Omega-News : Rubrik:Nuclear Power

For an Independent WHO

Starmail — 2008-01-01T17:23:00Z

Uk govt & nuclear chums are stepping up the 'nuclear is lovely' story, as they roll out their big plan. 'Chernobyl was really nothing' - false and unbalanced, but readily broadcast as on the Radio 4 Today prog. on Monday, 31 .12.07, at 0840hrs (7 mins). Expect to hear more of the same. (All in spite of the BBC's eventual findings of bias and imbalance in their July 2006 Horizon production 'Nuclear mightmares' featuring Repacholi & fellow industry lackeys).

Listen again - http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/mainframe.shtml?http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/radio4_aod.shtml?radio4/today

Still trying to prise the WHO free of the grip of the nuclear industry after 48 years - so much the same with non-ionising rad.

http://www.independentwho.info/
http://www.independentwho.info/spip.php?rubrique2
http://www.independentwho.info/spip.php?article110

(artjar)

From Mast Sanity/Mast Network

http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=World+Health+Organisation
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=WHO
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Repacholi
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Chernobyl
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=non-ionising
http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=Chernobyl

Leukämiefälle entfachen Atomstreit

Starmail — 2007-12-10T06:56:00Z

Wird die Atomdebatte in Deutschland wieder neu belebt? Eine Studie über Kinder, die in der Nähe von Atomkraftwerken wohnen und an Leukämie erkrankten, führt jetzt zum Schlagabtausch in der Politik....

http://www.medien.diagnose-funk.org/033ea299d21079503/033ea29a0108b1101.html

Krebsstudie alarmiert Bundesregierung

Eine Studie über gehäufte Krebserkrankungen von Kindern in der Nähe von Atomkraftwerken heizt die Debatte über die Risiken der Kernenergie neu an. Umweltminister Gabriel will die Untersuchung...

http://www.medien.diagnose-funk.org/033ea299d21079503/033ea29a000b2ce01.html

Krebsgefahr in AKW-Nähe

Kleinkinder, die in der Nähe von Atomkraftwerken leben, erkranken einer neuen Studie zufolge häufiger an Leukämie. Wie die "Süddeutsche Zeitung" vom Samstag unter Berufung auf eine Studie im Auftrag...

http://www.medien.diagnose-funk.org/033ea299d21079503/033ea29a0008dcd01.html

--------

In AKW-Nähe 60% erhöhte Krebsrate und 120% erhöhtes Leukämierisiko für Kinder

Eine neue Untersuchung des Deutschen Kinderkrebsregisters in Mainz hat zum Ergebnis, dass das Risiko für Kinder, an Leukämie zu erkranken, mit zunehmender Nähe zu einem Atomkraftwerk zunimmt. Das Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz, das die Studie in Auftrag gegeben hat, teilte mit, dass "nachweislich das Risiko für Kinder an Leukämie zu erkranken umso größer ist, je näher sie am Reaktor wohnen". Die von der atomkritischen Ärzteorganisation IPPNW angestoßene Studie ergab eine um 60 Prozent erhöhte Krebsrate und ein 120 Prozent erhöhtes Leukämie-Risiko für Kinder unter 5 Jahren, die im 5-Kilometer-Umkreis von Atomkraftwerken wohnen. Die Studie umfasst die Standorte aller deutschen Atomkraftwerke und einen langen Studienzeitraum von 24 Jahren (1980-2003). Das Studienergebnis, wonach das Krebsrisiko mit zunehmender Nähe zu Atomkraftwerken steigt, ist unstrittig. Die öffentliche Diskussion rankt sich um das jahrelange Versagen staatlicher Stellen, einen nachweislichen Ursachenzusammenhang und um die erforderlichen Konsequenzen.

http://www.ngo-online.de/ganze_nachricht.php?H=N&Nr=17106

SPD-Spitzenkandidat Jüttner fordert rasche AKW-Abschaltung

Der SPD-Spitzenkandidat für die Landtagswahl in Niedersachsen, Wolfgang Jüttner, fordert die möglichst schnelle Abschaltung aller deutschen Atomkraftwerke. Zur Begründung verwies Jüttner in der "Hannoverschen Allgemeinen Zeitung" auf die Ergebnisse einer neuen Kinderkrebsstudie, wonach das Krebsrisiko mit der Nähe zu einem Atomkraftwerk steigt. Das sei alarmierend. Der SPD-Fraktionschef im Landtag in Hannover verlangte die Aufkündigung des Atomkonsenses mit den deutschen Energieversorgern. "Der im Jahr 2000 vereinbarte schrittweise Ausstieg aus der Atomenergie mit langen Restlaufzeiten basierte auf der Voraussetzung, dass vom laufenden Betrieb der Atommeiler keine Gefahr ausgeht. Betrachtet man das jetzt festgestellte Krebsrisiko, war diese Grundannahme offenbar falsch", sagte Jüttner.

http://www.ngo-online.de/ganze_nachricht.php?H=N&Nr=17115

--------

Experte: Strahlenschutzverordnung bietet keinen Schutz vor Krebs http://www.pr-inside.com/de/experte-strahlenschutzverordnung-bietet-r342681.htm

--------

Krebs und Leukämie um Atomkraftwerke

Grüne fordern Konsequenzen aus Krebsstudie

Die Grünen-Bundestagsfraktion fordert Konsequenzen aus der Studie über gehäufte Krebserkrankungen von Kindern in der Nähe von Atomkraftwerken. Der forschungspolitische Sprecher der Grünen-Fraktion, Hans-Josef Fell, verlangte am 13. Dezember in einer Aktuellen Stunde des Bundestages von den Reaktorbetreibern den Nachweis, dass die Erkrankungen nicht mit dem laufenden Betrieb zusammenhingen. Sollte dies nicht gelingen, müssten die Atommeiler stillgelegt werden. Fell forderte ferner weitere Untersuchungen nach potenziellen Gefahren für Erwachsene.

http://www.ngo-online.de/ganze_nachricht.php?H=N&Nr=17127

http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Atomkraftwerk
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Leukämie
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Krebs

The risk of childhood cancer is growing near a nuclear power station

Starmail — 2007-12-09T08:01:00Z

http://groups.google.de/group/freepage-news/t/3f49273c3a2673a?hl=en

http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=childhood+cancer

Krebsgefahr in der Nähe von Kernkraftwerken

Starmail — 2007-12-08T13:08:00Z

http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wissen/artikel/504/147161/

Nachricht von Helmut Breunig

http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Kernkraftwerk+Krebs

The Low Level Radiation Campaign

Starmail — 2007-06-23T09:11:00Z

http://www.answers.com/topic/the-low-level-radiation-campaign

http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=low+level+radiation

Ministers Warned of Huge Rise in Nuclear Waste

Starmail — 2006-01-10T08:26:01Z

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0109-03.htm

PLAYING DOWN THE EFFECTS OF CHERNOBYL

Starmail — 2005-12-10T12:49:10Z

Dr Patrick Crowley of the Irish Association of General Practitioners, in a letter published last Thursday (THE IRISH TIMES, Dec 08, 05), challenging the arguments of those recent correspondents who claimed that Chernobyl did not have devastating health consequences for the local population, states:

"As a practising doctor who writes death certificates regularly I am fully aware that the cause of death will not be written down as radiation. Instead a physical classification will appear: leukaemia, hydrocephalus, cardiac valve deformity, etc. So Prof Reville's source statistics are meaningless.What about the estimated 25,000 liquidators who have died since 1986 of various causes linked to radiation exposure, but again are not recorded as such."

And this is also what is happening in our situation.

I have included the complete text of Dr.Crowley's published letter below plus that of the earlier letters and article ("MENTAL ILL-HEALTH BECOMES CHERNOBLY'S BIGGEST PUBLIC HEALTH PROBLEM") which have led to his rebuttal.

You have also archived at
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/358598/ earlier information I've sent you on this topic.

Best, Imelda, Cork

THE IRISH TIMES, THURS, DEC 08, 2005

PLAYING DOWN THE EFFECTS OF CHERNOBYL

Madam, - Prof William Reville's piece on Chernobyl (Science Today, December 1st) is disturbing on a number of fronts. Firstly, it plays down the medical impact, classifying Chernobyl as a serious accident rather than a disaster, and having the UN's Chernobyl Forum go guarantor to these alleged scientific truths/facts.

Prof Reville writes that, as of mid-2005, fewer than
60 deaths can be directly attributed to radiation. What bunkum! In 1995 I travelled as a doctor to Minsk and Gomel, visited hospitals, orphanages, clinics, talked to physicians, surgeons, paediatricians, saw things with my own eyes and was filmed in what I called the "death wards". These are places in orphanages and clinics where children with congenital birth deformities are left barely attended, with no therapy, to the inevitable outcome -death. I probably saw 60 of those types of cases in that week alone.

As a practising doctor who writes death certificates regularly I am fully aware that the cause of death will not be written down as radiation. Instead a physical classification will appear: leukaemia, hydrocephalus, cardiac valve deformity, etc. So Prof Reville's source statistics are meaningless.What about the estimated 25,000 liquidators who have died since 1986 of various causes linked to radiation exposure, but again are not recorded as such.

If Chernobyl is presented as so much less important than a natural disaster such as the Asian tsunami or the Kashmir earthquake, one must ask who gains by playing it down. One answer is that governments do. In the age of 9/11, terrorists may attack nuclear plants and future Chernobyl-type disasters don't bear thinking about.

Honourable scientists know the reality. Albert Einstein knew that "the splitting of the atom has changed everything except our way of thinking, and thus we drift towards unparalleled catastrophe". - Yours, etc, PATRICK CROWLEY MB, Kilmoganny Health Centre, Kilmoganny, Co Kilkenny"

[Association of General Practitioners c/o Dr Pat Crowley, Kilmoganny, Co Kilkenny Tel: 051 648 007 Email: info@agp.ie
Web: http://www.agp.ie ]

THE IRISH TIMES, THU, DEC 01, 05

"MENTAL ILL-HEALTH BECOMES CHERNOBLY'S BIGGEST PUBLIC HEALTH PROBLEM

UNDER THE MICROSCOPE "MENTAL ILL-HEALTH BECOMES CHERNOBLY'S BIGGEST PUBLIC HEALTH PROBLEM

UNDER THE MICROSCOPE

[by] Prof William Reville

The greatest accident in the history of nuclear power occurred on April 26th, 1986, at Chernobyl in the former Soviet Union. A massive explosion released a large inventory of radioactivity to the atmosphere to be carried widely over Europe and deposited as fallout.

Nearly 20 years later an international team of more than 100 scientists has issued a report entitled Chernobyl's Legacy: Health, Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts (September, 2005). The group, called The Chernobyl Forum, is made up of eight specialised UN agencies including the International Atomic Energy Agency, World Health Organisation, UN Development Programme, Food and Agriculture Organisation, UN Environment Programme, UN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, UN Scientific Committee on Effects of Atomic Radiation, and the World Bank. The governments of Belarus, Russian Federation and Ukraine, the three most affected countries, were also involved.

The report concludes that although 4,000 people could eventually die as a result of exposure to radiation from the Chernobyl accident, as of mid-2005 fewer than 60 deaths can be directly attributed to radiation from the incident. Almost all of these deaths were among highly exposed rescue workers most of whom died shortly after the accident, although others died as late as 2004.

The chairman of the Chernobyl Forum, Dr Burton Bennett, said: "This latest research can help to settle the outstanding questions about how much death, disease and economic fallout really resulted from the Chernobyl accident. This was a very serious accident, especially for the thousands of workers exposed in the early days who received very high doses of radiation and for the thousands more stricken with thyroid cancer. By and large however, we have not found profound negative health impacts to the rest of the population in surrounding areas nor have we found widespread contamination that would continue to pose a substantial threat to human health, with a few exceptional, restricted areas."

About 1,000 on-site reactor staff and emergency workers were exposed to high levels of radiation on the day of the accident and more than 200,000 emergency and recovery operation workers were exposed during 1986-1987. Some 2,200 radiation-caused deaths can be expected over the lifetime of these people. This figure rises to 4,000 when residents of the most contaminated local areas (270,000) and evacuees (116,000) are taken into account. These figures would qualify Chernobyl as a serious accident, but not a disaster.

Fifty-six deaths have been directly attributed to the accident to-date. This figure comprises 47 emergency workers most of whom died early on from acute radiation syndrome (ie, died within months from massive exposure to radiation) and nine deaths among young children who developed thyroid cancer after drinking milk contaminated with radioactive iodine.

These figures are considerably less than popular worldwide and local perception of the impact of the Chernobyl accident would suggest. Confusion over the impact of the accident arises because thousands of people in the affected areas have since died of natural causes unrelated to radiation, but a widespread expectation of ill-health and a tendency to attribute all ill-health problems to radiation have led local residents, and many observers from afar, to assume that Chernobyl-related fatalities were much higher than they were in reality.

The greatest harm was inflicted on emergency workers, many of whom displayed great heroism. In the wider region, residents who ate food contaminated with radioactive iodine in the days following the accident received relatively high doses to the thyroid gland - iodine in food concentrates in the thyroid. Children who drank milk from cows fed on contaminated grass were particularly affected and there was a high incidence of thyroid cancer in children - about 4,000 cases. Ninety-nine percent of those cases were treated successfully, but nine children died.

Most people living in contaminated areas received relatively low whole body doses, comparable to natural background levels of radiation. No evidence of decreased fertility among the affected population has been found. There is no evidence of effects on number of stillbirths, delivery complications or overall health of babies.

A modest increase in reported congenital malformations in both contaminated and uncontaminated areas of Belarus appears to be related to better reporting and not to radiation.

Ecosystems affected by Chernobyl fallout have been studied for the past 20 years. More than 200,000 square kilometres of Europe were contaminated. The extent of contamination was patchy, depending on whether it was raining when contaminated air masses passed overhead. The recent report shows that, except for the still closed, highly contaminated 30km area around the reactor, and some closed lakes and restricted forests, radiation levels have mostly returned to acceptable levels.

The report concludes that the largest public health problem resulting from the accident is "the mental health impact". Residents in the region, who were victims of a tragedy they poorly understand, continue to suffer grave anxiety and this has prevented them from restarting their lives. This "paralysing fatalism" has led to an increase in drug and alcohol use, unprotected sex and unemployment. The report recommends that the first priority should be to encourage these people to normalise their lives by providing them with realistic information about the minimal risks they face.

However the report acknowledges that about 200,000 people continue to be severely affected by the disaster in a very real way. These include poor rural dwellers who live in the few severely contaminated areas, people with thyroid cancer and people who were resettled after the accident but who never found a home or employment in their new communities. These people "need substantial material assistance to rebuild their lives".

William Reville is associate professor of biochemistry and public awareness of science officer at UCC - http://understandingscience.ucc.ie

© The Irish Times

THE IRISH TIMES, COMMENT AND LETTERS, MONDAY, NOV
21, 2005

Madam, - Prof Philip Walton (November 11th) makes the point that misinformation about nuclear accidents, such as Chernobyl, has caused misconceptions about its safety and its ability to help solve the problem of satisfying energy demand without damaging our environment.

Unlike other accidents, such as plane crashes, dam failures, mining disasters, etc, the health and environmental consequences of nuclear accidents take time to confirm because much radiation damage cannot be determined until years, even decades, after the exposure. An exception, of course, is severe radiation exposure, which, thankfully, is rare.

The accidents which have coloured our view of nuclear energy are: the Windscale fire (1957); the partial meltdown of the core of a reactor at Three Mile Island in the US (1979); and, of course, the Chernobyl disaster (1986).

We now know that there were no serious after-effects for human health or the environment in the cases of the first two accidents. This is based on published epidemiological, environmental and other scientific studies.

Although the same cannot be said about Chernobyl, its effects have been greatly exaggerated over the years and this is plain to see in the recent report of the Chernobyl Forum.

Experts from the Ukraine, Belarus, Russia, the World Health Organisation and seven other UN organisations have sifted through the evidence over the past two years and have comprehensively described their findings.

Among these is that the majority of the 700,000 rescue workers and the 5 million residents of the contaminated areas of Belarus, Ukraine and Russia received relatively minor doses which are comparable to natural background levels.

Of the few hundred rescue workers and reactor operators who received high doses some 50 have died - not thousands or even tens of thousands as hitherto believed by many people. Also, there was no evidence of congenital disease. Several thousand cases of thyroid cancer were found in children, of which 99 per cent are reported to have been successfully treated.

Finally, radiation levels in the Chernobyl environment have reduced by a factor of several hundred due to both natural processes and countermeasures taken by the authorities. The majority of the contaminated land is now safe for living and working.

The risks of nuclear power must be put into the perspective of increased difficulties with the supply of oil and gas and the consequences of detrimental climate change, which I expect will be more dramatically revealed in about 12 months' time when the International Panel on Climate Change releases its next report.

I hope that politicians will act on Prof Walton's message. An in-depth examination of the potential of nuclear power to alleviate impending energy shortages would be a sensible first step. No energy option can be ignored. - Yours, etc,

FRANK TURVEY , Church Road, Greystones, Co Wicklow.

THE IRISH TIMES, COMMENT AND LETTERS, THU, NOV 24,
05

Madam, - Having just completed research for an energy policy for the Progressive Democrats, I have spent the past few months looking at all the energy options to help Ireland overcome the challenges we face with power generation. Naturally such research looked at the nuclear power option.

The cost of developing nuclear power in Ireland would be disproportionately high, given our lack of nuclear infrastructure, our high construction costs and the considerable opposition to nuclear power. In addition, the true cost of nuclear power is indeterminable because of the nature of decommissioning costs.

Our research also revealed that, given Ireland's very favourable location to harness wind and wave power coupled with our favourable climate to grow biomass, nuclear power would never be able to compete on an economic basis with these renewable energies.

Rising oil and gas prices have made the economic case for renewable energies much sooner than expected. We are uniquely positioned to exploit these green energies and, if given the right fiscal climate, to pioneer research and development,much as we have done with information technology.

Ireland is facing a huge challenge with fuel security. We have the right climatic conditions to develop a green energy industry. All we need is the right attitude.

The business case for nuclear power in Ireland does not stand up when we have cheaper, cleaner alternatives to hand. - Yours, etc,

FIONA O'MALLEY TD,
PD Energy Spokesperson,
Dáil Éireann, Dublin 2

THE IRISH TIMES, COMMENT AND LETTERS, FRI, NOV
11, 05

Madam, - May I support the letter from Somhairle Mac Aodha (Nov 1st) concerning the end of cheap oil. It is true that world oil production will peak within the next few years and then decline at an annual rate of about 2 per cent.

This comes at a time when demand is increasing, especially from developing countries such as China and India.

Industrialisation has been almost totally dependent on the plentiful supply of cheap oil and gas. We will have used, in about 200 years, half of the oil/gas reserves which were created over many millions of years.

Our profligate use must be curtailed if we are to extend the life of this vital resource which, as well as being an energy source, is a vital feedstuff for agriculture and the whole chemical industry.

With impending shortages we need to use every available source of energy such as renewable sources, strict conservation measures and the use of nuclear power.

It is unlikely that renewables will ever contribute the major fraction of our needs and nuclear power is the only option for the base load which produces negligible greenhouse gases. (We hope that nuclear fusion will ultimately be an answer but that seems a long way off.)

The well known environmentalist, James Lovelock (guru of the UK Green Party) has now come out very strongly in favour of nuclear power.

France generates about 80 per cent of its electricity from nuclear power with very few problems or public objections. Radiation phobia, fuelled for example by misconceptions and misinformation about Sellafield and Chernobyl, have impeded the growth of nuclear power but things will have to change.

The legacy of nuclear waste buried in stable underground sites for many thousands of years is of little consequence compared to the problems we are going to face. - Yours, etc,

PHILIP W WALTON, Moycullen, Co Galway.

THE IRISH TIMES, COMMENT AND LETTERS, TUE, NOV 01, 05

A chara, - As the media well know, we have reached the end of cheap oil (as Jacques Chirac has recently stated and as even Chevron-Texaco admits on its website).

Regardless of whether the peak in world oil production
("peak oil") occurs this year or in 2015, according to the Hirsch report we need at least 10 years of preparation for the coming oil crisis. The world is about to change dramatically and permanently as a result of oil depletion, and it is no longer just the opinion of Colin Campbell, Matthew Simmons, Richard Heinberg, et al. We are hopelessly addicted to oil, relying on it for everything from plastics, transport, heating, pesticides to delivering fresh water.

Given that 87 per cent of the fuels to produce Ireland's electricity are imported, and that a large proportion of our gas comes from the UK's rapidly depleting gas supplies, what radical action is Ireland taking? Surely, relying so heavily on imported oil and gas at a time when prices are rocketing is utterly ludicrous?

I urge the media to stop the scandalous silence over this enormous issue and to do an in-depth reportage into the topic of "peak oil" and Ireland's energy security. - Is mise,

SOMHAIRLE MAC AODHA,
Páirc na Labhras,
Caisleán Nua,
Gaillimh.

Chernobyl Heart On "Chernobyl Heart" and EHS
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/358598/

I've just come from viewing "Chernobyl Heart" an opening day entry at this year's Cork Film Festival. What a poignant and honest film, unsparing in showing closeups of children with horrific deformities, teenagers with tyroid cancer, and of countless other manifestations of shattered lives due to that ghastly Chernobyl radiation disaster. In the film it was stressed how invidious radiation is as it is invisible (a silent killer) and how it weakens the immune system's resistance to diseases.

At the Question and Answer session following the film, I asked Maryann DeLeo and Adi Roche whether any attention had been given to the possibility that these young victims now resident in hospitals, orphanages, and other institutions might also be EHS. I added that nearby masts and cellphones could cause these children further distress.

As my hearing is impaired I could not catch Maryann Deleo's response but later another attendee told me she--Maryann-- responded that their focus in "Chernobyl Heart" was solely on the health hazards of ionizing radiation.

I spoke briefly with Adi Roche before leaving the cinema and asked her to please take note of factors such as flourescent lighting, etc, that could cause those unfortunate children even worse discomfort. I directed her to some online EHS sources.

Frankly, I don't think my introducing the subject of non-ionizing radiation effects was well-received by the audience, but such a cold-shoulder reaction should come as no surprise to any of us. We activists on this EHS beat know ours is the most unpopular cause in evey country--except of course for our small number of dedicated supporters and ever increasing number of EHS affected.

But there are also some highly respected scientists who deny that the Chernobyl nuclear radiation accident had any disastrous health effects. And Irish professors feature among these, as can be seen in my posting to you earlier this year (EMF-Omega-News
28-02-04) which I have now pasted in below.

Best, Imelda, Cork

Pasted from EMF-Omega-News 28-02-04: http://tinyurl.com/5pb7z

There are, however, some prominent academics and other radiation specialists here in Ireland who continue to deny in the face of astounding contrary evidence that the Chernobyl radiation accident has had any significant health effects on the population of Belarus. For instance, Professors Philip W. Walton, (Applied Physics) and Wil J.M. Van Der Putten (Medical Physics) at NUI (National University of Ireland),Galway hold this view and cite the published findings of UNSCEAR (the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation) as presented to the UN General Assembly in 2000 in their support.

The text of letters to the Irish Times by Professors Walton and Van Der Putten, and others are archived at Citizens Initiative Omega on these dates:

9/5/03 Subtitled: "Chernobyl bio-disaster is a myth say two Irish Professors" http://tinyurl.com/5x8ot

14/5/03 Subtitled: "Effects of Chernobly Disaster" http://tinyurl.com/7xram

15/5/03 "A measured response letter to Chernobyl nuclear disaster" http://tinyurl.com/6yu5o

Links:

http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/chernobylheart/ http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/03/6cb4b823-8b6a-4051-97b2-537daf5f0c45.html http://www.showbizireland.com/news/october04/04-u2167.shtml

--------

Chernobyl, WHO and Utteridge's mice: Is there a connection?
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/1293003/

Exorcising the ghosts of Chernobyl

Starmail — 2005-09-27T10:23:48Z

http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/index.php?p=251

Nuclear Energy: A Fallacious Response to the Oil Crisis

Starmail — 2005-09-01T08:36:15Z

In fact, France, "kingdom of the atom," has a 75% dependence on fossil energies (oil, gas, coal) and remains one of the major greenhouse gas emitting countries.

http://www.truthout.org/issues_05/083105EC.shtml

Mehrheit der Deutschen gegen Atomkraft

Starmail — 2005-08-07T15:32:26Z

Die Mehrheit der Deutschen will weiterhin aus der Atomenergie aussteigen - das geht aus einer Emnid-Umfrage für die Umweltorganisation Greenpeace hervor. 60 Prozent der Bundesbürger wollen demnach, dass die bestehenden Kernkraftwerke wie geplant oder sogar noch schneller abgeschaltet werden.

http://www.sonnenseite.com/fp/archiv/Akt-News/6707.php

Radioaktive Verseuchung um Tschernobyl ist heute gefährlicher als 1986

Starmail — 2005-08-04T20:14:00Z

Die radioaktive Zerfallskette von Plutonium und ihre Spätfolgen.

http://www.telepolis.de/tp/r4/artikel/20/20647/1.html

Panel Affirms Radiation Link to Cancer

Starmail — 2005-07-02T15:52:43Z

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/science/AP-Radiation-Risks.html?

Panel Affirms Radiation Link to Cancer

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Published: June 29, 2005 Filed at 11:13 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Even very low doses of radiation pose a risk of cancer over a person's lifetime, a National Academy of Sciences panel concluded. It rejected some scientists' arguments that tiny doses are harmless or may in fact be beneficial.

The findings, disclosed in a report Wednesday, could influence the maximum radiation levels that are allowed at abandoned reactors and other nuclear sites and raises warnings about excessive exposure to radiation for medical purposes such as repeated whole-body CT scans.

''It is unlikely that there is a threshold (of radiation exposure) below which cancers are not induced,'' the scientists said.

While at low doses ''the number of radiation-induced cancers will be small ... as the overall lifetime exposure increases, so does the risk,'' the experts said.

Even common X-rays pose some risk of adverse health effects, the scientists found, although the panel said there was not enough information available to accurately estimate the cancer risk from X-rays. Nevertheless, the report said, there is evidence that per unit of absorbed radiation, X-rays may be more dangerous than other radiation.

The panel also said that approximately one person out of 1,000 would develop cancer from exposure to the amount of radiation from a single, average whole body CT-scan.

But the report should not scare people away from nuclear medicine, said Dr. Henry Royal, a professor of radiology at Washington University in St. Louis. He said most often the benefits of such tests and treatments outweigh the risks.

But Royal also said that procedures such as CT scans should be used to deal with a specific medical problems and not part of annual medical screenings. ''You should not be exposed to radiation for superficial reasons,'' Royal said in a telephone interview.

Scientists for years have debated how extremely low doses of radiation affect human health.

Pro-nuclear advocates, as well as some independent scientists, have maintained that the current risk models for low-level radiation has produced more stringent requirements than is necessary to protect public health.

It is an issue in determining decontamination requirements at abandoned reactors and at federal weapons sites.

The academy's panel stood by the ''linear, no threshold'' model that generally is the acceptable approach to radiation risk assessment. This approach assumes that the health risks from radiation exposure decline as the dose levels drop, but that each unit of radiation -- no matter how small -- is assumed to cause cancer.

''The scientific research base shows that there is no threshold of exposure below which low levels of ionized radiation can be demonstrated to be harmless or beneficial,'' said Richard R. Monson, the panel's chairman. He is a professor of epidemiology at Harvard's School of Public Health.

The panel said new and more extensive data developed over the past 15 years only strengthen the conclusions of the panel's last report, in 1990, on low-level radiation risks.

The scientists estimated that one out of 100 people exposed to 100 millisievert of radiation over a lifetime probably would develop solid cancer or leukemia, and that half of those cases would be fatal.

It also said that 42 additional cancers can be expected in the same group from other than low-level radiation sources.

A millisievert is a measurement of radiation energy deposited in a living tissue. People absorb about 3 millisievert of radiation annually from natural sources and 0.1 millisievert every time they get a chest X-ray.

The report noted that exposure from a whole body CT scan is about 10 millisievert, much higher than a normal X-ray.

Some anti-nuclear advocates said the study reaffirms that stringent regulations are needed when cleaning up abandoned nuclear sites or considering health risks near nuclear power plants.

''The NAS panel puts to rest once and for all claims that low doses of radiation aren't dangerous ... nuclear advocates have been making this claim for years'' said Daniel Hirsch, president of Committee to Bridge the Gap, a Los Angeles-based nuclear watchdog group.

Mitchell Singer, a spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's lobbying arm, said the report ''is a positive finding. It shows there is very little risk of exposure from low levels of radiation.''

The academy is a private organization chartered by Congress to advise the government of scientific matters.

On the Net:
National Academy of Science: http://www.nationalacademies.org

Informant: Global Network

Is nuclear energy dead?

Starmail — 2005-07-01T22:15:49Z

http://people.freenet.de/omega_news/is_nuclear_energy_dead.htm

Secret data on reactor inspections leaked to Internet

Starmail — 2005-06-24T04:47:41Z

The Japan Times Printer Friendly Articles

Confidential information on nuclear power plant inspections was posted on the Internet recently by a virus in the computer of an employee contracted to do the inspections, Mitsubishi Electric Co. said Thursday.

The leak was on data on seven nuclear power plants and 13 thermal and hydroelectric power plants, according to Mitsubishi Electric, which named subsidiary Mitsubishi Electric Plant Engineering Corp. as the contractor in question.

The 20 facilities are run by 12 companies.

The seven nuclear power plants are located in Hokkaido, Fukui, Kagoshima and Saga prefectures and are run by the Hokkaido, Kansai and Kyushu electric power companies and Japan Atomic Power Co.

The leaked data do not contain any information that compromises the security of nuclear material, including details on reactors or how the facilities are guarded, Mitsubishi said.

The computer was apparently infected by a virus that propagates through Winny, a Japanese peer-to-peer file-sharing program, Mitsubishi said.

The leak was about 40 to 50 megabytes -- the equivalent of 30 floppy disks.

The data included several years' worth of inspection reports and manuals, as well as photos from the inspections and health data on workers at the power plants, it said.

A Mitsubishi Electric spokesman said the incident is "truly regrettable" and noted the company is investigating.

"Our company is stepping up management of confidential information and will take steps to prevent a similar incident at the company as well as affiliated concerns," he said.

Chief Cabinet Secretary Hiroyuki Hosoda acknowledged the data leak and said the government has launched its own investigation.

It has not been determined whether "a leak of critical, important information concerning protection of nuclear materials" occurred, the government's top spokesman said. But nuclear plants are important facilities subject to antiterrorism measures, and the government will strengthen management of nuclear information and publicize how the information was leaked once the probe is concluded.

The data are believed to have leaked from the computer of a maintenance management engineer at the Mitsubishi subsidiary, according to the Mitsubishi Electric spokesman.

The engineer used his own computer when inspecting the power plants, and the data are thought to have been leaked through Winny, which was installed in his computer. A virus can apparently cause Winny to send data to other computers on the Internet.

Much of the data is categorized as "industrial secret" or "classified for business purposes," and includes e-mail to the engineer's boss detailing progress on the inspections, according to the spokesman.

A Kepco spokesman said information on regular inspections of the No. 3 reactor at Mihama and the No. 4 reactor at Oi was leaked, including a list of reactor components supplied by Mitsubishi Electric for the Mihama plant.

"Given the nature of his duties, he is not supposed to have information on nuclear materials, so there was no leak of information that would cause problems for protection of nuclear materials," he said.

The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency said it will summon officials of the utilities to report on details on the leak and whether it could compromise safety.

The Japan Times: June 24, 2005
(C) All rights reserved

Informant: Paul Lion

Richard Rhodes on Oppenheimer and the atomic bomb

Starmail — 2005-05-16T10:35:16Z

http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/2788/

Informant: jensenmk

From ufpj-news