Fukushima graffiti. Photo: Abode of Chaos via Flickr.com.
- Scientists highlight the critical role of birds in forest regeneration
- Devon Wildlife Trust is crowdfunding for the reintroduction of beavers
- Ecologist Special Report: Impending vote on the Canada trade deal which forced tar sands on Europe
- Krakow's bold step to curb electromagnetic pollution reflects growing evidence of harm
'No one died, no one's health was damaged' - Fukushima's big lie
8th March 2014
The nuclear industry and its media cheerleaders have raised a chorus of misinformation over Fukushima, writes Karl Grossman. But their attempts to suppress the truth are ultimately doomed to failure.
There are no health-related problems until now, nor will there be in the future. I make the statement to you in the most emphatic and unequivocal way.
With the third anniversary of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear catastrophe coming next week, the attempted Giant Lie about the disaster continues - a suppression of information, an effort at dishonesty of historical dimensions.
It involves international entities, especially the International Atomic Energy Agency, national governmental bodies - led in Japan by its current prime minister, the powerful nuclear industry and a global 'nuclear village' of scientists and others with a vested interest in atomic energy.
Deception was integral to the push for nuclear power from its start. Indeed, I opened my first book on nuclear technology, Cover Up: What You Are Not Supposed to Know About Nuclear Power, with:
"You have not been informed about nuclear power. You have not been told. And that has been done on purpose. Keeping the public in the dark was deemed necessary by the promoters of nuclear power if it was to succeed.
"Those in government, science and private industry who have been pushing nuclear power realized that if people were given the facts, if they knew the consequences of nuclear power, they would not stand for it."
Published in 1980, the book led to my giving many presentations on nuclear power at which I've often heard the comment that only when catastrophic nuclear accidents happened would people fully realize the deadliness of atomic energy.
Well, massive nuclear accidents have occurred - the 1986 Chernobyl disaster and the Fukushima catastrophe that began on March 11, 2011 and is ongoing with large discharges of radioactive poisons continuing to be discharged into the environment.
Meanwhile, the posture of the nuclear promoters is denial - insisting the impacts of the Fukushima catastrophe are essentially non-existent. A massive nuclear accident has occurred and they would make believe it hasn't.
"Fukushima is an eerie replay of the denial and controversy that began with the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki", wrote Yale University Professor Emeritus Charles Perrow in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists last year.
"This is the same nuclear denial that also greeted nuclear bomb tests, plutonium plant disasters at Windscale in northern England and Chelyabinsk in the Ural Mountains, and the nuclear power plant accidents at Three Mile Island in the United States and Chernobyl in what is now Ukraine."
Multiple core meltdowns
The difference with Fukushima is the scale of disaster. With Fukushima were multiple meltdowns at the six nuclear reactor site. There's been continuing pollution of a major part of Japan, with radioactivity going into the air, carried by the winds to fall out around the world.
And gigantic amounts of radioactivity have entered into the Pacific Ocean - moving with the currents and carried by marine life that ingests the nuclear toxins.
Leading the Fukushima cover-up globally is the International Atomic Energy Agency, formed by the United Nations in 1957 with the mission to "seek to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world."
Of the consequences of the Fukushima disaster, the IAEA declated in 2011: "To date no health effects have been reported in any person as a result of radiation exposure from the accident." Now in 2014, it holds to that claim despite mounting evidence to the contrary.
WHO - IAEA vassal
Working with the IAEA is the World Health Organization. WHO was captured on issues of radioactivity and nuclear power early on by IAEA. In 1959, the IAEA and WHO, also established by the UN, entered into an agreement - one that continues to this day - providing that IAEA and WHO "act in close co-operation with each other". and
"Whenever either organization proposes to initiate a program or activity on a subject in which the other organization has or may have a substantial interest, the first party shall consult the other with a view to adjusting the matter by mutual agreement."
Alison Katz, who for 18 years worked for WHO, said on Libbe HaLevy's 'Nuclear Hotseat' podcast last year that the IAEA-WHO deal has meant that:
"WHO cannot undertake any research, cannot disseminate any information, cannot come to the assistance of any population without the prior approval of the IAEA ... WHO, in practice, in reality, is subservient to the IAEA within the United Nations family."
On nuclear issues "there has been a very high level, institutional and international cover-up which includes governments, national authorities, but also, regrettably the World Health Organization", said Katz - speaking on the program titled, 'The WHO / IAEA Unholy Alliance and Its Lies About Int'l Nuclear Health Stats'.
Demanding WHO independence
Katz is now with an organization called IndependentWHO which works for "the complete independence of the WHO from the nuclear lobby and in particular from its mouthpiece which is the International Atomic Energy Agency."
"We are demanding that independence so that the WHO may fulfill its constitutional mandate in the area of radiation and health", explains Katz.
"We are absolutely convinced that if the health and environmental consequences of all nuclear activities were known to the public, the debate about nuclear power would end tomorrow. In fact, the public would probably exclude it immediately as an energy option."
WHO last year issued a report on the impacts of the Fukushima disaster claiming that "for the general population inside and outside of Japan, the predicted risks are low and no observable increases in cancer rates above baseline rates are anticipated."
No other accident can affect 50 million people
Then there is the new prime minister of Japan, Shinzo Abe, who last year insisted before the International Olympic Committee as he successfully pushed to have the 2020 Summer Olympics in Tokyo - 180 miles from Fukushima:
"There are no health-related problems until now, nor will there be in the future. I make the statement to you in the most emphatic and unequivocal way."
Abe has been driving hard for a restart of Japan's 54 nuclear power plants, all shut down in the wake of the Fukushima catastrophe.
His is a totally different view than that of his predecessor, Naoto Kan, prime minister when the disaster began. Kan told a conference in New York City last year of how he had been a supporter of nuclear power but after the Fukushima accident: "I changed my thinking 180-degrees, completely."
He declared that at one point it looked like an "area that included Tokyo" and populated by 50 million people might have to be evacuated. "We do have accidents such as an airplane crash and so on", Kan said.
But other than a nuclear plant disaster, "no other accident or disaster can affect 50 million people ... no other accident could cause such a tragedy." Moreover, said Kan, "without nuclear power plants we can absolutely provide the energy to meet our demands."
Japan's massive nuclear gamble
Japan since the accident began has tripled its use of solar energy, he said - and pointed to Germany as a model with its post-Fukushima commitment to shutting down all its nuclear power plants and having "all its power supplied by renewable power" by 2050.
The entire world could do this, said Kan. "If humanity really would work together ... we could generate all our energy through renewable energy."
A major factor in Abe's stance is Japan having become a global player in the nuclear industry. Westinghouse and General Electric - the manufacturer of the Fukushima plants - have been the Coke and Pepsi of nuclear power plants worldwide, historically building or designing 80% of them.
In 2006, Toshiba bought Westinghouse's nuclear division and Hitachi entered into a partnership with GE in its nuclear division. Thus the two major nuclear power plant manufacturers worldwide are now Japanese brands.
Abe has been busy traveling the world seeking to peddle Toshiba-Westinghouse and Hitachi-GE nuclear plants to try to lift Japan's depressed economy.
WNA: 'no deaths, no health damage'
As for the nuclear industry, the World Nuclear Association declared in its statement 'Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors' (updated October 2013):
"The Fukushima accident has caused no deaths ... The Fukushima accident resulted in some radiation exposure of workers at the plant, but not such as to threaten their health."
What will the consequences of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster be? It is impossible to know exactly now. But considering the gargantuan amount of radioactive poisons that have been discharged and what will continue to be released, the impacts will inevitably be great.
The claim of there being no consequences to life and the prediction that there won't be in the future from the Fukushima catastrophe is an outrageous falsehood.
No amount of radioactivity is 'safe'
That's because it is now widely understood that there is no 'safe' level of radioactivity. Any amount can kill. The more radioactivity, the greater the impacts. As the National Council on Radiation Protection has declared: "Every increment of radiation exposure produces an incremental increase in the risk of cancer."
There was once the notion of there being a 'threshold dose' of radioactivity below which there would be no harm. That's because when nuclear technology began and people were exposed to radioactivity, they didn't promptly fall down dead.
But as the years went by, it was realized that lower levels of radioactivity take time to result in cancer and other illnesses - that there is a 5 to 40 year 'incubation period'.
Projecting a death toll of more than a million from the radioactivity released from Fukushima is Dr. Chris Busby, scientific secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk who has been a professor at a number of universities. "Fukushima is still boiling radionuclides all over Japan", he said. "Chernobyl went up in one go. So Fukushima is worse."
Indeed, a report by the Institute for Science in Society, based in the UK, has concluded: "State-of-the-art analysis based on the most inclusive datasets available reveals that radioactive fallout from the Fukushima meltdown is at least as big as Chernobyl and more global in reach."
The likely Fukushima death toll - 600,000 premature deaths
A death toll of up to 600,000 is estimated in a study conducted for the Nordic Probabilistic Safety Assessment Group which is run by the nuclear utilities of Finland and Sweden.
Dr. Helen Caldicott, a founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility, told a symposium on 'The Medical Implications of Fukushima' held last year in Japan:
"The accident is enormous in its medical implications. It will induce an epidemic of cancer as people inhale the radioactive elements, eat radioactive vegetables, rice and meat, and drink radioactive milk and teas.
"As radiation from ocean contamination bio-accumulates up the food chain ... radioactive fish will be caught thousands of miles from Japanese shores. As they are consumed, they will continue the the cycle of contamination, proving that no matter where you are, all major nuclear accidents become local."
Dr. Caldicott, whose books on nuclear power include Nuclear Madness, also stated: "The Fukushima disaster is not over and will never end. The radioactive fallout which remains toxic for hundreds to thousands of years covers large swaths of Japan will never be 'cleaned up' and will contaminate food, humans and animals virtually forever."
Arnie Gundersen, a former nuclear industry senior vice president, has said: "The health impacts to the Japanese will begin to be felt in several years and out to 30 or 40 years from cancers. And I believe we're going to see as many as a million cancers over the next 30 years because of the Fukushima incident in Japan."
At Fukushima, "We have opened a door to hell that cannot be easily closed - if ever", said Paul Gunter, director of the Reactor Oversight Project at the US - based group Beyond Nuclear last year.
Radiation on the move
Already an excessive number of cases of thyroid cancers have appeared in Japan, an early sign of the impacts of radioactivity. A study last year by Joseph Mangano and Dr. Janette Sherman of the Radiation and Public Health Project, and Dr. Chris Busby, determined that radioactive iodine fall-out from Fukushima damaged the thyroid glands of children in California.
And the biggest wave of radioactivity in the Pacific Ocean from Fukushima is slated to hit the west coast of North America in the next several months.
Meanwhile, every bluefin tuna caught in the waters off California in a Stanford University study was found to be contaminated with cesium-137, a radioactive poison emitted on a large scale by Fukushima. The tuna migrate from off Japan to California waters. Daniel Madigan, who led the study, commented:
"The tuna packaged it up [the radiation] and brought it across the world's largest ocean. We were definitely surprised to see it at all and even more surprised to see it in every one we measured."
Economic losses as high as $500 billion
There is, of course, the enormous damage to property and communities. The Environmental Health Policy Institute of Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) in its summary of the Costs and Consequences of the Fukushima Daiichi Disaster cites estimates of economic loss of between $250 billion and $500 billion.
Some 800 square kilometers are 'exclusion zones' of "abandoned cities, towns, agricultural land, homes and properties" and from which 159,128 people have been evicted, relates PSR senior scientist Steven Starr.
Further, "about a month after the disaster, on April 19, 2011, Japan chose to dramatically increase its official 'safe' radiation exposure levels from 1 mSv [millisievert, a measure of radiation dose] to 20 mSv per year - 20 times higher than the US exposure limit.
"This allowed the Japanese government to downplay the dangers of the fallout and avoid evacuation of many badly contaminated areas."
The 'Fukushima Secrecy Act'
And last year the Japanese government enacted a new State Secrets Act which can restrict-with a penalty of 10 years in jail-reporting on Fukushima.
"It's the cancerous mark of a nuclear regime bound to control all knowledge of a lethal global catastrophe now ceaselessly escalating", wrote Harvey Wasserman, co-author of Killing Our Own, in a piece aptly titled 'Japan's New 'Fukushima Fascism'.
Meanwhile, back in the US, the nation's Nuclear Regulatory Commission has over the past three years consistently refused to apply "lessons learned" from Fukushima.
Its chairman, Dr. Gregory Jaczko, was forced out after an assault led by the nuclear industry after trying to press this issue and opposing an NRC licensing of two new nuclear plants in Georgia "as if Fukushima had never happened."
Rosalie Bertell, a Catholic nun, in her book No Immediate Danger, wrote about the decades of suppression of the impacts of nuclear power and the reason behind it:
"Should the public discover the true health cost of nuclear pollution, a cry would rise from all parts of the world and people would refuse to cooperative passively with their own death."
Thus the desperate drive - in which a largely compliant mainstream media have been complicit - to deny the Fukushima catastrophe, a disaster deeply affecting life on Earth.
Karl Grossman is professor of journalism at the State University of New York/College of New York, and author of The Wrong Stuff: The Space's Program's Nuclear Threat to Our Planet. Grossman is an associate of the media watch group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR). He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion.
This article was originally published on Counterpunch.
Using this website means you agree to us using simple cookies.