Nuclear secrecy and health

Letters

Secrets, lies and why we need scrutiny of the nuclear industry

• • Share7
  • 
  • 

• The Guardian, Thursday 7 April 2011
• Article history

John Vidal (Nuclear's green cheerleaders forget Chernobyl at our peril, 2 April) and George Monbiot (Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power, 22 March) may compete on your letters page (5 April) but both miss the essential truth. Civil nuclear power is shrouded in the UK not to protect facts from terrorists but because it has well understood risks and is captured under the Official Secrets Act. The economics, the legacy situation and the carbon cycle are hidden from the population. The Sellafield site is "privately managed" but publicly owned, its liabilities being passed like a parcel between successive "managers", because of its toxic contents.

I am not anti-nuclear but pro-renewable energy. The scrutiny exacted upon renewable energy is absent when it comes to nuclear energy. My objection is not the nuclear option, it is the secrecy. This is a political and economic decision related to energy futures, security of supply and carbon. I find it mesmerising when journalists and politicians conspire to debate the issue, never telling the technical truth of the legacy, mostly because they don't know.

I call for a public and independent assessment of our UK Sellafield complex. Risks and costs need to be explained to the population. If this technology is part of our future energy mix, take the lies and the secrecy away.

David Byers

Founder director, Renewable Energy Association, ex-nuclear integrity scientist

• I don't know the real intention of Monbiot to raise the question of radiation consequences, but there is no doubt that nuclear radiation is one of the deadliest threats to human beings (The unpalatable truth is that the anti-nuclear lobby has misled us all, 5 April). Questioning scientific sources for that is one thing, but downplaying the devastating consequences of Chernobyl and leaving aside the world's most eminent scientific source for that is cynical. Monbiot's article is suggestive of neglecting the victims of Chernobyl as the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (Unscear) only acknowledged a relatively small number. It is also surprising that the author does not consider the World Health Organisation, the UN Environment Programme and Unicef. They have counted 148,247 invalids until December 2000 directly related to Chernobyl.

Monbiot also disregards clear evidence from his most cited source – the Unscear report 2000. Apart from physical illness, the report mentions psychological disorders due to fear of radiation, inevitable rumours of detrimental health effects, stress of relocation, economic hardships and highly politicised handling of the consequences of the accident. This is not to be neglected in the discussion about health impacts of radiation.

Stefan Schurig

Director, Climate Energy World Future Council Foundation