1 mSv/year (see note at the end). This corresponds to a dose rate of 0.18 μSv/hr according to the governmental way of calculation. It is further degraded to 0.23 μSv/hr with some other arbitrary assumptions, and this value is regarded as the permissible level of dose rate. So dose rate below this value is supposed to be OK. If you are exposed directly to this level for a year, then your accumulated dose will be 2 mSv/year. In other words, the government limit of 1 mSv/year is actually close to 2 mSv/year in reality. The government is currently trying to raise the 1mSv/year limit to 20 mSv/year. If 20 mSv/year is approved and people are forced to return to their previous homes under this condition, they will be exposed to dangerously high levels of radiation. It must be pointed out, though, that there is no safe level.
Radioactive iodine affects the thyroid immediately. Iodine-131 is short-lived with a half-life of 8 days, and I-129 has a very long half-life of 15.7 million years. Both would be readily absorbed into the thyroid gland, as iodine is used to make thyroid hormones. In the nuclear reactor, both are produced in comparable amounts, but I-131 affects the thyroid more seriously. An entity with a shorter half-life emits radiation more often than that with a longer half-life in the same chemical quantity. The distribution of I-131 in the environment is difficult to determine accurately, as it is short-lived.
In Dec. 2014, the official nuclear regulatory committee (Japan) published a report to indicate that Fk-1 is still emitting I-131 and other I-radioisotopes ¹⁰. According to their report, trans-uranium Cm-242 and other such nuclides were formed in the fuel rods during the operation, and they fission spontaneously, as a result producing radioactive nuclides including I-131. The possible maximum amount of I-radioisotopes released from this source has been estimated as 28 mSv/week (=170 μSv/hr) in terms of equivalent dose for child thyroid at the border of the premises of Fk-1 ¹⁰.
An alternative expression of contamination is the radioactivity of soil, typically Bq value per kg of soil, which often is converted to Bq/m². It is assumed that the density of soil is 1.3 g/cm³ and that the radioactive material exists in the uppermost 5 cm of the soil, so that Bq/m² value is 65 x the value in Bq/kg. This value (Bq/kg) is real, measured directly by an instrument on a sample of soil. Hence this may be more reliable in expressing the level of contamination than the spatial exposure dose. Besides, the source of radiation (from a soil sample) can be readily identified. This is not sufficient, however, as minute radioactive particles can be floating above the soil, which can be measured as spatial radiation.
In all these expressions, a fundamental uncertainty is that radiation levels may not be constant over time. Radioactive material decays over time and can move due to water flow or wind. Therefore, radiation levels have to be monitored continuously.
It must be pointed out that the external exposure dose level obtained from measurements of this kind (i.e., spatial dose and soil contamination) is less important than the internal exposure dose, which is not necessarily related to the external dose. The significance of internal exposure will be outlined below. The only thing that can be said here is that people living in a place of higher spatial dose level and/or higher soil contamination would have a higher risk of being exposed internally; but there is no proven direct correlation, and cannot be.
The more serious factor, internal exposure, is supposed to be measured by the whole body counter. But it can measure only g-radiation, and cannot measure the more serious a- and b-radiation. Besides, it measures only the radiation coming out of a body at the time of the test, and cannot determine the more meaningful accumulated exposure dose. Hence whole body counter results can only be used to give a tested person mental relief in cases where the reading is low or non-detectable. But, even that could be dangerous, if the source inside is emitting a and/or b radiation.
Reality of Internal Exposure
The effects of radioactive fallout from an accident of a nuclear power reactor as well as a nuclear bomb explosion are caused mostly by “internal exposure”, yet no adequate attention has been given to this aspect by the authorities and the associated scientists. The sources of the internal exposure are minute radioactive particles floating in the air, which can be inhaled, and contaminated food and drinks consumed. Radioactivity of foods and drinks produced in the contaminated area is monitored, and those with activity higher than the regulation values cannot legally be marketed.
One cannot well safeguard against ingesting radioactive material, unless one measures the radioactivity of everything one takes in, which is not possible. The issue of “internal exposure” is complicated, and would require another detailed article. For now, three photographs are shown below to illustrate the reality of internal exposure.
Figs. 3 and 4 are the trace of a-particles in the preserved tissues of victims of the atomic bomb explosions in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is not easy technically to take this kind of photo, and scientists succeeded in doing so only recently (11, 12). The source of the first trace is plutonium from the Nagasaki bomb, and that of the second is uranium from the Hiroshima bomb. The plutonium and uranium embedded in the tissues of atomic bomb victims are still emitting a-radiation after 70 years. This says that the fallout of the atomic bomb explosions, which included uranium in the Hiroshima bomb and plutonium in the Nagasaki bomb, somehow got into the body of the victims and stuck in those tissues, and emitted and destroyed the surrounding tissues for 70 years. Both plutonium and uranium have a long half-life, millions of years or more.

Fig. 3. a-Particles travel straight even in tissues. The linear traces are those emitted by plutonium in the preserved kidney tissues of an A-bomb victim in Nagasaki (70 years ago) 11	Fig. 4. A trace of a-particle of uranium in the lung tissue of a Hiroshima victim 12	Fig. 5. The heart muscle fibers are broken in the heart of a man (43 years old) who died of heart disease in the most contaminated area (Belarus) of the Chernobyl accident 13

Fig. 5 shows the heart muscle fibers of a victim of the Chernobyl accident ¹³. They are broken at many places. Likely the b and g radiation from Cs-137 (and others) damaged the fibers by breaking the chemical bonds. The traces of b and g cannot be visualized in such samples.

Thyroid Cancers among Children in Fukushima
The authorities, such as ICRP and IAEA, have acknowledged that thyroid cancers in children can be caused by radiation, likely due to I-131. They have also recognized the causal relationship between leukemia and radiation. But they deny a causal relationship in the case of other cancers and other diseases, despite the fact that many studies and reports have shown that all sorts of disease including cancers can be caused by radiation.
The rate of thyroid cancer is very low among children (those under 18 years) under normal circumstances; 1 or 2 per million children per year. Fukushima prefecture started to investigate abnormalities in the thyroid gland in children (under 18 years old) in 2011. Soon they found high rates of abnormalities: nodules, cysts, and then tumors mostly malignant. By the spring of 2015 they have counted 126 thyroid cancer cases (mostly papillary) among 370,000 children in Fukushima ¹⁴. This rate amounts to 340/1,000,000 over 4 years, i.e., 85/1,000,000/year. This is abnormally high, approximately 60 times the normal rate, even much higher than that reported in Chernobyl.
Yet, the authorities and the committee in charge of this investigation have denied causality to radiation from Fk-1 accidents. They argued against causality thus:
(a) Screening effects, that is, they used sophisticated techniques to show that cancers that are ordinarily non-detectable were detected. However, officials admitted recently that screening effects would not be able to explain such a high rate ¹⁵.
(b) In the case of Chernobyl thyroid cancers in children appeared only 4 years after the accident. It is too early for Fukushima children to get thyroid cancers. This argument has been rebutted by an article published in the Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus ¹⁶.
(c) They checked a few other places in Japan, and say that the thyroid cancer rate in Fukushima is similar to that found in Aomori, Nagasaki and Yamanashi ¹⁷. They imply that Fukushima is not abnormal. This study is based on a very small sample in which only one cancer was found; hence the result is not statistically meaningful.
(d) It is too soon for thyroid cancers to appear. It usually takes four to five years. This is in addition to the argument of comparison with Chernobyl (b) above. Hence the cancers found here should have started before the accidents.
(e) The amount of radioactive material released was far lower than that of Chernobyl, and hence would not have such effects as those found in Chernobyl.
A recent report ¹⁸ indicates that the latent period for thyroid cancer can be as short as one year in children. The amount of radioactive material released (e) has been discussed earlier, and has been shown to be at least as high as, or even higher than, that of Chernobyl. All of these arguments by the authorities are based on weak or incorrect information.
Careful studies of the relationship between the locations where children who got thyroid cancer live and the radiation distribution have revealed correlations, though these are not perfect. A correlation obtained by an analysis is shown in Fig. 6 ¹⁹. This indicates a likely causality; i.e., radiation caused the thyroid cancers, though the dose used here does not necessarily represent an accurate value of I-131 but rather a general radiation level. Thyroid cancers are increasing among adults, too. As seen in Table 4, the increase over 2010-2013 was more than 200 % in Fukushima as well as in adjacent prefectures: Ibaragi, Gunma and Tochigi.

Fig. 6. Pediatric thyroid cancer rate vs spatial exposure rate for different areas in Fukushima prefecture. The line is the linear regression line. R2 implies that the line accounts for 54% of the variance in thyroid cancer rate due to radiation.

Other Diseases are also Increasing in Fukushima since the Accident
No systematic investigation has been published officially on the health effects of radiation as a result of the Fukushima accident. However, some statistical data may be indicative of significant trends. All indications are that incidence of many diseases is increasing not only in Fukushima but also all over Japan.
Table 3 shows the number of diagnosed cases recorded at Fukushima (prefectural) Medical School Hospital (latest published data based on ref. 20). Cancer of the small intestine, which is normally rare, increased by 400% in two years. Eye disease (cataract), brain, heart disease (angina) and all kinds of cancer have increased. Many diseases other than those listed in the table have also increased since the Fk-1 event.
Table 3. Increase in diseases since the accidents: records at the Hospital of Fukushima (prefectural) Medical School

Disease	2010	2011	2012
cataract	150 (100%)	344 (229%)	340 (227%)
angina	222 (100%)	323 (145%)	349 (157%)
bleeding in brain	13 (100%)	33 (253%)	39 (300%)
lung cancer	293 (100%)	504 (172%)	478 (163%)
esophagus cancer	114 (100%)	153 (134%)	139 (122%)
stomach cancer	146 (100%)	182 (125%)	188 (129%)
cancer in small intestine	13 (100%)	36 (277%)	52 (400%)
colon cancer	31 (100%)	60 (194%)	92 (297%)
prostate cancer	77 (100%)	156 (203%)	231 (300%)
shortened pregnancy period + low birth weight	44 (100%)	49 (114%)	73 (166%)

The Problem is Not Confined to Fukushima; Diseases are Increasing All over Japan
Radioactive materials do not stop at the border of Fukushima prefecture. They have spread beyond Fukushima as noted earlier. Accordingly, health effects could be observed in other prefectures, as well. Indeed this turned out to be the case. Unfortunately, no systematic studies of cities or prefectures have been published yet. However, every hospital publishes its activities listing the number of patients with different diseases, the number of surgeries, etc. These data may be indicative of larger patterns in Japan.
The following tables are based on such accounts; collecting data for all hospitals that reported data. They include published data from all prefectures ²¹. The tables list such data for Fukushima and the surrounding prefectures (Tochigi, Gunma, Ibaragi, Yamagata, Miyagi), the next nearest prefectures (Saitama, Chiba, Tokyo, Kanagawa), and several major prefectures further away (Aichi, Osaka, Fukuoka, Hokkaido and Okinawa).
In three years since the accident, many diseases increased by 40-50% as shown in tables 4-6. These tables were constructed on the basis of collections of data from hospitals across Japan ²¹. The incidence of thyroid cancer, which is the most sensitive indicator, more than doubled in the three years 2010 to 2013 not only in Fukushima but in neighboring Gunma, Tochigi and Ibaragi to the south of Fukushima. It increased by amounts ranging from 26 to 61 percent in all other prefectures listed below, as well. The national total rose by 42%.
Table 4. Thyroid cancers increased everywhere since the 11 March 2011 accident ²¹

prefecture	2010	2011	2012	2013	2013/2010
Fukushima	119	187	199	271	228%
Tochigi	116	218	211	235	203%
Gunma	108	124	185	350	217%
Ibaragi	61	115	136	138	226%
Yamagata	95	128	146	139	146%
Miyagi	248	343	378	399	161%
Saitama	203	226	306	301	148%
Chiba	260	340	410	352	135%
Tokyo	1833	2819	2874	2884	157%
Kanagawa	469	664	656	749	160%
Aichi	525	632	819	949	120%
Osaka	650	938	1048	1039	160%
Fukuoka	583	736	629	587	101%
Hokkaido	855	1083	1151	1227	144%
Okinawa	82	104	117	103	126%
Japan	10816	14909	15635	16023	148%

It is known that Cs-137 (as well as Cs-134) affects the myocardial muscles, causing heart diseases, myocardial infarction and other diseases. Table 5 shows increases in myocardial infarction. Not only neighboring prefectures but also Tokyo and as far away as Okinawa showed significant increases.
Table 5. Increase of myocardial infarction ²¹

prefecture	2010	2011	2012	2013	2013/2010
Fukushima	507	622	668	675	133%
Tochigi	722	878	1014	977	135%
Gunma	538	710	797	821	153%
Ibaragi	700	948	1077	1212	173%
Miyagi	598	718	831	901	151%
Saitama	1873	2465	2733	2752	147%
Chiba	1447	2008	2558	2604	135%
Tokyo	3680	4849	5581	5605	180%
Kanagawa	2361	2871	3421	3657	155%
Aichi	2212	2877	3158	3287	149%
Osaka	2335	3224	3648	3652	156%
Fukuoka	1533	1996	2326	2285	149%
Okinawa	437	572	537	669	153%
Japan	35411	46109	51947	53400	151%

Leukemia is another specific indicator of radiation effect. The data shown in Table 6 indicate that it increased over 2010-2013 by as much as three times in neighboring Gunma while the total for Japan increased by 142%.
Table 6. Acute leukemia is also increasing ²¹

Prefecture	2010	2011	2012	2013	2013/2010
Fukushima	108	97	79	230	213%
Tochigi	363	418	340	322	89%
Gunma	113	178	267	350	310%
Ibaragi	251	309	351	324	129%
Yamagata	121	117	172	135	112%
Miyagi	191	236	199	241	126%
Saitama	266	336	590	757	285%
Chiba	449	430	529	576	128%
Tokyo	1770	2135	2366	2342	132%
Kanagawa	686	1024	964	1062	155%
Aichi	895	1138	1208	1178	132%
Osaka	869	1210	1393	1623	187%
Fukuoka	686	755	722	767	112%
Hokkaido	449	628	728	830	185%
Okinawa	101	111	111	110	109%
Japan	12820	15498	17015	18167	142%

These are only the tip of the iceberg. Diseases that may not be caused by radiation itself can also be attributable indirectly to radiation effects. Radiation affects lymphatic and also blood producing systems and weakens the immune system. This makes such people more vulnerable to infectious diseases. It is noteworthy in this regard that death from pneumonia seems to have increased significantly since the Fukushima accident. This is only one example.
This could be only the beginning of further serious developments in time. The radiation effects are likely to increase with time. In particular, various solid cancers have relatively long latent periods. They increase after 10 years or later as seen among atomic bomb survivors in Hiroshima and Nagasaki ²².
Concluding Remarks
The Japanese government under Democratic Party rule, declared that the Fukushima accident was over at the end of 2011, and the prime minister in Sept 2013 under the Liberal-Democratic Party at the IOC meeting to select the next Olympic site pronounced that the Fukushima accident had been contained and Tokyo was well prepared for the Olympics.
The real situation is far different, as documented above. Leakage of radioactive materials through various routes continues. The locations and states of the melted fuel rods in the reactors at Fk-1 have yet to be determined. It was found only recently (by use of muon radiation/absorption technique) that the nuclear reactors of units 1 and 2 are indeed devoid of nuclear fuel rods in the core ²³, but the technique was insufficient to locate the melted fuel rod debris.
Serious health effects of radiation in general have already been widely observed. It is best to refer to better studied examples of the past: Chernobyl ²⁴ and down-winders of Nevada tests ²⁵. The reality of health effects at Chernobyl due to fallout from the explosive accident as detailed in ²⁶ and summarized in ²⁷ may indicate the future of Fukushima and Japan.
The health effects of radiation are often slow in manifesting, particularly in the case of cancers, though cancer rates have already started to increase in Fukushima and elsewhere, as discussed above. Therefore, more people will be affected by radiation in the years to come, not only in Fukushima, but across Japan.
The health effects have been investigated by the Japanese national and local governments only with respect to Fukushima children’s thyroid abnormalities, as mentioned above. The Fukushima prefectural medical school is reportedly collecting data from all hospitals in Japan, but it has not published the data. Although still in denial of the causal relationship between children’s thyroid cancers and radiation, they finally admitted recently that the cancer rate is indeed abnormally high ¹⁵.
Radiation effects are seen not only on human health, but also on many living organisms. A butterfly species has been observed to be affected by radiation, and the effects seem to be inherited from one generation to another ²⁷. Reproductive success of goshawks has decreased in response to higher levels of radiation ²⁸. Many bird species are rapidly decreasing in number ²⁹. Deserted cows have been found to be highly contaminated with cesium-137 and other nuclides ³⁰. Deformed vegetables and fruits have been observed at many locations. These are but a few examples of radiation effects on plants and animals.
The government may be attempting to cover up the negative data it gathers. If it admits the causal relationship between serious health effects and radiation, it would be obliged to abolish the nuclear power plants or at least delay re-opening closed plants. The truth that “radiation (of high energy) is incompatible with life” ³¹ directly confronts humankind, yet many refuse to recognize it because the government and the nuclear industry and associated scientists in Japan and many other countries continue to suppress the data.
No single nuclear power plant has operated in Japan in the last two years, yet there has been no shortage of electricity. The Japanese government, along with the nuclear industry, has now restarted one of the fifty nuclear power reactors, despite strong opposition by the majority of Japanese and despite the high risk in Japan of further geological activity, both volcanic and earth quakes.
Note: The limit 1 mSv/year was set by the department of science and education of the Japanese government, based on a law (protection against radiation effects due to radioactive isotopes) and a recommendation by ICRP (international commission of radiological protection)
Acknowledgement: Comments and suggestions made by Drs. Anders Moller, Leonard Angles, and Mark Selden are gratefully acknowledged.
Eiichiro Ochiai was born in Japan, and educated up to the PhD in Japan. He taught and conducted research in chemistry at college/universities in Japan, the United States, Canada and Sweden. Publications include “Bioinorganic Chemistry, an Introduction” (Allyn and Bacon, 1977), “Bioinorganic Chemistry, a Survey” (Elsevier, 2008), “Chemicals for Life and Living” (Springer Verlag, 2011), and “A Sustainable Human Civilization Beyond ‘Occupy’ Movements” (Kindle, 2011).
Recommended citation: Eiichiro Ochiai, "The Human Consequences of the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant Accidents", The Asia-Pacific Journal, Vol. 13, Issue 38, No. 2, September 28, 2015.
Related articles
• Eiichiro Ochiai, The Manga “Oishinbo” Controversy: Radiation and Nose Bleeding in the Wake of 3.11
• Nakasatomi Hiroshi, After Nuclear Disaster: The decision-making of Fukushima University authorities, the threat to democratic governance and countermovement actions
• Kyle Cleveland, Mobilizing Nuclear Bias: The Fukushima Nuclear Crisis and the Politics of Uncertainty
• David McNeill, Japanese Government Squelching Efforts to Measure Fukushima Meltdown
• Yasuhito Abe, Safecast or the Production of Collective Intelligence on Radiation Risks after 3.11
• Adam Broinowski, Fukushima: Life and the Transnationality of Radioactive Contamination
• Paul Jobin, The Roadmap for Fukushima Daiichi and the Sacrifice of Japan's Clean-up Workers
• Anders Pape Møller and Timothy A. Mousseau, Uncomfortable Questions in the Wake of Nuclear Accidents at Fukushima and Chernobyl
References
Asterisked references (*) are available only in Japanese.
¹ Estimate of the quantities of radioactive material released to the atmosphere from the accident of Fk-1, TEPCO, May, 2012*.
² The state of the nuclear reactor cores of units 1~3, June 6, 2011, Nuclear safety/protection agency (Japan)*.
³ Pavel P. Povinec, Katsumi Hirose, Michio Aoyama, “Fukushima Accident ― Radioactivity Impact on the Environment,” pp. 125~127, (Elsevier (2013))
⁴ Yamada, K., Watanabe E., Re-evaluation of released amounts of radioactive material from Fk-1 accident: Comparison with data of Chernobyl, May, 2014*.
⁵ Chernobyl data are cited from ref ³, but based on several estimates including UNSCEAR; ANNEX J Exposures and effects of Chernobyl accident; see here.
⁶ See here*.
⁷ See here*.
⁸ See here*.
⁹ This kind of data is regularly reported by activists/organizations on the internet; its accuracy cannot be ascertained. It can be said only that such high spots likely exist.
¹⁰ See here*.
¹¹ Shichijo, K., Nagasaki University*
¹² Kamata, N., et al, Hiroshima University and Nagasaki University, published in June 8^th edition of Mainichi newspaper*
¹³ Bandazhevsky, Y., “The Effects of Radioactive Cesium on the Population and its Physiological Effects”, (Japanese ed., translated from Russian by Kubota, M.), p. 65, (Godo Publ. Co. (Tokyo), 2015)
¹⁴ See here*
¹⁵ See here*; also here.
¹⁶ See here.
¹⁷ See here*.
¹⁸ See here.
¹⁹ Based on https://www.facebook.com/pages/放射能と健康被害/499769473505463（放射能と健康被害＝radiation and health effects)
²⁰ See here.
²¹ See here*, here*, and here*.
²² Ozasa, K., Shimizu, Y., Suyama, A., Kasagi, F., Soda, M., Grant, E. J., Sakata, R., Sugiyama, H., Kodama, K., Studies of the mortality of atomic bomb survivors, Report 14, 1950-2003: An overview of cancer and noncancer Diseases (LSS-14), Rad. Res., 177 (2012), pp. 229-243
²³ Press release of Nagoya University, March 19, 2015*; Kyodo Press, March 19, 2015*
²⁴ Yablokov, A. V., Nestrenko, V. B, Nestrenko, A. V., ”Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment” (Ann. New York Acad. Sci., Vol 1181, 2009)
²⁵ Johnson, C. J., Cancer Incidence in an Area of Radioactive Fallout Downwind From the Nevada Test Site, J. Am. Med. Assoc., 251 (1984), pp. 230-236
²⁶ Pflugbeil, S., Claussen, A., Schimitz-Feuerhake, I., “Health Effects of Chernobyl: 25 years after the reactor catastrophe”, (IPPNW Germany (IPPNW=International Physicians for Prevention of Nuclear War), 2011)
²⁷ Hiyama, A., Nohara, C., Kinjo, S., Taira, W., Gima, S., Tanahara, A., Otaki, M., Biological impacts of the Fukushima nuclear accident on the pale grass blue butterfly, Scientific Rept., 2 (2012), article #570
²⁸ K. Murase, J. Murase, R. Horie & K. Endo, Effects of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident on goshawk reproduction, Sci. Rep. 5:9405
²⁹ Bonisoll-Alquati, A., Koyama, K., Tedeshci, D. J., Kitamuara, W., Suzuki, H., Ostermiller, S., Arai, E., Moeller, A. P., Mousseau, T. A., Abundance and genetic damage of barn swallows from Fukushima, Scientific Rept, 5 (2015), article # 9432.
³⁰ See here*.
³¹ Ochiai, E., “Hiroshima to Fukushima: Biohazards of Radiation” (Springer Verlag (Heidelberg), 2013)

DATI DI CHERNOBY: NON UN'OPINIONE, MA UN REATO

I DATI DI CHERNOBYL NON SONO UN'OPINIONE MA UN REATO

 http://www.progettohumus.it/public/forum/index.php?topic=2302

« il: 15 Set 15, 19:58:41 pm »

Riporto volentieri questo articolo che ho trovato in rete e che riporta dati che sto sostenendo da anni e che ormai sono statisticamente confermati, oltre che supportati da indagini scientifiche. Già 10 anni fa, nelle mie controdeduzioni al Chernobyl Forum, riportavo dati importanti sulle conseguenze del fallout di Chernobyl. Invito ad andarle a leggere per capire le cialtronerie di chi afferma (come il prof. Battaglia citato nell'articolo qui sotto) che a Chernobyl sono morte poche decine di persone: [Vedi]
Preoccupante leggere i dati dei più recenti studi del prof. YURI BANDAZHEVSKY nella regione contaminata di Ivankov in Ucraina: [Vedi PDF]
Nel mio prossimo viaggio di inizio ottobre 2015 in Ucraina incontrerò il prof. Bandazhevsky e cercherò di sostenere la sua attività di ricercatore oltre che la sua condizione umana di persona esiliata per avere denunciato i danni del fallout di Chernobyl. Maggiori informazioni sul prof. Bandazhevsky le trovate qui: [Vedi] Il testo é un appello per sostenere l'attività del professore. Penso che sia doveroso e che sia un risonoscimento alla scelta del professore di volere essere "cittadino di Chernobyl" per vivere accanto alle vittime e per dare un contributo alla comunità internazionale, e quindi a noi tutti, per capire - tramite dati oggettivi e ricavati sul posto - quali siano le vere conseguenze di Chernobyl (a oltre i danni 29 anni dall'incidente) e con esse comprendere le conseguenza correlate all'uso del nucleare. Consegnerò personalmente al professore quanto raccolto, ma per adesso la campagna a suo sostegno si é rivelata modesta. Mi auguro che nei prossimi 15 giorni ci sia un'impennata delle donazioni a favore del professore, della sua scelta unana e professionale e dei suoi studi.
Massimo Bonfatti - Presidente di Mondo in Cammino

>>>SOSTIENI IL PROFESSORE YURI BANDAZHEVSKY

I dati di Cernobyl non sono un'opinione ma un reato

Tra il 1990 e il 2000, l’incremento dei tumori in Bielorussia è stato del 40% maggiore, 52% nella regione altamente contaminata di Gomel.
di Lorenzo Bedin



Il tribunale di Ascoli Piceno ha condannato a un anno di reclusione Beppe Grillo per aver diffamato Franco Battaglia, docente del Dipartimento di Ingegneria dell’Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia. Grillo in un comizio aveva duramente attaccato il docente che in una trasmissione televisiva aveva affermato come quella nucleare sia la tecnologia più sicura esistente e che erano stati pochissimi i morti a causa del disastro nucleare della centrale di Cernobyl nel 1986.

Grillo è stato condannato per quello che viene ancora definito come reato d'opinione, ma le affermazioni del prof. Battaglia, parlando di qualcosa di terribile, materiale e dimostrabile sul piano scientifico, non sono accettabili neanche come un opinione, sulla scienza non si fa opinione ma ricerca, verifiche, dati, risultati empirici.

Guarda QUI il video con le parole del prof. Battaglia alla trasmissione Anno Zero.

Le affermazioni del prof. Battaglia del resto sono state clamorosamente smentite sia dalla realtà che da studi scientifici.
Ad aprile di quest’anno, Greenpeace ha raccolto in un rapporto i contributi di una  sessantina di scienziati e ricercatori di Ucraina, Bielorussia e Russia per cercare di comprendere le conseguenze del disastro nucleare di Cernobyl sulla  salute a lungo termine.

Le stime sulla mortalità derivante dall’incidente di Cernobyl variano a seconda dei parametri presi in esame. La più recente ricerca epidemiologica, pubblicata in collaborazione con l’Accademia Russa delle Scienze, mostra che gli studi precedenti erano stati troppo cauti. Per esempio, l’AIEA nel 2005 parla di soli quattromila morti, ma le statistiche più recenti stimano invece in duecentomila le morti dovute all’incidente di Cernobyl, tra il ’90 e il 2004 prendendo in esame solo Ucraina, Bielorussia e Russia.

La sintesi del rapporto dimostra quanto sia ampio il margine di incertezza sull’impatto reale del disastro: il rapporto di Greenpeace, includendo dati nuovi, sottolinea comunque come le statistiche ufficiali dell’industria nucleare (ad esempio il rapporto AIEA del 2005) abbiano sottostimato sia l’impatto locale che quello internazionale dell’incidente.

Oggi è chiaro che Cernobyl ha causato un incremento considerevole dei casi di tumore, in particolare nelle aree fortemente contaminate e tra i ‘liquidatori’. I ‘liquidatori’ della Bielorussia, ad esempio, mostrano un’elevata incidenza di tumori ai reni, alla vescica e alla tiroide nel periodo 1993 –2003. La leucemia è considerevolmente alta nei ‘liquidatori’ ucraini, negli adulti bielorussi e nei bambini delle aree più contaminate della Russia e Ucraina.

Altri esempi, pur non esaustivi:

• Tra il 1990 e il 2000, l’incremento dei tumori in Bielorussia è stato del 40 per cento con incremento maggiore, 52 per cento, registrato nella regione altamente contaminata di Gomel.
• In Russia, i casi di cancro nelle regioni fortemente contaminate di Kaluga e Bryansk sono stati superiori all’intero Paese nel suo complesso. Nelle aree altamente contaminate di Bryansk la morbilità è 2,7 volte superiore rispetto alle aree meno contaminate della regione.
• Nella regione ucraina di Zhytomir, il tasso di cancro tra gli adulti è aumentato di tre volte dal 1986 al 1994, dall’ 1.34 per cento al 3.91 per cento.

Il cancro alla tiroide è aumentato drammaticamente in tutti e tre i Paesi, come previsto per il rilascio di massicce quantità di radiazioni.

L’incidenza nella regione fortemente contaminata di Bryansk nel periodo 1988-1998 è stato il doppio di quello della Russia e il dato è triplicato nel 2004. Stime anche di sessantamila casi in eccesso sono state fatte per le sole Ucraina, Bielorussia e Russia.

I bambini che avevano fino a 4 anni al tempo dell’esposizione si sono dimostrati particolarmente vulnerabili al cancro. Prima dell’incidente, l’incidenza del cancro alla tiroide tra bambini e 4 adolescenti era in media di 0.09 casi ogni 100 mila all’anno. Dopo l’incidente, è salita a 0.57-0.63 ogni 100 mila all’anno.

Il picco dei tumori alla tiroide tra coloro che erano bambini o adolescenti al tempo della catastrofe si registrerà nel periodo 2001-2006.

I tumori alla tiroide dovuti all’esposizione alle radiazioni di Cernobyl si sono mostrati particolarmente aggressivi con formazione precoce e rapida di tumori secondari alle ghiandole linfatiche e ai polmoni con peggioramento delle prognosi e con richieste di interventi chirurgici multipli da effettuare.

Dato il lungo periodo di latenza di questi tumori, è possibile aspettarsi un loro aumento ancora per decadi e anche la parte della popolazione che ha ricevuto dosi relativamente più basse andrebbe sottoposta a un monitoraggio a lungo termine in modo da poter intervenire tempestivamente.

Leucemia

I più alti tassi di leucemia acuta tra i “liquidatori” bielorussi sono stati riscontrati per la prima volta nel 1990 -91. Dal 1992, incrementi significativi nell’incidenza di tutte le forme di leucemia si sono registrati nella popolazione adulta di tutta la Bielorussia.

In Ucraina, nelle quattro aree più altamente contaminate delle  regioni di Zhytomyr e Kiev, la frequenza di tumori maligni del sangue era significativamente più alta rispetto al periodo prima della catastrofe.

Nella regione di Tula la leucemia infantile nel periodo post-Cernobyl ha superato i tassi medi della Russia, soprattutto nei bambini tra i 10-14 anni. A Lipetsk sono aumentati di 4,5 volte dal 1989 al 1995.

Alcuni dati suggeriscono che il rischio di leucemia è aumentato regolarmente nei feti esposti alle radiazioni.

Altri tumori.

Un aumento dei tumori delle vie respiratorie nelle donne è stato osservato in molte aree contaminate della regione di Kaluga. Dal 1995 in avanti una crescita di tumori allo stomaco, ai polmoni, al seno, al retto, al colon, alla tiroide, al midollo osseo, al sistema linfatico è stato registrato nel sud-est della regione. A Tula, tra il 1990 e il 1994, sono stati rilevati alti tassi insoliti di tumore alle ossa e al sistema nervoso centrale nei bambini.

In molti territori contaminati dell’Ucraina l’incidenza di tumori al seno resta abbastanza stabile e un po’ più basso rispetto alle zone circostanti per tutto il periodo del 1980-1992. Comunque, dal 1992 in poi i casi di tumori al seno cominciano ad aumentare e  recentemente è stato registrato anche un aumento di tumori alle vie urinarie e alla vescica.



Le fonti del rapporto di Greenpeace

1 Minatom (Russian Ministry of Nuclear Energy ), Branch report on safety for 2001, Moscow, 2002
2 IAEA (2005) Chernobyl: The True Scale of the Accident. [Vedi]
3 Chernobyl Forum .Expert Group “Health” (EGH) Report “Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident and Special Health Care Programs” , Working Draft, August 31, 2005
4 Mousseau T, Nelson N, Shestopalov V (2005). Don’t underestimate the death rate from Chernobyl. Nature 437, 1089
5 Anspaugh LR, Catlin RJ, Goldman M. (1988) The global impact of the Chernobyl reactor accident. Science  242:15141519.
6 Shcherbak Y. (1996). Ten Years of the Chornobyl Era. Scientific American. 274(4): 44-49Sinclair, W.K. (1996)  The international role of RERF. In: RERF Update 8(1): 6-8
7 Malko, M.V. (2006) In: Estimations of the Chernobyl Catastrophe (on the base of statistical data from Belarus  and Ukraine), Publ: Centre of the Independent Environment Assessment of the Russia Academy of Sciences, ISBN 5-94442-011 -1
8 Khudoley et all. (2006) Attempt of estimation of the consequences of Chernobyl Catastrophe for population living at the radiation- polluted territories of Russia. Publ: Centre of the Independent Environment Assessment of the Russia Academy of Sciences, Consequences of the Chernobyl Accident: Estimation and prognosis of additional mortality and cancer deseases. ISBN 5-94442-011-1
9 Gofman J. (1990),. Radiation Induced Cancer from Low Dose Exposure: an Independent Analysis. ISBN 0-932682-89-8.
10 Bertel R. 2006. The Death Toll of the Chernobyl Accident. In: Busby C.C., Yablokov A.V. (Eds.). ECRR Chernobyl: 20 Years On. Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident. Documents of the ECCR, N 1, Green Audit, Aberystwyth, pp. 245 –248.
11 ECRR 2003 Recommendations

Illegality of Depleted Uranium Weapons

The Illegality of Uranium Weaponry

Uranio impoverito: sentenza definitiva della Corte d'Appello di Roma

Uranio impoverito
http://www.cacaoonline.it/newsletter_quotidiana.aspx?view=118&index=2015

Carissimi,
questa settimana riportiamo integralmente un articolo apparso su Il Fatto Quotidiano che contiene una notizia passata un po' troppo in silenzio.
Si tratta di una sentenza definitiva della Corte d'Appello di Roma che afferma con "inequivoca certezza" la connessione tra l'esposizione all'uranio impoverito e la malattia che ha colpito tanti nostri militari che erano stati in Kosovo tra il 2002 e il 2003, in questo caso specifico, un sottoufficiale morto di cancro.
La battaglia per il riconoscimento dei danni provocati dai proiettili all'uranio impoverito è stata una delle tante affrontate da Franca Rame prima, durante e dopo la sua elezione al Senato.
A giusto due anni dalla morte, ci piace pensare che questa sentenza l'avrebbe un po' rappacificata nei confronti di questo terribile dramma passato sotto silenzio.
Questo Cacao del Sabato è dedicato a lei.
Se volete leggere di tutte le iniziative prese da Franca contro l'uranio impoverito e avere ulteriori informazioni, potete andare qui

26 maggio 2015
Da Il Fatto Quotidiano
Articolo di Andrea Pitoni

Uranio impoverito
Sentenza definitiva della Corte d'Appello. Sul caso di un sottufficiale morto di cancro dopo la missione in Kosovo. Con "l'inequivoca certezza" del nesso di causalità tra esposizione alla sostanza tossica e la malattia. L'avvocato Tartaglia: "Dimostrato che i vertici militari conoscevano i pericoli e non hanno fatto nulla per prevenirli". Leggiero (Osservatorio militare) chiede un incontro a Mattarella (che declina)

E' una storia di silenzi, omissioni e verità nascoste. Ma anche di morte e sofferenza. La racconta la prima pronuncia della corte d'appello di Roma, definitiva dal 20 maggio, sui casi dei decessi legati all'uso dell'uranio impoverito in Kosovo. Ed è una sentenza dirompente. Non solo per l'entità del risarcimento record (quasi 1 milione 300mila euro oltre al danno da ritardato pagamento) accordato ai familiari di un militare italiano ammalatosi e deceduto per un tumore contratto dopo aver partecipato proprio a quella missione. Ma anche per le motivazioni con le quali il ministero della Difesa è stato condannato a pagare. Innanzitutto, perché la decisione della prima sezione civile della corte d'appello di Roma conferma, come già accertato dal tribunale, "in termini di inequivoca certezza, il nesso di causalità tra l'esposizione alle polveri di uranio impoverito e la patologia tumorale". Ma, sanziona, come già fatto dal giudice di primo grado, anche la condotta dei vertici delle Forze Armate per aver omesso di informare i soldati "circa lo specifico fattore di rischio connesso dell'esposizione all'uranio impoverito".

DIFESA A RISCHIO In pratica, come spiega al ilfattoquotidiano.it l'avvocato Angelo Fiore Tartaglia, che rappresentava in giudizio i familiari del sottufficiale morto dopo aver prestato servizio in Kosovo tra il 2002 e il 2003, la sentenza "ha accertato non solo che i vertici militari erano a conoscenza dei rischi derivanti dall'esposizione all'uranio impoverito, ma anche che non hanno fatto nulla per prevenirli". E a niente sono valse, sul punto, le doglianze del ministero della Difesa. Perché perdere la vita in guerra per una pallottola -è il senso della sentenza- fa parte dei rischi del mestiere di un militare. Ma altro conto è morire contraendo un tumore per l'esposizione a sostanze tossiche ignorandone i possibili effetti che, invece, come sostiene la sentenza, erano noti ai vertici della Difesa.

TUTTI IN PROCURA "Fino alla decisione della corte d'Appello, anche sulla base delle conclusioni delle varie commissioni parlamentari che si sono occupate dei casi di tumore da esposizione all'uranio impoverito che hanno coinvolto diversi militari italiani, il nesso di causalità era confinato nel campo della probabilità  - aggiunge l'avvocato Tartaglia - Questa sentenza, invece, stabilisce il principio dell'inequivoca certezza, cioè che la causa della malattia contratta dal militare poi deceduto è proprio l'esposizione a questa sostanza". Aprendo, adesso che è passata in giudicato, scenari giudiziari  imprevedibili. "Perché si tratta di una decisione - prosegue il legale - che potrebbe dar luogo a responsabilità penale per reati gravi perseguibili anche d'ufficio". Insomma, non è da escludere che la decisione del giudice civile e la condotta dei vertici militari diventino materia d'interesse anche per la Procura della Repubblica.

SILENZI COLPOSI Sia il giudice di primo grado che quello di secondo grado avevano ripercorso alcune tappe della vicenda legate alla missione in Kosovo poste poi a fondamento delle rispettive decisioni. L'utilizzo dei proiettili all'uranio impoverito (cosiddetti DU) "era stato confermato dal memorandum del Department of the Army - Office of Surgeon General" del 16 agosto 1993, "dalla Conferenza di Bagnoli del luglio 1995_, dalla "relazione della commissione d'inchiesta del Senato approvata in data 13 febbraio 2006_ e "dalla deposizione del dottor Armando Benedetti", esperto qualificato in radio protezione del Cisam (il Centro interforze studi per le applicazioni militari) ascoltato proprio dalla commissione parlamentare in merito all'utilizzo del DU in Kosovo ed alla riscontrata presenza della sostanza nella catena alimentare. Tutti elementi dai quali «poteva evincersi che il ministero della Difesa fosse a conoscenza dell'esistenza dell'uranio impoverito durante la missione di pace o quanto meno sul serio rischio del suo utilizzo nell'area, nonché degli effetti del DU per la salute umana". Insomma, secondo i giudici, sussistevano "tutti i requisiti per configurare una responsabilità del ministero della Difesa... per avere colposamente omesso di adottare tutte le opportune cautele atte a tutelare i propri militari dalle conseguenze dell'utilizzo dell'uranio impoverito".

SCAMBI AL VERTICE Ma nella vicenda c'è anche un risvolto extragiudiziario sollevato da Domenico Leggiero, responsabile del comparto Difesa dell'Osservatorio militare del personale delle forze armate. Riguarda gli scambi di informazione che ci furono sul tema tra vertici militari e politici.  E che interessa anche l'attuale presidente della Repubblica Sergio Mattarella, prima vice presidente del Consiglio (dal 21 ottobre 1998 al 22 dicembre 1999) e poi ministro della Difesa (dal 22 dicembre 1999 all'11 giugno 2001) nei governi D'Alema e Amato.

Quando il militare deceduto, della cui vicenda si occupa la sentenza della Corte d'Appello, prestava servizio in Kosovo tra il 2002 e il 2003, l'attuale capo dello Stato non rivestiva più alcuna carica di governo. "Ma da ministro", ricorda Leggiero, "sulla questione delle munizioni arricchite con uranio impoverito impiegate nella guerra dell'ex Jugoslavia era intervenuto più volte dopo i primi casi di leucemia che avevano iniziato ad abbattersi sui reduci delle missioni nei Balcani". Il 27 settembre 2000, Mattarella in effetti rispose in Parlamento ad un'interrogazione relativa a due episodi di decessi verificatisi tra i militari italiani. "Nel primo caso il giovane, vittima della malattia, non era mai stato impiegato all'estero - spiegò l'allora ministro della Difesa - Nel secondo caso il giovane militare era stato impiegato in Bosnia, a Sarajevo precisamente, dove non vi è mai stato uso di uranio impoverito". Circostanza poi rivelatasi non vera. Perché in Bosnia, zona di Sarajevo compresa, gli aerei americani scaricarono 10.800 proiettili all'uranio impoverito. E lo stesso Mattarella, tre mesi dopo, il 21 dicembre 2000, ne prese atto.

PROTEZIONE ASSICURATA  Il 10 gennaio 2001, Mattarella intervenne di nuovo al Senato: "Per quanto riguarda il Kosovo, come è noto da allora, la Nato, nel maggio 1999, ha fatto sapere di aver utilizzato in quella regione munizionamento all'uranio impoverito... L'ingresso delle nostre truppe in Kosovo è avvenuto successivamente alla notizia pubblica - ripeto - dell'uso di munizioni all'uranio impoverito... Di conseguenza, fin dall'ingresso dei nostri militari in Kosovo si sono potute adottare misure di protezione adeguate". Messaggio rassicurante, ma che adesso non trova riscontro nella sentenza della Corte d'Appello di Roma passata in giudicato. Secondo la quale, anzi, il vertice militare ha "colposamente omesso" di adottare misure adeguate per tutelare i nostri soldati. Per cui, domanda Leggiero: "I vertici militari non hanno informato il ministro? Cosa molto probabile. Hanno sdrammatizzato la situazione convinti di controllare le conseguenze della vicenda? Cosa probabile. O, infine, i vertici militari hanno detto la verità al ministro, che quindi sapeva? Cosa molto poco probabile".

INCONTRO DECLINATO Comunque siano andate le cose, Leggiero ha scritto una lettera al capo dello Stato per avere un incontro e discutere della vicenda dell'uranio impoverito. Richiesta però declinata da un suo collaboratore: "Sono spiacente di doverle comunicare", recita la risposta dal Quirinale, "che l'agenda presidenziale, per i prossimi mesi, è fitta di impegni istituzionali".

QUI L'ARTICOLO SUL FATTO QUOTIDIANO

U.S.: Your Radiation, This Week

Your Radiation, This Week

‹ ›

Your Radiation, This Week

Posted by Bob Nichols on April 10, 2015

Apr 1 - April 8, 2015

(San Francisco) April 10, 2015 – Good Day, this is “Your Radiation, This Week.” These are the recorded Radiation Highs that affected people this week around the United States and in your neighborhood.
Let’s get right to it.
RADIATION CPM* CITY STATE
(*Counts per Minute, 50 CPM is an alert level. Levels are in Gamma unless noted.)
289 CPM Boston, MA
184 CPM New York City
404 CPM Raleigh, NC New
275 CPM Atlanta, GA
454 CPM Miami, FL
200 CPM Chicago, IL
194 CPM St Paul, MN
489 CPM Lincoln, NE, Gamma and Beta Radiation Combined CPM.
236 CPM Des Moines, IA
327 CPM Aberdeen, SD
546 CPM Rapid City, SD
397 CPM Kansas City, KA
281 CPM Tulsa, OK
447 CPM Little Rock, AR
230 CPM Dallas, TX
277 CPM Lubbock, TX
421 CPM South Valley, NM
279 CPM Albuquerque, NM Taken OFF LINE MAR 5TH.
549 CPM Grand Junction, CO
698 CPM Billings, MT
319 CPM Phoenix, AZ
369 CPM Tucson, AZ
157 CPM Las Vegas, NV
378 CPM San Diego, CA
318 CPM Los Angeles, CA
230 CPM San Francisco, CA
474 CPM Spokane, WA
Across the United States from East to West and North to South, this is Your Radiation, This Week.

ARE YOU AS HEALTHY AS YOUR PARENTS WERE?

Like salting French Fries at your favorite Diner, the radiation falls out of the sky and gets us all.
No one is left out. One result is that we are not as healthy as our parents and grandparents were at our age. Government nuclear weapons policy says it is worth it to have the Bomb – Global Thermonuclear Weapons, and little, more usable ones, too. This policy just makes us all less healthy.

Lincoln, NE from the list above experienced 489 CPM of combined Gamma and Beta Radiation this past week. That is serious stuff, nothing to fool around with. A good question is where did the 489 CPM of Radiation come from?
Lincoln is surrounded by three aging, leaking nuclear power plants. Lincoln is directly in the path of the powerful Jet Stream moving South from the Arctic and Canada carrying radiation from radioactive wars and 486 other decrepit reactors all over the world. All these things contribute to the radiation count in Lincoln today.
It is important to note these radiation plumes don’t go around the world just once, the plumes go around the world many times, dropping part of the radioactive load each mile of the way. All forms of precipitation are good scavengers of radiation from the atmosphere. Some, like snow, are better than most. California gets much of its water from the snow melt during a normal spring and winter.
As a result, 70 years after the nuclear business started, Lincoln and many other communities are paying the price.
Everyone in Lincoln breathes about 17 times a minute. Part of the radiation in the air ends up inside them. A milligram, or 0.0000352 of an ounce, of radioactive particles fires about 800 rounds a minute, forever, inside folks. It causes heart disease, cancers and hundreds of other diseases; but, first and foremost is heart disease. These weapons never jam and never run out of rounds.
DILUTION IS THE ANSWER ?
Many people have heard the old chant “Dilution is the answer to pollution,” you may have even said it yourself. Some items, like thousands of radioactive compounds and molecules, instead of being destroyed are merely spread out wider to attack more people, animals and plants.
Dr John Gofman, former Medical Director of the Lawrence Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab stated “… If you pollute when you DO KNOW there is NO safe dose with respect to causing extra cases of deadly cancers or heritable effects, you are committing premeditated random murder.” [Emphasis added.] – John W. Gofman, Ph.D., M.D. (1918-2007), associate director, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 1963-1969) — Comments on a Petition for Rulemaking to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, May 21, 1994.”
In civilian use you cannot slice it any finer than one molecule. In militaries it is called a nuclear weapon, some electricity makers use it in nuke power plants. What worked as conventional wisdom in the Middle Ages about dilution and pollution doesn’t work with nuclear material today.
However, 16th century thinking abounds in the militaries of nuclear nations. The former Soviet Union dumped reactors off the coast of Siberia and the American military dumped nuclear material off both the East and West Coasts of the States. The practice has not necessarily stopped, it is spreading.
Famously, the Mafia in Southern Italy regularly buys old freighters, loads them with radioactive used fuel rods from reactors, drives them out in the the ocean and scuttles the boats, sinking them to the bottom of the sea. The bottoms are blown out of the ships in the Mediterranean Sea and along the coasts of Africa. There is no known plan to retrieve the reactors or the radioactive nuclear material.

Have you secured your house for operation in a radioactive environment?

• Yes
• No

View Results

Check with me, Bob Nichols, on VeteransToday for the next edition of Your Radiation, This Week. Copyright by Bob Nichols, Apr 10, 2015.

Sources

1. The Radiation charts and graphs of the EPA RadNet.gov .

2. The EPA based reporting of NETC.com, an LLC.

3. * Radiation equals combined Beta and Gamma Radiation. Note: Not all locations have working Beta Radiation Monitors. Gamma Radiation Monitors are functioning at all these locations.

4. “…If you pollute when you DO KNOW there is NO safe dose with respect to causing extra cases of deadly cancers or heritable effects, you are committing premeditated random murder.” – John W. Gofman, Ph.D., M.D. (1918-2007), associate director, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 1963-1969) — Comments on a Petition for Rulemaking to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, May 21, 1994.

5. CPM. “Although we can’t see it, taste it, smell it or hear it we can measure radiation and observe its effects. One way to measure radiation which the United States Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] has chosen to use on its radiation websites is in Counts Per Minute. Each Count is One Radioactive Decay.” Quote from last week’s ‘Your Radiation, This Week.'” Apr 3, 2015.

• About Author
• Latest Posts

Bob Nichols

Bob Nichols is a Project Censored Award winner, a correspondent for the San Francisco Bay View newspaper and a frequent contributor to various online publications. He reports on war, politics and the two nuclear weapons labs in the Bay Area. Nichols is writing a book based on 20 years of nuclear war in Central Asia. He is a former employee of an Army Ammunition Plant. You are encouraged to write Nichols at duweapons@gmail.com

S

Related Posts:

• Comment on Radiation 2010 – 2014
• Fukushima Equals 6,000 Hiroshima Bombs Today, More Tomorrow
• Your Radiation, This Week
• NICHOLS: Comment on Radiation 2010 – 2014 Part Two
• ProNukers Spread Death and Pestilence – Always

The views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VT or any other VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors or partners and technicians. Notices

Posted by Bob Nichols on April 10, 2015, With 1105 Reads, Filed under Of Interest. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.