down completely'.
'Here the parapsychologists have something in which to sink their teeth',
wrote
the correspondent [in New York City, the USA] of Sydsvenska Dagbladet,
Malmö,
the only paper - as far as I know - that brought the information about
this in
Europe. In fact all who read it must have understood what it clearly
pointed
to. But nobody else but we Marx adherents ever referred again to the
'strange
coincidence' of this story told one week in advance."
The background of that story in fact could only have been one of two
things:
Either it was a "warning shot" in advance against a manipulation of that
TMI
reactor which some people in the USA had gotten to know was being planned
and
wanted to prevent. Or else it was a scare story planted in advance by
people
who intended to manipulate precisely that reactor precisely a week later
and
wanted to make people in its vicinity believe that its core indeed was to
be
made to melt down completely - with then perhaps "a serious release of
radioactive substances" - and thus "hopefully" create a public panic in
that
area (which in the actual event did not occur anyway).
On the results of the US "Harrisburg" manipulation here in Sweden, where
it did
"succeed" even more dramatically than in any other country, I wrote in
the
same Info part:
"In several European countries, the 'Harrisburg accident' had considerable
repercussions, and in particular here in Sweden. On 4 April, a day later
called
"Mad Wednesday", several politicians made a complete turnabout - it's
known
that in the days before, a person employed by the US government had made
statements here about how they 'obviously didn't know what significance
this
event had in the USA and were unable to draw the correct conclusions from
it' -
and decided on a so-called 'referendum on nuclear power' in Sweden. This
took
place a year later, on 23.03.1980, and was not just any 'referendum'
either.
All three 'proposals' in favour of which you were allowed to 'vote' said
squarely 'no' to nuclear energy, which according to these 'proposals' was
to be
curtailed and eventually banned completely in this country - which was
then and
which in fact is still the one with the largest amount of all of
electricity
from nuclear power plants per inhabitant (10 GW of installed effect for
somewhat less than 9 million people). And to this day, all politicians in
Sweden do 'stand by' the 'result' of this 'referendum', the 'democracy' of
which you must admit beats even the one of the so-called 'elections' in,
for
instance, Brezhnev's Soviet Union."
In fact, in late 1978, a congress of the most im****tant bourgeois
political
party here in Sweden the Social-Democratic party, had decided, in view of
a
certain campaign by others for a "referendum" on nuclear energy then, that
that
party would oppose any such proposal, as not liable to result in any
genuinely
democratic referendum, holding instead that the nuclear-energy question
should
be decided on in the usual parliamentary way. That party, thus, was not
yet
prepared to kowtow completely to the US imperialists and other extreme
perpetrators of the anti-nuclear-energy campaign, on that question. But
when I,
for instance, after the "Mad Wednesday" asked for a copy of the particular
pamphlet that congress's decision on this, I was told by a functionary at
the
Social Democratic local office that those pamphlets "had all been thrown
into
the waste basket", not because of any new official party decision on this
but
simply "because there had now been the Harrisburg accident in the USA".
This small thing in itself speaks volumes about who it really was that was
calling the shots in the "Social-Democratic Workers' Party" here in
Sweden,
when certain things would come to a crunch - none other than the US
imperialists. And the same thing it, basically, was with the other
bourgeois
parties here too, which remains the case very much still today.
On "Mad Wednesday" here in Sweden, 04.04.1979, not only Palme was bowled
over
completely by the US imperialists and their mass medias' "Harrisburg"
howling
to high heaven - according to later re****ts, his wife Lisbet, who was
later to
help protect his (Soviet military intelligence) assassins (in 1986) from
getting exposed too, had a certain hand in this - but also, for instance,
the
leader of the Liberal party (Folkpartiet), Ola Ullsten, who at the time
was
also the prime minister of this country.
Jointly, the "leading" politicians here on that day decided on such a
"referendum" in 1980 about which several of them already earlier had said,
quite correctly, that it would be nothing but a fraud, and further they
decided, in part quite illegally as they themselves admitted publicly, to
keep
suspending the start of operation for two nuclear power reactors which had
already been completed one year respectively two years earlier, and to
suspend
that start for two more, the application for which had been put on the
government's desk on 27.03.1979, immediately before the "Harrisburg"
manipulation in the USA began. No less than four recently-built nuclear
power
reactors here were to stand paralyzed, as so much scrap, up until that
"referendum". This meant that values corresponding to many millions of
dollars
were just "thrown into the lake", and had as its purpose to put pressure
on the
"voters" in the coming "referendum" to "accept" at least one of the two
somewhat less extreme "No" propositions which they were to be given as
"choices" in that criminal (also according to the existing bourgeois laws
at
the time) "referendum", because these propositions called for the
utilization
in Sweden of "no more than 12 nuclear power reactors" (the politicians
here
also hoping that people would not notice, or would forget, the "no more
than"
part here), while the third and very most extreme proposition among other
things said that "no more than 6" such were ever to be allowed to operate,
and
thus that the other 4, recently built, were to be scrapped at once.
As I've noted in an Info in Swedish, #276se (of 23.03.2007) on the
fantastic
and historic "referendum on nuclear power" in this country in 1980,
reproducing
a 10-page leaflet which I published before it in 1980 and which exposed in
detail that record-setting, seemingly mad, fraud attempt and explained the
background to it, it was not only one direct representative of the US
imperialists but several such persons, all employed by the US government,
that
were invited to Sweden at that time, in order to "provide sup****t for" the
"People's Campaign against Nuclear Power" and for Fälldin in that
"referendum",
as one newspaper here openly wrote.
Fälldin, by the way, "very strangely", despite his utter defeat in the
1979
parliamentary elections and despite the large victory, in those elections,
of
that (seemingly) pro-nuclear-energy party the Moderates then led by Gösta
Bohman, had been chosen as prime minister once more, instead of his
"coalition
partner" Bohman, who by all "rules of parliamentarism" was then the quite
obvious choice for this post. Who it was that managed to interfere so
blatantly
in the "parliamentary process" here in Sweden too, with some backstage
manipulations of course not possible for most people here to observe quite
directly, it's quite easy, nevertheless, to calculate: This too was the US
imperialists.
The fantastic and very instructive texts, in Swedish, on all the "voting
slips"
used in the 1980 "referendum" - which no bourgeois newspaper, nor any of
the
later official "Statistical Yearbook of Sweden" or Wikipedia in Swedish,
for
instance have managed to reproduce correctly - I'm showing as one section
of my
homepage, after an earlier page with this, by a pur****tedly
pro-nuclear-energy
organization (the MFK), has recently been taken down. English translations
of
them together with some explanatory comments,can be found in my Info #225,
part
1/2 and part 2/2. These texts you have to see for yourself if you really
are to
believe that the parliament in this country, all its parties agreeing on
this,
in all seriousness presented them to the people here, in 1980, on "voting
slips" each of them printed in some 100 million copies too.
[texts:
http://rolf-martens.com/otherspubs/070323_fuskomroestning_kaernkraft_1980.html
MFK: http://www.mfk.nu/]
The very nastiest of those plans which were connected with this
"referendum" in
Sweden were forestalled - to a considerable extent, I think, by those
rather
few of us who exposed that serious attack against the people here and in
other
countries in beforehand. I disseminated that abovementioned unusually
long,
10-page leaflet in some 900 copies in Sweden's three biggest cities,
Stockholm,
Göteborg and Malmö, and a 2-page short version of it was disseminated by
me and
a workmate at the Kockums ****pyard in some 8,000 copies here in the Malmö
region, and it and some earlier ones by me against the anti-nuclear-energy
campaign appeared to have astoni****ngly large effects, to judge by the
local
1979 election results and the local 1980 "referendum" "results", compared
to
those in other parts of the country. In Germany, the abovementioned small
Marxist-Leninist party exposed, likewise in beforehand, that "referendum"
in
Sweden too, with a couple of leaflets whose texts included translations of
the
fantastic "voting slip" texts here, provided by me. On this, see the
German-language Info #231de.
The ruling bourgeoisie here, as it turned out, did not dare sabotage any
nuclear power plants all at once, in 1980. They and their US imperialist
masters found themselves forced to allow all the four rather recently
completed
but during 2-3 years paralyzed reactors to get into operation and to allow
the
construction of those further two on which work had already begun, to be
completed; the last of them - and most likely, unfortunately, the last
such
ever in this country under continued bourgeois rule - went online in 1985.
But in 1980, after the "referendum", the parliament here did make two -
seemingly mad - decision which meant the completion of a 180-degrees
turnabout
concerning nuclear energy in Sweden. Firstly, the construction of any new
new
nuclear power reactor in Sweden was banned by law, for all future.
Secondly,
the utilization of precisely this energy source was to be "phased out",
after
only some transitional period or other, that is, to cease completely, for
all
future too.
These were decisions so extremely retrogressive that they at the time were
practically unparalleled in the world, with only one exception, that of
the
island of Guam in the Pacific Ocean, quite directly under the rule of the
US
imperialists, which likewise actually had a law against the construction
of
nuclear power reactors there. Only 20 years later, in the year 2000, did
the
politicians of the united Germany, for instance, likewise since long
extremely
subservient to those of the USA, decide on such a truly historically and
criminally retrogressive thing, such an unbridled attack against the vast
majority of people and against an im****tant part of the very basis of
modern
civilization, as the "phasing out" of nuclear energy. ("Ausstieg", meaning
the
act of "stepping out", from an elevator perhaps or something, is the
"prettifying" term for it in German.)
"Of course" all the big international mass media in 1980 said, and have
continued to maintain ever after too, that the people in Sweden had now
"voted
no" to nuclear power and that this was the reason for the sharp turnaround
on
this question in this country. None of them has ever mentioned the simple
fact
that people here in that "referendum" were only allowed to "vote No",
"vote No"
or "vote No" to nuclear energy or else abstain from venturing an opinion
on the
matter. The constructing of such a "referendum" in the language of
ordinary,
normal, non-bourgeois people however is called, simply, "flagrant
cheating",
and no person in that group of people can be made to believe that such a
"referendum" could ever produce any valid result.
Precisely a contrary conclusion however can indeed be drawn from that
"referendum" in Sweden, because of the way in which it was constructed. If
you
force everybody to either "vote No" or else abstain ion a question, this
firstly shows that you're desperate for getting a "No" "result", and
secondly,
that you're seeing no other way to produce it, in as "safe" was as you
"need",
than to cheat it forth, in that really quite idiotic and self-revealing
manner.
Thus this referendum really showed that its perpetrators, the politicians
in
this country, knew quite well that they had no chance whatsoever of
getting a
"No" to nuclear energy from the people here in any even approximately
honest
way - that is, they themselves were quite certain that there at the time,
despite all media propaganda howling, was a solid majority in this country
in
favour of nuclear energy.
This "referendum" in fact very much turned out to be a boomerang, for
those who
had organized it. It clearly demonstrated to everybody who it in fact was
that
had a massive interest in the anti-nuclear-campaign, namely, the ruling
bourgeoisie itself, whom the "People's Campaign against Nuclear Power" had
put
such large efforts into convincing people that it was "opposing". And it
showed what relation the anti-nuclear campaign had to even the most
elementary
principles of democracy: Since its organizers decided, respectively quite
readily accepted the decision, not to give people even a choice between
"yes"
and "no", they very clearly were among the most Rightwing of all forces in
society; this very clearly was a Rightwing-extremist campaign.
[END OF QUOTE]
On the *Chernobyl* event in 1986, I shall copy in here some likewise
rather
long earlier stuff. It's from my Infos #293en respectively #295en. And an
im****tant part of this is some information on the actual - *positive* -
effects
of *low-dose ionizing radiation*, something which otherwise, you
practically
never will get; this is an enormous swindle theme on the part of those
still
ruling miserable small cliques of imperialist (yesterday also
social-imperialist) bourgeois scum. First, from my #293en,
[QUOTE:]
Part 1: My "News with brief comments" item 311, of 12.09.2007
Wednesday, 12 September 2007 (NWBC 311) "The Chernobyl disaster very
probably a
sabotage"
2007-09-12, 11:02 GMT:
This the blogger Alain wrote yesterday 11.09.2007 in his im****tant blog in
French, mainly dedicated to the origin of oil, at
http://petrole-abiotique.blogspot.com/,
which also contains articles
pointing
out that those same powerful reactionaries in the world who are making the
oil
price be so high are also the propelling forces behind the massive
campaign,
since many decades back, against nuclear energy. He motivates what he is
saying
about Chernobyl above all with a close look at the technical details of
this
disaster in 1986, which cost some 42 people their lives.
Yes, very clearly indeed this was a sabotage. Others have noted strong
suspicions in this direction several years ago. And in an article
published as
a leaflet in Swedish on 01.05.2006, reproduced by me in English
translation as
"UNITE! Info #258en: The reigning system's weakness", Stig Ek and I wrote
about
this, including also a hypothesis of ours concerning an im****tant part of
the
motives behind this sabotage, among which, as Alain correctly notes, there
certainly was not least that of combating, together with the mass medias'
10,000-folding of the effects of the disaster, peaceful nuclear energy in
the
whole world.
We wrote in that article, noting among other things what it had been
possible
to ascertain concerning a certain event here in Sweden two months before
that
so-called "accident" in the then social-imperialist Soviet Union, in 1986
already well under way towards its eventual disintegration five years
later,
[QUOTE, in my NWBC 311:]
And when Gorbachov became president in the Soviet Union in 1985 and wanted
to
pursue another, though likewise extremely reactionary, policy, one of
"green"
strangulation of industry together with the ruling persons in the USA, the
then
still powerful military leaders in the Soviet Union tried to force the
Gorbachov group into accepting their own line of massive threats and
perhaps
even aggression against West Europe, by having their intelligence service
the
GRU assassinate Sweden's prime minister Palme on 28 February 1986. A
scapegoat
first got convicted of that murder but was later acquitted, after some
people
within the establishment here on 24 August 1989 had re****ted publicly on a
certain result of a bugging of a GRU agent in February 1986.
It's likely, in our judgment, that the largescale sabotage later, on 26
April
1986, of a nuclear power reactor at Chernobyl which was part of a certain
military complex, among other things was intended as a counterattack by
the
Gorbachov group and/or its US friends, against those Soviet military who
among
other things had then recently assassinated Palme. That it was a sabotage
and
not an "accident" that killed 42 people then and caused large material
damage
is obvious. No less than 6 different safety systems were shut off
deliberately
in that reactor, where, incidentally, it was possible to cause an
explosion
only because its moderator consisted of graphite, not of water as in all
nuclear power plants in for instance Sweden. The largest damage in this
connection has been caused by a massive lie propaganda, which has
maintained
that those very small extra amounts of radiation which arose in other
countries
because of the Chernobyl sabotage were "harmful", and not, as are such
small
amounts, actually good for people's health.
[END OF QUOTE, in my NWBC 311]
Since the fact mentioned here concerning such small doses of ionizing
radiation
as those mentioned above no doubt still is unknown to many, and the
international mass media since many decades back very much are trying to
scare
people of all radiation, even such at levels with which people in many
regions
on earth have always lived, their health in general being better and by no
means worse than those with lower levels of natural so-called background
radiation, it may be suitable to include here references to two actually
scientific websites on this question:
On low-dose ionizing radiation, a site managed by S. M. Javad Mortazavi,
Ph.
D., Iran, and containing articles by scientists in many countries:
http://www.angelfire.com/mo/radioadaptive/
T. D. Luckey (USA) on beneficial effects of low-dose ionizing radiation:
http://www.giriweb.com/luckey.htm
[END OF QUOTE]
And from my #295en, more on *Chernobyl*,
[QUOTE:]
A MAIN PRETEXT FOR ABANDONING NUCLEAR ENERGY: THE BIG CHERNOBYL PROPAGANDA
HOAX
Convincing a majority of people, in Europe or the USA for instance, that
it's
"justified" to abandon this most modern energy source, with its also
uniquely
vast development potential, this the ruling reactionary cliques have
failed to
do, despite decades of massive propaganda of theirs for this. On the
contrary,
there is increasing public pressure in these and other countries for
continued
use and further development of nuclear energy. As a main "argument"
against
this, the ruling reactionaries still today are advancing a series of lies
concerning one event over 20 years ago and concerning its pur****ted
consequences: The so-called "accident" at a nuclear power plant at
Chernobyl
in the then Soviet Union on 26 April 1986.
The big Chernobyl propaganda hoax from the beginning on was, and still
today
is, made up of mainly three parts:
Firstly, the proposition that the considerable disaster that did occur at
that
power plant, when one of its reactors suffered an explosion (of a
chemical, not
a nuclear, type), which killed some 50 people due to radiation released
and
other effects and which destroyed that reactor totally, actually *was* an
accident, supposedly having taken place in the course of more or less
normal
operation of it.
Very obviously, this was not the case however. Even the various "official"
accounts of this event admit that several vital safety systems were shut
down
on purpose and then a so-called "experiment" was carried out, under
circumstances which, as was well-known, could not but make this have
disastrous
consequences. This clearly was *a sabotage*. As pointed to in Info #258en,
quite likely a certain rivalry at that time between some different
reactionary
cliques inside and outside of the then Soviet Union was a contributing
cause of
its being perpetrated.
And very clearly, the main motive behind this manipulation of a nuclear
reactor
in one of the two superpowers in the world at that time, 1986, certainly
was
the same as that behind an earlier and likewise infamous event in the
other
one, the so-called "accident" at the TMI nuclear power plant close to
Harrisburg in the USA on 28 March 1979, an "accident" which demonstrably
was no
natural one either, as was publicly exposed at the time. (I made a certain
contribution to this.) These "accidents" were organized forth by the main
ruling reactionary cliques in the world as attacks against the peaceful
utilization of nuclear energy. They both show how very much those cliques
already then hated that energy source.
Secondly, about the considerable disaster at Chernobyl it was said - and
still
today is being said - by the media propaganda that it "must have
consequences"
concerning "all nuclear power plants in the world". But this propaganda
completely disregards the well-known fact that the chemical explosion
which
occurred at the Chernobyl reactor was a consequence of that reactor's
moderator, which consisted of graphite, having caught fire when
overheated, and
that such an event, whether by accident or caused by sabotage, was and is
physically impossible in most other nuclear power reactors in the world
since
they use water, not graphite, for moderating the nuclear reactions. The
fact
that this *technically quite illogical* "conclusion" concerning "all
nuclear
power plants" has been drawn publicly in this way is another thing showing
that
the aim of this propaganda has certainly not been to "avoid accidents" but
to
attack the use of nuclear energy.
THE BIGGEST AND ALSO THE MOST ABSURD LIE CONCERNING CHERNOBYL: "LARGE
AREAS
INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OF THE EARLIER SOVIET UNION WERE CONTAMINATED WITH
HARMFUL
RADIATION", AND EVEN "ONE OF THEM REMAINS CONTAMINATED TODAY"
This, the third of the main big lies concerning that event, was and still
today
is the politically most im****tant one. All the international mass media in
the
over 20 years since then have kept repeating it, again and again.
However, once you get to know about the basic facts - most carefully
hidden
away by those media - concerning how much radiation actually did reach
locations at various distances from the disastrously-manipulated Chernobyl
reactor and get to know about what amounts of radiation are quite normal
in
different regions on earth where people have always lived in perfect
health -
on this too, the ruling reactionaries systematically are withholding the
most
elementary information - you can ascertain for yourself how absolutely
absurd
is this lie.
Some main points concerning this are:
Only in the immediate vicinity of the exploded reactor, closer than some 2
km
from it, was there ever dangerous radiation.
The intensity of that radiation within the reactor itself in hours
immediately
after the explosion was very high, then causing the deaths of several
dozens of
people. But soon it decreased considerably, so that rescue and production
work
could be undertaken at that power plant itself (consisting of four
reactors).
The hundreds of thousands of people forcibly evacuated from an area some
distance away from Chernobyl, up until 30 km from it, would have suffered
no
harm whatsoever if they had stayed.
People are living in perfect health in many regions on earth where the
radiation, due to natural causes, is many times higher than the highest
level
of such in that pur****tedly "contaminated" area was in April-May 1986.
This
means: Even in that area relatively close to Chernobyl (including the city
of
Pripyat, 3 km from it) there never was any "radioactive contamination", in
that
sense which this term propagandistically is intended to imply,
"dangerously
increased radiation level".
But not only this.
Still today, the "zone of evacuation" in the former Soviet Union is being
kept
evacuated by the authorities, though the level of radiation there is now
even
quite low, compared internationally.
Still today too, all the reactionary mass media are referring to that zone
as a
"contaminated" one. This is absurdly misleading. By the same "reckoning"
as to
radiation level, for instance the entire Sweden, several provinces in
France
and at least two well-known buildings in the USA, namely, the Capitol in
Wa****ngton, D.C., and Grand Central Station in New York City, would
qualify as
equally "contaminated", not to speak of those regions in the world where
the
natural (background) radiation is hundreds of times that of those
locations.
The enforced evacuation of those hundreds of thousands of people from the
beginning on in reality was an action of anti-nuclear-energy propaganda
and of
terror against the masses of people, and its continuing today remains a
such
too, becoming even more and more obviously unjustified with each year that
passes.
A few websites at the Internet today are pointing out some facts which
clearly
show this.
A Canada-based website for science education under the headline
"Terrestrial
Sources of Radiation" brings some figures on this which are very striking
concerning the level of radiation in the still-evacuated area in the
present
Ukraine. It compares the radiation in four different locations on earth:
[website for science education:
http://www.space.gc.ca/asc/eng/educators/resources/evarm/grade11/natural-partic
le-earth.asp]
Location
Radiation, in mSv per year
Notes
Guarapari Beach, Brazil
800
Radioactive beach sands eroded from surrounding mountains. Guarapari since
long
is called "Health City" in Brazil.
Ramsar, Iran (hot springs)
700
Thermally hot springs, also radioactively "hot". An area likewise known
for its
better-than-average health.
Kerala Beach, India
035
Radioactive beach sands eroded from surrounding mountains.
City of Pripyat, (near Chernobyl) Ukraine Permanently Evacuated (according
to
the website)
005
The website notes: "This is not a result of naturally occurring radiation
from
the surrounding soil, but is inserted here for purposes of comparison."
And very tell-tale indeed, concerning the still continuing big
anti-nuclear-energy propaganda hoax in connection with Chernobyl, is this
comparison between that pur****tedly "contaminated" area, including the
city of
Pripyat, and those three others.
This website on terrestrial sources of radiation notes too, concerning how
much
radiation people will be subjected to in the different places:
"A one week vacation at Guarapari Beach, Brazil, is equivalent to living
three
years in the City of Pripyat, near Chernobyl. Six months at Guarapari
Beach is
equivalent to living eighty years (almost a lifetime) in Pripyat."
For a broader picture of background radiation levels internationally, the
natural radiation in some more locations can be mentioned - according to
other
sources. Differences are on account of varying amounts of radioactive
substances in the ground, respectively in building materials:
The global mean background radiation is 2.4 mSv/year. Sweden and some
abovementioned regions in France average 5 mSv/year, which is also the
level in
the Capitol building in Wa****ngton, D.C. and Grand Central Station, New
York
City. Much of South America has 10, and a little more than that, 12
mSv/year,
was the global mean when life began on earth - life is adapted to a higher
background radiation than the most common today. Further levels: A region
in
Norway: 10; one in Sweden: 35; the city of Guarapari, Brazil: 260 (higher
at
its thorium-rich beach, see above); some parts of Kerala province, India:
400;
parts of Ramsar, Iran and the region of Araxa, Brazil, (with 74,000
inhabitants) are exceptional with 17,500 respectively 28,000 mSv per year.
No
adverse health effects have been noted in regions with higher background
radiation. On the contrary, the health in such regions tends to be better
than
average.
How intensive was the radiation at its maximum in April-May 1986 in that
region
in the then Soviet Union which was forcibly evacuated?
According to the well-known scientist Zbigniew Jaworowski, Poland (in an
article in 1999), no more than some 60 mSv/year - considerably less than
in
many other regions mentioned above.
[http://www.riskworld.com/nre****ts/1999/jaworowski/NR99aa01.htmhttp://www.riskw
orld.com/nre****ts/1999/jaworowski/NR99aa01.htm]
The same writer in an article in 1997:
"The average whole body radiation doses received in the period 1986-1995
in the
[pur****tedly - RM] most contaminated regions of the former USSR (6 to 60
mSv)
were by a factor of 3 lower than the average lifetime dose which the
population
of the Earth receives from natural radiation sources..."
Dangerous or even life-threatening radiation doses are many times higher
than
that. A dose of 1,000 mSv received within an hour is likely to cause
radiation
sickness. One of 3,000-5,000 mSv in that time is lethal in 50% of the
cases,
and one of 15,000 mSv certainly lethal. It was doses of that order that
killed
dozens of people in that reactor at Chernobyl which exploded.
However, actual dangerous contamination there was only in an area of 0.5
square
km, stretching in two patches up to 1.8 km from the damaged reactor.
(Re****ted
for instance by Jaworowski in 2000.) The nearest city, Pripyat, 3 km away,
was
not touched by this.
[http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/chernobyl.html]
The absurdity of the enforced evacuation has been commented on by several
writers. Here are some passages on this.
On what occurred, first one from the Uranium Institute, Australia, which
relates this, without any overt criticism:
[http://www.uic.com.au/nip22.htm]
"The next task was cleaning up the radioactivity at the site so that the
remaining three reactors could be restarted, and the damaged reactor
****elded
more permanently. About 200,000 people ('liquidators') from all over the
Soviet
Union were involved in the recovery and clean up during 1986 and 1987.
They
received high doses of radiation, average around 100 millisieverts. [For
an
immediate dose, received within an hour, this is relatively high, but
clearly
not health-damaging. - RM] Some 20,000 of them received about 250 mSv and
a few
received 500 mSv. [Even this is below the danger level for immediate
doses. -
RM] Later, the number of liquidators swelled to over 600,000 but most of
these
received only low radiation doses. The highest doses were received by
about
1000 emergency workers and on-site personnel during the first day of the
[pur****ted - RM ] accident.
On 2-3 May, some 45,000 residents were evacuated from within a 10 km
radius of
the plant, notably from the plant operators' town of Pripyat. On 4 May,
all
those living within a 30 kilometre radius - a further 116 000 people from
the
[pur****tedly - RM] more contaminated area - were evacuated and later
relocated.
About 1,000 of these have since returned unofficially to live within the
[pur****tedly - RM] contaminated zone. Most of those evacuated received
radiation doses of less than 50 mSv, although a few received 100 mSv or
more.
The average radiation doses for the general population of the contaminated
areas over 1986-2005 is estimated to be between 10 and 20 mSv, and the
vast
majority receive under 1 mSv/yr. These are lower than many natural levels.
Workers and their families now live in a new town, Slavutich, 30 km from
the
plant. This was built following the evacuation of Pripyat, which was just
3 km
away."
On how the enforced evacuation was motivated by the reactionary
authorities,
Jaworowski in the abovementioned article in 2000 noted:
"The basis for the resettlement was, first, the possibility that those
people
living in the [pur****tedly - RM] most contaminated areas would absorb a
lifetime whole body dose (that is, their total dose received over a period
of
70 years) higher than 350 mSv, which is about double the average global
natural
radiation dose. Later, this lifetime limit was lowered to 150 mSv, and
then to
70 mSv (1 mSv per year)."
The utter absurdity of this "basis" is obvious, considering those facts
about
normal radiation which are mentioned above. More than 350 mSv in a
lifetime,
practically everybody here in Sweden for instance receives, and more than
150
mSv, almost everybody on earth. An additional dose of 1 mSv per year, or
much
more than that, is a natural consequence for instance of a person's moving
into
the house next door, even in regions with a low level of natural
radiation.
But these decisions in the then Soviet Union were in accordance with the
then
and still existing international so-called "health protection" rules
concerning
radiation, which were established, for anti-nuclear-energy propaganda
reasons,
in 1959 and which proceed from the - of course absurd - "hypothesis" that
"all
radiation is harmful", with "no lower threshold" for this, the so-called
LNT
hypothesis. Jaworowski in 2000 on this:
"The ICRP [International Commission on Radiological Protection] bases its
recommendations for protection of the public in radiation accidents on the
LNT.
These recommendations—the lifetime limits of 350 mSv and 150 mSv—were used
by
the Soviet decision-makers, even though they are lower by a factor of 4 to
40
than the natural lifetime doses in many countries of the world, which have
been
inhabited for thousands of years."
On the enforced evacuation, the website of Physicians for Civil Defence,
the
USA, said in 2004:
[http://www.physiciansforcivildefense.org/cdp/may2004.html]
"The most nonsensical action, however, was the evacuation of 336,000
people
from the regions of the former Soviet Union, where during the years
1986-1995
the Chernobyl fallout increased the average natural radiation dose (about
2.5
mGy per year [Gy - Gray - is another measuring unit than Sv - Sievert -
and 1
mGy in many though not all cases is the same as 1 mSv - RM] ) by 0.8 to
1.4 mSv
per year, i.e. by about 30% to 50%."
In the 'ghost town' of Pripyat, the external gamma dose rate [one part of
the
entire dose rate - RM] measured by a Polish team in 2001 was 0.9 mSv per
year,
the same as in Warsaw and five times lower than in Grand Central Station
in New
York. The evacuation caused 'mass psychosomatic disturbances, great
economical
losses, and traumatic social consequences.' Current radiation protection
standards 'have become a health hazard'."
This lastmentioned certainly is the case, under the reigning conditions of
imperialism. And as can be seen here too, the ruling Soviet
social-imperialists
in 1986 likewise most fanatically participated in this terrorism of the
"traditional" imperialists' for anti-nuclear-energy propaganda purposes,
and
were the ones directly responsible for the very worst part of it which was
perpetrated in connection with the Chernobyl sabotage.
On these most damaging and harmful actions - they were in fact nothing
else
than largescale terrorism - Jaworowski wrote in another article in 1997:
[http://www.radscihealth.org/rsh/dd3/2.5.4.2Jawor97.html]
"During the past ten years mass media and politicians of the former USSR
has
tried their best to convince the people in [pur****tedly - RM] contaminated
regions of Belarus, Ukraine and Russia that Chernobyl radiation endangers
their
health and life. ... An aggravation of this problem was caused by official
declaring of millions of people to belong to the category of 'Chernobyl
victims'. This was done by implementation of laws on financial
compensation
for these people, called by the locals a 'coffin subsidy'. In the Ukraine
alone, this category was assigned to about 3 million people and the costs
involved reach 1/6 of the state budget (OECD 1996).
In the impoverished Belarus these subsidies will reach 86 billion US
dollars
until 2015 (Rolerich 1996). Each act of signing a receipt for a monthly
subsidy is for millions of receivers a confirmation that they really are
the
'victims of Chernobyl'. For who would pay them just for nothing, and not
for a
real health detriment which they must already suffer, or for being in a
situation of radiation risk, which sooner or later will cause such
detriment.
Nobody tells them that their small radiation doses (averaging 6-60 mSv in
various regions), or even a bit higher doses to 'liquidators' (170 mSv in
1986)
are below the level of 200 mSv at which an increase of cancer incidence
was
detected in Hiro****ma and Nagasaki, or that in these Japanese cities
irradiated
survivors of the nuclear attack live longer than non irradiated ones, and
that
no increase of congenital diseases was detected in their offspring.
The second im****tant cause of non-radiation health effects was legislation
(currently in force) prescribing the relocation of 850,000 people, and the
actual relocation of about 400,000 inhabitants of contaminated regions
(Ilyin
1995; Anonymous 1996A; Filyushkin 1996)."
An article at the website of the organization Workers in Nuclear notes on
this,
and also briefly on the massive international reactionary propaganda:
[http://www.wonuc.org/xfiles/chern_03.html]
"The highly contaminated area in the NPP vicinity measures only a half of
a
square kilometer! Such is the conclusion from the maps included in UNSCEAR
re****t. On the other hand, most of the territory surrounding the plant
poses no
risk to human health. Why then is there a 30-km uninhabited safety zone?
Why
have the inhabitants of the town Pripyat been resettled? Why does this
town
stay closed until this very day?
The resettlement was implemented swiftly and on a large scale. Within 11
days
(from 27 April until 7 May 1986) 116 000 people were forced to change
their
place of residence. - 'The decision on resettlement has been taken with no
notice of the opinion of Russian scientists, who suggested that the
majority of
people living in the NPP neighborhood should be left alone' - says Michael
Waligórski, the head of the Health Physics Department in Oncology Center
in
Cracow.
- 'Resettled people did not die from lethal radiation doses, but from high
stress. We observed similar reactions to stress also in Poland, during the
flood of 1997. Many people died then not from drowning but e.g. from heart
attack.' - adds Waligórski.
....
From the very beginning the media were promoting a tragic and exaggerated
picture of the disaster. In May 1986 the American press re****ted that the
reactor explosion killed 80 people immediately, that further 2 thousand
died on
the way to hospitals and their bodies are buried not on the cemeteries but
in a
place called Pirogovo, where a nuclear waste disposal site is located. The
enormous headline in New York Post threatened: 'Mass grave - in Kiev 15
thousand human bodies pushed down by bulldozers into the waste pits',
while
National Enquirer described a mutant chicken 2 m high, caught by the
hunters in
the forests close to Chernobyl."
The "Chernobyl" canard of the reactionaries' really is something like a
"mutant
chicken 2 m high". In many European countries outside of the then Soviet
Union
too pur****ted "countermeasures" were undertaken, likewise of a terrorist
character, "against" barely measurable, and if anything, beneficial
increases
of the radiation there. Concerning Sweden I've written on this in Infos
#119,
part 1/2 etc and #120en, part 1/7 etc. I shall not add more on this
subject
here.
On a not untypical piece of the continuing scare propaganda, the
abovementioned
CDP website also noted, in 2004:
[http://www.physiciansforcivildefense.org/cdp/may2004.html]
"The Popular Internet Photographic Tour
It is claimed that millions of people every month visit the 'Ghost Town'
website, based on Elena's motorcycle tour of the Chernobyl area, nearly
abandoned by human beings, though photographs show luxuriantly blooming
nature.
You can find it with an AltaVista search on 'Chernobyl' and 'microrads'
(www.kiddofspeed.com).
'Radiation will stay in the Chernobyl area for the next 48,000 years,'
Elena
writes [or is it until the end of time?], 'but humans may begin
repopulating
the area in about 600 years, give or take three centuries'."
Another piece in the same vein can be found, also very typical of the many
phony"Leftist" and phony"Marxist" organizations closely connected with the
imperialists, at the website "socialistworld.net", dated 14.04.2006.
[http://socialistworld.net/eng/2006/04/14ukraine.html]
From some recent articles pointing out what the Chernobyl event did show
I'm including here, first, the abstract of an article by T. D. Luckey, the
USA,
which does not deal directly with Chernobyl but is of interest in this
context
anyway since it contains an assessment by this well-known radiation
expert,
advanced in this year (2007), concerning what level of ionizing radiation
is
probably the best for human health:
[http://www.inderscience.com/offer.php?id=14806]
"Documented optimum and threshold for ionising radiation
Abstract: A concept of the complete dose-response curve of ionising
radiation
will allow us to live in harmony with this ubiquitous agent. Convincing
data
show ionising radiation is essential for life. Ambient levels of ionizing
radiation (about 2 mSv/y without medical and cosmic radiation) are
adequate for
life but insufficient for abundant health. We live with a partial
deficiency of
ionising radiation. Thousands of people have lived for generations with
2–20
times the ambient levels of radiation without showing ill health. A
conservative threshold, the maximum safe level of radiation, was estimated
from
abundant rodent data to be about 8000 mSv/y. When human and rodent data
were
collated, a conservative optimum of 60 mSv/y was obtained. Radiation
levels
greater than the threshold are harmful. The facts suggest that
radiobiologists
and governments should abandon the 'linear no threshold' (LNT) paradigm
and
accept natural and industrial low level sources of ionising radiation in
order
to promote abundant health."
The reactionary governments of course, on the contrary, will continue to
terrorize the people in the world, including massively damaging their
health
and including combating all modern energy sources.
On 13.07.2007, Robert J. Cihak wrote, at the NewsMax website, on the
Chernobyl
event and related matters:
[http://www.newsmax.com/medicine_men/underexposed_to_radiation/2007/07/13/17803
..html]
"Are We Under-exposed to Radiation?
Everyone's aware of overexposure to radiation, but can someone be
underexposed?
In a word, yes. A radiation shortage afflicts most of the human race. In
his
well-documented and entertaining book 'Under-Exposed: What If Radiation Is
Actually Good for You?' engineer Ed Hiserodt accurately describes this
pandemic.
In round numbers, Americans absorb an average of about 0.3 rads [3 mSv -
RM]
worth of 'background' radiation every year from entirely natural sources
such
as cosmic rays and the naturally occurring potassium-40 in our bodies. For
clarification, a rad is one measure or absorbed radiation, and in humans
is
essentially the same as a rem, a centisievert (cSv) or a centiGray (cGy)
so
I'll just use rads to minimize further confusion.
Governments and the media almost routinely overreact to the word
'radiation.'
For example, during the Chernobyl nuclear reactor accident in the former
Soviet
Union, the Soviet Army evacuated people from their homes if the radiation
level
exceeded a rate equivalent to 0.5 rads [5 mSv] per year. Yet if that level
triggered evacuation elsewhere, Grand Central Terminal in New York City
would
be closed because of its 0.525 rads [5.25 mSv] radiation level.
Traveling to or living on the Colorado plateau, at 0.6 rads [6 mSv/year],
would
be illegal. Kerala, India, (1.3 rads [13 mSv] ) would be a ghost town.
And, the
popular Guarapari Beach in Brazil, at over 26 rads [260 mSv], would be
off-limits to sunbathers and swimmers alike.
In contrast to public and media misperceptions, more ionizing radiation
would
be good for us. The optimal dose is about 10 rads/year [100 mSv/year] ,
more
than 20 times our current average dose, according to biochemist T. D.
Luckey,
Emeritus Professor and Biochemistry Department Chairman at the University
of
Missouri-Columbia School of Medicine. " [As seen above, Luckey himself
wrote:
60 mSv/year, in an article - RM]
Particularly clearly, the correct conclusion concerning radiation caused
by the
Chernobyl event in regions somewhat distant from that disaster itself was
drawn
by Peter Fong, of Emory University, the USA, in an article in 1997, in
which he
also mentioned the beneficial consequences of the fact that in Colorado,
the
radiation level is somewhat higher than in most other parts of the USA:
[http://flux.aps.org/meetings/YR97/BAPSSES97/abs/S2000001.html]
"The Ultimate Experiment Proving the Beneficial Effect of Low Level
Radiation
and Safety of Nuclear Power Plant: Serendipity of the Airborne Nuclear
Weapons
Test
The cancer deaths per 100,000 U.S. population plotted as a function of
time
(year) over the past 60 years can be represented by a smooth curve except
the
years 1952-1978 where the data points fall below the smooth curve
indicating a
reduction of cancer deaths of a total of 418,000.
This anomaly is traced, through the space-time correlation of the
mortalities
with the 48 States, to the airborne nuclear weapons tests (mostly in
Nevada)
during that period when 500 nuclear bombs were exploded in air, generating
an
extra amount of radiation of 30 mrem/year [0.3 mSv/year - RM]. From this
serendipitous experiment we deduce the law of the beneficial effect of low
level radiation that a doubling of the background radiation (as in
Colorado)
[an addition of 0.3 mSv would not mean such a doubling; 3 mSv would do
that -
possibly, there was a writing error here - RM] will reduce cancer death
rate by
24.3%. The actual rate of reduction in Colorado is 25% lower than the
national
average. Thus the law is verified.
[Certainly, the nuclear-weapons tests by the imperialists were always, and
are
today, a very negative thing for the people in the world. It's ironic that
they
in some cases have actually had as one small side effect a certain
improvement
of the environment in some regions, and also that, as mentioned in one
quote
above, even the atrocities at Hiro****ma and Nagasaki in 1945 had similar
effects in areas relatively far from the atom bomb explosions. - RM]
In another aspect Kerala,India has a background radiation 20 times higher
than
normal and it has a life expectancy 10.7 years longer than average India,
thus
showing the great beneficial affect of low level radiation.
Concerning the nuclear power plant safety, the 500 bombs exploded are
equivalent to 50 Chernobyl type nuclear plant explosions, the results of
which
are the reduction of 418,000 cancer deaths. Thus the nuclear industry is
absolutely safe under any catastrophic disasters that may befall on the
414
nuclear plant now operating on the earth.
[Clearly true, as far as effects for most people are concerned, and an
im****tant conclusion. The vile sabotage at Chernobyl in 1986 did kill some
50
people, serious enough. The likewise vile terror propaganda and pur****ted
"countermeasures" after the event have killed many more, and caused much
more
serious material destruction. - RM]
The beneficial effects of radiation have been taken advantage of in
folklores
and health practices in Brazil, Czechoslovakia, Germany and Colorado.
These
health practices can benefit from the radiation generated from nuclear
power
and the nuclear waste disposal problem can be solved by turning trashes
into
treasures."
This no doubt will be done, on a large scale, under the future conditions
of
socialism in the world. At present - and who knows for how long - there
are
instead some "mutant chickens 2 metres high". (See a quote above). One
"mutant
chicken 2 m high" is the reactionary "manmade global warming" propaganda,
now
desperately being howled to high heaven as never before, another the
continuing
anti-nuclear-energy campaign including not least its big Chernobyl hoax
part.
And the phenomenon that's the very epitome and uncle of all "mutant
chickens 2
m high" is the entire reigning social "order" of imperialism.
[END OF QUOTE]
5. THE MAIN AND ARCH-REACTIONARY MOTIVE BEHIND THE PRESENT-DAY
ANTI-NUCLEAR-ENERGY CAMPAIGN, DISCOVERED ON PRINCIPLE BY KARL MARX ALREADY
BACK
IN 1856/1881
You wrote, glaparramatta, already early on in your posting to the MM list
its
message #1466:
"Marx's call to liberation 160 years and still going strong
<http://www.links.org.au/node/323>."
Yes, in this you absolutely were right. This I liked very much.
And concerning some im****tant things today, not least those of certain
policies
of the ruling reactionary bourgeoisie and of the so-called "green
movement", he
not least is going very strong. That's why I translated a certain (not all
that
well-known) speech of his, in London in 1856, into Swedish, and submitted
this
to MIA in 1996, together also with the version in German of it, taken from
a
volume of the well-known "MEGA", and asked the already "MIA"-active
signature
"Zodiac" if he had it in the original English, which he did, and soon put
on to
MIA, at that time suggesting to me privately, because of the situation in
a
certain international Internet political struggle then - the so-called
"Quispe"
fight (see my Info #121en, part 1/8 etc) - that there "was no need to
mention
his name in that connection". It does stand at MIA anyway, as the
contributor
of that Marx speech in English, which among other things contains these,
in my
opinion, very perspicacious and today very im****tant lines, which I think
that
not least people having "your" general political standpoint today,
glparramatta, should note,
[Swedish: http://www.marxists.org/svenska/marx/1856/peopleps.htm
MIA: http://www.marxists.org/
German:
http://www.marxists.org/deutsch/archiv/marx-engels/1856/04/56-peopp.htm
English: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1856/04/14.htm]
"Steam, electricity, and the self acting mule were revolutionists of a
rather
more dangerous character than even citizens Barbès, Raspail and Blanqui."
And:
"This antagonism between modern industry and science on the one hand,
modern
misery and dissolution on the other hand; this antagonism between the
productive powers and the social relations of our epoch is a fact,
palpable,
overwhelming, and not to be controverted. Some parties may wail over it;
others
may wish to get rid of modern arts, in order to get rid of modern
conflicts. Or
they may imagine that so signal a progress in industry wants to be
completed by
as signal a regress in politics."
Likewise im****tant and notable today, from a first draft by Marx of a
letter to
Vera Zasulich in Russia in 1881
[http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/03/zasulich1.htm]
"...the capitalist social system...in Western Europe as well as in the
United
States, [is] engaged in battle both with science, with the popular masses,
and
with the very productive forces it engenders."
It's that battle that today has become very intensive, and it's a global
one.
6. ON THE BIG TURNING-POINT CONCERNING THIS, IN THE LATE 1960S / EARLY
1970S
This I've written about in several earlier Infos. Here are some lines on
it
from my #287en,
[QUOTE:]
[Referring to the abovequoted speech by Marx in 1856:]
Back in 1856 of course, only some feudalist forces were thinking and
acting in
this way.
But from the early 1970s on, or even from the late 1960s on, some big
forces of
the imperialist bourgeoisie started doing it too, the US ones quite in
particular. And today, this is how the entire imperialist bourgeoisie is
thinking and acting, pu****ng these things further and further, in a most
massive attack against practically everybody on earth.
What has made them do this, and in what circumstances did it start?
It started out as more or less a direct reaction against that broad youth
and
student leftist movement in many countries in the late 1960s.
In Germany and France, many young workers joined that movement; as you
know,
practically all of France was on strike during the entire month of May
1968,
for instance, and in the USA, that movement was quite big too, wasn't it,
and
it was countered for instance by the CIA's (etc) pu****ng not only dope on
a
rather large scale - at Berkeley, I've read about, and there was such a
phenomenon here in Sweden then too - but also an only pur****tedly
"leftist" or
"pro-environment", in reality reactionary, "new" ideology, the "green",
anti-industrial, and at that time also openly anti-growth, one.
What was the basis of that new leftist movement? Inspiration from the then
ongoing Cultural Revolution in China, and disgust with the massive
oppression
and exploitation of the poorer countries, with the war against Vietnam in
particular - in the USA, also disgust with the continuing racial
oppression.
And one im****tant part of its basis was also the fact that the productive
forces in the most "advanced" countries had developed enormously in the
last
few decades. People thus saw no reason why everybody, in the future,
shouldn't
lead quite good lives, which at the time was far from the case.
The beginning utilization of nuclear energy, not least, was an im****tant
factor
in this. You, for instance, David, happen to know about the - potential! -
enormity of this thing, and so do I, having read about it as a teenager in
the
1950s.
As the well-known scientist Linus Pauling, for instance, wrote in 1954:
"The discovery of the controlled fission of atomic nuclei and controlled
release of atomic energy is the greatest discovery that has been made
since the
controlled use of fire was made by primitive man."
And this discovery, which is making it possible to extract, very cheaply,
practically limitless amounts of energy, the most im****tant stuff -
technically
speaking - for the entire modern civilization, making it possible also,
technically speaking, to eradicate all poverty on earth and this within
only a
few decades, was made when there still reigned that extremely oppressive
system
of capitalism in its imperialist stage on this planet.
[Added in this Info (#287en): On nuclear energy, see websites I'm linking
to
under "On nuclear energy" and earlier Infos of mine under
"anti-nuclear-energy
campaign" in my homepage section "Subjects in postings".]
So in the late 1960s / early 1970s, the capitalists' political
representatives
started thinking: "Now what have we done, what genie is it that we've let
out
of the bottle; that steam and electricity, of which such enormous amounts
are
coming from those nuclear power plants, for instance, indeed are turning
out to
be the most horrible revolution-inducing stuff! We cannot have that much
of
it!"
Which is why they started doing something which has never been seen in
history
before - at least not on any similar scale - *attacking* the (by far,
even)
very most modern and efficient (and also clean) technology in that vital
field,
that of energy, striving for technical *retrogression* and not for
development.
It wasn't only nuclear energy that they started attacking at that time; it
was
several other modern things too, and even economic growth in itself they
began
to attack openly, with for instance that infamous publication by the "Club
of
Rome" in 1972: "The Limits to Growth". But the peaceful utilization of
nuclear
energy, that was the main target of those campaigns, their "flag****p
target".
And they started "selling" some scientifically most absurd notions to the
public - that nuclear wastes constitute a "serious technical problem",
that
"we're running out of oil", even "out of natural resources as a whole",
etc,
etc this of course combined with a deterioration (an even further such) of
the
science education in the schools etc.
[Added in this Info (#287en): On oil, see the website managed by J. F.
Kenney,
the French-language blog "le pétrole abiotique" and/or my Info #267en. On
natural resources in general, see John McCarthy's website "Progress and
Its
Sustainability".]
[http://www.gasresources.net/
http://petrole-abiotique.blogspot.com/
http://www.formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/]
That was a new form of class struggle. Today it has been employed by the
main
forces of the bourgeoisie for over 30 years, and of course has caused mass
unemployment - much over and above that which capitalism entails anyway -
in
the more highly-developed countries, and enormously increased misery - in
fact
mass murder - in the poorer, internationally-exploited countries, by
making
modern, and thus cheap, energy technology largely unavailable to the
people
|
