Published: August 9th, 2012 at 5:52 pm ET
|
Title: Situation of Rural Women affected by the Great Japan Earthquake and Nuclear Power Plant Accident
Filmed on: March 7, 2012
Uploaded on: May 26, 2012
Uploaded by: ERF2012
For more information, visit: http://cinemaforumfukushima.org
Sponsored by Human Rights Now & Japan Federation of Bar Associations
At 4:50 in
Ms Kazuko ITO, Secretary General, Human Rights Now: Local government mobilizes ordinary citizens including pregnant women to decontamination activity.
“Which is very dangerous”
Under such condition, people are facing serious risk to their rights of life, right to health and reproductive health. The expecting mothers babies, children and the young are most vulnerable …
See also:
- Head of Fukushima health study: 100 mSv/yr OK for pregnant moms -- "Effects of radiation do not come to people that are happy... They come to people that are weak-spirited"
- U. of Pittsburg radiation expert: Child cancer risk doubles if exposed to just a couple x-rays worth of radiation during pregnancy (VIDEO)
Published: August 9th, 2012 at 5:52 pm ET
|
sending...
This should have been a safety lecture before the clean-up began. The Normalization of radiation is sicking. The establishment for pre-planned responses should be for the people during a disaster, not the government and corporations.
Report Comment
Oh, well said, CB. Very well said.
Report Comment
If there was a safety lecture before the clean-up began,there would be know one remaining to clean-up..
Report Comment
unless they had a death wish…
Report Comment
No government (anywhere) can successfully deal with the aftermath of a meltdown. Can't happen.
Report Comment
"Local government mobilizes ordinary citizens including pregnant women to decontamination activity."
Words fail.
Report Comment
I know it's hard to believe..
Report Comment
http://imva.info/
Japanese pregnant women need to read this site that tells them how to remove radioactivity out of their bodies with Baking Soda!
Report Comment
And, be sure to post it to the Methods For Combatting Radiation forum, too, here on enews for others to find who may not read this article.
Report Comment
I tried to write a response.. But like Ron.. "Words fail"..
It is common knowledge pregnant women should not even have an x ray..
How unbelievable..
Report Comment
This is the same government which probably performs abortions on those same women; so no concern on fetus health. Sadly, the women may not be aware of the results of their "work" effort. Having an abortion is not easy physically or mentally; affects are life long for the mothers and fathers. 80% of marriages in the USA are said to fail after the death of a baby/child; abortion is death of a baby. Tragic side affects!
Report Comment
I must say, and i don't do it lightly – those in the Japanese government who orchestrated this dramatization of the safety of nuclear radiation, have taken a page right out of the Nazi playbook. These women were used for propaganda purposes. It is beyond plausible denial and scholastic differences in the dangers radiation. It is, indeed akin to murder.
Report Comment
Agreed Vic.
Report Comment
Exactly my thinking too …In the memory and spirit of Dr Jozef Mengele by the japanese government and Tepco sub-humanoids . Its the 21 century ffs….
Report Comment
Some Issues of Long-Term Investigations on Genetic Consequences by the
Chernobyl Accident
Lazjuk G.I.
1
, Satow Y.
2
1
– Belarus State Medical University, Minsk, Belarus
2
– Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan
"..Results of almost 20-year investigations of possible consequences of the Chernobyl accident for Belarussian population, obtained by the National Research Institute for Hereditary and Inborn Diseases, provide grounds for the conclusion that at least four facts, related to genetic consequences, had connected to the Chernobyl accident: three could be defined as proven and one – as probable. The first three are:
• Significantly increased level of chromosome aberration in pregnant women and their newborn babies,
who resided in 1986-1988 in zones with
137
Cs contamination of 555 kBq/m and higher;
• Significant three-year increase of prevalence of embrional development defects in the same
abovementioned zones and in the same years, which lead to the increase of prevalence of congenital
anomalies in social abortuses, fetuses and newborns;
• January peak of babies with Down syndrome, born by women who were in the zones of maximum
irradiation in the period 26-30 April 1986; …"
http://www.rri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/NSRG/reports/kr139/pdf/lazjuk.pdf
Report Comment
As Safer Fetal Genetic Tests Arrive, Abortions Could Rise
by Jeremy Ford April 5th, 2011
"..The impending arrival of non-invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) will allow more parents than ever before to discover congenital disorders early in pregnancy…but will it also lead to an increase in abortions? Because of the risks associated with older methods, very few fetuses actually undergo rigorous screening in today’s clinic. The broadening scope of prenatal diagnosis has prompted speculation about rising abortion rates, and merged with a growing understanding of the human genome, some predict that early genotyping could open the door to eugenics through selecting babies based on prenatally determined traits…"
"..In a recent BMJ article, his team tested the feasibility of NIPD for Down syndrome on a large scale. After refining their sequencing protocol, they were able to detect trisomy-21 (Down Syndrome) with a predictive accuracy of 96.6%…"
a prediction..
"..Fears of eugenics will increase as such testing moves from fatal diseases to less serious medical conditions and then on to nonmedical characteristics — sex selection today; skin, hair and eye colour tomorrow; perhaps, eventually, traits such as some cognitive or physical abilities.."
http://singularityhub.com/2011/04/05/as-safer-fetal-genetic-tests-arrive-abortions-could-rise/
adhd off the menu then??
cont..
Report Comment
and this..
"…According to this meta-analysis, an overwhelming majority of pregnancies in which Down Syndrome was detected resulted in an abortion (1980s: 96%, 1990s: 92%). For other congenital disorders, the rates of termination were similarly high for both decades…"
everyone trusts the science then!
"..Because of the explosion of information and possibilities that will be upon us soon, there are calls for a code of ethics of medical genetics to be debated and established, and the World Health Organization has issued guidelines (26). Included in these guidelines are the idea that "all individuals should have a right to know their genetic risks and risks to their potential offspring; to be educated about these risks, and to have the services available to act upon the knowledge, including the option of safe, accessible termination of pregnancies with affected fetuses if desired by prospective parents…"
"..It would be unethical for the government to refuse to contribute to the care of children who suffer from genetic disease because their parents refused to use genetic screening, because it is unjust to blame the children for their parents actions. If free choice is lost there will be a large cost in human dignity, which was the main lesson of the enforced eugenic programs of the 20th century in the United States or Nazi Germany…"
cont..
Report Comment
….
"..The International Bioethics Survey of public and/or university students, including open questions on how people think about life, disease, and genetics was performed in 1993 in Australia, Hong Kong, India, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, The Philippines, Russia, Singapore and Thailand (1)…"
"..The support for family knowledge of genetic disease has some relevance to genetic counseling, and supports some family involvement. These results suggest that family-centred counseling may be more appropriate in Japan and Thailand than in the other countries…"
"..Whether eugenic views of improved genes and health for individuals, a positive view in itself, can be separated from the negative eugenic social forces of conformity, and discrimination against people with disease, is a question only time will truly answer…"
"..he attitudes within a country change over time, depending upon the influence of the media and public understanding. Two surveys conducted by the Prime Minister's Office in Japan asked whether it was good for people in general to use prenatal diagnosis, and in 1985, 64 percent said yes, 25 percent said no, and 12 percent didn't know; in 1990, 70 percent said yes, 17 percent said no, and 13 percent didn't know (76). The results of surveys conducted by Macer since 1991 (76, 77) suggest that approximately 70 percent of individuals are in favor of prenatal diagnosis being available under national health insurance, although it is not.."
cont
Report Comment
"…fewer respondents gave a reason of "to save life", or "parent's convenience", but more respondents gave reasons such as "to improve genes" or "economy" (support for eugenics), and "fetus has a right to life", "unnatural or Playing God", "health risk", and "eugenic" concerns. This result suggests that these persons with specialised knowledge have more concrete ways of discussing the issue, perhaps as a result of experience or debate. There also can be differences between medical specialty….."
this is a very thought provoking article…
http://www.eubios.info/Papers/PRENATAL.htm
Infanticide throughout history and pre-history
the japanese call it Mabiki
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Infanticide
hairs gone a bit greyer
Report Comment
The International Bioethics Survey of public and/or university students 1993
"The changes over time make the data useful for future studies on the impact of education upon people's attitudes, and we should note that there were significant changes in acceptance of gene therapy in Japan between 1991 and 1993 (Table 2). At least we can say that some people agree with enhancement, and the proportion is of concern to those who consider enhancement to be unethical….."
http://www.eubios.info/Papers/GTA.htm
wonder who filled in the questionaires on this one..
the question of religion as an issue was interesting
japan scored high in it NOT being an issue..
very scientific of them?? i thought japan was a deeply spiritual country.. thats why tepguv have got away with so much! imo
Report Comment
I echo comments here by stating that pregnant women must be protected from evil radiation effects deliberately created like with nuclear energy programmes. Yes I remember Dr Alice Stewart's great work in this regardas stated in Rosalie Bertell.1990s.No Immediate Danger: Prognosis for a Radioactive Earth. Women's Press.
I am too shocked for more words.
Report Comment
Just look at the radiation standards in this country for female nuclear workers. Back around 1980 the limit for pregnant females changed to 500 millirem total dose for the entire pregnancy period. That is the NRC standard.
That means that any pregnant women living in Japan where the hourly dose rate is 1 microsevert per hour would exceed that limit. And that would also assume that there was no internal dose from eating or breathing in any radioactivity. (which is probably completely impossible)
Why would the NRC lower the dose limits if there was no danger over these limits? And why does the Japanese government completely ignore these precautions? Why do the Japanese government let their small children get 10-20 milliseverts a year and more when the general public in the United States can only get 1 millisevert a year.
Changing the rules and standards after an accident could be a very valid question or argument to make at any hearing for nuclear power. "How do we know that you will not change all the rules like Japan did after a nuclear accident? or "Why did no one in the nuclear industry complain when Japan scrapped all their rules and regulations and endangered their people?
Report Comment
@chrisk9
August 10, 2012 at 10:39 am
This is a deadly disease right from the begin of the evil nuke era and psychiatricks including witchcraft were applied to change the goal-posts as the situation evolved. It is as old as Nagasaki when the ABCC changed even data of the ABC
to suit the industry(See Dr John D Gofman.1990. Radiation Induced Cancer from Low Dose Exposure: An Independent Analysis).CHAPTER 5
A Growing Problem: Retroactive Alteration of the Study
Report Comment
@Ramaswami Kumar
August 11, 2012 at 2:09 am
The situation is hopeless with nukes:
Just One Part in a Thousand ?
It may sound like a trifle to put only one part per thousand of a poison into the environment, but we will show what one part per thousand means with respect to radioactive cesium.
The cesium-137 produced each year by a 1000-megawatt (electrical) nuclear power plant amounts to nearly 4 million curies. Since its radioactive half-life is 30.2 years, very little of it decays during a year.
The Chernobyl reactor contained a two-year cesium-inventory of about 8 million curies. Recent estimates are that the Chernobyl reactor released about 2.5 million curies of cesium-137, which is equivalent to (2.5 / 4.0) or 62.5 % of a ONE-year inventory.
Now let us consider 100 large nuclear power plants each operating in the USA for a lifespan of about 25 years each. Call "A" the yearly cesium-137 production by one plant. Then 100A = the yearly production by 100 plants. Lifetime production = 25 yrs x 100A/year = 2,500A. 99.9 % containment = release of 1 part per 1,000. With 99.9 % perfect containment, loss = 2.5A. Chernobyl lost 0.625A. The ratio of 2.5A and 0.625A is 4.0.
This ratio, 4, has an enormous meaning. It means that achieving 99.9 % PERFECT containment of the cesium-137 produced by 100 plants during 25 years of operation, through all steps of the cesium's handling up through final burial, would STILL result in cesium-137…
Report Comment
Continued from @Ramaswami Kumar
August 11, 2012 at 2:13 am
…would STILL result in cesium-137 contamination equivalent in curies to 4 Chernobyl accidents.
Worldwide, there are about 400 plants underway, so the same scenario (99.9 % perfection in containing cesium) would mean cesium-loss equivalent to 16 Chernobyl accidents per 25 years of operation. And this assault on human health could occur without blowing the roof off any single plant.
—Dr. John Gofman, Radiation-Induced Cancer from Low-Dose
Exposure: An Independent Analysis, 1990,
Chapter 25, "Main Text: A Closing Statement"
Report Comment