Tags

Related Posts

Share This

National NJ

TAKES only  A COUPLE OF HOURS TO DO!

Explanation of the Strategy behind the Petition, Complaint and Plea for Redress, directed to The Ministry of the Environment of <Any EU Country>.

C Busby 7th March 2012

It follows that if new evidence has appeared about the potential consequences of the EURATOM Basic Safety Directive, Under Article 20 (in the original 1996 version Article 6) all practices involving radiation exposure have to be re-justified. It is a legal requirement.  What is proposed, therefore, is that all individuals resident in or citizens of a EU member state country, and all NGOs based in such countries, petition the European Parliament to require a re-justification of all radiation producing practices covered by the Euratom Basic Safety Standards Directive in any of its forms in the light of the new scientific evidence of health risks.

This new evidence is appended to the Petition as an Appendix and petitioners may ask for the evidence to be presented in any scientific discussion by members of the European Committee on Radiation Risk  www.euradcom.org , or the International Committee on Nuclear Justice www.nuclearjustice.org .

It is clear now that the evidence shows that radioactive pollution from Chernobyl, Fukushima and nuclear power plants, reprocessing sites etc has been killing people. The evidence is overwhelming but it is ignored by the authorities. This is because they believe, or pretend to believe in the ICRP risk model. So there is an impass. Despite the huge amount of evidence in the peer review literature, the politicians, who are not scientists, believe the ICRP and UNSCEAR, who dismiss any evidence they don’t like and do not even discuss it or cite it fully. How do we deal with this situation?

The way is to use Human Rights and Environment Legislation. Malone and Pasternack, 2005, suggest some ways of plugging into the system in such a way that it has to be formally dealt with. The specific hook is the EURATOM Basic Safety Standards Directive which was considered by the European Parliament in 1998. Pr Chris Busby was asked to consider this by the Irish Greens in Brussels in 1998, and that is where ECRR started,  advising the Parliament to oppose the EURATOM BSS which specifically permitted recycling radioactive waste into consumer goods. The Parliament was unable to block the BSS as EURATOM precedes the EU Treaty and the Parliament has only advisory status. But they were able to get an amendment to the original document. It was a very important (for us, and all living) amendment which was:

Article 46. Justification

1. Member States shall ensure that new classes of practices resulting in exposure to ionising radiation are justified in advance of being first adopted or first approved.

2. Existing classes of practices shall be reviewed as to justification whenever new and important evidence about their efficacy or potential consequences is acquired.

What this means, is that the EC and the Member State Competent Authorities have to by law re-open the issue of Justification if there is new evidence that their original justification was faulty. And, of course, there is new evidence. The EURATOM BSS was drafted in the late 1980s and even by 1996 the effects of Chernobyl were not clearly in the literature. But now they are. And a whole lot more besides. Since 1996, the ECRR has published 2 risk models and has picked up many extremely eminent radiation experts. At the same time, the ICRP has lost Jack Valentin and now has very few competent individuals. It is easy to show that ICRP and UNSCEAR are nuclear stooges. But we need a platform for this

European Court of Justice (ECJ) European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)

The teeth behind this strategy is the ECJ or the ECHR. Pr Chris Busby has won all the court cases he has fought as expert witness on this issue, (now more than 20) because in a court, it is the evidence which wins the case. You will be provided possibility to use him and other ICNJ and ECR experts during the court cases or other communication with Your national authorities. But you cannot take a court case to the ECJ or the ECHR or any similar body without first exhausting the possibilities of redress at national level. Therefore we must begin with raising the issue at the national level.

Write the Petitions – one or both:

1. Write the Petition to the National Environmental State OfficeEnvironmental Ministry or similar, please check Your country officials to find out the right receiving office.

Pr Chris Busby has provided 2 templates for the NGOs and any individual in the country to use. The first is the one to the National office . It must be sent or better delivered by hand, the very process being videofilmed, to the Minister of the Environment of the country. In the document that You can download here and use as the Standardised draft, we have put <SWEDEN> in the example, but the petition and plea should be adapted to any other country, picking out Sweden and Swedish circumstances, adding Your own national cirumstances of interest for the case. So please add your own reasons why you know that the radioactive releases from the nuclear project are or will affect you and the society around You –  e.g. you live near a nuclear plant and feel that you suffer an increased risk of cancer, or that your children may be affected now or in the future, or You worry about the particles travelling long distances, or mention the dispurces fr the NPPs and other nuclear waste producing facilities etc.  You are asking to re-open the Euratom Justification and rejustify radiation producing practices in Your country according to the new scientific evidence provided in the Apendix nr 1 in the Petition draft, folowed by the scientific references.

You are about to either get an agreement from the national authority, to re-open the Euratom Justification and rejustify radiation producing practices in Your country, or await a refusal. If you get a refusal You should be able to take the matter to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

Download the DRAFT of the National Petition, adapt it for Your country and SEND IT to the National Environmental State Office - Environmental Ministry or similar, please check Your country officials to find out the right receiving office:            

Petition-ANY-Environment-Ministry 17.10.2012

Here You can download the report to the UNHRC, United Nations Human Rights Council, on the consequences of the atomic bomb testing of the Marshall Islands, United States:  Marshal Islands UNHRC 13th Sept 2012

Here is another study on Falluja Iraq, just published 30.09.2012, with proof of existential defects caused by internal radiation  Iraq Falluja congenital malformations 1.09.2012

2. Another process, the EU Parliament Petition, is described in the post EU Parliament NJ.