Food for thought, re Fukushima: From Mikkai, on the blog by Jan Hemmer:
“In the report which it submitted to the WHO in 1958, the study group on the mental health issues raised by the use of atomic energy stated that the most satisfactory solution for the future peaceful use of atomic energy would be for a new generation that had learned to accept ignorance and uncertainty as a fact of life to emerge.”
“Is the Commission not concerned at this flagrant collusion between two international institutions, with WHO reports being subjected to censure by the IAEA, which is intrinsically pro-nuclear?
“Is it not alarmed at the implications which the compromises clearly made by the WHO have for the objectivity and accuracy of EU studies carried out in preparation for its programme and action in the field of nuclear energy and related diseases (brought about by the use of depleted uranium in Iraq and the FYR or the effects ofChernobylin Eastern Europe)?”
“Given this affront to the transparency and independence of the WHO, which is borne out by the fact that it took ten years to organise on its own a conference on the Chernobyl disaster and then failed to publish the report of the proceedings, should the Commission not denounce the collusion brought about by some provisions of the agreement?” SOURCE
In June 2007 Gregory Hartl, World Health Organisation (WHO) spokesman for Sustainable Development and Healthy Environments, claimed that the proceedings of the international conference held in Geneva in 1995 on the health consequences of the Chernobyl disaster had been duly published. This was not so. And the proceedings of the Kiev conference in 2001 have never been published either. Challenged by journalists a few months later, the WHO repeated the claim, providing references to a collection of abstracts for the Kiev conference and just 12 articles (out of hundreds) submitted to the Geneva conference.”
“For the nuclear lobby, any research indicating harm from ionising radiation represents a commercial threat that must at all costs be averted. Research on damage to the human genome (one of the most serious consequences of the contamination) was not part of the international project requested of the WHO in 1991 by the health ministers of Ukraine, Belarus and the Russian Federation. Yet dental caries was made a research priority. And although these countries had addressed their research request to the WHO, it was the IAEA which planned the project.” SOURCE
“According to the ICRP in 1991, just 5 mSv to the testes could cause damage to offspring – yet this dose was permitted yearly to members of the public, and ten times more was permitted to nuclear workers, in all countries prior to 1990. It continues today to be permitted yearly for nuclear workers in most countries.”SOURCE