Violations of the Right to Health in Fukushima – Will WHO Listen to the UN Special Rapporteur?
From Anonymous:
People’s God-given rights to good health and well-being are blatantly being violated in Fukushima as the Japanese government puts more value on economics. They are also being violated all over the world as the general population puts more value on selfishness and ignorance over compassion and intelligence.
28 May 2013
“The initial comments made by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health, Mr Anand Grover, after his visit to Japan, confirm that the government has been willfully and perhaps criminally negligent in failing to protect the population from radioactive contamination.”
Violations of the right to health in Fukushima “” Will WHO listen to the UN Special Rapporteur?
by Alison Katz, Le Courrier, 28 March 2013
Japanese citizen associations have been reporting violations of the right to health of populations in Fukushima since the first months of the accident. Meanwhile WHO continues to minimize health risks, despite reports from independent scientists, health professionals and citizen groups of high levels of contamination, inadequate radioprotection and early signs of very serious health problems. The Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health, Anand Grover, has issued a strong statement (1) following his visit to the stricken area.
WHO”s health risk assessment of Fukushima “” a travesty
Within days of the Fukushima nuclear accident and on the basis of no information whatsoever, WHO stated that “at the moment there is very little public health risk outside the 30 km (evacuation) zone”. In contrast, independent researchers (2) stated “” on the basis of the composition of the emissions “” that core meltdowns had occurred with massive radioactive contamination. They were right of course as TEPCO and the Japanese government conceded a few weeks later “” too late to avoid harm.
Two years on, despite the availability of huge quantities of information, the WHO has issued no corrective to its initial statements. On the contrary, it has just published its “Health Risk Assessment”(3) which denies any health consequences with the exception of a slightly higher risk of developing certain cancers in populations in the worst affected areas.
SNIP