Sedici scienziati al Segretario dell’Onu: a Fukushima non va affatto bene, estromettere TepCo e Aiea dalla bonifica, intervenire sul governo giapponese…

sabato, novembre 23rd, 2013

Sedici scienziati scrivono al segretario delle Nazioini Unite per Fukushima (nella foto nei giorni del disastro): la bonifica non sta andando affatto bene. Chiedono che la TepCo sia messa da parte. Ma non si fidano neanche dell’Aiea. Chiedono di intervenire sul governo giapponese.

La lettera non ha ricevuto ancora risposta, per quanto si sappia, per il resto confermano quanto ha appena scritto dal Giappone Pio D’Emila per Il Fatto Quotidiano.

Ecco la lettera dei 16 scienziati a Ban Ki-moon::

The Honorable Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General

The United Nations

c/o United National Non Government Liaison Service

Dear Secretary,

We write to you in urgency. The situation around the world at radioactively contaminated sites is not

good, and it is clear that the situation at the Fukushima Daiichi reactor site is progressively deteriorating,

not stabilizing. We write because of your personal interest in a sustainable future, but also because you

are the Executive for global organizations charged with protection of the public’s health, public safety and

the common good when it comes to radioactivity, radiation and nuclear technology. Together we call

upon you to act immediately to:

1. Prevail upon international organizations and Japan to replace TEPCO with a worldwide

engineering group to take charge of the Fukushima nuclear disaster.

2. Appoint a group of experts independent from either TEPCO or IAEA to advise the new

engineering group to establish a risk informed stabilization, containment and remediation plan for

Fukushima.

3. Create a well-funded oversight panel of local citizens and local elected officials to ensure

transparency and accountability of both of the above groups, as well as to facilitate well-informed

self-determination and further recovery of the impacted populations.

4. Call upon the Japanese government to admit financial costs in excess of $500B USD.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE92417Y20130308?irpc=932; And Gundersen, Arnold,

http://www.amazon.co.jp/福島第一原発-―真相と展望集英社新書

アーニー・ガンダーセン/dp/4087206289/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1378938739&sr

=8-1&keywords=gundersen

5. Call upon the Japanese government to assure adequate funding for decontamination of the

prefecture and site.

6. Call upon the Japanese government to cease the massive incineration program underway in Japan

which carts and burns rubble from the earthquake and tsunami, much of it toxic and some of it

radioactive, in municipal incinerators.

In addition to the action plan outlined above, we have broader concerns about radiological accounting and

regulation that United Nations agencies such as the World Health Organization (WHO), International

Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic

Radiation (UNSCEAR) have already engaged in. With regard to the Fukushima nuclear disaster other UN

Agencies, like the High Commission on Human Rights, have recognized how this accounting is not

serving humanity.

7. Any projection of total cancers or deaths from the Fukushima disaster is premature; and

any previous publications need to be viewed as “speculative” at best. It is clear now that the

Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster is far from over, and that there can be no credible estimate of

total environmental or human health impacts because the radiological release has not ceased and the outcomes from exposing large populations to low doses over long time frames is unclear. A

final estimation of the radiological release from the Fukushima Daiichi site, of necessity lies in

the future; perhaps the distant future. Therefore, it remains of utmost importance to monitor

radioactivity and provide and increase protective measures to individuals and communities. When

future updates to such studies are done, it must be incumbent upon the researchers to revise

previous findings, not merely extend them, since it is known that key data from the past were not

included–such as the World Health Organization omitting the radiation exposures to members of

the public prior to being evacuated (the first 4 days of the disaster; Becker, Oda 2012:

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/briefings/nuclear/2013/201

2_OdaBecker.pdf ). In addition Japanese physicians and scientists in Japan must be allowed and

supported to treat and report Fukushima related health consequences. Nuclear calamities to date

result in institutional pressure to under report and even distort patient health data and other

evidence (see, for example: The Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments, Final

Report http://archive.org/details/advisorycommitte00unit and Steven Wing et al. (1997). “A

reevaluation of cancer incidence near the Three Mile Island nuclear plant: the collision of

evidence and assumptions”. Environmental Health Perspectives (Brogan & Partners) 105 (1): 52–

57.) Such institutional pressure is now contributing to a downplaying of the true impact of the

Fukushima accident. Further, slavish reliance on past exposure assumptions is not advisable, not

only because these assumptions could have been subject to this type of pressure, but also because

every nuclear catastrophe/exposure is different; according to the UN Special Rapporteur on

Health, who references applicable research in his report: “Though experiences from the Three

Mile Island and Chernobyl accidents provide invaluable guidance, a narrow appreciation of the

accidents would not provide proper guidance.” [Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right of

everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health,

Anand Grover, Mission to Japan (15 – 26 November 2012) p 9]

8. A new formulation of the radiological risk coefficient assigned to radiation exposure is

needed, as well as a rigorous discussion of the option for more than one such coefficient.

Unfortunately, outdated assumptions are still being applied to what is happening to the people of

Japan, and others being exposed to radioactivity from Fukushima (and elsewhere). More accurate

understanding of the impact of ionizing radiation from both internalized radionuclides, and also

across the life-cycle, has not yet been incorporated into risk estimates.“Old” (inaccurate)

assumptions do not account for disproportionate harm to females in general, and young children

in particular (National Academy of Sciences, BEIR VII page 311, Tables 12D-1 and 12D-2

Lifetime Attributable Risk of Cancer Incidence and Mortality). Official estimates are beginning

to acknowledge this reality [World Health Organization, 2013, Health risk assessment from the

nuclear accident after the Great East Japan Earthquake… see page 54 section 5.2.2 Results of

lifetime risk calculations.

http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/fukushima_risk_assessment_2013/en/in

dex.html ; UNSCEAR press release

(http://www.unis.unvienna.org/unis/en/pressrels/2013/unisinf475.html) and video

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyLDNq3VBMU&feature=youtu.be)] however, this impact

is not yet incorporated in the regulation of radiation exposure worldwide. In addition, it is no

longer valid to omit the impact of internal exposure; risk estimates can no longer assume different

types of radiation outside the body have equivalent health impact once inside the body. (See:

Yablokov, 2013, “A Review and Critical Analysis of the “Effective Dose of Radiation” Concept”

Journal of Health & Pollution Vol. 3, No. 5 — pg 13–28.) Finally, it is not clear that exposures in

utero, during the initial phases, or over time will be included in the estimate of health risk or

consequences from Fukushima.

9. The global organizations charged with radiological analysis and regulation should be

generating a real base of monitoring data from Fukushima. Contamination levels in both

humans and the environment need to be woven into any health assessments. Reliance on

dose reconstruction alone is insufficient and collection of biological data will help researchers

observe, not just predict, health outcomes. It is incumbent upon these global organizations, given

the amount of information now known about disproportionate impacts from internal exposure;

and the disproportionate harm across the lifecycle (human and otherwise) to collect data and

calculate exposures directly, not from extrapolations mired in outdated and incorrect assumptions.

The UN Special Rapporteur supports collection of biological data to assess internal exposure:

“Refrain from restricting examination for internal exposure to whole-body counters and provide it

to all affected population [sic], including residents, evacuees, and to persons outside Fukushima

prefecture;” (Grover 2013, p 23)

10. In general, public health concerns need to drive public spending and health assessments;

principles of biology need to drive health research not scientific investigation for science’s

sake. People need proper medical treatment, not data-mining. Japanese People, especially

parents, should be told the truth about the medical effects of radiation exposure and have full and

open access to the tests that are being performed on them to detect health abnormalities, such as

thyroid cancer. All investigations into health abnormalities should include all cancers and other

diseases related to radiation exposure. The world must not re-commit the post-war crimes of

Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where the radiation victims known as Hibakusha, were only studied by

the West rather than helped to heal.

11. Where biological mechanisms or results are unclear, precaution should be used and not be

superseded by principles of physics alone because physics is only one of the forces acting to

impact health. Research finding negative health impacts of low doses should be accounted for,

not disregarded. The UN Special Rapporteur, after reviewing such research, recognizes this:

“…disregarding these findings diminishes the understanding of and increases vulnerability to

health effects of long-term exposure to low-dose radiation.” (Grover 2013, p 6) Unfortunately

these concerns extend far beyond Japan today, and per new projections (shown graphically here),

impacts are still expanding:

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-326/7/3/034004/article?v_showaffiliations=yes

12. Those who are displaced from their homes due to radioactivity need to have good options

regarding how and where to live that are respectful of their culture and traditions. Consequently,

the Special Rapporteur’s report says any relief package should “(i)nclude cost of reconstruction

and restoration of lives” (Grover 2013 p 24) This starts by providing them information about

radiation in the context of other determinants to health, and this information should not be in the

control of parties with financial interests in the nuclear industry.

13. The Fukushima disaster has inflicted suffering from family, social and economic disruption and

loss of cultural traditions including food sources and family shrines. These losses are causing

visible impacts on the mental and physical health of children, parents, grandparents, and whole

communities. While it is radioactivity that will prevent their return to that life, there are many

dimensions in which harm has been done. Those responsible for constructing and operating the

reactors, and accumulating irradiated fuel, should be accountable to the people impacted. The

Special Rapporteur’s report says legal structures should “(e)nsure that TEPCO and other third

parties are held accountable for the nuclear accident and that their liability to pay compensation

or reconstruction efforts is not shifted to taxpayers.”

14. The Uranium that was in the reactors at Fukushima Daiichi originated from Aboriginal

Lands in Australia, where the traditional people opposed the uranium ever being removed

from the ground. It is time for the decision structure of our United Nations to honor and include

the wisdom of those who truly, if heard, could have prevented this disaster.

15. The Memorandum of Understanding between the World Health Organization and

International Atomic Energy Agency should be dissolved permanently. The charge of the

IAEA is to spread “peaceful” uses of nuclear technology. This official mandate prevents IAEA

from being independent assessors of health impacts of the same technology.

Secretary, it is your job to ensure that these reasonable concerns are addressed by action.

Thank you,

Helen Caldicott, M.D.

Founding President of Physicians for Social Responsibility

Alexey Yablokov, Dr. Biology

Chair, Programme for Nuclear and Radiation Safety

International Socio-Ecological Union, Moscow

Yuri Scherbak

Ambassador of Ukraine

Member of the World Academy of Art and Science

Author of “Chernobyl: a documentary story” and report on Fukushima

Dr. Sebastian Pflugbeil

President, German Society for Radiation Protection

Arnie Gundersen

Chief Engineer, Fairewinds

Burlington, Vermont

S. David Freeman

Consultant; Formerly Chairman Tennessee Valley Authority, and General Manager

Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, New York Power Authority and

Sacramento Municipal Utility District

Steve Wing, Ph.D.

Department of Epidemiology

University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Steven Starr

Senior Scientist, Physicians for Social Responsibility

Clinical Laboratory Science Program Director

University of Missouri

Dr. Natalia Mironova

President of the Movement for Nuclear Safety

Natalia Preobrazhenskaya, D. Ph Biology

Chair, The Save Children of Ukraine from Chernobyl Catastrophe Charitable Fund

Member, The Public Councill of the Ministry of Health, Ukraine, and Peace Ambassador

Benjamin K. Sovacool, Ph.D

Professor of Business and Social Sciences

Director of the Center for Energiteknologier Danmark

Associate Professor of Law, Institute for Energy and the Environment

Vermont Law School

Jeffrey J. Patterson, DO

Professor Emeritus, UW School of Medicine and Public Health

President, Physicians for Social Responsibility

Alfred C. Meyer, Board Member

Physicians for Social Responsibility

Friends of Chernobyl Centers U.S.

Dr. Alfred Koerblein

Senior Scientist, Umweltinstitut Muenchen, retired

Germany

Lynn Howard Ehrle, M. Ed,

Chair—International Science Oversight Board

Plymouth Michigan

Wolfgang Koehnlein

Retired, University of Muenster

Professor of Radiation Biology and Biophysics

D. M. Grodzinsky, DrSci.

Full Member and Councillor of the Presidium of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine,

Professor, and Head of the Department of biophysica and radiobiology of Institute of cell biology

and genetic engineering of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine and Ex-Head of the

National Commission on Radiological Protection of Ukraine

13 september 2013

tagged under: .

About Paolo Brogi - View all posts by Paolo Brogi

This author has not fill out his/her bio, coming soon.

Follow paolo-admin on:

Lascia una risposta

L'indirizzo email non verrà pubblicato. I campi obbligatori sono contrassegnati *