John Urquhart's letter to Mike Weightman

SANE say: add Oldbury to the emergency evacuation procedure information, we are only 13 miles from Bristol City Centre, the potential evacuations here would be massive.


There have also been two incidents, that we the public could see, in the last four years that may have led to some sort of problem.


Dear Mike,

Response to the Fukushima disaster

Thank you for your e-mail of April 4th.  I very much sympathise with
your desire not to get entangled with all the claims in the British
media down-playing the possible effects of the Fukushima nuclear
disaster.  In doing this, you may have missed two extreme views, one
by Professor David King, former chief scientific advisor to the
British government.  On the 29th March, he stated on the Today
programme that the potential radiation risk from flying between London
and New York was “many many times greater than in fact walking around
Fukushima”.  I have pursued this extraordinary statement with the BBC,
but to no avail.  I have therefore contacted my MP, Catherine
McKinnell, requesting that she ask two questions in the House, the
reasons for which are self-evident.

“Dear Catherine McKinnell,
As one of your constituents, I have been increasingly concerned about
the apparent imbalance of views on the BBC on the possible effects of
the Fukushima nuclear disaster.  In particular, I must take issue with
the view put forward by Professor David King, former chief scientific
advisor to the British government between 2002 and 2008, when the
decision to ‘go nuclear’ was taken.  On the 29th March he stated on
the Today programme (Radio 4) that the potential radiation risk from
flying between London and New York was “many many times greater than
in fact walking around Fukushima”.  No attempt has been made by the
BBC to counterbalance such an extreme statement, and in view of the
continuing influential role of Professor King I am concerned that such
views may have permeated the present thinking of the coalition
government.  Does, for example, Chris Huhne’s Department for Energy
and Climate Change think that Professor King’s views are correct,
bearing in mind that the Japanese government has forbidden tens of
thousands of citizens from returning to their homes near the Fukushima
plant, because of radiation fears?  I would therefore be obliged if
you would ask the following questions in the House of the Secretary of
State for DECC, which are:

1.  Does the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change disagree
with the view expressed by Professor David King (Today programme,
Radio 4 29th March) that the potential radiation risk from flying
between London and New York was “many many times greater than in fact
walking around Fukushima”?

2.  In view of the recent nuclear accident in Japan, will the
Secretary of State publish the plans for the evacuation of the
population living within 20km of nuclear power plants in Britain?  In
particular, for the nuclear plants of Hartlepool, Heysham, and
Bradwell, since the population densities around these plants are
similar to those around the Fukushima nuclear site?

If you have any queries about these questions, please let me know.

Yours sincerely,

John Urquhart”

Sir David King’s views may be associated with another astounding
claim, that human beings can experience up to 100 milliSieverts a
month without harmful effects.  That is 500 times greater than the
levels of natural background radiation we receive, and equal to 133
microSieverts per hour.  Compare this with the data I included by
Vicker (1) in my previous e-mail to you, which showed that doses of 10
microSieverts an hour, or even lower, could lead to cell inflammation
responses.

The Precautionary Principle

The claims I made in my previous e-mail may seem to be at the other
end of the spectrum, whereby I have proposed that Japanese individuals
living in areas contaminated with an peak dose of more than one
microSievert per hour could be genetically compromised.  As a
philosopher, you will appreciate the essential difference between the
kind of claims put forward by Prof David King and myself.  Because of
the very high potential risks involved, King has to be 100% right in
his assertions, whereas I have to be only 5% right, or even less.  In
the previous e-mail, I set out these claims which challenge the
existing paradigms of radiation safety.  Although my arguments
stretched to 3,000 words with several weighty attachments, this only
scratches the surface of what is a very complicated issue.  I intend
to deal with these arguments at greater length in my forthcoming book:
‘Destiny of the Species – from Supervolcano to Chernobyl and
Fukushima’.  I will set out the main arguments of this book in the
next e-mail, so as to put into context my views on the Fukushima
accident.

Best wishes,

John Urquhart

(1) Vicker M 1991 Ionising radiation at low doses induces inflammatory
reaction in human blood.  Radiation 128:251-257.