Low Level Radiation Campaign condemns UK Government radwaste committee stitch-up - July 4, 2005
The Low Level Radiation Campaign today accused CoRWM (the British
Government's Committee on Radioactive Waste Management) of a
pro-industry stitch-up after its experts were excluded from an
investigating panel.
Controversy has surrounded the health effects of low levels of
radioactivity in the environment for many years, culminating in the
appointment of CERRIE (Committee Examining Radiation Risks of Internal
Emitters) by UK Environment Minister Michael Meacher in 2001 (Meacher
was sacked by Prime Minister Blair in 2003). Two representatives from
LLRC, Chris Busby and Richard Bramhall, sat throughout the life
of CERRIE. A Minority Report by them was published in 2004 when,
following legal threats, the CERRIE Majority Report excluded evidence
and detailed scientific argument. (Detail on www.llrc.org).
On Wednesday and Thursday this week a CoRWM advisory panel will
consider the uncertainties, scientific disputes and knowledge gaps
affecting the estimation of risk from low levels of radioactivity. LLRC
has been excluded in favour of representatives of the nuclear
industry, regulators and consultants. Particularly questionable is the
role of Professor Dudley Goodhead, who as chairman of CERRIE, undertook
to allow minority reporting but at the last minute invoked hostile
legal opinions and allegations of "potential libels" and unspecified
"errors" to block the inclusion of dissenting material from the
Committee's Final Report. Bizarrely, CoRWM considered that Goodhead
could be relied upon to report both sides of the CERRIE divide. Another
CoRWM insider is Ian Fairlie who during the lifetime of CERRIE was
criticised for control and bias in running its secretariat.
CoRWM's Chairman, Professor Gordon MacKerron has received messages from
a range of environmental campaigners in UK complaining about bias and
failure to observe the inclusivity necessary for stakeholder dialogue
to be credible.
In an outspoken letter (reproduced below) LLRC's Richard Bramhall
accuses MacKerron of "a deliberate and shameful attempt to skew
the direction of CORWM's discussions . in favour of the industry and
the wishes of the Government." LLRC's exclusion is "a failure of
corporate responsibility."
Bramhall says CoRWM is heading towards making recommendations based on
outdated considerations of radiation "dose". "They seem not to know or
not to care that the scene is shifting - a growing body of scientific
opinion now accepts that many types of radioactivity deliver their
radiation so unevenly that the conventional notion of "dose" is useless
as a way of predicting risk. Once they are inside the body following
environmental release localised irradiation of small volumes of body
cells can be intense, yet little is known about the precise ways in
which health is affected. Conventional estimates of health detriment
treat energy as an average, taking little account of local effects. For
these reasons some types of exposure such as respirable particles of
reactor fuel may be hundreds of times more harmful than previously
thought. LLRC adduces ample epidemiological evidence which supports
this contention and falsifies existing models. The Seascale (Cumbria
UK) child leukaemia cluster and the cancer epidemic rolling across the
Chernobyl affected territories are two examples. CoRWM has little
understanding of these matters and is not about to get the best advice.
Their discussion documents treat the serious scientific deficit in this
area in a completely inadequate manner, as is to be expected when the
consultants retained to draft them are too close to the industry. As a
result CoRWM may recommend waste "solutions" which are cheap for the
industry but foist unacceptable costs onto the health services of the
future."
Bramhall adds: "CoRWM members purporting to represent green interests
have a clear choice if they are to have any credibility - demand and
obtain a full presentation of LLRC's evidence, arguments and views, or
resign."
If you want to tell CoRWM what you think you can email Professor MacKerron on g.s.mackerron@sussex.ac.uk
or via
Adam.Scott@defra.gsi.gov.uk
LLRC to mackerron 3rd July 2005
Dear
Thank you for your reply to Chris Busby's email of 30th June and for
supplying the requested information on membership of your "specialist"
workshop on Wednesday and Thursday. I have discussed this with Busby
and I am replying on behalf of us both. I have not been able to talk to
Dr Dorfman during the week end. Since Busby and I believe time is of
the essence, Paul will have to answer you himself when he can and if he
wants to. I shall copy this to him.
I regret to say that we cannot consider your message an adequate
response. Whatever you may say about the meeting not being "to discuss
low dose radiation risk [nor] to resolve the debate over low level
radiation" it is clear that it must take some view on this topic if it
is fulfil the remit as you have outlined it (" . consideration of many
risks and impacts including . low levels of radiation . and impacts of
radioactive waste management on the natural environment"). Why else
would and Dr Fairlie be involved? We are informed that CORWM invited
Professor Goodhead in the expectation that he will represent all views
on CERRIE - the minority as well as the majority. This was an
extraordinary decision. It is inconceivable that your Committee was
unaware of the bizarre manoeuvres Professor Goodhead undertook in order
to block our material from publication in the Main CERRIE Report and
his ad hominem attacks on us in the news media. It is almost equally
inconceivable that Professor Goodhead will represent our views or
assess evidence and areas of disputed knowledge in an even handed
manner. You have received a number of communications making the same
point, and in common with the writers of those messages we think it
reasonable to assert that excluding LLRC from your process is an
inefficient use of CORWM's resources and damaging to its credibility as
a Stakeholder body. We would add that the Committee appears to have
fallen prey to a sustained aand mendacious campaign to discredit LLRC -
a campaign which, as documentary evidence obtained by us reveals,
originated with BNFL. The motivation is clear - that the industry fears
it cannot sustain itself in light of the evidence of harm from
radioactivity released to the environment and has resorted to shooting
the messenger. In fact LLRC's track record makes us better qualified to
offer opinions on radiological standards than most of your
"specialists" or the Committee members themselves. (Incidentally we
remind you that we are awaiting your explanation of the criteria by
which the panellists were selected.)
The basic message of your email seems to be that CORWM is undertaking
the present exercise to gather information and that the process will
ensure it is done in an inclusive and balanced way. Our answer is that
such open-mindedness is very hard to achieve when, at the outset, you
exclude representatives of the full range of opinion. All scientific
fields develop their own cultures which are more or less resistant to
innovative thinking and new evidence. Radiation protection is one of
the more resistant. The CERRIE Minority Report, copies of which we have
submitted as part of your consultation process, reveal just how
irrational people can be in response to evidence which challenges
long-held convictions; scientists are not immune.
Possibly the starkest example of this irrationality is to be seen in
CERRIE's treatment of the increase in infant leukaemia which was widely
reported after Chernobyl. We remind you that an account of the
Committee's various beliefs and analyses formed part of our submission
to CORWM dated 24th November 2004 (also in Radioactive Times 6.1 on
www.llrc.org). We pointed out that this is a matter which you must
engage with actively since it is unequivocal evidence of a large error
in conventionally derived risk factors. We note with dismay that the
CORWM discussion document intended to be the starting point for your
"specialist" panel's deliberation this week has not been published
despite being flagged for publication "by the end of June". We
therefore have no way of knowing to what if any extent it has addressed
the post Chernobyl infant leukaemias. We hereby ask you to release the
document to us as soon as possible.
Assuming that we continue to be excluded, and referring to the fourth
paragraph of your message, the key question can be seen in terms of who
will decide what further information or advice you will need, and who
subsequently will decide how to weight any "comments and suggestions"
we might offer. This is a complex field. More and more epidemiological
evidence and fresh biological and physical issues are even now coming
to light. Not least there is the growing consensus that for regimes
involving internal radiation the concept of dose as conventionally
understood is questionable and in some circumstances meaningless. As I
have already mentioned in correspondence which you have yet to answer
it is vital that CORWM's members understand that the dose based
criteria which they are about to consider are outdated and
scientifically invalid. There are highly significant implications for
decisions which fall with CORWM's remit, such as the availability or
otherwise of options involving the release of respirable particles
containing radioactivity. CORWM needs to be fully informed, for
example, of the physical and biological considerations associated with
such particles which were brought to CERRIE's 3-day international
workshop in 2003; since they were not reported adequately in the
Majority Report we can have no confidence that Professor Goodhead will
report them adequately to CORWM. This is merely one example from the
many areas where knowledge is disputed or incomplete.
Overall this episode must be seen as a deliberate and shameful attempt
to skew the direction of CORWM's discussions on low level radiation in
favour of the industry and the wishes of the Government. Our exclusion
is a failure of corporate responsibility. It is highly damaging to the
image and credibility of CORWM in particular and probably of
stakeholder dialogue in general. We again propose that the solution is
for the Committee to devote a day of its time to hearing a presentation
from Dr Busby. Should this offer be declined we believe it will be a
relatively simple matter to obtain a judicial review of any decision
which appears to arise from a failure by the Committee to obtain and
properly consider relevant information. We await your response.
We intend to publish this letter almost immediately, though we are
prepared to amend it if you want to make representations. If you do,
then please respond by midday tomorrow (Monday 4th July 2005) at latest.
Yours sincerely
Richard Bramhall
Low Level Radiation Campaign is a Company Limited by Guarantee
Company number 3821690
20 Market Street, Builth Wells, Powys LD23EA
Richard Bramhall
Low Level Radiation Campaign
bramhall@llrc.org
The Knoll, Montpellier Park
Llandrindod Wells,
Powys LD1 5LW U.K.
+44(0)1597 824771
07887 942043