The Proceedings of this forum have now been published.

These Proceedings can be read or downloaded here on this page or, if you prefer a hard copy, you can buy the Proceedings of the Forum on the Genetic Effects of Ionizing Radiation by ordering a printed copy directly from “Lulu.com”.

“Read or download the Proceedings”

“Compressed version” (for faster opening but slightly lower quality)

“Buy a copy of the Proceedings”

A French version of these Proceedings also exists.

“Go to the French version of the Proceedings”

Top of page

♦

Geneva, Switzerland, 30 October 2015
Message of condolences on the death of Chiyo Nohara to the members of the BCPH Unit of Molecular Physiology, Department of Chemistry, Biology and Marine Science, Faculty of Science, and the Instrumental Research Center,
University of the Ryukyus, Nishihara, Okinawa 903-0213, Japan

The members of the Collective IndependentWHO – Health and Nuclear Power are deeply saddened to learn of the premature death of your colleague Chiyo Nohara. We remember with emotion her remarkable presentation at our Forum in Geneva last year of your team’s important work on the biological impacts of the Fukushima accident on the pale grass blue butterfly. She had the courage to make the long trip to Europe when she was already ill, most probably from the effects of field work in the irradiated areas. By doing so she made a major contribution to disseminating your pioneering work to a wider international audience of concerned citizens and scientists. The report on our “Scientific and Citizen Forum on the Genetic Effects of Ionizing Radiation”, soon to be published, will be dedicated to her memory. Kindly convey our heartfelt condolences to her colleagues, family and friends.
For the Collective IndependentWHO – Health and Nuclear Power
organizers of the Scientific and Citizen Forum on the Genetic Effects of Ionizing Radiation, Geneva, Switzerland, 29 November 2014

Alison Katz
katz.alison@gmail.com ;

G. Gordon-Lennox
gordon.lennox@wanadoo.fr

Chiyo Nohara

Top of page

Forum on the Genetic Effects of Ionizing Radiation

radiation. Yuri Dubrova (England) presented an overview of present and past research on the subject and described his own work on the transgenerational effects of parental exposure to mutagens. Wladimir Wertelecki (USA) presented the results of a decade of research in Ukraine, showing a significant correlation between rates of congenital malformation and levels of caesium-137 in pregnant women. Keith Baverstock (Finland) – well known for his denunciation of the effects of depleted uranium used in weapons – described the role and the potential consequences of genomic instability induced by environmental stress, including ionising radiation. Tim Mousseau (USA) presented studies showing significant effects of low dose ionising radiation, and also of natural background radiation, and underlined the fact that genetic effects on DNA are observed at all biological levels in ecosystems. The last speaker was Chiyo Nohara (Japan) who described studies showing the genetic effects that have already been observed in butterflies at Fukushima and who noted that these effects worsened in the second generation.
During the two hour discussion that followed, members of the audience had the opportunity to ask for clarification from the speakers, who were able to supply them with additional information. The six speakers were in agreement that the science of genetics was at a turning point requiring new theoretical models to enable a more detailed understanding of these phenomena. But through a lack of political will, insufficient funds are allocated to undertake a systematic study of this magnitude.
A representative of the collective IndependentWHO – Health and Nuclear Power brought the forum to a close, and commented that for over half a century, we have had sufficient knowledge about the genetic effects of ionising radiation to implement effective radioprotection measures. Moreover, if the international authorities had not abdicated their responsibilities, this forum on the genetic effects of ionising radiation would have been organised by the World Health Organisation in the years following the Chernobyl accident.
If the health consequences, and in particular the genetic effects of ionising radiation, had not been covered up by our national and international authorities, it is probable that today, nuclear energy would be used exclusively in the field of medicine.
Instead, the fact that the earth is immersed in more and more radiation, that many genetic effects, not previously recognised, have been observed since Chernobyl, and that the proof of these known effects has been confirmed, did not prevent the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) from reducing its estimates of the genetic risk by a factor of 6 in 2007…
Proceedings of the forum will be published on our website in a few months but meanwhile, the programme of events, a biography of the speakers and abstracts of their presentations can be read here, and the following photos provide a glimpse of the day’s events.

“Read or download the Programme for the Forum”

“Read or download the abstracts of the presentations with a short biographies of the presenters”

♦

Rémy Pagani, administrative counsellor of the City of Geneva, gave the welcome speech, and then Annick Steiner, member of IndependentWHO – Health and Nuclear Power, introduced the forum.

Dr Inge Schmitz-Feuerhake

Dr Inge Schmitz-Feuerhake,
German Society of Radiation Protection,
Member (retired), University of Bremen,
Germany
gave a presentation entitled :
Immediate and delayed genetic
effects of ionizing radiation through
irradiation and contamination

Dr Yuri Dubrova

Dr Yuri Dubrova, Department of Genetics,
University of Leicester,
United Kingdom
gave a presentation entitled :
Summary of past and present
studies on the genetic effects of
ionising radiation, including an
overview of recent technological
advances in this area, and of
transgenerational effects of
parental exposure to mutagens

Dr Wladimir Wertelecki

Dr Wladimir Wertelecki,
Formerly of the Department of Medical
Genetics and Birth Defects, University of
South Alabama, USA
President of the Board of the OMNI-Net
Ukraine Child Development Programmes
gave a presentation entitled :
Abnormal levels of incorporated
ionizing radiation among pregnant
women and high rates of
malformations in infants in Ukraine 

In the centre, Ruth Stegassy, producer of the programme Terre à Terre on Radio France Culture, chaired the proceedings of this forum

Dr Keith Baverstock

Dr Keith Baverstock,
Department of Environmental Sciences,
University of Eastern Finland, Finland
gave a presentation entitled :
The role and potential
consequences of genomic
instability induced by
environmental stressors

Dr Timothy Mousseau

Dr Timothy Mousseau,
Professor of Biological Sciences, University
of South Carolina, USA
gave a presentation entitled :
Biological consequences of
radiation in the environment for
individuals, populations and
ecosystems : lessons from
Chernobyl and Fukushima

Chiyo Nohara

Chiyo Nohara, University of
Okinawa, Japan
gave a presentation entitled :
The biological impacts of the
Fukushima nuclear accident on the
pale grass blue butterfly

Exchange between members of the panel and the audience

 Françoise Bloch, member of IndependentWHO, brought the forum to a close.

Top of page

♦

“Read or download the Programme for the Forum”

“Read or download the abstracts of the presentations with a short biographies of the presenters”

Entrance free

Simultaneous interpretation English-French

Please register in advance

Information/Registration
Christophe Elain
contact@independentwho.org

Tel: 33 (0)6 02 27 36 32
Tel: 41 (0)22 79 73 830

The Forum will be held from 8.30 am till 6 pm at the Ecumenical Centre
150 route de Ferney – Geneva

How to get to the Forum

Bus N° 5 from Geneva train station (Cornavin)
Direction Airport
Bus stop : “Crêts – de – Morillon”
(Request stop)

By car : Parking at the Ecumenical Centre

♦

The genome: humankind’s most precious treasure

 “The genome is the most valuable treasure of human kind. It determines the life of our descendants and the harmonious development of the future generations. As experts, we confirm, that the health of future generations is threatened by the expansion of the nuclear industry and the growth of the quantity of radioactive sources. We also consider the fact of appearance of new mutations observed in people to be fatal for them and for their descendants.”

This is how, in 1956, the expert group on genetics at the WHO, including H.J. Muller, Nobel Prize winner, assessed the threat that ionising radiation represented to the human genetic legacy. No scientific proof has emerged since 1956 to contradict this position. On the contrary, later studies indicate that the dangers had been underestimated.

Why does no one talk about it ?

Thus, 23 years after Chernobyl, these international organisations agreed together to explain the poor health of the population in the areas affected by the Chernobyl disaster, by what they called “radiophobia” (Press release of 24th may 2009). Three years after Fukushima, these same representatives of the international organisations, meeting at a symposium on the 8th and 9th September 2014, are going one better. They are introducing the concept of resilience of the population and are relying on this to counter the ill effects of the radioactive contamination, removing the choice of fleeing the danger, and freeing the government, from the necessity of evacuating people.

Make the truth known

In the face of this ‘psychologising’ discourse, a complete denial of the ill effects of radioactive contamination, we are taking upon ourselves the task of making known to members of the public who are interested in the truth, the current state of research on the health consequences of these disasters. Hence, the Scientific and Citizen Forum on the Genetic Effects of Ionising Radiation. It follows the first Scientific and Citizen Forum on Radioprotection – from Chernobyl to Fukushima – which we organised, with the support of the city of Geneva in particular, on 12th-13th May 2012, the proceedings of which were published in March 2013 and can be downloaded here.

Top of page

♦

It began on April 26, 2007, the 21st anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster. Five days a week for the past 7 years, from 8am until 6pm, a person stands silently outside WHO

“Offline: The day Bill Gates crossed the road”

or on “The Lancet” website

Top of page

♦

On April 2nd, 2014, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) published its complete report “Levels and effects of radiation exposure due to the nuclear accident after the 2011 great east-Japan earthquake and tsunami”.

The report draws mainly on data from the nuclear industry’s publications rather than from independent sources and omits or misinterprets crucial aspects of radiation exposure. Also, we question some of the assumptions used as the basis for calculations in the report.

We are concerned that the apparently systematic underestimations and questionable interpretations in the report will be used by the nuclear industry to downplay the expected health effects of the nuclear catastrophe in Fukushima.

For these reasons, we present our medical and scientific insight on the UNSCEAR report, noting first the points with which we agree, followed by our ten main points of criticism.

“Read an abstract of the report”

“Read the full report”

Published in:

http://www.fukushima-disaster.de/information-in-english/maximum-credible-accident.html

Top of page

Naoto Matsumura

Naoto Matsumura, a Japanese peasant from the contaminated area around Fukushima and a victim of the disaster, wanted to come and stand outside the WHO headquarters this Wednesday, March 19 2014, to express his anger and dismay.

In fact, having abandoned the victims of Chernobyl to their fate, the World Health Organization, which conceals the true effects of radioactivity, is now doing no more by way of providing help to the victims of Fukushima either.

Yes, there the crime continues.

Top of page

“The WHO/IAEA Unholy Alliance and its Lies about Int’l Nuclear Health Stats”
Alison Katz of IndependentWHO – 17 September 2013

Nuclear Hotseat is the weekly international news magazine keeping you up to date on all things anti-nuclear. Produced and Hosted by Three Mile Island survivor Libbe HaLevy, each podcast contains: the week’s international nuclear news; at least one expert interview; ways to protect the physical health of yourself and your loved ones from the dangers of radiation exposure; and also activist opportunities.

http://www.nuclearhotseat.com/

Top of page

The Forum brought together independent scientists and citizens from Belarus, Russia, France, Belgium, the United Kingdom, Switzerland and Japan, as well as politicians and journalists. As participants demonstrated, the scandal of the omerta on the effects of radiation on health continues, more than two years after the beginning of the Fukushima disaster on 11 March 2011. There are more and more sick people in the affected areas, including children. Citizens, Japanese doctors and independent scientists are obliged to organize in the face of the shortcomings of the authorities and international organizations, including the World Health Organization (WHO), which is still subject to the agreement that it signed with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on 28 May 1959.

With the publication of the “Proceedings” we remind all those concerned about the risks of atomic radiation, whether from civilian or military use. There is no minimum acceptable radiation dose for health, contrary to what is claimed by the Japanese authorities and international organizations following the accident at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear power plant.

This 160-page report, profusely illustrated with graphics and photos, is an accurate and complete reflection of the presentations and discussions at the Forum. A French-language version was published earlier this year. It is now available in English as a PDF on our website and a print version is also available.

“Read or download the Proceedings”

If you wish to purchase a print copy please send us an e-mail on
http://independentwho.org/en/contact-independentwho/
and will reply with price and payment instructions.

Top of page

In his report, Grover describes the extent of the disaster :

“The amount of radioactive cesium (137C) released due to the nuclear accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Plant is estimated to be 168 times higher than that released by the atomic bomb in Hiroshima. According to TEPCO, the accident released 900 petabecquerel of radioactive iodine and cesium…. Other radioactive materials released due to the nuclear accident include radioactive Tellurium (129mTe, 129Te), Silver (110mAg), Lanthanum (140La) and Barium (140Ba).”

The Rapporteur also argues strongly that the old methods of masking the stark reality of radiation exposure used by Soviet authorities after Chernobyl should no longer be acceptable. In the years since Chernobyl, we have learned much more about health damage due to radiation exposure including chromosomal aberrations, increased childhood and adult morbidity, impairment and leukemia. According to Grover, the scientific record demonstrating the link between long term exposure and radiation at low doses and the development of cancers can no longer be dismissed as insignificant. [For more information on the controversy concerning Chernobyl studies and the gaps in scientific knowledge about the health effects of radiation, see Matthew Penney and Mark Selden, What Price the Fukushima Meltdown? Comparing Chernobyl and Fukushima]

In the Japanese case, Grover criticizes the lack of effective distribution of stable iodine tablets to the population. He also questions the health protection system for nuclear workers: access to medical examination is not systematic (contrary to law) and the results of the examinations which are carried out are not adequately transmitted to the authorities. Finally, the labour force employed by subcontractors, a large majority of those working at Fukushima Daiichi, does not have a guarantee of access to such screenings. [For more information on the problems faced by workers at the Fukushima Daiichi site, see Gabrielle Hecht, Nuclear Janitors: Contract Workers at the Fukushima Reactors and Beyond]

The right to health is not respected

Concerning the zoning system around the nuclear plant, Grover reminds us of the unacceptability threshold decided for Chernobyl in 1991: any higher than 1 mSv per year and the population was not allowed to return and live and work in contaminated areas. In Fukushima this threshold has been set at the level of 20 mSv per year. In areas with radiation measured at rates between 20 and 50 mSv, the population can freely access the contaminated areas during the day.

The Rapporteur criticizes the use of “cost-benefit analysis” made by the Japanese authorities (following the ICRP recommendations) since such analysis does not respect the fundamental right to health of individuals. Grover argues that “collective interests” should never dominate individual rights, notably the right to health. Thus, he calls on the Japanese government to lower the threshold of exposure under which individuals are allowed to return to contaminated areas, and urges that displaced people receive compensation and free health protection in areas exceeding 1 msv per year.

On the matter of education about radiation, Grover asks the Japanese government to stop all claims in a supplementary reader provided to schools that radiation exposure below 100 mSv per year is not harmful to a person’s health. [For details on the 100 mSv claim in the classroom, see coverage in Kinyobi]

About decontamination, the Rapporteur expresses regret that no clear schedule to bring to contamination levels under 1 mSv has been set by the authorities beyond 2013. To clean school yards is not enough and Grover argues that it is instead necessary to decontaminate more broadly, taking into consideration the multiple “hot-spots” existing in areas which average under 20 mSv. For some of these zones, the population is now being called upon to return to their homes and communities. Finally, he criticizes the policy of involvement of the population in decontamination operations without providing them with proper equipment and informing them clearly of the health consequences.

The Rapporteur also criticizes the financing by the state, which means Japan’s taxpayers, of damages for which TEPCO is responsible: an amount equivalent to 110 billion euros or approximately 145 billion USD, announced at the end of 2012. [For more information on the financial risks of nuclear power that are borne by taxpayers and not by the companies and shareholders that stand to profit, see the Asia-Pacific Journal Feature, The Costs of Fukushima]

For the Japanese government, no “truth” except the views of WHO and UNSCEAR experts

At the same conference in Geneva at which Grover’s report was released, the Japanese government presented a counter report dated May 27, that dismisses Grover’s conclusions. According to Japanese authorities the “scientific basis” of Grover’s report is totally lacking. The “scientific basis” that the Japanese government relies on instead is the basis provided by WHO, UNSCEAR, ICRP and IAEA experts. Many scientists and nuclear critics disagree with these positions and others argue that ties to the nuclear industry and the dual role of assessing nuclear safety and promoting the use of nuclear power make the conclusions put forward by these organizations questionable.

The truth made available by UNSCEAR’s experts is a convenient one for the Japanese government: this UN agency in charge of estimating the consequences of the Fukushima meltdowns, is the same one that concluded that there were fewer than 50 immediate deaths due to radiation and under 15 deaths linked to thyroid cancers after the Chernobyl disaster, and is already anticipating “zero deaths” in the short as well as in the long term in Fukushima. This “anticipation” dates from March 2012 and was confirmed in their recent report.

Grover’s call for better protection of the population is considered by the Japanese government to be totally misplaced and redundant since nothing “scientifically” proves that the concerned populations have a real need to be protected beyond measures already being enforced: “The Government will continue to work on measures so that suitable support will be provided to the people who truly need it.”

When Grover recommended that the Japanese government “avoid limiting health check-ups for children to thyroid checks and extend check-ups for all possible health effects, including urine and blood tests”, the answer provided by the Japanese government, which is now asking that those passages be erased, is as follows:

“Intervention trials should be done scientifically and ethically. Why is blood testing or urine testing required? Because of the possibility of what type of disorder is such testing justified? The idea is unacceptable because, we should not unnecessarily burden the local citizens by forcing medically unjustified examinations on them.”

The 1 mSv per year threshold and “prejudgment” of health impacts

The Special Rapporteur recommended that the Japanese government: “… provide funding for relocation, housing, employment, education and other essential support needed by those who chose to evacuate, stay or return to any area where radiation exceeds 1mSv/year.” The Japanese government has responded with: “The sentences described above should be deleted because they are based on prejudgment. As we have already noted, there has been international controversy over the radiation level which affects health and it is still under much consideration from various perspectives.”

Concerning contaminated waste, Grover’s report notes: “As the contaminated waste is stored in residential areas and under playgrounds, thereby posing a health hazard to residents, establishing temporary storage facilities away from residential areas is urgently required.”

The Japanese authorities do not hesitate to openly lie while replying to this criticism: “When soil, etc. is stored, measures to prevent human health impacts are taken such as radiation shielding. Therefore, the description ‘posing a health hazard to residents’ is not the case.”

The Japanese government is revising history. It has been helped in this task by the French president, seven high-level ministers, and other Parliament members and industrial representatives during the state visit to Japan from 6 to 8 of June. The delivery of the 10 tons of MOX fuel which left La Hague on April 17, will also help the Japanese government to reopen nuclear power plants.

Thierry Ribault
Researcher at CNRS
June 10, 2013 in http://japanfocus.org/