IICPH Newsletter  /  Fall/Winter 2004

The danger from nuclear plant discharges has been greatly underrated according to a finding of the 2004 CERRIE report commissioned by UK environment Minister, Michael Meacher and recently released Health risk from radioactive particles taken into the body may be ten times greater than originally thought. The report says the existing safety guidelines do not take into account recent scientific studies which indicate a greater degree of uncertainty in judging the risk.

See www.guardian.co.uk, www.cerrie.org and www.defra.gov.uk/news/2004/041020a.htm

1. The process of the transformation of electric power generation must be a transparent one. The advice of experts outside of industry and government should be taken into account to a greater degree in order to guarantee a healthier future for all. The government should be listening to those who have studied the health effects from both chemical and ionizing radiation in order to safeguard people’s present and future health. “If we continue on in the present path, there will come a day when all life on Earth will cease to exist” - Dr. Rosalie Bertell, Ph.D. G.N.S.H.< biometrist and epidemiologist.
2. Phase-out of coal-fired plants is a very commendable objective. The recommendations of the Clean Air Alliance should be taken into consideration when carrying out this task. www.cleanair.web.net/media/press.html
3. Phase-out of nuclear facilities including power plants should take place as soon as possible to protect the health of not only people, but all living things. No new nuclear facilities should be built.
4. Until they are phased out, the emissions from nuclear power plants should be reduced from their present levels in order to protect the public better. Dr. Bertell recommends a maximum exposure to a population of 0.25 mSv per year. In the USA at present, local pollution from nuclear facilities cannot exceed 0.25mSv with 5mSv per year maximum exposure allowed. However, 0.25 mSv is still not a safe level, just better than higher levels. There is no safe level of ionizing radiation. See 2003 Recommendations of the European Committee on Radiation Risk (regulator’s edition, ISBN 1 897761 24 4)
5. Regulations concerning nuclear emissions must be enforced much better. It is unrealistic to expect that private companies concerned about the bottom line or employees concerned about their jobs will carry out due diligence all the time.
6. Whistle blower legislation should be put in place to protect employees.
7. No more nuclear facilities should be sold to private interests and corporations already owning nuclear facilities should not be allowed to expand. At the present time, Cameco is hoping to gain approval for a uranium reprocessing plant in Port Hope and in Saskatchewan. This should not be allowed to happen.
8. Trucking of nuclear waste from one place to another should be stopped or at the very least, more strictly monitored. Unscrupulous or ignorant truckers have been found to dump their loads before they reach a designated storage place. This has happened in the USA. We have no assurance that it has not happened in Canada.
9. These waste disposal trucks are frequently driven for many miles through densely populated areas exposing both the truckers and the general population to ionizing radiation. This is of particular importance to people living along their truck routes and should be stopped.
10. Produce no more nuclear waste. No one so far has found a viable solution for nuclear waste although some say it could be buried six miles underground. As far as we know, this method has not been tried.
11. When considering the cost of nuclear power, governments should factor in the health costs, regulatory costs, nuclear waste disposal, costs of security against nuclear accidents or possible terrorists attacks.