(In light of today’s news from the WHO this report from last May is being reposted)
‘Nuclear Controversies’, an informative video on the health effects from Chernobyl and the relationship between the International Atomic Energy Agency and the World Health Organization:
- 2:30 – Agreement between IAEA and WHO – WHO cannot research health effects of radiation or effects of nuclear accidents if IAEA does not agree
- 7:00 – Former head of WHO admits they answer to IAEA
- 30:50 – UN refutes internal radiation; Norman Gentner, Secretary of UN UNSCEAR (United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation), ~2001 (See Gentner speak at 13:55 — No increase in leukemia, even among liquidators)
- 34:15 – Claims internal or external it makes no difference
See also: "Impossibly High": WHO's initial report estimated Tokyo AND Osaka infant thyroid dose at 10 to 100 millisieverts -- Up to 1 full sievert in Namie
Three years ago, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)’s research mission visited the contaminated areas. Dr. Shigematsu [Japanese], chairman of the mission, announced “there are no health damages among the residents.” [...]
Mr. Hirokawa, after looking at your video, I wonder what it was that IAEA announced there were no health damages among the residents. [...]
The local people believed a fair research would be done, because IAEA is an agency of the United Nations and a medical scientist from Hiroshima would lead the research. So, they were astounded that the mission had announced the areas were safe.
But, didn’t the mission actually see the situation there?
Well, according to the local doctors, the mission members didn’t enter the heavily-contaminated areas.
Besides, they brought their food, sourced from far away, and didn’t eat anything local.
Still, they declared it’s safe. No wonder the local people are infuriated.
If the mission found local food too dangerous to eat, they should have said it’s dangerous.
The very credibility of the International Atomic Energy Agency is seriously challenged, isn’t it?
Yes. I hear that when the nuclear industry of the former USSR started to do business with the nuclear industry of the US, they probably agreed that downplaying the damages by the accident would be beneficial for both sides.
“Like having Dracula guard the blood bank”: Watch the video here
Published: February 28th, 2013 at 1:14 pm ET
- “Shameless”: New World Health Organization report shockingly downplays health risks after Fukushima — “WHO and other organisations must stop hiding the impact” February 28, 2013
- National Geographic: Fukushima considered world’s worst nuclear accident — Physician: Fukushima remains a “global health concern” — Kaku: “It’s so bad, they don’t even have a picture of melted core… the agony is unending” (VIDEO) April 14, 2014
- Gov’t Report: Urgent that effects of radiation on human health be reduced — Experts need to investigate residents with ‘negative health effects’ — ‘Fallout is worrying people not only in Japan but also around the world’ May 29, 2012
- Physician: Does Fukushima fallout explain rise in blood clots? — Circulatory diseases one of most widespread consequences after Chernobyl October 27, 2011
- TV: Gov’t reports large spike in health problems for Fukushima nuclear workers — 400% of levels seen previously — Unhealthy white blood cell counts (VIDEO) September 21, 2013