IndependentWHO for the independence of WHO,  11.5.2012 in Geneva, Press Briefing. Mainly French
Channel: radioactivebsr
Date: 2020-03-21

SCIENTIFIC AND CITIZEN FORUM ON RADIOPROTECTION:
FROM CHERNOBYL TO FUKUSHIMA.
IndependentWHO for the independence of WHO,  11 May 2012 in Geneva, Press. Mainly French

WHO no longer even has a “Radiation and Health” department. This unacceptable situation was confirmed during a meeting between
Independent WHO and Dr Chan, WHO DirectorGeneral, on May 4, 2011. It is clear that WHO has abdicated all responsibility in the critically important field of radiation and health.

International radiological protection standards were introduced in 1950 by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP),
and its recommendations are followed by States and international Organizations. But the ICRP model that is used to determine doses and risks of ionising radiation to human health fails to distinguish between the effects of internal contamination and those of external irradiation: with, as a direct
consequence, denial of the morbidity and mortality rates observed among the people who live in contaminated areas.

This methodology is none the less very strongly criticized by the “European Committee on Radiation Risks (CERI – the French acronym)”, a group of scientists which was constituted at the end of the 20th century. Initiated by Chris Busby – who is with us here today – the CERI published in 2003
a book of Recommendations in which there is a very meticulous and in-depth analysis of the consistent errors of the CIPR regarding radiation risks.
It proposes a quite different approach based notably on the epidemiological studies undertaken over a number of years in the field, but also on the chemical and physic-chemical properties of a whole series of radio-isotopes disseminated in the environment and which are to be found in living organisms. 
Moreover, the lack of scientific consensus on a risk model for contamination by different radioisotopes released by the nuclear industry and the various practices associated with it does not justify
the refusal of the ICRP and Radiation Protection Agencies to act.
It is both right and prudent provisionally to adopt the recommendations of CERI (The European Committee on Radiation Risks) published in 2003 and completed in 2010. The principle of precaution must therefore
be the dominating principle and not the principle of justification, of minimisation of doses and of limitation, which are the principles which serve to protect the nuclear industry but in no way to protect the population and even nuclear workers.