Excerpts from The Mainichi:
Before her retirement in 2000 from the University of Bremen in Germany, Inge Schmitz-Feuerhake had been an experimental physicist who some 30 years ago had analyzed data on nuclear bomb survivors and warned of the dangers of low-level and internal exposure to radiation. Since 2004, she has been the chair of the European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR), a Belgium-based civic organization founded in 1997 independent of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), and various governments. In 2003 and 2010, the ECRR released recommendations on radiation risk assessment methods.
..
Mainichi: Some people claim that the stress from worrying about radiation is a much bigger health hazard than radiation itself, while others express concern over the effect that extreme reactions can have on economic activity. What are your thoughts on that?
Schmitz-Feuerhake: The argument that panic is a bigger health hazard than radiation is one that's used all the time. The same argument was used in Germany after the Chernobyl accident, but it's one that lacks a scientific basis.
Isn't people's health, including that of unborn children, more important than economic activity? Of course, it's not good to panic without any information. We must measure radiation levels in our environment and food, and get a grasp on our individual levels of exposure. Based on that, we must try to learn what the information means.
Mainichi: How would you evaluate the way the Japanese government has handled the crisis?
Schmitz-Feuerhake: I praise the government for designating the area within a 20-kilometer radius from the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant as a no-entry zone. That it set annual radiation levels of 20 millisieverts as a standard for evacuation is understandable for a government that was unprepared for a large-scale nuclear disaster. But it's being grossly irresponsible by reactivating nuclear reactors and trying to shift the public's attention towards "recovery."
With the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and past atmospheric nuclear tests, the total volume of radioactive material released was clear. In the case of the Fukushima crisis, however, we still don't know how much radioactive material has been released. Nuclear fuel that far exceeds the nuclear bombs in both quality and quantity remain in very vulnerable conditions, and it's unclear whether it will be possible to retrieve them safely in the future. While the amount of radioactive material being released may be far less than immediately after the disaster began, the reactors still continue to release these materials. The government needs to recognize the gravity of this situation.
It might help if other governments(Any Other Government) step up and say something.. Anything.. But we all know that won't happen, either. Nobody has any suggestions, any directives, or any volunteers for cleanup, for that matter. The global non-reaction to this ongoing crisis remains the most stunning aspect of the last 17 months. It's quiet; Too quiet. Deadly quiet, to be exact..
Before her retirement in 2000 from the University of Bremen in Germany, Inge Schmitz-Feuerhake had been an experimental physicist who some 30 years ago had analyzed data on nuclear bomb survivors and warned of the dangers of low-level and internal exposure to radiation. Since 2004, she has been the chair of the European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR), a Belgium-based civic organization founded in 1997 independent of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), and various governments. In 2003 and 2010, the ECRR released recommendations on radiation risk assessment methods.
..
Mainichi: Some people claim that the stress from worrying about radiation is a much bigger health hazard than radiation itself, while others express concern over the effect that extreme reactions can have on economic activity. What are your thoughts on that?
Schmitz-Feuerhake: The argument that panic is a bigger health hazard than radiation is one that's used all the time. The same argument was used in Germany after the Chernobyl accident, but it's one that lacks a scientific basis.
Isn't people's health, including that of unborn children, more important than economic activity? Of course, it's not good to panic without any information. We must measure radiation levels in our environment and food, and get a grasp on our individual levels of exposure. Based on that, we must try to learn what the information means.
Mainichi: How would you evaluate the way the Japanese government has handled the crisis?
Schmitz-Feuerhake: I praise the government for designating the area within a 20-kilometer radius from the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant as a no-entry zone. That it set annual radiation levels of 20 millisieverts as a standard for evacuation is understandable for a government that was unprepared for a large-scale nuclear disaster. But it's being grossly irresponsible by reactivating nuclear reactors and trying to shift the public's attention towards "recovery."
With the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and past atmospheric nuclear tests, the total volume of radioactive material released was clear. In the case of the Fukushima crisis, however, we still don't know how much radioactive material has been released. Nuclear fuel that far exceeds the nuclear bombs in both quality and quantity remain in very vulnerable conditions, and it's unclear whether it will be possible to retrieve them safely in the future. While the amount of radioactive material being released may be far less than immediately after the disaster began, the reactors still continue to release these materials. The government needs to recognize the gravity of this situation.
It might help if other governments(Any Other Government) step up and say something.. Anything.. But we all know that won't happen, either. Nobody has any suggestions, any directives, or any volunteers for cleanup, for that matter. The global non-reaction to this ongoing crisis remains the most stunning aspect of the last 17 months. It's quiet; Too quiet. Deadly quiet, to be exact..
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment