Sedici scienziati scrivono al segretario delle Nazioini Unite per Fukushima (nella foto nei giorni del disastro): la bonifica non sta andando affatto bene. Chiedono che la TepCo sia messa da parte. Ma non si fidano neanche dell’Aiea. Chiedono di intervenire sul governo giapponese.
La lettera non ha ricevuto ancora risposta, per quanto si sappia, per il resto confermano quanto ha appena scritto dal Giappone Pio D’Emila per Il Fatto Quotidiano.
Ecco la lettera dei 16 scienziati a Ban Ki-moon::
The Honorable Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General
The United Nations
c/o United National Non Government Liaison Service
Dear Secretary,
We write to you in urgency. The situation around the world at radioactively contaminated sites is not
good, and it is clear that the situation at the Fukushima Daiichi reactor site is progressively deteriorating,
not stabilizing. We write because of your personal interest in a sustainable future, but also because you
are the Executive for global organizations charged with protection of the public’s health, public safety and
the common good when it comes to radioactivity, radiation and nuclear technology. Together we call
upon you to act immediately to:
1. Prevail upon international organizations and Japan to replace TEPCO with a worldwide
engineering group to take charge of the Fukushima nuclear disaster.
2. Appoint a group of experts independent from either TEPCO or IAEA to advise the new
engineering group to establish a risk informed stabilization, containment and remediation plan for
Fukushima.
3. Create a well-funded oversight panel of local citizens and local elected officials to ensure
transparency and accountability of both of the above groups, as well as to facilitate well-informed
self-determination and further recovery of the impacted populations.
4. Call upon the Japanese government to admit financial costs in excess of $500B USD.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE92417Y20130308?irpc=932; And Gundersen, Arnold,
http://www.amazon.co.jp/福島第一原発-―真相と展望–集英社新書–
アーニー・ガンダーセン/dp/4087206289/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1378938739&sr
=8-1&keywords=gundersen
5. Call upon the Japanese government to assure adequate funding for decontamination of the
prefecture and site.
6. Call upon the Japanese government to cease the massive incineration program underway in Japan
which carts and burns rubble from the earthquake and tsunami, much of it toxic and some of it
radioactive, in municipal incinerators.
In addition to the action plan outlined above, we have broader concerns about radiological accounting and
regulation that United Nations agencies such as the World Health Organization (WHO), International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic
Radiation (UNSCEAR) have already engaged in. With regard to the Fukushima nuclear disaster other UN
Agencies, like the High Commission on Human Rights, have recognized how this accounting is not
serving humanity.
7. Any projection of total cancers or deaths from the Fukushima disaster is premature; and
any previous publications need to be viewed as “speculative” at best. It is clear now that the
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster is far from over, and that there can be no credible estimate of
total environmental or human health impacts because the radiological release has not ceased and the outcomes from exposing large populations to low doses over long time frames is unclear. A
final estimation of the radiological release from the Fukushima Daiichi site, of necessity lies in
the future; perhaps the distant future. Therefore, it remains of utmost importance to monitor
radioactivity and provide and increase protective measures to individuals and communities. When
future updates to such studies are done, it must be incumbent upon the researchers to revise
previous findings, not merely extend them, since it is known that key data from the past were not
included–such as the World Health Organization omitting the radiation exposures to members of
the public prior to being evacuated (the first 4 days of the disaster; Becker, Oda 2012:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/briefings/nuclear/2013/201
2_OdaBecker.pdf ). In addition Japanese physicians and scientists in Japan must be allowed and
supported to treat and report Fukushima related health consequences. Nuclear calamities to date
result in institutional pressure to under report and even distort patient health data and other
evidence (see, for example: The Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments, Final
Report http://archive.org/details/advisorycommitte00unit and Steven Wing et al. (1997). “A
reevaluation of cancer incidence near the Three Mile Island nuclear plant: the collision of
evidence and assumptions”. Environmental Health Perspectives (Brogan & Partners) 105 (1): 52–
57.) Such institutional pressure is now contributing to a downplaying of the true impact of the
Fukushima accident. Further, slavish reliance on past exposure assumptions is not advisable, not
only because these assumptions could have been subject to this type of pressure, but also because
every nuclear catastrophe/exposure is different; according to the UN Special Rapporteur on
Health, who references applicable research in his report: “Though experiences from the Three
Mile Island and Chernobyl accidents provide invaluable guidance, a narrow appreciation of the
accidents would not provide proper guidance.” [Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right of
everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health,
Anand Grover, Mission to Japan (15 – 26 November 2012) p 9]
8. A new formulation of the radiological risk coefficient assigned to radiation exposure is
needed, as well as a rigorous discussion of the option for more than one such coefficient.
Unfortunately, outdated assumptions are still being applied to what is happening to the people of
Japan, and others being exposed to radioactivity from Fukushima (and elsewhere). More accurate
understanding of the impact of ionizing radiation from both internalized radionuclides, and also
across the life-cycle, has not yet been incorporated into risk estimates.“Old” (inaccurate)
assumptions do not account for disproportionate harm to females in general, and young children
in particular (National Academy of Sciences, BEIR VII page 311, Tables 12D-1 and 12D-2
Lifetime Attributable Risk of Cancer Incidence and Mortality). Official estimates are beginning
to acknowledge this reality [World Health Organization, 2013, Health risk assessment from the
nuclear accident after the Great East Japan Earthquake… see page 54 section 5.2.2 Results of
lifetime risk calculations.
http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/fukushima_risk_assessment_2013/en/in
dex.html ; UNSCEAR press release
(http://www.unis.unvienna.org/unis/en/pressrels/2013/unisinf475.html) and video
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyLDNq3VBMU&feature=youtu.be)] however, this impact
is not yet incorporated in the regulation of radiation exposure worldwide. In addition, it is no
longer valid to omit the impact of internal exposure; risk estimates can no longer assume different
types of radiation outside the body have equivalent health impact once inside the body. (See:
Yablokov, 2013, “A Review and Critical Analysis of the “Effective Dose of Radiation” Concept”
Journal of Health & Pollution Vol. 3, No. 5 — pg 13–28.) Finally, it is not clear that exposures in
utero, during the initial phases, or over time will be included in the estimate of health risk or
consequences from Fukushima.
9. The global organizations charged with radiological analysis and regulation should be
generating a real base of monitoring data from Fukushima. Contamination levels in both
humans and the environment need to be woven into any health assessments. Reliance on
dose reconstruction alone is insufficient and collection of biological data will help researchers
observe, not just predict, health outcomes. It is incumbent upon these global organizations, given
the amount of information now known about disproportionate impacts from internal exposure;
and the disproportionate harm across the lifecycle (human and otherwise) to collect data and
calculate exposures directly, not from extrapolations mired in outdated and incorrect assumptions.
The UN Special Rapporteur supports collection of biological data to assess internal exposure:
“Refrain from restricting examination for internal exposure to whole-body counters and provide it
to all affected population [sic], including residents, evacuees, and to persons outside Fukushima
prefecture;” (Grover 2013, p 23)
10. In general, public health concerns need to drive public spending and health assessments;
principles of biology need to drive health research not scientific investigation for science’s
sake. People need proper medical treatment, not data-mining. Japanese People, especially
parents, should be told the truth about the medical effects of radiation exposure and have full and
open access to the tests that are being performed on them to detect health abnormalities, such as
thyroid cancer. All investigations into health abnormalities should include all cancers and other
diseases related to radiation exposure. The world must not re-commit the post-war crimes of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where the radiation victims known as Hibakusha, were only studied by
the West rather than helped to heal.
11. Where biological mechanisms or results are unclear, precaution should be used and not be
superseded by principles of physics alone because physics is only one of the forces acting to
impact health. Research finding negative health impacts of low doses should be accounted for,
not disregarded. The UN Special Rapporteur, after reviewing such research, recognizes this:
“…disregarding these findings diminishes the understanding of and increases vulnerability to
health effects of long-term exposure to low-dose radiation.” (Grover 2013, p 6) Unfortunately
these concerns extend far beyond Japan today, and per new projections (shown graphically here),
impacts are still expanding:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-326/7/3/034004/article?v_showaffiliations=yes
12. Those who are displaced from their homes due to radioactivity need to have good options
regarding how and where to live that are respectful of their culture and traditions. Consequently,
the Special Rapporteur’s report says any relief package should “(i)nclude cost of reconstruction
and restoration of lives” (Grover 2013 p 24) This starts by providing them information about
radiation in the context of other determinants to health, and this information should not be in the
control of parties with financial interests in the nuclear industry.
13. The Fukushima disaster has inflicted suffering from family, social and economic disruption and
loss of cultural traditions including food sources and family shrines. These losses are causing
visible impacts on the mental and physical health of children, parents, grandparents, and whole
communities. While it is radioactivity that will prevent their return to that life, there are many
dimensions in which harm has been done. Those responsible for constructing and operating the
reactors, and accumulating irradiated fuel, should be accountable to the people impacted. The
Special Rapporteur’s report says legal structures should “(e)nsure that TEPCO and other third
parties are held accountable for the nuclear accident and that their liability to pay compensation
or reconstruction efforts is not shifted to taxpayers.”
14. The Uranium that was in the reactors at Fukushima Daiichi originated from Aboriginal
Lands in Australia, where the traditional people opposed the uranium ever being removed
from the ground. It is time for the decision structure of our United Nations to honor and include
the wisdom of those who truly, if heard, could have prevented this disaster.
15. The Memorandum of Understanding between the World Health Organization and
International Atomic Energy Agency should be dissolved permanently. The charge of the
IAEA is to spread “peaceful” uses of nuclear technology. This official mandate prevents IAEA
from being independent assessors of health impacts of the same technology.
Secretary, it is your job to ensure that these reasonable concerns are addressed by action.
Thank you,
Helen Caldicott, M.D.
Founding President of Physicians for Social Responsibility
Alexey Yablokov, Dr. Biology
Chair, Programme for Nuclear and Radiation Safety
International Socio-Ecological Union, Moscow
Yuri Scherbak
Ambassador of Ukraine
Member of the World Academy of Art and Science
Author of “Chernobyl: a documentary story” and report on Fukushima
Dr. Sebastian Pflugbeil
President, German Society for Radiation Protection
Arnie Gundersen
Chief Engineer, Fairewinds
Burlington, Vermont
S. David Freeman
Consultant; Formerly Chairman Tennessee Valley Authority, and General Manager
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, New York Power Authority and
Sacramento Municipal Utility District
Steve Wing, Ph.D.
Department of Epidemiology
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Steven Starr
Senior Scientist, Physicians for Social Responsibility
Clinical Laboratory Science Program Director
University of Missouri
Dr. Natalia Mironova
President of the Movement for Nuclear Safety
Natalia Preobrazhenskaya, D. Ph Biology
Chair, The Save Children of Ukraine from Chernobyl Catastrophe Charitable Fund
Member, The Public Councill of the Ministry of Health, Ukraine, and Peace Ambassador
Benjamin K. Sovacool, Ph.D
Professor of Business and Social Sciences
Director of the Center for Energiteknologier Danmark
Associate Professor of Law, Institute for Energy and the Environment
Vermont Law School
Jeffrey J. Patterson, DO
Professor Emeritus, UW School of Medicine and Public Health
President, Physicians for Social Responsibility
Alfred C. Meyer, Board Member
Physicians for Social Responsibility
Friends of Chernobyl Centers U.S.
Dr. Alfred Koerblein
Senior Scientist, Umweltinstitut Muenchen, retired
Germany
Lynn Howard Ehrle, M. Ed,
Chair—International Science Oversight Board
Plymouth Michigan
Wolfgang Koehnlein
Retired, University of Muenster
Professor of Radiation Biology and Biophysics
D. M. Grodzinsky, DrSci.
Full Member and Councillor of the Presidium of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine,
Professor, and Head of the Department of biophysica and radiobiology of Institute of cell biology
and genetic engineering of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine and Ex-Head of the
National Commission on Radiological Protection of Ukraine
13 september 2013
