Blaming Fear in order to Use the Law to Suppress Information People Need to Know.

This is my opinion. I may be right, I may be wrong.
Unclassified Controlled Information NRC Atomic Energy Act

http://www.dhra.mil/perserec/csg/s2unclas/ucni.htm

This regulation stats in part:

“Information is designated UCNI only when it is determined that its unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be expected to have a significant adverse effect on the health and safety of the public…..”Unauthorized dissemination subject to civil and criminal sanctions under section 148 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2168)” ….Violation of Section 148 of the Atomic Energy Act carries a civil fine not to exceed $110,000. In addition, the individual may be subject to a criminal penalty under Section 223 of the Act….”

What is the nature of “a significant adverse effect on the health and safety of the public” information alone is capable of inducing in the public? Fear and panic perhaps.

If nuclear authorities can show that fear and panic exists, and that information will amplify this fear and panic, then there is, under this regulation, sufficient grounds for with holding information.

In the case of the events in Japan, we have seen constant references to the with holding of information from people by the government in order, it is claimed, to minimise fear and panic. The Australian national broadcaster, the ABC, has reported that some children in Japan have recieved, before they have reached their teenage years, the lifetime allowable dose to their thyroid glands. This is a crucial piece of individual medical information for each of those children, their parents, and their doctors. Yet the Noda government refuses to disclose this information to the parents.

The letter the government has written to the researchers to this effect is in reality a gag order, like something out of 1954, the heyday of Project Sunshine. The rationale for this secrecy, applied to medical information actually OWNED by the child and the parents, is to prevent fear. Fear of what?

Fear that Prime Minister Noda might loose his job.

And so the Bobby Scotts of this world do all they can to portray an amplification of fear, whereas what is happening is a political rejection by voters of the false reality presented by nuclear experts. Experts who, in the early days of the nuclear disaster in Japan stated that plutonium is safe to eat. Even if it was, it is not a nutrient, so why eat it? Same with cesium, same with strontium. These things displace the nutrients in the tissue.

The experts treat the population who vote, not as enfranchised adults, but as subordinates and unpaid employees. Worse than that. Slaves.

This is dictatorship from the heart of the nuclear village. In fact, there is no demonstration of mass panic in Japan. The video footage of the now regular mass protests – the nub of which is a demand for safety and honestly on the part of government and industry – are so calm, so determined, so disciplined, that an army of Special Forces is put to shame by the mass demonstration of will and power. The people are not, as nuclear authorities portray them, radio-phobes. In fact the authorities reveal themselves to be voter-phobes by their frighened and gutless portrayal of the people. The people who entrusted them with their delegated, temporary, jobs of national leadership.

This is my opinion.

When the Windscale nuclear reactor caught fire in England, the governments of Scandinavia were alert and alarmed.

Denmark, from what I have been able to find, in particular expressed concern to Britain. The Danish people were aware of what had happened. Indeed, just as in the case of Chernobyl, it was the Scandinavian countries which were aware before the British people that a disaster had occurred.

Does this make those countries radio-phobic? No, it makes them realists. Britain, like the USSR, suppressed information. No doubt not for health reasons, but political ones.

And so it was that Danish and Norwegian mothers were among the most well informed in regard to the Windscale reactor went it occurred in October 1957.

At that time the biggest concern were the reports of increased cases of babies suffering Downs Syndrome. The debate about this raged until at least the 1970s. Many people may still feel that this increase in illness did occur. The British government denies it to this day.

Here is a document which describes the presence of British reactor fallout in Norway and Scandinavia:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:gl9Pc5huzZAJ:rapporter.ffi.no/rapporter/58/TN-F-7.pdf+&hl=en&gl=au&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESho6pATVsV7Jnv-F51D34AlpSFnWQ6qr1hkASMd1pj641q8FOt-g-eTcnra-x7DIv3Ac3iG5bCJ5Do40YaHrkAiZHl6KKJPzPh6Rl8dWvpkNCJy3DFIOVcuiMh8UEw_bd-Wwi3c&sig=AHIEtbS-0qyQCTf7SyMBaDgxUPl8lbvZ0A

The document was first publshed on 26 Nov 1958. It is entitled “Advection of Radioactive Dust over Norway After the Windscale Accident in England October 1957”.

Here is a map from the document showing airflow from Windscale to Norway and Scandinavia:

norway

It can be seen that the people of Norway, Denmark and other affected countries had a basis for concern in 1957. And that, despite the best efforts of the British authorities to the contrary at the time (there was great deception and suppression on the part of British authorities in this matter), the people of Scandinavia were by 1958 fairly well informed. I would think that the great concern regarding the health impacts to babies and children which the British reactor disaster caused was reasonable. In this I obviously disagree with Bobby Scott and the US DOE who have repeatedly stated that such an attitude is radio-phobic. ie a fear based on nothing real. Nuclear denialists.

Studies relating an excess in cases of Downs Syndrome were published from the 1950s until the 1980s. The mothers of Denmark, Norway and other countries were well informed certainly by 1958. And no doubt educated their daughters.

This early experience of a reactor disaster pre-dates the Chernobyl reactor by 29 years. A daughter born in 1958 would perhaps be considering her second or third child by the time Chernobyl did a Windscale. Daughter who, thorughout England and Scandinavia and other parts of Europe, have a memory of what their mother’s taught them about reactor disasters and the increased incidence of Downs Syndrome thereafter.

Bobby Scott has a protege in Australia. She, like Bobby, is funded to conduct research radiation research which casts nuclear industry emissions in a positive light. Here is what she says about the mothers of Scandinavia and elsewhere, and of ordinary choices made in what has been in past, extra-ordinary circumstances :

““And the frightening thing is that it’s been estimated that throughout Europe there were over 100,000 wanted pregnancies aborted, and these were people who didn’t live anywhere near Chernobyl.” Syikes, http://blogs.flinders.edu.au/flinders-news/2011/07/14/radiation-response-a-meltdown-in-reason/
The DOE and nuclear industry plea for not evacuating affected areas after a nuclear industry disaster.

Let’s look at the research. It’s at my other blog:

http://hormesishistory.wordpress.com/2012/02/20/the-hysteria-of-brucerites/

It can be seen that in the vast bulk of cases, there is in fact no basis for Sykes statements. Sykes is milder than Scott in this regard. A woman has a right to choose. Among the Scandinavian countries, Denmark did show a very slight increase in the number of abortions. Nowhere near 100,000. And given the history of repeated impacts from fallout via reactor disasters in that country and the early appreciation of the consequences, it is easy to imagine that the level of education actually possessed by Danish women empowered their right to choose.

To repost the research regarding abortions in Europe post Chernobyl:

The Hysteria of Brucerites
by nuclearhistory

“Radiation response a meltdown in reason”, P. Sykes.

http://blogs.flinders.edu.au/flinders-news/2011/07/14/radiation-response-a-meltdown-in-reason/

published on July 14th, 2011 by Marketing and Communications, Flinders University.

Pam Sykes on : “And the frightening thing is that it’s been estimated that throughout Europe there were over 100,000 wanted pregnancies aborted, and these were people who didn’t live anywhere near Chernobyl.”
end quote

I found relevant papers online. Three of them are listed here.

http://www.sjweh.fi/download.php?abstract_id=1803&file_nro=1

Biomed Pharmacother. 1991;45(6):225-8.

Incidence of legal abortion in Sweden after the Chernobyl accident.

Odlind V, Ericson A.

Source

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Uppsala, Academic Hospital, Sweden.

Abstract

The number of legal abortions in Sweden increased around the time of the Chernobyl accident, particularly in the summer and autumn of 1986. Although there was no recording of reasons for legal abortions, one might have suspected this increase to be a result of fear and anxiety after the accident.

However, seen over a longer time perspective, the increase in the number of abortions started before and continued far beyond the time of the accident. There was also a simultaneous and pronounced increase in the number of births during the years subsequent to the accident.

Therefore, it seems unlikely that fear of the consequences of radioactive fall-out after the Chernobyl accident resulted in any substantial increase of the number of legal abortions in Sweden.

2.

Biomed Pharmacother. 1991;45(6):229-31.

Legally induced abortions in Denmark after Chernobyl.

Knudsen LB.

Source

Danish National Board of Health, Sundhedsstyrelsen, Copenhagen K, Denmark.

Abstract

During the months following the accident in Chernobyl, Denmark experienced an increasing rate of induced abortion, especially in regions with the largest measured increase in radiation. As the increase in radiation in Denmark was so low that almost no increased risk of birth defects was expected, the public debate and anxiety among the pregnant women and their husbands “caused” more fetal deaths in Denmark than the accident. This underlines the importance of public debate, the role of the mass media and of the way in which National Health authorities participate in this debate.

3.

Reduction of births in Italy after the Chernobyl accident

by Roberto Bertollini, MD, MPH,’ Domenico Di Lallo, MD,’ Pierpaolo Mastroiacovo, MD,2

Carlo A Perucci, MD’

BERTOLLINI R, DI LALLO D, MASTROIACOVO P, PERUCCI CA. Reduction of births in Italy after

the Chernobyl accident. Scand J Work Environ Health 1990;16:96-101.

After the Chernobyl accident serious concern spread throughout Italy about the possible effects of the consequent exposure to radioac-tivity on fetuses. A reduction of births in the first three months of 1987, and particularly in February (7.2070 reduction in the birth rate), was observed throughout Italy. In April-June 1987 a 4.8 % increase in the number of births was observed. The magnitude of both phenomena varied in different areas of the country. The total number of births in the first six months of 1987 was very similar to the expected

(264241 versus 263 659). Induced abortions increased in Lombardia (northern Italy) in June ( + 1.6 %)

and July of 1986 ( +3 . 4 %) and in Campania (southern Italy) in June ( + 12.7 %) and August ( +4 . 3 %) .

No increase in legal abortions was detectedin Lazio (central Italy). Italian data suggest a voluntary decrease in the number of planned pregnancies and the termination of some of them in the first weeks after the accident as a consequence of post disaster stress.” end quote.

The situation varied across the affected areas of Europe.

The IAEA described Chernobyl as a Level 7 Major Accident, defined as an accident in with “widespread health and environmental effects requiring implementation of planned and extended ­countermeasures.” The effects and the boundaries of those effects should be at least broadly explained within the definition of the category. IAEA categories should be self sufficient. They should aid certainty. They should not encourage uncertainty. How the IAEA nuclear emergency notification regime contributed to the brief period of “disaster stress” in Italy remains to be seen.
end quotes

PSALM 23

Analysis. by Paul Langley

Odlind V, Ericson A., contradict Sykes while Knudsen LB. finds, “anxiety”, not panic or hysteria. No numbers are given. Knudsen provides a finer analysis than Sykes. Bertollini et al provide a sophisticated report of regional variation and a finds overall a deliberate reduction in pregnancies among Italians. Of these pregnancies, “some” were terminated.

In all three cases, the woman’s and the family’s right to act in a democracy is highlighted. In the case of Denmark, an historic event may have left a social imprint.

In Dec 1957 Danish health authorities attributed an increase in radioactivity over Denmark to the Windscale graphite core reactor fire in England. Memory of that event, and any impacts of it, may have been passed down from mother to daughter. Appendix A below indicates that this certainly might have been the case in England itself. The paper indicates that Downs Syndrome becomes much more likely where the mother is in a vulnerable age range and is additionally subject to low levels of ionising radiation during pregnancy. The nation of Denmark considered the Windscale fallout to be a serious matter in 1957.

The medical record shows that there is an increasing risk of birth defects as Paternal age increases. (For instance, Epidemiology. 1995 May;6(3):282-8.Paternal age and the risk of birth defects in offspring.
McIntosh GC, Olshan AF, Baird PA. School of Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA.)

The risk of Downs Syndrome increases rapidly after Maternal age advances through the third decade of life.

It could be that the regional variation across Europe in regard to termination of pregnancy in the wake of Chernobyl reflects the age related risks self determining people are well aware of.

The “slight” additional risk contributed by the Chernobyl disaster presented older women with an additonal unplanned uncertainty, no matter how small.

Sykes has not considered risk weighting by older mothers (ie older than 34) as a factor in terminations in the aftermath of Chernobyl.

Such risk assessments and responses by families is actually a tragic and deliberate task rather than the hysterical one Sykes seems to think it is.

Many such older mothers may have sought qualified medical advice prior to deciding whether to proceed or to terminate their pregnancies. Sykes does not provide any analysis of such considerations. See Appendix A.

Sykes does not give the number of women who terminated pregancy on the basis of sound medical advice. Yet such women cannot be considered to be doing anything other than following doctors’ advice.

Perhaps the problem was that the Chernobyl reactor did in fact blow up. That fact caused widespread panic within the nuclear industry and its promotional organisations. Controlling public perceptions of the consequences of that event apparently remains a priority for nuclear authorities.

Appendix A:

J Epidemiol Community Health. 1995 April; 49(2): 164–170.

PMCID: PMC1060102

Copyright notice

Down’s syndrome: prevalence and ionising radiation in an area of north west England 1957-91.

J P Bound, B J Francis, and P W Harvey

Department of Paediatrics, Victoria Hospital, Blackpool.

This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE–To analyse the prevalence of Down’s syndrome in a specific, geographical area and seek to explain variations with particular reference to ionising radiation. DESIGN–Cases were ascertained by one paediatrician as part of a prospective survey of major congenital malformations in children born to residents of an area of Lancashire between 1957 and 1991. Temporal changes in prevalence rates were detected by a grid search technique using Poisson log linear models. These models were also used to determine the association between prevalence and ionising radiation from atomic fall out. SETTING–The Fylde district of Lancashire in the north west of England. PATIENTS–There were 167 cases, including five stillbirths and eight terminations, among 124,015 total births in a population which increased from about 250,000 to over 300,000 during the study period. MAIN RESULTS–There was significant increase in the prevalence of all cases conceived in 1963 and 1964, and a lesser peak in 1958 which did not quite reach statistical significance. There was no evidence that the increased prevalence in 1963-64 was a result of changes in the maternal age distribution in the population. Babies of mothers aged 35 years and over accounted for more of the variation, especially in 1958 when their increase was significant. There was a highly significant association between prevalence and radiation from fallout produced by atmospheric testing of atomic weapons. The 1963-64 peak coincided with the maximum estimated radiation dose. The lesser peak in 1958 also coincided with increased exposure to radiation from fallout, possibly enhanced by ground deposits after a fire at the Windscale reactor in October 1957. CONCLUSION–This study provides further support for low dose ionising radiation as one aetiological factor in Down’s syndrome.end quote.

IN short then, nuclear industry fear of abortion is not borne out by the data, and such industry fear is no reason for failing to evacuation children in particular from radiation affected areas of Japan.

2 Responses to “Blaming Fear in order to Use the Law to Suppress Information People Need to Know.”

  1. Blaming Fear to Use the Law to Suppress Information People Need to Know. | nuclearwindsatomiclies Says:

    […] on nuclearhistory.wordpress.com Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. This entry was posted in […]

  2. CaptD Says:

    You are RIGHT, this is just more Nuclear Baloney by those that will always need more funding and greater secrecy!
    Liked and Tweeted…

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: