World Health Organization beholden to nuclear interests “Like having Dracula guard the blood bank"

[stockholmer]

The World Health Organization is in the news today as it weighs in on Fukushima.

Here’s some background on the WHO and affiliated organizations:

Former head of WHO admits they answer to IAEA (VIDEO)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8746168177815160826&hl=en#


2:30 – Agreement between IAEA and WHO – WHO cannot research health effects of radiation or effects of nuclear accidents if IAEA does not agree
7:00 – Former head of WHO admits they answer to IAEA
14:00 – Chernobyl had no effect -UN
15:45 – Scientist refutes UN
27:30 – 200km from Chernobyl, 10,000 becquerels measured inside child
30:20 – According to Professor Yury Bandazhevsky (former director of the Medical Institute in Gomel), Over 50 Bq/kg of body weight lead to irreversible lesions in vital organs
30:50 – *MUST SEE* Refutes internal radiation! -Norman Gentner, Secretary of UN UNSCEAR (United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation), ~2001 (See Gentner speak at 13:55 — No increase in leukemia, even among liquidators)
34:15 – *MUST SEE* Internal or external it makes no difference


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


World Health Organization "beholden" to IAEA since 1959 -- Can't release a report without their agreement -- "Like having Dracula guard the blood bank" (VIDEO)

At 3:30 in

----------------------------------------------------------------

IAEA Exposed on Japan TV

Sieben Jahre nach Tschernobyl: japanische TV-Serie von 1993 (deutsche, english subs)

Three years ago, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)’s research mission visited the contaminated areas. Dr. Shigematsu [Japanese], chairman of the mission, announced “there are no health damages among the residents.” [...]

Mr. Hirokawa, after looking at your video, I wonder what it was that IAEA announced there were no health damages among the residents. [...]

The local people believed a fair research would be done, because IAEA is an agency of the United Nations and a medical scientist from Hiroshima would lead the research. So, they were astounded that the mission had announced the areas were safe.

But, didn’t the mission actually see the situation there?

Well, according to the local doctors, the mission members didn’t enter the heavily-contaminated areas.

Besides, they brought their food, sourced from far away, and didn’t eat anything local.

Still, they declared it’s safe. No wonder the local people are infuriated.

If the mission found local food too dangerous to eat, they should have said it’s dangerous.

The very credibility of the International Atomic Energy Agency is seriously challenged, isn’t it?

Yes. I hear that when the nuclear industry of the former USSR started to do business with the nuclear industry of the US, they probably agreed that downplaying the damages by the accident would be beneficial for both sides.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bloomberg exposes IAEA: Safety division is a “marketing channel” for nuclear technology, reveals secret US docs

http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/344-208/8859-un-atomic-agency-money-goes-to-terror-fight-not-nuclear-safety

The International Atomic Energy Agency classifies safety as one of its top three priorities, yet is spending 8.9 percent [of budget...] on making plants secure from accidents

snip

Its mission statement encapsulates the same conflict as Japan’s failed nuclear-safety regime: playing the role of both promoter and regulator of atomic power, according to scientists, diplomats and analysts interviewed by Bloomberg News.

snip

Johannis Noeggerath, president of Switzerland’s Society of Nuclear Professionals and safety director for the country’s Leibstadt reactor

IAEA “accepted for years the overlap between regulation and industry in Japan”
“They have a safety culture problem”

Wikileaks

The agency’s safety division garnered little respect in U.S. diplomatic cables that described the department as a marketing channel for countries seeking to sell atomic technology
IAEA vs. Convention on Nuclear Safety

The IAEA’s own mission to promote atomic power may also contradict the Convention on Nuclear Safety.

“Each contracting party shall take the appropriate steps to ensure an effective separation between the functions of the regulatory body and those of any other body or organization concerned with the promotion or utilization of nuclear energy,” says article 8.2 of the convention.

snip

Bloomberg adds this interesting piece of previously unknown information: “One IAEA plant inspector fell into a Czech nuclear-fuel cooling pond in 2007, according to four officials who declined to be identified. The agency won’t make public a full list of incidents involving its own staff.”