Archive for July, 2012

Another blog

July 30, 2012

HI Barbara

Michiyuki Matsuzaki, M.D. Fukagawa Municipal Hospital, Hokkaido, Japan, on the Children of Fukushima.

July 29, 2012

Position Statement: What Is Currently Happening to Fukushima Children?
Consideration of thyroid disorders, pulmonary function, bone marrow function based on the studies from the Chernobyl nuclear accident, etc.

Michiyuki Matsuzaki, M.D.
Internal Medicine Department
Fukagawa Municipal Hospital, Hokkaido, Japan

May 19, 2012

1. Brief biography of author

Name: Michiyuki Matsuzaki DOB: June 26, 1950
March 1975 M.D.(provisional), School of Medicine, Hokkaido University
April 1975 Internship and Residency, Internal Medicine 1, Graduate School of Medicine, Hokkaido University
June 1986 Executive Board Member of Hokkaido Physicians and Dentists Against Nuclear War
September 1986 Doctoral thesis for M.D. accepted, School of Medicine, Hokkaido University
April 2010 Head of Internal Medicine Department, Fukagawa Municipal Hospital, Hokkaido
April 2012 Professor of Clinical Administration, Asahikawa Medical University, Hokkaido
May 2012 Special member of Cancer Policy Board, Hokkaido Prefecture

Give relief to all Hibakusha affected by ‘black rain’

July 29, 2012

Japan Press Weekly 6 June 2012
Akahata editorial

The Health Ministry’s committee in an interim report has concluded that there is no need to expand the area designated by the government as having been affected by radiation-contaminated “black rain” following the atomic bombing of Hiroshima in 1945. Ignoring local governments’ assertion that the radiation fallout affected a much wider area, the committee plans to finalize the report in early July.

Those who were exposed to the “black rain” within the designated area are authorized to receive medical assistance from the government. By recognizing only a very limited area to have been contaminated by the radiation fallout, the government has left many Hibakusha without the medical support they are entitled to have. It must expand the recognized area and give relief to all Hibakusha.

Calling residents liars

Launched in December last year, the ministry’s committee examined research conducted by the Hiroshima prefectural and city governments in 2008 on about 30,000 Hibakusha’s health conditions. Based on their testimonies that they had been exposed to the radiation fallout outside the officially-designated area, the research suggested that the area where the “black rain” had fallen could be six times larger than the one designated by the government.

The committee’s latest report ignored the revelation of the actual radiation damage and the victims’ urgent call for expansion of the designated area.

The report stated that neither radiation fallout nor internal/external exposure to radiation could be found outside the designated area so that “additional research has little significance.” It thus has no intention to provide relief to people who have been suffering from severe health conditions.

While many residents have been maintaining that they had been exposed to the “black rain” outside the designated area as well, the ministry’s committee has treated their argument as mistaken memory, saying, “It happened more than 60 years ago.” The government deserves to be condemned for rejecting the residents’ request by calling them “incompetent liars”.

Further evidence concerning exposure to radiation has recently been produced. Surveys conducted by Hiroshima University and Kanazawa University show that high levels of cesium from the A-bombing were detected in areas far from the designated area. In addition, data on 13,000 victims were discovered last year which the Radiation Effects Research Foundation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki had collected in 1950. The government must expand the designated area, accepting the residents’ claims and the facts that have come to light.

The authorities have refused Hibakusha’s requests to widen the designated area claiming that their argument is “scientifically groundless”. It is unforgivable for the national government to disregard the report submitted by local governments without conducting a survey of A-bomb survivors, which should have been carried out by the central government in the first place.

Responsibility to acknowledge all victims

To abandon the A-bomb victims by unfairly narrowing the “black rain area” is no longer accepted. Two years ago, replying to a question from Japanese Communist Party member of the House of Councilors Nihi Sohei, then Welfare Minister Nagatsuma Akira said that if a new report on A-bomb victims is submitted by municipalities, they will take it “seriously”. The Noda Cabinet should fulfill the promise made by the welfare minister in the Diet.

The residents exposed to the “black rain” are aging. The government’s most urgent task is to expand the designated area to the entire area where the “black rain” had fallen and relieve all Hibakusha of their pain and suffering.

end quote

Will the same thing happen to Fukushima exposed people in the years ahead? Already they are being called “weak willed” and anxious without reason.
Groves labelled reports of those sickened by fallout in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 propaganda. Depressing to see the current Japanese government carrying on in the same fashion in 2012. But we have been watching that happened since March 2011. Nuclear Colonial Boys.

Courts find black rain from A-bomb was more far-reaching than gov’t acknowledged

July 29, 2012

Eight lawsuits brought against the government by plaintiffs seeking certification of radiation sickness from the “black rain” that fell on Hiroshima after the city’s atomic bombing in 1945, have seen rulings that rain fell in a broader area than was indicated by a study on which national assistance eligibility was based, and that far more people may have been exposed to radiation, it has been learned.

In response to requests from the Hiroshima Municipal Government and the Hiroshima Prefectural Government to expand the eligible area, the national government established an experts’ commission in December 2010, which, over a year later, has reached no conclusions. The gap between the national government’s rationale for radiation-illness certification and the judiciary’s rulings are expected to influence debate on what constitutes eligibility. When the commission meets Jan. 20, it will have been five months since its last meeting.

The class-action suits had been filed at 17 district courts by 306 plaintiffs since 2003. The last of those to end was the one at the Osaka District Court, on Dec. 21, 2011. Upon looking into all 30 rulings, the Mainichi found that one high court ruling and seven district court rulings commented on the possibility that people may have been exposed to radiation outside the already acknowledged areas.

In 1976, the national government decided that people in an area 11 kilometers wide within 19 kilometers northwest of the bomb’s hypocenter — where observatory technicians had reported immediately after the war that there had been heavy rainfall after the bombing — would be eligible to receive health examinations and other assistance. According to the survey used to establish this guideline, rain had fallen in an area approximately 29 kilometers northwest of the hypocenter, 15 kilometers wide. However, former director-general of the Meteorological Research Institute Yoshinobu Masuda announced in 1989 that based on interviews with local residents, rain had fallen on a part four times that area.

The biggest of the class-action suits was brought by 41 plaintiffs to the Hiroshima District Court, which ruled in August 2006 that “at the very least, there is a great possibility that people who were rained on in Masuda’s ‘rain range’ were exposed to radiation.” Subsequently in July 2007, the Kumamoto District Court said: “at the very least, a significant amount of radioactive materials fell onto an area stretching from the hypocenter to the Masuda ‘rain range.’” The March 2010 Nagoya High Court ruling was similar, saying: “There is a strong possibility that rain fell across an area that was far broader than the area indicated by the earlier survey.”

Click here for the original Japanese story

(Mainichi Japan) January 13, 2012

See also Uranium Isotopes in Hiroshima “Black Rain” Soil

1) Research Institute for Nuclear Medicine and Biology, Hiroshima University
2) Low Level Radioactivity Laboratory [Received: 1983/04/19]
[Published: 1983/09/15]
[Released: 2006/06/16]

Which contains the map:
black rain

Many people were thirsty and they drank the black rain when it fell.

Photographic evidence which validates Yamada & Jones, ORNL, 1972.

July 29, 2012

“It was expected that particulates from the fallout rain would be removed quickly from the skin and clothing of those survivors experiencing precipitation heavier than a moderate sprinkle or a light drizzle; however, anomalies have been observed which seem contrary to this assumption. Instead, some of the particulates deposited by light precipitation may have been washed into and captured by the hair and clothing where they could have become an important contributor to the dose of an individual survivor;
however, it seemed that “black” rain dose levels were extremely low for those survivors not experiencing beto-ray burns Evidence from severol ABCC medical observation histories now casts considerable doubt on the accuracy of this assumption.”

The Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum Online display contains the following page which shows photographs taken by Shigeo Hayashi, the photographer present as part of a scientific survey undertaken in Hiroshima in 1945.

The captions to the photographs on the page explain the long persistence of the residue from the black rain on clothing and objects.

Given this clear evidence and Japanese knowledge in August 1945, how could it be that the USA maintained the “theory” that residue from the black rain was not significant as a dose vector until Yamada & Jones of ORNL in 1972?

“An Examination of A-Bomb Survivors Exposed to Fallout Rain …” Oak Ridge NL 1972

July 29, 2012

Contrary to the assumptions stated in this study the Black Rain area of Hiroshima is larger than the Groves descendents acknowledge, and the number of victims of it is larger than Groves et al admit. This data is the part of the baseline data, based upon the original deception engineered in 1945.

Scientists call for revising A-bomb dosimetry formula to reflect ‘black rain’

July 28, 2012

The ASAHI SHIMBUN 27 July 2012

By AKIKO OKAZAKI/ Staff Writer

The government should revise its formula to calculate radiation doses of atomic bomb survivors because the current method does not properly incorporate internal radiation exposure from “black rain” and other factors, scientists said.

Black rain refers to the downpour containing radioactive substances that fell in and around Hiroshima immediately after the city was leveled by an atomic bomb on Aug. 6, 1945. The black rain covered an area that is at least 11 kilometers wide east-west and 19 km long north-south.

A revision of the calculation method could lead to the certification of additional atomic bomb survivors as “hibakusha,” who are eligible for financial assistance to treat radiation-related illnesses.

A group of researchers from Hiroshima University and other institutions tracked about 37,000 holders of Atomic Bomb Survivor’s Certificates in Hiroshima Prefecture, who were within 2 km of ground zero and were alive as of Jan. 1, 1977.

According to studies, which continued until the end of 2010, 44 of the hibakusha died from solid tumors, which do not include leukemia.

The epidemiological survey found the levels of risks of death from solid tumors did not form concentric circles around ground zero. For example, the risk of death was up to about 1.7 times higher in one area 2 km west-northwest of ground zero than in an area 2 km east of it.

The government’s formula to evaluate radiation doses of atomic bomb survivors to authorize A-bomb-related syndromes and for other purposes was drawn up by Japanese and U.S. experts and is called the Dosimetry System 2002 (DS02).

But the DS02 can only work out direct radiation doses from gamma rays and neutron beams; it does not take into account the effects of beta rays, indirect exposure and internal exposure.

Atomic bomb survivors may have received additional doses from radioactive dust they inhaled and radioactive water they ingested, including substances from the black rain, said Megu Ohtaki, a professor of biometrics at Hiroshima University’s Research Institute for Radiation Biology and Medicine who is a member of the research team.

Masaharu Hoshi, a professor emeritus of radiation biology at Hiroshima University who also belongs to the team, said he plans to call on relevant organizations to have Japanese and U.S. experts review the DS02 formula, which he helped to draw up.

Hoshi was to present the latest research results and recommendations on July 25 during an annual meeting of the Health Physics Society in the United States.

Effects of Nuclear Weapons Test Era “Unknown”

July 28, 2012

I am sick of nuclear authorities claiming the deposition from Fuk is “less than” deposition from nuclear weapons tests. I want to rip that to bits. Implications of these statements are meant to convey harmlessness of Fuk, from their perspective. but 1. All exposures add up 2. The effects of weapons fallout were and remain devastating 3. authorities today are blind to the weapons test deception 4. The effects of the weapons tests are unknown to the experts even in the US. 5. The weapons test fallout dosed and primed the world population 6. Affected populations exist world wide and are denied by authorities. 7. The deception of the Clinton “Openness” in this regard culminated in the funding of the DOE to investigate the impacts, which they turned into an advocacy of low dose radiation. etc etc. In 1998 the CDC undertook a study into effects of weapons fallout Here: Anyone who listens to authorities claiming any fallout from Fuk is harmless because it is less than weapons fallout has to realize that the weapons fallout was not and is not safe and that Fuk adds to it. And that the cumulative dose is the dose that counts.

Centres for Disease Control and Prevention

Feasibility Study of Weapons Test Fallout

Report on the Health Consequences to the American Population from Nuclear Weapons Tests Conducted by the United States and Other Nations

In 1998, the Senate Appropriations Committee asked the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct an initial assessment of the feasibility and public health implications of a study concerning the health consequences to the American population of radioactive fallout from nuclear weapons testing. This request resulted in a collaborative effort by staff at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Cancer Institute to make crude estimates of doses and health risks from exposure to radioactive fallout from nuclear weapons tests conducted from 1951 through 1962 at the Nevada Test Site and other sites throughout the world.

In 2002, HHS transmitted to the Senate Appropriations Committee a progress report and an extensive two-volume Feasibility Study providing details on the scientific methods and conclusions of this feasibility study. The draft Feasibility Study was also sent to the National Academy of Sciences’ Committee on Assessment of CDC Radiation Studies. A report from that committee issued in February 2003 was peer reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council (NAS/NRC) Committee to Review the CDC-NCI Feasibility Study of the Health Consequences from Nuclear Weapons Tests (NAS/NRC 2003). The recommendations and comments of the NAS/NRC committee were carefully considered. This final report, issued in April 2005, was prepared in consideration of those recommendations. CDC reviewed and addressed the comments received on the draft report, and on January 25, 2006, the Department of Health and Human Services transmitted to Congress the final “Report on the Feasibility of a Study of the Health Consequences to the American Population from Nuclear Weapons Tests Conducted by the United States and Other Nations.”

Final Report

Public summary of the final report on radioactive fallout from global weapons testing.

You may download the full Technical Report and Appendices as a zip compressed PDF or in Word format or you may download individual sections of the full report uncompressed as noted below.
end quote




And this assertion on the part of nuclear authorities is total and utter crap, and they know it.

If Japanese nuclear authorities and nuclear authorities want to communicate with any credibility what so ever, they need to com clean for once.

“Less than nuclear weapon fallout” simply means that there will be more to add to the devastation of the past. Such statements merely reveal pig ignorance, as usual, on the part of nuclear authorities.

Sodium cooled reactors are unsafe

July 28, 2012

The Economic Times

Fast breeder reactors are the least safe
Swaminathan S Anklesaria Aiyar, TNN Mar 27, 2011, 11.55am IST

Nuclear safety has become a top priority after the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan. Safety at all Indian plants is being reviewed, and coastal reactors may be built on higher ground for tsunami protection. Critics have objected to unproven French reactors for the Jaitapur nuclear power complex.

Yet critics and agitators are ignoring the biggest nuclear risk of all: the inherently dangerous nature of fast breeder reactors (FBRs). India’s first prototype 500 MW FBR is about to be commissioned at Kalpakkam, and four more are planned.

The Indian nuclear establishment has long viewed FBRs as a great prize because these are indigenously engineered and can use India’s huge thorium reserves , eliminating dependence on uranium. Problem: conventional reactors are cooled by light or heavy water , but FBRs are cooled by liquid sodium, which is inherently dangerous. Liquid sodium reacts explosively with both air and water. Hence, even a tiny leak of sodium coolant can cause a fire. Fukushima shows that the unexpected can always happen despite precautions. When Fukushima overheated, the Japanese pumped in sea water and bombarded the reactors with water cannon to bring down temperatures. But such use of water would be impossible in any accident at an FBR—the water would react explosively with the sodium coolant. So, the real lesson of Fukushima is that FBRs are inherently risky. FBRs have long been touted as a patriotic feat of self-sufficiency . But they now need the closest scrutiny for safety by an independent agency. Scientists MV Ramanna and Ashwin Kumar say that Indian FBRs are dangerous for other reasons. First, the containment dome is not as strong as in other reactors. Second, they have a positive coolant void coefficient. Both these features bring down the very high costs of FBRs, which so far have proved to be financial disasters globally. But such costcutting comes at a price in safety.

Risks at other reactor sites have been exaggerated. Jaitapur has some seismic risk, but far less than in reactor sites in Japan and Korea that withstood many earthquakes. Indian coastal reactors survived the 2004 tsunami, which hit the Tamil Nadu coast very hard. That lends some credibility to the government’s claims of safety on this count. The French-designed EPR reactor is said by critics to be not proven. Only one such reactor is still at the commissioning stage in Finland, after huge cost and time overruns. However, by definition every new technological advance is “unproven” and that can hardly be a reason for never going forward with new technology. Some critics of the “unproven” Jaitapur design say nothing about similarly unproven indigenous advances. Indian scientists have constantly innovated new and untested technologies and it would be silly to veto them all as unsafe.

However, FBRs are a special problem, as proven globally. The International Panel on Fissile Materials says, “A large fraction of the liquid-sodium cooled reactors that have been built have been shut down for long periods by sodium fires. Russia’s BN-350 had a huge sodium fire. The follow-on BN-600 reactor was designed with its steam generators in separate bunkers to contain sodium-water fires and with an extra steam generator so a firedamaged steam generator can be repaired while the reactor continues to operate using the extra steam generator . Between 1980 and 1997, the BN-600 had 27 sodium leaks, 14 of which resulted in sodium fires… Leaks from pipes into the air have also resulted in serious fires. In 1995, Japan’s prototype fast reactor, Monju, experienced a major sodiumair fire. Restart has been repeatedly delayed, and, as of the end of 2009, the reactor was still shut down.
Ads by Google

Flat Sheet MBR MembranesProven membranes for industrial and municipal wastewater at lower cost.
Test & Tag PAT Testerseasy low cost solutions for safety testing electrical appliances & RCD

France’s Rapsodie, Phenix and Superphenix breeder reactors and the UK’s Dounreay Fast Reactor (DFR) and Prototype Fast Reactor (PFR) all suffered significant sodium leaks, some of which resulted in serious fires.” If FBRs had such problems even in normal conditions , imagine what could happen in an unanticipated disaster like Fukushima.

We cannot trust safety assurances from the nuclear establishment because it cannot be expected to reveal the skeletons in its cupboard . In the US, private sector companies operate nuclear plants while a government agency regulates them and makes sure they are safe. But in India, the same nuclear establishment that designs and operates reactors also handles safety assessment, monitoring and evaluation. Notions of patriotism and secrecy override transparency.

This has to be terrible for safety. We must have an independent body for nuclear safety that can publicly take the nuclear establishment to task. If it finds FBRs are unsafe, so be it. Fukushima has opened our eyes. Let not our monolithic nuclear establishment close them again.

Peace event to remember ‘Hiroshima to Fukushima’

July 28, 2012
The Sacramento Bee

Peace event to remember ‘Hiroshima to Fukushima’
The Associated Press
Published: Friday, Jul. 27, 2012 – 1:10 am

EVANSTON, Ill. — A peace event called “From Hiroshima to Fukushima” will be held in Evanston next month, and will feature two experts on nuclear power.

Norma Field is the Robert S. Ingersoll Distinguished Professor in Japanese Studies, who is retiring from the University of Chicago this year after a career as a scholar, teacher and activist.

Yasuteru Yamada is co-founder of the Skilled Veterans Corps for Fukushima. It’s a group of Japanese retirees who volunteered to do cleanup work after the Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster to spare younger people exposure to radiation.

The conference on nuclear power will take place at the Unitarian Church of Evanston on Aug. 5, the 67th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima during World War II.

Read more here: