Following is the Google Automatic translation of the text of the article:
By EDITOR, 6 June 2011 –
On 1 July 2011 awarded by the Federation of German Scientists (VDW) and the German Section of the Bar Association IALANA (“lawyers against nuclear, biological and chemical weapons”) in Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences for the seventh time the “Whistleblower Award.
With this award will honor individuals who identified as an insider serious abuses, risks or failures of their professional environment in the public interest.
The prize is awarded every two years since 1999. For the first time the former captain of the Soviet Navy Alexander Nikitin won the award for his publications in which he drew attention, inter alia, on nuclear waste sites and abandoned the poor condition of the Russian Northern Fleet. He was arrested with processes covered and only finally acquitted after the sinking of the Kursk his warnings had been confirmed in a cruel manner.
This year’s award will each receive half of Dr. Rainer Moormann from Aachen as well as “Anonymous” – the person who made the video “Collateral Murder” via Wikileaks public.
Dr. Rainer Moormann’s “anti-nuclear activities”
Dr. Rainer Moormann has been working for 35 years in the Nuclear Research Centre (KFA), today’s research center in Jülich (FZJ). His scientific work was one focus on long-term safety of pebble bed reactors (high-temperature reactors, HTR). An experimental reactor of this type (AVR) with a capacity of 15 megawatts in Jülich was in operation until 1988. He was operated in graphite fuel balls trapped and cooled with helium gas. High-temperature reactors are praised by stakeholders in the art, in business and in politics today that they are “inherently safe” had: there For them, as opposed to light water reactors, not the risk of a meltdown, nuclear disasters are not to fear it. Dr. Moore is in his investigations in contrast to the conclusion that associated with the pebble-bed HTR technology other, no less threatening incident opportunities and risks with catastrophic consequences for humans and the environment.
Rainer Moormann has revealed that the 1988 final attempt shut down the reactor in Jülich was in normal operation for many years were inadequately protected against excessive operating temperatures in the reactor core. Evidence of excessive reactor temperatures were not followed up sufficiently. Dr. Moore has presented evidence that the operating company presumably since the late 1970s the problem of excessive operating temperatures was noticed. They probably feared that such tests could mean the end of the AVR-operation. The Authority was satisfied with the presentation of model calculations by the operating company.
With the investigation is a reasonable suspicion emerged that the AVR Jülich on 13 May 1978 only just under a worst case scenario with the devastating consequences of a wide-scale radioactive contamination of the environment escaped. This was caused by a hairline crack in a steam generator tube, which was located above the reactor core and from more than a week later the first steam and liquid water in the reactor vessel arrived (about 30 t). If the leak and thus the flooding rate was larger and occurred at the elevated temperatures typically would, according to Dr. Moore, would be most likely in very large quantities of highly explosive gas formed (hydrogen plus carbon monoxide). Furthermore, it could have been through the graphite-water mixture has a positive reactivity coefficient, which would have resulted in a very short time to walk through the reactor – as in Chernobyl.
Subsequently in 1978, classified as a normal incident came flooding also when pumping highly radioactive contaminated water from the reactor vessel into the ground under the reactor and into the groundwater. The actual impact of this contamination are still in the dark. About related health risks and a possible link with leukemia accumulated in the surrounding area there is uncertainty. The current head of the Nuclear Safety Research at FZ Jülich, Prof. Allelein, said recently before the cameras in the WDR, a danger to humans and the environment was never considered by the AVR. The analysis of the incident of 1978 was not for his institution. After a three-part series on WDR in April 2011 and presence in the ARD-day issues on the 08/04/2011 FZ Jülich now has taken on 4/11/2011 in a press release position. It states: “The facts presented by Dr. Moore will – according to the research center – not in the technical field in question. Scientific controversy is discussed, however, as the conclusions of Dr. Moore in terms of fission product release within the reactor and the safety of the operation of the AVR to be assessed then. ”
Now it is apparently supposed to come to a serious investigation of the incident at that time by the FZ Jülich in “reaction to the nuclear accident in Fukushima” in prospective panel of experts. Its pluralistic composition, work capacity and intellectual independence is however not yet sufficiently established.
In view of the intensive efforts of the “nuclear community” to export to the adopted since 2001, “Nuclear power phase-out” of Germany’s technological know-how as well as structural elements of the HTR now and to market such as South Africa, China and other countries, including Poland, , is a past due from the operator and the FZ Jülich independent investigation of the AVR / HTR technology.
Dr. Moor’s whistleblowing also due to strong doubts about the nuclear regulatory. To draw attention was not too high temperatures in the reactor core, not only by the operator and the FZJ, but also from the nuclear regulatory authority investigated in time.
After closure of the AVR 1988 and the conversion of the KFA in Jülich there was further research on the security problems of HTR technology. Security research for the planned HTR reactor in South Africa showed extensive external funding. One of the unwritten laws of the FZ Jülich had in mind that no negative reports come on the reactor safety “outside” should. The fact that Dr. Moore was able to articulate his critique still internally and publicly, without disciplinary sanctions is encouraging. However, he has had to pay dearly for his moral courage. He was vilified by the internal and external “pebble-bed community” as a traitor and “crazy” (“insane”) His group is vilified in the FZ Jülich was dissolved. He was transferred to another department where he works for the project “European Spallation Source (ESS). There he was invited to his “anti-nuclear activities” set, since it is dependent on orders from the nuclear field. Soon he is to “financial reasons” to be added again. In a few months he goes into early retirement.
Dr. Moor’s whistleblowing and its orientation to the common good example of responsible, scientific activity, said the jury.
“Anonymous” – made war crimes related
The Whistleblower Award 2011 receives half of a previously anonymous person. It has in April 2010, made by U.S. authorities as a state secret guarded over a video documentary of U.S. soldiers in Iraq perpetrated serious war crimes of the world public. The previous anonymity of this personality is not the awards ceremony. Awarded and honored to be the whistleblower. The award to the / the Whistleblower / is in place as soon as his / her identity is established. Until then, the prize money – along with additional funds raised for this purpose Donations – deposited in trust and to support those uses, which the publication of this video is made for criminal or disciplinary charges.
The official recorded on-board video shows the targeted killing of at least seven unarmed civilians by the crew of a U.S. attack helicopter on 12 7. 2007 in Iraq. Among the civilians killed were two journalists from the Reuters news agency and a severely injured and several people who wanted to salvage it. The deadly “engagement” of the helicopter crew had been on radio from their military operational control has been approved several times. On-board Video, Collateral Murder ‘(http://www.collateralmurder.com/) also documents that accompany the killing acts rude and inhumane comments accompanying the offender. It also proves that the official spokesman of the multinational forces in Iraq, public and press have lied about the incident. Finally, it is clear that the court action by the U.S. Army pre-trial procedures against those involved in fact U.S. troops in 2007 has been set wrongly.
There is no evidence that would now be taken against the perpetrators. Instead, focus on law enforcement to convict the alleged whistleblower. This is the old-threatening reaction if states commit “in the national interest” severe crimes: not the one who is guilty of having committed the crime, but the messenger who brings the news to the public.
Military hostilities may be based on existing law (see in particular Articles 51 and 52 of the First Geneva Protocol) only against the armed forces of the enemy and other military targets, but not objects against the civilian population or civilian. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Civilians not participating in hostilities are of soldiers – to spare and protect – even in combat zones. They may not be attacked or killed wounded or captured. Reprisals against the civilian population are prohibited, as including measures to intimidate or terrorize. Even in an attack on a military target, every precaution must be taken to spare the civilian population, which is located at or near the object to be controlled. If possible, the civilian population is to warn of an attack. Every single soldier is personally responsible for compliance with these rules of the so-called international humanitarian law responsible. Supervisors may issue commands only in strict compliance with these rules. Who are these rules of international humanitarian law, which is also reflected in customary international law reflected, injured, commits a war crime that must be pursued both by national and international law as a serious offense.
Serious law-making, constitutional or international law, operations or conditions and related actions of state officials known, the “national interest” of a democratic state will never be detrimental. This requires compliance with its legal and not violating them. Otherwise, it may no longer be any question of a constitutional state. Any constitutional democracy is the verification of their officials by their citizens and the media dependent existence. This control can only be sufficiently effective if the necessary information becomes available. In a constitutional democracy, it is therefore not just in the public interest (common good), heavy state injustice, crimes or even crimes of public officials to cover up and keep before the public and the citizens election by secret ballot.
The support of the Whistleblower Award in 2003, Daniel Ellsberg, the classified 1971 as a state secret, passed on Pentagon Papers’ to the press and so secret objectives of the Vietnam War and the fateful lies of the U.S. administrations of Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson over uncover the U.S. Congress and the public helped, has called repeatedly for whistleblowing in and about the Iraq war. For him, the now suspected of whistleblowing Bradley Manning a “true hero”.
The disclosure of transactions that violate the Constitution, especially the fundamental rights and of international law, must be exempted by the legislature or at least the interpretative jurisdiction of criminal prosecution.
It rightly so in Article 68 of the Hess. Constitution provides that “no one … (should) be held accountable when he points to facts that represent themselves as a violation of international obligations.” Since the criminal law reform of 1968, we published in the German federal law, only a rudimentary outline. The provision of § 93 para 2 of the Criminal Code regulates that “facts are contrary to the free democratic basic order or confidentiality against the contractors of the Federal Republic of Germany has agreed interstate arms limitations, no state secrets” are.
It was reported that had turned by the U.S. authorities because of the passing of the ‘Iraq Videos’ accused of Wikileaks soldier Bradley Manning in the military official channels in vain to his superiors in order to achieve an awareness of the documented on the video operations. From them he received, however, to mention only a request (“shut up”). What would a U.S. soldier or other insider who was aware of the video, after the experience Daniel Ellsberg’s supposed to do legally responsible alternative but to turn to the media and thus to be whistleblowers?
The U.S. courts will have to decide whether they can apply to such a set of circumstances many years, public policy’-law. After that may be required by any citizen to do something, “the tendency in the common harmful or is directed against the common good.”
Wikileaks deserves for its information technology and professional recognition of his courage. But Wikileaks and other media that report on “live” from the fact that there are people who speak out when other people in secret injustice, they are suppressed or even killed. Without Whistle Lower Wikileaks could not tell truth, where lies become truth to the prevailing threat.
So give IALANA VDW and the previously anonymous Pesönlichkeit that has transmitted the data to an informant Wikileaks Video, Collateral Murder ‘, the – this time shared – Whistleblower price 2011th
I’ve featured your informations at
of course there are links to your web site.
thanks for sharing!
Thanks again for your continued support. I too am proud of it. Every bit counts, when it comes to change.
I am proud, that Germany gives a whistleblower award – though usually a whistleblower will be punished, at least by mobbing, mostly losing his job …