March 8.When Sir Douglas Black investigated the Sellafield leukemias,
he found that, according to his information on cause and effect,
Sellafield discharges had been too small to cause such a gross anomaly
in cancer statistics. Of course, the estimates of Sellafield discharges
were wrong -- but Sir Douglas, like the rest of us, only found this out
several years later.
The International Commission on Radiological Protection continually
reviews pathways of radioactive pollution and levels of exposure. New
pathways are constantly being identified. Levels of exposure are
continually reviewed and reduced. In fact it is almost universally
admitted now that any man-made addition to radiation exposure will have
a detrimental effect on the environment and health in general -- cancer
statistics in particular.
The ICRP has recently reviewed its estimates of ''take-up'' rates of
radioactivity. Now it tells us that we absorb much more plutonium, et
al., from the environment and consumption of food, water and air, than
it used to believe. In other words, we are much more sensitive to
Sellafield, Dounreay, Chernobyl, and nuclear waste than previously
thought.
Dr Robert Wheaton and Professor Murdoch Baxter have demonstrated the
fallibility of official monitoring. Chernobyl proved the point.
Now -- while BNFL is still reeling from the implications of the
Gardiner report, and the ICRP confirms even worse possibilities -- the
British Government continues to sanction reprocessing of nuclear
discharges which would be illegal anywhere else in the world.
Worst of all, Mrs Thatcher defies Europe by planning to dump nuclear
waste under the bed of the North Sea -- among the oil-rigs!
Are we mad?
Frances McKie,
Snowberry,
East Road,
Kirkwall,
Orkney.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article