Sir, - I wish to reply to your correspondence on radiation hazards and to Dr Sowby's letter (May 15th) which refers to myself.
On April 30th the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland held a conference on Chernobyl to which it invited, as keynote speaker, Dr Peter Waight. Dr Waight had drafted a report on the radiological health impacts of Chernobyl published by the Nuclear Energy Agency in 1995. The NEA has the primary objective of promoting co operation between governments in furthering the development of nuclear power as a safe, environmentally acceptable and economic energy source. This report set out to present the collective view of the Committee on Radiation Protection and Public Health of the NEA. The report states that medical observation has not revealed any increase in cancers, leukaemias, congenital abnormalities and adverse pregnancy outcomes that can be attributed to radiation, other than thyroid cancer in children. It attributes much of the real ill health in the affected regions to psychological stress.
Dr Waight's report is a restatement of an International Atomic Energy Agency report of 1991, adjusted to include thyroid cancers in children, which can no longer be refuted. The IAEA report denied that there were any radiation effects on the population of Chernobyl whatsoever, and ascribed the known ill health in the affected area to stress or psychological effects. This was despite the fact that thyroid cancers in children were already becoming part of the data. No reference to thyroid cancers in children being a result of radiation was made in that report, and it took until 1995 for World Health Organisation research to establish this, in the teeth of opposition from experts in radiological protection. The research team involved, all eminent doctors at the top of their profession, have gone on public record about this struggle.
Because of the information I have from studies in the affected areas I do not regard Dr Waight's NEA report as accurate. It is indeed quite contrary to the information coming from the scientists of the Russian Federation about which there were lively exchanges at the Minsk conference this year. Dr Reville, in his article in The Irish Times (April 29th), repeats Dr Waight's arguments and states that no increase in leukaemia, congenital abnormalities, adverse pregnancy outcomes or any other radiation induced disease has been noted in the former Soviet Union. This is incorrect. Significant increases in these conditions have been noted. The dispute is whether or not they are radiation induced.
Some scientists are saying there are dose related significant increases in solid cancers and leukaemias and that these are therefore radiation induced others say this is not yet proven. In the ease of birth defects and Down's syndrome, radiation scientists are saying that it cannot be proven to be radiation induced beyond doubt because pre accident data on individual mothers is not and can never be available.
The 1991 report prevented sick children getting the proper screening and help they needed, and the same process can be observed regarding the effects of radiation on the clean up workers or "liquidators". Data from the Russian Federation has confirmed that cancers and leukaemias in the clean up workers are significant and dose related, i.e., radiation induced. This has important consequences for their health because if their cancers and leukaemias are not considered to be radiation induced then they may not receive the medication and treatment they need.
After an intervention I made at the IAEA conference in Vienna, many people came to speak to me, including a radiation scientist from the EU who told me he had returned from the IAEA in 1991 and informed his colleagues that there were no radiation induced health effects from Chernobyl. He is now aware that this was wrong and that he had to deal with his unwitting participation in the neglect of children with thyroid cancer.
Why is there such a gap between what we know has happened to people in Belarus and the Ukraine, and the official explanation that it is not radiation induced? The RPII has at least the duty to present a balanced account, not simply give us an account which represents the view of the agencies working to promote nuclear energy. It could, for example, have presented doctors who had studied thyroid cancer in the affected areas, or scientists from Belarus or the Ukraine could have been invited.
We cannot have confidence in the statements of the RPII on the effects of emissions from Sellafield on the Irish people if they are prepared to uncritically promote the conclusions of the IAEA and NEA on Chernobyl. Cancer clusters around Sellafield and La Hague in France have been through the same process of denial. Why is the RPII presenting to the Irish people, who have taken the children of Chernobyl into their homes, this dangerous and misleading account? Can it be because some of them are still wedded to the idea that promoting nuclear energy takes priority over protecting people from its consequences? If so it is time for change. To allow the powerful promoters of nuclear power to control official explanations on the consequences of nuclear accidents is a travesty of science, which, if not opposed, can only in the long run bring science itself into disrepute. Yours, etc.,
La Touche Place,
Greystones,
Co Wicklow.