FINLAND

Postcard protests against uranium mining in Finland

http://tinyurl.com/yjvq8jc

PDF, Finska Kärnkraftsteser  från de Finska Miljörörelserna

 
 

Olkiluoto Blocade 28.08.2010

ALLA MED TILL OLKILUOTO BLOCKADEN 28.8.2010

Finska riksdagens beslut den 1.7.2010 att tillåta byggandet av två nya reaktorer saknar folkets stöd. Beslutet visar vilken skamlös och skrämmande inflytelserik industri det är fråga om. Men beslutet kan kullkastas. Detta kräver dock ytterst aktiva insatser!

Välkommen med till Olkiluoto blockaden lördagen den 28.8.2010. Du kan även anmäla din orgnisation/rörelse som blockad-understödare. 24 finska och utländska organisationer/rörelser finns nu med på listan (se nedan).

Du och dina vänner kan själva välja på vilket sätt ni vill delta i blockaden. Ni kan delta i  picknicken och demonstrationen som anordnas på vägen till Olkiluoto kraftverket, ni kan sitta,  dansa, sjunga, musicera, etc.

MÄRK: Dagen börjar tidigt. Samling kl. 06.00 (se nedan)

Info om blockaden:

http://olkiluotoblockade.info/index.php/OlkiluotoBlockade:Current_events/fi

www.olkiluotoblockade.info

Här hittar du principerna för blockaden samt praktiska råd:

http://olkiluotoblockade.info/index.php/Join_the_Blockade

Email: olkiluotoblockade (at) riseup.net.

Timetable. BLOCKADENS TIDTABELL:

-  Fredagen 27.8. kl. 21.00 blockadträff på Nihattula skola i Rauma. Adress: Oikopolku 25, Kolla (ca 8 km norrut från Rauma). Information ges om planerna för blockaden och annat viktigt som måste beaktas. Övernattning på olika ställen (se nedan)

- Lördagen 28.8. kl. 06.00 samling vid bensinstationen Ydinportti som befinner sig i korsningen mellan Raumavägen och Olkiluotovägen. Härifrån fortsätter alla tillsammans till demonstrationsplatsen.

- Lördagen 28.8. på kvällen fest på Nihattula skola.

- Söndagen 29.8. Avfallsseminarium på Nihattula skola. Talare bl.a. professor Nils-Axel Mörner från Sverige.

TRANSPORTER:

Det ordnas samtransporter till självkostnadspris endast från Helsingfors och Tammerfors (se nedan). I övrigt söker alla sig till blockaden på egen hand. Matförsörjningen sköter var och en själv.

Bussen från Helsingfors avgår fredagen den 27.8. kl 17.00 och åker tillbaka söndagen den 29.8. efter avfallsseminariet.

Anmälningar senast 20.8. till: lea.launokari (at) nettilinja.fi

Anmälningar till bussen från Tammerfors: mauriblockader (at) rocketmail.com

Om du/din grupp ordnar transport där det finns fria plaster vänligen meddela oss:

olkiluotoblockade (at) riseup.net

ÖVERNATTNING:

Nihattula skola har reserverats för hela veckoslutet för blockaden. Man kan övernatta gratis på skolan men måste ha egen sovsäck och eget sovunderlag. Dessutom finns det två camping-områden i Rauma och i enlighet med allemansrätten kan man även slå upp sitt tält på någon lämplig plats.

Om du vill sova på hostel i Eurajoki för 27 euro/pers./natt (frukost ingår inte) kontakta senast 20.8.:

lea.launokari (at)nettilinja.fi

ORGANISATIONER/RÖRELSER SOM STÖDER BLOCKADEN:

Ydinvoimapaa Suomi / Nuclear Free Finland (FIN),

Naiset Atomivoimaa Vastaan / Women Against Nuclear Power (FIN),

Maan ystävät / Friends of the Earth Finland (FIN)

Naiset Rauhan Puolesta / Women for Peace (FIN),

Aktionsgruppen för ett atomkraftsfritt Åland / Action Group for a Nuclear Free Åland (FIN) Hyökyaalto / Risingtide Finland (FIN)

Klimax Malmö (SE)

Baltic Sea Regional Radioactivity Watch (SE)

ContrAtom (D)

Ydinvoiman Vastainen Toimintaryhmä (FIN)

Laka Foundation Amsterdam (NL)

WISE Amsterdam (NL)

SOFA (Sofortiger Atomausstieg) Münster (D)

Aktionsbündnis Münsterland gegen Atomanlagen (D)

MegA (Menschen gegen Atomanlagen) (D)

Bürgerinitiative Umweltschutz Lüchow-Dannenberg (D)

Uusi Tuuli ry (FIN)

AG Schacht Konrad (D)

Edelleen Ei Ydinvoimaa / No More Nuclear Power (FIN)

Emmaus Jokioinen ry (FIN)

Luonto-Liitto (FIN)

Lapsi ja luonto -säätiö (FIN)

The Nuclear Resister (USA)

***SPRID BUDSKAPET ***

ALDRIG, ALDRIG ger vi upp!!!

Ulla Klötzer, Kvinnor Mot Atomkraft – Finland

ullaklotzer@yahoo.com

NukeLeaks

Inspired by the release of secret US military records, NukeLeaks has been founded to help workers in the nuclear industry tell the truth about the inherent and accidental dangers of this dirty power and war machine.

NukeLeaks will soon be placing ‘Personal’ Ads in local newspapers around the nuclear reactor sites and uranium mining and processing areas of Finland. Information obtained will then be spread like the alpha, beta and gamma radiation of the industry directly to the innocent and uninformed public of the world.

Please spread the contact information to all who work in any way for the nuclear industry or regulatory authorities.

nukeleaks (at) gmail.com

See you all at the Olkiluoto Blockade August 28, 2010!

With glowing respect, the NukeLeaks Team reminds – there’s a hole in the bucket!

För ett kärnkraftsfritt Åland (Finland)

http://ms-my.facebook.com/group.php?gid=187576030047

http://atomkraftsfritt.org/

Åland has the right to participate in the Environmental Impact Assessment process in both swedish and finish plans of the final repositories of highly radioactive waste. (Åland har rätt att delta i både finska och svenska MKB-processer (Miljö och Konsekvens Beskrivning) för det svenska och det finska slutförvaret av högaktivt kärnbränsle.)

International anti nuclear camp June 2008 Eurajoki (Finland)

An international camp will be held in close vicinity of Olkiluoto nuclear plant and building site of the world’s biggest nuclear reactor, to call for sustainable energy solutions in Finland, Europe and the whole world, and to highlight the risks and problems of nuclear power.

Nuclear Free Finland

http://nuclearfreefinland.org/

This site is the work of a collection of anti-nuclear activists in Finland who are working to stop the expansion of nuclear power, and uranium mining, in Finland. We are focussing on Finland because we live here and because Finland is in many ways leading the way – which means if we stop it here, we help stop it in other places.

Olkiluoto.info Nuclear Madness Centre (Finland)

http://www.olkiluoto.info/en

The nuclear reactor now under construction in Olkiluoto, Finland was supposed to be a shiny showcase for the nuclear industry. Environmentalists warned about the hasty licensing procedure and inadequate resources for quality control. The project had been going on for less than a year when the first scandals surfaced.

 STYRGE.com Anti-Nuclear Info – Art & Music

http://styrge.com/index.html

“Siinä vaiheesa kun mehiläiset katoavat maailmalta on ihmiskunnalla enää muutamia vuosia elinaikaa!”

Uraanitietoa Itä-Suomesta (Finland)

http://www.uraanitieto.tormunet.fi/

Perustin nämä sivut yhdyssiteeksi niille itä-suomaisille ihmisille, jotka kaipaavat tietoa uraanin etsinnästä ja louhinnasta, ovat siitä huolissaan tai haluavat aktiivisesti sitä vastustaa.

European Nuclear Critical Conference Helsinki 9-11.11.2007

http://uraanitieto.tormunet.fi/uraanitieto/encc/index_eng.htm

Nuclear Power and human health in Finland. Prof. Chris Busby

2 versions, a long and a short one that was censured from being published in Finland on March 2010:

SHORT:

“Discharges from nuclear power plants (NPP) cause cancer in people who live nearby. Denials are based on the outdated and incorrect radiation desktop risk model of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). Child leukaemia risk is high near all of the nuclear plants that release radioactivity to local populations, directly though the air and indirectly though contamination of the sea and the beaches. The KiKK study is only the latest evidence. In 1983 a 10-fold excess of child leukaemia was discovered at Seascale near the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant in the UK.  Leukemia clusters were found other NPPs, Dounreay, Aldermaston, Hinkley Point, La Hague in France and Kruemmel in Germany. Child leukaemia is a rare disease, but the genetic damage was also apparent in adult cancer rates near the nuclear plants with a doubling in breast cancer rates near both the Hinkley Point and Bradwell NPPs in the UK discovered by my group. The findings were officially confirmed but the government response was that radiation could not be the cause because the “dose was too low”.

I studied the Irish Sea coasts in Wales and Ireland in 1998-2001.  The Sellafield contamination in the 1980s resulted in a 30% excess cancer risk in those people living inside 1km from the sea; the exposure was by sea-to-land transfer and inhalation of the radionuclides like Plutonium-239, Uranium-238, Caesium-137 and Strontium-90.  The reason for these arguments with the authorities is that concept of “Dose”, Energy per unit Mass, breaks down for internal exposures like these. It is like comparing warming yourself by a fire to eating a hot coal. Many of these elements bind to DNA, the target for radiation induced cancer.

Similar effects to the Irish Sea will be expected in the Baltic which is now the most radioactive sea in the world, having no exit and having accumulated radioactivity from weapons fallout, Chernobyl, and the Baltic NPPs. Baltic sediments now have 50 times more Caesium -137 than the Irish Sea at the time of the cancer study, and so we expect similar coastal cancer effects.

There is a revolution in radiobiology which has clearly not found its way to Jukka Laaksonen. The evidence for this failure is everywhere, from Chernobyl effects in Sweden and the ex Soviet Union, though effects from Depleted Uranium weapons to the nuclear site child leukemias. See www.euradcom.org  or my book Wolves of Water (2006) for more details.”

LONG:

“In the debate about the development of nuclear power in Finland, the Director General of the Finnish Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority, Jukka Laaksonen, has written an article which is patronising, misleading and incorrect.

I will begin with the obvious error. Prof Schmitz Feuerhake referred to the KiKK study of child leukaemia near the German nuclear plants; Laaksonen’s response was there have been similar studies done since the 1970s which show no increases in child leukaemia. This is untrue. In reality, most of the studies which have looked have found such increases. KiKK is not new. In 1983 there was found a 10-fold excess of child leukaemia near the nuclear reprocessing plant at Sellafield. This was followed by the discovery of statistically significant excesses of child leukaemia near the Dounreay reactors in Scotland, near Hinkley Point reactors in Somerset, UK, near the Atomic Weapons site at Aldermaston UK, near the French reprocessing plant at La Hague in Normandy, near Kruemmel in Germany and so forth. It seemed to be a question of whether the plants discharged to areas where there was a geophysical source of transferring the radioactive material in the discharges to the mothers of the children, or the children themselves. In a 2007 meta-analysis of all the studies of child leukaemia near nuclear plants most of the studies showed excess rates. Of course, the response was always the same: the doses were too low. I will revisit this below.

And extremely relevant to the argument about the cause of the nuclear site child leukemias is a study I carried out of the increases of infant leukaemia (age 0-1) in those children who were in the womb at the time of the Chernobyl fallout. These infant leukaemia increases were reported from several countries, Greece, Germany, Wales, Scotland, Belarus even the USA by several different research groups. Comparison of the excess rates reported with the numbers predicted by the current risk model of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) showed an error in that model of about 500 fold. This is also approximately the number needed to explain the nuclear site child leukemias but in the case of the Chernobyl infants in the womb, there is no other explanation but exposure to radionuclides.

But childhood leukemia is a very rare disease, with rates of about 6 per 100,000 children per year, and so to be able to detect changes you have to have a very large base population living in the exposure region, which is about 5km from the plant, or living where the plant sends its radioactive discharges (by sea, river or air).

Since child leukaemia follows genetic damage in the womb, the same genetic damage will occur in adults and will lead to increases in cancers which have a much higher incidence rate. We have studied female breast cancer near nuclear sites in the UK and in areas where contaminated sea sediment appears on the coastal areas near the nuclear sites. In two different nuclear power plants in the UK, Hinkley Point in Somerset and Bradwell in Essex we have found a statistically significant doubling in female breast cancer risk in those populations living next to the coast. In both these studies, the UK government has followed up our work and had to concede it is correct, yet again the same argument is deployed as was made by Jukka Laaksonen, that the doses were too low to cause the effect and therefore it cannot be the radiation. This brings me to the explanation.

Absorbed Dose is meaningless

The unit for measuring radiation in humans is Absorbed Dose. The concept is fundamental to radiation protection. For how can you make limits to exposures, or assess risk, if you have no way of measuring radiation? You might ask who it is that is making the frightening statement that Absorbed Dose is meaningless. The answer is that it is the International Commission on Radiological Protection itself in a draft to its 2007 Risk Model:

(50) For radiations emitted by radionuclides residing within the organ or tissue, so-called internal emitters, the absorbed dose distribution in the organ depends on the penetration and range of the radiations and the homogeneity of the activity distribution within the organs or tissues. The absorbed dose distribution for radionuclides emitting alpha particles, soft beta particles, low-energy photons, and Auger electrons may be highly heterogeneous. This heterogeneity is especially significant if radionuclides emitting low –range radiation are deposited in particular parts of organs or tissues, e.g. Plutonium on bone surface or Radon daughters in bronchial mucosa and epithelia. In such situations the organ-averaged absorbed dose may not be a good dose quantity for estimating the stochastic damage. The applicability of the concept of average organ dose and effective dose may, therefore, need to be examined critically in such cases and sometimes empirical and pragmatic procedures must be applied. 

 

Let me explain what they are saying since it is critical to the argument about nuclear power in Finland (or anywhere else). Absorbed Dose is an average quantity equal to Energy divided by Mass. 1 Joule per Kilogram is equal to one Gray. The average dose over a year to people in Finland is about 0.002 Joules per Kilogram, about 2mGy. (I am simplifying slightly since there are some weighting factors employed which multiply alpha emitters like Radon and Uranium by 20 to get Sieverts). Absorbed Dose can be used to assess external radiation since all the cells in the body get the same fraction of dose, are equally irradiated. It was these external doses to the Japanese A-Bomb survivors that define the cancer yield per unit absorbed dose in the ICRP risk model.  But the idea breaks down for internal irradiation to novel substances which target specific parts of the body. The targets we are most concerned with are the DNA bearing targets, since this is where cancer begins. Now the total DNA is a very small fraction of the total body, in terms of mass, yet many of the radionuclides which are released by nuclear plants have big affinities for the DNA, one example is Strontium-90, which follows Calcium in its chemical nature. Plutonium and Uranium both bind to DNA, and both are released from nuclear plants.

In addition, there are releases of Tritium, as a form of radioactive water and hot particles which are like tiny radioactive sparks that can get into the body and cause huge doses to locals tissues. None of these can be compared to natural background radiation, internal or external since the exposures are quite different.

There is a good analogy. I can sit in front of a fire and warm myself: I receive some number of Joules per Kilogram. I can assess my dose in Grays. Or I can reach into the fire and take out a red hot coal and eat it. The same number of Grays produce quite a different effect. This is why the comparison with natural background radiation is false and misleading. It is like measuring all poisons by Absorbed Weight.

In April 2009 I met with the (then recently resigned) Scientific Secretary of the ICRP Dr Jack Valentin in Stockholm. I raised these concerns and asked him if the ICRP risk model (which he wrote) could be used to assess the health effects of exposure to internal radionuclides. He said it could not. When I asked him why he replied that the uncertainties were too great. What level of uncertainty was that?  I asked. Two orders of magnitude, he replied. All this is on videotape. Valentin also said that since he was no longer working for ICRP he could say that ICRP and the UN agencies on radiation protection (UNSCEAR) had been wrong in not addressing the concerns of those who pointed to the huge increases in illness and cancer after Chernobyl as evidence that the effects of exposure to internal radionuclides was much more serious than had been modelled on the basis of Absorbed Dose.

There is now overwhelming evidence that this is so. Apart from the Chernobyl effects (which were also found in northern Sweden by Martin Tondel in 2004, so don’t feel safe in Finland) there is the question of the dreadful damage caused by exposures to Uranium weapons in Iraq and the Balkans, another situation where the defence is based on the concept of Absorbed Dose. This is not Science, it is mumbo jumbo. You cannot compare the health effect of the decay of a radionuclide like Uranium or Strontium exploding whilst attached to a DNA molecule on a chromosome inside the cell to the average level of ionisation in the body of a Japanese A-Bomb survivor irradiated at some enormous dose level where half the inhabitants were killed.

Radioactive Baltic Sea 

Since the splitting of the atom, huge quantities of novel substances have appeared on earth that were never here throughout evolution: Strontium-90, Caesium-137, Iodine-131, Plutonium-239. In addition, humans have refined substances like Uranium which were better left locked up in high dilution in the rocks. These technologically enhanced materials are now everywhere, floating in the air and in the sea, fetching up on the coasts of contaminated oceans. They are certainly inside you! And nowhere is there greater radioactive contamination than in the Baltic Sea. Because the Baltic is effectively closed, all the radioactive material that fell into it stays there. All the material from atmospheric weapons tests, from Chernobyl, from all the discharges of all the nuclear plants along the Baltic, Russian, Swedish coasts and of course, the plants in Finland. Like a dirty bathtub, all this stuff swirls around and the material fetches up on the edge, on the coast. It’s a historical radioactive waste dump, and all you have to do to see this is look at the HELCOM measurements. The silt contains 1000Bq/kg of Caesium-137 alone to say nothing of all the other radionuclides which are more difficult to measure and have been ignored. It is a disgrace that such a beautiful magical area has been so defiled with poison. And it is a bigger disgrace that people like Dr Laaksonen who are paid to protect the public can try to justify such a process with specious arguments about natural background radiation.  It will visit dreadful revenge on the people who live near the coast, inhale the poisoned air and eat the radioactively contaminated sea food. In 1998-2000 my group, Green Audit, examined cancer in the coastal population of north and mid Wales, an area which is contaminated by the discharges from the nuclear reprocessing plant at Sellafield. The study was funded by the Irish Government in connection with a court case against Sellafield (which eventually collapsed). At that time we believed that the Irish Sea was the most contaminated sea in Europe. Using data supplied to us for small areas by the Wales cancer registry for 1974-1990, a huge database, we were able to show that those living very close to the coast, inside about 1km, suffered a 40% excess of all cancers. These increases were spread across most cancer types and sites, and were particularly high in children for leukemia and brain tumours. The lawyers did not want us to publish these results although we did present them at some conferences and when the case collapsed in 2005 the litigants and I took the decision to include all the results and the methodology in my book Wolves of Water. The route of exposure which explained the results was inhalation of contaminated sediment and sea water brought into the air by a well-described scientific phenomenon called sea-to-land transfer. The material was measured in the air, in the soil and in sheep faeces, with a trend with distance from the sea exactly mirroring the cancer rates. So anyone who wants to can go and look. But the period of the study 1974-1990 covered the major releases from Sellafield and at this time the sediment concentrations of Cesium-137 in areas where the effects were greatest were not more than 60Bq/kg. The HELCOM and some STUK results show very much greater levels in the Baltic some 50 times this, and so we might expect similar but perhaps greater cancer effects in coastal populations of the Baltic. And we intend to go and look. The European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR) has opened a Baltic Sea Regional Office in Stockholm (bsr@euradcom.org) and we are making applications for support for a study of cancer and radiation near the Baltic Sea. A pilot study for some representative years for Sweden is already under way.

The Finnish nuclear plants release radioactivity to the environment. There is no argument about that: releases are recorded in local documentation, in national documentation and in the UN documentation. This radioactivity will add to that nuclear waste that has already been dumped in the Baltic, and will add to the health burden that this material has had and will have on the people who are exposed to it and their descendants.

What fraction of the cancer increases can be placed at the door of the Finnish reactors?  Well it will increase as you get close to the reactors and where their material ends up on the coast. J-F Viel’s study of child leukaemia at La Hague identified playing at the seaside as the main risk factor for the children, but also eating seafood. But there is a more serious side; Finland had been pursuaded to become a leader in the resurgence of nuclear power, and because of this other nuclear plants will be built elsewhere. Sweden is currently ‘solving’ the waste problem by building a huge and insane radioactive waste repository under the Baltic Sea at Forsmark (with massive opposition from the people). What is it about you Scandinavians: have you had your common sense removed?  You were once an icon of all that is sensible, honest and good in the world. How can you poison your beautiful region? How is it you listen to the nonsense spouted by your government officials? To those who bribe them to solve the problem of the public opposition nuclear power development after Chernobyl. Shame!

For those who are interested in following up these arguments, there is a new report by the European Committee on Radiation Risk being published in April ECRR2010, The Health Effects of Exposure to Low Doses of Ionizing Radiation which reviews the ICRP model and develops an alternative risk model, one which predicts and explains the observations. Look at www.euradom.org

Chris Busby

Chris Busby has degrees in Physical Chemistry and Chemical Physics and is currently Visiting Professor at the University of Ulster, as well as Guest Researcher at the Federal Research Centre, Julius Kuhn Institute in Braunschweig, Germany. He is Scientific Secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk and Scientific Advisor to the Low Level Radiation Campaign www.llrc.org which he helped found in 1995. Previously he was a member of the UK Department of Health Committee Examining Radiation Risk from Internal Emitters (CERRIE) and he sat on the UK Ministry of Defence Depleted Uranium Oversight Board”