.

Save Earth ...Seize Federal Reserve Founding Stock

m

new on 2/2/20 1 a.m. – to view, clean cookies & history &/or refresh w/ control F5

under construction better to read later when this message has been removed legal disclaimer: this is a comedy & satire site for financial crash dummiesbest to open & use website in firefox or safari – chrome slow & times out many links 10 a.m. 11-19-2022to update now press control f5if links fail in chrome then copy & paste link url into firefox


Rosalie Bertell (very extensive findings, here)

Scientist, activist, epidemiologist, Sister of Grey Nuns of the Sacred Heart – known for her work in ionizing radiation, weather warfare, EMP weapons & weaponizing Earth

41,000 people get fatal & non-fatal cancer from nuclear industry every day

Rosalie Bertell (1929–2012), an american scientist, author, environmental activist, epidemiologist and Catholic nun. Bertell was a sister of the Grey Nuns of the Sacred Heart, best known for her work in the field of ionizing radiation, weather warfare, electro-magnetic pulse weapons and weaponizing the Earth (making the Earth a weapon).


Depleted Uranian in the human body





Victims of the Nuclear Age — True Number of Nuclear Industry Victims 

Statistics are people, with tears wiped away


(Exciting conclusion of Sister Rosalie's story (that begins in the middle column to your right) ...with letter of explanation, (follows below) – including the truth and true figures of Chernobyl casualties ...thousands of times higher than numbers falsified by nuclear industry regulatory apologists.)


Abstract: A minimum of 1,300 million people have been killed, maimed or diseased by nuclear power since it's inception. The industry's figures massively underestimate the real cost of nuclear power with restrictive rules, in an attempt to hide its victims from the world. Here, the author calculates the real number of victims of the nuclear age.  Additionally, Rosalie cites figures on the true amount of deaths and casualties from Chernobyl ...thousands of times higher than nuclear industry regulatory apologists claim.

Following article from The Ecologist, Nov 1999, pp. 408-411

Victims Of The Nuclear Age —by Dr. Rosalie Bertell

FIREMEN DEPlOYED AS BIO-ROBOTS TO CLEAN-UP CHERNOBYL

On the tenth anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, I was standing at a public meeting in Kiev, Ukraine, listening to the story of one of the firemen employed to clean up the site after the explosion. These workers took huge doses of radiation during this task, and their story is a terrifying one.

HUMAN BIO-ROBOTS

About 600,000 men were
conscripted as Chernobyl `liquidators' [also called bio-robots']:
farmers, factory workers, miners, and soldiers -- as well as
professionals like the firemen -- from all across Russia. Some of
these men lifted pieces of radioactive metal with their bare
hands. They had to fight more than 300 fires created by the chunks
of burning material spewed off by the inferno. They buried trucks,
fire engines, cars and all sorts of personal belongings. They
felled a forest and completely buried it, removed topsoil,
bulldozed houses and filled all available clay-lined trenches with
radioactive debris. The minimum conscription time was 180 days,
but many stayed for a year. Some were threatened with severe
punishment to their families if they failed to stay and do their
duty.

These `liquidators' are now discarded and forgotten, many vainly
trying to establish that the ill health most have suffered ever
since 1986 is a result of their massive exposure to radiation. At
the Centre for Radiation Research outside Kiev, there is an
organization of former liquidators. This group reports that by
1995, 13,000 of their members had died- almost 20 percent of which
deaths were suicides. About 70,000 members were estimated to be
permanently disabled. But the members of this organization are the
lucky ones. Because many former liquidators are now scattered
throughout Russia, they neither have the benefit of the
organization's special hospital, nor of membership of a survivor
organization. They are known as the `living dead.'

The fireman whose story I was listening to seemed to be an
exception to this grim litany of illness and death. He was telling
the meeting how pleased and excited he was that, for the first
time in ten years, his blood test findings were in the normal
range. I was standing next to a delegate from the International
Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] -- the organisation charged with
promoting the use of atomic energy. On hearing the fireman's
story, he leaned over to me and said: "You see! We said these were
only transient disorders." A rough translation might read:
Chernobyl? What's the problem?

IGNORING THE VICTIMS

The IAEA man's attitude was perfectly in keeping with that of his
organization which, along with the International Commission on
Radiation Protection [ICRP] exists in practice largely to play
down the effects of radiation on human health, and to shield the
nuclear industry from compensation claims from the public. The
IAEA was set up in the late 1950s by he UN, to prevent the spread
of nuclear weapons and to promote the peaceful use of atomic
energy -- ironically, two contradictory objectives. The ICRP which
evlved from the 1928 International Committee on X-Ray and Radium
Protection, was set up in the fifties to explore the health
effects of radiation and [theoretically] to protect the public
from it. In fact, both organizations have come to serve the
industry rather than the public.

The Chernobyl case is a classic example of the IAEA's inadequacy
and questionable science. Despite massive evidence to the
contrary, not least from the many thousands of victims themselves,
the IAEA insists that only 32 people have so far died as a result
of Chernobyl -- those who died in the radiation ward of Hospital
six in Moscow. All other deaths related to the disaster and its
aftermath [and there have been many more than 10,000 in Ukraine
alone according to the Minister of Health there] are ignored.
Belarus had the highest fallout, and yet there is an international
blackout among the IAEA and the rest of the "radiation protection
community" on the suffering of its people.

The essential problem is that both the IAEA and the ICRP are
dealing not with science but with politics and administration; not
with public health but with maintaining an increasingly dubious
industry. It is their interests, and those of the nuclear industry
to play down the health effects of radiation.

RESTRICTIVE DEFINITIONS

The main way in which the "radiation protection industry" has
succeeded in hugely underrating the ill-health caused by nuclear
power is by insisting on a group of extremely restrictive
definitions as to what qualifies as a radiation-caused illness
statistic. For example, under IAEA's criteria:

* If a radiation-caused cancer is not fatal, it is not counted
in the IAEA's figures

* If a cancer is initiated by another carcenogen, but
accelerated or promoted by exposure to radiation, it is not
counted.

* If an auto-immune disease or any non-cancer is caused by
radiation, it is not counted.

* Radiation-damaged embryos or foetuses which result in
miscarriage or stillbirth do not count

* A congenitally blind, deaf or malformed child whose illnesses
are are radiation-related are not included in the figures
because this is not genetic damage, but rather is
teratogenic, and will not be passed on later to the child's
offspring.

* Causing the genetic predisposition to breast cancer or heart
disease does not count since it is not a "serious genetic
disease" in the Mendelian sense.

* Even if radiation causes a fatal cancer or serious genetic
disease in a live born infant, it is discounted if the
estimated radiation dose is below 100 mSv [mSv= millisievert,
a measurement of radiation exposure. One hundred millsievert
is the equivalent in radiation of about 100 X-Rays].

* Even if radiation causes a lung cancer, it does not count if
the person smokes -- in fact whenever there is a possibility
of another cause, radiation cannot be blamed.

If all else fails, it is possible to claim that radiation
below some designated dose does not cause cancer, and then
average over the whole body the radiation dose which has
actually been received by one part of the body or even organ,
as for instance when radio-iodine concentrates in the
thyroid. This arbitrary dilution of the dose will ensure that
the 100 mSv cut-off point is nowhere near reached. It is a
technique used to dismiss the sickness of Gulf War veterans
who inhaled small particles of ceramic uranium which stayed
in their lungs for more than two years, and in their bodies
for more than eight years, irradiating and damaging cells in
a particular part of the body.


Survivors of the Three Mile Island accident

THE REAL VICTIMS

Despite the authorities' attempt at concealment, we can still
begin to enumerate the real victims of the nuclear age. Although
the calculations and statistics which I have brought to bear below
do not include all of the human suffering that has been caused by
the nuclear age, a closer look will show that the methodology is
adequate for a first estimate of major damage. The magnitude of
the harm already caused is startling, and even more so when we
realise many types of damage have been omitted from this first
estimate.

In my estimate cancer, whether fatal or non-fatal [excluding
non-fatal skin cancer], genetic damage and serious congenital
malformations and diseases will be included in the figures. Other
damage is acknowledged but not estimated. Ultimately, whether or
not one cares about the damage caused by radiation exposure is
ultimately a human, not a scientific question. Damage is damage,
and causing an unwanted attack on someone's person or reproductive
capacity is a violation of human rights. Such damage can be rated
for importance, but it should not be arbitrarily ignored.

"Statistics are the people with the tears wiped away" stated one
of the Rongelap people of the Republic of the Marshall Islands,
who `hosted' the United States Bikini nuclear testing in the
1950s. This is the story of many tears, and of a hard hearted
mindset that laid down the degree of suffering and ill-health that
would be the `acceptable' price to pay for the world `benefitting'
from nuclear technology.

RISK ESTIMATES USED IN THIS ANALYSIS

In order to estimate the real victims of the nuclear industry [as
oppossed to those figures enumerated by the ICRP, IAEA and other
nuclear apologists] I will take the customary risk estimates,
indicate their probable range of error, and then extend the
definition to cover related events not recognized as 'detriments'
by the regulators. For example, while the nuclear regulators only
take fatal cancers into consideration as 'detriments' by the
regulators, others, especially those who endure a non-fatal
cancer, may find their suffering equally worthy of consideration.
And limiting genetic effects to live born offspring does not wipe
away the tears of a family that has endured a spontaneous
miscarriage or stillbirth.

ESTIMATING THE FATAL AND NON-FATAL CANCER RISKS

In 1991, the ICRP concluded that the projected lifetime risk of
fatal cancer for members of the population exposed Sievert
whole-body radiation at a low dose rate, was between seven and 11
excess fatal cancers, and seven to eight excess fatalities for in
the nuclear industry aged 25 to 64 years. We extend these
estimates to non-fatal cancers by estimating the total number of
cancers which were used by the ICRP in order to obtain the number
of fatalities. We therefore estimate 16 fatal and non-fatal
cancers if we exclude non-fatal skin cancers] or 36 if we count
them. If the estimate of fatal cancers was off by a factor of two
then we can double all those numbers.

The estimate I use for cancer 16 per 100 Person Sieverts, but the
reader can adjust this estimate to suit other inclusions,
exclusions or uncertainties.

ESTIMATING DAMAGE TO AN EMBRYO OR FOETUS

According to the BEIR Committee [Bilogical Effects of Ionizing
Radiation] 1990 report, a dose of 150 mSv to human male testes
will cause temporary sterility, and a single dose of 3.5 Sv will
cause permanent sterility. According to the ICRP in 1991, just 5
mSv to the testes will cause damage to offspring -- YET THIS DOSE
WAS PERMITTED YEARLY TO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, AND TEN TIMES MORE TO NUCLEAR WORKERS, IN ALL COUNTRIES PRIOR TO 1990. It continues today to be permitted yearly for nuclear workers in most countries.

Women carry with them all of the ova from birth which they will
ever have. The threshold for permanent female sterilisation
decreases with age, but in general about 650 mSv is considered to
be the threshold for temporary sterility in women. After the Bravo
event -- the detonation of a hydrogen bomb at the Bikini Atoll in
the Pacific in March 1954 -- the women of Rongelap Atoll
experienced about five years of sterility. As they regained their
sterility, they experienced faulty pregnancies, miscarrigies,
stillbirths and damage to their offspring. Since some
radionucleides can be retained in bone or fatty tissues, they are
able to cross the placenta barrier and disrupt the developing
embryo or foetus. Radionucleides in the mother's body can also be
transferred in her breast milk.

The official nuclear industry definition of `detriment' includes
only serious genetic disease not judged to be serious, and
teratogenic diseases [those which are not passed on to offspring]
are not counted. Recently the 1990 BEIR committee made one small
concession in recognizing mental retardation in children exposed
to radiation during the fifth to 15th weeks of their mother's
pregnancy. Radiation kills brain cells, causing both an
underdeveloped brain [microcephaly] and mental retardation. For
the individual child, BEIR estimates that a dose in utero of 100
to 500 mSv can cause a range of problems from poor school
performance to severe mental retardation.

GENETIC DAMAGE

The U.N. Scientific Committee on the effects of Atomic Radiation
[UNSCEAR] and BEIR both agree that a population of one million
live births exposed to 100 Person Sieverts will result in one to
three genetic damage effects to offspring, and so to the human
gene pool. The doubling dose for genetic effects [the dose that
will cause twice as many genetic effects] is more contentious,
with some geneticists claiming that it is 2.5 Sv, and others
claiming much greater sensitivity with a 0.12 Sv doubling dose. If
the latter is true, then the increase in genetic effects will be
8.3 per cent for every 10mSv and therefore 83 such effects per
million live births when the total averaged dose is 100 Person
Sieverts rather than the 4 such effects in the first instance. On
the conservative side, we have taken 10 genetic effects to be the
number for exposed offspring.

ESTIMATE OF TERATOGENIC EFFECTS

The damage to an embryo from ionizing radiation when in the womb
is not considered to be genetic. Such irradiation can lead to some
30 different congenital anomolies including permanent damage to
the brain, mental deficiency, skull deformities, cleft palate,
spina bifida, club-feet, genital deformities, growth retardation
and childhood cancer. A total of all those effects, including
mortality, amount to 46, of which 25 are live born.

When we summarise those risk estimates, we get 16 cancers, 10
genetic effects and 25 congenital effects for one million exposed
to 100 Person Sieverts. The task now is to apply those numbers for
the global population from industrial nuclear activities,
including weapons testing in the fifties, sixties and early
seventies and electricity production from nuclear power over the
past half century. When we do this we find that weapons testing
has lead to nearly 376 million cancers, 235 million genetic
effects and 587 million teratogenic effects to give A TOTAL OF
APPROXIMATELY 1,200 MILLION. Meanwhile, electricity production
from nuclear plants between 1943 and 2000 may have lead to another
million victims, of which as many one-fifth will have been
premature cancer deaths. Although not officially accounted for,
about 500 million foetuses would have also been lost as
stillbirths during that period from radiation exposure while in
the womb.

Another century of nuclear power, and this carnage would continue
with more than 10 million victims a year. An industry which has
the potential to kill, injure and maim that number of innocent
people -- and all in the name of `benefitting' society -- is
surely wholly unacceptable.

Rosalie Bertell, PhD, GNSH, is President of the International
Institute of Concern for Public Health and Editor in Chief of
International Perspectives in Public Health and Editor in Chief of
International Perspectives in Public Health [IICPH]


From: Rosalie Bertell — Date: 03/11/99 2:58 PM

RE: November Issue

Dear Zac,

Congratulations on a generally excellent issue! I have always felt
that newspaper articles are too fleeting, and books are too
ponderous to reach the public on this important issue, however,
you have found a very good imtermediate carrier for the
information. Please keep me informed of reactions (which may get
nasty).

I was concerned about my article, and perhaps there were some
attempts to reach me for comments when I was overseas (13 Oct to 2
Nov). It was too bad that important references were omitted, as
was the fact that I used only UNSCEAR data on population doses of
radiation due to weapons or civilian nuclear enterprises. The text
does not mention the source of the population dose estimates,
which are fundamental to the credibility. I can also be faulted
for the comment (added by someone) that 100 mSv is the equivalent
in radiation to about 100 medical Xrays. Nuclear doses are always
whole body doses, while medical Xray delivers a partial body dose
to the target organ (teeth, chest, kidney, etc.). Speaking about
"100 medical Xrays" is pretty vague and useless.

I tried to present the results in table form so that you could
aggregate them as you needed, but I cannot match the numbers used
in the article with my original estimates. The editor exaggerated
somewhat the weapon testing contribution and very much slighted
the nuclear power contribution. Both calculations were made using
the same methodology and both used the official UNSCEAR data.

However, the text says: "we find that weapon testing has led to
....... approximately 1,200 million. Meanwhile, electricity
production from nuclear plants between 1943 and 2000 may have led
to another million victims ....."

My estimates are:

Nuclear weapon testing: 1,138 million
Nuclear weapon production: 3.2 million (84% local or regional)
Nuclear power production: 21 million (76% local or regional)
Medical production and use: 4 million

Accidents:
Military 16 million
Civilian 15 million

Total Military: 1,156 million
Total civilian electricity
related: 36 million
Total medical: 4 million
GRAND TOTAL: 1,200 million

Of these amounts, about 31.4% are radiation induced cancers; 19.6%
are genetic effects and 49% are teratogenetic effects in live born
offspring.

I used official risk factors except for not introducing the dose
rate effect which the nuclear people do to reduce the number of
cancers. My own research would say that the cancer estimates
should be doubled, not divided by two. In the paper I maintained a
neutral position be not doing either.

Best wishes,
Rosalie Bertell

 Rosalie's Figures on Nuclear Lethal& Non-lethal Cancer Causes

Rosalie Bertell's math

.

 Feature Story Intro by our Website Editor

Suffering Intentionally Caused Women by Nuclear Military Industrial Central Bankers

 Women suffer miscarriage, abortion, stillbirth, deformed, handicapped & retarded kids, immune deficiencies, breast-, uterine- & thyroid cancers – here's the evidence & authority you need to win-over a friend or jury

Nuclear Industry cancer jumps from 1 million to 2 billion; include animals & double or triple that. Cancer rates edge from 1-in-2, to 1-in-1. Will you fight for justice? Deaths from high yield atmospheric testing when low yield is included jump from 1 million to 60 million deaths & 100 million cancers. When all nuclear industry deaths, fatal & non-fatal cancers are included, jump is to 1.2-to-2.4 billion victims. If you include animals, the toll doubles or triples. Since fallout radiation is accumulative in the body, and women carry all their eggs from birth, the chances of ingested everyday fallout harming your unborn child increase as your injestion of each radionuclude atom, increases. Yes, each atom.


FOR PREGNANT WOMEN, WOMEN & GIRLS      

True Number Of Nuclear Industry Victims —  by Sister Rosalie Bertell

STATISTICS ARE PEOPLE WITH TEARS WIPED AWAY

Epidemiologist counts 1.2 billion fatal & non-fatal nuclear cancer victims: real victims of nuclear industry go untold as a Chernobyl count and as a world count.

Despite the authorities attempt at concealment, we can still begin to enumerate the real victims of the nuclear age –  Although the calculations and statistics which I have brought to bear below do not include all of the human suffering that has been caused by the nuclear age, a closer look will show that the methodology is adequate for a first estimate of major damage. The magnitude of the harm already caused is startling, and even more so when we realise many types of damage have been omitted from this first estimate. In my estimate, cancer, whether fatal or non-fatal (excluding non-fatal skin cancer), genetic damage and serious congenital malformations and diseases ... will be included in the figures. Other damage is acknowledged but not estimated. Ultimately, whether or not one cares about the damage caused by radiation exposure is ultimately a human, not a scientific question.


Whether or not one cares about damage caused by radiation exposure ...is ultimately a human, not a scientific question


An unwanted attack on someone's person or reproductive capacity is a violation of human rights —  Damage is damage, and causing an unwanted attack on someone's person or reproductive capacity is a violation of human rights. Such damage can be rated for importance, but it should not be arbitrarily ignored. "Statistics are the people with the tears wiped away," stated one of the Rongelap people of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, who 'hosted' the United States Bikini nuclear testing in the 1950s.


Hard-hearted mindset laid down the degree of suffering & ill-health as the 'acceptable' price to pay for the world 'benefitting' from nuclear technology


Story of many tears — This is the story of many tears, and of a hard-hearted mindset that laid down the degree of suffering and ill-health that would be the 'acceptable' price to pay for the world 'benefitting' from nuclear technology.

Risk estimates used in this analysis —  In order to estimate the real victims of the nuclear industry [as oppossed to those figures enumerated by the ICRP, IAEA and other nuclear apologists], I will take the customary risk estimates, indicate their probable range of error, and then extend the definition to cover related events not recognized as 'detriments' by the nuclear regulators. For example, while the nuclear regulators only take fatal cancers into consideration as 'detriments', others, especially those who endure a non-fatal cancer, may find their suffering equally worthy of consideration. And, limiting genetic effects to live born offspring does not wipe away the tears of a family that has endured a spontaneous miscarriage or stillbirth.


Nuclear regulators only take fatal cancers into consideration as 'detriments', others, especially those who endure a non-fatal cancer, may find their suffering equally worthy of consideration. And, limiting genetic effects to live born offspring does not wipe away the tears of a family that has endured a spontaneous miscarriage or stillbirth


Estimating fatal & non-fatal cancer risks —  In 1991, ICRP concluded the projected lifetime risk of fatal cancer for members of the population exposed to Sievert whole-body radiation at a low dose rate, was between seven and 11 excess fatal cancers ...and, seven to eight excess fatalities for those in the nuclear industry aged 25 to 64 years. We extend these estimates to non-fatal cancers by estimating the total number of cancers which were used by the ICRP in order to obtain the number of fatalities. We, therefore, estimate 16 fatal and non-fatal cancers if we exclude non-fatal skin cancers, or 36 if we count them. If the estimate of fatal cancers was off by a factor of two then we can double all those numbers. The estimate I use for cancer is 16 per 100 Person Sieverts ...but, the reader can adjust this estimate to suit other inclusions, exclusions or uncertainties.


A dose of 150 mSv to human male testes causes temporary sterility, a single dose of 3.5 Sv causes permanent sterility


Estimating damage to an embryo or fetus —  According to the BEIR Committee [Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation] 1990 report, a dose of 150 mSv to human male testes will cause temporary sterility, and a single dose of 3.5 Sv will cause permanent sterility. According to the ICRP in 1991, just 5 mSv to the testes will cause damage to offspring – yet this dose was permitted yearly to members of the public, and ten times more to nuclear workers, in all countries prior to 1990. It continues today to be permitted yearly for nuclear workers in most countries.


650 mSv is considered to be the threshold for temporary sterility in women – since radionuclides can be retained in bone or fatty tissues, they are able to cross the placenta barrier and disrupt the developing embryo or fetus – radionuclides in the mother's body are transferred in her breast milk


Women carry with them all of the ova from birth which they will ever have —  Women carry with them all of the ova from birth which they will ever have. The threshold for permanent female sterilization decreases with age, but in general about 650 mSv is considered to be the threshold for temporary sterility in women. After the Bravo event -- the detonation of a hydrogen bomb at the Bikini Atoll in the Pacific in March 1954 -- the women of Rongelap Atoll experienced about five years of sterility. As they regained their fertility, they experienced faulty pregnancies, miscarrigies, stillbirths and damage to their offspring Since some radionuclides can be retained in bone or fatty tissues, they are able to cross the placenta barrier and disrupt the developing embryo or fetus. Radionuclides in the mother's body can also be transferred in her breast milk. The official nuclear industry definition of 'detriment' includes only serious genetic disease. Teratogenic diseases (those not passed on to offspring) are not judged by the nuclear industy to be serious, and, therefore, not counted as a 'detriment'.


Women regained their fertility but had faulty pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth & offspring


Recently, the 1990 BEIR committee made one small concession in recognizing mental retardation — in children exposed to radiation during the fifth to 15th weeks of their mother's pregnancy  Radiation kills brain cells, causing both an underdeveloped brain (microcephaly) and mental retardation. For the individual child, BEIR estimates that a dose in utero of 100 to 500 mSv can cause a range of problems from poor school performance to severe mental retardation.


A dose in utero of 100 to 500 mSv can cause problems from poor school performance to severe mental retardationA dose in utero of 100 to 500 mSv can cause problems from poor school performance to severe mental retardation


Genetic damage —  The U.N. Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation [UNSCEAR] and BEIR both agree that a population of one million live births exposed to 100 Person Sieverts will result in one to three genetic damage effects to offspring and so to the human gene pool. The doubling dose for genetic effects [the dose that will cause twice as many genetic effects] is more contentious, with some geneticists claiming that it is 2.5 Sv, and others claiming much greater sensitivity with a 0.12 Sv doubling dose. If the latter is true, then the increase in genetic effects will be 8.3 per cent for every 10mSv and therefore 83 such effects per million live births when the total averaged dose is 100 Person Sieverts rather than the 4 such effects. in the first instanceOn the conservative side, we have taken 10 genetic effects to be the number for exposed offspring.

The 1986 nuclear accident at Chernobyl stunned the world, releasing thousands of tons of radioactivity over an innocent population. Magnum photographer Paul Fusco revisits the affected region, searching for the accident's enduring effects. See the project at Mediastorm

 https://mediastorm.com/publication/chernobyl-legacy

Estimate of 'Teratogenic Effects' — Damage to an embryo from ionizing radiation when in the womb is not considered to be genetic. Such irradiation can lead to 30 different congenital anomolies, including permanent damage to the brain, mental deficiency, skull deformities, cleft palate, spina bifida, club-feet, genital deformities, growth retardation and childhood cancer. A total of all those effects, including mortality, amount to 46, of which 25 are live born.  When we summarise those risk estimates, we get 16 cancers, 10 genetic effects and 25 congenital effects for one million exposed to 100 Person Sieverts.


Damage to an embryo from ionizing radiation when in the womb is not considered to be genetic. Such irradiation can lead to some 30 different congenital anomolies; including: permanent brain damage, mental deficiency, skull deformity, cleft palate, spina bifida, club-feet, genital deformity, growth retardation & childhood cancer


The task now is to apply those numbers for the global population from industrial nuclear activities, including weapons testing in the fifties, sixties and early seventies and electricity production from nuclear power over the past half century. When we do this we find that weapons testing has lead to nearly 376 million cancers, 235 million genetic effects and 587 million teratogenic effects to give a total of approximately 1,200 million. Meanwhile, electricity production from nuclear plants between 1943 and 2000 may have lead to another million victims, of which as many one-fifth will have been premature cancer deaths.


Although not officially accounted for, about 500 million fetuses will have also been lost as stillbirths during that period from radiation exposure while in the womb


"Another century of nuclear power, and this carnage would continue with more than 10 million victims a year. An industry which has the potential to kill, injure and maim that number of innocent people – and all in the name of 'benefitting' society – is surely, wholly unacceptable."  – Sister Rosalie Bertell, PhD, GNSH, is President of the International Institute of Concern for Public Health, and Editor in Chief of International Perspectives in Public Health (IICPH).


"In order to estimate the real victims of the nuclear industry (as oppossed to those figures enumerated by the ICRP, IAEA and other nuclear apologists), I will take the customary risk estimates, indicate their probable range of error, and then extend the definition to cover related events not recognized as 'detriments' by nuclear regulators.


"While nuclear regulators only take fatal cancers into consideration as 'detriments', others, especially those who endure a non-fatal cancer, may find their suffering equally worthy of consideration.  And, limiting genetic effects to live born offspring does not wipe away the tears of a family that has endured a spontaneous miscarriage or stillbirth."  – Sister Rosalie Bertell, PhD, GNSH, is President of the International Institute of Concern for Public Health, and Editor in Chief of International Perspectives in Public Health (IICPH)


(For the exciting conclusion to Rosalie's story, go to the top of the column to your left.)



[Editor's note: Breathing or eating radionuclides, or food with radionuclides in it, smoking cigarette tobacco or pot exposed to fallout, (or having skin contact with tritium as released or vented daily from every nuclear reactor into the air and water and soil), creates ingested (internalized) sources of ionizing radiation. Even if it is considered low level ionizing radiation, once it is ingested, it is no longer a one-time external exposure ...it as a 24x7x365 life-long exposure ...such as getting shot once with a bullet, compared to getting shot hundreds or thousands or millions of times a day, for the rest of your life. Some ingested low level exposures take 30-40 years to produce non-fatal or fatal cancer ...but you may experience mild-to-severe immune deficiency diseases along the way. Some will kill you immediately, or in a short time.]



Instruments Don't Eat, People Do

12:32 PM Mar 22, 2011 []-0103- Comparisons with X-rays and CT scans meaningless - inhaling particles increases radiation exposure by a factor of a trillion


(following excerpted from: The Pacific Ocean Is Dying And You Don't Even Know)



ad



ad


Helen CaldicottBeyond Nuclear — Physicians for Social Responsibility — Fact Sheets — Risks to women & children from nuclear reactors & Palm card —Nuclear power & children — Tritium: a universal health threat from every nuclear reactorRoutine releases: Tritium & noble gases 


 More info on tritium, see Maggie Gundersen & Fairewinds, (here)


Also, see: Tritium Toxicity, Effects of Prenatal Irradiation (here)



add ed

(l) Executive Director & health researcher of Radiation & Public Health Project (radiation.org), Joe Mangano explains how citizens can monitor radiation in the air. (r) Post Fukushima Increases in Newborn Hypothyroidism on the West Coast of USA. Christie Brinkley, model, actress, anti-nuclear activist ...is vice president. With a nuclear power site 17 miles from her home, model, Christie (also, a launch partner of Beyond Nuclear with Helen Caldicott) warns the public of nuclear reactor dangers. "From the shores of Long Island, it's only 11 miles. Eleven miles across the Sound," she says. "Because it sits in Connecticut, a lot of Long Islanders don't realize the proximity, don't realize the danger. And certainly people in Manhattan don't realize that even Millstone has the potential to affect Manhattan." During the past few years, Brinkley has become a nuclear activist. She and her husband, Peter Cook, an architect whose family roots in the Hamptons date back to the 1600s, have joined the East Hampton-based Standing for Truth About Radiation (STAR). Cook is chairman of the nonprofit group that formed in 1997 and helped to permanently close Brookhaven National Laboratory's High Flux Beam Reactor.



10:15 AM Feb 21, 2017 -8847- Scientists fear Fukushima radiation hitting U.S. to worsen - A lot of people are very concerned - Billions being exposed - Reactors will continue to pour water into Pacific for the rest of time (VIDEO)

Feb 2, 2017 Arnie Gundersen, former nuclear engineer (emphasis added): “When I went to school, the saying was ‘dilution is the solution to pollution,’ and that’s what the Japanese believe. If they dump [radioactive water from Fukushima Daiichi] on their side and it floats over to the West Coast of the U.S. — the Pacific’s a big place — it’ll dilute out. I don’t think that’s appropriate… people are going to die. Regardless of how low the radiation is, it does cause cellular damage and cancer. So if you spread it out in a big body of water, the concentration goes down, but on the other hand, you’ve got a couple billion people exposed to it because they’re on the edge of that big body of water. So the concentration is down but the population is up and you’re still going to get cancer; it’s inevitable.”

Feb 13, 2017 Dr. Helen Caldicott: As water flows beneath the damaged reactors, it immerses three molten cores and becomes extremely radioactive and its journey into the adjacent Pacific Ocean. Every day since the accident began, 300 to 400 tons of water has poured into the Pacific where numerous isotopes including cesium 137, 134, strontium 90, tritium, plutonium, americium and up to 100 more, enter the ocean and bio-concentrate by orders of magnitude at each step of the food chain… tuna, salmon and other species found on the American west coast now contain some of these radioactive elements… [Fukushima Daiichi] will continue to pour water into the Pacific for the rest of time.


ed

Short film by Julie Gautier

 

When Chernobyl blew up, it was women & pregnant women in the next country over from Ukraine, Belarus, whose ovum & embryos were bathed in high yield nuclear reactor fallout ...but, women do not know that everyday business-as-usual low level fallout from 'normal' nuclear reactors adds up to create similar damage to soft & rapidly growing living tissue & chromosomes that becomes your baby ... it's high time to dismantle the Fed interest rate bankers stranglehold & their merciless military industrial  nuclear reactor / nuclear bomb phallic deity.

41,000 people get fatal- & non-fatal cancer from nuclear industry every day

nuclear industry is not safe & clean


nuclear is a feminist issue

women get more cancer from nuclear industry than men

insert

09:57 AM Jun 2, 2011 -0642- International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) says no such thing as safe levels of radiation - standard based on ‘cost-benefit’, not safety. National Academy of Science: 1-in-5 workers get cancer from IAEA safety standard; study from National Academy of Science says one out of five workers will get from cancer and suffer if exposed to IAEA-deemed allowable radiation level

07:07 PM Nov 28, 2011 -1872- World Health Organization tied to IAEA since 1959 - Can’t release info without permission (VIDEO) — Exposed: World Health Organization beholden to nuclear interests — “Like having Dracula guard the blood bank” (VIDEOS)

01:14 PM Feb 28, 2013 -5448- Film: World Health Organization beholden to nuclear interests - Physician: Like having Dracula guard the blood bank (VIDEOS)

41,000 people every day get fatal- & non-fatal cancer from nuclear industry. NUCLEAR ENERGY IS NOT SAFE & CLEAN

add

Statistics are people with tears wiped away

Using nuclear industry statistics, Rosalie Bertell conservatively estimated 1.2 billion people got fatal & non-fatal cancer from nuclear industry, since 1940; that's 41,000 people every day.

Rosalie said:

Whether or not one cares about damage caused by radiation exposure ...is ultimately a human, not a scientific question

Story of many tears — This is the story of many tears, and of a hard-hearted mindset that laid down the degree of suffering and ill-health that would be the 'acceptable' price to pay for the world 'benefitting' from nuclear technology.

Risk estimates used in this analysis — In order to estimate the real victims of the nuclear industry [as oppossed to those figures enumerated by the ICRP, IAEA and other nuclear apologists], I will take the customary risk estimates, indicate their probable range of error, and then extend the definition to cover related events not recognized as 'detriments' by the nuclear regulators. For example, while the nuclear regulators only take fatal cancers into consideration as 'detriments', others, especially those who endure a non-fatal cancer, may find their suffering equally worthy of consideration. And, limiting genetic effects to live born offspring does not wipe away the tears of a family that has endured a spontaneous miscarriage or stillbirth.

Causal proximate genetic mutation from ingested ionizing radiation can occur immediately when dna is sliced or burnt, such as from legal daily airborne & waterborne releases of tritium & other radionuclides vented or poured from nuclear reactors into water or air or falling on or watering crops & gardens or blowing down the streets of manhattan ...or from catastrophic nuclear meltdowns such as fukushima vomiting radionuclies airborne & seaborne. however, many cancers & many immunity deficiency diseases appear 20 years or more after fallout exposure. Low level exposures add up over time to create many of the same diseases as high level exposure, such as cancers of the eye, brain, heart, breast, prostrate, lung, stomach, skin & other body organs & leukemia & a host of immune deficiency diseases. In utero affects of ionizing radiation exposure either if the dna of either parent, in the sperm of the father or egg of the mother, or in the fetus

nuclear power is not safe & clean

“It is not Greenhouse Gases — it´s the military!” ~ Rosalie Bertell


 Rosalie Bertell 

Scientist, activist, epidemiologist, Sister of Grey Nuns of the Sacred Heart – known for her work in ionizing radiation, weather warfare, EMP weapons & weaponizing Earth

41,000 people get fatal & non-fatal cancer from nuclear industry every day

Rosalie Bertell (1929–2012), was an American scientist, author, environmental activist, epidemiologist and Catholic nun. Bertell was a sister of the Grey Nuns of the Sacred Heart, best known for her work in the field of ionizing radiation, weather warfare, electro-magnetic pulse weapons and weaponizing the Earth (making the Earth a weapon).

FOR KIDS & ADULTS Sister Rosalie Bertell videos: Depleted Uranium (DU),  Weather Wars (Typhoons, Earthquakes, Lightning), HAARP (Electromagnetic Pulse - EMP) & Chemtrails (Stratopheric Aerial Aerosol Spraying) (Parts 1-4)



Sister Rosalie Bertell

American scientist, author, environmental activist, epidemiologist, and Catholic nun

April 4, 1929 - June 14, 2012. Rosalie Bertell, American scientist, author, environmental activist, epidemiologist, and Catholic nun. Bertell was a Sister of the Grey Nuns of the Sacred Heart, best known for her work in the field of ionizing radiation, chemtrails, weather warfare and climate engineering ... and correcting then revising the harm count and death toll of the number of people getting fatal and non-fatal cancer from ionizing radiation — from 1 million according to the establishment, to 1.2 billion, (story, here; four of Sister's videos, Weather Wars, HAARP & Chemtrails - Parts 1-4, below; another, left)


Sister Rosalie Bertell presents: Weather Wars, HAARP & Chemtrails (Parts 1-4)



Sister Rosalie Bertell

American scientist, author, environmental activist, epidemiologist, and Catholic nun

April 4, 1929 - June 14, 2012. Rosalie Bertell, American scientist, author, environmental activist, epidemiologist, and Catholic nun. Bertell was a Sister of the Grey Nuns of the Sacred Heart, best known for her work in the field of ionizing radiation, chemtrails, weather warfare and climate engineering ... and correcting then revising the harm count and death toll of the number of people getting fatal and non-fatal cancer from ionizing radiation — from 1 million according to the establishment, to 1.2 billion, (story, here; four of Sister's videos, Weather Wars, HAARP & Chemtrails - Parts 1-4, above; another, left; & another two, below)



 Feature Story Introduction by our Editors

Suffering Intentionally Caused Women by Nuclear Industry Military Industrial Fed Interest Rate Central Bankers

 Women suffer miscarriage, abortion, stillbirth, deformed, handicapped & retarded kids, immune deficiencies, breast-, uterine- & thyroid cancers – here's the evidence & authority you need to win-over a friend or jury

Nuclear Industry cancer jumps from 1 million to 2 billion; include animals & double or triple that. Cancer rates edge from 1-in-2, to 1-in-1. Will you fight for justice? Deaths from high yield atmospheric testing when low yield is included jump from 1 million to 60 million deaths & 100 million cancers. When all nuclear industry deaths, fatal & non-fatal cancers are included, jump is to 1.2-to-2.4 billion victims. If you include animals, the toll doubles or triples. Since fallout radiation is accumulative in the body, and women carry all their eggs from birth, the chances of ingested everyday fallout harming your unborn child increase as your injestion of each radionuclude atom, increases. Yes, each atom.


FOR PREGNANT WOMEN, WOMEN & GIRLS     

True number of nuclear industry victims

by Sister Rosalie Bertell

Statistics are people with tears wiped away 

Epidemiologist counts 1.2 billion fatal & non-fatal nuclear cancer victims: real victims of nuclear industry go untold as a Chernobyl count and as a world count.

Despite the authorities attempt at concealment, we can still begin to enumerate the real victims of the nuclear age – Although the calculations and statistics which I have brought to bear below do not include all of the human suffering that has been caused by the nuclear age, a closer look will show that the methodology is adequate for a first estimate of major damage. The magnitude of the harm already caused is startling, and even more so when we realise many types of damage have been omitted from this first estimate. In my estimate, cancer, whether fatal or non-fatal (excluding non-fatal skin cancer), genetic damage and serious congenital malformations and diseases ... will be included in the figures. Other damage is acknowledged but not estimated. Ultimately, whether or not one cares about the damage caused by radiation exposure is ultimately a human, not a scientific question.


Whether or not one cares about damage caused by radiation exposure ...is ultimately a human, not a scientific question


An unwanted attack on someone's person or reproductive capacity is a violation of human rights — Damage is damage, and causing an unwanted attack on someone's person or reproductive capacity is a violation of human rights. Such damage can be rated for importance, but it should not be arbitrarily ignored. "Statistics are the people with the tears wiped away," stated one of the Rongelap people of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, who 'hosted' the United States Bikini nuclear testing in the 1950s.


Hard-hearted mindset that laid down the degree of suffering & ill-health as the 'acceptable' price to pay for the world 'benefitting' from nuclear technology


Story of many tears — This is the story of many tears, and of a hard-hearted mindset that laid down the degree of suffering and ill-health that would be the 'acceptable' price to pay for the world 'benefitting' from nuclear technology.

Risk estimates used in this analysis — In order to estimate the real victims of the nuclear industry [as oppossed to those figures enumerated by the ICRP, IAEA and other nuclear apologists], I will take the customary risk estimates, indicate their probable range of error, and then extend the definition to cover related events not recognized as 'detriments' by the nuclear regulators. For example, while the nuclear regulators only take fatal cancers into consideration as 'detriments', others, especially those who endure a non-fatal cancer, may find their suffering equally worthy of consideration. And, limiting genetic effects to live born offspring does not wipe away the tears of a family that has endured a spontaneous miscarriage or stillbirth.


Nuclear regulators only take fatal cancers into consideration as 'detriments', others, especially those who endure a non-fatal cancer, may find their suffering equally worthy of consideration. And, limiting genetic effects to live born offspring does not wipe away the tears of a family that has endured a spontaneous miscarriage or stillbirth


Estimating fatal & non-fatal cancer risks — In 1991, ICRP concluded the projected lifetime risk of fatal cancer for members of the population exposed to Sievert whole-body radiation at a low dose rate, was between seven and 11 excess fatal cancers ...and, seven to eight excess fatalities for those in the nuclear industry aged 25 to 64 years. We extend these estimates to non-fatal cancers by estimating the total number of cancers which were used by the ICRP in order to obtain the number of fatalities. We, therefore, estimate 16 fatal and non-fatal cancers if we exclude non-fatal skin cancers, or 36 if we count them. If the estimate of fatal cancers was off by a factor of two then we can double all those numbers. The estimate I use for cancer is 16 per 100 Person Sieverts ...but, the reader can adjust this estimate to suit other inclusions, exclusions or uncertainties.


A dose of 150 mSv to human male testes causes temporary sterility, a single dose of 3.5 Sv causes permanent sterility


Estimating damage to an embryo or fetus — According to the BEIR Committee [Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation] 1990 report, a dose of 150 mSv to human male testes will cause temporary sterility, and a single dose of 3.5 Sv will cause permanent sterility. According to the ICRP in 1991, just 5 mSv to the testes will cause damage to offspring – yet this dose was permitted yearly to members of the public, and ten times more to nuclear workers, in all countries prior to 1990. It continues today to be permitted yearly for nuclear workers in most countries.


650 mSv is considered to be the threshold for temporary sterility in women – since radionuclides can be retained in bone or fatty tissues, they are able to cross the placenta barrier and disrupt the developing embryo or fetus – radionuclides in the mother's body are transferred in her breast milk


Women carry with them all of the ova from birth which they will ever have — Women carry with them all of the ova from birth which they will ever have. The threshold for permanent female sterilization decreases with age, but in general about 650 mSv is considered to be the threshold for temporary sterility in women. After the Bravo event -- the detonation of a hydrogen bomb at the Bikini Atoll in the Pacific in March 1954 -- the women of Rongelap Atoll experienced about five years of sterility. As they regained their fertility, they experienced faulty pregnancies, miscarrigies, stillbirths and damage to their offspringSince some radionuclides can be retained in bone or fatty tissues, they are able to cross the placenta barrier and disrupt the developing embryo or fetus. Radionuclides in the mother's body can also be transferred in her breast milk. The official nuclear industry definition of 'detriment' includes only serious genetic disease. Teratogenic diseases (those not passed on to offspring) are not judged by the nuclear industy to be serious, and, therefore, not counted as a 'detriment'.


Women regained their fertility but experienced faulty pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth & offspring


Recently, the 1990 BEIR committee made one small concession in recognizing mental retardation — in children exposed to radiation during the fifth to 15th weeks of their mother's pregnancy — Radiation kills brain cells, causing both an underdeveloped brain (microcephaly) and mental retardation. For the individual child, BEIR estimates that a dose in utero of 100 to 500 mSv can cause a range of problems from poor school performance to severe mental retardation.


A dose in utero of 100 to 500 mSv can cause problems from poor school performance to severe mental retardationA dose in utero of 100 to 500 mSv can cause problems from poor school performance to severe mental retardation


The 1986 nuclear accident at Chernobyl stunned the world, releasing thousands of tons of radioactivity over an innocent population. Magnum photographer Paul Fusco revisits the affected region, searching for the accident's enduring effects. See the project at Mediastorm

[Editor's save; https://mediastorm.com/publication/chernobyl-legacy

Genetic damage — The U.N. Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation [UNSCEAR] and BEIR both agree that a population of one million live births exposed to 100 Person Sieverts will result in one to three genetic damage effects to offspringand so to the human gene pool. The doubling dose for genetic effects [the dose that will cause twice as many genetic effects] is more contentious, with some geneticists claiming that it is 2.5 Sv, and others claiming much greater sensitivity with a 0.12 Sv doubling dose. If the latter is true, then the increase in genetic effects will be 8.3 per cent for every 10mSv and therefore 83 such effects per million live births when the total averaged dose is 100 Person Sieverts rather than the 4 such effects in the first instanceOn the conservative side, we have taken 10 genetic effects to be the number for exposed offspring.

Estimate of 'Teratogenic Effects' — Damage to an embryo from ionizing radiation when in the womb is not considered to be genetic. Such irradiation can lead to 30 different congenital anomolies, including permanent damage to the brain, mental deficiency, skull deformities, cleft palate, spina bifida, club-feet, genital deformities, growth retardation and childhood cancer. A total of all those effects, including mortality, amount to 46, of which 25 are live born. When we summarise those risk estimates, we get 16 cancers, 10 genetic effects and 25 congenital effects for one million exposed to 100 Person Sieverts.


Damage to an embryo from ionizing radiation when in the womb is not considered to be genetic. Such irradiation can lead to some 30 different congenital anomolies; including: permanent brain damage, mental deficiency, skull deformity, cleft palate, spina bifida, club-feet, genital deformity, growth retardation & childhood cancer


The task now is to apply those numbers for the global population from industrial nuclear activities, including weapons testing in the fifties, sixties and early seventies and electricity production from nuclear power over the past half century. When we do this we find that weapons testing has lead to nearly 376 million cancers, 235 million genetic effects and 587 million teratogenic effects to give a total of approximately 1,200 million. Meanwhile, electricity production from nuclear plants between 1943 and 2000 may have lead to another million victims, of which as many one-fifth will have been premature cancer deaths.


Although not officially accounted for, about 500 million fetuses would have also been lost as stillbirths during that period from radiation exposure while in the womb


"Another century of nuclear power, and this carnage would continue with more than 10 million victims a year. An industry which has the potential to kill, injure and maim that number of innocent people – and all in the name of 'benefitting' society – is surely, wholly unacceptable." 

– Sister Rosalie Bertell, PhD, GNSH, is President of the International Institute of Concern for Public Health, and Editor in Chief of International Perspectives in Public Health (IICPH).

"In order to estimate the real victims of the nuclear industry (as oppossed to those figures enumerated by the ICRP, IAEA and other nuclear apologists), I will take the customary risk estimates, indicate their probable range of error, and then extend the definition to cover related events not recognized as 'detriments' by nuclear regulators.

"While nuclear regulators only take fatal cancers into consideration as 'detriments', others, especially those who endure a non-fatal cancer, may find their suffering equally worthy of consideration.

"And, limiting genetic effects to live born offspring does not wipe away the tears of a family that has endured a spontaneous miscarriage or stillbirth."

– Sister Rosalie Bertell, PhD, GNSH, is President of the International Institute of Concern for Public Health, and Editor in Chief of International Perspectives in Public Health (IICPH)

(Editor's note – Following is Rosalie's figures on nuclear lethal & non-lethal cancer causes:)

 Rosalie's Figures on Nuclear Lethal& Non-lethal Cancer Causes

(Exciting conclusion of Sister Rosalie's story, with letter of explanation, (follows below) – including the truth and true figures of Chernobyl casualties ...thousands of times higher than numbers falsified by nuclear industry regulatory apologists.)






Following article from The Ecologist, Nov 1999, pp. 408-411

Victims Of The Nuclear Age

By Dr. Rosalie Bertell

Abstract: A minimum of 1,200 million people have been killed, maimed or diseased by nuclear power since it's inception. The industry's figures massively underestimate the real cost of nuclear power with restrictive rules, in an attempt to hide its victims from the world. Here, the author calculates the real number of victims of the nuclear age. Additionally, Rosalie cites figures on the true amount of deaths and casualties from Chernobyl ...thousands of times higher than nuclear industry regulatory apologists claim.


Firemen Deployed as Bio-Robots to Clean up Chernobyl

On the tenth anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, I was standing at a public meeting in Kiev, Ukraine, listening to the story of one of the firemen employed to clean up the site after the explosion. These workers took huge doses of radiation during this task, and their story is a terrifying one.

Human Bio-robots

About 600,000 men were conscripted as Chernobyl `liquidators' [also called bio-robots']: farmers, factory workers, miners, and soldiers -- as well as professionals like the firemen -- from all across Russia. Some of these men lifted pieces of radioactive metal with their bare hands. They had to fight more than 300 fires created by the chunks of burning material spewed off by the inferno. They buried trucks, fire engines, cars and all sorts of personal belongings. They felled a forest and completely buried it, removed topsoil, bulldozed houses and filled all available clay-lined trenches with radioactive debris. The minimum conscription time was 180 days, but many stayed for a year. Some were threatened with severe punishment to their families if they failed to stay and do their duty. These `liquidators' are now discarded and forgotten, many vainly trying to establish that the ill health most have suffered ever since 1986 is a result of their massive exposure to radiation.

'Living dead'

At the Centre for Radiation Research outside Kiev, there is an organization of former liquidators. This group reports that by 1995, 13,000 of their members had died ... almost 20 percent of which deaths were suicides. About 70,000 members were estimated to be permanently disabled. But the members of this organization are the lucky ones. Because many former liquidators are now scattered throughout Russia, they neither have the benefit of the organization's special hospital, nor of membership of a survivor organization. They are known as the `living dead.'

The fireman whose story I was listening to seemed to be an exception to this grim litany of illness and death. He was telling the meeting how pleased and excited he was that, for the first time in ten years, his blood test findings were in the normal range. I was standing next to a delegate from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) – the organisation charged with promoting the use of atomic energy.

On hearing the fireman's story, he leaned over to me and said: "You see! We said these were only transient disorders."

A rough translation might read: Chernobyl? What's the problem? 

NRC, ICRP & IAEA Continue Ignoring the Victims of Nuclear Industry

The IAEA man's attitude was perfectly in keeping with that of his organization which, along with the International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP) exists in practice largely to play down the effects of radiation on human health, and to shield the nuclear industry from compensation claims from the public. The IAEA was set up in the late 1950s by he UN, to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and to promote the peaceful use of atomic energy – ironically, two contradictory objectives.

1928 International Committee on X-Ray and Radium Protection

The ICRP evolved from the 1928 International Committee on X-Ray and Radium Protection, and was set up in the fifties to explore the health effects of radiation and [theoretically] to protect the public from it. In fact, both organizations have come to serve the industry rather than the public.

The Chernobyl case is a classic example of the IAEA's inadequacy and questionable science. Despite massive evidence to the contrary, not least from the many thousands of victims themselves, the IAEA insists that only 32 people have so far died as a result of Chernobyl – those who died in the radiation ward of Hospital six in Moscow.

All other deaths related to the disaster and its aftermath are ignored; (and, there have been many more than 10,000 in Ukraine, alone ...according to the Minister of Health there). Belarus had the highest fallout, and yet there is an international blackout among the IAEA and the rest of the 'radiation protection community' on the suffering of its people.

The essential problem is that both the IAEA and the ICRP are dealing not with science but with politics and administration; not with public health but with maintaining an increasingly dubious industry. It is their interests, and those of the nuclear industry, to play down the health effects of radiation. 

Restrictive Definitions

The main way in which the "radiation protection industry" has succeeded in hugely underrating the ill-health caused by nuclear power is by insisting on a group of extremely restrictive definitions as to what qualifies as a radiation-caused illness statistic.

For example, under IAEA's criteria: 

> If a radiation-caused cancer is not fatal, it is not counted in IAEA figures. 


> If a cancer is initiated by another carcinogen, but accelerated or promoted by exposure to radiation, it is not counted. 


> If an auto-immune disease or any non-cancer is caused by radiation, it is not counted. 


> Radiation-damaged embryos or foetuses which result in miscarriage or stillbirth do not count.


> A congenitally blind, deaf or malformed child whose illnesses are are radiation-related are not included in the figures because this is not genetic damage, but rather is teratogenic, and will not be passed on later to the child's offspring. 


> Causing the genetic predisposition to breast cancer or heart disease does not count since it is not a 'serious genetic disease' (in the Mendelian sense). 


> Even if radiation causes a fatal cancer or serious genetic disease in a live born infant, it is discounted if the estimated radiation dose is below 100 mSv [mSv= millisievert, a measurement of radiation exposure. One hundred millsievert is the equivalent in radiation of about 100 X-Rays]. 


> Even if radiation causes a lung cancer, it does not count if the person smokes ...in fact whenever there is a possibility of another cause, radiation cannot be blamed. 

> If all else fails, it is possible to claim that radiation below some designated dose does not cause cancer, and then average over the whole body the radiation dose which has actually been received by one part of the body or even organ, as for instance when radio-iodine concentrates in the thyroid. This arbitrary dilution of the dose will ensure that the 100 mSv cut-off point is nowhere near reached.

It is a technique used to dismiss the sickness of Gulf War veterans who inhaled small particles of ceramic uranium which stayed in their lungs for more than two years, and in their bodies for more than eight years, irradiating and damaging cells in a particular part of the body. [continued, here]

 
from Rosalie Bertell to Zac Goldsmith, editor, The Ecologist
03/11/99 2:58 PM reNovember Issue

Dear Zac,
Congratulations on a generally excellent issue! I have always felt that newspaper articles are too fleeting, and books are too ponderous to reach the public on this important issue; however, you have found a very good imtermediate carrier for the information. Please keep me informed of reactions (which may get nasty).

I was concerned about my article, and perhaps there were some attempts to reach me for comments when I was overseas (13 Oct to 2 Nov). It was too bad that important references were omitted, as was the fact that I used only UNSCEAR data on population doses of radiation due to weapons or civilian nuclear enterprises. The text does not mention the source of the population dose estimates, which are fundamental to the credibility. I can also be faulted for the comment (added by someone) that 100 mSv is the equivalent in radiation to about 100 medical Xrays. Nuclear doses are always whole body doses, while medical Xray delivers a partial body dose to the target organ (teeth, chest, kidney, etc.). Speaking about "100 medical Xrays" is pretty vague and useless.

I tried to present the results in table form so that you could aggregate them as you needed, but I cannot match the numbers used in the article with my original estimates. The editor exaggerated somewhat the weapon testing contribution and very much slighted the nuclear power contribution. Both calculations were made using the same methodology and both used the official UNSCEAR data.

However, the text says: "we find that weapon testing has led to ....... approximately 1,200 million. Meanwhile, electricity production from nuclear plants between 1943 and 2000 may have led to another million victims ....."My estimates are:

Nuclear weapon testing:
1,138 million
 
Nuclear weapon production:
3.2 million
  (84% local or regional)
Nuclear power production:
21 million
  (76% local or regional)
Medical production and use: 
4 million 
 
Accidents:
Military
16 million
 
Civilian 
15 million 
 
Total Military:
1,156 million
 
Total civilian electricity related:
36 million
 
Total medical:
4 million
 
GRAND TOTAL:
1,200 million


 
Of these amounts, about 31.4% are radiation induced cancers; 19.6% are genetic effects and 49% are teratogenetic effects in live born offspring.I used official risk factors except for not introducing the dose rate effect which the nuclear people do to reduce the number of cancers. My own research would say that the cancer estimates should be doubled, not divided by two. In the paper I maintained a neutral position by not doing either.

Best wishes, 
Rosalie Bertell

about: Sister Rosalie Bertell


"While nuclear regulators only take fatal cancers into consideration as 'detriments', others, especially those who endure a non-fatal cancer, may find their suffering equally worthy of consideration. And, limiting [the counting of] genetic effects to live born offspring does not wipe away the tears of a family that has endured a spontaneous miscarriage or stillbirth."Sister Rosalie Bertell, PhD, GNSH, Pres., International Institute of Concern for Public Health; Editor, International Perspectives in Public Health



Sister Rosalie Bertell

American scientist, author, environmental activist, epidemiologist, and Catholic nun

April 4, 1929 - June 14, 2012. Rosalie Bertell, American scientist, author, environmental activist, epidemiologist, and Catholic nun. Bertell was a Sister of the Grey Nuns of the Sacred Heart, best known for her work in the field of ionizing radiation, chemtrails, weather warfare and climate engineering ... and correcting then revising the harm count and death toll of the number of people getting fatal and non-fatal cancer from ionizing radiation — from 1 million according to the establishment, to 1.2 billion, (story, here; four of Sister's videos, Weather Wars, HAARP & Chemtrails - Parts 1-4, above; another, left; & another three, below)

    


Sister Rosalie Bertell presents: Weather Wars, HAARP & Chemtrails (Parts 1-4)

Note: Click on video to watch, then click on youtube logo –or– box in lower right to enlarge




EMP Director Sounds Alarm: ‘90% Will Die – If We’re Not Prepared, There Will Be No Coming Back'



Follow
Facebook Icon