UNITE! Info #295en:

More on the continuing Chernobyl propaganda hoax

21.11.2007

A series of propaganda hoaxes for "justifying" reactionary energy price raises

Everywhere in the world, the prices of all energy today are rising sharply. This hits the people in all countries very hard, both those in the "rich", relatively highly-developed ones and even more those in the many internationally-oppressed and exploited countries. It's a main source of increasing unemployment and of aggravated poverty for hundreds of millions in the world.

This phenomenon sharply contrasts with the fact that technically, the resources for providing cheap energy everywhere on earth are very plentiful and with the fact that the technologies for utilizing these resources are constantly developing too. Then why is this occurring?

The reason for this is that, in particular since some 3-4 decades back and out of arch-reactionary political motives, the ruling bourgeoisie (capitalist class) in the world has abandoned its earlier striving for more modern and thus cheaper energy sources and now instead wants retrogression in this respect. It's sacrificing some of its own profit possibilities in order above all to continue to keep the people in all countries down, is waging a "green" (anti-industrial) warfare against them. (See several earlier articles on this at my homepage.)

Several big propaganda hoaxes today are being perpetrated by the ruling reactionaries' politicians and mass media in order to present this systematic retrogression on their part as "something necessary because of facts of  nature". Oil production "cannot" be expanded vastly in many regions on earth so as to cause a rapid sinking of the price of that commodity "because oil is rather scarce on earth", they say, factually ridiculously but practically all of them in unison all the same. Even louder do the same politicians and media cry out today that the use of oil, and of natural gas and coal too, even "must be severely curtailed" "since otherwise there will be harmful global warming", a factually no less absurd invention.

Considering this propaganda of theirs, will the ruling reactionary cliques allow a considerably expanded use in the world of nuclear energy, which obviously emits no amounts at all of that purportedly "damaging" but in reality quite harmless substance, CO2, and whose raw materials, uranium and thorium, obviously are very plentiful on earth?

No, although some of them are pretending today to "rethink" on this subject, they certainly will not - unless most massive pressure can be brought to bear on them in this direction on the part of the vast majority of people, and this under the conditions of the reigning social "order" is quite difficult to bring about.

The peaceful use of nuclear energy precisely is something which the main ruling cliques in the world since several decades back in fact have gotten to be very much opposed to indeed, something which they want to avoid as much as they possibly can, this because it's the very most modern and superior energy source and therefore contrasts even more than all others with their own more and more outdated system of society.

This the political representatives, including the media, of those ruling cliques of course never say aloud. They instead are advancing a number of mendacious pretexts for the fact that in the world today, this energy source more and more is being marginalized. With political bans against further construction of nuclear power plants already in force in several of the more highly-developed countries, due above all to pressure in that direction by the US imperialists, and only some very few new such plants being built or planned at all today, this mainly in some Asian countries, the portion of the electricity in the world produced by nuclear energy has already decreased, after having been constant at 17% during a decade from 1988 on, to some 16% today, and is predicted by the international energy agencies to become even less than 10% by 2030. Considering the great need of the people everywhere for large amounts of cheap electricity, this amounts to an ongoing international disaster of vast dimensions.

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 purported 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 important 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 purportedly "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 Washington, 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:


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
 35
 Radioactive beach sands eroded from surrounding mountains.
City of Pripyat, (near Chernobyl) Ukraine Permanently Evacuated (according to the website)
5


 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 purportedly "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 Washington, 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.

The same writer in an article in 1997:
"The average whole body radiation doses received in the period 1986-1995 in the [purportedly - 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. (Reported for instance by Jaworowski in 2000.) The nearest city, Pripyat, 3 km away, was not touched by this.

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:
"The next task was cleaning up the radioactivity at the site so that the remaining three reactors could be restarted, and the damaged reactor shielded 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 [purported - 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 [purportedly - RM] more contaminated area - were evacuated and later relocated. About 1,000 of these have since returned unofficially to live within the [purportedly - 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 [purportedly - 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:
"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:
"During the past ten years mass media and politicians of the former USSR has tried their best to convince the people in [purportedly - 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 Hiroshima 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 important 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:
"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 report. 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 reported 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 purported "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:
"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.

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:
"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:
"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:
"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 Hiroshima 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 important conclusion. The vile sabotage at Chernobyl in 1986 did kill some 50 people, serious enough. The likewise vile terror propaganda and purported "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.



On the "UNITE! (etc) Info" posting series, see Note.

Previous English-language items, see UNITE! Info series, 1995 -.


Back to main page