Radiation risks 'could be higher than thought'

[Guest guest]

<http://www.guardian.co.uk/nuclear/article/0,2763,1331642,00.html>

 

Radiation risks 'could be higher than thought'

 

Guardian.U.K.

Wednesday October 20, 2004

 

Low level radiation from nuclear power plants could be up to 10 times

more dangerous than had previously been thought, a panel of experts

said today.

 

A committee set up to examine radiation safety said action was needed

to deal with new information about risks from radioactive particles

that could be swallowed or inhaled.

 

However, the report from the committee examining radiation risks of

internal emitters (Cerrie) fell short of recent controversial claims

made by two of its members, who said radiation doses to child

leukaemia victims across Europe could have been 100 times higher than

experts believed.

 

Cerrie - whose members include university scientists and members of

Greenpeace and British Nuclear Fuels - said uncertainties meant the

risk faced by people exposed to nuclear particles could range from 10

times the previous estimate to almost zero. The report concluded there

was no " no clear evidence " that current radiation risk assessments

were " substantially wrong " .

 

The government radiation watchdog, Comare (committee on medical

aspects of radiation in the environment) said it agreed with Cerrie

that the available data did not support a " speculative hypothesis "

that risks had been radically underestimated.

 

It also agreed that current evidence did not indicate a need for a

fundamental change in radiological protection standards.

 

However, Comare said it had reservations about the way in which Cerrie

had been set up, and claimed its composition " was influenced by

environmental politics rather than science " .

 

Cerrie was established by the then environment minister Michael

Meacher in 2001 amid concerns over radiation risks, including reports

of increased incidents of cancer near nuclear sites and in the wake of

the Chernobyl disaster.

 

Mr Meacher last month sparked a row by accusing the committee of

gagging two dissenting experts. His comments came at the launch of a

" minority report " from Richard Bramhall and Chris Busby, who argued

that the risk of cancer from low level radiation was much higher than

officials estimated.

 

According to their report, inhaled radioactive particles could lodge

in the body of a foetus and damage cells in a confined area.

 

Unborn children were said to be especially at risk, and it was claimed

the hazard could explain clusters of leukaemia cases near nuclear

installations in north Wales and Essex, and the Sellafield

reprocessing plant in Cumbria.

 

Mr Meacher alleged attempts had been made to suppress the evidence,

and last month told the Guardian: " The idea was to examine all the

questions and, where there was disagreement, to recommend further

research.

 

" It is criminally irresponsible not to allow all the evidence to come

out so there can be a properly organised, informed public debate. "

 

Even before the row over reports, the issue had divided members of

Cerrie. One nuclear scientist - Marian Hill, who was part of the

committee's secretariat - resigned, alleging establishment bias.

 

Launching today's report, the Cerrie chairman, professor Dudley

Goodhead, said: " The main findings of the committee's report is that

we have to be particularly careful in judging the risks of radioactive

sources inside the body. The uncertainties in these internal radiation

risks can be large.

 

" The report examines the views of all members, including hypothesis

for very large risks put forward by two members, who finally dissented

the report, " he added.

 

" The committee concluded that the available scientific evidence did

not support these hypothesis and, in many cases, substantially

contradicted them. "

 

The report warned that newly discovered affects of radiation -

including long term damage to DNA within cells, and inherited DNA

changes - were

" real biological events that need further research " .