2006.07.29

Interview Downloads

Dave Stetzer and Dr. Magda Havas interviewed on the Joy Cardin show of Wisconsin Public Radio .

Dave Stetzer, industrial electrician, and Dr. Magda Havas, professor of environmental and resources studies, Trent University, Ontario, discussed the health effects of dirty electricity recently (July 28th, 2006) on the Joy Cardin show of Wisconsin Public Radio.

Download the interview here. If this does not take you directly to the archives of the Joy Cardin show, click on “archives.”

More interviews of Dave & Magda and other researchers and activists can be found here at the Mast Victims site.

Share This Post

2006.07.22

Accurate vs. Biased Chernobyl Information

This is the second blog message about the effects of the Chernobyl nuclear plant accident and the reports that were put forward for the twenty-year anniversary of the event.

This is the second blog message about the effects of the Chernobyl nuclear plant accident and the reports that were put forward for the twenty-year anniversary of the event.

The Chernobyl disaster set the nuclear power industry back considerably. It is understandable that the industry has worked hard to find “scientific experts” who are willing to be less than scientific in “reporting” the long term effects of the radiation exposure caused by that incident.

The IAEA, WHO and TORCH “reports” are this kind of report.

I have written before about the absurd statements of WHO’s Dr. Repacholi, who would have you believe that “the worst effects of the Chernobyl nuclear accident are mental health problems brought on by too much worry.” Below are quotes from A Low Level Radiation Campaign’s review of The Other Report on Chernobyl (TORCH).

Following that, please see information about a new book that authentically reviews the results of the Chernobyl disaster. Whether you read the book or not, just reading these two descriptions of the book will leave you more informed than reading all three of the “reports” referred to above. – And, I hope, much more concerned about further use of nuclear energy in any form.

~ ~ ~ ~


“6th April 2006 saw publication of The Other Report on Chernobyl, which was commissioned by a German Green Member of the European Parliament, Rebecca Harms.

s noted in LLRC’s review of the TORCH report, “Unfortunately, TORCH, a theoretical review of a small part of the evidence accrued in twenty years since the Chernobyl disaster, reveals consistent bias in that it ignores or under-reports crucial developments in radio-biology and the estimation of risks. Its principal finding — that between 30,000 and 60,000 fatal cancers will eventually result from the fallout exposure – is far out of line with the reality already observed.”

~ ~ ~ ~


The actual results of the Chernobyl accident are clearly outlined in Chernobyl, 20 Years On, a new book from the European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR) that shows what Chernobyl has done to human health, as opposed to the armchair theorising of the TORCH report.

From the ECRR flyer about the book:

“Research into these effects has been mainly published in Russian language journals; these valuable contributions have (perhaps purposely) rarely been translated into English. To do so would have been fatal to the nuclear industry which routinely discharges the same radioactive substances into the environment under license.

This new ECRR publication presents the true consequences of the Chernobyl accident. Eminent
scientists examine and review the data and show that, rather than fading away, the effects are only beginning to show themselves. The phenomenon of ‘genomic instability’, discovered in the laboratory in the UK in the 1990s, is seen now in its terrible effects on the animals, plants and human victims of the Chernobyl exposures. It is seen at doses that would have been, and still are, dismissed as vanishingly small by the current radiation
protection laws.

Here are data from the real world: the world of the Chernobyl laboratory. The lessons contained in these chapters should be borne in mind by policy makers who are, even now, discussing new investments in nuclear energy and ways in which historic and future radionuclide waste can be disposed of into the environment.”


From the Low Level Radiation Campaign review of the book:

“This is the rebuttal to all the official fudging and the failure of nuclear apologists to look at the real world — 250 heavily referenced pages summarising the real effects on human beings, animals and plants. This is the antidote to endless calculations of dose (whatever “dose” means) and the predictions of some hypothetical black-box model.

Chernobyl is the biggest ever test of the modelling of the International Commission on Radiological Protection and it’s clear that ICRP has failed the test, since public health in the affected areas is seriously affected and worsening. The diseases involved represent a far wider spectrum than the cancer and genetic defects that ICRP confines itself to. The Committee members conclude that mortality and morbidity will continue to grow as a result of continuing internal contamination and because many non-cancer illnesses are increasing as a result of genomic instability and damage to the immune system. All the way from increases in still birth and congenital malformation to early ageing and premature death, no stage of life is immune. And all this is happening at dose rates comparable with natural background, which according to the established model simply should not cause enough disease to be discernible against the background noise of spontaneous rates. So much for ICRP and the established view!

This is heart rending stuff when you recall that it represents the day-to-day experience of hundreds of thousands of real people. The Guardian headline of March 25th — UN accused of ignoring 500,000 Chernobyl deaths — was informed by this ECRR sub-Committee’s findings, but no-one will ever know how many people will suffer chronic ill-health and untimely death. This stands in stark contrast to the spurious precision of fatal cancer totals predicted by various agencies — 4000 by IAEA, 9000 by WHO, 60,000 by TORCH, all of them muddling with models and fiddling with numbers and never looking at the reality that daily faces the doctors and researchers in the field. Eventually the victims will number in the millions and probably already do.

…. in the context of genetic mutation in plants 20 or more generations removed from their irradiated ancestors one scientist ironically, laconically, observes that wheat doesn’t suffer from radiophobia. Nor from alcoholism nor despair, we think to add. Nor do the animals, yet mice 22 generations removed from being irradiated in the higher fallout areas display greater radio-sensitivity than those less exposed. So much for current ideas about genetic selection!

Against this background politicians plan to foist another round of nuclear power stations on us and our descendants, another generation of nuclear weapons, perpetuation of Uranium armour-piercing weaponry, and relaxed standards for the incineration and dustbin disposal of radioactive waste.”


To order a copy of the book, click here.


Share This Post

2006.07.14

Electrical Sensitivity Questionnaire

The following message comes from Sarah Dacre of the UK.

Be aware that if you state that you are electrically sensitive, in the US you will have just 3 years from that time in which to bring any legal suit against the responsible parties. So you may wish to remain anonymous.

Although, to date a lawyer has not been found who is willing to take on the utilities in a human injury case. Let us know if you hear of one.


ELECTRO SENSITIVITY – CASE STUDIES 20 June 2006

I have been asked on several occasions by journalists and possible financial backers of the HESE-UK EMF conference for a compilation of electro sensitive case studies to raise awareness and to illustrate how ES afflicts a wide range of people with its wide ranging symptoms. ….

Please feel free to circulate to your groups and ask any interested parties to return completed copies headed up ‘ES questionnaire’ back to me directly:
sarahdacre@aol.com

Many thanks to you all.

Sarah Dacre

************


Electrical Sensitivity Questionnaire


We have compiled the following outline questions which may assist you when compiling your history:

Name & location & occupation: (for the avoidance of duplication. When we compile these details into the document we will code these details, such as F43lon, for female aged 43 and living in London)?

How long have you known you are ES? How did you find this out?

Now that you know about ES how long have you been experiencing ES symptoms?

ENVIRONMENT

Have you moved house recently and if so, were you becoming ES at an earlier address and if so what were the triggers?

Does anyone else in your household suffer from similar symptoms?

Do your colleagues at work have similar symptoms?

HEALTH

What is your current state of health and how stable is this?

Please list your symptoms, how often do these occur and what are your worst symptoms?

How helpful has your own doctor been and have you been referred by your GP for tests for your ES symptoms?

Please list any treatments either conventional or complimentary that you have tried and which have or has helped you.

LIFESTYLE

How has your life changed since becoming ES, e.g. changes to your career and earning potential, lifestyle, diet, friends, family, travel?

What are you now regularly unable to do?

What have you done to adapt your life e. g bought corded home phone, stopped using a mobile/computer/microwave oven, other?

Have you shielded your home and or workplace? If so what shielding materials did you use.

Have you learnt anything about being ES that you could share with other sufferers?

Please mention any useful sources of information on ES, web sites, hand outs, books which we could recommend to other ES.

Would you be prepared to have your case notes included anonymously into a document, which will be used to raise awareness about electro sensitivity?

Please write any additional comments on a separate sheet.

Please sign and date this form. [I have no idea how Sarah expects folks to e-mail this to her. I suggest you just add any additonal comments at the end of the questionnaire and e-mail it to her.]

MANY THANKS for your time and we look forward to having more ES news for you soon.

Please send the filled-in questionaire directly to Sarah Dacre: sarahdacre@aol.com

Share This Post