Note: ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA), member, No to Nuclear Energy Forum (NNEF) made the following five submissions at the Convention on Learning from the Fukushima Disaster-Building An Anti-Nuclear Power Movement In India:
1) TWA supports All-India Coordination Committee of Anti-Nuclear Movements and seeks moratorium on all future nuclear power projects
2) Convention should recommend to the President of India to send back the flawed Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill to the Parliament in the aftermath of Fukushima Nuclear Disaster because at 8 serving secretaries of Government of India including Union Health Secretary has expressed their inability to deal with any nuclear emergency. Earthquakes and terrorism induced nuclear disaster is not covered by the Bill
3) IAEA and WHO updates on Fukushima Nuclear Disaster are not trustworthy
4)Convention should ask Government of India to seek scrapping of Agreement between the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)Approved by the Twelfth World Health Assembly on 28 May 1959 in resolution WHA12.40. This agreement compels WHO to withhold information about health hazards from nuclear radiation to protect nuclear commerce
5) Government of India should come out of a White Paper on Health Risks from existing nuclear plants in India
For Details: Check IAEA website or http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Agreement_between_the_World_Health_Organisation_and_the_International_Atomic_Energy_Agency
Article I – Co-operation and Consultation reads: "1. The International Atomic Energy Agency and the World Health Organization agree that, with a view to facilitating the effective attainment of the objectives set forth in their respective constitutional instruments, within the general framework established by the Charter of the United Nations, they will act in close co-operation with each other and will consult each other regularly in regard to matters of common interest.
2. In particular, and in accordance with the Constitution of the World Health Organization and the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency and its agreement with the United Nations together with the exchange of letters related thereto, and taking into account the respective co-ordinating responsibilities of both organizations, it is recognized by the World Health Organization that the International Atomic Energy Agency has the primary responsibility for encouraging, assisting and co-ordinating research on, and development and practical application of, atomic energy for peaceful uses throughout the world without prejudice to the right of the World Health Organization to concern itself http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifwith promoting, developing, assisting, and co-ordinating international health work, including research, in all its aspects.
3. Whenever either organization proposes to initiate a programme or activity on a subject in which the other organization has or may have a substantial interest, the first party shall consult the other with a view to adjusting the matter by mutual agreement."
Excerpts from Recommendations of the European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR), 2010 reproduced ad verbatim: In 1959 WHO was constrained into an agreement with IAEA which left the IAEA in charge of all research into the health effects of radiation. This agreement is still in force, and covers not only WHO but also FAO. At the 2001 Kiev Conference on the health effects of the Chernobyl accident, the Chair of WHO, Prof H Nakajima stated in a public interview: ‘in the research into the effects of radiation WHO is subservient to IAEA, health is subservient to the atom’. The mandate of IAEA is the development of peaceful uses of the atom, though currently it is more of an international policeman aimed at limiting the spread of nuclear weapons beyond the USA and other current nuclear states. The lack of research into the health effects of the Chernobyl accident has been blamed on the involvement of the IAEA and the emasculation of the WHO (Fernex 2001). The relevant agreement states:
. . . it is recognized by the WHO that the IAEA has the primary responsibility for encouraging, assisting and co-ordinating research on, and development and practical application of atomic energy for peaceful uses throughout the world... Whenever either organization proposes to initiate a programme or activity on a subject in which the other organization has or may have a substantial interest, the first party shall consult the other with a view to adjusting the matter by mutual agreement. (Article 1, §§ 2-3, ResWHA 12 - 40, May, 28th, 1959).
*Scientific Secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR), Professor Chris Busby, has released calculations of the cancer incidence to be expected in fallout areas of Japan. Using data from the International Atomic Energy Agency and official Japanese web sites he has used two methods to estimate the numbers of cancer cases. He compares these results with estimates derived from ICRP modelling.
The "Tondel" Method is based on a conservative study by Martin Tondel in northern Sweden. This examined cancer incidence during 10 years after Chernobyl. It differentiated the varying levels of land contamination and found that the disease increased by 11% for each 100 kiloBecquerels of fallout per square metre of land surface. Professor Busby has applied this factor to the zone up to 100 km from the reactors, where IAEA has reported, on average, 600kBq per sq.m radioactivity. In the 3.3 million population of this 100 km zone a 66% increase over and above the pre-accident rate is predicted in 10 years. This implies 103,329 extra cancers due to the Fukushima exposures between 2012 and 2021.
Applying the "Tondel" method to the ring between 100 km and 200 km from Fukushima, population 7.8 million but lower concentrations of fallout, 120,894 extra cancers are to be expected by 2021.
Assuming permanent residence and no evacuation the total predicted yield according to the "Tondel" method is 224,223 in ten years.
The second method is derived from weighting factors advised by the ECRR on the basis of the different ways in which different radionuclides behave in biological systems. This predicts 191,986 extra cancers in the 0 - 100km circle and 224,623 in the outer ring. Probably half of these will be expressed in the first ten years and the remainder between 10 and 50 years.
Assuming permanent residence and no evacuation the total predictedhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif yield according to the second method will be 416,619 of which 208,310 will appear in the first ten years. There is thus good agreement between the two methods.
The ICRP method predicts 6158 additional cancers in 50 years which, among the 2½ million cancer cases expected normally in that population over half a century, would be invisible and deniable.
The report with all methods, assumptions and data as a pdf.
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)
Convention on Learning from the Fukushima Disaster:
Building An Anti-Nuclear Power Movement In India
Saturday, 9th April, 2011, Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace (CNDP)
Speakers Hall, Constitution Club
V. P. House, Rafi Marg, New Delhi
Session I (10:00 am- 11:30 am) What Happened in Fukushima and Why
Speakers: Praful Bidwai (Columnist)
Surendra Gadekar (Physicist and Nuclear Affairs Researcher)
Soumya Dutta (Delhi Platform, Anti-Nuclear Activist)
Session II (12 noon 1:00 pm) Hazards of Nuclear Power Generation
Speakers: Suvrat Raju (Physicist and activist)
Hebbar Krishnamurthy (Journalist and activist from near Kaiga, Karnataka)
Achin Vanaik (Delhi University)
Lunch: (1:00 pm to 2:00 pm)
Session III (2:00 pm 3:00 pm)
Nuclear Power is Unsafe: From Uranium Mining to High-Level Waste
S. P. Udayakumar (Writer and Social Activist, Tamil Nadu)
V. T. Padmanabhan (Researcher on Health effects of Radiation, Kerala)
Dr. Shakeelur Rahman (Indian Doctors for Peace and Democracy, Patna)
Tea: (3:00 pm 03:30 pm)
Session IV (03:30 pm 06:30 pm)Building Resistance: Sharing Grassroots Experiences and Gearing Up for the Challenges Ahead *
Speakers:Fatehabad (Haryana) Dhiraj Gaba, Rajendra Sharma and Hansraj Pradhan
Nalgonda (Andhra Pradesh): V Panduranga Rao
Kovvada (Andhra Pradesh): J. V. Ratnam
Jaitapur (Maharashtra): Vaishali Patil and Dr Vivek Bhide
Mithi Virdi (Gujarat): Bharat Jambucha and Mukund Pandya
Haripur (West Bengal): Debashish Shyamal
Koodankulam (Tamil Naidu) S. P. Udayakumar
Hebbar Krishnamurthy (Journalist and activist from near Kaiga, Karnataka)
* This session will be chaired by Banwarilal Sharma and Anil Chaudhary and will attempt to set up a broad All-India Coordination Committee of Anti-Nuclear Movements.
Why South Asia needs a non-nuclear future - Risky nuclear energy can be replaced by safer and cheaper options in South Asia, writes Pervez Hoodbhoy.