Mysterious evacuation of Isfahan’s 1.5 million residents near Iran nuclear site
Evacuation of large Iranian city near nuclear site raises eyebrows, legalinsurrection, by Bryan Jacoutot , January 4, 2013 An edict was An edict was issued on Wednesday by Iranian authorities ordering Isfahan’s 1.5 million residents to leave the city because pollution in the area “has reached emergency levels.”
Skeptical of Iran’s explanation for the evacuation, some believe it to have been prompted by more than just your average pollution. (h/t 
Uncle Samuel)… “Mass evacuations suggest a far more serious problem,” Rubin explained. “There are two possibilities here: There is a radiation leak and the regime is lying or there is really bad pollution and no one believes the regime’s explanations.”….. http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/01/evacuation-of-large-iranian-city-near-nuclear-site-raises-eyebrows/
3 Comments »
Leave a Reply
SEARCH for particular names or topics at the SEARCH BOX at very bottom of this sidebar
- AUDIO About San Onofre Nuclear plant. Nuclear Regulatory Commission – NRC: Lapdog or Watchdog? http://www.fairewinds.org/content/nrc-lapdog-or-watchdog
- and this Japan’s nuclear safety record criticised by regulator http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/radio/program/connect-asia/japans-nuclear-safety-record-criticised-by-regulator/1132464
VIDEO: Japan to open nuclear plant http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2013/s3761126.ht
From Fukushima to New York: Continuing Dangers of Nuclear Power
Women and nuclear radiation – Mary Olson speaks
Mary Olson, from Nuclear Information and Resource Service, spoke at the New York symposium on Fukushima’s effects, March 2013.
Here are some highlights:
Mary Olson discussed the findings of the latest National Academy of Sciences Biological Effects of Ionising Radiation ( BEIR VII) , illustrated by this graph:
This lifespan graph shows increased cancer risk by exposure to a given amount of radiation, The pink line shows the risk for girls, the blue line for boys. Look at left hand part of the graph. It covers from zero to 5 years, and includes pre birth. We see a striking difference between the blue line and the pink line. The nuclear regulators assume that the risk shown here at age 40 – in the blue line- is the same for every individual regardless of age or gender. Yet, even at ages 40 – 60 the cancer risk from radiation is significantly more for women, than for men.
The cancer danger from ionising radiation depends on the type of radiation, the amount, and the duration of the exposure. But it also depends on who is exposed. Radiation exposure endangers some individuals more than others. In order, the most vulnerable are:
Primary germ cells/ Embryo
Foetus
Children
Elders
Some genotypes
Females – both juvenile and adult
All of the world’s scientific authorities agree that there is no safe dose of radiation. That includes the WHO, EPA, NRC, and national Academy of Science.
The standards for permissable levels of ionising radiation were originally written to cover doctors using radiation, then were intended for the purpose of sending military into radiological areas. Yet these standads, based on a 30 year old man, are applied to everyone.
Over 100 years, man’s activities have increased the background radiation by 25%
The ratio of cancer risks from radiation for males and females is 3 to 2. That is for every 2 males who get cancer from ionising radiation, there are 3 females. In reports from BEIR and the Lifespan study of Hiroshima survivors only external radiation is considered, not internal radiation. The risk for females is being underestimated in reports and in regulations about radiation
The World Health Organisation is the first big agency to acknowledge this difference in radiation risk between males and females, in its latest report. WHO is also saying that there is 70% higher risk of thyroid cancer for little girls exposed to radiation.
Studies are continuing, and animal studies, too, are showing this gender difference. We must move towards prevention and precaution as the basis of policy. Sadly, it is too late for a lot of prevention. We need to cahnge the priorities – to protect first, study second
And we need to get a whole lot more women motivated to get involved.
-
Archives
- May 2013 (296)
- April 2013 (383)
- March 2013 (392)
- February 2013 (424)
- January 2013 (502)
- December 2012 (460)
- November 2012 (520)
- October 2012 (522)
- September 2012 (492)
- August 2012 (546)
- July 2012 (362)
- June 2012 (312)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- people
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety and incidents
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina background info
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- general
- rare earths
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
Not sure how mysterious this is. While I do not agree with nuclear power in principle, what is blatantly obvious is that the Zionist Power Configuration is pointing the finger (middle finger) at Iran all the while ignoring Izrayhell’s nuke weapon capacity. The New York Times wrings its hands over a potential danger of Iran building a plant near a faultline but is mum about Fukushima or Japan’s nuclear debacle, all the while ignoring the US sailors who were exposed (as far as I know at this point). The double standard is obvious. Take a look at the 1967 attack by Israel on USS Liberty for a comparison.
At least those evil Iranians care enough about their citizens to evacuate them, unlike the Japanese government who are the good guys and our allies in the push for a One World Talmudically Run Order.
Mr. Wilcox, I have to agree the truth of the present danger and past exposure to radiation are being withheld. One very good reason however for a double standard concerning proliferation is the stated intent of the Ahmadinejad regime. Israel has not voiced any intent to eliminate any enemy completely, nor encourage an apocalyptic confrontation.
Regrettably, Mr Wilcox has anti semitic views, colouring his analysis of the Israel-Iran situation.
Equally regrettably, Ahmadinejad has voiced strongly anti-Israel views. However, the “stated intent of the Ahmadinejad regime” is very much open to interpretation. Ahmadinejad’s concept of “no place for the Jewish state in a future Middle East.” can be interpreted as a wish for an ISRAELI state, rather than a JEWISH state.
That’s a concept with which many, including some Jews, would agree. I for one, cannot understand why Israeli leaders insist on calling the place “A Jewish State”. They’ve got Muslims, and Christians and atheists , and who knows what else living there. Not everybody in Israel is Jewish. Why can’t Israel be a secular State, like plenty of other countries are – with recognition of all religions?
Meanwhile, Ahmadinejad and other Iranese leaders have repeatedly rejected nuclear weapons as inhuman. But the world watches as Israel’s government continues to threaten a nuclear war, and maintains the secrecy over its nuclear arsenal.