http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/nuclear-reaction/27-years-since-chernobyl-and-what-have-we-lea/blog/44963/
Blogpost by Justin McKeating - April 26, 2013 at 14:26
April 26th marks the 27th anniversary of the devastating accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine.
The radiation released into the atmosphere by the exploding nuclear reactor found its way across Ukraine, Belarus, Russia and large parts of Europe.
The contamination still lingers in many places - the disaster has a legacy that continues even now.
So today, we remember those who died in the Chernobyl accident and those who must still live with the terrible after effects of the radioactive contamination that still blights their lives.
Chernobyl should have been the world’s last nuclear accident. Enough of us shouted “NO MORE CHERNOBYLS!” But those with the money and the power and that strange ability to put profits before the protection of people carried on regardless.
And sure enough, in March 2011, a quarter of a century after the horror of the Chernobyl disaster, we watched on as Japan suffered earthquake, tsunami, and then nuclear disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.
The warnings of Chernobyl had not been heeded. The warnings that the Fukushima nuclear reactors were vulnerable were not heeded. Once again it was the people, not the nuclear industry that paid the price.
The comparisons between Chernobyl and Fukushima are stark. Thousands upon thousands of people displaced from their homes to face uncertain futures. Melted reactors too dangerous for humans to approach for decades. Homes, schools, soil, food and water contaminated. Uncertainty about the long-term effects of the radiation that has spewed into the environment. Fear and anxiety that will creep across generations.
So today we remember both Chernobyl and Fukushima. There should never have been another Chernobyl. There should never be another Fukushima. Let us shout “NO MORE CHERNOBYLS AND FUKUSHIMAS” until we are heard.
It’s time we all stopped paying the price for nuclear power’s mistakes.
You can help by signing our petition to make the big, rich companies that supply nuclear reactors part of the responsibly for nuclear disasters that now rests with nuclear operators.
Companies like GE, Hitachi and Toshiba that supplied the flawed reactors at Fukushima should pay some of the costs. Right now they don’t have to. Making them more responsible for the costs of a nuclear disaster would at least help reduce some of the mistakes that lead to accidents.
It’s time to make the entire nuclear industry face its moral and financial responsibilities. It’s time to think of people not profits.
(Image: October 2005, Chernobyl. Remains of a fairground in the town of Pripyat, left abandoned after the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. 10/24/2005 ©Greenpeace/Steve Morgan)
9 Comments
Add comment
(Unregistered) Zamm_ says:
(Unregistered) Beppe says:
70% of Japan population wants to get out of nuclear energy; this is unrelated to any hysterical campaign as the anti-nuclear movement in Japan is extr...
(Unregistered) Zamm_ says:
@Beppe: In case you didn't notice, you are so "well-behaved" that you granted an overwhelming majority to the main pro-nuclear party in ...
Jan Haverkamp - Greenpeace says:
@Zamm_ Welcome back :-) And still not able to critically assess scientific papers, as I see. Nor grey papers, for that matter. Greenpeace used the NEEDS study to illustrate the killing power of coal - not to confirm the biased calculations for nuclear.
A colleague of mine, Jan Beranek, reacted thus on the Kharecha paper:
----
Some obvious things:
- He assumes that if we did not have nuclear, its energy would be substituted by 95 % with coal and 5 % by gas. There is absolutely no justification for this.
- He assumes nuclear killed less than 5,000 people since 1971, and comments that even that is probably exaggeration of 2 orders of magnitude (i.e. implying that nuclear has only about 50 victims in past 40 years). This is in contrast with 16,000 (WHO) or 60,000 (EU) or 90,000 (Greenpeace) or even more deaths that can be attributed to Chernobyl, not talking about other accidents as well as routine radioactive emissions (e.g. increased leukemias in vicinity of normally operating nuclear reactors which has been observed in
Germany, UK, US and elsewhere).
It's just a data selective, biased, activist like approach
twisting things to make your point. I sincerely hope he handles climate science in very different and more rigorous way.
So if asked, i simply say that the paper is obviously based on wrong assumptions of a false dilemma coal vs nuclear and ignores EE and RE potential; and ignores peer reviewed reports that suggest nuclear power has tens of thousands of victims. Greenpeace does not see the dilemma to be between fatal nuclear and fatal coal, but between dirty and risky technologies of coal and nuclear, and efficiency and renewables solutions that are affordable and can be upscaled to replace all dirty energy in few decades.
-----
I couldn't have said it better :-)
By the way - about the myth you are trying to spread that Germany is using more coal because of its nuclear phase-out we discussed earlier already. Maybe you should address RWE, Vattenfall, E.On and EnBW on the point of them trying to press as much out of their old coal stock and selling that off abroad before they need to close them down in 2016. This is not replacement of nuclear, this is big coal using the market to squeeze out some more profit and not caring a damn about the climate. The lost nuclear capacity has - in TWh - already been replaced by EE and RE in Germany.
Concerning Japan... I think it is fair to blame the nuclear industry for the extra fossil use there. When running nuclear, you need to take into account how you are going to replace shut-down capacity in case of a large accident somewhere on this planet. If the Japanese electricity giants had not relied so much on nuclear and failed to take EE and RE seriously, Japan would not have had to revert to short-term increases of fossil use after a major incident. Implicitly blaming Greenpeace for not having phased out nuclear in Japan before Fukushima is a bit bland.
I do support your point that it is justified to add the extra bill, including external costs, for the increased fossil fuel use in Japan to the liabilities of the Fukushima accident. Again a bill paid by the people and not the responsible corporate entities like TEPCO, GE, Hitachi and Toshiba...
Paraphrasing MacKay: "I am not trying to be anti-nuclear. I'm just pro-arithmetic and evidence."
A colleague of mine, Jan Beranek, reacted thus on the Kharecha paper:
----
Some obvious things:
- He assumes that if we did not have nuclear, its energy would be substituted by 95 % with coal and 5 % by gas. There is absolutely no justification for this.
- He assumes nuclear killed less than 5,000 people since 1971, and comments that even that is probably exaggeration of 2 orders of magnitude (i.e. implying that nuclear has only about 50 victims in past 40 years). This is in contrast with 16,000 (WHO) or 60,000 (EU) or 90,000 (Greenpeace) or even more deaths that can be attributed to Chernobyl, not talking about other accidents as well as routine radioactive emissions (e.g. increased leukemias in vicinity of normally operating nuclear reactors which has been observed in
Germany, UK, US and elsewhere).
It's just a data selective, biased, activist like approach
twisting things to make your point. I sincerely hope he handles climate science in very different and more rigorous way.
So if asked, i simply say that the paper is obviously based on wrong assumptions of a false dilemma coal vs nuclear and ignores EE and RE potential; and ignores peer reviewed reports that suggest nuclear power has tens of thousands of victims. Greenpeace does not see the dilemma to be between fatal nuclear and fatal coal, but between dirty and risky technologies of coal and nuclear, and efficiency and renewables solutions that are affordable and can be upscaled to replace all dirty energy in few decades.
-----
I couldn't have said it better :-)
By the way - about the myth you are trying to spread that Germany is using more coal because of its nuclear phase-out we discussed earlier already. Maybe you should address RWE, Vattenfall, E.On and EnBW on the point of them trying to press as much out of their old coal stock and selling that off abroad before they need to close them down in 2016. This is not replacement of nuclear, this is big coal using the market to squeeze out some more profit and not caring a damn about the climate. The lost nuclear capacity has - in TWh - already been replaced by EE and RE in Germany.
Concerning Japan... I think it is fair to blame the nuclear industry for the extra fossil use there. When running nuclear, you need to take into account how you are going to replace shut-down capacity in case of a large accident somewhere on this planet. If the Japanese electricity giants had not relied so much on nuclear and failed to take EE and RE seriously, Japan would not have had to revert to short-term increases of fossil use after a major incident. Implicitly blaming Greenpeace for not having phased out nuclear in Japan before Fukushima is a bit bland.
I do support your point that it is justified to add the extra bill, including external costs, for the increased fossil fuel use in Japan to the liabilities of the Fukushima accident. Again a bill paid by the people and not the responsible corporate entities like TEPCO, GE, Hitachi and Toshiba...
Paraphrasing MacKay: "I am not trying to be anti-nuclear. I'm just pro-arithmetic and evidence."
Posted April 29, 2013 at 12:27 Flag abuse
(Unregistered) Zamm_ says:
@JH: Kharecha & Hansen, being scientists and not ideologues, frankly discuss their assumptions in the paper, including the (evidently large) uncer...
Jan Haverkamp - Greenpeace says:
@Zamm_ Always happy with a good bit of dialogue :-)
Conc. the Kharecha paper. The historical data are a "what if" game with indicated rough brush data. Without nuclear power in the game, the energy development would have been different than what we see today. I don't think it makes much sense to come with statements like in that paper, though I am happy to see sensible estimates of the harm done by coal. Pity he was not as rigorous for nuclear. I continue to be disgusted by the harm that the Paul Scherrer Institute is doing with the ExternE and NEEDS assessments and the blind following those still have, including you. Above all because I cannot close my eyes for results in the field, especially concerning Chernobyl.
I continue to find it strange you wobble over the findings of studies and play down the results - especially when the conclusion in the second article you mentioned is "Exposure to low doses and to low dose-rates of radiation from post-Chornobyl cleanup work was associated with a significant increase in risk of leukemia".
The authors of the first article make clear they were members of the Chernobyl Forum - the Forum we criticised strongly with our Chernobyl health effect report. This newer study of them is - again according to them - based on the information in international peer reviewed literature, i.e. still excluding a lot of peer reviewed material from the Russian language area that we included in our study - one of the fundamental critiques we had in 2005. This also becomes clear from their literature list, which, by the way, refers to a large amount of studies from other people from the Chernobyl Forum. Seven years later, these two authors have not drawn a central lesson from the fundamental international critique on the work of the Forum.
Concerning the KiKK study - this study has never claimed to give a causal relationship, but did find a statistical significant relation between distance to NPPs and childhood leukemia cases. There are proposal hypotheses around for an explanation, but not yet the data-sets to have them tested, as far as I have understood. A conclusion that therefore "nothing is the matter" is wrong. COMAREs conclusion is at least unscientific. If you find a relationship and your hypothesis does not cover that, it does not mean that the measured facts are wrong... You basically say "it could not have happened and therefore it didn't happen". Reality is that it did happen, but we do not have a causal explanation for it yet.
What you are basically doing is trying to wind down the available material to "radiation has no effect", which even the (not always uncontroversial) studies you mention strongly deny. Does that mean you want to imply that people should not bother about their radiation exposure after a nuclear accident? That they should not be evacuated?
I do not really care what Green politicians say. I am not linked to the Greens, nor is Greenpeace. Greenpeace is independent from any political party or other political interest. If you want to fight with Green - or any other - politicians because they exaggerate, please do so. They may start also listening to us better.
But I do not accept your attempts - nor those of Kharecha - to deny the health effects of radiation and of nuclear power. Especially not if those attempts are based on debatable or even simply bad science. Especially not because those that did suffer under the effects of Chernobyl and Fukushima - as well as those that suffered from dozens of other radiation incidents (and larger accidents like Mayak and Windscale, not to forget) deserve attention. As do the victims of the use of coal power.
The final question remains: should we continue to take these risks of nuclear and coal if alternatives exist? The alternatives do exist, and the answer is "no".
Conc. the Kharecha paper. The historical data are a "what if" game with indicated rough brush data. Without nuclear power in the game, the energy development would have been different than what we see today. I don't think it makes much sense to come with statements like in that paper, though I am happy to see sensible estimates of the harm done by coal. Pity he was not as rigorous for nuclear. I continue to be disgusted by the harm that the Paul Scherrer Institute is doing with the ExternE and NEEDS assessments and the blind following those still have, including you. Above all because I cannot close my eyes for results in the field, especially concerning Chernobyl.
I continue to find it strange you wobble over the findings of studies and play down the results - especially when the conclusion in the second article you mentioned is "Exposure to low doses and to low dose-rates of radiation from post-Chornobyl cleanup work was associated with a significant increase in risk of leukemia".
The authors of the first article make clear they were members of the Chernobyl Forum - the Forum we criticised strongly with our Chernobyl health effect report. This newer study of them is - again according to them - based on the information in international peer reviewed literature, i.e. still excluding a lot of peer reviewed material from the Russian language area that we included in our study - one of the fundamental critiques we had in 2005. This also becomes clear from their literature list, which, by the way, refers to a large amount of studies from other people from the Chernobyl Forum. Seven years later, these two authors have not drawn a central lesson from the fundamental international critique on the work of the Forum.
Concerning the KiKK study - this study has never claimed to give a causal relationship, but did find a statistical significant relation between distance to NPPs and childhood leukemia cases. There are proposal hypotheses around for an explanation, but not yet the data-sets to have them tested, as far as I have understood. A conclusion that therefore "nothing is the matter" is wrong. COMAREs conclusion is at least unscientific. If you find a relationship and your hypothesis does not cover that, it does not mean that the measured facts are wrong... You basically say "it could not have happened and therefore it didn't happen". Reality is that it did happen, but we do not have a causal explanation for it yet.
What you are basically doing is trying to wind down the available material to "radiation has no effect", which even the (not always uncontroversial) studies you mention strongly deny. Does that mean you want to imply that people should not bother about their radiation exposure after a nuclear accident? That they should not be evacuated?
I do not really care what Green politicians say. I am not linked to the Greens, nor is Greenpeace. Greenpeace is independent from any political party or other political interest. If you want to fight with Green - or any other - politicians because they exaggerate, please do so. They may start also listening to us better.
But I do not accept your attempts - nor those of Kharecha - to deny the health effects of radiation and of nuclear power. Especially not if those attempts are based on debatable or even simply bad science. Especially not because those that did suffer under the effects of Chernobyl and Fukushima - as well as those that suffered from dozens of other radiation incidents (and larger accidents like Mayak and Windscale, not to forget) deserve attention. As do the victims of the use of coal power.
The final question remains: should we continue to take these risks of nuclear and coal if alternatives exist? The alternatives do exist, and the answer is "no".
Posted April 30, 2013 at 15:40 Flag abuse
(Unregistered) Beppe says:
Zamm,
in case you did not notice the last elections were not a referendum on nuclear power, they were general elections.
In ...
in case you did not notice the last elections were not a referendum on nuclear power, they were general elections.
In ...
(Unregistered) Beppe says:
Zamm,
one more thing: the extra cost of fossil fuel could be offset in large part by selling the nuclear fuel that has not been used in the same...
one more thing: the extra cost of fossil fuel could be offset in large part by selling the nuclear fuel that has not been used in the same...
(Unregistered) Zamm_ says:
@JH. We can test the "Without nuclear power in the game" hypothesis simply by looking at electricity generation in comparable countries: ava...
Jan Haverkamp - Greenpeace says:
@Zamm_ Thank you again for some interesting points.
You point out indeed the biggest weakness of Kharecha's paper: current energy mixes were developed after WWII on the 20st century paradigm of the centralised state-owned utility model and base-load / peak-load planning in a time when most RE sources were not technically developed as far as they are now and when climate change did not play any role in policies. Especially because we are seeing a fundamental shift in paradigm - away from centrally planned base-load / peak-load to liberalised markets with variable load planning. And countries like Denmark, Germany and Portugal show that it can be done.
The use of the acronym PSI gives you away as someone from the nuclear village or the EC. I am still curious who is hiding behind the Zamm_ pseudonym.
I stand corrected on the team behind ExternE - though that does not take away my conclusion that the team is heavily nuclear village influenced.
Excluding Chernobyl on the basis that the technology is different than LWRs is like excluding the Banqiao dam from hydro because its technique was different than in other dams (type of concrete and steel used, magnitude, water management, etc.). The problem with Chernobyl was not the other technique alone - it was a complex of human and technical failure from which we have seen many aspects repeated in Fukushima - and unfortunately I see them repeated in many NPPs in Europe day in day out. CANDUs can continue to run with positive void factors, testing and inspection runs are cut short to meet political deadlines like with Temelin 1, etc.. By the way, also many European NPPs still have no vented filtering (see the EU stress tests). The step to exclude Chernobyl cannot be statistically argued and proper analysis would have shown figures at least with and without it.
Interesting that you mention two studies as "questionable" that in my eyes are not at all. I have been following the Krümmel / Geesthacht leukemia cluster quite closely and can only conclude that the statistics are right. To dismiss the search for answers on the basis of a TV documentary in what is a very complex case, including not only the Krümmel NPP, but also the GKSS research center, is weak. The letter to the editor on the work of Scherb and Voigt shows you what good scientific debate looks like - it does, by the way, not criticise the statistics, it debates how to deal with statistics. I think that is a healthy debate, but want to stress that statistics are part of the discussion. Certainly in complex issues as potential health effects of low radiation exposure.
Happy you at least do not deny the existence of the leukemia clusters.
Although I am extremely unhappy with the term ALARA and especially the constant abuse of the term "reasonable" in that as a means to cut costs on the ground, or cut discussions that might lead to necessary cost increases, I agree that discussions about enery policy should be based on comparative evidence. That is exactly what we do with the Energy [R]evolution scenario, and what was done in Germany in the late 1990s on the basis of scenario studies for the German Bundestag. It is what is not happening in most of the EU and the world, however, where industry / political party wish lists tend to set the options put forward in energy strategies without any proper comparison. I am struggling with that on a daily basis currently in Poland, the Czech Republic, Romania and Hungary.
Concerning radon - come on! This is an issue that is known for such a long time that it is solid part of building prescriptions. And to be taken seriously. But the answer on that is simple: proper and sufficient ventilation. And that is something that does not interfere with insulation or the implementation of energy-neutral or energy-plus houses and buildings. The large dose contribution is not because of energy efficient housing, it is because of insufficient ventilation - and that happens both in old stock, like in the former GDR where I was involved in discussion on the effects of the Wismut uranium mining activities, and in new. To use that as an argument to obfuscate the discussion on potential health risks of nuclear power is bland.
The need to close coal power plants in 2016? Yes - why would you believe me. You rather seem to believe those who want to defend the nuclear industry cost what may. Well, maybe DIRECTIVE 2010/75/EU on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) is sufficient.
Hope this helps in understanding.
Maybe it is time to start doubting the backgrounds of those who feed you with the information you are passing. I certainly do that.
greetings,
Jan Haverkamp
You point out indeed the biggest weakness of Kharecha's paper: current energy mixes were developed after WWII on the 20st century paradigm of the centralised state-owned utility model and base-load / peak-load planning in a time when most RE sources were not technically developed as far as they are now and when climate change did not play any role in policies. Especially because we are seeing a fundamental shift in paradigm - away from centrally planned base-load / peak-load to liberalised markets with variable load planning. And countries like Denmark, Germany and Portugal show that it can be done.
The use of the acronym PSI gives you away as someone from the nuclear village or the EC. I am still curious who is hiding behind the Zamm_ pseudonym.
I stand corrected on the team behind ExternE - though that does not take away my conclusion that the team is heavily nuclear village influenced.
Excluding Chernobyl on the basis that the technology is different than LWRs is like excluding the Banqiao dam from hydro because its technique was different than in other dams (type of concrete and steel used, magnitude, water management, etc.). The problem with Chernobyl was not the other technique alone - it was a complex of human and technical failure from which we have seen many aspects repeated in Fukushima - and unfortunately I see them repeated in many NPPs in Europe day in day out. CANDUs can continue to run with positive void factors, testing and inspection runs are cut short to meet political deadlines like with Temelin 1, etc.. By the way, also many European NPPs still have no vented filtering (see the EU stress tests). The step to exclude Chernobyl cannot be statistically argued and proper analysis would have shown figures at least with and without it.
Interesting that you mention two studies as "questionable" that in my eyes are not at all. I have been following the Krümmel / Geesthacht leukemia cluster quite closely and can only conclude that the statistics are right. To dismiss the search for answers on the basis of a TV documentary in what is a very complex case, including not only the Krümmel NPP, but also the GKSS research center, is weak. The letter to the editor on the work of Scherb and Voigt shows you what good scientific debate looks like - it does, by the way, not criticise the statistics, it debates how to deal with statistics. I think that is a healthy debate, but want to stress that statistics are part of the discussion. Certainly in complex issues as potential health effects of low radiation exposure.
Happy you at least do not deny the existence of the leukemia clusters.
Although I am extremely unhappy with the term ALARA and especially the constant abuse of the term "reasonable" in that as a means to cut costs on the ground, or cut discussions that might lead to necessary cost increases, I agree that discussions about enery policy should be based on comparative evidence. That is exactly what we do with the Energy [R]evolution scenario, and what was done in Germany in the late 1990s on the basis of scenario studies for the German Bundestag. It is what is not happening in most of the EU and the world, however, where industry / political party wish lists tend to set the options put forward in energy strategies without any proper comparison. I am struggling with that on a daily basis currently in Poland, the Czech Republic, Romania and Hungary.
Concerning radon - come on! This is an issue that is known for such a long time that it is solid part of building prescriptions. And to be taken seriously. But the answer on that is simple: proper and sufficient ventilation. And that is something that does not interfere with insulation or the implementation of energy-neutral or energy-plus houses and buildings. The large dose contribution is not because of energy efficient housing, it is because of insufficient ventilation - and that happens both in old stock, like in the former GDR where I was involved in discussion on the effects of the Wismut uranium mining activities, and in new. To use that as an argument to obfuscate the discussion on potential health risks of nuclear power is bland.
The need to close coal power plants in 2016? Yes - why would you believe me. You rather seem to believe those who want to defend the nuclear industry cost what may. Well, maybe DIRECTIVE 2010/75/EU on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) is sufficient.
Hope this helps in understanding.
Maybe it is time to start doubting the backgrounds of those who feed you with the information you are passing. I certainly do that.
greetings,
Jan Haverkamp
Posted May 8, 2013 at 11:31
© GREENPEACE 2013
==================================================================
==================================================================
参考リンク：
http://chernobyl25.blogspot.jp/
公開講演会 「チェルノブイリからフクシマへ---原発事故の実情
日時： 5月19日（日）午後1時30分～
会場： 岩手大学工学部 テクノホール（工学部正門を入ってすぐ）
主催： 日本科学者会議岩手支部、原発からの早期撤退を求める岩手県学識者の会
（＊）参加無料
【郡山】
アレクセイ・ヤブロコフ博士講演会 「チェルノブイリ被害の全貌～福島への教訓」
日時： 5月20日（月）午後6時30分～
会場： 郡山市総合福祉センター
主催： 「ふくしま集団疎開裁判」の会
【京都】
『調査報告 チェルノブイリ被害の全貌』刊行記念
アレクセイ・ヤブロコフ博士講演会「チェルノブイリから学ぶ」
日時： 5月22日（水）午後6時15分～
会場： キャンパスプラザ京都
主催： 京都精華大学人文学部細川研究室
アレクセイ・ヤブロコフ博士「チェルノブイリの教訓」
公開日: 2013/01/16
==================================================================
参考リンク：
チェルノブイリの被害者は100万人 1/2
アップロード日: 2011/05/03
==================================
チェルノブイリの被害者は100万人 2/2
アップロード日: 2011/05/03
==================================================================
参考リンク：
チェルノブイリからの警告 〜５万人の子どもを診察した医学博士〜
© GREENPEACE 2013
==================================================================
==================================================================
参考リンク：
http://chernobyl25.blogspot.jp/
公開講演会 「チェルノブイリからフクシマへ---原発事故の実情
日時： 5月19日（日）午後1時30分～
会場： 岩手大学工学部 テクノホール（工学部正門を入ってすぐ）
主催： 日本科学者会議岩手支部、原発からの早期撤退を求める岩手県学識者の会
（＊）参加無料
【郡山】
アレクセイ・ヤブロコフ博士講演会 「チェルノブイリ被害の全貌～福島への教訓」
日時： 5月20日（月）午後6時30分～
会場： 郡山市総合福祉センター
主催： 「ふくしま集団疎開裁判」の会
【京都】
『調査報告 チェルノブイリ被害の全貌』刊行記念
アレクセイ・ヤブロコフ博士講演会「チェルノブイリから学ぶ」
日時： 5月22日（水）午後6時15分～
会場： キャンパスプラザ京都
主催： 京都精華大学人文学部細川研究室
【記者会見】
外国特派員協会報道昼食会
“Lessons from Chernobyl for Fukushima: Consequences for People and the Environment”
日時： 5月21日（火）正午～
会場： 外国特派員協会
主催： 外国特派員協会
===========
参考リンク：
公開日: 2013/01/16
Nuclear Free Now 脱原発世界会議２
アレクセイ・ヤブロコフ博士「チェルノブイリの教訓」
2012年12月15日〜16日 東商ホール、日比谷公園
脱原発世界会議２でのアレクセイ・ヤブロコフ博士（ロシア科学アカデミー、生物学者）
ヤブロコフ博士は、ガンは健康被害の一部にすぎないとして、様々な疾患・障害の増大を
１キュリー／km2＝３万7000ベクレル／m2で、その場所の空間線量は、換算する
ここ日本でも同様のことが起こるという博士の警告を受けとめてほしい。チェルノブイリ
⇒解説ページ（http://www.eizoudocument.com/0645yabl...）
主催：Nuclear Free Now 脱原発世界会議（http://npfree.jp/）
※ヤブロコフ博士が再来日することになりました。5月18日東京ほか、盛岡、郡山、京
制作：映像ドキュメント.com（http://www.eizoudocument.com/）
アレクセイ・ヤブロコフ博士「チェルノブイリの教訓」
2012年12月15日〜16日 東商ホール、日比谷公園
脱原発世界会議２でのアレクセイ・ヤブロコフ博士（ロシア科学アカデミー、生物学者）
ヤブロコフ博士は、ガンは健康被害の一部にすぎないとして、様々な疾患・障害の増大を
１キュリー／km2＝３万7000ベクレル／m2で、その場所の空間線量は、換算する
ここ日本でも同様のことが起こるという博士の警告を受けとめてほしい。チェルノブイリ
⇒解説ページ（http://www.eizoudocument.com/0645yabl...）
主催：Nuclear Free Now 脱原発世界会議（http://npfree.jp/）
※ヤブロコフ博士が再来日することになりました。5月18日東京ほか、盛岡、郡山、京
制作：映像ドキュメント.com（http://www.eizoudocument.com/）
==================================================================
参考リンク：
チェルノブイリの被害者は100万人 1/2
アップロード日: 2011/05/03
次：http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-wzEo...。
原題：Chernobyl： A Million Casualties。 02:14～02:26の和訳を誰か補足お願いします。 また訳の訂正や補足がありましたら、コメントでご指摘お願いいたします。 元動画と和訳の引用元：http://www.universalsubtitles.org/en/...。
原題：Chernobyl： A Million Casualties。 02:14～02:26の和訳を誰か補足お願いします。 また訳の訂正や補足がありましたら、コメントでご指摘お願いいたします。 元動画と和訳の引用元：http://www.universalsubtitles.org/en/...。
チェルノブイリの被害者は100万人 2/2
アップロード日: 2011/05/03
最初：http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCQI_s...。
原題：Chernobyl： A Million Casualties。 また訳の訂正や補足がありましたら、コメントでご指摘お願いいたします。 元動画と和訳の引用元：http://www.universalsubtitles.org/en/...。 動画内で出ているメールとHPのアドレスを書き込んでおきます。メール：toxdoc
原題：Chernobyl： A Million Casualties。 また訳の訂正や補足がありましたら、コメントでご指摘お願いいたします。 元動画と和訳の引用元：http://www.universalsubtitles.org/en/...。 動画内で出ているメールとHPのアドレスを書き込んでおきます。メール：toxdoc
参考リンク：
チェルノブイリからの警告 〜５万人の子どもを診察した医学博士〜
アップロード日: 2011/12/15
いま、福島第一原発事故の影響による子どもへの健康被害が懸念されている。「チェルノ
子どもたちへの健康影響について話を聞く。
ゲスト：エフゲーニャ・ステパノワ博士（ウクライナ放射線医学研究センター）
ステパノワ博士の講演ビデオ（全編）
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-RiD2...
グリーンピース
http://www.greenpeace.org/japan/ja/ne...
★テレビ（朝日ニュースター）
日 時：12月15日（木）23：15～23：45
再放送：12月17日（土）9：00～9：30、18：00～18：30 12月18日（日）5：00～5：30、22：00～22：30
http://asahi-newstar.com/web/55_conta...
★ネット（OurPlanetTV）
日 時：12月15日（木）23：15〜オンデマンド配信
http://www.ourplanet-tv.org/?q=node/1282
----------------------------------------
制作：OurPlanetTV
http://www.ourplanet-tv.org/
子どもたちへの健康影響について話を聞く。
ゲスト：エフゲーニャ・ステパノワ博士（ウクライナ放射線医学研究センター）
ステパノワ博士の講演ビデオ（全編）
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-RiD2...
グリーンピース
http://www.greenpeace.org/japan/ja/ne...
★テレビ（朝日ニュースター）
日 時：12月15日（木）23：15～23：45
再放送：12月17日（土）9：00～9：30、18：00～18：30 12月18日（日）5：00～5：30、22：00～22：30
http://asahi-newstar.com/web/55_conta...
★ネット（OurPlanetTV）
日 時：12月15日（木）23：15〜オンデマンド配信
http://www.ourplanet-tv.org/?q=node/1282
----------------------------------------
制作：OurPlanetTV
http://www.ourplanet-tv.org/
参考リンク：
９．５アーニー・ガンダーセン氏公演「岐路に立つ日本-二つの未来-」
公開日: 2012/09/14
葛飾市民テレビ チャンネル1 - Captured Live on Ustream at http://www.ustream.tv/channel/ktv2001
この番組は2012年9月5日に行われた講演の模様をノーカットで配信するものです。
主催：ハーモニクスライフセンター
▼ 葛飾市民テレビからの寄付（カンパ）・ご支援のお願い ▼
多くの皆様から、活動への激励と励ましをいただき、誠に有難うございます。
この場をおかりしてお礼申し上げます。今後も切磋琢磨していきたいと思って
おります。
尚、今後活動の持続的観点から皆様に寄付（カンパ）のほどお願いできれば
と思います。
是非とも小額でもご協力のほどよろしくお願い申し上げます。
【ゆうちょ銀行】※ゆうちょ銀行からお振込の場合
記号：１０１９０ 番号：７８５５３９３１
口座名：カツシカシミンテレビ
----------------------------------------
【ゆうちょ銀行】※他行からお振込の場合
店名：〇一八（ゼロイチハチ）店番：０１８ 預金種目：普通預金
口座番号：７８５５３９３ 口座名：カツシカシミンテレビ
カンパいただける場合はメールにてお知らせいただけますと尚、幸いです。
わたくし共、皆持ち寄りの機材を使用しておりますが、ケーブルの断線、備品
破損等少なからずあり、個人負担も軽くございません。もしお手持ちのHDV
カメラ、録音機器、他備品でご寄付いただけるようでしたらメールにてお知ら
せいただけましたら幸いです。
お知らせメール⇒info_ktv@yahoo.co.jp
★チャンネルの紹介★
昨年日本を襲った未曾有の災害、そしてフクシマ原発事故。3.11を境に多く
のことが変わってしまいました。中でもマスメディアが、今起こっていること
を報じない、報じようとしないことを多くの人がソーシャルメディアを通じて
知ってしまいました。
あれから1年が過ぎ、わたしたちはもう何を信じていいのか分からなくなっ
てしまっています。これからは団体の利益に囚われることなく、市民が自立
して情報を発信しあい、自分自身の手で情報にアクセスし、取捨選択して行
動することを求められる時代にはいったのではないでしょうか。
葛飾市民テレビは、今年３．１１に「市民の情報活動」＝オルタナティブ
メディア⇒「市民テレビ」の活動として、葛飾から発動することを意として
銘銘しました。葛飾区周辺エリアに限らず、３．１１以降の市民の注目分野
にフォーカスしていきます。
原発再稼動、がれき広域処理、隠された放射能汚染の実態、内部被曝の危険
など、生活者の目線で命にかかわる問題にハイライトし、共有すべき情報を
分かりやすく「教材」
のようなかたちにまとめていきたいと思っています。
主には東京近郊で開催される講演、パネルディスカッションなどを週１回
程度のペースで配信します。推奨する内容の講演会や取り上げて欲しい研修、
セミナーがありましたらメールにてお知らせ下さい。また、とりあげたい
テーマなどもご意見とともにメールにてお寄せください。
ご意見メール⇒info_ktv@yahoo.co.jp
★情報拡散にご協力を！★
本サイトは、真実を知り、正しく伝え、共有することを目的に「市民が、
市民に対して、市民のため」に運営しています。どうか情報拡散にご協力
ください。
是非、リンク、ツィート、等大歓迎なので情報の拡散をお願いいたします。
配信後のアーカイブはUstream / Youtube 共に無期限に保存していきます
が、配信時に同時視聴いただき、ソーシャルストリームのタイムラインにて
ツィート参加いただくことを特に歓迎しています。
★私も市民テレビ活動をしたい！という方に★
今、Ustream配信はスマートフォンで簡単にできます。しかし、もっと
踏込んで各種の催し物、講演会、セミナーなどを恒久的に映像アーカイブ化
したいという方がいらっしゃいましたら暫くお手伝いいただいた後、○○
市民テレビを立ち上げてみませんか？
もし「市民テレビ」活動をしたいという方がいらっしゃいましたらメール
にてご連絡ください。
＠葛飾市民テレビ
この番組は2012年9月5日に行われた講演の模様をノーカットで配信するものです。
主催：ハーモニクスライフセンター
▼ 葛飾市民テレビからの寄付（カンパ）・ご支援のお願い ▼
多くの皆様から、活動への激励と励ましをいただき、誠に有難うございます。
この場をおかりしてお礼申し上げます。今後も切磋琢磨していきたいと思って
おります。
尚、今後活動の持続的観点から皆様に寄付（カンパ）のほどお願いできれば
と思います。
是非とも小額でもご協力のほどよろしくお願い申し上げます。
【ゆうちょ銀行】※ゆうちょ銀行からお振込の場合
記号：１０１９０ 番号：７８５５３９３１
口座名：カツシカシミンテレビ
----------------------------------------
【ゆうちょ銀行】※他行からお振込の場合
店名：〇一八（ゼロイチハチ）店番：０１８ 預金種目：普通預金
口座番号：７８５５３９３ 口座名：カツシカシミンテレビ
カンパいただける場合はメールにてお知らせいただけますと尚、幸いです。
わたくし共、皆持ち寄りの機材を使用しておりますが、ケーブルの断線、備品
破損等少なからずあり、個人負担も軽くございません。もしお手持ちのHDV
カメラ、録音機器、他備品でご寄付いただけるようでしたらメールにてお知ら
せいただけましたら幸いです。
お知らせメール⇒info_ktv@yahoo.co.jp
★チャンネルの紹介★
昨年日本を襲った未曾有の災害、そしてフクシマ原発事故。3.11を境に多く
のことが変わってしまいました。中でもマスメディアが、今起こっていること
を報じない、報じようとしないことを多くの人がソーシャルメディアを通じて
知ってしまいました。
あれから1年が過ぎ、わたしたちはもう何を信じていいのか分からなくなっ
てしまっています。これからは団体の利益に囚われることなく、市民が自立
して情報を発信しあい、自分自身の手で情報にアクセスし、取捨選択して行
動することを求められる時代にはいったのではないでしょうか。
葛飾市民テレビは、今年３．１１に「市民の情報活動」＝オルタナティブ
メディア⇒「市民テレビ」の活動として、葛飾から発動することを意として
銘銘しました。葛飾区周辺エリアに限らず、３．１１以降の市民の注目分野
にフォーカスしていきます。
原発再稼動、がれき広域処理、隠された放射能汚染の実態、内部被曝の危険
など、生活者の目線で命にかかわる問題にハイライトし、共有すべき情報を
分かりやすく「教材」
のようなかたちにまとめていきたいと思っています。
主には東京近郊で開催される講演、パネルディスカッションなどを週１回
程度のペースで配信します。推奨する内容の講演会や取り上げて欲しい研修、
セミナーがありましたらメールにてお知らせ下さい。また、とりあげたい
テーマなどもご意見とともにメールにてお寄せください。
ご意見メール⇒info_ktv@yahoo.co.jp
★情報拡散にご協力を！★
本サイトは、真実を知り、正しく伝え、共有することを目的に「市民が、
市民に対して、市民のため」に運営しています。どうか情報拡散にご協力
ください。
是非、リンク、ツィート、等大歓迎なので情報の拡散をお願いいたします。
配信後のアーカイブはUstream / Youtube 共に無期限に保存していきます
が、配信時に同時視聴いただき、ソーシャルストリームのタイムラインにて
ツィート参加いただくことを特に歓迎しています。
★私も市民テレビ活動をしたい！という方に★
今、Ustream配信はスマートフォンで簡単にできます。しかし、もっと
踏込んで各種の催し物、講演会、セミナーなどを恒久的に映像アーカイブ化
したいという方がいらっしゃいましたら暫くお手伝いいただいた後、○○
市民テレビを立ち上げてみませんか？
もし「市民テレビ」活動をしたいという方がいらっしゃいましたらメール
にてご連絡ください。
＠葛飾市民テレビ
==================================================================
Luckily, a scientific paper just came out about the "terrible damage" ...