Chernobyl Health Effects

by Wladimir Tchertkoff, 51 min, 2004

In 1995, the Director General of the World Health Organization (WHO), Dr. Hiroshi Nakajima, tried to inform on Chernobyl by organizing in Geneva an international conference with 700 experts and physicians. This tentative was blocked. The International Agency for Atomic Energy (IAAE) blocked the proceedings, which were never published. The truth on the consequences of Chernobyl would have been a disaster for the promotion of the atomic industry.

This film shows the discussions at the following WHO congress in Kiev in 2001, that lead to the fatal disregarding of internal radiation consequences throughout the nuclear world.

The full transcript can be found here:
http://vivretchernobyl.blogspot.com/2008/06/w-tchertkof-nuclear-controversies.html
 
Video: http://vimeo.com/33724891
 
.

About Donna Gilmore

California
This entry was posted in Chernobyl, Emergency Planning, Radiation Monitoring, Video and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Chernobyl Health Effects

  1. rsauerheber says:

    It is astonishing that the IAEA participant could not grasp that there is a difference between external radiation, which one can run away from and stop exposure form, vs. internal radiation from inhaled or ingested radioactive particles that irradiate for life and canot be avoided after ingternalization. Kids dying in large numbesf with storkes, heart attacks and interited defecfs, and all he ahs to say is, well the radiation comonent is not importnat, it’s someihtng else, butof cousr offefs to exlaint for what the ‘else’ is. Again, incredible.
    And the emissions that citizens bfeahe fro theSan Onofrfe stacks are internal radiation that accujales the longer one breahtes it.
    Stop; San Onofre from restarting because the gaseous radiation emissions cannot be trapped and their inhalation is not ‘of no consequence’.
    Look at what is now being found in children born 90 miles from Chernobyl still today. Why would one expect anything other than adversity from unnatural filthy radiation with vast hal-flives?

  2. rsauerheber says:

    The spelling was not correctable for the earlier submission. Here is a corrected version, sorry..
    It is astonishing that the IAEA participant could not grasp that there is a difference between external radiation, which one can run away from and stop exposure from, vs. internal radiation from inhaled or ingested radioactive particles that irradiate for life and cannot be avoided after internalization. Kids afflicted in large numbers with strokes, heart attacks and inherited defects, and all he has to say is, ‘ the radiation component is not important, it’s something else’, but offers to explanation for what the ‘else’ is. Again, incredible.
    And the emissions that citizens breathe from the San Onofre stacks are internal radiation that accumulates, depending on time of exposure and closeness to the stacks.
    Stop; San Onofre from restarting because the gaseous radiation emissions cannot be trapped and their inhalation is not ‘of no consequence’.
    150 curies of radioactive particles emitted from the stacks yearly since 2005 when reporting was provided. Why would one expect anything other than adversity from unnatural filthy radiation, many isotopes having vast half-lives?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s